Darwin on Aristotle Author(s): Allan Gotthelf Source: Journal of the History of Biology, Vol. 32, No.

1 (Spring, 1999), pp. 3-30 Published by: Springer Stable 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 at http://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 support@jstor.org.

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

http://www.jstor.org

9C

LA Journalof the History of Biology 32: 3-30, 1999. ? 1999 KluwerAcademicPublishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

Darwin on Aristotle *
ALLAN GOTTHELF
PhilosophyDepartment The 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 examination 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 specifically of 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

Linnaeus and Cuvier have been my two gods, though in very different ways, but theywere mereschool-boys to old Aristotle. This famous line, from a letter to William Ogle, the English translatorof Aristotle's Parts of Animals, has often been quoted as evidence of Charles Darwin's respect for Aristotle's biological writings, and thereby as witness to the quality of Aristotle'swork as biologist. More recently,however,a few scholarshave soughtto dampenour enthusiasmfor this letter,suggestingthat Darwinwas familiarwith very little of Aristotleandunderstood less, andthat worded gesture of politeness the vauntedletter was merely an extravagantly from Darwin to his friend Ogle upon receipt of a gift copy of Ogle's just publishedtranslation.
*

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

ALLAN GOTrHELF

In this little paper I redeem the famous Darwin letter, and explore the Victorian master's actual acquaintancewith, and estimate of, the ancient philosopher'sbiological work. Making use of two additionalletters from Darwin in which Aristotle is mentioned,andof the full text of the Ogle-Darwinexchange,as well as of the occasionalreferencesto Aristotlein Darwin'searlierwork,I argue(1) thatthe famous letterwas not the "gestureof politeness,"but was a second one, sent unsolicited more than a month after a first, polite but unenthusiasticletter; (2) that it was carefully formulatedand meant quite literally; and (3) that it reflected an authentic,and substantial,increase in Darwin's respect for Aristotle as biologist based on a careful readingboth of Ogle's Introduction that Darwinsays he has read. and of much the portionof Ogle's translation I go on to hypothesize (4) what it was in Ogle's Introduction,and in Aristotle'stext, thatled to Darwin'sincreasedrespect;and I close by suggesting (5) that,while Darwinhad indeed readvery little of Aristotle'sbiological work (sadly, he died just two months after this first real encounter with Aristotle's text), his famous remarkmay have reflected some real insight into the teleological aspect of Aristotle's thought, and indeed more insight into that aspect than Ogle had achieved, as evidenced by a portionof their exchange thatis rarelycited. Let us begin with the famous letter.It readsin full as follows: Feb. 22, 1882 My dearDr Ogle to You must let me thankyou for the pleasurewhich the Introduction the Aristotle book has given me. I have rarelyread anythingwhich has of interestedme more;though I have not readas yet more than a quarter the book proper.Fromquotationswhich I had seen I had a high notion of Aristotle'smerits,but I had not the most remotenotion what a wonderful man he was. Linnaeus and Cuvier have been my two gods, though in very differentways, but they were mere school-boys to old Aristotle.How very curious,also, his ignoranceon some points as on muscles as to meansof movement.- I am glad thatyou have explainedin so probablea to mannersome of the grossest mistakesattributed him. - I neverrealized before readingyour book to what an enormoussummationof labourwe owe even ourcommon knowledge.I wish thatAristotlecould have known what a greatDefenderof the Faithhe has found in you. Believe me my dearDr. Ogle Yoursvery sincerely Ch. Darwin'

DARWINON ARISTOTLE

..

:t

'

,g,

oZ>;

d.

!s

:.

0 , <11
g

.!.

SS.4o

i
'*.4. a. ..

-_l l
..
F

lI l| IsZ'...>. _4ti^'<'@t.>"-.
|

--

*P Se_
...w._
.. . . .

t.;.,.i.,xFi

i| l l 11W El _
I | l ^

-rN-v

t\

..

k i.S._1 a:
;
,

11 ;X';o*tk.<....X..s...
!
_.X
ra * l

.;
.;

.ei
l

>
.

: .

<.
.
z;

i
t .

X
......................

.
* ..

0'f ;

i.. \Ke*y'g_ O'g'N

{ s 2 _

I
| | I

l
I I _

I g
S**t;

.0. .JF;...
ffi

-_

_
fi

?ax

^>

nS

aS

t.

i t t__'a..^_ _3 ..............................................................................................................*s

* . w: ;. B.

.'.,

'''aP'S"

tM.^

.;

sSet
a, tei. s t8 .S.,j <

sZzz
...... .'. . . a . bes;.j._

_
_ _ _ . - ,.4e ^
_ ........................................................................................................... _. iX : t:_

v.OS.';
'. ';

___i:

*S

M_-

b4"/
[ N _ A .

;>ii
.

_-t
_ :: ;

>

,rr.se

*.F

_ t .'9|sP

..

i;

,.;

-_r

W.,jeS{#___j__

z.

.FX __

h:'

Plate 1.

~~~~~~ALLAN GOTTHELF

.~

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

...... ..

.^.

. . .....

...

.......

......

....j

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~lt E*I. . Con.,t,,inued *

.
* *w :.

DARWIN ON ARISTOTLE

..........
::

-!: . .
w .. .. .

*>

fi
.. . .:',:. :'r: .. : :. j.: *

> ..,r!....i,j..' .. ., E,o,.

:: d.tti..'.,

A_
.......... c

/S<_z^-

. .",
.' ' 'i, -

*
....

,,

'i.vXL_
^: ::' j.t ?.::e '.S

' /7,
... .

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

*
*
e .. ....

>X

-,L_
.F ,
F .. , ,

b
v
. . ...

>

v i

wf
--.

X. g ,?,.,

wi ; ?:
, .w . *w ,9 , .,

x.,,

::
...

...

""s

i.:
;.

...

',

,'

ijtX

i i ? .....
......

jj

,i

o s

.................................

i
.

g,-

..

..

......

..

5e
|
|

|
1111S

|
| |

|
|

2
_

'

,liti
:

;0

,00

;;

i',

e
.... *.

;,1
'liji!
. 4.

;
4

'xEi

l_

I|

l I_

I|

l I

I_...

:S

FXi_..

.j..

,:

*
l

| ll l ll

l l-

'.'.....
kt@.^t.
82tc;8: t
9.,e

* * |

l t t | lt+t'8

<-@::

t?

I I
l

_L _C.
..':rE' ' . ', .

!
Plate 1.
Continued.

ALLAN GOY1THELF

The detractors'argumenthas been set forth most fully by Simon Byl,2 who makes the following threepoints: with a "caractere 1. This is a "lettrede remercimentset de compliments," to appropriate such an occasion (he notes the reference dithyrambique" 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 reportsin our letter that he 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), Darwin had said straightaway thathe is not familiarwith the writingsof biologists beforeBuffon, Indeed,in the fromthe classical period." includingin thatgroup"authors notoriousfootnote to this remark,added in the 4th edn. (1866), Darwin, referringto Aristotle's presentationin Physics II.8 of the Empedoclean position on the formationof teeth, attributesthe Empedocleanposition to Aristotlehimself.3Thus, Darwin'sjudgment,even where it is sincere, has little value. 3. And, insofaras Darwin'sjudgmenthas any value, we must not forgetthat ignoranceon some points,"and his in this letterhe speaksof "Aristotle's "grossestmistakes"in others. So, Byl concludes, we may cite "le mot de Darwin" only with great and "prudence" "circonspection." this assessmentitself suffers from insufficientattentionto the full Oddly, content, and actual context, of the correspondencein question. Let us try to of remedythat,examiningfirstthe circumstances the famous letterto Ogle. with classical William Ogle (1827-1912) was a physicianand naturalist, whose small but interestingset of publicationsearnedhim inclusion training, Darwin in the Dictionaryof Britishand Irish Botanistsand Horticulturists.4 cites Ogle at several places in writings of the late 1860s, and their correspondence appearsto have begun in that period. The younger man by 18 years, Ogle was clearly an enthusiastof Darwin'swork, and in these letters they briefly discuss evidences of Darwin'stheories, they recommendbooks to each other,and Ogle occasionally passes on to Darwin informationabout classical authors- boththeirdiscoveriesandtheirmistakeson variousmatters of biological detail. Ogle's letterssometimes have a deferentialquality- he knew he was dealing with a greatermind thanhis own; Darwinin his letters always projectsa quiet respectfor Ogle as a skilled observerand a sourceof classical and contemporary. valuablebiological and medical information, In January1882, several months before Darwin's death, Ogle published a work entitled Aristotle on the Parts of Animals,5 a translationof the abbreviated treatise(hereafter PA),togetherwith a 35-page IntroAristotelian

DARWINON ARISTOTLE

ductionandover 100 pages of end notes.6On the 17thof January, presumably just days after publication,Ogle sent a copy of the book to Darwin with the following cover letter: Dear Mr.Darwin I have given myself the pleasureof sending you a copy of a translation of the "De Partibus" Aristotle;and I feel some self-importancein thus of to being a kind of formal introducerof the fatherof naturalists his great modem successor. Could the meeting occur in the actual flesh, what a curious one it would be! I can fancy the old teleologist looking sideways and with no little suspicion at his successor,and much astoundedto find that,while therewas actuallyno copy of his own works in the house and while his views were looked on as mere mattersof antiquarian curiosity, Democritus whom he thought to have effectually and everlastingly squashed,has come to life again in the man he saw before him! I have, however,such faith in Aristotle as a real honest hunterafter truth,that I verily believe that, when he had heardall you have to say on your side, he would have given in like a true man, and have burntall his writings; and this praydo, if it so please you, with the one volume of them which I send you. Believe me Yourstruly W. Ogle7 I will commenton Ogle's pictureof Darwinas a Democriteananti-teleologist later,but I want to turnimmediatelyto Darwin's letterof response, which is dated the very same day as Ogle's letter, and which preceded the famous "school-boys"letterby more thana month: Jan. 17th 1882 My dearOgle I am very much obliged to you for your gift of your Aristotle. By turningover the pages I suspect that your Introductionwill interest me more than the text, notwithstandingthat he was such a wonderful old
fellow. -

Praybelieve me Yourssincerely & obliged CharlesDarwin8

10

ALLAN GOTTHELF

AW,

~ ~ ~~~~

.'

^.4.

' .
* 4v::-

t:

. js

tZ d**.1

2; ?~~~~~~~~lt

DARWIN ARISTOTLE ON

Plate 2. Continued.

12

ALLAN GOTTHELF

W4

M'D
.4i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Plate 2. Continued.

DARWIN ARISTOTLE ON

13

Plate 2. Continued.

14

ALLAN GOTT7HELF

Plate 3.

DARWINON ARISTOTLE

15

This is the "lettrede remerciments," "gestureof politeness"as I called the it above. The famous "school-boys"letteris datedFebruary22nd, some five weeks later, and, so far as we can tell, is unprompted: Darwin Archives the containno letterfrom Ogle to Darwinin the interveningperiod. So Darwin, having written Ogle a polite response, begins reading the Introduction.He finds it so fascinatingthat, contraryto his original expectation,he begins readingthe translationproper,and aboutone-quarter the of way throughhe has been so enjoying himself that it occurs to him to write Ogle a second letter, thankinghim for that pleasure.The letter is authentically felt, and not only expresses Darwin's pleasure and gratitude,but also describesa change thathas takenplace in Darwin'sview of Aristotle.I repeat the opening portion: My dear Dr Ogle You must let me thankyou for the pleasurewhich the Introduction to the Aristotle book has given me. I have rarelyread anythingwhich has interestedme more;though I have not read as yet more than a quarterof the book proper.Fromquotationswhich I had seen I had a high notion of Aristotle'smerits,but I had not the most remotenotion what a wonderful man he was. LinnaeusandCuvierhave been my two gods, thoughin very differentways, but they were mere school-boysto old Aristotle.... Darwin does not identify why his respect for Aristotle has increased,but it clearlyhas, andin light of thatincreasedrespect,Darwinexpressessurpriseat the "wonderfulman's"ignoranceof certainmatters,mentioningthe muscles and theirrole in makingmovementpossible. Let us ask, then: How accurateis Darwin'sletter in reportinghis reading and his change of view? Assuming Darwin read straight through from the beginning, we can certainlysay that he had read at least 14%of the translationitself, and read (at least some of) it closely. His mentionof Aristotle'sfailureto understand the role of the muscles in facilitatingmovement provides the evidence for this. For the term "muscles"appearsneitherin the translationnor in Ogle's Introduction,but only in three of Ogle's endnotes, the first two of which are consecutive and are together likely to have been Darwin's source. The notes are to the opening paragraphs Book II ch. 1, around646bl9, where of Aristotleis explainingthe final cause of homogeneouspartsof animalssuch as flesh (underwhich, as Ogle points out in his notes, Aristotlesubsumesthe muscles), andan easy calculationshows thatthis passageappearsalmost 15% into the translation itself. Darwinmay well have readbeyondthatpoint, or he have overestimated length of what he had read so far.9 may the

16

ALLAN GO1THELF

What aboutthe change in Darwin'sview of Aristotle?In Darwin'swords again: "Fromquotationswhich I had seen I had a high notion of Aristotle's meritsbut I had not the most remote notion what a wonderfulman he was." excess? Is this an accuratestatementof Darwin'spriorview, orjust rhetorical and Whatwas Darwin'sview of Aristotlepriorto readingOgle's Introduction or the firstquarter so of PA? We have alreadyseen thatin the historicalsketchaddedto the 3rd edition of On the Origin of Species (1861) Darwin says he is not familiarwith the "writings"of the classical authors,includingof course Aristotle. Indeed, in one of his early notebooks, in an entry dated to 1838, listing things "Tobe read,"Darwin writes, "Read Aristotle to see whether any my views very by ancient?"10 Unfortunately, the time of this edition of the Origin, he still of course Darwinnever says otherwise.In the sentence had not done so. But to Ogle just quoted he says that "Fromquotationswhich I had seen I had a But high notion of Aristotle'smerits."'1 was this true? Yes, very much so, as confirmedby an unpublishedletter writtenthree years before he received Ogle's book. Dated February 12, 1879, it is in response to a letter (which has not been found) from one J.A. Crawley,a asked something CambridgeB.A. about 35 years old,'2 who had apparently about Aristotle'sbiology as found in the originalGreek.Darwinwrites back as follows: Dear Sir, I am sorryto say that I can give you no information. I have forgottenthe very little Greek which I once knew. Nor have I ever read,to my shamebe it spoken,the worksof Aristotle.Fromextracts, which I have seen, I have an unboundedrespect for him, as one of the greatest,if not the greatestobservers,thatever lived. Dear Sir Yoursfaithfully Ch. Darwin13 does Here we have a sincere privateletterto someone Darwinapparently not know well, if at all, writtenon no special occasion, in which the expression of praise for Aristotle is structurallyand verbally very similar to the letter.The thoughtis very likely one corresponding in the 1882 "school-boys" to be the same, and so the greaterspecificityof the 1879 lettershouldhelp us the to understand force of the famous 1882 letter:

ON DARWIN ARISTaItE

17

2. ..........

..

...

..
.

-*.m.

S |

.i''*.'"'st
.: :

s-^'

............
:".

w.i
.l

_ ^ *
|
-

............

-S M iB - s6;m. s. o ^ | |
.............

.......... Li
.................

i.

............

...
.

.........
^ 'AY
.............

S;6X,>
WXX.$i.A

_ ,-,;.
. i o; i:?:
.

. ... x,
: .

...........

?-Zi'Y.<.

.....

ty.

-,

*
_

......... ...

>fBi4} '-

:.
e. >;z.? EXY 'BR .............. .; .. . . .

.
.....................

| * |

F.
rv

WSSS

....
Jf'' i iS>

...

=+.

'^''bt
v
.' v X

Yt'b'g is., E .,; ,,

e.
& . 1

. j:.

.
.

'^.'

. ai

| |
111

t.N'
... mXiis,?

-.^ EsZySv

.....

'

...

LiS/t

l'
..
|
g

W
>si
,:r.Y: *
:t

...
...................
........
.......

w
S . i Z

,=s
>

a
1

.
|

- t
". .
@

ts
f

_
_ * *

: . fflF '. :N
X^
4

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

....

....

'ts,,

<: -.
.
....

.
*,.;:
i

X #
SL _
t

* *
*

x,

!.:.X.;;,i.!w,,.,
X.9>;Be.,
WmB ?:x:

|
_

.....
...........
............

>:|>S>ig_''
w.i ^^s'::8E,. w-<
r >;A

j'.i.::.
w
#

.....

/S

r. e

E. | ^: . . . ; .

. J
,

.4...;..- .
S;.. ..

*
_
b

_i

>>>w

* _I I | I|| l| ! | * I 11 |
__ _ -l | _ _ tmOSeS0
_ X _ I l l * l _X.X.X; ..............................................................................

_W;

1
.

......

..

x.

..

-111-I
..

l .. ::. III 111 EZ-.i<ixPlate 4.

-. .

..

18

ALLAN GOTrHELF

1882: "Fromquotationswhich I had seen I had a high notion of Aristotle's merits . . . " 1879: "Fromextracts,which I have seen, I have an unboundedrespect for him, as one of the greatest... observers,thatever lived." So, priorto readingOgle, Darwinhad not readany of Aristotle'sbiology from Aristotle (or directly,but he had seen enough "quotations" "extracts") in the works of authorshe had read, to form the impressionthat Aristotle was an outstandingobserver.I have triedto confirmthatDarwinhad formed including such an impressionby checkingthe indexesto assortedDarwiniana, the Calendarof letters,and the recenteditions of Darwin'spublishedworks, notebooks, and marginalia.There are not many referencesto Aristotle,but those that are there do note other authors' reportsof Aristotelianobservations, more often to show that some fact that Darwinis reportingwas known even to the ancients, occasionally to note some detail that Aristotle did not know.'4These referencesconfirmwhat is alreadyclear from the 1879 letter to Crawley,that the 1882 letter to Ogle accuratelystates Darwin's view of Aristotlepriorto readingOgle. being But "Linnaeusand Cuvier have been my two gods." Interestingly, "one of the greatest, if not the greatest observers, that ever lived" (1879) was not sufficientin Darwin'seyes to place Aristotlein the pantheon.What new informationwas provided, then, by Ogle's Introduction,and the first or quarter so of the PA togetherwith Ogle's notes, thatresultedin Aristotle's apotheosis? Before I try to answerthis question,let me insist thatwe are to take these words from the 1882 letter very seriously as well. Note first the care with which the view is expressed:"Linnaeusand Cuvier have been my two gods, excess. thoughin verydifferentways."The adverbialphraseis no dithyrambic it is quite carefuland subtle. On the contrary, In what differentways, then?What were Darwin'sestimatesof Linnaeus and Cuvier? To start, I think we must take "'mytwo gods" to mean, "my two heroes,""the two earliergiants of the field, whose achievementsI most The admireandhavewantedto emulate." question,then, is why Darwinmight have grantedLinnaeusand Cuvier (and no one else) this status.Speculation will be necessary, but let us try to ground it in whateverlimited concrete evidence is available. In the case of Linnaeus,the answer seems reasonablyclear, His classification system brought significant order to a vast sea of biological data, providingthe basis of virtuallyall subsequentwork, and it is hardto imagine anythingelse in Linnaeus that could have earned him the exalted status in question; indeed some evidence that Darwin prized aspects of Linnaeus' systematicsis quoted below.'5Cuvier is the more difficultcase, since he did

DARWINON ARISTOTLE

19

significantwork in several areas, includingsystematics,descriptivecomparative anatomy,and comparativefunctional explanation.Although Cuvier's work in systematicswas of importance Darwin,16I ventureto suggest that to his workin the lattertwo areas,especially the third,was the focus of Darwin's admiration. First of all, to idolize Cuvier and Linnaeusfor their respective achievements in systematics is not to idolize them "in very different ways." In addition,I have not come across any explicit praiseby Darwinof Cuvier for his systematics.On the contrary, thereis the following exchange with Huxley in 1857. In response to a September26th letterfrom Darwinproposingthat classificationshould be essentially genealogical,Huxley wrote: Cuviersdefinitionof the object of Classificationseems to me to embody all that is really wanted in Science - it is to throwthefacts of structure into thefewest possible general propositions- This of course leaves out of view & passes by all questionsof pedigreeand possible modifications - dealing with existing animalsas faits accomplis'7 On October3rd Darwinreplied: I knew,of course, of the Cuvierianview of Classification,but I thinkthat most naturalistslook for something further,and search for "the natural system,"- "forthe plan on which the Creatorhas worked"&c &c. - It is this furtherelement which I believe to be simply genealogical.18 There is no sign of admirationhere, and perhapsnone to be expected for a system that, as Darwinhere views it, fails to reflectclearly the causes of the 19 groupingsfound in nature. By contrast,on the one occasion I have found where DarwinlaudsCuvier on a matterof theory,it is for his positionin his dramatically important debate with E. Geoffroy Saint Hilaireover the explanatoryprimacyof morphology versusfunction.In the last section of ch. 6 of Origin,entitled"Summary: the Law of Unity of Type and of the Conditionsof Existence embracedby the Theoryof NaturalSelection,"Darwinspoke of: The expression of conditions of existence, so often insisted on by the
illustrious Cuvier ...

and inferredfrom the considerationswhich establishthatboth Unity of Type and Conditionsof Existence are explainedby naturalselection that: the law of the Conditionsof Existence is the higher law; as it includes, throughthe inheritance formervariations adaptations, of Unity of and that of Type.

20

ALLAN GOTrHELF

This endorsementof Cuvier over Geoffroy mirrorsa very interestingset of marginaliain Darwin'scopy of Whewell's Historyof the InductiveSciences, made nearlytwenty years earlier.As EdwardManierwrites: indicatehis flatrejectionof Geoffroy'sgeneralposiDarwin'sannotations tion as it was describedby Whewell. He markedas "clearlywrong"the as passage where Geoffroywas characterized holding that and functions of animals are to be studiedby the guide the structure of theiranalogyonly; our attentionis to be turned,not to the fitnessof to the organization any end of life or action,but to its resemblance for by otherorganizations which it is graduallyderivedfrom the original type. Geoffroy was portrayedas making no use of the concept of adaptation and as not taking into account the interactionof organisms with their environment.Darwin circled the reference to Cuvier's account of the "partwhich the animal has to play in nature,"and drew a line to the marginalcomment:"this qualified is correct. Owing to externalcontingencies and numbersof other allied species and not owing to mandate of God." Whewell subsequentlyclaimed "Thatthe parts of the bodies are made* in orderto dischargetheir respectiveoffices** is a conviction which we cannot believe to be otherwise than an irremovableprinciple Darwin insertedthe comments(at *) of the philosophyof organization." .2 and "born,altered," (at **) "underchangingcircumstances" 1 Darwin always prized getting the explanatorypriorityright, and it was Cuvier who stood in Darwin's mind for the primacy of fitness over structure. That Darwinalso prizeddescriptiveprecision is evident everywherein his work,22and his citations from Cuvier on mattersof detail are frequent to enough, so it would not be unreasonable imaginethatCuvier'sdescriptive achievements,and those aspects of his work in systematics which Darwin for contributed Darwin'soveralladmiration Cuvier;but I to did appreciate,23 causal priority would suggest that is was Cuvier's grasp of the fundamental in biological thought,which was foremostin Darwin'smind.24 We may hypothesize, then, that Linnaeus had earned his exalted standing in Darwin'seyes for his wide-rangingand in some ways philosophically sensitive system of classification,and Cuvierhis primarilyfor the extensive, descriptivelyprecise and explanatoryfunctionalanalysis of animal characters. But now Darwin reads Ogle's Introduction,and PA Book I and the beginning of II (with Ogle's notes) and what does he find? First of all, I propose, he finds, centuries before Linnaeus or Cuvier, both that Aristotle

DARWINON ARISTOTLE

21

had a systematic and plausible scheme of animal classification,and that he sought for each part,whereverpossible, to identify its functionin the life of, and so explain its presence in the body of, the animals that possess it. For Ogle's Introductionis in large part a discussion of just those two features of Aristotle's work, and the first book of PA is largely concernedboth with teleological explanationof animalparts,in chs. 1 and 5 (as is II.1), and with classification,in chs. 2-4.25 And one of the striking features of Ogle's Introduction,especially to a 19thcenturyreader,is the fresh sense it gives of the breadth- the immensity - of Aristotle'sundertaking, of the way he has broughtan incrediblemass and of data undertheoreticalcontrol. No surprisethen that a careful readerand a great biological mind would write:"- I never realizedbefore readingyour book to what an enormoussummationof labourwe owe even our common knowledge."26 This "enormoussummationof labour"will inevitably has missed some importantfacts, such as the role of the muscles in facilitating movement, but Darwin is focused not on the mistakeas such, but ratheron his surprise that someone of such genius would make that mistake;that very surpriseis testimonyto respect:"How very curious . . . his ignorance"on such points.27 So, Darwintakes interestin Ogle's attempt,across severalpages of the Introduction,to explain,or explain away,the "grossestmistakesattributed him" to - the historyof Aristotle'stext, Ogle suggests, has permittedmuch interpolation, and Aristotle'slimited access to certainanimalsand his "habitof hasty have allowed in some mistakes and Darwintakes pleasure generalization" in Ogle's success in explainingall this "in so probablea manner."28 All of this, to sum up, suggests an authenticrespecton Darwin's partfor Aristotle- even perhapsa growing affection for Aristotle - and one that is well thoughtout. The letter is fresh, eager, excited. Darwin had indeed read little of Aristotleeven to this point, and sadly his deathonly two monthslater preventedhim from readingmuch further"to see whetherany my views very but ancient"; his limitedexposureto Aristotlewas not perfunctory, he has and made very good use of it indeed. While Darwin's exposure was too limited to provideby itself strongevidence of Aristotle'sgreatness,those of us who have ampleevidence of thatgreatnessfrom our own studyof the text, can see how acute Darwin's perceptionwas. How unfortunate, only for Darwin, not but also for us, that he never got to read very much of Aristotle- it would have been a wonderfulencounter. For, I think myself, to borrowa term from the mathematicians, there that is an isomorphismbetween Darwin'sbiological vision and Aristotle's- that there is much in Darwin's biological theorizingthat reflects what one gets if one imagines Aristotle having to accept into his system (i) full evidence

22

ALLAN GO(THELF

of the evolution of species and (ii) a more powerful biochemistrythan was projectiblein his time. This is particularlytrue, I believe, on the matterof biological teleology - and I want to conclude this paper by conjecturingand it is only a conjecture- that Darwin may indeed have seen this while reading Ogle's Introductionand the first quarteror so of PA, esp. I.1 and the opening of 11.1,which he had recently reached when he was inspired to write the famous letter.For, if my suggestion is right that Darwinexalts Cuvier in studyingthe way function(within Aristotlein partfor anticipating environment)determinesstructure,then Darwin has understoodsomething aboutAristotelianteleology thatOgle did not. We recall thatin his firstletter Ogle spoke of Darwin as a Democriteananti-teleologistto whose work in this area Aristotle, as "a real honest hunterafter truth,"would respondby "bum[ing]all his [own] writings." how Ogle could think one understands If one reads Ogle's Introduction, that. For he sets out a fundamentalcontrastbetween teleology and mechanism, puttingAristotlelargely on the side of teleology, and Democritus(and in effect the Darwinianmodems) on the side of mechanism.The contrastis stark;as Ogle writes, startingwith the mechanists: One group of philosophersthere was, who fancied that they found an adequatecause in the necessary operationsof the inherentpropertiesof while anothersoughta solutionin the intelligentaction of a benevmatter; olent andforeseeing agent, whom they called God, or Nature,as the case might be.29 The latter would ask, having come upon the marvelous characterof, for example, the system of blood vessels, "Whatbut foresight and intelligent purposecan have made these channels throughoutthe body ... ?-30 Ogle's Aristotlecombines elements of the two approaches,since he recognizes the limitationsmaterialnecessity places in teleology,buthe is still fundamentally as a teleologist, who views "Nature" an "intelligent... foreseeingagent." But, contrary to Ogle's sentiment, Aristotle's natures are not literally intelligent, not literally planners,and arguablythe philosopher'sgenius lies in plotting a third course between these two pictures, and defending it as scientificallylegitimate.3'This thirdcourse involvesthe postulationnot of an "intelligentNature"but of inherentnatures - that is, of naturalcapacities (in Greek, dunameis) directed at form, capacities for the productionof a type that are irreducibleto the capacities of living organismof a particular From that perspectivethe the elements that constitute such an organism.32 isomorphismwith Darwin becomes clear, and there is some evidence that Darwinhimself saw it. actualizations For it is Aristotle'sview thatliving processesare irreducibly and actualizations of capacities for self-developmentand self-maintenance,

DARWINON ARISTOTLE

23

of ends on that scale of course bring along whatever intermediatestates are necessary (or best33)for such ends; the intermediatestates thus occur because they stand in that relation to their end, and not as the result of materialinteractionsalone. Animal parts,for example, come to be, and are present,because they are neededfor the life of the organism in question,or because it is better that organismsof that type have this part than not.34But as various scholars have pointed out, naturalselection makes the very same thing true of animal parts in Darwiniantheory. For, when they are due to naturalselection, partsare presentin an organism,in just the form they are, precisely because their presence has made survivalpossible or has provided for animals that have these parts a survival advantage.35 The difference is that, while Aristotle takes it as a basic fact of nature that animals come well-adapted,with a capacityto reproduce themselves,Darwinoffers a mechanism- viz. naturalselection - by which well-adaptedness establishedand is
maintained.36

What is so interestingfor us about this isomorphism(or deep underlying similarity)betweentraditional Aristotelian and teleology properlyunderstood the Darwinianversion, is that Darwinhimself may have noticed it. JamesG. Lennox, in a very interestingpaper entitled "Darwin was a Teleologist,"37 cites a letter from Darwin to Asa Gray,in response to "a brief appreciation of Darwin publishedin Nature, in June of 1874.-38 Gray had remarkedthat Darwindid not destroyteleology, as manyfriendsof Darwin,as well as many enemies, had thought,but rather it on a scientificfooting.39Darwinwrites put to Grayin response: What you say about Teleology pleases me especially and I do not think anyone else has ever noted that.40 While the emergenceof a new species is the result of very many individual cases of naturalselection, and not a goal aimed at by the process, selection nonetheless does make it the case that the characterselected is present because it contributesto the life of the organisms possessing it, which is the core claim of any teleological theory.Aristotle's teleology is a stronger teleology thanDarwin's,since Aristotlepostulatesa primitiveor basic directivenesson an end, an irreducible (yet non-conscious)directivenessbuilt into each ontogenic process which cannot be explainedby referenceto anything simpler(such as a series of selections leadingto parentorganismswhich then reproducethemselves);41 but againstthe background a pure Democritean of mechanisticworld-view,it is the similaritybetweenAristotleandDarwin,not the difference,thatone notices.42 And my suspicion is that Darwin noticed it too, as he read Ogle's IntroductionandPA I. 1 and II.I - and I suspect as well thatalthoughhe disagreed with Ogle's view of his own relationshipto Aristotle,he declined to express

24

ALLAN GOTrHELF

thatdisagreementin a letterto Ogle aimed at thankinghim so muchfor what had turnedout to be so lovely a gift. Ogle was very pleased with Darwin's letter, and with the "mereschoolboys"reference.In his next letterto Darwin,nearlytwo monthslater(andhis last, for Darwindied a few days afterthat),Ogle wrote: ... Thankyou for your kind andeulogistic letterre "thepartsof animals." It gave me much pleasure.I am glad also to have addeda thirdpersonto your gods and completedthe Trinity... 43 William Ogle believed that Darwinmeant what he said, and that Darwin knew of what he spoke; my argumenthere has been that we should believe these things of Darwin too. He did mean exactly what he said, and even on limited reading knew quite much of what he spoke. The famous "schoolboys" letter is a great tribute,and a theoreticallysensitive one, across 2200 years, from one greatbiological masterto another.44 Acknowledgments This material,in very preliminary form, was firstpresentedto the 1988 NEH Summer Institute on Aristotle's Metaphysics, Biology, and Ethics, at the University of New Hampshire,directed by J.M. Cooper, M. Frede, and A. Gotthelf; a later version was read to a conference on "Aristotle'sAnimals in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance"in Leuven in May 1997, and the penultimate draftto a Historyand Philosophyof Science FacultyColloquium at CambridgeUniversityin May 1998, where I received helpful comments. The Darwinlettersare quotedfrom the DarwinArchiveswith the permission of the Syndics of CambridgeUniversityLibrary; theircontentand images in Plates 1-4 are reproducedwith the permission,respectively,of Mr. George PemberDarwin, Esq. and the Syndics of CambridgeUniversityLibrary,to both of whom I am grateful.For researchassistanceand comments,I would and particularlylike to thank FrederickBurkhardt JonathanTophamof the Darwin CorrespondenceProject, and Adam Perkins of the Departmentof Manuscriptsat CambridgeUniversityLibrary,who were all most generous with their time and expertise. Alan C. Bowen and Kelly Smith provided useful comments and/or researchassistance as well. James Lennox, David Depew, ErnstMayr,and Michael Ghiselin,each of whom knows vastly more about Darwin than I do, were very generous in supplying comments to an amateur - but perhaps they recognized that I have indeed found Darwin, as I have always found Aristotle (if in a much deeper way), extraordinarily lovable.

DARWINON ARISTOTLE

25

Notes
1. Cal. 13697;DAR 261 DHIMS5: 19. See Plate 1. Darwinlettersarecited hereinby number from F. Burkhardtet al. eds., A Calendar of the Correspondenceof Charles Darwin, 1821-1882, with supplement(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press, 1994) ("Cal."), and then by classmarkin the CambridgeUniversity Librarycollection ("DAR");if the original resided (until recently) at Down House, the Down House catalogue numberis given as well ("DH").In two cases the originalsarecurrentlyheld in the Huxley collection in the Archivesof the ImperialCollege of Science, Technologyof Medicine,London,and are cited by that institution'sclassmark("Imperial College, Huxley"). 2. Simon Byl, "Le jugement de Darwin sur Aristote,"L'AntiquiteClassique 42 (1973), 519-521; modifiedversion in Simon Byl, Recherchessur les grandes traites biologiques d'Aristote:sources ecrites et prejuges (Bruxelles:Palais des academies, 1980), pp. xxxxxxii. 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: University of CaliforniaPress, 1986), p. 170, n. 10. Byl is quoted from the 1980 book version. 3. The specific mention of Darwin's unfamiliaritywith ancient authorsoccurs only in this firstappearanceof the "HistoricalSketch,"but its removalfrom subsequenteditions was certainlynot due to any additionalreading.Darwin'scitation of the Empedocles passage in the 4th edition footnote was suppliedby a correspondentC.J. Grece, as Darwin there indicates;there is no reason to 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 Grece himself attributed Empedocleantheory to Aristotle;in a November 1866 letter (Cal. the himself as the personwho "a year or two ago" 5276; DAR 165: 220), Grece re-introduces broughtthe Aristotlepassage to Darwin'sattention. 4. Ed. R. Desmond, 3rd edn. (London:Taylor& Francis, 1977). The Dictionary (followed by the DarwinCorrespondence Project'sCalendar(above, n. I)) incorrectlygives Ogle's year of 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 was itself apparentlybased on a death notice which appearedon 17 May in the Times of London for one William Ogle, M.D., F.R.C.P.But this notice describes the deceased Dr. while the translator Ogle as "sometimefellow of St. Catherine'sCollege, Cambridge," of Aristotle's Parts of Animals (PA) is identified in all its editions as "sometime fellow of CorpusChristiCollege, Oxford";indeed, the characterof the Prefaceto the 1912 edition of the PA translation, vol. 5 of the Oxford CompleteWorks, in suggests thatthe 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 reportsthatthe CambridgeOgle was born in 1824, while our Ogle, according to all sources, including the Alumni Oxonienses and the Timesof London(see below), was bornin 1827. To makemattersworse, the Dictionaryof National Biographyreportsa John William Ogle, M.D., F.R.C.P.,an Oxford man, who apparently also resided in London,and whose years of birthand deathwere the very same as those of the otherWilliam Ogle (1824-1905), althoughJohn Williamdied on 8 August as against William's 16 May. Unfortunately,some biographicalnotes regardingour William Ogle attribute some of JohnWilliam'saccomplishmentsto our William in place of some of his own (in partbecause both were associatedwith St. George's Hospital).It may be thought astonishingthattherewere threephysicianswith surnameOgle and one forenameWilliam all residing in London in early 1905 and all within threeyears of age of each other,but so

26

ALLAN GO(HELF

it was. Thatour Dr. WilliamOgle is distinctfromthe othertwo, and outlivedthembothby almost seven years, is confirmedby two sentences of an obituarywhich appearedon the firstpage of the Timesof Londonof Monday, 15 April 1912: "Weregretthat Dr. William Ogle died at his residence, 10, Gordon-street, Friday.... In 1882 Dr. Ogle publisheda on translation, with introduction notes, of Aristotle's 'De Partibus and Animalium'." (The second of the two sources the Darwin Project Calendar cites for information about Ogle, R.B. Freeman'sCharles Darwin: A Companion(Folkstone: Wm. Dawson and Sons, 1978), gives 1912 as the year of his death, relying very likely on P. Thomas Carroll,An AnnotatedCalendar of the Lettersof Charles Darwin in the Libraryof the American Philosophical Society (Wilmington:Scholarly Resources, 1976), which also gives 1912.) 5. William Ogle, Aristotle on the Parts of Animals (London:K. Paul, French& Co., 1882). The only previoustranslationinto English was ThomasTaylor's,publishedin 1810. 6. Many of these notes are still valuable;this translation, somewhatrevised,with manyof the notes shortenedor omitted, was one of the very first to appearin the Oxford translation series, edited by J.A. Smith and W.D. Ross, as a separatefascicle in 1911, and as part of vol. V in 1912. It was revised yet again by JonathanBarnes for inclusion, although without the notes, in The Complete Works Aristotle: The Revised OxfordTranslation of (Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress, 1984). 7. Cal. 13621; DAR 173: 10. See Plate 2. 8. Cal. 13622; DAR 261 DH/MS 5: 18. See Plate 3. There is some uncertainty to whether as Darwinwould have received,and thus been able to respondto the receiptof, Ogle's book and letteron the same day they were sent. So it is possible thatone or the otherof the Jan. 17 dates is incorrect.On the other hand, Adam Perkins,Royal GreenwichObservatory Archivist at CambridgeUniversityLibrary,comments that "In the contemporary Royal of Observatory correspondence the Astronomer Royal George Airy,I have notedon some occasionsjust this happening,and I have inferredthatpostaldeliveriescould be rapidand frequentat this period.Airy, a 'workaholic,'on one or two occasions could write,receive an answerand reply to thaton the same day, though I thinkthatthis only happenedwhen he was writing to people at points on the railway network"(personalcommunication, 7 October 1997). The matterof the two Jan. 17 dates will be addressedby the Darwin Correspondence Projectwhen the series reaches 1882. 9. The translationappearson pp. 1-140 of the 1882 edition. The notes in question, n. 9 and 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 attachedto p. 68 of the translation,nearly 50% into "the book proper." The copy Ogle sent Darwin is still in the Down House Library;short of forensic-typestudy, it provides no guidance on this question (or others), since it has no annotations.On the highly methodic characterof Darwin's readinghabits, see parts(i) to and (ii) of the Introduction CharlesDarwin's Marginalia,vol. I, ed. M.A. Di Gregorio with the assistanceof N.W. Gill (New York:GarlandPublishingCo., 1990), pp. xii-xvii. 10. Paul Barrettet al. Charles Darwin's Notebooks, 1836-1844: geology, transmutation of species, metaphysicalenquires,Ithaca:Cornell UniversityPress, 325 c267. II. My emphasis. 12. Crawleywas inadvertantly omittedfrom the Calendar'sBiographicalRegister;this information was kindly suppliedby JonathanTophamof the DarwinCorrespondence Project. A fuller discussion of Crawleyand his letter will accompanythe publicationof the letter when the series reaches 1879. 13. Cal. 11875; DAR 143: 302. See Plate 4.

DARWINON ARISTOTLE

27

14. E.g.: "Fromthe time of Aristotleto the presenttime solid hoofed swine have occasionally been observed in various parts of the world."- Variationof Animals and Plants under Domestication (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 here indicatehis source.) "Tameducks were not known in Aristotle'stime, as remarked Volz, in his Beitrage by zur Kulturgeschichte, 1852, p. 78." - Ibid., 256 n. 7. "It appearsthat Aristotle was well aware of the change in mental dispositions in old hens."- Ibid., vol. 20, 22 n. 56. (Cf. with Darwin's entire discussion here HA VIII(IX). 631b5-20; any of the severalauthorsDarwincites in this note, includingC. Waterton and I. Geoffroy Saint Hilaire,may have been his source.) Darwin read widely in many authorswho frequentlycite Aristotle, includingCuvier, Owen, and I. Geoffroy Saint Hilaireamong others,and Aristotelianreferences,as the few citationsabove suggest, are sprinkledthroughthe 19th c. biological literature. The list of Names and Referencesin CharlesDarwin'sMarginalia,vol. I (above, n. 9) includessome ten places where Darwincommentson or marksa reportof an Aristotelianobservation. Aristotelianinformationwas occasionally also broughtto Darwin'sattentionin correspondence,primarily(but not only) by Ogle; cf. e.g. Cal. 1818 (E. Blyth, 1856; DAR 98: 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 admired Cuvier as the destroyer of the linear scala naturae. He made it ever so much easier for Darwin to contstruct a branchingphylogeny. Accepting evolution it was easy for Darwin to break down the branchesmore finely. [And] Cuvier's five embranchements were indeed branchesin the Darwinianphylogeny .. ." (personalcommunication,August 16, 1997). 17. Correspondence,vol. 6, 461; punctuation emphasis as printedthere.The letter is not and dated. (Cal. 2144; DAR 205.5 (Letters).Darwin's Sept. 26th letter is Cal. 2143; Imperial College, Huxley 5: 54.) 18. Ibid., 463 (Cal. 2150; ImperialCollege, Huxley 5: 139). Comparethe opening section, of "Classification," Origin ch. 14, esp. the thirdparagraph, where howeverCuvier is not named. 19. By contrast,in the correspondingpassage in Origin (see previousnote), Linnaeuscomes in for some implicit praise.In supportof the view thatclassificationought to reflect what is explanatorilyprior,Darwinwrites: "Expressionssuch as that famous one by Linnaeus ... thatthe characters not makethe genus, but thatthe genus gives the characters, do seem to imply that some deeperbond is included in our classificationthan mere resemblance." This might well suggest that Darwin's admirationfor Linnaeus is based not only on the breadthof his classification system, but on his grasp of a fundamentalfact about how classificationought to be done. (I am indebtedto James Lennox for bringingthe significance of this passage to my attention.)Whetherthe criticism of Cuvier in the letter to Huxley is entirely fair is of course a separatematter. 20. He is again "the illustriousCuvier"in ch. 14 (in the section, "Developmentand Embryology"), even when he misses that barnaclesare crustaceans.The only other eminent to earn that appellationin Origin is Humboldt,although Darwin uses the terms of several others in other works. The deflationarynote implicit in today's use of that term seems completely missing from the 19th c. citations in the OED, s.v. illustrious, and each of Darwin'suses seem a straightforward acknowledgmentof deservedhigh standing.

28

ALLAN GOTTHELF

21. E. Manier,The YoungDarwin and 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's Marginalia,vol. I (above n. 9), p. 868. to 22. Cf. esp. the Introduction CharlesDarwin's Marginalia,vol. I (above n. 9), pp. xii-xiv. 23. Above n. 16. influencedby an extensive and 24. In these featuresof his work Cuvier is himself apparently careful study of Aristotle,on whose biological writings he heaped praise. Speaking, for example, of Aristotle'sHistoria Animalium,Cuvierwrote: Indeedit is imposI cannotread[this work]withoutbeing ravishedwith astonishment. sible to conceive how a single man was able to collect and comparethe multitudeof particularfacts which underliethe numerousgeneral rules and aphorismscontained in this work and of 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 concerned with the method of establishingdefinitionsrather than with any method of establishing a hierarchicalclassification scheme; but it was standardin Ogle's time to readthem the latterway, and Ogle indeed does so in his notes and Aristotle's text is so abbreviated, otherwisedifficult, (as he did in his Introduction); and that Darwinwould certainlyhave relied heavily on Ogle's Introduction notes. 26. In a letterto ErnstMayr,commentingon the issue raised in this paper,MichaelGhiselin writes, "I thinkthat DarwinadmiredCuvier,Linnaeus,and Aristotlefor theircapacityto reduce large bodies of materialto intelligible order.Lyell, whom Darwin also admired, had the same ability" (August 6, 1997, cited by Mayr, above n. 16; quoted here with Ghiselin's permission).This is very likely partof the overall picture,as I suggest above in the case of Linnaeus. 27. Indeed,perhapsit was Darwin'svery surpriseat the thoughtthatsomeone of such impressive genius could have missed the functionof the muscles which made him realize "what a great summationof labour we owe even our common knowledge."Perhaps,too, this very sequence of thought, stimulatedby his readingof Ogle's notes on muscles, almost into "the book proper," began the reflectionswhich sparkedDarwinto write one-quarter the famous letter. 28. Ogle, Aristotleon the Partsof Animals(above n. 5), pp. xi-xix. Byl is confusedin thinking to that Darwinsimply accepts as Aristotle's"thegrossest mistakesattributed him";on the of contrary,the attribution most of these is disputedby Ogle (xi-xiii), and this is partof So, what Darwin finds "so probable." based on my argumentso far, Byl's first and third points (above, p. 8) fail. I commenton his second point below. 29. Ibid., p. i; my emphasis. 30. Ibid. 31. Indeed, as James Lennox has remindedme, Aristotlewas awareof, and clearly rejected, a teleological pictureof just the sort Ogle describes,viz. thatof Plato's Timaeus. 32. Cf. Allan Gotthelf, "Aristotle'sConception of Final Causality,"in Philosophical Issues Cambridge in Aristotle's Biology, ed. Allan Gotthelf and James G. Lennox (Cambridge: I UniversityPress, 1987),ch. 8. In the next paragraph drasticallysummarizekey aspectsof this account;for a fuller statementof these points see especially the chapter's"Postscript 1986",secs. I and III. see 33. Given that Aristotelianends are optimally structured: A. Gotthelf, "The Elephant's Nose: Further Reflections on the Axiomatic Structureof Biological Explanation in

DARWINON ARISTOTLE

29

34. 35.

36.

37. 38. 39.

40.

41.

42.

Aristotle,"in Aristotelische Biologie: Intentionen,Methoden, Ergebnisse, ed. W. Kullmannand S. Follinger (Stuttgart: Steiner, 1997), 90. PA 1.1 640a33-bl, 11.2648a13-16, 111.8 670b23-24, GA 1.4 716a12-21 and ff., etc. On the tense shift, from "has made" to "makes,"see L. Wright, Teleological Explanations (Berkeley:Universityof CaliforniaPress, 1976), pp. 87-90 and H. BinswangerThe Biological Basis of TeleologicalConcepts(Marinadel Rey: The Ayn RandInstitutePress, 1990), pp. 120-126. Darwin differs also from Aristotle in (i) insisting on a greatervariabilityin environments for a given populationthan Aristotle was aware of, and (ii) recognizing, as Aristotle did not, thatslight variationin the structure functioningof animalpartswithinpopulations and in a given environmentfrequentlymakes a differenceto survivaland reproduction. An even closer connection between Aristotelian and Darwinianteleology has been arguedby David Depew ("EtiologicalApproachesto Biological Aptness in Aristotleand Darwin,"in Kullmannand Follinger 1997 [above, n. 33]), although I think his account gives insufficientattentionto what is for Aristotle the basic fact that animal forms come well-organized. In Aristotle's account of generation (which Depew rightly praises) the reproductiveprocess operates to replicate these basic forms, so that it is these wellorganized forms' actual presence in the parents (e.g. the chicken) which explains both their presenceas potentialitiesin the developmentalstages of the offspring(e.g. the egg), and the elemental interactionsinvolved in their subsequentre-actualization, and not the otherway round(PA I. 640a22-26). But Depew is right to embracethe view that it is the developmentalbase of Aristotelianteleology thatlinks Aristotle with Darwinhere. In a more extensive study of Darwin and Darwinism, with Bruce Weber, Darwinism Evolving (Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 1995), Depew sets Darwin and Aristotle more clearly apart on this issue (40), while tracing several very interestinghistorical connectionsbetween Aristotle and Darwinvia neoclassical biology (ch. 2). Biology and Philosophy8 (1993) 409-421. 409. Lennox, "Darwin," ".... let us recognize Darwin's great service to Natural Science in bringing back to it Teleology; so that instead of Morphologyversus Teleology, we shall have Morphology weddedto Teleology,""Charles Darwin:A Sketch," Asa Gray:Darwiniana,ed. A. Hunter Dupree(CambridgeMA: Harvard UniversityPress, 1963), 237. Cal. 9483, 5 June 1874. Cited by Lennox (409) from FrancisDarwin, TheLife and Letters of Charles Darwin, 3 vols. (London: John Murray,1887), III, 189. (Lennox's 308 is a referenceto TheAutobiography Charles Darwin and Selected Letters,the 1958 Dover of reprintof F. Darwin's 1892 abridgededition of Life and Letters.)It is not clear, however, that either Gray or Huxley, whose remarksimilar to Gray's is cited by FrancisDarwin in vol. 2, 201, understood the connection between teleology and selection as Darwin did; indeed it is quite clear from the lattercitation that Huxley did not. Gray's statement remainshowever somethingthat Darwincould endorse. Cf. A. Gotthelf, "Understanding Aristotle'sTeleology,"in Final Causalityin Nature and Human Affairs, ed. R.F. Hassing (Washington:Catholic University of America Press, 1997), 79-82. The dispute between James Lennox and Michael Ghiselin as to whether Darwin is to be counted a teleologist seems to turn on this issue. (Biology and Philosophy 8 (1993), 409-421; 9 (1994), 489-492, 493-495). Ghiselin appearsto conceive teleology as involving essentially this sort of primitive directiveness- either by a conscious agent or an irreduciblenature;he wants to stress that, by contrast,the betteradaptedorganismsthat result from naturalselection are not, in that sense, aimed at. Lennox's view seems to be

30

ALLAN GOTTHELF

that so long as featuresare presentbecause they renderthe organismmore fit, teleology is present. I think myself that we need to distinguisha strongerand a weaker (but still philosophicallyand scientificallysubstantial)sense (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 Empedoclesand Democritusaren't,teleologists. (Ghiselin seems to hold that the weakersense has no legitimacy as a conceptionof teleology, but in my view the literatureLennox cites in his papermakes clear that it is a legitimate,and important, conception.) This issue is complicatedby the fact that various opponentsof Darwin, such as von of Baer, who thought naturalselection unable to account for the extensive "correlation variations" be found in nature,and opted for a teleological thesis accordingto which to the results of evolution are indeed aimed at, characterized Darwin as abandoningteleology altogether. But Darwinclearly did not think he had, and this has generatedmuch confusion (on which see also J. Beatty,"Teleologyand the RelationshipBetween Biology and the Physical Sciences in the Nineteenth and TwentiethCenturies,"in Durhamand Purrington, eds., Some TruerMethod:Reflectionson the Heritageof Newton [New York: Columbia UniversityPress, 1985]). On von Baer's critiqueof Darwin, cf. E.S. Russell, Forn and Function (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982 [19161), pp. 238-245 (and ch. 13 generally), and T. Lenoir, The Strategy of Life: Teleologyand Mechanics in Nineteenth-Century German Biology (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989 [1982]), ch. 6. Distinguishingstrongerand weaker senses (or types) of teleology would help to sort out both the historicaland the philosophicalissues here. 43. Cal. 13767; DAR 173: 11.