A R I S T O T L EPARTS OF A N IM A L S

M O V E M E N T OF A N IM A L S

PROGRESSION OF A N IM A L S

ARISTOTLEP A R T S O F A N IM A L S

WITH AN ENGLISH TRANSLATION BY

A . L . l E C K , M .A ., P h .D.FELLOW OF CHRIST'S COLLEOE, CAMBRIDGE AND UNIVERSITY LECTURER IN CLASSICS

AND A FOREWORD BYH. A. M A R S H A L L , C.B.E., Sc.D., F.R.

M O V E M E N T O F A N IM A L S

P R O G R E S S IO N O F A N IM A L S

WITH AN ENGLISH TRANSLATION BY

E. S. F O R S T E R , M .A .PROFESSOR OF GREEK IN THK UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD

CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS

H A R V A R D U N IV E R S IT Y PRESSLONDON

W I L L I A M H E I N E M A N N L T DMCMLXI

CONTENTSPAOB

PARTS OF A N IM A L S

F o r e w o r d .................................................................3

I n t r o d u c t i o n ...................................................... 8

T e x t a n d T r a n s l a t io n - . . . 52

M O VEM EN T OF A N IM A L S

PROGRESSION O F A N IM A L S

I n t r o d u c t i o n ...................................................... 43fi

T e x t a n d T r a n s l a t io n 440

I n d e x to P a r t s of A n im a l s . . . 543

I n d e x t o M o v e m e n t a n d P ro g r e ssio n of

A n im a l s ................................................................ 552

v

From quotations which I had seen, I had a high notion of Aristotles merits, but I had not the most remote notion what a wonderful man he was. Linnaeus and Cuvier have been my two gods, though in very different ways, but they were mere schoolboys to old Aristotle.

Charles Darwin to William Ogle, on the publication of his translation of The Parts of Animals, 1882.

PARTS OF ANIMALS

To

A. E. P. and L. A. P.

FOREWORDA r is t o t l e refers to the De partibus animalium as an inquiry into the causes that in each ease have determined the composition o f animals. He does not, however, employ the category o f causation in the manner normally adopted bv men o f scienec, sincc in this book causes are always considered in relation to ends or purposes, and design is regarded as having had a far larger share in the origin and development o f living structures than that allotted to necessity.

In the Historia animalium the parts themselves are described, for although this work is to some extent physiological, its main object was to deal with the anatomy o f the organism. The De partibus animalium, on the other hand, is almost exclusively physiological and teleological, and treats o f the functions o f the parts. But Aristotles position was that o f a teleo- logist only in a limited degree, for he appears to have taken that view o f life which Bergson ealls the doctrine o f internal fmalitv (that is to say, that each individual, or at any rate caeh specics, is made for itself, that all its parts conspire for the greatest good o f the whole, and are intelligently organized in view of that end but without regard for other organisms or kinds o f organisms). Since every organ or part o f the body was held to have its peculiar funetion, the existence o f vestigial or rudimentary organs was

a 2 3

FOREWORD

unrecognized. This was the doctrine o f internal finality which was generally accepted until Darwin elaborated his theory o f Natural Selection. The wider doctrine o f external finality, according to which living beings are ordered in regard to one another, never gained acceptance among scientific philosophers, and the only indication that Aristotle ever adopted it is furnished by a passage in wThich he suggests that the mouth in Selachians is placed on the under surface so as to allow their prey to escape while the fish are turning on their backs before taking their food ; but even this he qualified by the suggestion that the arrangement served a useful end for the fishes in question by preventing them from indulging in the harmful habit o f gluttony.

The De partibus animalium opens with an introduction devoted to general considerations. This is followed by a discussion o f the three degrees of composition, the first degree being composition of physical substances, the second degree, o f homogeneous parts or tissues, and the third, o f heterogeneous parts or organs. The tissues referred to are blood, fat, marrow', brain, flesh, and bone. A fter describing these, the organs are dealt with, and a consideration o f their respective functions, first in sanguineous animals (i.e. in Vertebrates), and secondly in bloodless animals (i.e. Invertebrates), occupies the remainder o f the book. The account given o f the physiology o f the blood is especially interesting, and it is notew orthy that Aristotle understood something o f the nature o f the process o f absorption whereby the food becomes converted into nutriment which is carried by the blood to all parts o f the body. He supposed, however, that the matter derived from the

4

FOREWORD

gut passed first to the heart in the form o f vapour or serum, and that it was there converted into true blood by a process o f concoction. Aristotle knew nothing o f the real nature o f respiration, and he regarded the lungs as serving to temper the bodily heat by means o f the inspired air. He was also entirely ignorant o f the fact that the blood passes back to the heart and lungs after supplying the tissues and organs with nourishment. On the other hand, he fully appreciated the existence o f excretory organs, the function o f which was to remove from the body such substances as could not be utilized. In this category are included fluids such as bile, urine, and sweat. In the section on the gall-bladder, as in so many other passages in his works on natural history, it is truly remarkable how correct Aristotle is in his statements. He points out that the gallbladder is not found either in the horse and ass or in the deer and roe, but is generally present in the sheep and goat. In the light o f the knowledge that he possessed, therefore, Aristotle could scarcely have adopted a theory about this organ which has found expression in certain modern writings. According to this theory the gall-bladder is present in the sheep and ox because, these being ruminating animals, bile is only required at certain particular times when food passes into the intestine, whereas in the horse, which does not chew the cud, but yet is constantly eating, food is continually passing into the intestine and consequently a perpetual flow o f bile is desirable. Since the gall-bladder is present in the non-ruminating pig but absent in the ruminating deer and roe, it is obvious that this theory cannot be consistently applied.

5

FOREWORD

I t is interesting to speculate about the school of research workers who must have contributed in providing material for this and the other works on natural science ascribed to Aristotle who they wrere, the circumstances under which they lived, and wrhat manner o f facilities were available for their investigations for it would seem certain that no man single- handed could possibly have acquired such a vast body o f knowledge, hardly any o f which could have been derived from earlier observers. Y e t the work in its completed whole seems to show the mark o f one master hand, and its uniform character and the clear line o f teleological reasoning that runs through it have been wrell brought out in Dr. Pecks translation. But putting aside its philosophical implications, the book consists o f an attempt at a scientific record of all the apparently known facts relating to animal function. These are considered comparatively and as far as possible are brought into relation with one another. And thus, as the earliest text-book on animal physiology in the worlds history, this treatise will ever make its appeal, not only to the classical philosopher, but to all who are interested in the origin and growth o f biological science.

F. H. A . M .

6

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTIONTitle. T h e traditional title o f this treatise is not a very

informative one. The subject o f the work is, however, stated quite clearly by Aristotle at the beginning o f the second Book in these words : 44 I have already described with considerable detail in my Researches upon Animals what and how' many are the parts o f w'hich animals are composed. W e must now leave on one side w hat wras said there, as our present task is to consider w hat are the causes through which each animal isas I there described it (646 a 7 foil.). The title ought therefore to be 4 O f the Causes o f the Paris o f Animals, and this is the title actually applied to it by Aristotle himself (at De gen. an. 782 a 21).a Even so, the w'ord 44 parts is misleading : it includes not only what w e call parts, such as limbs and organs, but also constituents such as blood and marrow.6 Perhaps, therefore, no harm is done by leaving the accepted (and convenient) Latin title untranslated.

Zoological The De partibus, as wrell as the other treatises works- contained in this volume, forms a portion o f Aris

totles zoological w orks. The foundation o f these is the Historia animalium, or Researches about Animals, in nine books (the tenth is generally held to be

0 For the meaning of Cause see note below, p. 24. b See note on part below, p. 28.

8

PARTS OF ANIMALS

spurious), in which observations are recorded, and consequent upon this are the treatises in which Aristotle puts forward theories founded upon these observations.

An animal is, according to Aristotle, a 44 concrete entity made up o f *' matter and form. Hence, in the De partibus Aristotle treats o f the causes on account o f which the bodies the matter of animals are shaped and constructed as they are, in genera l; in the De incessu he deals specially with the parts that subserve locomotion. In the De anima he proceeds to consider Soul the form o f an animal. In the remaining treatises, o f which De motu, included in this volume, is one, he deals with what he calls the functions 44 common to body and Soul, among which he includes sensation, memory, appetite, pleasure, pain, waking, sleeping, respiration, and so forth (see De sensu 436 a). The complete scheme is set out below :

I. Record o f observations.Historia animalium. 10 (9) books.

II. Theory based upon observations.

De partibusanimalium 4 books

1 treating o f the way in

books o f animals is ar-which the matter

ranged to subserveDe incessu

animalium

(6) De anima S books*! o f animals the[treating o f the form

[ Soul.

9

ARISTOTLE

Date of composi

tion.

PARTS OF ANIMALS

mcnt, which cannot be dealt with here. I t may, however, be remarked that, as Thompson said, it would follow that we might legitimately proceed to interpret Aristotles more strictly philosophical work in the light o f his work in natural history. But apart from these considerations, the great importance o f the zoological works is that they represent the first attempt in Europe to observe and describe in a scientific way the individual living object.

Throughout the De partibus Aristotle endeavours to Teleology, provide a Final Cause to explain the facts which he records some purpose which they are supposed to answer ; and Causes o f this sort are by far the most common in his treatise. His outlook is therefore justly described as teleological ; but it is important not to read too much into this description. Aristotle is never tired o f telling us that Nature makes nothing and does nothing without a purpose ; but i f we ask what that purpose is we may find that the answer is not quite what we had expected.Platos notion o f the form tended to divert his attention from individuals through a hierarchy o f successive forms ; but for Aristotle form is not independent o f matter : form must be embodied in some matter, that is, in individuals. Thus we find all through that Aristotle cannot long keep his eyes from the individual wherein the form is actually embodied, because it, after all, is the End, the crowning achievement o f the efforts o f the four Causes. This outlook controls the arrangement o f Aristotles treatise. Since all processes o f production are determined by the nature o f the product which is to result from them, it is the fully developed product which we must first make it our business to observe,

The four Causes are dealt with in a separate note, p. 24.11

ARISTOTLE

Synopsisand

Summary.

and when we have discovered what are its actual characteristics we may then go on to work out its Causes and to examine the processes by which it was produced.

I give a brief synopsis and a contents-summary o f the De partibus :

BRIEF SYNOPSIS OF D E PARTIBUS

Introduction: Methods.

Composition of Substances : Three modes :(1) The primary substances.(2) The uniform parts.(3) The non-uniform parts.

Consideration of (1) Hot, cold, solid, fluid.(2) Uniform parts : (a) fluid, (6) solid.(3) Non-uniform parts, as follows :

External parts of animals.Internal parts of blooded animals.Internal parts of bloodless animals.External parts of bloodless animals.External parts of blooded animals (resumed).

(a) Vivipara. (b) Ovipara.

SUMMARY

B ook I.639 a 15 ch. 1 Introduction. On the Method o f Natural

Science.

Two questions propounded :(1) Are we to begin with the ultimate

species and describe its characteristics, or with those that are common to many species ?

12

PARTS OF ANIMALS

639 b 8

640 b 17

640 b 30

(2) (Put in three ways):(a) Are we to take first the phenomena,

and then proceed to their Causes ?(b) Which is the primary Cause, the

Final or the Efficient (Motive) ? (Answered immediately: The Final; with a reference also to the influence of Necessity.)

(c) Are we to discuss first the processes by which the animal is formed, or the characteristics of it in its completed state ?

Answer to question (2).We must begin with the phenomena,

then go on to the Causes, and the formative processesor, in other words, the Final Cause concerns us first and foremost. This differs from the practice of the early philosophers, who concerned themselves with the Material Cause, though sometimes also with the Efficient (Motive) Cause. We must begin at the End, not at the beginning.

Thus we must consider not merely the primary substances, but the uniform parts, which are made out of them, and also the non-uniform parts. In doing this, we shall be paying attention to the Formal Cause, which is more important than the Material Cause: the animal as a finished whole is more significant than the substances out of which it was made.

But mere form or shape is not enough : shaped matter is not an animal. Form in its full and true sense involves Soul : ** Soul somehow is the animal's Efficient and Final Cause. Actually, it is not Soul in its entirety, but

13

ARISTOTLE

641 b 10

642 a 1

some portion of Soul which fulfils this office.

Thus the universe and the living objects in it are the products of something analogous to human art: they are controlled by a Final Cause.

But Necessity also has its place in the universe

not (1) absolute necessity nor (2) coercive necessity but (3) 41 conditional necessity.

These two Causes, the Final Cause and Necessity, set the stage for our piece.

642 b 5 ch. 2

644 a 11 ch.4

Criticisms of dichotomy as a method of classification of animals.The correct method of classification is by groups, such as Birds and Fishes.

644 a 23 Answer to question (1).We must deal with groups, not species (e.g. Bird, not Crane), and where a species does not belong to a larger group, we must deal with species, not individuals (e.g. Man, not Socrates).

644 b 21 ch. 5 An Exhortation to the study of animals.

645 b l Final summary of the Method, combining answers to both the original questions :(1) First we discuss the attributes common

to a group;(2) Then we give the explanation of them.

B ook II.646 a 8 ch. 1 Purpose and outline of the Treatise : Our

subject is the causes of the parts of animals.

14

PARTS OF ANIMALS

646 a 13

647 a 3

647 a 25

647 b 10 ch. 2

648 a 20

649 b 9

651 a 20 ch. 5651 b 20 ch. 6652 a 24 ch. 7653 b 19 ch. 8

ch. 10

Three modes o f composition :(1) Oat of the elements or dynameis

(hot, cold, fluid, solid).(2) The uniform parts (bone, flesh, etc.).(3) The non-uniform parts (face, hand,

etc.).The relation of them to each other, and the way in which the Causes control this relation.Parts may be divided into :(a) Instrumental parts (non-uniform).(b) Media of sensation (uniform).The faculty of sensation has its seat in the heart, which is thus uniform; but it is also non-uniform, as it has to do with motion.The uniform parts, generally. Variations occur in each of them, as is illustrated by the example of Blood.Resumption of the Three modes o f composition :(1) The primary substances : meaning of

hot, cold, solid," fluid, with special reference to Blood. This merges into a discussion of

(2) The Uniform parts.Blood. Fibres. Intelligence and sensitivity, and temperament generally. Serum.Lard and Suet (forms of Blood). Marrow (a form of Blood).The Brain.Fleshthe part " p a r excellence and its counterpart.Bones, and their counterparts, and parts similar to Bone.

(3) The Non-uniform parts of animals. (This occupies the rest of the work.)

15

655 b 28

656 a 14657 a 12 ch. 11657 a 25 ch. 13

658 b 27 ch. 16659 b 20660 a 14 ch.17

B ook III.661 a 34 ch. 1 661 b 27662 a 16 662 a 34662 b 23 ch. 2 664 a 13 ch.3664 a 36664 b 20

665 a 27 eh. 4

665 b 5667 b 15 ch.5

668 b 33 ch. 6669 b 13 ch. 7

670 b 32 ch. 8671 a 26 ch. 9672 b 8 ch. 10673 b 4 ch. 11673 b 12 ch. 12

674 a 9 ch. 14675 b 29676 a 7 ch. 15

B ook IV. 676 a 23 ch. 1 16

General statement of the three organs indispensable to animals.Head : Brain. Sense-organs.

Ears.Eyes, etc. (ch. 14 : Eyelashes and digression on Hair). Nostrils (esp. the Elephant's). Lips.Tongue.

Teeth.(Note on the more and less.") Mouth.Beak.Horns.

Neck : Oesophagus.Larynx and windpipe. Epiglottis.

ARISTOTLE

Internal Parts of Blooded Animals: Viscera:

Heart.Blood-vessels (Great Blood-vessel and Aorta, and generally).Lung.(Why viscera are double, and other remarks.) Liver and Spleen.Bladder.Kidneys.Diaphragm.Membranes.Variations in the Viscera (Liver and

Spleen).Stomach and Intestines.Jejunum.Rennet.

General. Internal parts of Ovipara.

PARTS OF ANIMALS

676 b 16 677 b 15 677 b 37

678 a 27

681 a 10

682 a 30682 a 35683 b 4683 b 25684 b 7

685 b 30

686 a 6 686 a 24

687 a 2

688 a 12689 a 4689 b 2690 a 5 690 b 12 690 b 18 692 b 4 695 b 2

cli. 2 Gall-bladder and Bile, ch. 3 Omentum, ch. 4 Mesentery.

ch. 5 Internal Parts of Bloodless Animals (Insects, Testacea, Crustacea, Cephalo- pods). With special reference to the Sepia's ink, and the Sea-urchin's ova."

Creatures intermediate between animals and plants.

External Parts of Bloodless Animals: ch. 6 O f Insects, ch. 7 O f Testacea. ch. 8 O f Crustacea, ch. 9 O f Cephalopods.

ch. 10 External Parts of Blooded Animals: (a) Vivipara, (b) Ovipara.() Vivipara:

Head and Neck.Hands and Feet and relative proportion of limbs. Beginning from Man, whose position is upright, there is a gradation of declivity in the animals, continuing to the plants, which are upside-down.Natures habit in assignment of organs. The structure of the human hand, etc. Breast.Excretory organs.Rear parts.Hoofs, hucklebones, etc.

() Ovipara:(i) Serpents and Quadrupeds.(ii) Birds.(iii) Fishes.

17

ARISTOTLE

697 a 15 (c) Intermediate Creatures:Cetacea.Seals and Bats. Ostrich.

697 b 27 Conclusion.

Method of A glance at the summary will show clearly the fiction* or^er o f subjects which Aristotle lays down in the

first book to be followed in a treatise such as the one in which he is engaged.

First, (A ) to describe the parts o f animals as they are observed to be ; and

then, (B) to give an account o f their causes, and their formative processes.0

Under (A ) the order o f preference is to be : first, the parts ( 1) common to all animals ; (2) where neccssary, those common to a group o f animals only ; and lastly, (3) in exceptional instances, those peculiar to a single species.

Also, it will be seen how Aristotle works out this scheme in the three books which follow. Before considering that, however, we should notice that Aristotle has a great deal to say about the correct classification o f animals or rather, against the incorrect classification o f them. Chiefly, he inveighs against the method o f dichotomy ; and his chief objection to it is a simple and effective one that it does not work. It forces us to assign to each species one distinguishing mark, and one only (642 b 21 643 a 24). And it cuts off kindred species from each other on the strength o f some quite subordinate

De partibus is concerned chiefly with the causes and less k with the processes.

18

PARTS OF ANIMALS

characteristic (642 b 10 foil.). The right method, says Aristotle, is to follow popular usage and divide the animals up into well-defined groups such as Birds and Fishes. And this leads him to distinguish two stages o f difference :

() Cases in which the parts differ ** by excess or defect as in different species o f the same genus or group.

() Cases in which the resemblance is merely one o f analogy as in different genera.

Examples o f (a) : differences o f colour and shape ;many or few ; large or small ; smooth or rough ; e.g. soft and firm flesh, long and short bill, many or fewr feathers.

(b) bone and fish-spine ; nail and h oo f; hand and claw ; scale and feather.

(Reff. for the above, De part. an. 644 a 11-b 15 ; Hist, an. 486 a 15-b 21. See also Gen. An. (Loeb), Introd.)

The doctrine o f differences o f " excess and defect, or, as Aristotle also calls them, o f the more and less, may usefully be compared with that which underlies the modern theory o f Transformations, and the comparison of related forms. Indeed, Professor D Arcy Thompson asserts that " it is precisely . . . this Aristotelian * excess and d e fec t ' in the case o f form which our co-ordinate method is especially adapted to analyse, and to reveal and demonstrate as the main cause o f w hat (again in the Aristotelian sense) we term * specific * differences ( Growth and

a And of course, into Blooded and Bloodless, though there are, as Aristotle points out, no popular names for these groups.

19

The morn and less.

ARISTOTLE

Form , p. 726). The co-ordinates to which he refers are those o f the Cartesian method, on which is based the theory o f Transformations. By means o f them it is possible to exhibit, say, the cannon-bones o f the ox, the sheep, and the giraffe as strictly proportionate and successive deformations o f one and the same form. These deformations can be either simple elongations, as in the instance just cited, or they may occur according to an oblique or a radial system o f coordinates, etc. In this way, differences o f excess and defe'ct are reduced to the terminology of mathematics ; and it is especially interesting to notice this, as the phrase excess and defect itself had, in the Greek of Aristotles time, a mathematical connexion. W ith it may be compared the well- known Platonic phrase, the great and small. But this is not the place to enlarge upon such topics.6

CUssifica- To return to Aristotles classification. W e find 2 f that he implements his preliminary outline in the

following way :

I. First, he treats o f the parts which are found in many different groups o f animals, and also those wliich are to be considered counterparts o f each other in different groups. This corresponds to A ( 1) above.

II . As he proceeds with this, he comes to the Viscera, which occur only in blooded animals. This provides a convenient point for embarking upon his second main division corresponding

For details see DArcy Thompson, op. cit. ch. xvii.6 The reader is referred to A. E. Taylor, Forms and

Numbers, in Mind, xxxv. 419 foil. ; xxxvi. 12 foil. ; DArcy Thompson, Excess and Defect, in Mind, xxxviii. 43 foil.

e By viscera Ar. means the blood-like ones only.20

PARTS OF ANIMALS

to A (2) above the parts common to a group o f animals, and we have firs t:The Internal Paris o f Blooded Animals.

I I I . This is followed byThe Internal Parts o f Bloodless Animals. Then,

IV . The External Paris o f Bloodless Animals. Then,V. The External Parts o f Blooded Animals,

which includes

(a) Vivipara.(b) Ovipara.

(i) Serpents and Quadrupeds.(ii) Birds.

(iii) Fishes.(c) Intermediate Creatures.

References to exceptional instances, as to Man, corresponding to the division A (3) above, are o f course to be found throughout the work.

Aristotle thus works out the main lines o f his classification. And in each instance, where possible, he endeavours to assign the Cause, to name the purpose, which is responsible for the parts as he describes them. This corresponds to (B) above.

And here Aristotle is forced to admit an apparent Necessity, addition to his scheme o f Causes. The purpose, the good End, the final Cause, cannot always get a free hand. There is another Cause, Necessity. Aristotle takes great care to explain what is the nature o f this Necessity (64*2 a 2 foil.). It is what he calls Necessity ex hypothesis or conditional Necessity, the sort o f Necessity which is implied by any final Cause being what it is. I f a piece o f wood is to be split by an axe, the axe must ex hypothesi be hard and sharp, and that necessitates the use o f bronze or

21

ARISTOTLE

iron in the making o f it. The same sort o f Necessity applies in the works o f Nature, for the living body itself is an instrument. I t is thus the final Cause which necessitates the various stages o f the process o f formation and the use o f such and such material.

Another kind o f Necessity, however, makes its appearance in Natural objects, and that is simple Necessity. The mere presence o f certain things in a living organism entails o f necessity the presence of others (see 645 b 32, 677 a 17, b 22). Some results follow inevitably from the very nature o f the material used. This simple Necessity can therefore be regarded as a reassertion o f themselves by the motive and material Causes as against the final Cause. Sometimes, however, even in circumstances where simple Necessity operates, Nature is able to use the resulting products to subserve a final Cause (663 b 22, 32, 677 a 15 ; see also the note on Residues, p. 32). C f Gen. An. (Loeb ), Introd. 6-9.

Scheme of The following table will show at a glance the animals. scjieme Animals as treated o f by Aristotle in the

De partibus :

A . B l o o d e d A n im a l s

ManViviparous quadrupeds

Oviparous quadrupeds

B. B lo o d le ss A n im a l s

and footless animals (reptiles and amphi-

Insects

Testacea

Crustacea

Cephalopods

bians)

Birds

Fishes

22 See Be gen. an. 778 b 1,

PARTS OF ANIMALS

Intermediate Intermediatebetween the above classes

between land and water between animals andanimals plants

Cetacea AscidiansSeals Sponges

between quadrupeds and birds

HolothuriaAcalephae

BatsOstrich

Note on the Four Classes o f Bloodless Animals. These, in order o f increasing softness, as noted above, are the following ( I give the Greek term, its literal translation, and the term which I have used to translate it in this volume) :

tcl Ivro fia insected animals Inscctsra oo-rpaKoSfpfia shell-skinned animals Testaceara fmkaKo&TpaKa soft-shelled animals Crustaceara iw.Xa.Kia softies Cephalopods

In using Testacea to translate ra oo-rpaKoSepim ( the animals with earthenware skins ), I use it in the old-fashioned sense, so as to include a number o f shelled invertebrates, comprising Gastero- pods, Lamellibranchs, and some Echinoderms. I t does not refer to the Testacea o f modern zoologists, by whom the term is applied to the Foraminifera which are shelled Protozoa. The word Ostraco- derms (a transliteration o f Aristotles word) is now given by zoologists to a group o f primitive fossil fishes.

23

ARISTOTLE

Technicalterms.

T e r m in o l o g y

The following notes on some o f the more difficult and important o f the technical terms used by Aristotle in the De partibus will, I hope, help to explain my translation and also to give some indication o f the background o f Aristotles thought. (A fuller account will be found in De Gen. An., Loeb edn.)

A It la, cause.I retain the traditional translation cause,

although perhaps in some contexts reason may be a closer rendering, but a variation in the English term might well produce more confusion than clarity. To know, says Aristotle, is to know by means of Causes (see Anal, post, 94 a 20). A thing is explained when you know its Causes. And a Cause is that which is responsible, in any o f four senses, for a things existence. The four Causes, o f which two are mentioned very near the beginning o f the first book (639 b 11), are :( 1) The Final Cause, the End or Object towards

which a formative process advances, and f o r the sake o f which it advances the logos, the rational purpose.

(2) The Motive (or Efficient) Cause, the agent which is responsible for having set the process in motion ; it is that by ivhich the thing is made.

(3) The Formal Cause, or Form, which is responsible for the character o f the course which the process follows (this also is described as the logos, expressing jrhat the thing is).

(4*) The Material Cause, or Matter, out o f ivhich the thing is made.

24

PARTS OF ANIMALS

It will be seen that the first three Causes tend naturally to coalesce under the aegis o f the Formal Cause, in opposition to the fourth, the Material Cause, a contrast which is clearly put by Adam o f St. Victor in one o f his hymns :

effectiva vel formalis causa Deus, etjinalis>

sed numquam materia.

Hence, o f course, comes the regular contrast o f form and matter, in which, oddly enough, in modern usage the two terms have almost exchanged meanings. Mere form, empty form, in contrast with the real matter, are phrases which indicate a point o f view very different from that o f Aristotle. An equally drastic reversal o f meaning has overtaken the term substance, as controversies on transubstantiation, and the existence o f the word unsubstantial prove. Cause has certainly been more fortunate ; but its meaning has been narrowed down, so that cause now usually suggests the efficient cause only. A t the same time, we allow ourselves a wider variety o f efficient causes than Aristotle, and are more ready to admit actions and events or even series o f actions and events. W e have, in fact, applied Aristotles precise termin- ology to the wider uses o f everyday non-technical purposes. For Aristotle, the doctrine o f the Four Causes provides an exhaustive and precise classification o f the things w hich can be responsible for another thing's existence, and by the naming o f them the thing can be completely accounted for.

As an illustration the following will serve. Suppose the object to be explained is an oak. The

25

ARISTOTLE

chronological order o f the Causes is different from their logical one.

(i.) The Motive Cause: the parent oak which produced the acorn.

(ii.) The Material Cause: the acorn and its nourishment.

(iii.) The Formal Cause. The acorn as it grew into a tree followed a process o f development which had the definite character proper to oaks.

(iv.) The Final Cause : the end towards which the process advanced, the perfected oak-tree.

Aoyos.

There are several places in the De partibus where, rather than represent \oyo? by an inadequate or misleading word, I have transliterated it by logos. This serves the very useful purpose o f reminding the reader that here is a term o f very varied meanings, a term which brings into mind a number o f correlated conceptions, o f which one or another may be uppermost in a particular case. I t is an assistance i f we bear in mind that underlying the verb \kyetv, as it is most frequently used, is the conception o f rational utterance or expression, and the same is to be found with \oyos, the noun derived from the same root. Aoyos can signify, simply, something spoken or uttered; or, with more prominence given to the rationality o f the utterance, it can signify a rational explanation, expressive o f a thing s nature, o f the plan o f i t ; and from this come the further meanings o f principle, or law, and also o f definition, or formula , as expressing 26

PARTS OF ANIMALS

the structure or character o f the object defined. (Note here the application o f the term logos to the Final and Formal Causes, reeorded in the foregoing note.) Another common meaning is seen especially in the use o f the dative Aoya> (cf. the verb Aoyt( o/juxi and its noun) by reasoning, in thought, as opposed to fact or action. (See 640 a 32, A rt is the Aoyos rou iipyov o avev ti}s vA>/s; at 646 b 2 we read of the Aoyos o f a process o f formation sueh as building, and the Aoyos o f the house which is b u ilt ; at 67S a 35 o f the Aoyos which defines the essence o f something, and at 695 b 19 o f the Aoyos o f the essence. A t 639 b 15 the Cause for the sake o f which the Final Cause is described as being a Aoyos.)

ri'

ARISTOTLE

which is to be built out o f them, but they and not it come first in the order o f time and fact. Aristotle sums this up by saying that what comes last in the process comes first in nature (646 a 25).

Mo/nov, ** part.

The term which occurs in the title o f the treatise and is traditionally rendered part includes more than is normally included in the English part o f the body. For instance, this would not normally be applied to blood, but the term fiopiov is applied by Aristotle to all the constituent substances o f the body as well as to the limbs and organs. For him, blood is one o f the fxopia (648 a 2 ; see also 664 a 9, 690 a 8). A striking instance o f the use o f fxopiov in this sense is the phrase ra ofxoiofieprj fiopia, which are the subject o f the next following note.

Ta ofioiofieprj jxopia, the uniform parts.Ta dvofioioficpyj fxopia, ,c the non-uniform parts.

Aristotles application o f the term fiopiov to both these classes emphasizes the inclusiveness o f its meaning. As examples o f the uniform parts he mentions (647 b 10) blood, serum, lard, suet, marrow, semen, bile, milk, flesh these are soft and fluid ones ; also bone, fish-spine, sinew, blood-vessel these are hard and solid ones. O f non-uniform parts he gives as examples (640 b 20) face, hand, foot.

The relation o f the uniform parts to the non- uniform he describes as follows (647 b 22 foil.) :

For the meaning of fluid and solid see below, p. 32.

PARTS OF ANIMALS

(a) some o f the uniform are the material out o f which the non-uniform are made (i.e. each instrumental part is made out of bones, sinews, flesh, etc.) ;

(b) some act as the nutriment o f (a) ;(c) some are the residue o f (6) faeces, urine.

It is not possible to equate the two classes with the later division into tissues and organs, since blood, for instance, though 41 uniform, is not a tissue ; the term organs, however, corresponds closely with Aristotle's own description ra opyaviKa fxcprj (647 b 23), instrumental parts.

The practical difference between the two classes is that each o f the uniform parts has its o w ti definite character as a substajice (in the modern sense), while cach o f the non-uniform parts has its own definite character as a conformation or organ. The heart is the only part which belongs to both classes (647 a 25 fo il. ): it consists o f one uniform part only, namely, flesh ; but it also has essentially a definite configuration, and thus it is a non-uniform part.

Three stages or degrees of composition, so far as biology is concerned, are enumerated by Aristotle (at 646 a 13 foil.). What Aristotle seems to mean, though he has not expressed himself quite clearly, is that there are three stages involved in the composition of compound bodies, namely,

( 1) the Swazis (see following note) ;(2) the uniform parts ;(3) the non-uniform parts ;

and finally, o f course, out o f the non-uniform parts

(4) the animal itself is composed.29

ARISTOTLE

We have thus:( 1) the simplest sorts of matter ;(2) the simplest organic substances compounded

out of the foregoing (having no definite size, shape, or structure) ;

(3) the instrumental parts of the body constructed out of the foregoing (having definite size, shape, and structure) ; and

(4) the organism as a 'whole, assembled out of the foregoing.

Note. For a description of the way in which the term Ta o/xoto/xc/??} has caused confusion in the accounts of Anaxagoras's theories see Class. Qu., 1931, xxv. 34 following.

Aipa fits*This is one of the most difficult terms to render in

English.

The specialized meaning of Svra/x, potentially, as opposed to cvtpycla, actually, is so well known that there is no need to enlarge upon it here. Nor need I discuss the mathematical meaning of Svvapis. Other meanings need some comment.

( 1) Avva/us was the old technical term for what were later to be called c t t o ( e l e m e n t s ) . It appears in the writings of the Hippocratic corpus and in Platos Timaeus. The best example of its use in De partibus is at the beginning of Book II. (646 a 15). The list of Swdptis included the substances known as to vypov, to i//>oi', to Oepfiov, to \pv\pov, to 7-tKpov, to ykvKv, to Spi/xv, etc., etc. Only the first four of these were regarded by Aristotle as 30

PARTS OF ANIMALS

the material o f compound bodies : all the " other differences, he says, are consequent upon these.

The original meaning underlying this usage o f the term seems to have been strong substance o f a particular character/ This would be very appropriate to t o SpifiVy t o TriK p ovy etc. (see IIept dpxa(r)$ n^ TpLKTjs). There is no notion here o f the substance having power in the sense o f power to affect an external body in a particular way. (This meaning developed later.) I f any effect did result, it would be described simply as the presence o f the strong substance, and the remedy for it was to concoct the strong substance or otherwise to bring it into a harmless condition by blending it with other substances.

(2) As each o f the substances known as Wa/iets has its own peculiar character, sharply marked off from the others, the meaning o f peculiar and distinctive character was naturally associated with the term. This seems to be its meaning in 655 b 12 :

d i 'd y K i ]* Sc Tuvra TTarra ytutSr] k u \ orc/xai' \et tyjv (fiiwiv o7tAov yap avry Svi'aftis. Indeed, in this meaning, Svvapis seems to be a slightly more emphatic version o f

ARISTOTLE

657 a 4 1) twv pvKTrjpuiV Svvapis Sufrvrjs.

This is paralleled by a similar usage o f v

PARTS OF ANIMALS

as being more literal and at the same time less misleading than excrement/ Surplus would have been even better i f the word had been a little more manageable.

Residue is so called because it is that wliich is left over when the living organism, by acting upon the nutriment which it has taken, has provided itself with a sufficient supply for its upkeep. Some o f the surplus will be useless material contained in the food from the outset, or else has been produced during the process o f reducing the food into a condition suitable for its purposes in the body. The useless residues include the excrements. In order to appreciate the status o f the useful residues the outlines o f the processes through which the food passes must be kept clearly in mind. Briefly, then, the food is masticated in the mouth, then passed on to the stomach and then the heart, where it is concocted a by means o f heat in other words, it is turned into blood, which is the 44 ultimate nourishment ; and this, when distributed into the blood-vessels, supplies the body with nutrition. Generally, however, more blood is produced than is necessary for the actual upkeep o f the body, and this surplus undergoes a further stage o f concoction, and is used by Nature in various ways. Marrow' is a residue ; so are semen, catamenia, milk. Sometimes, wiien nutrition is specially abundant, the surplus blood is concocted into fat (lard and suet). And some o f the blood, reaching the extremities o f the vessels in which it travels, makes its wray out in the form o f nails, claws, or hair. The Aristotelian doctrine o f residues came down to Shakespeare, as is shown by the passage

0 See page 34.33

ARISTOTLE

in Hamlet ( h i . iv.) where the Queen says to H am let:

Your bedded haire, like life in excrements,Start up, and stand an end.

This theory, as applied to hair, is expounded by Aristotle at 658 b 14 following, and modern biochemists have reason for believing that some pigmentation in animals, such as the black melanin o f mammalian hair, or the yellow xanthopterine o f the butterflys wing, is physiologically a form o f excretion.

Concoct coficoction.

These terms, which have already appeared in these notes, are used to translate Triororciv, irexfns, The Greek words are the same as those employed to denote the process o f ripening or maturing o f fruit, corn, and the like by means o f heat also that o f baking and cooking.

Terms sometimes associated with these are and /xtrapaAAetv. For example, at 650 a 5 wre read that 7T\J/is and jturafioXi) take place Sia tvJs to? Oep/iov Bvvdfiem; and at 651 b 26, as the creatures grow and get matured, the parts fitTafidkXec their colour, and so do the viscera.

Vvxn , Soul.

The English word Soul, as will be seen, overemphasizes, when compared with certain aspects o f the Greek term, but it is by far the most convenient rendering, and I have used it in preference to life or vital principle.

I t will be useful to have an outline o f Aristotles general doctrine about Soul.

The different parts or faculties o f Soul can34

PARTS OF ANIMALS

be arranged in a series in a definite order, so that the possession o f any one o f them implies the possession o f all those which precede it in the list :

( 1) nutritive Soul in all plants(2) sentient Soul in all animals

!S) appetitive Soul 1 ,4) locomotive Soul ) ln so,ne ammals(5) rational Soul in man onlyA t 641 a 23 Aristotle speaks o f parts o f the

Soul, and though he often uses this phrase, the description he prefers is faculties. In the passage which follows (641 a 33 foil.) all except appetitive Soul are mentioned. Sentient Soul is mentioned again at 650 b 24, 667 b 23, 672 b 16.

Aristotle raises the question whether it is the business o f Natural science to deal with Soul in its entirety, and concludes that it is not necessary, since man is the only animal in which rational Soul is found. Thus it is only some part or parts o f Soul, and not Soul in its entirety, which constitute animal nature.

In the passage 641 a 14 following, Aristotle takes for granted his doctrine about Soul, which is as follows (De anima, Book II.). Animate bodies, bodies with Soul in them (eji\pv\a), are concrete substances made up o f matter and form. In this partnership, o f course, the body is the matter and the Soul is the form. Thus Soul may be described as the form or realization (ei'reAf\;iu, actuality ) o f the animal (cf. De part., loc. cit.).

This statement, however, is elsewhere made more precise. It is possible to distinguish Ijvo realizations o f an animal; for an animal has Soul in i t

b 2 35

ARISTOTLE

even when it is asleep, but its full activity is not evident until it is awake and about its business. W e must call Soul, then, the first realization o f the animal, its waking life its second realization. This distinction does not concern us in the De partibus. But an expansion o f the definition is not irrelevant. Aristotle states that the Soul is the first realization o f a body furnished with organs. The priority o f Soul over body is emphasized in the passage just referred to (640 b 23 641 a 32), and in another interesting passage (687 a 8 foil.) Aristotle maintains that man has hands because he is the most intelligent animal, and not, as some have said, the most intelligent animal becausc he has hands.

W ith this is connected the question whether the Soul is independent o f the body ; though it is not raised in De partibus. As we have seen already, a fcoov is a single concretc entity made up o f Soul and body, i.e. a certain form implanted in certain matter. The matter can exist, for it did exist, apart from the form ; and as the form that is implanted in all the individuals o f a species is one and the same form, clearly it can exist apart from any one individuals matter though o f course its existence is not independent o f all the individuals matter. Furthermore, the form the Soul requires matter o f a particular kind : not any sort o f matter will do. From these considerations two conclusions seem to follow : ( 1) that transmigration is impossible : a human Soul cannot function in a hyenas body, any more than the carpenters art can be executed by means o f musical instruments ; (2) the Soul cannot function without a body at a l l ; cannot, we may say, exist (414 a 19).

PARTS OF ANIMALS

So far, so good. But Aristotle is not satisfied. He feels the Soul is more than that. He finds a loophole. There may be some part o f Soul (the rational part) which is not the realization o f any body. The Soul, besides being the form, the formal Cause, o f the body, is also its final Cause, and not only that, but the motive Cause too o f all the changes originated in the body (D e anima 415 b 7-28), for, as we saw (p. 25), the three non-material Causes tend to coalesce into one. This independent part o f Soul ** comes into the body from without (see De gen. an. 736 b 25 foil.) and continues to exist after the death o f the body (see De anima 413 a 6, b 24 foil., 430 a 22, etc.). A ll ,this, however, raises problems not touched upon in De pariibus; indeed Aristotle himself offers no solution o f them.

K p a v is 9 a iro K p K rts,

ARISTOTLE

found in the Soul in different individuals, and upon the Blend its health and sensitivity a depend.

W ith these statements may be compared the following passages in De partibus :

652 b 8 Some, says Aristotle, maintain that the Soul is flic ; but it is better to say that it subsists in some such material. " The hot is indeed the most serviceable material for the functions which the Soul has to perform, and these include nourishing and causing motion.

647 b 30 foil. Here is a reference to the different varieties o f blood, and Aristotle tells us which sort o f blood is alo-OyjTLKoWepov and which animals are on that account povijXMTpa ( c f 650 b 24 and 686 b 28). The phrase aifxaros Kpacris is actually used at 686 a 9* (C f. also 650 b 29, the Kpao-is in the heart; 652 b 35, the parts in the head are colder than the o-vp.- fXTpos Kpao'is ; 669 a 11, the Kpacris o f the body ; 673 b 26, its eiKpacrta.)

The term crriT?;is, which occurs frequently in the IIc/h Siarn/s, is found only once in the De partibus at 677 a 14 bile is said to be a residue or crrm/fis. Properly speaking,

PARTS OF ANIMALS

unhealthy d7r6Kpi(ri

ARISTOTLE

435, Ibas, who in that year was made Bishop o f Edessa, had translated into Syriac the commentaries o f Theodore on the works o f Aristotle. Jacob, one o f Ibass successors at Edessa (d. 708), translated the Categories into Syriac, but a much earlier version had been made by Sergios o f Resh 'Aina (d. 536), who had studied Greek at Alexandria. In 765 the Nes- torian physician Georgios was summoned to Bagdad by the Caliph, and translated numerous Greek words into Arabic for him. By the beginning o f the ninth century, translation was in full swing at Bagdad, under the Caliphate o f al-Mamun (8 13 -83 3 ), son of Harun-al-Rashid. The first leader o f this school o f translators was the physician Ibn al-Batriq, who translated the Historia animalium, the De partibus animalium, and the De generatione animalium into Arabic.

But it was through southern Italy, Sicily and Spain that the transmission o f Aristotle's works from the Arabic into Latin was effected. Messina had been recovered from the Saracens by 1060, and the whole o f Sicily was freed by 1091. Under the Norman kings, Greeks, Saracens and Latins lived together in one community, and the court was the meeting- ground for eminent persons o f all nations and languages. The reconquest o f Spain had begun in the eighth century, so that here also an opportunity offered for making the works o f Greek science available in Latin. Archbishop Raymond o f Toledo (1126-1151 ) and Bishop Michael o f Tarazona (1119- 1151) were the patrons o f the translators, who made Toledo the centre o f their activity. One o f these was Michael Scot.

There is in existence an Arabic translation o f

40

PARTS OF ANIMALS

the zoological works, o f which there is a m s . in the British Museum. It is probable that this is the translation made by Ibn al-Batriq, and that this Arabic version is the original from which Michael Scot made his Latin translation at Toledo.6 Michael was, among his other accomplishments, astrologer to Frederick II., King o f Sicily, at his court at Palermo, and before 1217 he had reached Toledo and was at work there on his translations from the Arabic. His De animalibus (a translation o f the zoological works in nineteen books) is one o f his earliest works, and two m ss . o f i t c contain a note which gives a later limit o f 1220 for the work. Other evidence d establishes that it was certainly finished before 1217, and it may even be placed in the first decade o f the century. I t is probable that Michael had as collaborator one Andrew, canon o f Palencia, formerly a Jew. One o f the earliest to make use o f M ichaels translations was Robert Grosseteste,* Bishop o f Lincoln (d. 1253), one o f the leading Aristotelian scholars o f the time, who quotes from Michael's version o f

a B.M.Add. 7511 (I3th-llth century). Thjte is the ms. referred to by Steinschneider, Die arabischen Ubersetzungen p. 64. as B.M. 437. I have seen this m s.

b Judging from the passages which Dr. R. Levy kindly read for me in the Arabic ms., the Latin version is a close translation from it. Also, the contents-preface which is found prefixed to Michael Scots translation corresponds exactly with the preface which precedes the Arabic version in this ms. (see the B.M. catalogue, Catalogus codicum manuscript torum orlentalhim, p. 215).

c One o f them is ms. Caius 109, in the library of Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge. It is of the thirteenth century.

d See S. D. Wingate, The Medieval Latin Versions, p. 75. Born at Stradbroke, Suffolk. A Franciscan.

41

ARISTOTLE

De generatione,a The De animalibus also formed the basis o f a commentary in twenty-six books by Albertus Magnus.5 This was probably written soon after the middle o f the thirteenth century. Except for the portions which appear in Albertuss commentary, and the earlier part o f the first chapter,6 M ichaels version has never been printed in extenso. Michael died in or before 1235, and is reputed to have been buried, as he was born, in the lowlands o f Scotland.

About the same time, at the request o f a pupil o f Albertus, St. Thomas Aquinas (1227-1274 ), who required more accurate versions for his commentaries on the works o f Aristotle, new translations, direct from the Greek, were being undertaken by William o f Moerbeke.d William was born about 1215. He became a Dominican, was confessor to Popes ClementIV . and Gregory X., and was Archbishop o f Corinth. H e acted as Greek secretary at the Council o f Lyons in 1274. He died in 12S6. The earliest dated translation made by him is one o f the De partibus animalium. The date 1260 occurs in a m s . o f it at Florence (Fae- sulani 168), which also contains Hist. an.,Deprogressu an., and De gen. an. This translation was made at Thebes.

Among later Latin translators o f the zoological

According to Roger Bacon, Michael appeared at Oxford in 1230, bringing with him the works of Aristotle in natural history and mathematics.

b Ed. princeps, Rome, 1478; latest ed., H. Stadler, 1916-1921.

c 639 a 1640 a 20, printed by G. Furlani in Rivista degli Studi Oriental/, ix. (1922), pp. 246-249.

d A small town south of Ghent on the borders of Flanders and Brabant.42

PARTS OF ANIMALS

works the names of two Greeks must be mentioned.George o f Trebizond (Trapezuntius), who was born in Crete in 1395, visited Italy between 1430 and 1438, and was secretary to the humanist Pope Nicholas V., an ardent Aristotelian. Georges work, however, was hurried and not over-exact, and he, together with his predecessors, was superseded by his contemporary Theodore o f Gaza, who was born in Thessalonica about 1400, and was professor o f Greek at Ferrara in 1447. In 1450 Theodore wras invited by the Pope to go to Rome to make Latin versions o f Aristotle and other Greek authors. His translation o f the zoological w orks," dedicated to the Pope, Sixtus IV ., soon became the standard version, and it is printed in the Berlin edition o f Aristotle.

Translations o f the De gen. wrere made by Augustinus Niphus, o f the University o f Padua (11-73-1546), and o f the De gen. and De incessu by Peter Alcyonius (Venice, 1487-1527). The Degen. was also translated by Andronieus Callixtus o f Byzantium (d. 1478).With the later Latin versions we need not here concern ourselves, but something must be said o f the scientific workers who wrere inspired by Aristotle, and o f the translations into modern languages.

The Renaissance biologists show unmistakably the Aristotles difference in quality which there is between Aristotles successors- physics and his biology. Hieronimo Fabrizio o f Aequapendente (1537-1619) knew and admired Aristotles work on embryology, and wrhat is more, himself carried out further important observations on the same subject. His brilliant successor, William Harvey (1578-1657), wTas a student o f Aristotle, and

a In eighteen books, excluding the spurious tenth book of the Historia animalium.

43

ARISTOTLE

much of his inspiration came from that source. William Harvey was the first to make any substantial advance in embryology sincc Aristotle himself. But this is more appropriate to the De generatione than to the De partibus. In other departments o f study, however, during the seventeenth ccntury, the authority of Aristotle and the scholastic doctrine with which he was identified were being combated in the name o f freedom, and thus it came about that the zoological works also, which had been brought to light by the dark ages, were allowed to pass back into oblivion by the age of enlightenment. They were not rediscovered until the end o f the eighteenth century by Cuvier (1769-1832) and Saint-Hilaire (1805-1895) in the nineteenth.

M o d e r n E d it io n s

1. The Berlin edition of Aristotle, by Immanuel Bekker.Vol. i. (pp. G39-G97) includes P. A. Berlin, 1831.

1a. The Oxford edition (a reprint of the preceding). Vol. v. includes P.A. Oxford, 1837.

2. One-volume edition of Aristotles works, by C. II. Weise(pre-Bekker text). Leipzig, 1843.

3. The Leipzig edition. Vol. v. contains P,A ., edited andtranslated into German by A. von Frantzius. Leipzig, 1853.

4. The Didot edition. Vol. iii. includes P.A. Edited byBussemaker. Paris, 1854.

5. The Teubner edition. Edited by Bernhardt Langkavel.Leipzig, 1868.

G. The Bude edition. Edited by Pierre Louis. With a French translation and notes. Paris, 1956.

T r a n s l a t io n s w it h o u t T e x t

7. Thomas Taylor. English translation of Aristotle in ten 44

PARTS OF ANIMALS

volumes. Vol. vi. includes P. A. (pp. 3-163). London, 1810.

8. F. N. Titze. German translation of Book I. In hisAristoteles uber die wissenschaftliche Behandlungsart der Naturkunde. Prague, 1819.

9. Anton Karsch. German translation. Stuttgart, 1855(second ed., Berlin, 1911).

10. William Ogle. English translation, with notes. London, 1882.

11. J. Barthelemy-Saint-Hilaire. French translation, withnotes. Paris, 1885.

11. William Ogle. English translation, with notes (a revision of No. 10). Oxford 1911.

12. Francisco Gallach Pales. Aristoteles: Obras com-pletas. Vol. X contains De partibus and De incessu animalium. Spanish translation, without notes. Vol. lxii. of Nueva Biblioteca Filosojica. Madrid, 1932.

Langkavel reproduces almost verbatim the Berlin text, together with Bekkers apparatus, to which a great deal o f other matter has been added, including some of Bekkers m s . notes in his copy o f Erasmuss edition, and some corrected reports o f the readings o f the m s . E, which Langkavel himself inspected. Also, there are some emendations proposed by Bonitz.

Any English translator must stand very much indebted to the work o f William Ogle, whose translation, originally published in 1882, was revised by its author and republished in the Oxford series of translations o f Aristotle in 1911. It is not possible to overrate the care and exactness with which this piece of work was executed. I should like here to acknowledge my own indebtedness to it, and I have had its accuracy as a model before me. With regard to style, it will be seen that I have aimed at producing something rather different from O gle s version.

45

ARISTOTLE

T h e T e x t

The mss. The manuscript authorities cited by Bekker for the De partibus will be found on p. 50.

The dates o f some o f the m s s . as given by different scholars vary considerably : for details I refer the reader to the various catalogues, and also to L. Ditt- meyers edition o f Ilist. an. (Leipzig, 1907) and W. W. Jaegers edition o f De an. motu, etc. (Leipzig, 1913).

Restoration I have relied upon the apparatus o f Bekker and of the text. Langkavel for the readings of the Greek m s s ., except

for those of Z, the oldest parts o f which I have collated from photostats ; and at several places I have inspected the m s . itself. In some places (e.g. 663 b 17, 685 a 2, 16) I found the reading had been defectively reported. It is clear that a more reliable collation of the chief m s s . of De partibus is clearly needed. From a different source I have attempted to restore intelligibility to several corrupt passages with the aid of the Arabic version and the Latin version o f Michael Scot, which represent an earlier stage o f the Aristotelian text than our Greek m ss . Among the passages dealt with in this way are the passage at 654 b 14- following, which has been dislocated by glosses and phrases imported from elsewhere, and the remarkable passage about the structure o f the Cephalopods at 684 b 22 following, where considerable havoc has been done to the text by references to a diagram wThich were inserted at some period between the date o f the m s . from which the Arabic version was made and that o f the archetype o f all our present Greek m s s . I have been able to restore this passage, though not always the actual Greek words, by reference to the Arabic version and Michael Scots Latin

46a See additional note on p. 434.

PARTS OF ANIMALS

translation made from it. Dr. Reuben Levy has most kindly read this passage for me in the 13th-14th century Arabic m s . in the British Museum, Add. 7511.

For these two passages, and for a good many other suspected places, I have consulted all the known m s s . o f Michael Scots version which are to be found in this country. They are (excluding m s s . which contain merely abridgements or extracts) :

Cambridge, Gonville and Caius College 109 University Library Ii. 3. 16 ,, ,, Dd. 4.30

Oxford, Merton College 278 Balliol College 252

London, British Museum Royal 12. C. XV Harl. 4970

A ll these are o f the thirteenth or fourteenth century.

I have inspected at test places the following three m s s . o f William o f Moerbekes version :

Oxford, Merton College 270n ji ? 2/1 Balliol College 250

William s translation wras made from a m s . or m s s . w'hich had already been infected by the corruptions found in the Greek m s s . which exist to-day.

I should like here to express my thanks to the Librarians who so kindly made arrangements for me to inspect the m s s . under their care.

Where I have accepted the reading o f the Berlin Scop* of edition, I have not given any record o f the m s . vari- crlucus!18 ants. These are to be found in the apparatus criticus o f that edition and o f Langkavels edition.

So far as I know, this m s . has not been mentioned in any of the published lists of mss. of Michael Scots De animalibus.

47

ARISTOTLE

Punctuation.

Short bibliography.

I have endeavoured, except in the passage 691 b 28 to 695 a 22 in the fourth Book, to record all places where I have departed from the text of the Berlin edition, and I have given the source of the reading which I have adopted. Where Bekker himself introduced a reading different from that of the m s s ., this is attributed to him by name.

I have not recorded all o f the many passages in which I have corrected the punctuation. The text has been reparagraphed throughout.

R eferenceThe following list includes authorities for state

ments made in the Introduction, and books which the student o f the Aristotelian zoological works and their history will find useful:C. II. Haskins, Studies in the History o f Medieval Science,

ed. 2, Cambridge, Mass., 1927.W. Jnegcr, Aristotle (English tr. bv R. Robinson), Oxford,

1934.L. Leclerc, Ilistoire de la medecine arabe, Paris, 1876.T. E. Loncs, Aristotle's Researches in Natural Science,

London, 1912.W. D. Ross, Aristotle, London, 1930.J. E. Sandys, A History o f Classical Scholarship, Cam

bridge, 1908-1921.C. Singer, Studies in the History and Method of Science,

Oxford, 1921.C. Singer, Greek Biology and Greek Medicine, Oxford, 1922. M. Steinschneider, Die arabischen Vbersetzungen aus deni

Griechischen (Beiheft X II. zum Centralblatt fiir Bibliotliekswesen), Leipzig, 1893.

M. Steinschneider, Die europdischen Vbersetzungen aus dein Arabischen, in Sitzungsberichted. kais. Ahad. der Il'iss,, cxlix., Vienna, 1905.

D Arcy W. Thompson, Growth and Form, Cambridge, 1917 (new ed., 1942).

48

PARTS OF ANIMALS

D'Arcy W. Thompson, Essay on Natural Science 99 in The Legacy o f Greece, Oxford, 1924.

S. D. Wingate, The Medieval Latin Versions o f the Aristotelian Scientific Corpus, London, 1931.

F. Wustenfeld, Die Uhersetzungen arahischer Werke in das Lateinische, in Abhandlnngen dcr k. GeselL d. IViss. zu Gottingen, xxii., 1877.

A c k n o w l e d g e m e n t s

It is a great pleasure to acknowledge here the help which I have received from many friends at Cambridge, not only by way o f reading typescript and proof and by discussion, but also by the interest which they have shown in the work and by their continuous encouragement. The following have read the translation either in whole or in p a r t : Prof. F. M. Corn- ford, Professor o f Ancient Philosophy; Dr. F. H. A. Marshall, Reader in Agricultural Physiology (who has also kindly written the Foreword to this volume), and Dr. Joseph Needham, Reader in Biochemistry.I am under a particular obligation to my colleague Mr. H. Rackham, who has read the whole translation both in typescript and in proof. I am indebted to Dr. Sydney Smith and a number o f other friends for their kindness in discussing various points and for reading certain passages. Dr. Reuben Levy, Professor o f Persian, has kindly read for me some passages in the Arabic translation o f the zoological works. To all o f these gentlemen, without wiiose aid the work could not have been earned through,I record my sincerest thanks.

The present (third) edition has again been revised.A. L. P.

July Uth 195249

SlGLA

E Parisinus regius 1853 (see p. 434)Y Vaticanus graecus 261Z Oxoniensis Coll. Corp. Chr. W .A. 2. 7 (see p. 434 U Vaticanus 260 P Vaticanus graecus 1339 S Laurentianus Mediceus 81. 1 Q Marcianus 200 b Parisinus 1859 m Parisinus 1921

Michael Scots Latin version, from my own transcription.The usual reading, as in the Berlin edition.Emendations proposed by Langkavel in his edition.Emendations proposed by William Ogk* in footnotes to his translation. Emendations proposed by Arthur Platt, either (a) in Notes on Aristotle, in Journal o f Philology, 1913, xxxii. 292 following, or (b) recorded by Ogle in footnotes to his translation.

(Suggestions in private communications to me from Professor Cornford and Mr. Rackham.Ch. Thurot, in Rev. Arch., 1867. Emendations proposed by myself.

a Of over 100 textual points, many being of minor importance, raised by Th., about a third had been dealt with in my first edition (before Th.s work came to my notice), M>me of them more fully, by other scholars or myself. Some of Th.s other suggestions have been adopted in this edition.50

vulg.

Langkavel

Ogle

Platt

Cornford j Rackhaml

Th(urot)Peck

The maister Cooke was called Concoction.Spenser, Faerie Queen

API2 TOTEAOT2 riEPI ZS2IGN MOPIflN

A

639 a I le p t T ra a a v d e c o p ia v r e K a l p e O o S o v , o p o la j s

T(L77lVOTpaV T KOLL TlflUOTtpaV , SuO SaLVOVTill

rpOTTOi r f j s e t je a js e l v a i , o j v T ifv p e v i - L G r r j p r j v

t o v T p a y p a r o s K a X co s \ e i T r p o a a y o p e v e i v , t t ] v 5*

5 o t o v T T a ih e ia v T i v a . T r e r r a ih e v p e v o v y a p i a r i K a r a

t p o T ro v t o h v v a a d a i K p i v a i e v a - o x ^ S t L K aXa>s rj p r j

K a \ u )s a -o & lS c o a i v o X e y c o v . t o l o v t o v y a p 8ij r i v a

K a l t o v o X cos r r e T r a iS e v p e v o v o l o p e d * etrat, K a l to

TrcTratScua^at t o h v v a c rd a i r r o ie i v t o e lp r jp e v o v .

T r X r jV TO VTO V fJiV 7T p l 7TaVTOJV COS 17TLV K p l T l K O V 10 T iv a v o p i t o p e v e l v a i e ra t o v a p i d p o v 6 v r a i t o v b e

7rept t l v o s (j>voa>s a < j> w p ia p i\ n js ' e ir j y a p a v T i g

T p o s t o v a v T O V TpoTTov T O ) e lp r fp e v c o h i a K e i p e v o s

77pl f i o p i o v . c5(7T B ijX o V O T l K a l T7)S 77 p l p o jv a -o S e 'fe T a t t o v T p o T ro v t u >v h e i K w -

52

ARISTOTLE

PARTS OF ANIMALS

BO O K I

T h e r e are, as it seems, two ways in which a person may be competent in respect o f any study or investigation, whether it be a noble one or a humble : he may have either what can rightly be called a scientific knowledge o f the subject; or he may have what is roughly described as an educated persons competence, and therefore be able to judge correctly which parts o f an exposition are satisfactory and which are not. That, in fact, is the sort o f person we take the man o f general education to be ; his education consists in the ability to do this. In this case, however, we expect to find in the one individual the ability to judge o f almost all subjects, whereas in the other case the ability is confined to some special science; for o f course it is possible to possess this ability for a limited field only. Hence it is clear that in the investigation o f Nature, or Natural science, as in every other, there must first o f all be certain defined rules by which the acceptability o f the method o f exposition may be tested, apart from whether the statements made

53

A R ISTO TLE

639 w ,,is fievcuv, TOV 7rcos> eXL TaXrjues, ire ovrws

elre aAAcos1. Aeyou S otov 7rorepov Set X a^ a vovras pLLav eKaorrjv ovalav rrepl ravrrjs hiopt^eiv /ca0* avrrjv, otov 7rept avOpwrrov (frvoeais 7} Aeovros' 7) jSoos* 77 /cat rtros* aAAou /ca0* e/cao7*ov 7rpo^etpt^o- fiivovs> rj ra Koivfj ovfifieprjKora Tract Kara rt koivov vrroOe^ievovs 7roAAd yap vnapx^t ravra

20 7roAAot9 yeVeotr erepois ovoiv dXXrjXcov, otov vnros, ara77ro7j, av^rjats, 0lois9 Oavaros, /cat 7rpo? t o J - tols oaa roiavra rcov Xenrofxevcov 7Ta0u>v re /cat Siafle'aeaw a6i)Xov yap /cat aStoptcrroi' eon Aeyetv iw 7rept r o v r w v avepov S ort /cat /cara jiepos ptev Xeyovres rrepl 7toAAojv epovfiev 7roXXaKis ra v ra

25 Kal yap 47777019 /cat /cuot /cat avOpwrrois V7rap^et tcu v slprjjievwv eKaarov, cSore eav /ca0 eKaarov ra GVfx^ePrjKora1 Xeyrj n s , 7roAAa/cts" avayKaoOrjaerai 7rept auran' Ae'yetv, ocra raura /iev vrrapx^i rot? etSet Siaepovoi tojv ip

PARTS OF ANIMALS, I. i.

represent the truth or do not. I mean, for instance, should we take each single species severally by turn (such as Man, or Lion, or Ox, or whatever it may be), and define what we have to say about it, in and by its e lf; or should we first establish as our basis the attributes that are common to all o f them because o f some common character which they possess ? there being many attributes which are identical though they occur in many groups which differ among themselves, e.g. sleep, respiration, growth, decay, death, together with those other remaining affections and conditions which are o f a similar kind. I raise this, for at present discussion o f these matters is an obscure business, lacking any definite scheme. However, thus much is plain, that even i f we discuss them species by species, we shall be giving the same descriptions many times over for many different animals, since every one o f the attributes I mentioned occurs in horses and dogs and human beings alike. Thus, i f our description proceeds by taking the attributes for every species, we shall be obliged to describe the same ones many times over, namely, those which although they occur in different species o f animals are themselves identical and present no difference whatever. Very likely, too, there are other attributes, which, though they come under the same general head, exhibit specific differences ; for example, the locomotion o f animals : o f which there are plainly more species than one e.g. flight, swimming, walking, creeping.

Therefore we must make up our minds about the method o f our investigation and decide whether we will consider first what the whole group has in

55

A R IS TO TLE) b ,

Trepl ra > v Ih lc o v d e c o p r jr e o v , rj K a d e K a a r o v e v O v s .

v v v y a p o i h i i L p ia r a i n e p l a v r o v , ouSe y e t o v v v

p r jO r ja o f i e v o v , o l o v r r o r e p o v K a O a T rep o l fjLaOrjfJLariKol

T a 77e p l r r j v a a r p o X o y l a v S e i K v v o v a i v , o v r c o Set K a l

r o v (f w a iK o v T a ( j )a i v o f i e v a T T p w ro v r a Trepl r a u>a

10 d e c o p r ja a v r a K a l r a fJLepi] r a Trepl e K a a r o v , e n e iO '

o v r c o A e y e i v t o S ia r l K a l r a s a i r l a s , fj a X X cos Trots.

TTpos Se rovro is , eVei TrXeiovs opcbfiev alrLas neplr r j v y e v e a w r r j v (f f v a iK r jv , o l o v r r j v 6 o v e v e K a K a l

r r j v o d e v rj a p \ r j r r j s K iv r ja e tu s , Sto p i a r e o v K a l

T iep l r o v r c o v , r r o ia Trpcorrj K a l Se v r e p a r r e ^ V K e v .

15 (fy a lve ra L Se T rptbrrj f jv Ae y o j i e v e v e K a n v o s Ao y o s

y a p o v r o g , a p x r j S o Aoyo? o f io lc u s e v r e r o t s

K a r a r e y y r j v K a l e v r o t s voei a v v e a r r jK o a i v . rj

y a p r f j S ia v o la rj r f j a la O r ja e t o p i a a j i e v o s o f i e v

l a r p o s r r j v v y i e i a v o S 0iK0&0fJL0s r r j v o iK t a v ,

aTToSiSoaox r o v s X o y o v s Kal rag alrlas o v n o L o v a i ve K a a r o v , K a l StOTt 7r o i r j r e o v o v r c o s * JJl o X X o v S*

20 i a r l t o o 5 e v e K a K a l t o K a X o v e v r o l s r r js vaecos

e p y o i s rj e v r o t s r r j s Te'^v^s. t o S e a v d y K r js

o v T ra a w V T ra p ^ e i r o l s K a r a vaw o f io lc o s , eiIs

a This point is resumed and decided below, 644 a 23 ff.t645 b 2 ff.

b Causes. See Introduction, pp. 24 ff.* Formation. See Introduction, pp. 27 f. d i.e. the final cause. e i.e. the motive or efficient cause.1 See Introduction, pp. 26 f. B Cf. 645 a >4.

56

PARTS OF ANIMALS, I. i.

common, and afterwards the specific peculiarities ; or begin straightway with the particular species. Hitherto this has not been definitely settled. And there is a further point which has not yet been decided: should the student o f Nature follow the same sort o f procedure as the mathematician follows in his astronomical expositions that is to say, should he consider first o f all the phenomena which occur in animals, and the parts o f each o f them, and having done that go on to state the reasons and the causes; or should he follow some other procedure ? Furthermore, we see that there are more causesb than one concerned in the formation6 o f natural things : there is the Cause f o r the sake o f which the thing is formed/ and the Cause to which the begin- ?iing o f the motion is due.6 Therefore another point for us to decide is which o f these two Causes stands first and which comes second. Clearly the first is that which we call the Final Cause that for the sake o f which the thing is formed since that is the logosf o f the thing its rational ground, and the logos is always the beginning for products o f Nature as well as for those o f Art. The physician or the builder sets before himself something quite definite the one, health, apprehensible by the mind, the other, a house, apprehensible by the senses ; and once he has got this, each o f them can tell you the causes and the rational grounds for everything he does, and why it must be done as he does it. Y e t the Final Cause (purpose) and the Good (Beautiful) 9 is more fullv present in the works o f Nature than in the works o f Art. And moreover the factor o f Necessity is not present in all the works o f Nature in a similar sense. Almost all

57

639 bo 7je ip w vra i iravTes ox^Sov t o v s X oyovs av a y e tv ,

o v SceXo/xevoi 7rocraxtos A e y e r a i to a va y/ ca tov .

vrrapx^L S i t o fxiv aTrXais t o is a tS tois, t o S e

25 U7ro0creaj? /cat Tots* ev yeveoe i Tracrtv wo7Tp ev

t ols re x va a ro ls , o lo v ot/cta /cat rcov aXXcov otcoovv

t w v T o tovro jv . avayKrj S i TO tavSe rr jv vXrjv vtt-

a p f a t el e o r a t ot/cta fj aAA o T t reX o s * Kal yeveoda i

re Kal Kivr]9fjvai Set ToSe 7Tpatrov, e tra T o S e , /cat

t o u t o v S^ t o v rpOTTOV e^e^rjs fiexp i t o v TeXovs k a t

30 ofi eveKa y iv e ra i e/caorov /cat e o r t v . wcravTOJS S i

640 a /cat e v t o i s < j>voei y i v o f x e v o i s . aAA* o T p o r r o s T r js

a7ToSe[ea)s /cat tt}s avayKrjs eTepos 7r i t c t^s*

voiKr}s Kal tujv OeojprjTLKcljv im oTrjfjia jv. (elprjra i

S* eV eTepois irepl t o v t c o v . ) rj ya p a pxrj t o is p>iv tov * o\ < > / < \ / & > * *o v , t o c s o e t o e o o f i e v o v e 7ret y a p r o to v o ecrrtv rj

6 v y l e i a rj o a vO p tD T ros , a v a y K iq t o S e tva t 77 y e v e o O a t,>\\ > > \ / > \ / > A >>

aAA ou/c e7ret t o o ecrrtv 77 y e y o v e v , e/cetvo e

ARISTOTLE

a ** Absolute/ simple or unconditional necessity, belongs to the eternal things, such as the heavenly bodies or the eternal truths of mathematics. For further details see De gen. et corr. 337 b 14 ff.

* At Met. 1025 b ff. Aristotle makes a threefold classification of the sciences into (a) theoretical (contemplative), (6) practical, (c) productive. The result of (a) is knowledge only, of (6) knowledge and action, of (e) knowledge, action, and some article or product. The three theoretical sciences are theology (i.e. metaphysics), mathematics, andphysics (natural science). In the present passage, however, Aristotle contrasts natural science with the theoretical sciences. This is because he is considering Nature as a craftsman whose craft or science belongs to the third class the productive sciences. Our study of Natures science 58

PARTS OF ANIMALS, I. i.

philosophers endeavour to carry back their explanations to Necessity; but they omit to distinguish the various meanings o f Necessity. There is absolute Necessity,which belongs to the eternal things ; and there is conditional Necessity, which has to do with everything that is formed by the processes o f Nature, as well as with the products o f Art, such as houses and so forth. I f a house, or any other End, is to be realized, it is necessary that such and such material shall be available ; one thing must first be formed, and set in motion, and then another thing ; and so on continually in the same manner up to the End, which is the Final Cause, for the sake o f which every one o f those things is formed and for which it exists. The things which are formed in Nature are in like case. Howbeit, the method o f reasoning in Natural seience and also the mode o f Necessity itself is not the same as in the Theoretical sciences. ( I have spoken o f this matter in another treatise.6) They differ in the following wav.c In the Theoretical sciences, we begin with what already is ; but in Natural scienee with what is going to be : thus, we say, Because that which is going to be health, perhaps, or man has a certain character. therefore o f necessity some particular thing, P , must be, or must be formed ; not, Because P is now', or has been formed, therefore the other thing (health, or man) o f necessity is now may be a theoretical science, but Natures science itself is productive.

c The reasoning process in a theoretical science, e.g. mathematics, begins, say, with A, and then deduces from it the consequences B, C, D. In a productive science, e.g. building, it begins with the house which is to be built, D, and works backwards through the preliminary stages which must be realized in order to produce the house, C, B, A. Cf. below, 640 a 16 ff.

C 59

64011avayKrjs early rj carat. oi5S cortv els atStov o vv - aprrjaai rrjs TOiavrrjs a7roStccos rrjv avay/cqv, * > /M > / /O* 2__. j ,C*>OT 177'> 7Tt TOO eO TLV , OTL TOO GTLV. 0 1 -

wpiOTat, Se Kal rrepl tovtcov ev erepois, Kai rTOLOis vrrapx^i Kal rrola a v r lotp4

PARTS OF ANIMALS, I. i.

or will be in the future. Nor, in a proeess o f reasoning o f this kind, is it possible to trace back the links o f Necessity to eternity, so as to say, Because A is, therefore Z is. I have, however, discussed these matters in another work,b and I there stated where either kind o f Necessity applies, which propositions involving Necessity are convertible, and the reasons why.

W e must also decide whether we are to discuss the processes by which each animal comes to be formed which is what the earlier philosophers studied or rather the animal as it actually is. Obviously there is a considerable difference between the two methods. I said earlier that we ought first to take the phenomena that are observed in each group, and then go on to state their causes. This applies just as much to the subject o f the process o f formation : here too we ought surely to begin with things as they are actually observed to be when completed. Even in building the fact is that the particular stages o f the process come about because the Form o f the house is such and such, rather than that the house is such and such bccau^e the process o f its formation follows a particular course : the process is for the sake o f the actual thing, the thing is not for the sake o f the process.6 So Empedocles Was WTong w'hen he said that many o f the characteristics which animals have are due to some accident in the process o f their formation, as when he accounts for the vertebrae o f the backbone by saying d *' the fetus gets twisted and so the backbone is broken into pieces : he was unaware (a) that the seed w'hich gives rise to the animal must to

4 Emped. frag. 97 (Diels, Fragment e*, 31 b 97).(31

ARISTOTLE

\ov Svvap.LV, e t0 o t l t o 7TOLrjaav TTpoTtpov V7rrjpxev 25 o v fjiovov Tip Aoyco aXXa /cat tlu X P vcP y VV$ 7 aP

av6pOJ7TOS avdpCOTTOV,

PARTS OF ANIMALS, I. i.

begin with have the appropriate specific character 0 ; and (6) that the producing agent was pre-existent: it was chronologically earlier as well as logically earlier : in other words, men are begotten by men, and therefore the process o f the childs formation is what it is because its parent was a man. [Similarly too with those that appear to be formed spontaneously, just as with those produced by the arts ; for some that are formed spontaneously are identical with those produced by art, e.g. health. As for those things whose producing agent is pre-existent, e.g. the art o f statuary, no spontaneous formation occurs. A rt is the logos o f the article without the matter. And similarly with the products of chance : they are formed by the same process that art would employ.] b So the best way o f putting the matter wrould be to say that because the essence o f man is w'hat it is, therefore a man has such and such parts, since there cannot be a man without them. I f we may not say this, then the nearest to it must do, viz. that there cannot be a man at all otherwise than with them, or, that it is well that a man should have them. And upon this these considerations follow ': Because man is such and such, therefore the process o f his formation must o f necessity be such and such and take place in such a manner ; wiiich is why first this part is formed, then that. And thus similarly with all the things that are constructed by Nature.

Nowf those wiio wcre the first to study Nature in

63

ARISTOTLE

7Tpl ttoS o s , f j

r e Totourov e K a a r o v I o t l v a v r w v K a l K a r a r r o ia v S w a jJ iL V . o v y a p t/cavov t o e/c t l v c o v e a r i v , o l o v tTVp o s f j y r j s , w a r r e p k av e i T repl k X l v t is e X e y o p e v f j r t v o s aAAo v ra v t o l o v t c o v , irreLpcopLeBa f ia X X o v a v

25 Stoptetv t o etSos* a v r r j s f j r r j v v X r jv , o l o v ro v ^aA/cov

1 on post olov vulg.: del. Ogle.

* As Empedocles and Anaxagoras, whose attempts to discover the material and the efficient causes are mentioned a few lines below. See also Met. 983 b 6 ff.

* Material cause : see Introduction, pp. 24 ff.* Residue : lit. surplus ; see Introduction, pp. 32 ff. 6 Cf. Hippocrates* Ilcpi i. 9.r Parts : see Introduction, pp. 28 ff.

64

PARTS OF ANIMALS, I. i.

the early days a spent their time in trying to discover what the material principle or the material Cause b was, and what it was like ; they tried to find out how the Universe is formed out o f i t ; what set the process going (Strife, it might be, or Friendship, Mind, or Spontaneity) ; assuming throughout that the underlying material had, by necessity, some definite nature : e.g. that the nature o f Fire was hot, and lig h t ; o f Earth, cold, and heavy. A t any rate, that is how they actually explain the formation o f the world-order. In a like manner they describe the formation o f animals and plants, saying (e.g.) that the stomach and every kind o f receptacle for food and for residue6 is formed by the water flowing in the body, and the nostril openings are forcibly made by the passage o f the breath.d A ir and water, o f course, according to them, are the material o f which the body is made : they all say that Nature is composed of substances o f this sort. Y e t i f man and the animals and their partse are products o f Nature, then account must be taken o f flesh, bone, blood, in fact o f all the uniform parts, f and indeed o f the non-uniform parts too, viz. face, hand, fo o t ; and it must be explained how it comes to pass that each o f these is characterized as it is, and by what force this is effected. It is not enough to state simply the substances out o f which they are made, as Out o f fire, or Out o f earth. I f we were describing a bed or any other like article, we should endeavour to describe the form o f it rather than the matter (bronze, or wood) or, at

1 Uniform and non-uniform : see Introduction, pp. 28 ff. The distinction between uniform andnon-uniform parts is, historically, the predecessor of the distinction between tissues and organs.*

65

A R IS T O T LE640 b ,

f j t o v X o v , e l S i f i r j , t r\v y e t o v g v v o X o v k X lvtj y a p

roSc e v T cpS e rj roSe rotorSc, c b o r e K a v T rep l t o v o x r i ix a T o s e ir j X e K T e o v , K a l rroZ ov t t j v I S e a v rj y a p

K a r a T r jv fiopc/yrjv < j>vois K v p iw T e p a t r js v X iK i js

cfrvoecos .

30 E i f i i v o v v t w o y r j f JL a T L K a l t c o e K a o T o v

e o T i t l)V t c > totov K a l r c o v f i o p l o j v , o p d w s a v

A r j f i o K p i T o s X e y o r < j> a iv eT a L y a p o v t c o s v r r o X a f i e Z v .

rjol y o v v T r a v r l S r jX o v e l v a i o l o v t l t t j v j io p < f> r jv

g t l v o a v d p c o r r o s , c o s o v t o s a v t o v t c o t c o x t f f t a T L

K a i t w ^pcu/Ltart y v t o p l f i o v . K a i T o i K a l o r e d v e c b s 35 ep^ et t t j v a v T r j v t o v c r x r j i J L a T o s f io p < f> r jv , aAA o f i a j s

o v k e o T i v a v d p ( j ) 7 T 0 S ' eT L S a S v v a t o v e l v a i X ^Pa

o t t c o g o v v S e a K e i f i e v r j v , o l o v ^aAK r jv r j v X l v y } v , r r X r jv641 a ofJLiovvfJLCos, o iG Trep t o v y e y p a f j . j j . e v o v l a T p o v . o v y a p

S v v r jo e T a i i r o i e i v t o e a v r r j s e p y o v , u io ir e p o v S y a v X o l

X lO l v o l t o e a v r c o v e p y o v , o v S o y e y p a f i f i e v o s l a r p o s .

o fx o ic o s S i t o v t o l s oi5Se t c o v t o v T e d v r jK O T O s fto-5 pLCOV O v S i v TL TCOV TOLOVTCOV GTL, X y O ) S* OLOV

60aX fios, X ^P* ^ a v ^ v a^Aajs* e ip r jr a L , K a l t o v a v T o v t p o t t o v w o T re p a