HISTORY 135E

SPRING QUARTER, 2006
Department of History
University of California, Irvine
 Instructor:    Dr. Barbara J. Becker

 

Week 1.  Soul

excerpts from
On the Parts of Animals (c. 350 BCE)
by Aristotle (384-322 BCE)
trans. (1882) William Ogle (1827-1912)

 
BOOK I

1. On a method of investigating the nature of animals.

EVERY systematic science, the humblest and the noblest alike, seems to admit of two distinct kinds of proficiency; one of which may be properly called scientific knowledge of the subject, while the other is a kind of educational acquaintance with it.  For an educated man should be able to form a fair off-hand judgement as to the goodness or badness of the method used by a professor in his exposition.  To be educated is in fact to be able to do this; and even the man of universal education we deem to be such in virtue of his having this ability.  It will, however, of course, be understood that we only ascribe universal education to one who in his own individual person is thus critical in all or 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 without having it in all.

It is plain then that, as in other sciences, so in that 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 statements made be true or false.  Ought we, for instance (to give an illustration of what I mean), to begin by discussing each separate species -- man, lion, ox, and the like -- taking each kind in hand independently of the rest, or ought we rather to deal first with the attributes which they have in common in virtue of some common element of their nature, and proceed from this as a basis for the consideration of them separately?  For genera that are quite distinct yet oftentimes present many identical phenomena, sleep, for instance, respiration, growth, decay, death, and other similar affections and conditions, which may be passed over for the present, as we are not yet prepared to treat of them with clearness and precision.

Now it is plain that if we deal with each species independently of the rest, we shall frequently be obliged to repeat the same statements over and over again; for horse and dog and man present, each and all, 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, 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 peculiarities; or whether we are to start straight off with the ultimate 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 writer who deals with the works of nature to 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 follow some other method?

And when these questions are answered, there yet remains another.  The causes concerned in the generation of the works of nature are, as we see, more than one.  There is the final cause and there is the motor cause.  Now we must decide which of these two causes comes first, which second.  Plainly, however, that cause is the first which we call the final one.  For this is the Reason, and the Reason forms the starting-point, alike in the works of art and in works of nature.  For consider how the physician or how the builder sets about his work.  He starts by forming for himself a definite picture, in the one case perceptible to mind, in the other to sense, of his end -- the physician of health, the builder of a house -- and this he holds forward as the reason and explanation of each subsequent step that he takes, and of his acting in this or that way as the case may be.  Now in the works of nature the good end and the final cause is still more dominant than in works of art such as these, nor is necessity a factor with the same significance in them all; though almost all writers, while they try to refer their origin to this cause, do so without distinguishing the various senses in which the term necessity is used.  For there is absolute necessity, manifested in eternal phenomena; and there is hypothetical necessity, manifested in everything that is generated by nature 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 such and such material shall exist; and it is necessary that first this then that shall be produced, and first this and then that set in motion, and so on in continuous succession, until the end and final result is reached, for the sake of which each prior thing is produced and exists.  As with these productions of art, so also is it with the productions of nature....

Another matter which must not be passed over without consideration is, whether the proper subject of our exposition is that with which the ancient writers concerned themselves, namely, what is the process of formation of each animal; or whether it is not rather, what are the characters of a given creature when formed.  For there is no small difference between these two views.

The best course appears to be that we should follow the method already mentioned, and begin with the phenomena presented by each group of animals, and, when this is done, proceed afterwards to state the causes of those phenomena, and to deal with their evolution.  For elsewhere, as for instance in house building, this is the true sequence.  The plan of the house, or the house, has this and that form; and because it has this and that form, therefore is its construction carried out in this or that manner.  For the process of evolution is for the sake of the thing finally evolved, and not this for the sake of the process.

...[T]he same result as is produced by art may occur spontaneously.  Spontaneity [or chance], for instance, may bring about the restoration of health.  The products of art, however, require the pre-existence of an efficient cause homogeneous with themselves, such as the statuary's art, which must necessarily precede the statue; for this cannot possibly be produced spontaneously.  Art indeed consists in the conception of the result to be produced before its realization in the material....

The fittest mode, then, of treatment is to say, a man has such and such parts, because the conception of a man includes their presence, and because they are necessary conditions of his existence, or, if we cannot quite say this, which would be best of all, then the next thing to it, namely, that it is either quite impossible for him to exist without them, or, at any rate, that it is better for him that they should be there; and their existence involves the existence of other antecedents.  Thus we should say, because man is an animal with such and such characters, therefore is the process of his development necessarily such as it is; and therefore is it accomplished in such and such an order, this part being formed first, that next, and so on in succession; and after a like fashion should we explain the evolution of all other works of nature.

Now that with which the ancient writers, who first philosophized about Nature, busied themselves, was the material principle and the material cause.  They inquired what this is, and what its character; how the universe is generated out of it, and by what motor influence, whether, for instance, by antagonism or friendship, whether by intelligence or spontaneous action, the substratum of matter being assumed to have certain inseparable properties; fire, for instance, to have a hot nature, earth a cold one; the former to be light, the latter heavy.  For even the genesis of the universe is thus explained by them.  After a like fashion do they deal also with the development of plants and of animals.  They say, for instance, that the water contained in the body causes by its currents the formation of the stomach and the other receptacles of food or of excretion; and that the breath by its passage breaks open the outlets of the nostrils; air and water being the materials of which bodies are made; for all represent nature as composed of such or similar substances.

But if men and animals and their several parts are natural phenomena, then the natural philosopher must take into consideration not merely the ultimate substances of which they are made, but also flesh, bone, blood, and all other homogeneous parts; not only these, but also the heterogeneous parts, such as face, hand, foot; and must examine how each of these comes to be what it is, and in virtue of what force.  For to say what are the ultimate substances out of which an animal is formed, to state, for instance, that it is made of fire or earth, is no more sufficient than would be a similar account in the case of a couch or the like.  For we should not be content with saying that the couch was made of bronze or wood or whatever it might be, but should try to describe its design or mode of composition in preference to the material; or, if we did deal with the material, it would at any rate be with the concretion of material and form.  For a couch is such and such a form embodied in this or that matter, or such and such a matter with this or that form; so that its shape and structure must be included in our description.  For the formal nature is of greater importance than the material nature.

Does, then, configuration and colour constitute the essence of the various animals and of their several parts?  For if so, what Democritus says will be strictly correct.  For such appears to have been his notion.  At any rate he says that it is evident to every one what form it is that makes the man, seeing that he is recognizable by his shape and colour.  And yet a dead body has exactly the same configuration as a living one; but for all that is not a man.  So also no hand of bronze or wood or constituted in any but the appropriate way can possibly be a hand in more than name.  For like a physician in a painting, or like a flute in a sculpture, in spite of its name it will be unable to do the office which that name implies.  Precisely in the same way no part of a dead body, such I mean as its eye or its hand, is really an eye or a hand.  To say, then, that shape and colour constitute the animal is an inadequate statement, and is much the same as if a woodcarver were to insist that the hand he had cut out was really a hand.  Yet the physiologists, when they give an account of the development and causes of the animal form, speak very much like such a craftsman.

What, however, I would ask, are the forces by which the hand or the body was fashioned into its shape?  The woodcarver will perhaps say, by the axe or the auger; the physiologist, by air and by earth.  Of these two answers the artificer's is the better, but it is nevertheless insufficient.  For it is not enough for him to say that by the stroke of his tool this part was formed into a concavity, that into a flat surface; but he must state the reasons why he struck his blow in such a way as to effect this, and what his final object was; namely, that the piece of wood should develop eventually into this or that shape.  It is plain, then, that the teaching of the old physiologists is inadequate, and that the true method is to state what the definitive characters are that distinguish the animal as a whole; to explain what it is both in substance and in form, and to deal after the same fashion with its several organs; in fact, to proceed in exactly the same way as we should do, were we giving a complete description of a couch.

If now this something that constitutes the form of the living being be the soul, or part of the soul, or something that without the soul cannot exist; as would seem to be the case, seeing at any rate that when the soul departs, what is left is no longer a living animal, and that none of the parts remain what they were before, excepting in mere configuration, like the animals that in the fable are turned into stone; if, I say, this be so, then it will come within the province of the natural philosopher to inform himself concerning the soul, and to treat of it, either in its entirety, or, at any rate, of that part of it which constitutes the essential character of an animal; and it will be his duty to say what this soul or this part of a soul is....  [I]t is the presence of the soul that enables matter to constitute the animal nature, much more than it is the presence of matter which so enables the soul....  For though the wood of which they are made constitutes the couch and the tripod, it only does so because it is capable of receiving such and such a form....

...[T]here must be a something or other really existing, corresponding to what we call by the name of Nature.  For a given germ does not give rise to any chance living being, nor spring from any chance one; but each germ springs from a definite parent and gives rise to a definite progeny.  And thus it is the germ that is the ruling influence and fabricator of the offspring.  For these it is by nature, the offspring being at any rate that which in nature will spring from it.  At the same time the offspring is anterior to the germ; for germ and perfected progeny are related as the developmental process and the result.  Anterior, however, to both germ and product is the organism from which the germ was derived.  For every germ implies two organisms, the parent and the progeny.  For germ or seed is both the seed of the organism from which it came, of the horse, forinstance, from which it was derived, and the seed of the organism that will eventually arise from it, of the mule, for example, which is developed from the seed of the horse.  The same seed then is the seed both of the horse and of the mule, though in different ways as here set forth.  Moreover, the seed is potentially that which will spring from it, and the relation of potentiality to actuality we know....

The reason why our predecessors failed in hitting upon this method of treatment was, that they were not in possession of the notion of essence, nor of any definition of substance.  The first who came near it was Democritus, and he was far from adopting it as a necessary method in natural science, but was merely brought to it, spite of himself, by constraint of facts.  In the time of Socrates a nearer approach was made to the method.  But at this period men gave up inquiring into the works of nature, and philosophers diverted their attention to political science and to the virtues which benefit mankind.

Of the method itself the following is an example.  In dealing with respiration we must show that it takes place for such or such a final object; and we must also show that this and that part of the process is necessitated by this and that other stage of it.  By necessity we shall sometimes mean hypothetical necessity, the necessity, that is, that the requisite antecedants shall be there, if the final end is to be reached; and sometimes absolute necessity, such necessity as that which connects substances and their inherent properties and characters.  For the alternate discharge and re-entrance of heat and the inflow of air are necessary if we are to live.  Here we have at once a necessity in the former of the two senses.  But the alternation of heat and refrigeration produces of necessity an alternate admission and discharge of the outer air, and this is a necessity of the second kind.

In the foregoing we have an example of the method which we must adopt, and also an example of the kind of phenomena, the causes of which we have to investigate....

5. On the proper scope of our investigation.

Of things constituted by nature some are ungenerated, imperishable, and eternal, while others are subject to generation and decay.  The former are excellent beyond compare and divine, but less accessible to knowledge.  The evidence that might throw light on them, and on the problems which we long to solve respecting them, is furnished but scantily by sensation; whereas respecting perishable plants and animals we have abundant information, living as we do in their midst, and ample data may be collected concerning all their various kinds, if only we are willing to take sufficient pains.

Both departments, however, have their special charm.  The scanty conceptions to which we can attain of celestial things give us, from their excellence, more pleasure than all our knowledge of the world in which we live; just as a half glimpse of persons that we love is more delightful than a leisurely view of other things, whatever their number and dimensions.  On the other hand, in certitude and in completeness our knowledge of terrestrial things has the advantage.  Moreover, their greater nearness and affinity to us balances somewhat the loftier interest of the heavenly things that are the objects of the higher philosophy.

Having already treated of the celestial world, as far as our conjectures could reach, we proceed to treat of animals, without omitting, to the best of our ability, any member of the kingdom, however ignoble.  For if some have no graces to charm the sense, yet even these, by disclosing to intellectual perception the artistic spirit that designed them, give immense pleasure to all who can trace links of causation, and are inclined to philosophy.  Indeed, it would be strange if mimic representations of them were attractive, because they disclose the mimetic skill of the painter or sculptor, and the original realities themselves were not more interesting, to all at any rate who have eyes to discern the reasons that determined their formation.

We therefore must not recoil with childish aversion from the examination of the humbler animals.  Every realm of nature is marvellous:  and as Heraclitus, when the strangers who came to visit him found him warming himself at the furnace in the kitchen and hesitated to go in, is reported to have bidden them not to be afraid to enter, as even in that kitchen divinities were present, so we should venture on the study of every kind of animal without distaste; for each and all will reveal to us something natural and something beautiful.  Absence of haphazard and conduciveness of everything to an end are to be found in Nature's works in the highest degree, and the resultant end of her generations and combinations is a form of the beautiful.

If any person thinks the examination of the rest of the animal kingdom an unworthy task, he must hold in like disesteem the study of man.  For no one can look at the primordia of the human frame -- blood, flesh, bones, vessels, and the like -- without much repugnance.  Moreover, when any one of the parts or structures, be it which it may, is under discussion, it must not be supposed that it is its material composition to which attention is being directed or which is the object of the discussion, but the relation of such part to the total form.  Similarly, the true object of architecture is not bricks, mortar, or timber, but the house; and so the principal object of natural philosophy is not the material elements, but their composition, and the totality of the form, independently of which they have no existence.

The course of exposition must be first to state the attributes common to whole groups of animals, and then to attempt to give their explanation.  Many groups, as already noticed, present common attributes, that is to say, in some cases absolutely identical affections, and absolutely identical organs, -- feet, feathers, scales, and the like -- while in other groups the affections and organs are only so far identical as that they are analogous.  For instance, some groups have lungs, others have no lung, but an organ analogous to a lung in its place; some have blood, others have no blood, but a fluid analogous to blood, and with the same office.  To treat of the common attributes in connexion with each individual group would involve, as already suggested, useless iteration.  For many groups have common attributes.  So much for this topic.

As every instrument and every bodily member subserves some partial end, that is to say, some special action, so the whole body must be destined to minister to some plenary sphere of action.  Thus the saw is made for sawing, for sawing is a function, and not sawing for the saw.  Similarly, the body too must somehow or other be made for the soul, and each part of it for some subordinate function, to which it is adapted.

We have, then, first to describe the common functions, common, that is, to the whole animal kingdom, or to certain large groups, or to the members of a species.  In other words, we have to describe the attributes common to all animals, or to assemblages, like the class of Birds, of closely allied groups differentiated by gradation, or to groups like Man not differentiated into subordinate groups.  In the first case the common attributes may be called analogous, in the second generic, in the third specific.

When a function is ancillary to another, a like relation manifestly obtains between the organs which discharge these functions; and similarly, if one function is prior to and the end of another, their respective organs will stand to each other in the same relation.  Thirdly, the existence of these parts involves that of other things as their necessary consequents.

Instances of what I mean by functions and affections are Reproduction, Growth, Copulation, Waking, Sleep, Locomotion, and other similar vital actions.  Instances of what I mean by parts are Nose, Eye, Face, and other so-called members or limbs, and also the more elementary parts of which these are made.  So much for the method to be pursued.  Let us now try to set forth the causes of all vital phenomena, whether universal or particular, and in so doing let us follow that order of exposition which conforms, as we have indicated, to the order of nature....

 
Go to:
  • "Vulcan's Marvels," from The Iliad, Book XVIII (6th c. BCE?) attributed to Homer (?)
Readings for Week
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Lecture Notes for
4-4
4-11
4-18
4-25
5-2
5-9
5-16
5-23
5-30
6-6
4-6
4-13
4-20
4-27
--
5-11
5-18
5-25
6-1
6-8