Till age tells at last, and the elders drop off; And as each turns his tail, all the young colleens scoff; While them that remains, though they hallo and whoop, 'Tis as plain as a pike they're beginning to droop. THE AUTUMN CROCUS. J. R. IT answered not to the voice of spring, And now, at long last, there remain but one But it came with the coming of winter chill, pair, Who a halo of glory and eminence wear, crown! Spectator. A. F. G. And mist lay heavy upon the hill. O, had it come with the birds in spring * A well-known Irish grievance, that Dublin is paved Is fitly garnered among the corn. with English paving-stones. IN MEMORY OF THE RIGHT HON. H. FAWCETT, M.P. AND he is gone now out of all men's sight Who sightless fought his way, nor failed one hour; Matched Fate with Will's indomitable power, Rose up from sickness and confronted Night. "Others may flee," he said; "I stay to fight." Fighting, he saw his dread opponent cower As human strength o'er his began to tower, While the blind Victor's brows were wreathed with light. True heart! We feel in England and o'er sea The whole of thy great life-work nobly planned; Not only for thyself the victory, But in thy triumph triumphs all thy land, Which, sad from end to end for loss of thee, Of civic heroes counts no life more grand. PHILIP BOURKE MARSTON. Athenæum. But to come with the passing of autumn chill, TO DELIA. W. D. From The Edinburgh Review. • ARISTOTLE'S HISTORY OF ANIMALS.* OF all the great intellects that have added lustre to the world of thought and philosophy, the name of Aristotle stands prominently forth; so comprehensive and piercing a genius, such indefatigable zeal and untiring industry could not fail to be productive of great results; for twenty centuries his name and authority held the whole civilized world in awe. What are Aristotle's merits as a teacher of biology, and what is the real value of his scientific writings? Widely different opinions have been held. On the one hand, the late Mr. G. H. Lewes says: It is difficult to speak of Aristotle without exaggeration - he is felt to be so mighty, and is known to be so wrong. History, surveying the whole scope of his pretensions, gazes on him with wonder. Science, challenging these separate pretensions and testing their results, regards them with indifference - an indifference only exasperated into antagonism by the clamorous urgency of unauthenticated praise. It is difficult to direct the opposing streams of criticism into the broad equable current of a calm appreciation, because the splendor of his fame perpetuates the memory of his failure, and to be just we must appreciate both. His intellect was piercing and comprehensive; his attainments surpassed those of every known philosopher; his influence has only been exceeded by the great founders of religions. Nevertheless, if we now estimate the product of his labors in the discovery of positive truths, it appears insignificant when not erroneous. None of the great germinal discoveries in science are due to him or to his disciples. On the other hand, the learned French translator of Aristotle's words, M. Barthélemy Saint-Hilaire, after lamenting the loss of many of Aristotle's works, remarks: Opposite a monument so beautiful, so colossal, there is still astonishment such as was felt by Cuvier. Three centuries and a half before 1. Histoire des Animaux d'Aristote. Traduite en Français et accompagnée de Notes perpétuelles. Par J. BARTHELEMY SAINT-HILAIRE, Membre de l'Institut, Sénateur. Three vols. 8vo. Paris: 1883. 2. Aristotle: A chapter from the History of Science, including Analyses of Aristotle's Scientific Writings. By GEORGE HENRY LEWEs. London: 1864. the Christian era there is the science of nature, and especially the science of animals. There are all at once the three sciences, zoology, physiology, and anatomy, created with their fundamental principles, their method, their elementary classifications, framework, and principal details! There they are, created in such dent, and that they remain for more than twenty a way that they seem at first without prececenturies without receiving the slightest increase! Zoology, properly so called, physiol. ogy, and comparative anatomy, have remained even to us very nearly such as Aristotle has constituted them; and if in our days they have made immense progress, it is by remaining faithful to the way which he has pointed out for them. (Preface, pp. lii., liii.) M. Barthélemy Saint-Hilaire thus seems to endorse all that Buffon, Cuvier, and others have written in praise of Aristotle's works on natural history. Let us briefly notice the language of these two great French zoologists: Aristotle's History of Animals [says Buffon] is perhaps even now the best work of its kind; he probably knew animals better, and under more general views than we do now. Although the moderns have added their discoveries to those of the ancients, I do not believe that we have many works on natural history that we can place above those of Aristotle and Pliny. Again, in speaking of Aristotle's plan, in which he takes man as a model, and compares the difference between the parts of man and those of other animals, Buffon says, " He accumulates facts, and does not write one useless word." The laudatory language of the illustri ous Cuvier is equally strong, and, indeed, as M. Saint-Hilaire says, is manifested by more animated expressions. "Of all the sciences, that which owes the most to Aristotle is the natural history of animals. Not only did he know a great number of species, but he studied and described them after a vast and luminous plan which, perhaps, none of his successors have approached." Again, "The principal divisions still followed by naturalists in the animal kingdom are due to Aristotle, and he indicated several to which they have returned in these later times, after 3. Aristotelis de Animalibus Historic Libri X. having unfortunately diverged from them." Textum recensuit Jul. Cæs. Scaligeri versionem dili-"Everywhere Aristotle observes facts genter recognovit F. G. SCHNEIDER. Lipsia: 1811. with attention." Speaking of the "His tory of Animals," Cuvier writes: "I can- | justified in the unqualified praises they not read this book without being ravished have so enthusiastically bestowed on his with astonishment. Indeed, it is impos- natural history writings will be seen bysible to conceive how a single man was and-by, when we bring before our readers able to collect and compare the multitude some of his own statements concerning of particular facts implied in the numerous various animals or physiological questions general rules and aphorisms contained in which he discusses. The subject does this work, and of which his predecessors not concern itself with Aristotle's splendid never had any idea." But it is, above all, and, perhaps, unrivalled genius, his logisays M. Saint-Hilaire, in his "Lectures cal power of thought, his comprehensive on the History of the Natural Sciences," and penetrating mind, his love of truth, in the College of France, at the close of his appreciation of a true method, his clear his life, that Cuvier shows himself a pas- intellect and his extraordinary diligence; sionate admirer of the Greek naturalist. it has nothing to do with the great relative value of his scientific writings, considered at the time in which he lived; all unprejudiced students of zoology, whether of the past or the present, are willing to do glad homage to the "Father of Natural History," and delight to read the numerous admirable and correct accounts of the animals of which he treats; they will recognize in his treatise "On the Parts of Animals," its great value and interest in the history of science, both on account of the materials it furnishes, and because it is one of the earliest attempts to found biology on comparative anatomy; they will admit his treatise "On the Generation and Development of Animals" to be We cannot reproduce the exact expressions which the incomparable professor uses, since his lectures were not corrected by his hand; but if they have not preserved the form of his style, they give at least his thought, and they preserve a faithful trace of the most ardent and deliberate enthusiasm. In his eyes "Aristotle is the giant of Greek science; before Aristotle, science did not exist; he created it from fragments. One cannot read his 'History of Animals' without being delighted with astonishment. His zoological classification leaves few things to be done by the ages which have come after him. His work is one of the greatest monuments that the genius of man has raised to natural science." These reiterated praises are regarded by his recent French translator as decisive. On the other hand, the language of Cuvier, in the opinion of the late lamented En. glish scholar and physiologist, George Henry Lewes, "passes all bounds permissible to sincere enthusiasm; the more so because of the authority attached to his own eminent name. Others speak with a like exaggeration, but not with a like authority." M. Barthélemy Saint-Hilaire, in his interesting preface to his translation of the "History of Animals," quotes the opinions of other naturalists of note, who ex press themselves more or less strongly in praise of Aristotle's scientific works, such as Isidore Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, Flourens, Littré, Milne-Edwards, C. Claus, Victor Carus, etc., and then proceeds to consider the opinion expressed by Mr. G. H. Lewes, as a critic who is unable to follow in the rear of the enthusiastic pane. gyrists of the Greek philosopher. his masterpiece in science, will recognize its true greatness, and "be surprised and delighted to find how often Aristotle seems at the highest level of speculation, even when they compare his statements with the results of the most advanced embryologists." The question does not concern itself with these points: it has reference to the claim made by Aristotle's too ardent panegyrists, that he discovered a system so perfect as to leave to us little if anything to alter; that in several inand that his descriptions are marvels of stances he anticipated modern discoveries, accuracy and research. How far such statements are true must be discovered by the simple test of reading Aristotle's own words: we must verify; we must see what he has actually written; we are not Compelled to follow Cuvier, still less Buffon. The enquirer will think of the wellknown line, Nullius addictus jurare in verba magistri, To what extent Aristotle's admirers are and will form an independent judgment; he will refuse to follow blindly any master, | scientific research." It is true that Ariseven though he be a Cuvier. He will totle has exemplified groups of animals bear in mind the words of a learned En- which agree with many of the modern glish physician and author of the seven-classes, orders, and genera, but their relateenth century: "The mortallest enemy tive value is not so defined. His nine unto knowledge, and that which hath done the greatest execution upon truth, hath been a peremptory adhesion unto authority; and more especially, the establishing of our belief upon the dictates of an tiquity."* To the task of a searching enquiry Mr. G. H. Lewes applied himself about twenty years ago, and, although some persons may think that he has been in some cases too severe upon Aristotle, we consider that, on the whole, his criticism is just, and that he has amply proved his case, not against the philosopher him-guishes the greater from the less. Agassiz self, but against his exaggerating eulogists. He has properly placed Aristotle on a lower, yet still an exalted position on the pinnacle of zoological fame. "Aristotle's zoological classification leaves few things to be done by the ages which have come after him." This is Cuvier's statement. Had Aristotle any idea of forming a systematic classification of any kind? On this question there is great difference of opinion. Some think that Aristotle purposely abstained from forming any system, but had merely a vague general idea of classification, which as little resembled a system as a mere jotting down of all the letters of the alphabet would resemble an essay; others discover a system in it so perfect as to leave nothing scarcely to alter.† There is no doubt that Aristotle had certain wide and indefinite views of classification, to borrow the words of Whewell, which, though not very exact, are still highly creditable to him. The honor due to the stupendous accumulation of zoological knowledge which Aristotle's works contain cannot be tarnished by our denying him the credit of a system which he never dreamed of, and which from the nature of the progress of science could not possibly be constructed at that period. "Classification is one of the latest results of Sir Thomas Browne's Works, i., p. 39, ed. Bohn. books in the "History of Animals " enumerate the differences of animals in almost all conceivable respects: the organs of sense, of motion, of nutrition, the interior anatomy, the exterior covering, the manner of life, growth, generation, and many other circumstances; but Aristotle appears to have had no appreciation of the law of the subordination of characters; the same denomination, viz., yévos, genus, is applied by him to each of his groups, though in some cases he distin says: "Aristotle cannot be said to have proposed any regular classification. He speaks constantly of more or less extensive groups under a common appellation, evidently considering them as natural divisions, but he nowhere expresses a conviction that these groups may be arranged methodically so as to exhibit the natural affinities of animals." The aim of classification, as Mr. G. H. Lewes remarks, is to group animals in such a manner that each class and genus shall indicate the degree of complexity attained by the organism, and thus the external form betray the internal structure; but no such scheme ever entered the head of Aristotle; he only wished to mark out the obviously distinctive characters by which the common eye could recognize each class or genus. Men had before him "spontaneously grouped animals as four-footed, winged, aquatic, terrestrial, oviparous, etc.,” and had, in vague general terms, thus grouped together animals under these respective heads. We may call this, if we will, a rude sketch of a classificatory system. Moreover there are certain indications in his writings that Aristotle more or less adopted the system then in use; not unfrequently he mentions certain families or groups which he says are "without a name," "have never received a name," and it is noticeable that he never proposes names for these anony mous groups, which we should expect he would have done had he intended the formation of a grand philosophical system of classification. He uses only two formal terms of classification, yévós and eidos; the former denoting an assemblage of different animals which have some general resemblance to each other: it may be equivalent to the modern terms, family, order, or class; the latter generally is ap. plied to what we understand by species. M. Barthélemy Saint-Hilaire's remarks on Aristotle's classification are, on the whole, very just indeed: The feeble side of Aristotle's zoology [he says] is the classification The author never explained it in a systematic manner, and it would be rather hazardous to seek to extract it from the works through which it is dispersed. However, Aristotle did not confound all the species in a common disorder; between them he positively indicated classes, although these classes are too few and indistinct. The principal are those of animals which have blood, and those which have not any; those of the vivipara, ovipara, vermipara; those of the quadrupeds, the birds, the reptiles, cetacea, fish, insects; and, lastly, those of the molluscs, crustacea, testacea, and the zoophytes. That is not, one must confess, a classification in the rigorous sense of the word; but if one thinks of the difficulties presented, even in our time, by classification, one will be inclined to indulgence, and excuse in Aristotle a defect which is compensated for by so many other merits. A regular arrangement of all animated beings was impossible at the time in which he wrote, whatever may have been his genius. There was necessarily a multiplicity of observations of detail which time only could accumulate, and even to-day the materials are not yet sufficient. But however incomplete Aristotle's classification may be, it ought always to figure in science-history, because it is the first in date and encloses the principal elements of all those which have followed. It comes immediately before the classifications of Linnæus and Cuvier, as the historians of zoology have well seen. (Preface, p. cxvii.) From the above extract, it will be seen how widely and how justly Aristotle's French translator differs from Cuvier, who states that "Aristotle's zoological classification leaves few things to be done by the ages which have come after him." Let us now enquire how far Cuvier's other statement that "everywhere Aris totle observes facts with attention," is true. "Cuvier, already in all his glory," says M. Saint-Hilaire, "does not hesitate to say that the history of the elephant is more exact in Aristotle than in Buffon, and in speaking of the camel he praises Aristotle for having perfectly described and characterized the two species." We have not an edition of Buffon at hand to 66 which to refer, but if Aristotle's account of the elephant is more correct than that of Buffon, we are sorry for Buffon. Aristotle speaks many things correctly of the elephant, but some very incorrectly, and it is quite a question whether he ever saw this animal in his life; be this as it may, he affirms that it has no nails on its toes, though he correctly refers to the toes which are scarcely distinguished. The nails of the elephant are one of the 'points" which the natives of India alwell-bred animal, and are nearly always ways regarded as one of the marks of a conspicuous. M. Saint-Hilaire tells us in a note on this passage* that Camus and MM. Aubert and Wimmer consider this passage an interpolation. Let us take another point: the " grey-headed error" that the elephant has no joints. Aristotle says, "The elephant is not so constructed as to be unable to sit down and bend his his great weight he is unable to bend legs, as some persons have said, but from them on both sides at once, but leans either to the right side or the left, and sleeps in this position; "the elephant, that is to say, having bent one foreleg, cannot then bend the other so as to kneel with both, which is contrary to fact. Aristotle demolishes the absurd statement that the elephant has no joints, in this passage in his "History of Animals" (ii. 1, §.4), but in his treatise on the " Progressive Motions of Animals" (Пepì Пopeias Zwwv, cap. 9, p. 709, ed. Bekker), he seems to leave it doubtful whether the elephant has joints in its knees. After showing that without inflexion there can be no progression, he says: Progression, however, is possible without inflexion of the leg, in the same manner as infants creep; and there is an ancient story of this kind about elephants, which is not true, for such ani. mals move because inflexion takes place in their shoulderblades or hips." The existence of such animals without knees is again supposed by this remark: "Since the members are equal, inflexion must be made either in the knee or in some joint, if the animal that walks is destitute of knees" (úyóvarov). If Aristotle had ever seen an elephant move, is it not probable that he would have spoken more decidedly and correctly on these points? Schlegel indeed asserts that the accounts of the elephant are the result of frequent and minute actual examination of both sexes of this animal, and that what he is genuine, as the context clearly shows by the parenHist. An. iii. 9, § 3. Beyond a doubt the passage thesis. See Schneider's Annot. ad loc., iii., p. 147. |