734 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XXXIII. No. 854 



had no known close relations. The use of the 

 word in the vague Aristotelian sense, there- 

 fore, will mislead or at least divert attention, 

 and there is no good reason why kind should 

 not be employed. Oliver Goldsmith, however 

 poor a naturalist, was a master of English 

 and he used that word much as Aristotle did 

 genos. Thompson's method, however, is far 

 preferable to another translator of Aristotle. 

 Dr. Ogle, in his generally praiseworthy ver- 

 sion of " Aristotle on the Parts of Animals " 

 (p. 142), explains that " The vague use of the 

 term [genos] makes it impossible to translate 

 it invariably by the same English word. I 

 have therefore rendered it variously — genus 

 — order — tribe — class — natural group — 

 kind, etc., as seemed most convenient in each 

 separate case." Such practise does not con- 

 vey what Aristotle said or meant, but what the 

 translator thought he ought to say. Most 

 readers will want to know what Aristotle's 

 ideas were and not the editor's. 



Another case of usage of a word in a dif- 

 ferent sense from that current is exemplified 

 by the term malakia, which Professor Thomp- 

 son has translated by mollusks. Inasmuch as 

 the latter word is universally extended by all 

 naturalists to a great branch of the animal 

 kingdom, of which the malakia form but a 

 small and aberrant fraction, we certainly have 

 some cause to demur; cuttlefishes is an exact 

 English equivalent of malakia. We would 

 prefer to use the last name with the English 

 synonym after it within parentheses. Perhaps 

 others would prefer cephalopods instead. 



Undoubtedly many will also wish that Pro- 

 fessor Thompson had given the Greek names 

 of species rather than their supposed English 

 equivalents or, rather, in connection with such 

 equivalents. He has, indeed, done so often, 

 but only because he was ignorant or uncer- 

 tain of the intent of a name. There are prob- 

 ably few readers who would use Aristotle for 

 information about animals; most persons 

 would want to know what names he used for 

 animals and what he said or thought about 

 them. Besides, the greater part of the Eng- 

 lish-reading people live outside the British 

 Islands and to them such words as adder, 



angelfish, ant, blackbird, dogfish, grasshopper, 

 lizard, viper and the like may convey a dif- 

 ferent meaning from that familiar to a native 

 Englishman. 



Ill 



If Strabo is to be credited, some of the 

 manuscripts of Aristotle were subjected to 

 extraordinary vicissitudes and only resur- 

 rected after more than a century's entomb- 

 ment in dark and damp hiding places. If 

 such were the case"^ with the " History of 

 Animals," naturally in very many places the 

 ink must have been blurred or sometimes com- 

 pletely obliterated. It is told that one Apel- 

 lieon of Teos attempted the restoration of 

 copy and that various editors of subsequent 

 but early times tried their hands at improve- 

 ment of the text. Naturally, then, the Aris- 

 totle we know must be often different from 

 that which originated from the hand of the 

 great stagirite. 



Many emendations have been also made or 

 proposed by various later commentators on 

 Aristotle and many new ones have been sug- 

 gested by Professor Thompson. Thompson 

 had earned the right, by virtue of his attain- 

 ments and research, to make such, but some 

 of his predecessors had not. A flagrant case 

 of ill-advised alteration has been furnished in 

 connection with the words skaros and sparos, 

 the names of two very notable fishes. 



Certain authors have proposed to substitute 

 the word skaros for sparos when it occurs in 

 Book II. (508" 17);° Horace A. Hoffman 

 (1892) was misled by the suggestion and be- 

 came so confused that he was " inclined to 

 think that the names crapyos. crKayoos and airdpos 

 are used indiscriminately," and even failed to 

 recognize the scarus, perhaps the most famous 



" There is internal as well as other evidence that 

 the History of Animals was published (multiplied) 

 during Aristot'e 's life-time. 



° In this case and the following references the 

 first number in roman refers to the ' ' book ' ' of 

 Aristotle's "History" (II.), the second to the 

 page of the Prussian Academy's edition adopted 

 by Thompson (508"), and the third to the line of 

 the page (17). There is no other or independent 

 pagination for the version. 



