Darwin on Aristotle 4331507

7/29/2019 Darwin on Aristotle 4331507

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/darwin-on-aristotle-4331507 1/29

Darwin on AristotleAuthor(s): Allan GotthelfSource: Journal of the History of Biology, Vol. 32, No. 1 (Spring, 1999), pp. 3-30Published by: SpringerStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4331507

Accessed: 02/03/2009 22:22

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springer.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the

scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that

promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of the History of

Biology.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4331507?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springer

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springer

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4331507?origin=JSTOR-pdf



LA Journalof the History of Biology 32: 3-30, 1999. 39C ? 1999 KluwerAcademic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

Darwin on Aristotle *

ALLAN GOTTHELFPhilosophyDepartmentThe College of New Jersey

Ewing,NJ 08628-0718, U.S.A.

Abstract. Charles Darwin's famous 1882 letter, in response to a gift by his friend, William

Ogle of Ogle's recent translation of Aristotle's Parts of Animals, in which Darwin remarks

that his "two gods," Linnaeus and Cuvier, were "mere school-boys to old Aristotle," has been

thought to be only an extravagantly worded gesture of politeness. However, a close examina-

tion of this and other Darwin letters, and of references to Aristotle in Darwin's earlier work,

shows that the famous letter was written several weeks after a first, polite letter of thanks, and

was carefully formulated and literally meant. Indeed, it reflected an authentic, and substantial,

increase in Darwin's already high respect for Aristotle, as a result of a careful reading both

of Ogle's Introduction and of more or less the portion of Ogle's translation which Darwin

says he has read. Aristotle's promotion to the pantheon, as an examination of the basis for

Darwin's admiration of Linnaeus and Cuvier suggests, was most likely the result specificallyof Darwin's late discovery that the man he already knew as "one of the greatest .. . observers

that ever lived" (1879) was also the ancient equivalent both of the great modem systematist

and of the great modem advocate of comparative functional explanation. It may also have

reflected some real insight on Darwin's part into the teleological aspect of Aristotle's thought,

indeed more insight than Ogle himself had achieved, as a portion of their correspondence

reveals.

Keywords: Darwin, Aristotle, Ogle, Linnaeus, Cuvier, teleology, classification, functional

explanation

Linnaeusand Cuvierhave been my two gods, though in very differentways, buttheyweremereschool-boysto oldAristotle.

This famous line, from a letter to William Ogle, the English translatorofAristotle'sParts of Animals,has often been quoted as evidence of CharlesDarwin'srespect for Aristotle'sbiological writings,and therebyas witnessto the qualityof Aristotle'sworkas biologist. More recently,however,a fewscholarshavesoughtto dampenourenthusiasm or this letter,suggestingthatDarwinwas familiarwithverylittle of Aristotleand understood ess, and thatthe vaunted etterwas merelyan extravagantlywordedgestureof politenessfrom Darwinto his friend Ogle upon receipt of a gift copy of Ogle's just

published ranslation.

* For any re-use of this article the author should be contacted at the above address.



4 ALLANGOTrHELF

In this little paper I redeem the famous Darwinletter,and explore the

Victorianmaster'sactual acquaintancewith, and estimate of, the ancient

philosopher'sbiologicalwork.

Makinguse of two additional ettersfrom Darwinin which Aristotleis

mentioned,and of thefull textof theOgle-Darwinexchange,as well asof the

occasionalreferences o Aristotle nDarwin'searlierwork,I argue 1) that he

famous letterwas not the "gestureof politeness,"butwas a secondone, sent

unsolicited more thana monthaftera first,polite but unenthusiasticetter;

(2) that it was carefully formulatedand meant quite literally;and (3) that

it reflectedan authentic,and substantial, ncrease in Darwin's respect for

Aristotleas biologist basedon a carefulreadingbothof Ogle's Introduction

andof muchthe portionof Ogle's translationhatDarwinsays he has read.

I go on to hypothesize (4) what it was in Ogle's Introduction,and in

Aristotle's ext, that ed to Darwin's ncreasedrespect;andI close by suggest-

ing (5) that,whileDarwinhadindeedreadvery littleof Aristotle'sbiological

work (sadly, he died just two months after this first real encounterwith

Aristotle's text), his famous remarkmay have reflectedsome real insight

into the teleological aspect of Aristotle'sthought,and indeed more insight

into thataspect than Ogle had achieved,as evidencedby a portionof their

exchangethatis rarelycited.

Let us beginwith the famousletter.It reads n full as follows:

Feb.22, 1882My dearDr Ogle

Youmustlet me thankyou for the pleasurewhich the Introductiono

the Aristotlebook has given me. I have rarelyreadanythingwhich has

interestedme more;thoughI havenot readas yet morethan a quarter f

the bookproper.FromquotationswhichI had seen I had a highnotionofAristotle'smerits,butI had not the mostremotenotionwhat a wonderful

man he was. Linnaeusand Cuvier have been my two gods, thoughin

very differentways, butthey were mere school-boys to old Aristotle.-

Howverycurious,also, his ignoranceon some pointsas on musclesas to

meansof movement. I amgladthatyou haveexplained n so probablea

manner omeof thegrossestmistakesattributedo him. - I neverrealized

beforereadingyourbook to whatan enormoussummationof labourwe

owe evenour commonknowledge.I wishthatAristotlecouldhaveknown

what a greatDefenderof the Faithhe has foundin you.Believe me my dearDr.Ogle

Yoursverysincerely

Ch.Darwin'



DARWINON ARISTOTLE 5

* .. # - Xe

:t . ' - ; ? | | a t V ,g, .

oZ>. n I l E g d. Z !s :. .

.!. S g l l l | l l | SS.4o

<11

l s Z ' . . . > .-_l I | I_4ti^'<'@t.>"-.. F . * l - | -- '*.4.a. ..

t . ; . , . i . , x F i i- t \*PSe_ | l l 11W- -rN-v

k a:i.S._1 11X';o*t. ...w._ l _ k.<....X..s...

.; . . . .I | l ^

. . . : .

.; ; .ei ! > <.i X , l . _.X . .t .

...................... ra * l * .. z;

0 ' f ' ;

i..O'g'NKe*y'g_ I l .0.JF;...{ - s 2 _

| | I I I _

S**t;

t-_ _

ffi ?ax^> k

nS aS

fi

t . w: . ;. t___3..............................................................................................................*s

* i 'a..^_ _tM.^ .;

. .'., '''aP'S" _ .

sSe sZzz _ v.OS.';

tei. S.,j . . .'. bes;.j._ __. '. ';

a, s . < ..... . . a _ _ _ . - ,.4e........................................................................................................... .

t8 ^ iX : t:_ ___i:

*S s eM

b4"/ ;>ii_-t

N _

- _

::A . . > e ; ,rrse M M _ W . **.F . ; .. i; ,.; -_r t .'9|sP

W.,jeS{#___j__ __ V h:'z.

.FX

Plate 1.



6 ~~~~~~ALLANOTTHELF

.~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~... ... ..

.^. . . . ... .. ..... ..... .. j

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ltCon.,t,,inuedE*I.



DARWIN ON ARISTOTLE 7- g.

*..........*w :. ::

-!: . .w .. .. .

*>

fi > A_ /S<_z^- -,r!-....i,j..' .

.. ., E,o,. .",

:: d.tti..'.,. .. ' , :. :'r : j.:

::' j.t '.S .' ' 'i, -... .. :. ^: ?.::e* . ,, 'i.vXL_ .......... c

' /7, y__. . . :

:. . . : .

* . : . : . . ... . ...... .. . . . . ,. .. ... . . . . . .

* - -,L_ F

bv i

wfv > >X . - .F , ,

e .. .. . . . .. e ... - - . ; . s . . . X g , ? ,. , ...... F .. , , . g- .. - . . .. ......

, . w . * w , 9 , . , x. ,, , . .. " "s ' , , ' i jt X j j , - , i - o s . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . .i ; ?: :: i.: i i ? ..... i

5e , e ;, 1| | i | | 2 | ' ,liti ;0 ,00 ;; i', 'liji! ;

| 1111S | | | _ : .... *. - . 4. 'xEi 4 4

| | | - :S| _ _ l _ I | l I _ l I FXi_.. .j..

I_...* | l l - l l- '.'.....* * | ll kt@.^t.

l t t | l +t'8l 82tc;8:

9.,

<-@:: t?

I _L

I _C.l .':rE ' . ', .

!Plate 1. Continued.



8 ALLANGOY1THELF

The detractors'argumenthas been set forthmost fully by Simon Byl,2

who makes the followingthreepoints:

1. This is a "lettrede remerciments t de compliments,"with a "caracteredithyrambique"ppropriateo such an occasion (he notes the reference

to Ogle as "Defenderof the Faith").As such it cannotbe countedon to

be a reliableaccountof Darwin'sactualviews.

2. Darwin's judgment is based mainly on Ogle's introduction.Darwin

reports n our letterthathe has read only a small portionof the "book

proper,"and in a "HistoricalSketch"added to the Preface in the 3rd

edition of On the Origin of Species (1861), Darwinhad said straight-awaythathe is not familiarwith the writingsof biologistsbeforeBuffon,

including n thatgroup"authors romtheclassicalperiod." ndeed, n the

notorious ootnoteto this remark,addedin the 4th edn. (1866), Darwin,

referring o Aristotle'spresentationn Physics II.8 of the Empedoclean

position on the formationof teeth, attributes he Empedocleanposition

to Aristotlehimself.3Thus,Darwin's udgment,even whereit is sincere,

has littlevalue.

3. And,insofaras Darwin's udgmenthasany value,we must not forgetthat

in this letterhe speaksof "Aristotle'sgnoranceon some points,"andhis"grossestmistakes"n others.

So, Byl concludes, we may cite "le mot de Darwin" only with great

"prudence" nd "circonspection."

Oddly,this assessment tself suffers from insufficientattention o the full

content,andactualcontext,of the correspondencen question.Let us try to

remedythat,examiningfirstthe circumstancesof the famousletterto Ogle.

WilliamOgle (1827-1912) was a physicianand naturalist,withclassical

training,whose small but interesting et of publications arnedhim inclusion

in the Dictionaryof Britishand Irish Botanistsand Horticulturists.4Darwincites Ogle at several places in writingsof the late 1860s, and theircorre-

spondenceappearsto have begun in that period.The youngerman by 18

years,Ogle was clearlyan enthusiastof Darwin'swork,andin these letters

they brieflydiscuss evidencesof Darwin'stheories,they recommendbooks

to each other,andOgle occasionallypasses on to Darwin informationabout

classicalauthors boththeirdiscoveriesandtheirmistakeson variousmatters

of biological detail. Ogle's letterssometimeshave a deferentialquality- he

knew he was dealingwith a greatermind than his own;Darwin n his letters

always projectsa quietrespectfor Ogle as a skilled observeranda sourceofvaluablebiologicalandmedicalinformation, lassicalandcontemporary.

In January1882, severalmonths before Darwin'sdeath,Ogle published

a work entitled Aristotle on the Parts of Animals,5a translationof the

Aristotelianreatise hereafter bbreviatedPA),togetherwitha 35-pageIntro-




ductionandover 100pagesof endnotes.6On the 17thof January, resumablyjust days afterpublication,Ogle sent a copy of the book to Darwin with thefollowingcover letter:

Dear Mr. Darwin

I have given myself thepleasureof sending you a copy of a translationof the "De Partibus" f Aristotle;and I feel some self-importancen thusbeing a kind of formal introducerof the fatherof naturalists o his greatmodem successor. Could the meeting occur in the actual flesh, what acurious one it would be! I can fancythe old teleologist looking sidewaysand with no little suspicionat his successor,and much astounded o findthat,while there was actuallyno copy of his own works in the house andwhile his views were looked on as mere mattersof antiquarian urios-ity, Democritus whom he thoughtto have effectually and everlastinglysquashed,has come to life again in the man he saw before him! I have,however, such faith in Aristotleas a real honest hunteraftertruth, hat Iverily believe that,when he had heard all you have to say on your side,he would have given in like a trueman,and have burntall his writings;and thispraydo, if it so please you, withthe one volume of them which Isendyou.

Believe me

Yours ruly

W.Ogle7

I will commenton Ogle'spictureof Darwinas a Democriteananti-teleologistlater,but I want to turn mmediately o Darwin's letter of response, which isdated the very same day as Ogle's letter,and which precededthe famous"school-boys" etterby morethana month:

Jan. 17th1882My dearOgle

I am very much obliged to you for your gift of your Aristotle. Byturningover the pages I suspect thatyour Introductionwill interest memore than the text, notwithstanding hat he was such a wonderful old

fellow. -Praybelieve me

Yourssincerely & obliged

CharlesDarwin8



10 ALLANGOTTHELF

AW,

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' ^.4.

* ' . t:

*4v::-

. js tZd**.1

?~~~~~~~~lt;



DARWIN NARISTOTLE 1

Plate 2. Continued.



12 ALLAN GOTTHELF

W4

MD.4i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Plate 2. Continued.



DARWIN NARISTOTLE 13

Plate 2. Continued.



14 ALLANGOTT7HELF

Plate 3.




This is the "lettrede remerciments,"he "gestureof politeness"as I calledit above. The famous"school-boys" etter is datedFebruary22nd, some fiveweeks later,and, so far as we can tell, is unprompted:he DarwinArchivescontain no letterfromOgle to Darwin n the interveningperiod.

So Darwin, having writtenOgle a polite response, begins reading theIntroduction.He finds it so fascinatingthat,contrary o his originalexpec-tation,he begins readingthe translationproper,and aboutone-quarter f theway throughhe has been so enjoyinghimself that it occurs to him to writeOgle a second letter,thankinghim for thatpleasure.The letter is authenti-cally felt, and not only expresses Darwin'spleasureand gratitude,but alsodescribesa changethathastakenplacein Darwin'sview of Aristotle.I repeatthe openingportion:

My dearDr Ogle

Youmust let me thankyou for the pleasurewhichthe Introduction othe Aristotle book has given me. I have rarely readanythingwhich hasinterestedme more;thoughI have not read as yet more than a quarterofthe book proper.Fromquotationswhich I had seen I hada highnotion ofAristotle'smerits,butI had notthe mostremotenotionwhat a wonderfulmanhe was. Linnaeusand Cuvierhavebeenmy two gods, though in verydifferentways, buttheyweremereschool-boysto old Aristotle....

Darwin does not identifywhy his respectfor Aristotlehas increased,but itclearlyhas,and n lightof that ncreasedrespect,Darwinexpressessurpriseatthe "wonderfulman's" gnoranceof certainmatters,mentioning he musclesand their role in makingmovementpossible.

Let us ask, then: How accurate s Darwin's etter in reportinghis readingand his changeof view?

Assuming Darwin read straight through from the beginning, we cancertainlysay that he had read at least 14%of the translationtself, andread(at least some of) it closely. His mention of Aristotle'sfailure to understandthe role of the muscles in facilitatingmovementprovidesthe evidence forthis. Forthe term"muscles"appearsneither n the translationnor in Ogle'sIntroduction,but only in three of Ogle's endnotes, the first two of whichare consecutive and are togetherlikely to have been Darwin'ssource. Thenotes areto the openingparagraphs f Book II ch. 1, around646bl9, whereAristotle s explainingthe finalcause of homogeneouspartsof animalssuch

as flesh(underwhich,as Ogle points out in his notes,Aristotlesubsumesthemuscles),and aneasy calculationshowsthat hispassageappearsalmost15%intothetranslation tself. Darwinmaywell havereadbeyondthatpoint, orhemayhaveoverestimated he length of what he hadreadso far.9



16 ALLAN GO1THELF

What aboutthe changein Darwin'sview of Aristotle?In Darwin'swordsagain:"Fromquotationswhich I had seen I hada high notionof Aristotle's

merits butI had not the most remotenotionwhat a wonderfulmanhe was."

Is this an accurate tatementof Darwin'spriorview, orjust rhetorical xcess?

WhatwasDarwin'sview of Aristotleprior o readingOgle'sIntroduction nd

thefirst quarter r so of PA?We havealreadyseen that n the historicalsketchaddedto the 3rdedition

of On the Originof Species (1861) Darwin says he is not familiarwith the

"writings"of the classical authors, ncludingof course Aristotle.Indeed,in

one of his early notebooks,in an entrydatedto 1838, listing things"Toberead,"Darwin writes, "ReadAristotle to see whetherany my views very

ancient?"10Unfortunately, y the time of this editionof the Origin,he still

had not done so. Butof course Darwin neversays otherwise.In the sentence

to Ogle just quotedhe says that"FromquotationswhichI had seen I hada

highnotion of Aristotle'smerits."'1But was this true?

Yes, very much so, as confirmedby an unpublished etterwritten three

years before he received Ogle's book. Dated February12, 1879, it is in

response to a letter (which has not been found) from one J.A. Crawley,a

CambridgeB.A. about 35 yearsold,'2 who hadapparently skedsomethingaboutAristotle'sbiology as foundin the originalGreek.Darwinwritesback

as follows:

DearSir,

I amsorryto say thatI can give you no information.

I have forgottenthe very little Greekwhich I once knew. Nor have I

everread, o my shamebe it spoken, he worksof Aristotle.Fromextracts,

which I have seen, I have an unboundedrespectfor him, as one of the

greatest, f notthe greatestobservers, hat everlived.-

Dear Sir

Yours aithfully

Ch. Darwin13

Herewe have a sincereprivate etterto someoneDarwinapparentlydoes

not know well, if at all, writtenon no specialoccasion, in which the expres-sion of praise for Aristotle is structurallyand verballyvery similar to the

corresponding ne in the 1882"school-boys"etter.Thethought s verylikely

to be the same,and so the greater pecificityof the 1879 lettershouldhelpus

to understandheforce of the famous 1882 letter:



DARWIN NARISTaItE 17

. 2. . . . .. A

: . -*.m. F . . . . . . . s-^' :". E ... . S | .i''*.'"'st ............ w.i

_ . -S M iB s6;m. .: : ..................l . .

* ............ | | l Li i. . ! ^ ............ :^ o - s. .......... . ...

| ......... | S;6X,> _ ,-,;.

- ^ 'AY ....... ... - . i:?: .

* .............E WXX$i.A ..... . ty. : .- ........... | - ?-Zi'Y.<. i o; ... x, -,

- ......... >fBi4}* ... ^ '- :.

_EXY;z ?BR .............. .; .. . . .

| Ys.,'b'g . .

| E .,; j:.F. WSSS .... ,, .

- rv =+. Jf- v e.

- .....................'' i iS> .' v X & . 1. ... '^''bt

- '^.' . ai J

| EsZySv| t.N' . -.^

111 ... mXiis,?

| .....X ' - 8 *|

* ... LiS/t *

w a|

S . i Z > 1

. - t ts

' W . . . , = s

| .. >si ................... f

_. td,.s iv':;Z .; ': .

* | ,:r.Y: * ........ ". ' . . -

* | :t 4 . . . . . ... ...._ g : . fflF '. :N @ <:

-.| X^ . .... 'ts,, . X #

* ;,i.!w,,., *,- SL _* W . x, !.:.X.; t

* X.9>;Be., .;:_

WmB ?:x: i| ..... >:|>S>ig_'' j'.i.::. *

* ............r >A #- ........... w.i ^^s'::8E,. w* ..... w-< r-

_ . e /S

-

|E ^: . . . ; .

.4.. ;.. ., S;.. ... *J

_i S | | ! - I - >>>w _

11_I | I l || I | ! * I | _W; b s

__ _ -l | _ _ tmOSeS0 X 1

_ X _ I l l * l _X X X ................................................................................... .. x. . .

-111-I I 111 EZ-.i<ix- -. . ....::...

Plate 4.



18 ALLANGOTrHELF

1882: "Fromquotationswhich I had seen I had a high notionof Aristotle's

merits . ."

1879: "Fromextracts,which I have seen, I have an unboundedrespectfor

him,as one of thegreatest .. observers, hatever lived."

So, priorto readingOgle, Darwinhadnot readany of Aristotle'sbiology

directly,but he had seen enough "quotations"or "extracts")romAristotle

in the works of authorshe had read,to form the impressionthatAristotle

was an outstandingobserver. havetriedto confirm hatDarwinhadformed

suchan impressionbycheckingtheindexesto assortedDarwiniana,ncluding

the Calendarof letters,andthe recenteditionsof Darwin'spublishedworks,notebooks,and marginalia.Thereare not manyreferencesto Aristotle,but

those that are there do note other authors'reportsof Aristotelianobserva-

tions, moreoften to show thatsome factthatDarwin s reportingwas known

even to the ancients,occasionallyto note some detail thatAristotledid not

know.'4These referencesconfirm whatis alreadyclear from the 1879 letter

to Crawley,that the 1882 letterto Ogle accuratelystatesDarwin'sview of

Aristotleprior o readingOgle.

But "Linnaeusand Cuvierhave been my two gods."Interestingly,being

"one of the greatest,if not the greatestobservers,that ever lived" (1879)was not sufficient n Darwin'seyes to place Aristotle n the pantheon.What

new informationwas provided,then, by Ogle's Introduction,and the first

quarter r so of the PAtogetherwithOgle's notes, that resulted n Aristotle's

apotheosis?BeforeI tryto answerthis question, et me insist thatwe are to take these

words from the 1882 lettervery seriously as well. Note first the care with

which the view is expressed:"Linnaeusand Cuvierhave been my two gods,

though n verydifferentways."Theadverbialphrase s nodithyrambicxcess.

On the contrary,t is quitecarefulandsubtle.In what differentways, then?What were Darwin'sestimatesof Linnaeus

and Cuvier?To start,I think we must take "'my wo gods" to mean, "my

two heroes,""thetwo earliergiantsof the field, whose achievements most

admireandhave wanted o emulate."Thequestion, hen,is whyDarwinmight

have grantedLinnaeusandCuvier(andno one else) this status.Speculationwill be necessary,but let us try to groundit in whatever imited concrete

evidence is available.In the case of Linnaeus,the answerseems reasonablyclear,His classifi-

cation system brought significantorder to a vast sea of biological data,providing hebasis of virtuallyall subsequentwork,andit is hard o imagine

anythingelse in Linnaeusthat could have earnedhim the exalted status in

question; indeed some evidence that Darwin prized aspects of Linnaeus'

systematics s quotedbelow.'5Cuvieris the more difficultcase, since he did




significantwork in severalareas,includingsystematics,descriptivecompar-ative anatomy,and comparative unctionalexplanation.AlthoughCuvier'sworkin systematicswas of importanceo Darwin,16I venture o suggestthathis work n the latter woareas,especiallythethird,was the focus of Darwin'sadmiration.

First of all, to idolize Cuvier and Linnaeus for theirrespectiveachieve-ments in systematics is not to idolize them "in very different ways." Inaddition,I have not come acrossany explicit praiseby Darwinof Cuvierforhis systematics.On thecontrary,here s the followingexchangewithHuxleyin 1857. In response to a September26th letter from Darwinproposingthatclassificationshouldbe essentiallygenealogical,Huxleywrote:

Cuviers definitionof the objectof Classification eems to me to embodyall that is reallywanted in Science - it is to throw thefacts of structureinto thefewest possible generalpropositions This of course leaves outof view & passesby all questionsof pedigreeandpossiblemodifications- dealingwithexistinganimalsas faitsaccomplis'7

OnOctober3rd Darwinreplied:

I knew, of course,of theCuvierianview of Classification,butI thinkthatmost naturalists ook for somethingfurther,and search for "thenaturalsystem," "forthe planon which theCreatorhas worked"&c &c. - It isthis further lementwhich I believeto be simplygenealogical.18

There is no sign of admirationhere, andperhapsnone to be expected for asystemthat,as Darwinhereviews it, fails to reflectclearlythe causes of thegroupings oundin nature. 9

By contrast,on the one occasionI have foundwhereDarwin audsCuvieron a matterof

theory, t is for his position n hisdramaticallymportant ebatewith E. GeoffroySaintHilaireover the explanatoryprimacyof morphologyversus function. Inthe last sectionof ch. 6 of Origin,entitled"Summary:heLaw of Unity of Type and of the Conditionsof Existenceembracedby theTheoryof NaturalSelection,"Darwinspokeof:

The expression of conditions of existence, so often insisted on by theillustrious Cuvier ...

and inferred rom the considerationswhichestablishthatbothUnityof TypeandConditionsof Existence are

explainedby natural electionthat:the law of the Conditionsof Existence is the higherlaw; as it includes,through heinheritance f formervariations ndadaptations,hatof Unityof Type.



20 ALLANGOTrHELF

This endorsementof Cuvierover Geoffroymirrorsa very interesting et of

marginalian Darwin'scopy of Whewell'sHistoryof theInductiveSciences,made nearlytwentyyears earlier.As EdwardManierwrites:

Darwin'sannotationsndicatehis flat rejectionof Geoffroy'sgeneralposi-

tion as it was describedby Whewell. He markedas "clearlywrong"the

passagewhere Geoffroywas characterized s holdingthat

the structureand functionsof animalsare to be studiedby the guide

of theiranalogyonly;our attention s to be turned,notto thefitnessof

theorganizationorany endof life or action,but to its resemblanceootherorganizationsby whichit is graduallyderived rom the original

type.

Geoffroywas portrayedas makingno use of the concept of adaptation

and as not taking into account the interactionof organismswith their

environment.Darwin circled the reference to Cuvier's account of the

"partwhich the animalhas to play in nature,"and drew a line to the

marginalcomment:"thisqualifiedis correct. Owing to externalcontin-

gencies and numbersof otherallied species and not owing to mandateof God." Whewell subsequentlyclaimed "That the partsof the bodies

are made* in orderto discharge heirrespectiveoffices** is a conviction

which we cannot believe to be otherwise than an irremovableprinciple

of the philosophyof organization."Darwin inserted he comments(at *)

"born,altered," nd(at **) "under hangingcircumstances"2 1

Darwinalways prized getting the explanatorypriorityright,and it was

Cuvier who stood in Darwin'smind for the primacyof fitness over struc-

ture. That Darwinalso prizeddescriptiveprecisionis evidenteverywhere nhis work,22and his citations from Cuvieron mattersof detail are frequent

enough,so it would not be unreasonableo imaginethat Cuvier'sdescriptive

achievements,and those aspects of his work in systematicswhich Darwin

did appreciate,23ontributed o Darwin'soverall admirationorCuvier;butI

would suggest that is was Cuvier'sgraspof the fundamental ausalpriorityin biologicalthought,which was foremost n Darwin'smind.24

We may hypothesize,then, that Linnaeus hadearnedhis exalted stand-

ing in Darwin'seyes for his wide-rangingandin some ways philosophically

sensitivesystemof classification,andCuvierhis primarily or the extensive,descriptivelyprecise and explanatory unctionalanalysisof animalcharac-

ters. But now Darwin reads Ogle's Introduction,and PA Book I and the

beginningof II (with Ogle's notes) and what does he find? First of all, I

propose,he finds, centuriesbefore Linnaeusor Cuvier,both that Aristotle




had a systematic andplausiblescheme of animalclassification,and thathe

soughtfor each part,whereverpossible, to identifyits function n the life of,and so explain its presencein the body of, the animalsthatpossess it. ForOgle's Introductions in large parta discussion of just those two featuresof Aristotle'swork,andthe firstbook of PAis largelyconcernedboth withteleologicalexplanationof animalparts, n chs. 1 and 5 (as is II.1), andwithclassification, n chs. 2-4.25

And one of the strikingfeatures of Ogle's Introduction, specially to a19thcenturyreader, s the freshsense it gives of the breadth the immensity- of Aristotle'sundertaking, ndof thewayhe hasbroughtanincrediblemass

of dataundertheoreticalcontrol.No surprise hen that a careful readeranda greatbiological mindwould write:"- I neverrealizedbeforereadingyourbook to what an enormoussummationof labourwe owe even ourcommonknowledge."26

This "enormoussummationof labour"will inevitablyhas missed someimportant acts, such as the role of the muscles in facilitatingmovement,butDarwin is focused not on the mistakeas such, butratheron his surprisethatsomeone of such genius would make thatmistake;thatvery surprise stestimonyto respect:"Howverycurious. . . his ignorance"on such points.27

So, Darwintakesinterest n Ogle's attempt,acrossseveralpagesof theIntro-duction,to explain,orexplainaway,the"grossestmistakesattributedo him"- thehistoryof Aristotle'stext,Ogle suggests,haspermittedmuchinterpola-tion, andAristotle's imitedaccess to certainanimals and his "habitof hastygeneralization"have allowed in some mistakes andDarwintakespleasurein Ogle's success in explainingall this "in so probablea manner."28

All of this, to sum up, suggests an authenticrespecton Darwin'spartforAristotle- even perhapsa growingaffection for Aristotle- and one that iswell thoughtout. The letteris fresh,eager,excited. Darwin hadindeedread

little of Aristotleeven to thispoint, andsadlyhis deathonly two months aterpreventedhimfromreadingmuch further"to see whetheranymy views veryancient";buthis limitedexposure o Aristotlewas notperfunctory, nd he hasmadevery good use of it indeed. While Darwin'sexposurewas too limitedto provideby itself strongevidence of Aristotle'sgreatness, hose of us whohaveampleevidence of thatgreatness romour own studyof the text, can seehow acuteDarwin'sperceptionwas. How unfortunate,not only for Darwin,butalso for us, thathe never got to readvery much of Aristotle- it wouldhavebeen a wonderfulencounter.

For,I thinkmyself, to borrowa termfromthe mathematicians,hatthereis an isomorphismbetweenDarwin'sbiological vision andAristotle's- thatthere is much in Darwin'sbiological theorizingthat reflectswhat one getsif one imagines Aristotlehaving to accept into his system (i) full evidence



22 ALLANGO(THELF

of the evolution of species and (ii) a morepowerfulbiochemistry hanwas

projectible n his time. This is particularly rue, I believe, on the matterofbiological teleology - and I want to conclude this paper by conjecturing

and it is only a conjecture- that Darwinmay indeed have seen this while

readingOgle's Introductionand the first quarteror so of PA, esp. I.1 and

the opening of 11.1,which he had recently reachedwhen he was inspired

to writethe famous letter. For, if my suggestion is right thatDarwin exalts

Aristotle n partfor anticipatingCuvier in studyingthe way function(within

environment)determinesstructure, hen Darwin has understood omething

aboutAristotelian eleology thatOgle didnot. We recallthat n his first etter

Ogle spoke of Darwinas a Democriteananti-teleologistto whose work inthis area Aristotle,as "a real honest hunterafter truth,"would respondby

"bum[ing]all his [own]writings."If one readsOgle's Introduction, ne understandshow Ogle could think

that.For he sets out a fundamental ontrastbetween teleology and mecha-

nism, puttingAristotle argelyon the side of teleology,andDemocritus andin effect the Darwinianmodems) on the side of mechanism.The contrast s

stark;as Ogle writes, startingwith themechanists:

One group of philosophersthere was, who fancied that they found anadequatecause in the necessary operationsof the inherentpropertiesof

matter;whileanother oughta solution nthe intelligentactionofa benev-olentandforeseeingagent,whomtheycalledGod,or Nature,as the case

mightbe.29

The latter would ask, having come upon the marvelouscharacterof, for

example, the system of blood vessels, "Whatbut foresight and intelligent

purposecan have made these channelsthroughout he body ... ?-30 Ogle's

Aristotle combineselementsof the two approaches, ince he recognizesthe

limitationsmaterialnecessityplacesin teleology,buthe is still fundamentallya teleologist,who views "Nature" s an"intelligent .. foreseeing agent."

But, contraryto Ogle's sentiment, Aristotle's naturesare not literallyintelligent,not literally planners,andarguably he philosopher'sgenius lies

in plotting a thirdcourse between these two pictures,and defending it as

scientifically egitimate.3'This thirdcourseinvolvesthepostulationnot of an

"intelligentNature"but of inherentnatures- that is, of naturalcapacities(in Greek, dunameis)directedat form, capacities for the productionof a

living organismof a particularype that are irreducible o the capacitiesof

the elements that constitute such an organism.32From thatperspective heisomorphismwith Darwinbecomes clear, and there is some evidence that

Darwinhimself saw it.For it is Aristotle'sview that iving processesareirreducibly ctualizations

of capacitiesfor self-developmentand self-maintenance,and actualizations




of ends on that scale of course bring along whateverintermediatestates

are necessary (or best33)for such ends; the intermediate tates thus occurbecause they stand in that relation to their end, and not as the result ofmaterial nteractionsalone. Animalparts,for example,come to be, and arepresent,because they are needed or the life of the organismin question,orbecause it is better thatorganismsof thattypehave thispart thannot.34Butas variousscholars have pointedout, naturalselection makesthe very samething true of animalpartsin Darwiniantheory.For, when they are due tonatural election, partsarepresentin an organism, njust the formthey are,preciselybecause theirpresencehas made survivalpossibleor has provided

for animals that have these partsa survivaladvantage.35The difference isthat, while Aristotle takes it as a basic fact of naturethat animals comewell-adapted,with a capacity o reproducehemselves,Darwinoffersa mech-anism- viz. natural election- by whichwell-adaptednesss establishedandmaintained.36

What is so interesting or us aboutthis isomorphism or deep underlyingsimilarity)betweentraditionalAristotelianeleologyproperlyunderstood ndthe Darwinianversion,is thatDarwinhimselfmay havenoticedit. JamesG.Lennox, in a very interestingpaperentitled "Darwinwas a Teleologist,"37

cites a letterfrom Darwin to Asa Gray,in response to "abrief appreciationof Darwinpublished n Nature,in June of 1874.-38 Grayhad remarked hatDarwindidnotdestroy eleology,as manyfriendsof Darwin,as well as manyenemies,hadthought,butratherputit on a scientificfooting.39Darwinwritesto Grayin response:

Whatyou say aboutTeleology pleases me especially and I do not thinkanyone else has ever notedthat.40

While the emergenceof a new species is the result of very manyindividual

cases of naturalselection, and not a goal aimed at by the process, selec-tion nonethelessdoes make it the case that the character elected is presentbecause it contributes o the life of the organismspossessing it, which isthe core claim of any teleological theory.Aristotle'steleology is a strongerteleology thanDarwin's,since Aristotlepostulatesa primitiveorbasic direc-tiveness on an end, an irreducibleyet non-conscious)directivenessbuiltintoeach ontogenicprocesswhich cannot be explainedby referenceto anythingsimpler(suchas a series of selectionsleadingto parentorganismswhichthenreproduce hemselves);41 but againstthe background f a pureDemocritean

mechanisticworld-view, t is thesimilaritybetweenAristotleandDarwin,notthedifference, hatone notices.42

And my suspicionis thatDarwinnoticed it too, as he readOgle's Intro-ductionandPAI.1 andII.I - and I suspectas well thatalthoughhe disagreedwith Ogle's view of his own relationship o Aristotle,he declined to express



24 ALLANGOTrHELF

thatdisagreement n a letter o Ogle aimed at thankinghimso muchfor whathadturnedoutto be so lovely a gift.Ogle was very pleasedwith Darwin'sletter,and with the "mereschool-

boys"reference.Inhis nextletter o Darwin,nearly wo months ater(andhislast, for Darwindieda few days afterthat),Ogle wrote:

... Thankyou for yourkind andeulogisticletterre "thepartsof animals."It gave me muchpleasure.I amgladalso to haveaddeda thirdpersontoyourgods andcompletedtheTrinity .. 43

WilliamOgle believedthatDarwinmeantwhat he said, andthatDarwinknew of whathe spoke;my argumenthere has been thatwe shouldbelievethese things of Darwin too. He did meanexactly what he said, andeven onlimited readingknew quite much of what he spoke. The famous "school-boys" letteris a greattribute,and a theoreticallysensitiveone, across2200years,fromone greatbiological master o another.44

Acknowledgments

This material, n verypreliminaryorm,was firstpresented o the 1988NEHSummerInstitute on Aristotle's Metaphysics,Biology, and Ethics, at theUniversityof New Hampshire,directedby J.M. Cooper,M. Frede,and A.Gotthelf;a later version was read to a conferenceon "Aristotle'sAnimalsin the MiddleAges and the Renaissance" n Leuven in May 1997, and thepenultimatedraft o a HistoryandPhilosophyof ScienceFacultyColloquiumat CambridgeUniversity n May 1998, where I receivedhelpfulcomments.TheDarwin ettersarequotedfrom the DarwinArchiveswith thepermissionof the Syndics of CambridgeUniversityLibrary;heircontentandimagesin

Plates 1-4 are reproducedwith the permission,respectively,of Mr.GeorgePemberDarwin,Esq. and the Syndics of CambridgeUniversityLibrary, oboth of whom I am grateful.For researchassistanceandcomments,I wouldparticularlyike to thank FrederickBurkhardt nd JonathanTophamof theDarwinCorrespondenceProject,and Adam Perkins of the DepartmentofManuscriptsat CambridgeUniversityLibrary,who were all most generouswith their time and expertise. Alan C. Bowen and Kelly Smith provideduseful comments and/or researchassistance as well. James Lennox, DavidDepew,ErnstMayr,and MichaelGhiselin,each of whomknowsvastlymore

about Darwin than I do, were very generous in supplyingcomments to anamateur- but perhapsthey recognizedthat I have indeed found Darwin,as I have always foundAristotle(if in a muchdeeperway), extraordinarilylovable.




Notes

1. Cal. 13697;DAR 261 DHIMS5: 19. See Plate 1. Darwin ettersarecited hereinby number

from F. Burkhardt t al. eds., A Calendarof the Correspondenceof Charles Darwin,

1821-1882, with supplement Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press, 1994) ("Cal."),

and then by classmark n the CambridgeUniversity Librarycollection ("DAR"); f theoriginal resided (until recently) at Down House, the Down House catalogue number s

given as well ("DH"). n two cases the originalsarecurrentlyheld in theHuxleycollection

in the Archivesof the ImperialCollege of Science, Technologyof Medicine, London,and

are cited by that institution's lassmark "ImperialCollege, Huxley").

2. Simon Byl, "Le jugement de Darwin sur Aristote,"L'AntiquiteClassique 42 (1973),

519-521; modified versionin Simon Byl, Recherches ur les grandes traitesbiologiques

d'Aristote:sourcesecrites et prejuges (Bruxelles:Palais des academies, 1980), pp. xxx-

xxxii. Byl's discussion is endorsed in Pierre Pellegrin, Aristotle's Classification of

Animals: Biology and the Conceptual Unity of the Aristotelian Corpus, tr. A. Preus

(Berkeley: Universityof CaliforniaPress, 1986), p. 170, n. 10. Byl is quoted from the

1980 book version.

3. The specific mention of Darwin'sunfamiliaritywith ancient authorsoccursonly in this

firstappearance f the "HistoricalSketch,"but its removalfromsubsequenteditions was

certainlynot due to anyadditionalreading.Darwin's citationof the Empedocles passagein the 4th edition footnote was supplied by a correspondentC.J.Grece,as Darwinthere

indicates; there is no reasonto think that Darwin himself opened a text of the Phy.sics.

The letter from Grece does not seem to have survived,so that we cannot tell if Grecehimself attributed he Empedoclean heoryto Aristotle; n a November 1866 letter(Cal.

5276; DAR 165:220), Grece re-introduceshimself as thepersonwho "ayearor two ago"

brought he Aristotlepassageto Darwin'sattention.

4. Ed. R. Desmond, 3rdedn. (London:Taylor& Francis, 1977). The Dictionary (followed

by the DarwinCorrespondenceProject'sCalendar(above,n. I)) incorrectlygives Ogle's

yearof death as 1905, basing its informationon Who Was Who:SupplementaryVolume

1897-1916, which cites 16 May 1905 as the date of Ogle's death. This citation wasitself apparentlybased on a death notice which appearedon 17 May in the Times of

London for one WilliamOgle, M.D., F.R.C.P.But this notice describes the deceased Dr.

Ogle as "sometime ellow of St. Catherine'sCollege, Cambridge,"while the translator f

Aristotle's Partsof Animals (PA) is identified in all its editions as "sometime fellow ofCorpusChristiCollege, Oxford"; ndeed,the characterof the Preface to the 1912 editionof the PAtranslation,n vol. 5 of the Oxford Complete Works, uggests that the translator

was alive at the time the volume (or at least the 1911 fascicle) went to press. The suspicion

that there were two Dr. William Ogles living in London in 1905 is confirmed by the

AlumniCantibridgienses,which reports hatthe CambridgeOgle was born in 1824, while

our Ogle, accordingto all sources, includingthe AlumniOxonienses and the Times ofLondon(see below), was born n 1827. To make mattersworse, theDictionaryof National

Biographyreportsa John William Ogle, M.D., F.R.C.P.,an Oxfordman, who apparentlyalso resided inLondon,and whose years of birthand death were the very same as those of

the other WilliamOgle (1824-1905), althoughJohn William died on 8 Augustas againstWilliam's 16 May. Unfortunately, ome biographicalnotes regardingour William Ogle

attribute ome of JohnWilliam'saccomplishments o our William in place of some of hisown (in partbecause both were associatedwith St. George's Hospital). It may be thought

astonishing hat herewere threephysicianswith surnameOgle and one forenameWilliam

all residingin London in early 1905and all withinthreeyears of age of eachother,but so



26 ALLANGO(HELF

it was. Thatour Dr.WilliamOgle is distinctfrom the othertwo, and outlived hem both by

almost seven years, is confirmedby two sentences of an obituarywhich appearedon thefirst page of the Timesof Londonof Monday, 15 April 1912: "Weregret hat Dr. William

Ogle died at his residence, 10, Gordon-street, n Friday.... In 1882 Dr. Ogle publishedatranslation,with introduction nd notes, of Aristotle's 'De PartibusAnimalium'."

(The second of the two sources the Darwin Project Calendar cites for informationabout Ogle, R.B. Freeman's Charles Darwin: A Companion Folkstone:Wm. Dawson

and Sons, 1978), gives 1912 as the year of his death, relying very likely on P. ThomasCarroll,An AnnotatedCalendar of the Letters of Charles Darwin in the Libraryof the

American Philosophical Society (Wilmington:ScholarlyResources, 1976), which also

gives 1912.)

5. William Ogle, Aristotle on the Parts of Animals (London:K. Paul, French& Co., 1882).The only previous ranslation nto English was ThomasTaylor's,published n 1810.

6. Manyof these notesare still valuable; his translation, omewhatrevised,with manyof the

notes shortenedor omitted, was one of the very first to appear n the Oxford translation

series, edited by J.A. Smith and W.D. Ross, as a separate ascicle in 1911, and as partof vol. V in 1912. It was revisedyet again by JonathanBarnesfor inclusion, although

without the notes, in The CompleteWorks f Aristotle: TheRevisedOxfordTranslation

(Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress, 1984).

7. Cal. 13621;DAR 173: 10. See Plate2.

8. Cal. 13622;DAR 261 DH/MS5: 18. See Plate 3. There is some uncertainty s to whetherDarwin would havereceived, andthusbeen able to respond o the receiptof, Ogle's book

and letteron the sameday theywere sent. So it is possiblethatone or the otherof the Jan.17 dates is incorrect.On the otherhand,Adam Perkins,Royal GreenwichObservatoryArchivist at CambridgeUniversityLibrary, omments that"In the contemporaryRoyal

Observatory orrespondence f the AstronomerRoyalGeorge Airy,I havenotedon some

occasionsjust thishappening,andIhave inferred hatpostaldeliveriescould be rapidand

frequentat thisperiod.Airy,a 'workaholic,'on one or two occasions couldwrite,receive

an answerandreplyto thaton the sameday, thoughI think that thisonly happenedwhen

he was writing to people at points on the railwaynetwork" personal communication,7 October 1997). The matterof the two Jan. 17 dates will be addressedby the Darwin

CorrespondenceProjectwhen the series reaches 1882.

9. The translationappearson pp. 1-140 of the 1882 edition. The notes in question, n. 9and 10 on p. 153, are attachedto pp. 20 and 21 of the translation.The less likely third

note, n. 20 on pp. 196-197, is attached o p. 68 of the translation,nearly50% into "the

book proper."The copy Ogle sent Darwinis still in the Down House Library; hort of

forensic-type study,it providesno guidanceon this question(or others),since it has no

annotations.On the highly methodic characterof Darwin'sreadinghabits, see parts (i)and(ii) of the Introduction o Charles Darwin'sMarginalia,vol. I, ed. M.A. Di Gregoriowith the assistanceof N.W. Gill (New York:GarlandPublishingCo., 1990), pp.xii-xvii.

10. Paul Barrettet al. Charles Darwin's Notebooks,1836-1844: geology, transmutation fspecies, metaphysicalenquires,Ithaca:CornellUniversityPress,325 c267.

II. My emphasis.

12. Crawleywas inadvertantly mittedfrom the Calendar'sBiographicalRegister; his infor-

mationwas kindlysupplied by JonathanTophamof the DarwinCorrespondenceProject.A fuller discussion of Crawleyandhis letter will accompany he publicationof the letter

when the seriesreaches 1879.

13. Cal. 11875;DAR 143: 302. See Plate4.




14. E.g.: "From hetime of Aristotleto thepresent ime solid hoofed swine haveoccasionally

been observedin variouspartsof the world." Variationof Animalsand Plants underDomestication(The Worksof Charles Darwin), ed. Paul H. Barrettand R.B. Freeman,New York:New York University Press, 1988, vol. 19), p. 67. (Cf. Aristotle, HA II.499b12-13; GA IV.774b19. Darwindoes not hereindicatehis source.)

"Tameduckswere not knownin Aristotle'stime, as remarkedby Volz, in his Beitragezur Kulturgeschichte, 852, p. 78." - Ibid.,256 n. 7.

"Itappears hatAristotlewas well aware of the change in mentaldispositions in oldhens."- Ibid., vol. 20, 22 n. 56. (Cf. with Darwin'sentirediscussionhere HA VIII(IX).631b5-20; anyof the severalauthorsDarwin cites in this note, includingC. Waterton ndI. GeoffroySaintHilaire,may havebeenhis source.)

Darwin readwidely in many authorswho frequentlycite Aristotle,includingCuvier,Owen,and I. Geoffroy SaintHilaireamongothers,andAristotelianreferences,as the fewcitationsabove suggest, aresprinkled hrough he 19thc. biological literature.The list ofNamesandReferences n CharlesDarwin'sMarginalia,vol. I (above,n. 9) includessometenplaces whereDarwincommentson or marksa reportof an Aristotelianobservation.

Aristotelian nformationwas occasionally also brought o Darwin'sattention n corre-spondence,primarily butnot only) by Ogle;cf. e.g. Cal. 1818 (E. Blyth, 1856;DAR98:112-113 & 117-120), 8705 (Ogle, 1873; DAR 173: 7), 10167 (Ogle, 1875; DAR 46.2(series 3): 63-64).

15. Seen. 19.

16. So that Emst Mayr could write: "Personally,I think, Darwin admiredCuvier as the

destroyer of the linear scala naturae.He made it ever so much easier for Darwinto contstruct a branchingphylogeny. Accepting evolution it was easy for Darwin tobreakdown the branchesmore finely. [And] Cuvier'sfive embranchementswere indeedbranches n the Darwinianphylogeny.. ." (personalcommunication,August 16, 1997).

17. Correspondence,vol. 6, 461; punctuation ndemphasis as printed here.The letteris notdated.(Cal. 2144; DAR 205.5 (Letters).Darwin'sSept. 26th letteris Cal. 2143; ImperialCollege, Huxley 5: 54.)

18. Ibid., 463 (Cal. 2150; ImperialCollege, Huxley 5: 139). Comparethe opening section,"Classification," f Origin ch. 14, esp. the thirdparagraph,wherehoweverCuvier is notnamed.

19. By contrast, n the correspondingpassage in Origin(see previousnote), Linnaeuscomes

in for some implicitpraise.In supportof the view thatclassificationoughtto reflectwhatis explanatorilyprior,Darwinwrites:"Expressions uch as thatfamousone by Linnaeus... thatthecharactersdo not makethegenus, butthatthegenus gives thecharacters, eemto imply thatsome deeperbond is includedin ourclassification hanmereresemblance."This might well suggest thatDarwin'sadmiration or Linnaeus is based not only on thebreadthof his classificationsystem, but on his grasp of a fundamental act about howclassificationought to be done. (I am indebtedto JamesLennoxfor bringingthe signif-icance of this passage to my attention.)Whetherthe criticismof Cuvier in the lettertoHuxley is entirelyfairis of coursea separatematter.

20. He is again"theillustriousCuvier" n ch. 14 (in the section, "DevelopmentandEmbry-ology"), even when he misses thatbarnaclesarecrustaceans.The only othereminent toearn thatappellation n Origin is Humboldt,althoughDarwinuses the termsof severalothers in other works. The deflationarynote implicit in today's use of thatterm seemscompletely missing from the 19thc. citations in the OED, s.v. illustrious,and each ofDarwin'suses seem a straightforwardcknowledgmentof deservedhigh standing.



28 ALLAN GOTTHELF

21. E. Manier,The YoungDarwinand His CulturalCircle (Dordrecht:Reidel, 1978), p. 53.

The Whewell annotationsare to History of the InductiveSciences, 3rd edn. (London:JohnW. Parker,1837), III,462, 467: cf. CharlesDarwin'sMarginalia,vol. I (aboven. 9),

p. 868.

22. Cf. esp. the Introductiono CharlesDarwin's Marginalia,vol. I (above n. 9), pp. xii-xiv.

23. Above n. 16.

24. In these featuresof his workCuvier is himself apparentlynfluencedby an extensive and

careful studyof Aristotle,on whose biological writingshe heapedpraise.Speaking,for

example,of Aristotle'sHistoriaAnimalium,Cuvier wrote:

I cannotread[thiswork]withoutbeing ravishedwith astonishment. ndeed t is impos-

sible to conceive how a single man was able to collect andcomparethe multitudeof

particular acts which underliethe numerousgeneralrules and aphorismscontainedin this work andof which his predecessorsneverhad any idea.

Histoire des sciences naturelles (Paris:Fortin Masson, 1841), I, 146-147 (transl.after

G.H. Lewes). Cf. 147ff.

25. Strictly,these chaptersare concernedwith the methodof establishingdefinitionsrather

than with any method of establishinga hierarchicalclassificationscheme; but it was

standardn Ogle's time to readthem the latterway, and Ogle indeed does so in his notes

(as he did in his Introduction);Aristotle'stext is so abbreviated, ndotherwisedifficult,

thatDarwinwouldcertainlyhaverelied heavilyon Ogle's Introduction ndnotes.

26. In a letterto ErnstMayr,commentingon the issue raised in this paper,Michael Ghiselin

writes,"I think thatDarwin admiredCuvier,Linnaeus,and Aristotlefor theircapacitytoreduce largebodies of material o intelligibleorder.Lyell, whom Darwinalso admired,

had the same ability"(August 6, 1997, cited by Mayr,above n. 16; quoted here with

Ghiselin'spermission).This is very likely partof the overall picture,as I suggestabove

in thecase of Linnaeus.

27. Indeed,perhaps t was Darwin'svery surpriseat thethought hatsomeoneof such impres-

sive geniuscould havemissedthe functionof the muscles whichmade him realize"what

a greatsummationof labourwe owe even our common knowledge."Perhaps, oo, this

very sequenceof thought,stimulatedby his readingof Ogle's notes on muscles,almost

one-quarternto "thebook proper," eganthe reflectionswhich sparkedDarwinto write

the famousletter.28. Ogle,Aristotleon thePartsofAnimals(aboven. 5), pp.xi-xix. Byl is confused nthinking

thatDarwinsimply acceptsas Aristotle's"thegrossestmistakesattributedo him";on the

contrary, he attribution f most of these is disputedby Ogle (xi-xiii), and this is partof

what Darwinfinds"so probable."So, basedon my argument o far, Byl's firstand third

points(above, p. 8) fail. I commenton his secondpointbelow.

29. Ibid., p. i; my emphasis.

30. Ibid.

31. Indeed,as James Lennoxhas remindedme, Aristotlewas awareof, andclearlyrejected,

a teleological pictureof just the sortOgle describes,viz. thatof Plato'sTimaeus.

32. Cf. Allan Gotthelf, "Aristotle'sConceptionof Final Causality,"n Philosophical Issues

in Aristotle'sBiology, ed. Allan Gotthelfand JamesG. Lennox(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1987),ch. 8. In the nextparagraphdrastically ummarizekeyaspectsof

this account; or a fullerstatementof these pointssee especiallythechapter's"Postscript

1986",secs. I andIII.

33. Given thatAristotelianends are optimally structured: ee A. Gotthelf,"TheElephant's

Nose: FurtherReflections on the Axiomatic Structureof Biological Explanationin




Aristotle," n Aristotelische Biologie: Intentionen,Methoden, Ergebnisse, ed. W. Kull-

mann and S. Follinger(Stuttgart:Steiner, 1997), 90.34. PA 1.1640a33-bl, 11.2648a13-16, 111.8 70b23-24, GA 1.4716a12-21 and ff., etc.

35. On the tense shift, from "has made" to "makes," ee L. Wright, Teleological Explana-tions (Berkeley:Universityof CaliforniaPress, 1976), pp. 87-90 and H. BinswangerTheBiological Basis of Teleological Concepts(Marinadel Rey:TheAynRand InstitutePress,1990), pp. 120-126.

36. Darwin differs also from Aristotle in (i) insistingon a greatervariability n environmentsfor a given population han Aristotle was awareof, and(ii) recognizing,as Aristotle did

not,thatslight variationnthe structure ndfunctioningof animalpartswithinpopulationsin a given environment requentlymakesa differenceto survivalandreproduction.

An even closer connection between Aristotelian and Darwinianteleology has beenarguedby David Depew ("EtiologicalApproaches o Biological Aptnessin Aristotle and

Darwin," n Kullmannand Follinger 1997 [above,n. 33]), althoughI thinkhis accountgives insufficientattention o what is for Aristotle the basicfact thatanimal forms comewell-organized.In Aristotle's account of generation (which Depew rightly praises) thereproductiveprocess operates to replicate these basic forms, so that it is these well-

organized forms' actual presencein the parents (e.g. the chicken) which explains boththeirpresenceas potentialities n the developmental tagesof theoffspring (e.g. the egg),and the elemental interactions nvolved in their subsequentre-actualization, nd not theotherway round(PAI. 640a22-26). But Depew is rightto embrace he view that it is thedevelopmentalbase of Aristotelian eleology that inks Aristotle with Darwin here.

In a more extensive study of Darwin and Darwinism,with Bruce Weber,Darwin-ism Evolving (CambridgeMA: MIT Press, 1995), Depew sets Darwin and Aristotlemore clearly apart on this issue (40), while tracing several very interesting historicalconnections between Aristotle and Darwinvia neoclassicalbiology (ch. 2).

37. Biology and Philosophy8 (1993) 409-421.

38. Lennox,"Darwin," 09.

39. ".... let us recognize Darwin's great service to NaturalScience in bringingback to it

Teleology; so that instead of MorphologyversusTeleology, we shall have Morphologywedded toTeleology,""CharlesDarwin:A Sketch,"Asa Gray:Darwiniana,ed. A. Hunter

Dupree (CambridgeMA: HarvardUniversityPress, 1963), 237.

40. Cal.9483, 5 June 1874.Citedby Lennox(409) from FrancisDarwin,TheLifeand Letters

of CharlesDarwin, 3 vols. (London:John Murray,1887), III, 189. (Lennox's 308 is areference o TheAutobiography f CharlesDarwinand Selected Letters,the 1958 Doverreprintof F.Darwin's 1892 abridgededition of Life and Letters.)It is not clear, however,that eitherGrayor Huxley, whose remarksimilar to Gray's is cited by Francis Darwinin vol. 2, 201, understood the connection between teleology and selection as Darwindid; indeed it is quite clear fromthe lattercitation thatHuxley did not. Gray's statementremainshoweversomethingthat Darwincould endorse.

41. Cf. A. Gotthelf, "UnderstandingAristotle'sTeleology," n Final Causality n Nature andHumanAffairs, ed. R.F. Hassing (Washington:Catholic Universityof America Press,1997), 79-82.

42. The dispute between James Lennox and Michael Ghiselin as to whetherDarwin is tobe counted a teleologist seems to turn on this issue. (Biology and Philosophy 8 (1993),409-421; 9 (1994), 489-492, 493-495). Ghiselinappears o conceiveteleology as involv-ing essentially this sort of primitivedirectiveness- either by a conscious agent or anirreduciblenature;he wants to stress that, by contrast, he betteradaptedorganisms hatresultfrom natural election arenot, in thatsense, aimed at. Lennox's view seems to be



30 ALLAN GOTTHELF

that so long as featuresare presentbecause they render he organismmore fit, teleologyis present. I think myself that we need to distinguisha strongerand a weaker (but still

philosophicallyand scientificallysubstantial) ense (or type) of teleology. In the stronger

sense, Aristotle is, but Darwin isn't, a teleologist; in the weaker (but still substantial)

sense, both Aristotle and Darwin are, while Empedocles and Democritusaren't,teleolo-

gists. (Ghiselin seems to hold that the weaker sense has no legitimacy as a conception of

teleology, but in my view the literatureLennox cites in his paper makes clearthat it is a

legitimate,and important, onception.)

This issue is complicated by the fact that various opponents of Darwin, such as von

Baer, who thought natural election unableto account for the extensive "correlation f

variations" o be found in nature,and opted for a teleological thesis accordingto which

the results of evolution are indeedaimed at, characterizedDarwinas abandoning ele-ology altogether.But Darwinclearlydid not thinkhe had,andthis has generatedmuch

confusion (on which see also J. Beatty,"TeleologyandtheRelationshipBetween Biology

and the Physical Sciences in the Nineteenthand TwentiethCenturies,"n Durhamand

Purrington, ds., Some TruerMethod:Reflectionson the Heritage of Newton[New York:

Columbia University Press, 1985]). On von Baer's critique of Darwin,cf. E.S. Russell,

Forn and Function (Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press, 1982 [19161), pp. 238-245

(and ch. 13 generally), and T. Lenoir,The Strategy of Life: Teleologyand Mechanics

in Nineteenth-CenturyGerman Biology (Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press, 1989

[1982]), ch. 6. Distinguishingstrongerandweaker senses (or types) of teleology would

help to sortout boththe historicaland the philosophicalssues here.

43. Cal. 13767;DAR 173: 11.

Darwin on Aristotle 4331507

Documents

Transcript of Darwin on Aristotle 4331507