16 INTEODUCTOKY. 



The difficulty of deciding on the probable order of the 

 zoological works, including the De Anima, has been much 

 greater than that of deciding on the probable order of the 

 Physics, Heavens, Generation and Desfntcfion, and Meteoro- 

 logy, and the difficulty was not lessened by Titze's sugges- 

 tion, in 18"26, that Book i. of the Parts of Anifnals was 

 originally an introduction to the History of Ayiimals. It is 

 generally admitted that the De Anima comes early in 

 Aristotle's series of zoological and related works, and, so it 

 seems from the last sentence of the Progressive Motion 

 of Ani)nals, immediately after this last-named work. It is 

 also generally admitted that the Parva NaturaUa come 

 after the De Anima. 



"With respect to the probable order of the three im- 

 portant works, the History of Animals, Parts of Animals, 

 and Generation of Animals, it will be well to give the views 

 of some Aristotelian scholars. Furlanus of Crete believed 

 that the History of Anitnals should precede all the other 

 works by Aristotle on animals.* Schneider concluded that 

 the order was History of Animals, Parts of Animals, and 

 Generation of Animals. Prantl, in his De Aristot. Lihr. . . . 

 Ordine atque Dispos., &c., Munich, 1843, p. 28, and Titze, in 

 his De Aristot. Operum Serie, Sec, Leipzig and Prague, 18'26, 

 pp. 58 et seq., adopted a similar order for these three works. 

 Valentin Eose also adopted a similar order, and was 

 inclined to believe that the History of Animals was probably 

 written some years after the battle of Arbela, B.C. 331, or 

 very likely after the return of the veterans of Alexander's 

 army, say B.C. 326, or not before B.C. 327, mainly on the 

 ground that the elephants, about which Aristotle had infor- 

 mation, were those taken in war bj' the Macedonians.! On 

 the other hand, some have held that the Parts of Animals 

 should come first. Patrizi says : "I know that all Aristo- 

 telians contend that the History of Animals should precede 

 all the other zoological works, because they think that the 

 phenomena are prior to and better known than their causes, 

 and that we should begin with what is better known." I 

 Again, he expresses an opinion that the History of Animals 

 should be put in the last place, and that all who had put 



* In Libr. Aristot. de Part. Anitn. Comment, primus, kc. Venice, 

 1574. Preface, p. 11. 



f De Aristot. Lihr. Ordine et Auctor. Comment. Berlin, 1854, 

 pp. 216, 240, and 241. 



\ Discuss. Perijiat., &c. Venice, 1571, p. 79a. 



