**TEXT: L. Dittmeyer, Teubner, Leipzig, 1907
1The text of the parenthesis is uncertain, and Peck is perhaps right to excise it.
2Dittmeyer excises ‘for . . . develops’.
3ἄπoδες = ‘the footless’; perhaps martins.
4Dittmeyer excises this sentence.
5Reading ὄνoι for ἄνθρωπoι.
6Dittmeyer excises ‘and the hare’.
7Omitting Dittmeyer’s addition.
8Retaining καί.
9Retaining θυμικoί.
10Reading oἱ ἰκτῖνες.
11Dittmeyer excises this sentence.
12Dittmeyer excises the bracketed sentences: the text is plainly corrupt.
13The last two paragraphs are excised by Dittmeyer.
14Peck rightly excises the bracketed sentence.
15Reading αἰλoύρoις for λoφoύρoις.
16Dittmeyer excises ‘It has three cavities . . . with the aorta’.
17Omitting Dittmeyer’s addition.
18Dittmeyer excises this sentence.
19Reading ἔστιν ὅτε.
20Dittmeyer excises the description of the martichoras.
21Dittmeyer excises the paragraph.
22There is a lacuna in the MSS: Dittmeyer suggests adding ‘in others, tapering’.
23Dittmeyer excises the whole of ch. 14 up to this point.
24Reading τὰ τε ὠότoκα for ἄνθρωπός τε, and excising ἔτι … τετραπόδων in line 29 (Balme).
25Reading ἄνθρωπoς (Balme), for ὄφις καὶ κρoκόδειλoς.
26Reading καρδία ἴδιόν τι.
27Dittmeyer excises this paragraph.
28Dittmeyer excises this paragraph.
29Dittmeyer excises the bracketed sentence.
30Reading κατὰ τoῦ στoμάχoυ τὴν θέσιν καὶ σύντρησιν.
31Dittmeyer excises this paragraph.
32Reading ἐντερoειδῆ.
33Reading γαλῆ.
34Dittmeyer excises the bird.
35Dittmeyer excises this paragraph.
36Dittmeyer excises ‘which . . . aorta’.
37Transferring κάτωθεν ἀρξαμένη from line 8.
38Reading ἔστι for ↚τι.
39Reading στενή for τείνει.
40Retaining καί.
41Dittmeyer excises this paragraph.
42Reading πόδα, καθάπερ α꜊.
43This sentence has been transposed from line 8, where in the MSS it follows ‘left to right’.
44Iliad XIII 546.
45Dittmeyer excises lines 34 (‘. . . and there are other ducts . . .’) to 2 (‘. . . flank.’).
46Dittmeyer excises ‘the bladder and also’.
47Dittmeyer excises these sentences: see 492b23.
48Reading ἄνω δὲ τῆς ͓ άχεως ᾗ περαίνει.
49Dittmeyer excises “while a part of the same . . . ankle’.
50Omitting αὐτῶν ἐν τoῖς πλατέσι.
51Dittmeyer excises ‘and toes that have feet’.
52Dittmeyer excises this sentence.
53Dittmeyer excises this sentence.
54Dittmeyer excises this sentence.
55Dittmeyer excises the passage on the effects of water on procreation.
56Reading μυστακόκητoς.
57Dittmeyer excises this clause.
58Reading πῦρ ὅ ἐκ τῆς.
59See Herodotus III 101.
60Reading τoῖς δὲ πτερυγίoις ἅ.
61Dittmeyer excises ‘or the pontilus . . . octopus)’.
62Reading συμφυής.
63Dittmeyer excises.
64Dittmeyer excises the parenthetical sentence.
65Omitting ꜌.
66Dittmeyer excises this paragraph.
67Reading ἀπò τoῦ … κηρυκώδoυς.
68Dittmeyer excises this paragraph.
69Reading ἥ τε κεφαλή.
70Reading ἀπηθῶν τoῖς ἐπικαλύμμασιν.
71Dittmeyer excises this sentence.
72Dittmeyer excises.
73This sentence is excised by Dittmeyer.
74Dittmeyer excises this clause.
75Dittmeyer excises.
76Reading θαλαττίoις for ἄλλoις.
77Excised by Dittmeyer.
78Dittmeyer excises this paragraph and the next.
79Reading κόγχαις.
80Dittmeyer excises ‘and this is a character . . . flesh within’.
81Dittmeyer excises.
82Reading σῶμα.
83Excised by Dittmeyer.
84Excised by Dittmeyer.
85Excised by Dittmeyer.
86Reading καὶ γὰρ ἔχει καὶ ὄσφρησιν.
87Omitting Dittmeyer’s ἡἢ ἄπoδαά.
88Dittmeyer excises this clause.
89Excised by Dittmeyer.
90Excised by Dittmeyer.
91There is a lacuna in the text at this point.
92Reading φρῦνoι for τρυγόνες.
93Dittmeyer excises ‘as is also . . . group’.
94Omitting ἔξω.
95Dittmeyer excises this paragraph.
96Dittmeyer excises the lobster and the carid.
97Excised by Dittmeyer.
98Dittmeyer excises this paragraph.
99The text of this sentence is uncertain.
100Dittmeyer excises the bracketed sentences.
101Dittmeyer excises this sentence.
102Dittmeyer excises.
103Dittmeyer excises.
104Dittmeyer excises.
105Dittmeyer excises.
106Dittmeyer excises.
107Omitting μή.
108Reading τoῦ ᾠoῦ for τoύτoυ.
109Dittmeyer excises this paragraph.
110Omitting ἅ.
111The text is uncertain.
112The three paragraphs from 552b5 are excised by Dittmeyer.
113Dittmeyer excises the last two paragraphs of this chapter.
114Dittmeyer marks a lacuna at this point.
115Excised by Dittmeyer.
116Dittmeyer excises.
117Reading ἐναφίησι δ’ ὁ ἄρρην εἰς τὴν θήλειαν, oὐχ ἡ θήλεια εἰς τòν ἄρρενα, ὥσπερ τἆλλα ἔντoμα · ἔχει δ’ ἡ θήλεια αἰδoῖoν εἰς ὃ ἀφίησιν ὁ ἄρρην.
118Reading τὰ ἔντoμα.
119Reading ἐν πικερίῳ.
120Reading διὰ στoμάτων, καί…
121Reading ἢ oὐκ ἄν ὀχεύσειεν.
122Dittmeyer excises.
123Dittmeyer excises.
124Dittmeyer excises.
125Dittmeyer excises.
126There is a lacuna in the text here.
127Reading τòν τείνoντα.
128Excised by d’Arcy Thompson.
129‘Pινόβατoς from ῥίνη (angel-fish) and βάτoς (ray).
130Reading τoῦτo δ’ ἓνφαίνεται.
131Excised by Dittmeyer.
132Excised by Dittmeyer.
133Dittmeyer excises this sentence.
134Reading ὅμωs δὲ καὶ τoύτων.
135Excised by Dittmeyer.
136Excised by Dittmeyer.
137Dittmeyer excises this sentence.
138Excised by Dittmeyer.
139Reading ἀμβλίσκει.
140There is a lacuna in the text at this point.
141Excised by Dittmeyer.
142Omitting μή.
143Reading ἀφώρισται.
144Excised by Dittmeyer.
145See Iliad IX 539 and Odyssey IX 190.
146Reading ἢ μή ἐστιν.
147Reading ꜏μως.
14
8Reading ἢ ꜏σoν for oὗ.
149The text of this sentence is corrupt.
150Reading τρόπων.
151Reading τὰ δὲ πλεῖστα γίγνεται ꜔ λóκληρα.
152Reading πρoσoύσης.
153Reading διχῶς.
154Excised by Dittmeyer.
155Dittmeyer excises ‘including . . . resemble it’.
156This sentence is transposed from line 21.
157Dittmeyer excises this sentence.
158Reading πράσoν.
159Retaining μαλακία.
160Retaining τoῖς φέρoυσιν.
161Excised by Dittmeyer.
162Excised by Dittmeyer.
163Excised by Dittmeyer.
164Excised by Dittmeyer.
165Reading ἀσταφίσι τoῦ oἰνoῦ.
166Excised by Dittmeyer.
167Excised by Dittmeyer.
168Excised by Dittmeyer.
169Excised by Dittmeyer.
170Retaining τoῖς ἀγρίoις—but the text of this sentence is uncertain.
171Excised by Dittmeyer.
172Reading ἐαρινήν.
173Excised by Dittmeyer.
174Excised by Dittmeyer.
175Reading λευκὴ γάρ.
176Retaining περιελόντες τoὺς λίθoυς.
177Excised by Dittmeyer.
178Omitting καὶ κατὰ μόρια τoύτων.
179Reading μιᾶς.
180Reading κἂν παρῇ ꜔ ἀρρήν, ꜏πως.
181Reading ἐπικoρρίζoυσι.
182Omitting μή.
183lliad XIV 291.
184Reading φαρμακίς.
185Reading πάντα διὰ πάντoς.
186lliad XXIV 316.
187Reading τῷ τρόμῳ (but the text is doubtful).
188Reading ληφθῇ.
189Dittmeyer marks a lacuna here.
190Reading τòν χυμòν τῶν ἀνθέων.
191Reading κόμμωσιν.
192Retaining ꜔ ἀφεσμός
193Reading διὰ τέλoυς.
194Reading κηρόν.
195Reading ἐπάν αὐξηθῇ, ἀπάγει.
196Iliad XI 553.
197Retaining ὀχεύσαντoς.
198Reading τoύτων for τoύτoν, and rejecting γεννηθέντα.
199Reading ταχεῖαν.
200Retaining oὐ.
201Translated by Jonathan Barnes.
202Reading ꜏τι for εἰ.
203Reading oὐδὲν κωλύει for ἰσχύει.
204Retaining καταλήξεως.
205Reading πάντως for παντελῶς, and omitting ἡ꜔πωσoῦνά ἐχoύσης.
206Text uncertain.
207There appears to be a lacuna in the text at this point.
208Text uncertain.
209Text uncertain.
210Retaining δέ.
211Retaining ἧς κρατεῖ.
212Reading ἤ for μή.
213Text uncertain.
214Omitting Dittmeyer’s oὐκ.
215Omitting Dittmeyer’s ‴.
216Omitting μή.
217Text uncertain.
218Reading γεννῶν for γεννῶσιν.
219Reading ἀλλά for ͛ μα ἡδέά.
220Text uncertain.
221Reading ꜉ς δὲ πᾶν ͛ μα.
222Retaining ἔξω.
223Retaining ἔξω.
224Omitting Dittmeyer’s πίστιν τῇ ꜎πάρξει.
225Omitting ἡ↚τερoν πρòά ʶτέρoυ, and adding oὐ before θεωρoῦσι.
226Reading πάντα ταὐτά for ταῦτα.
227Reading τoῖς for τῶν.
228The text of this whole paragraph is uncertain.
229There is a lacuna in the text here.
230Omitting ἔτη πoλλά.
231Omitting Dittmeyer’s ꜏τε, and reading oἷν μ꜑ξα.
232Reading ἀργότατoι.
233Retaining πράγματoς
234Reading ὀδ꜑νημα παρέχει.
235Reading παιδίoν ἔχει [μύλην], θερθή τε καὶ [ψυχρὰ καὶ] ξηρά.
PARTS OF ANIMALS**
W. Ogle
BOOK I
[639a1] 1 · Every study and investigation, the humblest and the noblest alike, seems to admit of two kinds of proficiency; one of which may be properly called educated knowledge of the subject, while the other is a kind of acquaintance with it. For an [5] educated man should be able to form a fair judgement as to the goodness or badness of an exposition. To be educated is in fact to be able to do this; and the man of general education we take to be such. It will, however, of course, be understood that we only ascribe universal education to one who in his own individual person is thus [10] able to judge nearly all branches of knowledge, and not to one who has a like ability merely in some special subject. For it is possible for a man to have this competence in some one branch of knowledge.
It is plain then that, in the science which inquires into nature, there must be certain canons, by reference to which a hearer shall be able to criticize the method of a professed exposition, quite independently of the question whether the [15] statements made be true or false. Ought we, for instance (to give an illustration of what I mean), to begin by discussing each separate substance—man, lion, ox, and the like—taking each kind in hand independently of the rest, or ought we rather to lay down the attributes which they have in common in virtue of some common [20] element of their nature? For genera that are quite distinct present many identical phenomena, sleep, for instance, respiration, growth, decay, death, and other similar affections and conditions that may remain; for at present it is an obscure and indeterminate business to discuss them. Now it is plain that if we deal with each species independently of the rest, we shall frequently be obliged to repeat the same [25] statements over and over again; for horse and dog and man present every one of the phenomena just enumerated. A discussion therefore of the attributes of each such species separately would necessarily involve frequent repetitions as to characters, themselves identical but recurring in animals specifically distinct. (Very possibly also there may be other characters which, though they present specific differences, yet come under one and the same category. For instance, flying, swimming, [639b1] walking, creeping, are plainly specifically distinct, but yet are all forms of animal progression.) We must, then, have some clear understanding as to the manner in which our investigation is to be conducted; whether, I mean, we are first to deal with the common or generic characters, and afterwards to take into consideration special [5] peculiarities; or whether we are to start straight off with the particular species. For as yet no definite rule has been laid down in this matter. So also there is a like uncertainty as to another point now to be mentioned. Ought the student of nature follow the plan adopted by the mathematicians in their astronomical demonstrations, and after considering the phenomena presented by animals, and their several parts, proceed subsequently to treat of the causes and the reason why; or ought he to [10] follow some other method? Furthermore, the causes concerned in natural generation are, as we see, more than one. There is the cause for the sake of which, and the cause whence the beginning of motion comes. Now we must decide which of these two causes comes first, which second. Plainly, however, that cause is the first which we call that for the sake of which. For this is the account of the thing, and the [15] account forms the starting-point, alike in the works of art and in works of nature. For the doctor and the builder define health or house, either by the intellect or by perception, and then proceed to give the accounts and the causes of each of the things they do and of why they should do it thus. Now in the works of nature the good and that for the sake of which is still more dominant than i
n works of art, nor is [20] necessity a factor with the same significance in them all; though almost all writers try to refer their accounts to this, failing to distinguish the several ways in which necessity is spoken of. For there is absolute necessity, manifested in eternal phenomena; and there is hypothetical necessity, manifested in everything that is [25] generated as in everything that is produced by art, be it a house or what it may. For if a house or other such final object is to be realized, it is necessary that first this and then that shall be produced and set in motion, and so on in continuous succession, [30] until the end is reached, for the sake of which each prior thing is produced and exists. So also is it with the productions of nature. The mode of necessity, however, [640a1] and the mode of demonstration are different in natural science from what they are in the theoretical sciences (we have spoken of this elsewhere). For in the latter the starting-point is that which is; in the former that which is to be. For since health, or a man, is of such and such a character, it is necessary for this or that to exist or be [5] produced; it is not the case that, since this or that exists or has been produced, that of necessity exists or will exist. Nor is it possible to trace back the necessity of demonstrations of this sort to a starting-point, of which you can say that, since this exists, that exists. These however, again, are matters that have been dealt with in another treatise, where it was stated where necessity is present, where it is [10] reciprocal and for what reason.1
Another matter which must not be passed over without consideration is, whether the proper subject of our exposition is that with which the earlier writers concerned themselves, namely, the way each thing is naturally generated, or rather the way it is. For there is no small difference between these two views. The best course appears to be that we should follow the method already mentioned—begin [15] with the phenomena presented by each group of animals, and, when this is done, proceed afterwards to state the causes of those phenomena—in the case of generation too. For in house building too, these things come about because the form of the house is such and such, rather than its being the case that the house is such and such because it comes about thus. For the generation is for the sake of the substance and not this for the sake of the generation. Empedocles, then, was in error [20] when he said that many of the characters presented by animals were merely the results of incidental occurrences during their development; for instance, that the backbone is as it is because it happened to be broken owing to the turning of the foetus in the womb. In so saying he overlooked the fact that propagation implies a creative seed endowed with certain powers. Secondly, he neglected another fact, namely, that the parent animal pre-exists, not only in account, but actually in time. [25] For man is generated from man; and thus it is because the parent is such and such that the generation of the child is thus and so. [The same statement holds good also for those which are apparently spontaneous, as also for the products of art. For the [30] same result as is produced by art may occur spontaneously, e.g. health. Those things whose agent is pre-existent, such as the statuary’s art, cannot possibly be produced spontaneously. Art indeed consists in the account of the product without its matter. So too with chance products; for they are produced in the same way as products of art.]2
The Complete Works of Aristotle Page 173