16 



AMi:h'I( A\ M{SJ':CM OF XATl'liAL HISTORY 



with Williain Ilai\cy in tlic scvcn- 

 tccntli cciitury. 



It is true tliat wlicii the tree l)('<i,an 

 its life, men luul ideas and eoneep- 

 tions of the principles underlyinji; 

 nature, hut most of these were crude 

 and inaccurate, based on mere hear- 

 say or tradition, and differing hut 

 little from those held before the l)e- 

 ginning of the Christian era. 



The science of anatomy had been 

 at a standstill since the time ot (lalen 

 (A. D. 130). This brilliant anatomist, 

 it is true, advanced the study of 

 anatomy by his careful dissections 

 of apes and some of the lower animals, 

 and he also wrote extensively on 

 physiology; but accurate as some of 

 his observations were, his errors, 

 particularly in physiology', were many. 

 His works, ho^vever, remained authori- 

 tative for fully 1400 years; his state- 

 ments overruled the demonstrations 

 of nature, and he was so reverenced 

 that whoever had the courage to chs- 

 pute him was liable to persecution 

 and ostracism. 



Physiology was not materially dif- 

 ferent from metaphysics, and both 

 were affected with superstition. The 

 ancient belief that the body contained 

 four humors — ' ' blood," ' ' phlegm," 

 ''yellow bile," ' 1)lack bile "—was held, 

 and Galen had added to these a 

 ''pneuma," which pervaded the whole 

 body, mingling with the humors and 

 supporting life. The proper mixture 

 of four elements — heat, cold, wetness 

 and dryness — constituted the normal 

 individual. The administration of 

 drugs was in accordance with this 

 belief. Systematic zoology did not 

 exist. There was no true conception 

 of species, no accurate description of 

 animals, and no adequate system of 



classification. The naturalists were 

 merely compilers and copyists of 

 Aristotle and other ancient writers, a 

 most curious feature of their point 

 of view, even as late as the (»arly part 

 of the eighteenth centur}', being 

 their readiness to rely on what was 

 said or written and their slowness 

 to observe for themselves. The 

 modern attitude of scientific doubt 

 seems not^ to have occurred to them 

 and, like Sir Jose])h Porter, they never 

 thought of thinking for themselves 

 at all. 



The philosoi)hical or speculative 

 in biology was retained by the clergy, 

 almost the onl}' persons reallj' inter- 

 ested in the conservation of docu- 

 ments, and as a class the only ones 

 able to read and write. 



Some of the Greeks had given ex- 

 planations of the succession of organ- 

 isms on the globe and Aristotle, born 

 384 B. C., beheved that the first ani- 

 mals arose from the ocean, and that 

 low forms of life were constantly 

 springing into existence by spon- 

 taneous generation, a fallacy that was 

 not completely eliminated from biology 

 until the nineteenth century. 



Aristotle also perceived the principle 

 of adaptation in nature, and considered 

 the universe as the result of Intelli- 

 gent Design. Such ideas of the Greeks 

 had a marked influence on Christian 

 thought for many centuries. Augus- 

 tine (fifth century) believed that a 

 living substance had been made by the 

 Creator, and that from this had 

 developed all the diverse organisms of 

 the i^resent time. Two other famous 

 churchmen advocated similar views, 

 Erigena in the ninth century, and 

 Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth, 

 each the foremost scholar of his day. 



