Aristotle. on the Parts of Animals
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ru A'^w o ARISTOTLE ON THE PARTS OF ANIMALS. ARISTOTLE ON THE PARTS OF ANIMALS. TRANSLATED, WITH INTRODUCTION AND NOTES, W. OGLE, M.A., M.D., F.R.C.P. SOMETIME FELLOW OF CORPUS CHRISTI COLLECB, OXFORD. Praclare cum illo agittir, qui non mentiens dicit, quod ab Aristotele responsuin est sciscitanti Alexandra, quo docente profiteretur se scienteni: ' rebus,^ inquii, * ipsis, quce Jton norunt tnenii7'i,'—Varro. LONDON: KEGAN PAUL, TRENCH & CO., PATERNOSTER SQUARE. 1882. PREFACE. The biological treatises of Aristotle are more often quoted than read ; and, it may be added, more often misquoted than quoted correctly. None perhaps have fared worse than the " De Partibus Animalium," which forms the central portion of that great trilogy, in which are set forth successively, the phenomena presented by animals in life, the causes that have determined their structure, and the process of their generation and develop-! ment. The crabbed and obscure style in which this treatise is written, its corrupt text, and, generally, the difficulties of language have kept off the biologist, while the simple Aristotelian has been deterred by a subject-matter, as a rule alien to his tastes. Yet to both the treatise offers much of interest. In it the Aristotelian will find some of the best examples of his master's method ; while the biologist can scarcely be void of curiosity as to the first serious attempt to assign its function to eachl separate part of the animal body. It has been hoped therefore* that this volume may be welcome to both ; offering to the one a faithful and intelligible rendering of the text, and to the other a body of notes, which have been made much fuller than would have been necessary, had they been meant for those only, who had already some acquaintance with physiology. iv!C4^671 vr Preface. In neither part of this undertaking can I hope to have escaped many a blunder. It is indeed the consciousness of this that has caused me to keep the following sheets in my desk unpublished, though written many years ago. And even now, when I have been induced by friends to venture on publication, I do so with extreme diffidence and misgiving. Of this, however, I feel assured ; that those persons, who are most competent to detect my shortcomings, will also be those most disposed to make full allowance for them. For they will best know, how difficult a task the preparation of a volume of this kind is in reality, easy and simple as it may seem to one who has never tried it. THE TRANSLATOR. N.B.—The references in the introductory essays and in the notes are to Bekker's octavo edition of Aristotle, published by the Clarendon Press. At the bottom of each page of the trans- lation there has also been added a reference to the correspond- ing place in the Berlin quarto edition. CONTENTS. PAGE Preface v Introduction i The Main Groups of Animals xxi Synopsis xxxv Translation.—Book I i .» II 19 » ni 57 „ IV 92 Notes.—Book I. 141 » II 150 „ III. 186 » IV 217 Errata 254 Index to Notes 255 INTRODUCTION. How came these adaptations about, is a question coeval, we may be sure, with the first recognition of the adaptations themselves. The answers to it fell of old, as ever since, into two main divisionsj One"*; group of philosophers there was, who fancied that they found an J- , adequate £ause for the phenomena io^he necessary operations of the\ inherent properties of matter ; while-^bther sought a s olution in thdv n intelligent action of a benevolent and foreseeing agent, whom theyj called God, or Nature, as the case might be. Look, for instance, sai^ these latter, at the back-bone. See how marvellously it has been con- structed to suit the animal's requirements ; not made of one solid mass, as is the femur or the humerus, but subdivided into small pieces, so as to allow of the animal making such motions and bendings as it may require ; while at the same time, in spite of its subdivision, so firmly bound together are its parts, as to supply a rigid support to the frame.' Or look again at the alimentary canal and at the blood-vessels. Eac h) part requires a supply of matter for its due nourishment. What but foresight and intelligent purpose can have made these channels through- out the body to meet that necessity ? Or see again your hand. Notice how admirably it is made ; what an exquisite instrument for the purposes of an intelligent animal, and how useless for one without such mental capacity; and then consider that it is man, and man alone, that has been endowed with it. Is it possible not to discern a foreseeing intention in this limitation of the organ to the creature that alone can use it with advantage ? In all this, said the materialist, you are mis- taken. The foetus in its mother's womb is straitened for space, and forced to lie in a bent attitude. Its backbone gives way to the bendings, and is necessarily broken up into a series of short pieces.^ The animal then makes the best use of it it may. As for the stomach, the intestines, and the blood-vessels,' they are simply formed by the fluid in the animal substance, driven hither and thither by the motions of that substance, 1 2 3 D. P. ii. 9, 4. D. P. i. I, 16. D, p, j. j^ 21. ii INTRODUCTION. making channels for itself where it can most easily escape. The hand, again, was not given to man because he was already intelligent ; but an animal among the millions of possibilities chanced to develop a hand, and, having it, made use of it, and by its means became intelligent.^ But, said the teleologist, if this be so, if all be due to chance combina- tions which the multiform play of the laws of matter brings about, how "Incomes it that we everywhere see adaptations ? Combinations there should be without adaptations ; combinations, even, where the organs and the life are ill suited for each other. And are there not such, said the materialist, partly anticipating Darwin, as before he had partly anticipated Herbert Spencer ; are there not such about you on every side .'' You have but to open your eyes and you will see them every- where. When the rain falls in seed-time you say the gods send it that the crops may grow ; but you shut your eyes to the storms that come in harvest and wreck the farmers' hopes. The rain, whether it do good ! or harm, is alike the result of necessity. So also is it with things that live. All kinds of combinations are produced, but those alone survive have the necessary conditions of survival ; the rest perish.^ Even j that of such as are able to survive, is it true that all are suited for their life, in the sense that your hypothesis of an intelligent creative power would require ? Do we not see on all sides living monstrosities and deformi- Tties, whose existence is incompatible with design, and only explicable if referred to blind necessity ? These, if such there be, are no more, said the teleologist, much as Paley ' said after him, than the blunders of an artist. You will find errors in the composition of the best writer ; faults 1 D. P. iv. lo, 19. 2 Cf. Phys. ii. 8, 4, where is a remarkable passage in which A. thus states the material- istic view. "Why, however, it must be asked, should we look on the operations of Nature as dictated by a final cause, and intended to realise some desirable end ? Why may they not be merely the results of necessity, just as the rain falls of necessity, and not that the corn may grow ? For the uprising of the watery vapour, its cooling when thus raised, and its fall as rain when cooled, are all matters of necessity ; and though the rain makes the com grow, it no more occurs in order to cause that growth, than a shower which spoils the farmer's crop at harvest-time occurs in order to do that mischief. Now, why f may not this, which is true of the rain, be true also of the parts of the body ? Why, for instance, may not the teeth grow to be such as they are merely of necessity, and the fitness of the front ones with their sharp edge for the comminution of the food, and of the hind ones with their flat surface for its mastication, be no more than an, accidental coincidence, *and not the cause that has determined their development ? And so witli all the other parts, wherever there is an appearance of final causes? In short, whenever accident caused all the parts of the body to be developed spontaneously in this suitable manner, to be developed, that is, just as they would have been had design presided over the formation, the resulting wholes survived ; but when this was not the case they perished, and still do perish, as Empedocles insists when speaking of certain monstrosities." The explanation suggested in this passage will be found recurring in after-ages. A similar hypothesis, for instance, is started in Diderot's " Letter on the Blind for the use of those who can See," where it is put in the mouth of the blind Sanderson. The relation in which the hypothesis stands to that of Darwin may thus be expressed ; the old philosopher insists on the survival of the fit, Darwin on the survival of the fittest.