INTRODUCTOEY. 17 



it in the first place had inverted the order of Aristotehan 

 philosophy.* Sir A. Grant says that the Parts of Animals 

 may very likely have been written first after the Meteo- 

 rologijA Another question, to which reference has been 

 made, should now be considered. Book i. of the History 

 of Animals has no well-marked Introduction, and the com- 

 mencement is so abrupt, compared with the opening parts 

 of Aristotle's other works, that many commentators have 

 believed that the History of Animals once had an Introduc- 

 tion which has been lost or transposed. Patrizi seems to 

 have believed that the Parts of Animals should be regarded 

 as an Introduction to the entire series of Aristotle's zoolo- 

 logical works. Titze argued that Book i. of the Parts 

 of Animals was originally the Introduction to the History 

 of Animals ; that some transcribers so regarded it ; and 

 that some ignorant or careless critic, losing sight of the fact 

 that it was an Introduction to the History of Animals, 

 transferred it and ordered it to be made the first book of the 

 Parts of Animals.X This suggestion has not met with 

 general approval, but it was adopted by Dr. von Frantzius, 

 editor of our best Greek text of the Parts of Animals, and 

 by Carl J. Sundevall, the author of a well-known work on 

 some of the animals mentioned by Aristotle. 



The most profitable way of dealing with the question of 

 the probable order of the chief zoological works seems to be 

 to consider not only the order of production or publication, 

 but also the order in which these works should come in 

 Aristotle's system, or the order in which he intended them 

 to be studied. 



There are many passages in the zoological works stat- 

 ing that certain subjects have been discussed, or will be 

 discussed, in other works, the titles of which are clearly 

 indicated, e.g., in P. A. iii. c. 14, 674&, it is stated that the 

 relative positions and shapes of the parts of the stomach of 

 a ruminant should be ascertained from the History of 

 Animals. Passages such as the last-mentioned, assuming 

 them to be genuine, show that the History of Animals 

 preceded most, if not all, of the other zoological works. 

 Some commentators who have found leisure to examine the 

 references thoroughly have concluded, however, that a few 



* Discuss. Peripat. &c. Basle, 1581, p. 123. 

 + Aristotle. Edinburgh and London, 1877, p. 47. 

 \ De Aristot. Operum Serie et Distinctione. Leipzig and Prague, 

 1826, p. 55. 



C 



