ARISTOTELIAN PERIOD. 7 



the knowledge which the ancients possessed as to the 

 external characters or habits of the larger animals which 

 they had domesticated, or which lived in a wild state 

 around them, no system of natural history had arisen 

 among them prior to the time of Aristotle. Entire 

 branches of zoological science, as now understood, may 

 be said to have been at this time practically non-existent 

 Moreover, anything like a methodised study of animal 

 life was necessarily attended with extreme difficulties, 

 in the absence of the improved modern means for the 

 investigation and preservation of organic bodies. 



In order, however, more clearly to comprehend 

 Aristotle's relations to the science of natural history, 

 what he accomplished, and what he failed to accomplish, 

 where he succeeded in planting a permanent landmark, 

 and where he deviated from the right line of progress, 

 it is needful to have some clear conception as to the 

 precise scope of what is now understood as NATURAL 

 HISTORY. 



Now, natural history, as a whole, is only the aggregate 

 history of all known species of animals. The general 

 elements, therefore, which would constitute a perfect 

 science of natural history are the same as those which 

 would give us a perfect history of any given animal. We 

 have, then, to consider what, precisely speaking, are the 

 points upon which we should require to obtain accurate 

 knowledge, if we wished to give a complete history of any 

 single kind or species of animals, such as the dog, for 

 example,' or the horse. These points form the bases of 

 the different divisions of a complete natural history, and 

 are as follows : 



