HISTORY OF BOTANY. 217 



of the human mind ; he allowed to Aristotle, in the prosecution 

 of his scientific inquiries, every facility that wealtli and power 

 coidd bestow. Aristotle believed, that in nature there was a 

 regular progress from inorganized matter upward to man, and 

 from man upward to the Deity ; that beings were connected to- 

 gether by certain affinities, composing an immense chain, of 

 which the links were all connected. But, 



" Lives the man whose universal eye 

 Plas swept at once the unbounded scheme of things ? 



Has any seen 

 The niightii chain of beings, lessening down 

 From infinite perfection, to the brink ' 

 Of dreary nothing, desolate abyss ?" 



332. This idea of a regular- chain of beings, presenting itself 

 with such grandeur and simi^licity, lias had many admirers ; 

 but facts do not correspond with this theory. In the vegetable 

 kingdom we should find it impossible to trace a regular grada- 

 tion from the oak to a moss (if we were to make these the ex- 

 tremes of the chain of vegetable substances), and say exactly in 

 what part of the scale each family of plants should be placed ; 

 it would rather seem, in many cases, as if the links of the chain 

 had been broken or dismiited. Aristotle considered plants as in- 

 termediate between inorganized matter and animals. " Plants," 

 he said, " are not distinguished from animals in being destitute 

 of the seat of life, the heart : because of this the reptiles and 

 inferior orders of animals are also destitute ; but plants have no 

 consciousness of themselves, or organs of sense to know what is 

 out of themselves ; animals possess these faculties ; therefore 

 they are difterent." We think it would have been difficult for 

 him to have discovered any evidence of consciousness in the 

 sponge, or any marks by which it might appear that this ani- 

 mal substance (for such it is thought to be) has the knowledge 

 of any thing external to itself. However great may be the ve^i- 

 eration entertained for the opinions of Aristotle, we believe his 

 distinction between plants and animals will at this time find no 

 supporters. This philosopher published his works on natural 

 history about three hundred and eighty -four years before Clnist. 

 Theophrastus^ the friend and pupil of Aristotle, published " A 

 History of Plants," and "The Causes of Vegetation." He 

 treated separately of aquatic plants, parasites^ culinary herbs, 

 2iYi(\. flowering 2)lants I he remarked upon the uses of each plant, 

 the place where it grew, and whether it was woody or herba- 

 ceous. He had no idea of genera or species j his names were 

 merely local, and his descriptions generally indefinite. His 

 views upon the physiology of pla/nts were superior to his desorip- 



Arifltotle.— 3S2. Rpf^nlar chain of lu>(njjs— Various opinions of Aristotle — Theoplirastns. 



10 



