• HOUGHTON ON AEISTOTLE's HISTORY OF ANIMALS. 139 



a little more than Aristotle intends, but this is all. Tlie first volume 

 contains the G-reek and the Prench on opposite pages ; the second 

 Aolume contains a Dictionary of Notes. 



No doubt the translator would frequently find himself utterly at 

 a loss to identify the names of many of the animals mentioned by 

 Aristotle ; this arises partly fi-om paucity of description, — several 

 animals weU known to the ancients, from the very fact of their being 

 weU-knowTi, are with much dilficulty identifiable, — partly from our 

 ignorance of the extent of the countries from which Aristotle may 

 have received specimens ; for our author, singularly enough, does not 

 give us much information on this point. His great desire apparently 

 was, to form a system of classification ; this was just the task suited 

 to his generalising mind, he cared more for comparative anatomy 

 than for a laiowledge of the geographical distribution of, or tlie par- 

 ticular localities inhabited by, the animals of which he speaks. Stahr, 

 in his admirable article on Aristotle (in Dr. Smith's Diet, of Gr. and 

 'Bom. Biog.), has drawn attention to some passages in the writings 

 of the KStagyrite, in which it appears that " he is fond of noticing 

 physicians and their operations, in his explanatory comparisons." 

 Aristotle's father was a physician to one of the kings of Macedon, 

 and author of several works on natural science, whence can readily be 

 traced Aristotle's fondness for subjects of this nature. 



Pliny appears to be the great authority for the story that Aris- 

 totle received much help from Alexander the Great, who, says the 

 lioman naturalist, " having a strong desire to learn the nature of 

 " animals, entrusted the prosecution of the design to Aristotle, a man 

 " who held the highest place in every department of learning ; he 

 " placed then under his control several thousand men in every region 

 " of Grreece and Asia, Inmters, fowlers, fishers, or men who had the 

 " superintendence of parks, of cattle, of the rearing of bees, of fish- 

 " ponds and a\^aries, so that no existing animal might escape his 

 " notice. He obtained such information from these persons, that he 

 " was enabled to write some fifty volumes on the subject of animals, 

 " which deservedly hold a high repute." {H. N. viii. 16.) Athenseus 

 (ix. p. 398,) asserts that according to report, Aristotle received 800 

 talents from Alexander to enable him to produce his work.* Now it 

 certainly does strike one as a strange thing that there is no mention 

 of, nor any allusion whatever to such assistance from Alexander, 

 and there is nothing in his own writings to lead one to suppose 

 that Aristotle had ever received any assistance at all from the King 

 for the prosecution of this work. I camiot, therefore, help thinking 

 that the whole story is an exaggeration, and that the greater 



* The Attic talent being equivalent to £243. 15s, the required sum would 

 amount to £195,000 ! Well may Schu'z remark "that it would be easy to show 

 that an assessment of the whole kingdom of Macedon, even su])i.'0,sing that 

 Alexander had presented Aristotle with the returns of many years, coulil not have 

 supplied the sum." 



L 2 



