Io BIOLOGY AND ITS MAKERS 
high grade of development among that people. And since 
it is safe to assume that the formulation of a system of med- 
icine in the early days of mankind required centuries of 
observation and practice, it becomes apparent that the 
manuscript in question was no vague, first attempt at reduc- 
ing medicine to a system. It is built upon much scientific 
knowledge, and must have been preceded by writings both 
on medicine and on its allied sciences. 
It is not necessary that we should attempt to picture the 
crude beginnings of the observation of animated nature and 
the dawning of ideas relative to animals and plants; it is 
suitable to our purpose to commence with Aristotle, and to 
designate him, in a relative sense, as the founder of natural 
history. 
That he was altogether dissatisfied with the state of 
knowledge in his time and that he had high ideals of the 
dignity of science is evidenced in his writings. Although he 
refers to the views of the ancients, he regarded himself in 
asense asa pioneer. ‘I found no basis prepared,” he says, 
‘““no models to copy. . . . Mine is the first step, and there- 
fore a small one, though worked out with much thought 
and hard labor. It must be looked at as a first step and 
judged with indulgence.” (From Osborn’s From the Greeks 
to Darwin.) 
There is general agreement that Aristotle was a man of 
vast intellect and that he was one of the greatest philosophers 
of the ancient world. He has had his detractors as well as 
his partisan adherents. Perhaps the just estimate of his 
attainments and his position in the history of science is 
between the enthusiastic appreciation of Cuvier and the 
critical estimate of Lewes. 
This great man was born in Stagira in the year 384 B.c., 
and lived until 322 B.c. He is to be remembered as the 
most distinguished pupil of Plato, and as the instructor of 
