SCOULER OX TEAXSLATIXG ARISTOTLE. 331 



sopher, who first recognised the character of the nerves, and traced 

 their origin to the brain and spinal marrow. A gain, p. 144. lleview, we 

 have in the translation " salt-water and fresh-water marshes." Now 

 there is not a word about salt-water in the original ; the proper 

 rendering is lakes and marshes. If the translator had turned to 

 YI. 13, he would have found that if salt-water marshes be correct, 

 then the Perch, the Carp, and the Silurus are marine fishes. At 

 p. 145, the Greek word IkvcnrairriKa, is, strangely enough, translated 

 wriggling. Aristotle is classifying the different modes of locomotion 

 as flying, walking, and swimming, and then adds the ilyspastic as a 

 species of the genus. This error is suq^rising, as the precise meaning 

 of the term is given by Aristotle himself. If we consult the treatise 

 de Incessu, we find it signifies to crawl like an earth-worm, and 

 expresses the mode of progression of gasteropods, caterpillars, and 

 worms. 



It is surpi-ising that the translator should find any difficulty 

 respecting the two well-known words tlcoc and yiroc, of such frequent 

 employment in the ^\Titijigs of Aristotle, and so familiar to both 

 naturalists and metaphysicians. It is true they are sometimes used 

 rather loosely in the History of Animals, but this seldom gives rise 

 to any difficulty. The Avord dloc, in the language of Aristotle, 

 signifies not merely form but species, and also the essence of a 

 thing, that which constitutes it what it is. As to yivoc, there is no 

 difficulty whatever. Aristotle knew as well as we what classes and 

 orders mean, though he did not use our phraseology; but he speaks of 

 a summum genus and subaltern genera. Thus, birds form an order, 

 or simimum genus, and palmipeds are a subaltern genus. 



We are told by the translator, p. 112, that parts differ according 

 to their capabilities of distinction. If the Stagyrite had expressed 

 himself in this wav, he would never have been 



*' II maestro di color che sanno." 



The sense is very obvious, that he means to express their qualities, 

 and in the categories he tells us that qualities admit of contraries 

 (black and Avhite), and differ in degree, or more and less. The whole 

 of the passage respecting analogous parts is completely misimder- 

 stood, although a most important part of our author's doctrine. The 

 analogy between a scale, a feather, and a hair, was first mentioned by 

 Empedokles, as quoted by Aristotle in the treatise de Anima. Tlie 

 passage is iuterestiiig, but too long for insertion. Although the 

 facts were admitted by both philosophers, the difference between 

 Empedokles and Aristotle is as gi-eat as that between Oken and 

 Cuvier. According to Empedokles, animals are modified by ex- 

 ternal agents, and the scales and fins of a fish might be changed 

 into feathers and wings of a bird. Aristotle, on the other hand, 

 resting on final causes, asserts that the function determines the 

 organ, and that different structiu'es may perform the same function. 

 When he says parts are different and the same, the words have a very 

 N. H. R.-I1862. 2 A 



