132 



SCIENCE 



[Vol. XVII. No. 422 



enters from without. It alone is god -like. Its actuality has noth- 

 ing in common with the corporeal actuality." 



Aristotle appears to have been the first philosopher who at all 

 appreciated the importance of heredity as a principle, not only in 

 natural history, but also in psychology ; for he distinctly afiSrms 

 that the childi-en of civilized communities are capable of a higher 

 degree of intellectual cultivation than are children of savages. 



Among his other more noteworthy enunciations of general 

 truths, we may notice the following : — 



"The advantage of physiological division of labor was first set 

 forth," says Milne-Edwards, " by myself in 1827." Yet Aristotle 

 had said repeatedly that it is preferable, when possible, to have a 

 separate organ for a separate office; and that Nature never, if she 

 can help it, makes one organ answer two purposes, as a cheap 

 artist makes "spit and candlestick in one." 



Again, that the complexity of life varies with the complexity of 

 organization; that the structural differences of the alimentary 

 organs are correlated with differences of the animal's alimentation ; 

 that no animal without lungs has a voice, and that no animal is 

 endowed with more than one adequate means of defence; that 

 there is an inverse relation between the development of horns and 

 of teeth, as also between growth and generation; that no dipte- 

 rous insect has a sting; that the embryo is evolved by a succession 

 of gradual changes from a homogeneous mass into a complete 

 organism ; that the development of an organism is a progress 

 from a general to a special form, — these and numerous others 

 are instances of generalization made by Aristotle, which have 

 lasted, with but slight modifications of his terms, to the present 

 day.i 



Of these generalizations the most remarkable is the last which I 

 have mentioned; for one of the greatestand most momentous con- 

 troversies which the history of science has afforded is that which 

 took place nearly 3000 years after the time ot Aristotle, with re- 

 gard to so-called evolution versus epigenesis. The question was 

 whether the germ or egg of any organism contained the future or 

 young organism already formed in miniature, and only requiring 

 to be expanded in order to appear as the perfect organism, or 

 whether the process of development consisted in a progress from 

 the indefinite to the definite, from the simple to the complex, from 

 what we call undifferentiated protoplasm to the fully differ- 

 entiated animal. During the seventeenth and eighteenth cen- 

 turies, when this subject was most warmly debated, the balance 

 of scientific opinion inclined to what is now known to be the 

 erroneous view, that germ is merely the adult organism in 

 miniature. It therefore speaks greatly in favor of Aristotle's 

 sagacity that he clearly and repeatedly expressed the opinion which 

 is now known to be right; viz., that the organism develops out of 

 its germ by a series of differentiations. And not only with refer- 

 ence to this doctrine of epigenesis, but likewise throughout the 

 whole course of his elaborate treatise on generation, he displays 

 such wonderful powers, both of patient observation and accurate 

 scientific reasoning, that this treatise deserves to be regarded as 

 the most remarkable of all his remarkable works pertaining to 

 biology. The subject-matter of it is not, however, suited to any 

 detailed consideration within the limits imposed by an article; 

 and therefore I will merely back the general opinion which I have 

 just given by quoting that of the most severe and exacting of all 

 Aristotle's critics from the side of science, — severe and exacting, 

 indeed, to a degree which is frequently unjust. I mean the late 

 George Henry Lewes. This is what he says of the treatise on 

 generation : — 



"It is an extraordinary production. No ancient and few modern 

 works equal it in comprehensiveness of detail and profound specu- 

 lative insight. We there find some of the obscurest problems of 

 biology treated with a mastery which, when we consider the con- 

 dition of science at that day, is truly astonishing. ... I know no 

 better eulogy to pass on Aristotle than to compare his work with 

 the ' Exercitations concerning Generation ' of our immortal Har- 

 vey. The founder of modern physiology was a man of keen in- 

 sight, of patient research, of eminently scientific mind. His work 

 is superior to that of Aristotle in some few anatomical details; but 



' Dr. W. Ogle, In his admirable work on Aristotle, lias already alluded to 

 these and some of the other points previously noticed. 



it is so inferior to it in philosophy, that at the present day it is 

 much more antiquated, much less accordant with our views." 



I have now said enough to convey a general idea of the enormous 

 range of Aristotle's work within the four corners of biology, his 

 amazing instincts ot scientific method, and his immense power of 

 grasping generalizations. While doing this, I have selected in- 

 stances of his accuracy rather than of his inaccuracy, not only 

 because it is in the former that he stands in most conspicuous 

 contrast with all preceding and with most succeeding philosophers 

 of antiquity, but also because it is here that we may be most sure 

 of according justice. Where we meet with statements of fact 

 which are accurate, we may be satisfied that we are in immediate 

 contact with the mind of Aristotle himself; but when we meet 

 with inaccurate statements, we must not be so sure of this. Not 

 only is it probable that in the great majority of these cases he has 

 been misled by erroneous information supphed to him by travel- 

 lers, fishermen, and others, but there is good reason to suppose 

 that in some places his manuscripts may have been tampered 

 with. These were hidden underground for the better part of two 

 centuries; and when they were eventually brought to light,. 

 Apellicon, Into whose hands they fell, "felt no scruples in cor- 

 recting what had been worm-eaten, and supplying what was de- 

 fective or illegible." ' 



Thus, to quote Dr. Ogle,' who suggests the view here taken : " Is 

 it possible to believe that the same eye that has distinguished the 

 cetacea from the fishes, that had detected their hidden mammae, 

 discovered their lungs, and recognized the distinct character of 

 their bones, should have been so blind as to fancy that the mouth 

 of these animals was on the under surface of the body ?" And so 

 on with other cases. 



Inaccuracies of observation, hosyever, there must have been; 

 and there must have been inaccuracies of reasoning. Looking to 

 the enormous range ot his work in biology alone, remembering 

 that in this work he had had no predecessors, considering that at 

 the same time he was thus a single-handed collector of facts and 

 a single-minded thinker upon their import, it becomes evident 

 that Aristotle would have been something more than human if 

 either his observations or his reasonings could everywhere be 

 justly compared with those of scientific genius when more favora- 

 bly circumstanced. But it is the glory of Aristotle that both his 

 observations and his reasonings can stand such comparison as 

 well as they do : for when on the one hand we remember the im- 

 mensity of his achievement, and on the other hand reflect that he 

 was worse than destitute o£ any ancestral experience of method, 

 born into a world of mysticism, nurtured in the school of Plato, 

 therefor-e compelled himself to forge the intellectual instruments 

 of research, himself to create the very conception of scientific in- 

 quiry, — when we thus remember and thus reflect, it appears to 

 me there can be no question that Aristotle stands forth, not only 

 as the greatest figure of antiquity, but as the greatest intellect that 

 has ever appeared upon the face of this earth. 



The overmastering power with which this intellect swayed the 

 course of subsequent thought was in one respect highly beneficial 

 to the interests of science, but in another respect it was no less 

 deleterious. It was beneficial in so far as it rev coaled to mankind 

 the true method of science as objective, and not subjective : it was 

 deleterious, inasmuch as the very magnitude of its force reduced 

 the intellect of Europe for centuries afterwards to a condition of 

 abject slavery. Nothing is more deleterious to the interests of 

 science than undue regard to authority. Before all else the spirit 

 of Science must be free : it must be unfettered by the chains of 

 prejudice, whether these be forged by our own minds or manu- 

 factured for us by the minds of others. Her only allegiance is 

 that which she owes to Nature, to man she owes nothing; and 

 here, as elsewhere, it is impossible to serve two masters. There- 

 fore, the only use of authority in science is to furnish men of less 

 ability with suggestions which, as suggestions, may properly be 

 considered more worthy of testing by the objective methods on 

 account of their parentage in the mind of genius. Butit is an 

 evil day for science when such parentage is taken as in itself a 

 sufficient warrant for the truth of the ideas which have been born 

 of it, for then it is that authority is allowed to usurp the place of 

 ' See Grote's Aristotle, i. 51. 



