APPENDIX.
ESSAY ON THE LITERARY AND PECUNIARY RESOURCES WHICH ARISTOTLE EITHER USED, OR IS SAID TO HAVE USED IN THE EXAMINATION AND COMPOSITION OF HIS HISTORY OF ANIMALS.
Translated from the Latin of Schneider.
Aristotle had very likely more authorities, whom he has followed, or converted to his own purposes, than those whose names he has given. These are, however, a few, whom he has named, as Alcmæon of Crotona; Dionysius of Apollonia; Herodorus of Heracleum in Pontus, the father of Bryson the sophist; Ctesias of Cnidos; Herodotus of Halicarnassus; Syennesis of Cyprus; Polybus; Democritus of Abdera; Anaxagoras of Clazomene; Empedocles of Sicily; and if there are any more which do not just now occur to my memory, they are accurately enumerated in the index, with the names of the places to which they belonged. I have said that it is probable, that Aristotle has derived information from more authorities than he has named; and a reason for this conjecture is found in a passage which he extracts, almost verbatim, from Herodotus, on the Nilotic crocodile (Euterpe, 68). This I have shewn in a note on the passage, book v. ch. 27, 2. And there are many places, both in his natural history and his other works on animals, where our philosopher refers to the ancient fables of men who were transformed into the nature and forms of various animals. The oldest author of such fables is Boeus (or Boeo, in the feminine gender, as some have conjectured). From this book Antoninus Literalis has extracted many chapters in Greek. Nicander of Colophon, and others, followed the example of Boeus. Among Latin writers, the Metamorphoses of Ovid have always commanded attention. All who have read the work of Antoninus, and the Metamorphoses of Ovid, will easily perceive how much information on the nature and habits of animals our philosopher could have derived from the very character of the books which had come down from the remotest antiquity to the time of Aristotle (compare note 9, 17, 1), especially if they bear in mind that the ancient teachers of physics always compared the habits of animals with those of man, and conjectured the causes and reasons of their actions, from similar impulses in man. This may be seen in the fables of Æsop, for they contain the first elements of the doctrines of the ancients on physics and morals. We might also offer a surmise on Eudoxus, and Scylax, and others, who wrote "Travels Round the Earth," in which they described the animals of different countries; for our philosopher appeals to the testimony of both these authors, in his work on Meteorics, and elsewhere. There is more doubt whether Aristotle used, or could have used, the numerous notices of animals, of the interior of Asia and India, which the companions of Alexander, in his Asiatic and Indian expeditions, brought back to Greece; which Theophrastus, the pupil of Aristotle, and his successor in the schools, is found to have used so well in his History of Plants. For this I consider to be proved, that the written notices of the companions of Alexander were published after the death of the king, though we have no proof of the exact year in which they were made public. Indeed I have never found any evidence in the History of Animals which could lead us to suppose that Aristotle was acquainted with the animals of the interior of Asia and India, by information derived from the companions of Alexander; nor have I been able to find the slightest information from which I can form a conjecture as to either the place or time when this history was written: but, in order that others may institute a more rigorous inquiry into the date and place of its authorship, if any such have escaped my notice, I will place before my readers that portion of the Aristotelian chronology which relates to this work, from the disputation of St. Croix, a learned French author (Examen Critique des Historiens d'Alexander le Grand, p. 603, second edition). Aristotle, therefore, at the invitation of Philip, King of Macedon, undertook the education of his son, Alexander, when he was thirteen years of age, in the second year of the 109th Olympiad, when Phythodotus was Archon of Athens. Aristotle returned to Athens in the second year of the 111th Olympiad, in the Archonship of Evænetus. He taught at Athens for thirteen years, from whence he fled to Chalcis, and there he died, in the third year of the 114th Olympiad, during the Archonship of Philocles.
There is, indeed, a passage in Pliny, (book x. ch. 64, sect. 84, on the fecundity of mice,) where he says, that among other things Aristotle has spoken in his History of Animals (vi. 29) of the gravid fœtus of the Persian mice; but the Greek exemplar contains no authority from which Pliny could have derived the words which he has added: "More wonderful than all is the fœtus of the mice, which we cannot unhesitatingly receive, though derived from the authority of Aristotle, and the soldiers of Alexander the Great." In this and in two other places he calls those soldiers whom others are in the habit of calling the companions of Alexander the Great. But there is also a passage in the Meteorics of Aristotle (iii. 1), where he mentions as a recent event the destruction of the temple of Ephesus, by the incendiary Herostratus, on the day of Alexander's birth, in these words: "As it has just now happened in the burning of the temple of Ephesus." This book, therefore, appears to have been written at the commencement of the 106th Olympiad, and with it the History of Animals is very closely connected, as I have shown in my treatise on the order of the books of Physics; so that we may suppose that they were written in nearly the same Olympiad, if we regard only the series of the works; and no interruption occurred with which we are unacquainted. On the other hand, in the Meteorics (iii. 5), he speaks of a lunar rainbow, and says that it is rarely seen, and then adds, "that it has occurred but twice in more than fifty years." If we reckon these fifty years from the birth of Aristotle, in the first year of the 99th Olympiad, that book will fall in the third or fourth year of the 111th Olympiad; and from this calculation it would follow that this book was also written in Athens, but that the first date is to be taken in a wider sense.
From all this, we may easily perceive that at this day we are entirely ignorant of the sources of information collected either from ancient or contemporary writers, to which our philosopher had access in composing and completing a work of such multiplied and varied information. Even if we assume that they were as large as the mind of Aristotle was great, acute, and transparent, still, for a work so various and extensive, spread over seas, rivers, earth, and heaven, even that mind would require some assistance from other sources to which it might apply in constructing and building up a system of general instruction from the materials collected in different places about various animals, and from the observations used in describing and arranging them together in orders, classes, genera, and species. The following were the sources Aristotle used, according to the narrative of an uncertain author quoted by Pliny (viii. 16, 17)—"King Alexander the Great," he says, "was possessed with the desire of knowing the natures of animals, and therefore delegated the work to Aristotle, a man of very great learning. Some thousands of men in the whole region of Asia and Greece obeyed his commands, all, namely, who obtained their livelihood by hunting, hawking, or fishing, or who had in their care menageries, herds, beehives, fishponds, or aviaries; so that nothing in nature might be unknown to him; and from his examination of these, he compiled those fifty celebrated volumes, which I have collected into one, together with those animals with which he was unacquainted, and I hope that they will be consulted by good scholars." In all this there is nothing contradictory to the mind and liberality of Alexander, or the confidence or strength of his empire. But some may prefer the story published by Ælian, in his various history (iv. 19), who, I know not on what authority, transfers the narrative to Philip, the father of Alexander—"Having supplied abundance of riches to Aristotle, he was the means of many other undertakings, and especially of his knowledge of living creatures; and the son of Nichomachus completed his history by the liberal assistance of Philip; who also honoured Plato and Theophrastus." If this be true, it evidently refers to those seven or eight years in which Aristotle was in Macedonia presiding over the education of Alexander, the son of Philip.
These abundant supplies for the studies of Aristotle are not at all inconsistent, either with the liberality of Philip, or his love for his son and his son's tutor, nor do they surpass credibility. The gold mines of Philippi supplied the munificence and liberality of Philip. But there are difficulties in the narrative which make us question the credibility of the author of this munificence. For instance, the names of Plato and Theophrastus are mentioned; but the name of Theophrastus could not be so great and illustrious, even if it were known to the Greeks at all, as to have attracted the liberality of Philip, before the death of his master Aristotle, whom also he succeeded in the School at Athens. I should, therefore, rather imagine that Ælian, who was more diligent in the accuracy of his Attic diction than his historical fidelity, has committed some error in the name of Philip, or in those of Plato and Theophrastus, whom he has appended to his narrative.
The narrative of Athenæus, (ix. 398,) derived from the report of an unknown author, is very different; he calls the History of Animals a very expensive work, and then adds—"There is a report that Aristotle received 800 talents from Alexander, for writing the History of Animals"—a sum of money which Perigonius, in his Notes on Ælian, estimates at 1,440,000 caroli. To this narrative, or, as it may be more justly termed, rumour, is opposed the opinion of Io. Henr. Schulzius, in his History of Medicine (Leipsic, 1738, p. 358). "When I consider this matter aright, it appears to me that the whole story is very doubtful, and, for the most part, fabulous. And it can easily be proved, that the whole revenue of Macedon, if Alexander had paid it all to Aristotle for several years, would not have amounted to this sum. It is impossible, therefore, that he could have paid so much to Aristotle before the conquest of Asia; and after his expedition had been successfully accomplished, his affection was alienated from Aristotle, and, in order to annoy him, he liberally enriched other philosophers, who had done nothing to deserve his patronage. Their labours, therefore, are in vain, who demand justice of our excellent Aristotle, even in his grave, because he did not use such an immense sum of money in the composition of a more veracious history.
"I am certainly of opinion that a great deal has been made, as usual, of a very little matter, namely, that if Aristotle derived any assistance in that kingdom, all the materials were provided for him while Philip was alive, and before Alexander's expedition was undertaken, or in the first years of the expedition. But afterwards, when Alexander had set out, Aristotle returned to Athens, and was engaged in teaching: nor could he have derived any advantage from the resources which Pliny mentions, and the multitude of persons who were instructed to place themselves under his command, for he was not only occupied with other pursuits, but would have been in danger of being destroyed by the fury of the Athenians, on the plea that he was attempting innovations, if he had even ventured to dissect animals, not to say men."