ent. Aristotle's reasons are sometimes amus. Man hoppers fly along, they emit a kind of moisture, as agriculturists say; they feed ing. Man has no tail because the availon dew, and if a person advances to them able formative material has been used up bending his finger and then straightening in the posterior parts (buttock). Apes it, they will remain more quiet than if the have neither tail nor buttocks because finger is put out straight at once, and will they are intermediate between man and climb up the finger, for from bad sight quadrupeds. Bees and wasps have stings they ascend it as if it were a moving leaf." inside their bodies because they have "Persons who have parasites (p0cipes) in wings. All crabs and lobsters (generally) the head are less subject to headache. have the large claw on the right, because Moths are produced in the greatest abun- all animals are by nature strong on the dance if a spider is shut up with them in right side. Bees and ants are more inthe wool, for this creature being thirsty telligent than other animals of the kind, dries up any moisture which may be pres- because their blood (fluid answering to Small birds during the day fly round blood) is thin and cold. The seal has no the owl which is called admiring it external ears, only ear pores, because its and as they fly round it they pluck out its feet are incapacitated for walking (Teπnpwfeathers." "The anthus (some bright-μévov). Serpents have a forked tongue colored bird) "is an enemy to the horse, for it drives the horse from its pasture and eats the grass, it imitates the voice of the horse and frightens it by flying at it, but when the horse catches it he kills it." "If any one takes hold of a she-goat by the long hairs of the beard, all the others stand still as if bewildered (μɛμwpwμévai) and gaze at her." "The hawk, though carniv. orous, does not eat the hearts of the birds it has killed." "The jay (KíτTa) has many varieties of voice; it utters a different one, so to speak, every day.” "The goat sucker flies against the she-goats and sucks them, whence its name. They say that, after the udder has been, sucked, it becomes dry and goes blind."* "Mares become less ardent and more gentle if their manes are cut. At certain times they never run to the east or west, always north or south." "The sow gives the first teat to the first little pig that is born." When a serpent has taken its food, it draws itself up till it stands erect upon its tail (ἐπὶ τὸ ἄκρον).” *Elian (iii. 39) and Pliny (x. 40) repeat this absurd and injurious statement. We cannot trace it in any writer prior to Aristotle. The delusion continues to this day in some parts of this country, and the insecteating night-jar suffers. mares toтav úñокείρwvral. This remark about mares contains a very curious Dit of old folk-lore. MM. Aubert and Wimmer, as usual, consider the passage apocryphal. M. Saint-Hilaire properly refuses to sanction its rejection. We may add that it has the express confirmation of Elian (xi. 18), who refers to Aristotle by name as his authority. Rejection of the passage is wholly unwarranted. Xenophon, Plutarch, Elian, and Pliny give us the same bit of folk-lore about Xenophon (De Re Equit. c. 5) says that the mane, tail, and forelock were given to the horse by the gods as an additional beauty; consequently, that when the mane was clipped the mare lost her pride and dig nity, became dejected on seeing her reflection in water, and humbly submitted to the solicitations of the male ass; that breeders of mules adopted this tonsure system on this account. M. Saint-Hilaire's note that the words of Aristotle are better applicable to stallions than to mares, shows that he has failed to discern the point in question. because they are gluttonous, and a bifid But we need quote no farther, though it would be easy to supply many more samples of a like character; but surely these will incline us to refuse to admit that "in his accumulation of facts, Aristotle has not written one useless word; neither are we able to see with M. SaintHilaire, from the study of the "History of Animals," an 66 originality which nothing had prepared, even as nothing completely new has followed it." M. Saint-Hilaire speaks of Aristotle's incessant practice of anatomy; it seems to us that he did not practise anatomy on any extended scale; that he occasionally dissected animals, is, however, certain from his own remarks here and there,* but he also mentions anatomical drawings as existing in his time and before him, and refers his readers to them. Had Aristotle habitually dissected animals, it is impossible that he could have made the incorrect assertions that he has on numerous points of observation not difficult of detection or dem See Hist. An. v. 16, § 5, where certain organs of the cuttlefish (sepia) are explained by reference to letters A, B, T, A in a diagram. is without blood, and that the back part of the skull is empty?—a statement frequently made. If Aristotle did dissect human bodies, then, as Mr. Lewes remarks: "An answer in the affirmative would be still more damaging to his reputation, since it would render many of his errors unpardonable." The evidence, we think, is almost conclusive that he did not dissect human bodies. onstration. It is chiefly, we imagine, many little reniform bodies (ék toĥλūv veamongst marine creatures that he prac-opov μpv) and are not smooth like those tised dissection, and to which he paid of sheep or other four-footed creatures"? * most personal attention; and certainly, or that the uterus is double; or that the many of his observations are admirably heart is placed above the lungs near the correct on some of the fishes, for instance, bifurcation of the trachea; † that the brain sponges, crustacea, cephalopoda, and other sea creatures.* Aristotle's father was a man of some scientific culture, and anatomy probably formed one part in his boyhood education, which study he continued to some extent in after years. His was an all-grasping mind an ambition to know all subjects; but in zoological matters constant observations and repeated verifications are necessary to establish fact, and observation and verification were There seems much reason to believe not Aristotle's strong points; his anatom- that he paid little attention to the examical knowledge was very limited, and, as ination of the skeletons of animals, and Mr. G. H. Lewes says, "to explain the that his osteological knowledge was very phenomena of life without having previ- limited. Let us consider what he has ously mastered the facts of anatomy, is as recorded of a certain bone, well known to hopeless as to attempt an explanation of the Greeks as being one much used for the action of a watch in ignorance of dice and some other purposes we of springs, escapement, and wheels, merely course mean the astragalus. "Many from seeing it wound up and hearing it cloven-footed animals,” he says, "have an tick. Nothing but vague, unassured astragalus, but no many-toed animals have guesses can be formed. Of this kind is one, neither has man; the lynx has as it the physiology of Aristotle." Had Aris- were half an astragalus, the lion one in totle any acquaintance with human anat- the form of a coil (aßupivewdn); solidomy from actual dissection? It appears hoofed animals, with the exception of the to us almost certain that Hippocrates Indian ass, have no astragalus, swine (nearly contemporary with Aristotle) and have not a well-formed astragalus." other medical authorities of antiquity oc- fact is that the hind feet of all mammals casionally at least practised inspectiones possess this bone, with slight differences cadaverum. The human body was openly in form and relative position with the dissected in the anatomical schools of other tarsal bones, but always preserving Alexandria considerably less than one their characteristic shape. Aristotle rechundred years after the death of Hippoc- ognizes this bone only, as a rule, in the rates; it is, therefore, highly probable ruminants, and denies its existence genthat the practice had prevailed before erally in the hind feet of other animals. that time, though not to the same extent. This bone was familiar to him as occurHippocrates was by profession a physi-ring in the sheep and goat, because they cian, and probably taught anatomy in his school; and there seems good reason for believing that on physiological questions Aristotle borrowed freely from that most eminent physician of antiquity. Aristotle may sometimes have been present at the examination of human bodies, but it is pretty certain that he never carried on anything like systematic operations, never dissected in the modern technical acceptation of that term. If he had, would he have said that the kidneys of a man resemble those of a ox, and "consist of Eels are of course discussed; they are supposed to be produced spontaneously from the mud and not from eggs. Though there are some points in the generation of eels which remain obscure to this day, we know that they are produced from eggs; the miit of the conger eel was discovered a few years ago, and much has been learnt. M. Saint-Hilaire's zoology is not very recent. The supplied principally the dice used orig inally in the Greek game. Had he examined the hind feet of the animals which he specifies as having no astragalus, he could not have committed such an error; had he been in the habit of dissecting animals for osteological information, he must have noticed the uniform presence of this characteristic tarsal bone in the mammalia. Aristotle had a theory a kind of phys. iological axiom that led him to infer that certain animals could not have an astragalus, and therefore he did not exam De Part. iii. 9, p. 671, ed. Bekker. ↑ Hist. An. i. 14, $1. ‡ où kαλλiαoтрuyaλov, perhaps, "not prettily shaped" like the tarsal bone of the gazelle (dopкús), which was much prized. See Polybius, xxvi. 10. 9. ine them to prove his theory; he was | issues may be found,” viz. verification, satisfied that his theory proved his facts, was neglected, and error promulgated. and there was no need of verification. We shall see this in the following passage from his "Parts of Animals," where he gives his reason why certain animals have no astragalus. The feet of quadrupeds differ, for some animals have one hoof, others a cloven foot, others many divisions in the foot. One-hoofed animals are those which, on account of their large size and abundance of earthy matter, have secreted such matter for the formation of nail or hoof, instead of horns and teeth, and on account of this superabundance, instead of many nails have only one-a solid hoof. Hence, on this account, to speak generally, such animals have not an astragalus, for if they had one, the joint of the hind leg would be moved with greater difficulty, because parts with one angle open and shut more readily than parts with many angles; but the astragalus, a kind of wedge (youpor) is fixed as a foreign member in two other bones; it has weight indeed, but conduces to the security of the step. tragalus have it in the hind feet, and not in the fore, because the parts which move first ought to be light and flexible, whereas the hind parts require security and tension (Túois). Moreover, animals without this bone can give a more heavy blow in defending themselves, such, for instance, as use their hind legs, and kick at what hurts them. But animals with cloven feet have an astragalus, for they are lighter behind; and because they have an astragalus they have not solid hoofs, the bony matter which is wanting in the foot serving for flexure. But many-toed animals have not an astragalus, otherwise they would not be manytoed, but cleft for so much of the breadth of the foot as the astragalus occupies (iv. 10, p. 690, ed. Bekker). On this account animals which have an as His argument is mainly as follows, from what may be clearly gathered from several other passages: large animals have in their system much earthly matter (ye@des), the superabundance of such matter ( πеριоowμаτIкη VπεрВоλ) nature uses in the formation of teeth, tusks, and horns; in solid-hoofed animals, as in a horse for instance, the excess of earthly matter goes to form the hoof, and not horns or tusks as it does in cattle and elephants; and as this excess is spent in the formation of a solid hoof, such animals have no astraga lus, which is only a kind of superadded bone, and would be, in the horse for instance, a detriment rather than an advantage. With such conceptions Aristotle imagined the phenomena of nature must correspond, and hence the true guide, "the Ariadne thread by which the real The mention of the Indian ass, which Aristotle receives with some degree of incredulity, as coming from Ctesias, whom he describes as a man unworthy of credit" (ovк v úžiórioтoç), suggests a few remarks. The Indian ass, as described by Ctesias is fabulous altogether, but it is interesting as being the origin of the unicorn, which even now supports the arms of England. The Indian rhinoce ros in all probability is at the bottom of the story told by Ctesias. The astragalus of this animal was prized by the Indian hunters, who pursued it for the sake of its horns as well. Ctesias was shown the astragalus, which he says was "the most beautiful he ever beheld, in shape and size like that of the ox, but heavy as lead, its color resembled cinnabar throughout its whole substance" (kai Siù ẞúlovs). The description will suit the astragalus of the rhinoceros well enough; of course the specimen Ctesias saw had been artificially stained with some red dye, and perhaps leaded. Drinking-cups were made out of its horn, and filings of the same were used as an antidote against poison, spasms, and other diseases. Drinking-vessels and cups are to this day made from the horn of the rhinoceros in the interior of Africa, where the unicorn (anasa of the natives) is nothing more than the rhinoceros; the people attribute to the horn the very same properties which Ctesias did. Although some of the stories about the strange animals and plants which Ctesias gives can be explained to some extent, making great allowance for the marvellous, it is quite impossible to deny that several of them are pure unmitigated fables. Not, however, that we believe Ctesias to be, as some have supposed, a mere fabricator of lies, a sort of classical Baron Munchausen, one who, in the words of Lucian, "neither saw what he relates nor heard it from any one else." On the contrary, we believe that he is perfectly truthful, that he heard from the Persians their strange stories of certain animals and plants of India, which perhaps they themselves credited, and that he has simply given their accounts. He never visited India himself, and he accepts too credulously no doubt the marvellous stories which he had heard. Herein may be a strong con. trast between the philosophic mind of Aristotle and the unquestioning credulity of Ctesias, though, like Homer, even *Indica, caps. 25-27, p. 25, ed. Baehr. Aristotle aliquando dormit. We have jects, and he convicts him of some very taken the trouble to analyze carefully all absurd statements, stigmatizing him as a that Ctesias has written in his fragmen- " mythologist." When Herodotus is tary account of India. He mentions wrong, Aristotle refutes him sometimes by about fifty subjects, some in a few words, name, sometimes under the expression some in many. Several of these may be "some say;" it is, however, noticeable explained, making allowance for the usual that when Aristotle accepts the accounts exaggerations and love of the marvellous which Herodotus gives of certain animals, which attend all natural-history anecdotes, he does not hesitate to appropriate his unless checked by strict scientific inves- remarks without a word as to his authortigation. His dog-headed cave-men; his ity; he makes use of them as if they were pygmies with ears reaching to their shoul- his own. This is very evident in the acders, which meet together and cover the counts of the crocodile and hippopotamus. back behind; the worm (okúλns), the only In the case of the great saurian of the creature of the river Indus, with two teeth | Nile, all that Aristotle tells us is borrowed and a body which a child can scarcely from Herodotus, with the exception of the span with his two hands, which drags number of eggs it is said to lay; and it is camels and oxen into the water and de- curious to notice that he even tells the vours them all but the entrails; the story of the little bird (trochilos) which griffins; the dicerus bird, which philan- eats the leeches out of the crocodile's thropically hides its deadly excrement; mouth -a story long discredited, but the martichoras, of lion-like form and which has been to a great extent corrobohuman visage, that shoots forth poisonous rated by M. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, the darts from its scorpion-like tail a figure eminent French naturalist, who long reof which may be seen in old Topsell, and sided in Egypt and had repeated occawhich has been lately reproduced by Miss sions to ascertain that the story of HerodPhipson in her " Animal Lore of Shake-otus was correct, in substance at least. speare "all these, with others, are simply creatures of the imagination, like the stone and wood adornments of ecclesiastical buildings of mediæval architecture; but Ctesias gives a short but fairly correct account of the parrot, the bird which speaks with human tongue; his wormlike creatures of the size and of the color of cinnabar, which infest trees, are probably some species of cochineal insect (coccus); his swift, fierce, and iron-like crocottas imitating man's voice is the Hyana cro cuta, still found in Ethiopia; and there is no very great exaggeration in the idea, as any one can testify who has heard the curious voice of the laughing hyena. He has given a fair account of the large Indian mastiff, the same animal which the Assyrian kings employed in the chase of wild beasts; his small sheep and cattle may be even now seen in India, as in the little zebu; while his mention of a variety of iron which, when fixed in the ground averts storms and lightnings recalls to our mind the lightning-conductor of modern days. We acknowledge the fabulous character of many stories in his "Indica," but we object to Aristotle's stigma on the good faith of Ctesias, when, as in the treatise "On the Generation of Animals," he speaks of the Greek physician of Artaxerxes as a manifest liar (pavepòc ἐψευσμένος.) Aristotle had no high opinion of Herodotus as a relater of natural-history sub He found that a little bird, the blackheaded plover (Pluvianus ægyptius), Alies incessantly from place to place, searching everywhere, even in the crocodile's mouth, for insects, such as gnats, which attack the great saurian in innumerable swarms, and entering his mouth, cover the inner surface of the palate with a brownish black crust. The little plover comes and delivers him from his troublesome enemies. That curious friendships exist between animals widely different from each other in form and habit, is well known to naturalists; we may instance the case of the rhinoceros and hippopotamus, which are often attended- by little birds known as rhinoceros-birds, which feed on the ticks and other parasites that infest these beasts, and which serve as well to warn them of approaching danger; the great pachyderms fully understand the bird's warning, and doubtless appreciate its good offices. The ancient Greeks and Romans do not appear to have been very scrupulous in the acknowledgment of their sources of information. Herodotus borrowed his description of the hippopotamus from Hecatæus, and his account of the mode adopted by the Egyptians for catching the crocodile, as well as his story of the phoenix; and certainly writes as if he was the originator of his narratives. Aris. totle borrowed from Herodotus; perhaps Hecatæus told his own story. Though Aristotle depended to a considerable ex tent on his own observations, it is certain that he drew largely from other sources. Schneider on this point writes: The creatures called tethya have of all animals the most peculiar nature, for their whole body is concealed in a shell, which is intermediate between skin and shell, so that it can be Aristotle had very likely more authorities cut like hard leather. The shell-like substance whom he has followed or converted to his own grows upon rocks. It has two pores distinct purposes than those whose names he has given. from each other, very small and not readily There are, however, a few whom he has named, seen, by which it emits and takes in water. as Alcmæon of Crotona, Dionysius of Apollo- When opened, one sees first of all that it has nia, Heradorus of Heracleum in Pontus, the a gristle-like membrane within, lining the father of Bryson the sophist, Ctesias of Cnidos, shell-like substance, and in this is the fleshy Herodotus of Halicarnassus, Syennesis of Cy-substance of the tethya itself, unlike that of prus, Polypus, Democritus of Abdera, Anaxagoras of Clazomene, Empedocles of Sicily. There are many places, both in his Natural History and his other works on animals, where our philosopher refers to the ancient fables of men who were transformed into the nature and forms of various animals. All who have read the work of Antoninus and the Metamorphoses of Ovid, will easily perceive how much information on the nature and habits of animals our philosopher could have derived from the very character of the books which had come down from the remotest antiquity to the time of Aristotle, especially if they bear in mind that the ancient teachers of physics always compared the habits of animals with those of man, and conjectured the causes and On the whole this is a good popular dereasons of their actions from similar impulses scription of a tunicated ascidian; a scienin man. This may be seen in the fables of tific one was impossible without the aid Æsop, for they contain the first elements of of the microscope, and, as was to be exthe ancients in physics and morals. (Cress-pected, the description is not strictly well's translation.) other creatures, for the flesh is homogeneous yellow, partly red. speaking scientifically correct. Aristotle We cannot help thinking that much of has also given a very good descriptive Aristotle's human anatomy and physiology account of the chameleon, though one was derived from Hippocrates, whom, cannot expect that he would be perfectly however, he only mentions once, and that accurate in all the details. He mentions Democritus supplied him with a good the structure of the ribs, how they descend deal of matter on the forms and habits of and are joined together on the hypogastric various animals. M. B. Saint-Hilaire has region, the serrated back, the prehensile well said in his interesting preface that tail, the number and position of the toes; "amongst all the predecessors of Aris-"its eyes are fixed in a hollow, and are totle, Democritus is the one from whom he has been able to borrow most; that in the opinion of every one Democritus was the wisest of the Greeks before the time of Aristotle; and that the acquirements of Democritus seem to have been as varied, if not as profound, as those of Aristotle." Speaking of the "History of Animals," looked at absolutely in relation to the science of which it treats, Mr. Lewes makes one remark at all events which we cannot altogether endorse; he says, "There is not one good description in it." We, on the contrary, consider there are many. Let us take two or three examples: Aristotle is nowhere more happy in his descriptions than when he is discoursing of marine animals. What seaside observer is unacquainted with the seasquids, known to naturalists by the name of tunicated molluscs, or ascidians? large and round, surrounded with skin like the rest of the body; in the centre there is a small space left for the sight, through which aperture it sees, and this part is never covered with skin. It turns round its eyes in a circle and can direct its vision to all sides and can see what it wishes. The change in the color of the skin occurs when the animal is filled with air." It is curious that he does not men. * καὶ διείργει μέσον τι συνεχές. Aristotle is, we rangular interspaces or square meshes formed by the think, alluding to the respiratory sac, i.e., to the quadlongitudinal and transverse vessels which form a kind of network throughout the whole of the bronchial sac, which in some large ascidia are visible to the naked eye. M. Saint-Hilaire translates the words "Il y a un petit corps continu qui y fait cloison," and thinks they may possibly refer to the ganglion between the two tubular orifices. Such a small object cou d not possibly be discerned without the aid of a microscope of consid erable magnifying power. Moreover, Aristotie knew nothing whatever either of nerves or nerve-ganglia, and there is no mention of the epithet "small' in the original. |