ARISTOTLE AND THE EARLIER PERIPATETICS vol.I by Eduard Zeller, B.F.C.Costelloe 1897

. The
LOGIC 259
already indicated, has tried to fill up the gap by the
invention of the ' proof from probability,' and by the
dialectical treatment of the airoplat.
In the latter his
acuteness and his scientific width of view are conspicuous
throughout. But it cannot make up for a satisfactory
and methodical comparison of observed facts, if only for
the reason that the theories discussed are not themselves
based on pure observation, but on the evSogov—on
views, that is, in which guesses, inferences and fancies
have, • or at least may have, become mixed up with
actual experience. Even where Aristotle is dealing
with actual observation, he falls, in many respects, far
short of the standard which we are accustomed to set
to the scientific observer. As to the conditions of a
trustworthy observation, or the methods to be applied
for establishing the correctness of one's own observations
or controlling the accuracy of information given by
others, we have only here and there a chance remark.
As he is too little conscious of the part which a subjective
mental activity plays in all perception, 1 so it
was natural that his method should not adequately
provide for the subjective control of the errors of observation.
In his own work there is, on this side of it, much to
criticise. It is true that he has brought together,
especially in the zoological writings, an extraordinary
volume of statements of fact, the overwhelming majority
of which (so far as they can now be verified 2 ) have been
1
Cf . p. 210 and infra, ch. x. by this or that name, partly
* For this is not always pos- because not all the animals mensible,
partly because it is often tioned by Aristotle are sufficiently
uncertain which animal is meant known to us.
260 ARISTOTLE
found to be correct. Most of these, of course, are
patent enough to any observer ;
but there are also many
cases among them where careful investigation would be
required. 1
methods of experiment he did not
altogether neglect. 2 His historical studies excite our
* Thus we see from Part.
An. iii. 4, 665, a, 33 sqq. (of.
Lewes, Arist. § 394), that he had
made experiments on the development
of the embryo in the egg,
since he there remarks that we
often find in eggs, even on the
third day, the heart and the
liver as isolated points. So in
Gen. An. ii. 6, he makes remarks
on the order of appearance of the
different parts of the body ; from
which, as even Lewes (§ 475) admits,
we see that Aristotle studied
embryonic development. A statement,
long considered fabulous,
about the appearance of a placenta
in a kind of shark (H. An. vi. 10,
565, b, 1) has been confirmed (by
Joh. Muller, Abh. d. Berl. Ah.
1840, Phys. math. XI. 187, cf.
Lewes, he. eit. § 205) ; the same.is
the case (cf. Lewes, § 206-208)
with Aristotle's statements about
the embryo of the ink-fish (Gen.
An. iii. 8, 758, a, 21) j about fishes
which build a nest (H. An. viii.
30, 607, b, 19) ;
about the eyes of
the mole (Be An. iii. 1, 425, a,
10, H. An. i. 9, 491, b, 28 sqq.),
and about a gland which a certain
kind of stag has under the tail
(77. An. ii. 15, 506, a, 23, cf. W.
Bapp in Mutter's Arehw. f. Anat.
1839, 363 sq.). With regard to his
description of the cephalopods,
Lewes remarks (§ 340 sq.) that it
could only spring from a great
familiarity with their forms, and
we see in it the unmistakeable
traces of personal knowledge.
All the more odd is it that Lewes
should complain of Aristotle's
failure to mention the freshness
of the sea breeze, the play of the
waves, &c. This is to blame Aristotle
for not having the bad taste
to drop from the realism of a
zoological description into the
style of a feuilleton, or the impertinence
to explain to people
who had the sea daily before
their eyes the things they had
known all their lives.
2
Eucken, MetJi. d. AHst.
Forsch., p. 163 sqq., gives instances
from Meteor, ii. 3, 359, a,
12, 358, b, 34 (77. An. viii. 2,
590, a, 22) ; H. An. vi. 2, 560,
a, 30 (Gen. An. iii. 1, 752, a, 4) ;
Be An. ii. 2, 413, b, 16; Be
Bespir. iii. 471, a, 31 ; H. An.
vi. 37, 580, b, sqq. (if this was
really an experiment, and not
rather a. chance observation).
Then again there are others introduced
with a \iyovffiv, Gen.
An. iv. 1, 765, a, 21 (which is
later on disputed by himself),
and Hist. An. ii. 17, 508, b, 4
(though in Gen. An. iv. 6, 774, b,
31 the same is stated in his own
name). Some of these experiments
are of such a questionable
kind, that we may well doubt
whether Aristotle himself conducted
them ; and, on the whole,
he appeals to experiments so
seldom that we cannot avoid seeing
how little he, or Greek
science in general, recognised
their value.
s 2