IO BIOLOGY AND ITS MAKERS 



high grade of development among that people. And since 

 it is safe to assume that the formulation of a system of med- 

 icine in the early days of mankind required centuries of 

 observation and practice, it becomes apparent that the 

 manuscript in question was no vague, first attempt at reduc- 

 ing medicine to a system. It is built upon much scientific 

 knowledge, and must have been preceded by writings both 

 on medicine and on its allied sciences. 



It is not necessary that we should attempt to picture the 

 crude beginnings of the observation of animated nature and 

 the dawning of ideas relative to animals and plants; it is 

 suitable to our purpose to commence with Aristotle, and to 

 designate him, in a relative sense, as the founder of natural 

 history. 



That he was altogether dissatisfied with the state of 

 knowledge in his time and that he had high ideals of the 

 dignity of science is evidenced in his writings. Although he 

 refers to the views of the ancients, he regarded himself in 

 a sense as a pioneer. "I found no basis prepared," he says, 

 " no models to copy. . . . Mine is the first step, and there- 

 fore a small one, though worked out with much thought 

 and hard labor. It must be looked at as a first step and 

 judged with indulgence." (From Osborn's From the Greeks 

 to Darwin.) 



There is general agreement that Aristotle was a man of 

 vast intellect and that he was one of the greatest philosophers 

 of the ancient world. He has had his detractors as well as 

 his partisan adherents. Perhaps the just estimate of his 

 attainments and his position in the history of science is 

 between the enthusiastic appreciation of Cuvier and the 

 critical estimate of Lewes. 



This great man was born in Stagira in the year 384 B.C., 

 and lived until 322 B.C. He is to be remembered as the 

 most distinguished pupil of Plato, and as the instructor of 



