ARISTOTLE AS A ZOOLOGIST. 797 



wonder. Science, challenging these separate pretensions, and testing 

 their results, regards them with indifference — an indifference only 

 exasperated into antagonism by the clamorous urgency of unauthenti- 

 cated praise. It is difficult to direct the opposing sti-eams of criticism 

 into the broad, equable current of a calm appreciation, because the 

 splendor of his fame perpetuates the memory of his failure, and to be 

 just we must appreciate both. His intellect was piercing and compre- 

 hensive ; his attainments surpassed those of every known philosopher ; 

 his influence has only been exceeded by the great founders of relig- 

 ions. Nevertheless, if we now estimate the product of his labors in 

 the discovery of positive truths, it appears insignificant when not erro- 

 neous. None of the great germinal discoveries in science are due to 

 him or to his disciples." The question to be decided does not concern 

 Aristotle's splendid and perhaps unrivaled genius, his logical power 

 of thought, his love of truth, and his extraordinary diligence ; it has 

 reference to the claim made by Aristotle's too ardent panegyrists, that 

 he discovered a system so perfect as to leave little, if anything, for us 

 to alter, that in several instances he anticipated modern discoveries, 

 and that his descriptions are marvels of accuracy and research. How 

 far such statements are true must be discovered by the simple test of 

 reading Aristotle's own words, and for this purpose some of the ex- 

 tracts employed to illustrate a recent comparison of the above con- 

 flicting opinions in the " Edinburgh Review " will be instructive. 



Let us inquire how far Cuvier's statement that " everywhere Aris- 

 totle observes facts with attention " is true. In describing the ele- 

 phant, Aristotle tells many things correctly, but some very incorrectly, 

 so that it is a question whether he ever saw this animal in his life. 

 He affirms that it has no nails on its toes, though he correctly refers to 

 the toes, which are scarcely distinguished. The nails of the elephant 

 are one of the " points " which the natives of India always regarded as 

 marks of a well-bred animal, and are usually conspicuous. Let us 

 take another point, the " gray-headed error " that the elephant has no 

 joints. Aristotle says, "The elephant is not so constructed as to be 

 unable to sit down and bend his legs, as some persons have said, but 

 from his great weight he is unable to bend them on both sides at once, 

 but leans either to the right side or the left, and sleeps in this posi- 

 tion." That is to say, the elephant, having bent one fore-leg, can not 

 then bend the other so as to kneel with both, which is contrary to fact. 

 Although in this passage Aristotle demolishes the absurd statement 

 that the elephant has no knee-joints, yet, in his treatise on the " Pro- 

 gressive Motions of Animals," he seems to leave the matter in doubt. 

 After showing that without inflection there can be no progression, he 

 says : " Progression, however, is possible without inflection of the leg, 

 in the same manner as infants creep ; and there is an ancient story of 

 this kind about elephants, which is not true, for such animals move 

 because inflection takes place in their shoulder-blades or hips." The 



