THE LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES THE LOEB CLASSICAL LIBRARY FOUNDED BY JAMES LOEB, LL.D. EDITED BY fT. E. PAGE, O.H., LITT.D. t E. CAPPS, PH.D., LL.D. t W. H. D. ROUSE, litt.d. L. A, POST, L.H.D. E. H. WARMINGTON, m.a., f.b.hist.soo. ARISTOTLE PARTS OF ANIMALS MOVEMENT OF ANIMALS PROGRESSION OF ANIMALS ARISTOTLE PARTS OF ANIMALS WITH AN ENGLISH TRANSLATION BY A. L. PECK, M.A., Ph.D. FELLOW OF Christ's college, cambriook AND DNIVERSITY LECTURER IN CLASSICS AND A FOREWORD BY F. H. A. MARSHALL, C.B.E., Sc.D., F.R.S. MOVEMENT OF ANIMALS PROGRESSION OF ANIMALS WITH AN ENGLISH TRANSLATION BY E. S. FORSTER, M.A. PROFESSOR OF GREEK IN THE I'NIVERSITV OF SHEFFIKLD CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS HAR\^ARD UNIVERSITY PRESS LONDON WILLIAM HEINEMANN LTD MCMLXI First printed 1937 Revised and reprinted 1945, 1955 Revised and reprinted 1961 Printed in Chreat BrUain CONTENTS PAQB PARTS OF ANIMALS Foreword ....... 3 Introduction ...... 8 Text and Translation .... 52 MOVEMENT OF ANIMALS PROGRESSION OF ANIMALS Introduction ...... 43 Text and Translation .... 440 Index to Parts of Animals . 543 Index to Movement and Progression of Animals. ...... 552 From quotations which I had seen, I had a high notion of Aristotle's 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 diiferent ways, but they were mere schoolboys to old Aristotle. Charles Darwin to William Ogle, on the publication of his translation of The Parts of Ani- mals, 1882. PARTS OF ANIMALS To . P. and L. A. P. FOREWORD Aristotle refers to the De partibus animaliiim as an inquiry into the causes that in each case have deter- mined the composition of animals. He does not, hovever, employ the category of causation in the manner normally adopted by men of science, since in this book causes are ahvays considered in relation to ends or purposes, and design is regarded as having had a far larger share in the origin and development of living structures than that allotted to necessity. In the Histor'ia ajiimalium the parts themselves are described, for although this work is to some extent physiological, its main object vas to deal with the anatomy of the organism. The De partibus ariimaliu?n, on the other hand, is almost exclusively physiological and teleological, and treats of the functions of the parts. But Aristotle's position Avas that of a teleo- logist only in a limited degree, for he appears to have taken that view of life which Bergson calls the doctrine of internal finality (that is to say, that each individual, or at any rate each species, is made for itself, that all its parts conspire for the greatest good of the , and are intelligently organized in view of that end but without regard for other organisms or kinds of organisms). Since every organ or part of the body was held to have its peculiar function, the existence of vestigial or rudimentary organs was a2 3 FOREWORD unrecognized. This Avas the doctrine of internal finality which was generally accepted until DarAvin elaborated his theory of Natural Selection. The wider doctrine of 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 \vhich he suggests that the mouth in Selachians is placed on the under surface so as to allo\v 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 of gluttony. The De partibus animalium opens with an intro- duction devoted to general considerations. This is followed by a discussion of the three degrees of composition, the first degree being composition of physical substances, the second degree, of homo- geneous parts or tissues, and the third, of hetero- geneous parts or organs. The tissues referred to are blood, fat, marrow, brain, flesh, and bone. After describing these, the organs are dealt vith, and a consideration of their respective functions, first in sanguineous animals (i.e. in Vertebrates), and secondly in bloodless animals (i.e. Invertebrates), occupies the remainder of the book. The account given of the physiology of the blood is especially interesting, and it is noteworthy that Aristotle understood something of the nature of the process of absorption whereby the food becomes converted into nutriment which is carried by the blood to all parts of the body. He supposed, however, that the matter derived from the FOREWORD gut passed first to the heart in the form of vapour or serum, and that it was there converted into true blood by a process of concoction. Aristotle knew nothing of the real nature of respiration, and he regarded the lungs as serving to temper the bodily heat by means of the inspired air. He Avas also entirely ignorant of 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 of excretory organs, the function of 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 gall- bladder 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 of the knoAvledge 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, Avhereas in the horse, which does not chev the cud, but yet is constantly eating, food is continually passing into the intestine and consequently a perpetual flow of 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. FOREWORD It 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—v/ho they were, the circumstances under Avhich they lived, and what manner of facilities were available for their investiga- tions—for it would seem certain that no man single- handed could possibly have acquired such a vast body of knowledge, hardly any of which could have been derived from earlier observers. Yet the work in its completed M'hole seems to show the mark of one master hand, and its uniform character and the clear Une of teleological reasoning that runs through it have been well brought out in Dr. Peck's translation. But putting aside its philosophical implications, the book consists of 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 world's history, this treatise will ever make its appeal, not only to the classical philosopher, but to all are interested in the origin and growth of biological science. F. H. A. M. INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION Title. The traditional title of this treatise is not a very informative one. The subject of the work is, how- ever, stated quite clearly by Aristotle at the begin- ning of the second Book in these words : "I have already described with considerable detail in my Researches upon Animals what and how many are the parts of which animals are composed. We must now leave on one side what was said there, as our present task is to consider what are the causes through which " each animal is as I there described it (646 a 7 foil.). The title ought therefore to be " Of the Causes of the Parts of Animals," and this is the title actually applied to it by Aristotle himself (at De gen. an. 782 a 21)." " " Even so, the word parts is misleading : it in- cludes not only what we call parts, such as limbs and organs, but also constituents such as blood and marrow.* Perhaps, therefore, no harm is done by leaving the accepted (and convenient) Latin title untranslated. Zoological The De partihus, as well as the other treatises ^°^ * contained in this volume, forms a portion of Aris- totle's zoological works. The foundation of these is the Historia animalium, or Researches about Animals, in nine books (the tenth is generally held to be " For the meaning of Cause see note below, p. 24. * 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 concrete entity " made up of " matter " and " form." Hence, in the De part'ibus Aristotle treats of the causes on account of which the bodies-—the " matter "—of animals are shaped and constructed as they are, in general ; in the De incessu he deals specially with the parts that subserve locomotion.