HOUGHTON ON THE TRANSLATION OF ARISTOTLE. 411 



I am nest informed that I have completely misunderstood the 

 whole of the passage respecting analogous parts, an evidence where- 

 of, it is assumed, is to be found in my rendering of x^V '^poQ x*?^'?" 

 by " a hand with a claw ;" " it should be," we are told, " a hand with 

 the forceps of a crab, both analogous as to function" (p. 332). What 

 authority has the Eeviewer for thus restricting the analogy ? xv^^l 

 denotes the claw of various animals, and though it may be that 

 Aristotle's mind more particularly adverted to a crab's claw, yet the 

 analogy holds equally good in the case of some other animals, as of a 

 scorpion for instance, and, in short, is applicable to any animal which 

 uses its ■)(ri\ai as a man his hands, irpog to Xafitiv koX icaTatTyjuv clvtI 

 Xeipwj'.* I confess that I had in view when I made the translation 

 the forceps of a crab as the x*?^'/ in question ; I have often watched 

 the droll manner in which crabs use their claws, and been struck 

 with the analogy here mentioned by Aristotle. From the remark of 

 the Eeviewer it would appear that in his opinion no other animal but 

 a crab has claws which may be considered as analogous to hands. 

 If Aristotle was acquainted with any kind of parrotf he could not 

 fail to have been struck with the analogy between a ytip and the 

 X>?X>/ of a bird. In the de Partibus (iv. 12. p. 692), Aristotle com- 

 pares the proboscis (fxvKTyp) of the Elephant vdth a hand. See also 

 Hist. An. ii. 1, § 2. Again, in the de Partibus (iv. 8. p. 685), the 

 arms of some of the Cephalopoda that are furnished with suckiag 

 discs (KorvXridoveo), are regarded by Aristotle as analogous to hands ; 

 and there is a passage in the Hist. Anim. (ii. 1. § 2) which it is a 

 pitv the Eeviewer had not seen, where Aristotle compares the 

 divided fore-feet of quadrupeds to hands. "Ex^i ^e rd TETpairola <fwa 

 KoX ^woroKa avTi twv (ipa")^i6vit)v aiceXr] TrpocxQia, Tzavra fiev to. TerpaTroSa^ 

 fxaXiara d'avdXoya raTe X^P'^' ^" TroXvo-X'^*/ <^VTu>y' ■yjpriTai yap irpbq 

 •KoXXh b}Q x£p(Ti- From this it is quite clear that the analogy be- 

 tween x««|0 and xr]Xv must not be restricted to such as exists between 

 a hand and the forceps of a crab ; perhaps the crab's claw is the best 

 type to be taken ia illustration of the simile, but the analogy is evi- 

 dently one of " more or less ;" the manner in which the rapacious 

 birds use their claws must also not be entirely left out of the ques- 



* De Part. Anim. iv. 8. i. p. 683. Ed. Bekker. 



•f There is reason, however, to believe, that Aristotle was not personally ac- 

 quainted with any kind of Parrot. Fi-om the manner in which he speaks of " the 

 Indian Bird" {Hist. Anim. viii. 14. § 6), it would appear that his knowledge was 

 derived from hearsay. With the later Greeks and Romans, it is well known, pan'ots 

 were great favourites. The kinds with which they were acquainted belonged chiefly 

 to the genus Pal<2ornis,Y\g.,oi which the P. Alexandri and P. torquatus were 

 perhaps the best known species. See Mr. "Vigor's interesting paper " On a group of 

 Psittacidee known to the Ancients " in Sowerby's Zool. Journal, ii. p. 37. Strack, 

 Kiilb and Cresswell identify Aristotle's 'Indian Bird' with the Grey Parrot {Psit- 

 tacus erythaeus), a species strictly confined to Western Africa ! 



N. H. R.— 1862. 2 F 



