18 INTKODUCTOKY. 



of them are inconsistent, and that many, if not all, have 

 been inserted by editors and others. Still, the value of 

 these references as evidence is not negligible, and a careful 

 search through the zoological works does not reveal any 

 passage in which the History of Animals is referred to as a 

 work in contemplation. Then there are references and 

 indications which are more closely bound up with the 

 contexts and are undoubtedly genuine parts of Aristotle s 

 works. In his Analyt. Prior, i. c. 30, it is said that the 

 facts relating to a subject should be ascertained before an 

 attempt is made to reason about it. He also proposes 

 to consider the &quot;causes&quot; and generation when the animals 

 and their peculiar features have been described.* The term 

 &quot; causes &quot; is used in a special sense for those on account 

 of which the parts of animals are composed and arranged 

 in the manner described in the History of Animals,} 

 and most of the Parts of Animals deals with these causes 

 and with the functions of the parts. Leaving out of con 

 sideration the question of the position of Book i. of the 

 Parts of Animals, it may be concluded that Books ii.-iv. 

 of the Parts of Animals should come later than the History 

 of Animals, and that the Generation of Animals should 

 come later that the Parts of Animals. 



It is by no means easy to arrive at a conclusion about 

 the supposed missing Introduction to the History of Animals 

 and the position of Book i. of the Parts of Animals. The 

 reason given for supposing that the History of Animals 

 once had an Introduction, which has been lost or transposed, 

 has never seemed to me to be satisfactory. The character 

 of that work is very different from that of most of Aristotle s 

 works. From beginning to end he seems to be trying to 

 state simple facts. An Introduction would be less needed 

 in a work of this kind. He himself tells us that the special 

 function of a preface or introduction is to explain the object 

 of a speech, and that an introduction is not needed when 

 the nature of the subject-matter is clear. I 



Again, if it is urged that there should be an Introduction 

 to the History of Animals, there is no need to look beyond 

 the first few chapters of that work. After giving a very 

 general account of the parts, habits, dispositions, modes of 

 reproduction, and a few other features of animals, Aristotle 

 says : &quot; So far, I have considered these things in outline, to 



* H. A. i. c. 6, s. 4; P. A. i. cc. 1 and 5. ( P. A. ii. c. i. 646 a. 



| Rhetoric, iii c. 14, s. 6. 



