and in Aristotle's Biology Author(s): D. M. Balme Reviewed work(s): Source: The Classical Quarterly, New Series, Vol.

12, No. 1 (May, 1962), pp. 81-98 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/638031 . Accessed: 12/03/2013 07:28
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Cambridge University Press and The Classical Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Classical Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Tue, 12 Mar 2013 07:28:03 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

'ENOL' AND EIA OLEIN ARISTOTLE'S BIOLOGY

The distinction does not appear in Plato's extant tinguished as genusand species. writings, whereas Aristotle seems to take it for granted in the Topics,which is usually regarded as among his earliest treatises. In his dialogues Plato seems
tppos division in a diairesis, including the group that is to be divided.' As Ritter showed, it is possible to see an increasing preference for ydvos in the late and dialogues, where diairesis is in full use, as compared with the Republic Phaedrus. as a 'kind' composed of related members, would be a natural y'vos, choice for a class-word; it is indeed ready to mean the genus which is divisible into related species. But the restriction of E18os mean species would be, in to Plato, an unexpected development. Species is necessarilysubordinate,implying a genus above it; moreover it is the group-concept nearer to particulars and therefore-for Plato-farther from certainty and reality. It seems improbable that, if he had wished to confine one word to the lower status, he would have chosen ElOSgwith all its tremendous associations. If he did so distinguish yvoh and ELf0OS, can only have been in the unwritten practice of the Academy. But it those who have taken this view have had to rely mainly on the AJtaparE~L 64-65,2 which is weak evidence. These two sections are given Aptp-ro-rEAovs in the Codex Marcianus not even in the version that Laert. able to use yEvos, ESos, 181a, interchangeably to denote any group or IT is not certain when or by whom yd&osand E~8OSwere first technically dis-

version, only Diog. says Aristotle attributed to Plato (D.L. 3. 8o); ? 64 contains the reference to which Rose pointed to as one of the marks of a Christian editor ; the dcyyEAOL in statements about and E8OS ?? 64-65 are commonplaces of Aristotle y7&os and his Greek commentators, and could have been extracted from these

Academic origins,4only the thinnest chain of probability could connect any particular statement or terminology with Plato himself. That Plato's use of animal examples in the Politicuscame from an extended interest in biological classification, has been inferred from the Epicrates fragment;s5 but this mentions only the separating of plants into yd7v,and not only is there no use of the word EL~o0but there is no suggestionof hierarchicalor systematic classification, which could have made rich material for a comedian. Such classificationmay develop in two stages, which give rise respectively to the relative and the absolute distinction between genus and species. The relaa K E at Ka E 87 tive use is seen at Arist. Phys. 227bi I-14: EL' 3'8 .L .7Lv s o '-i-v Here EUTCV, E l7... oA'j0EwS, qETLUt'I7jl E18OS

sources. While it is likely that parts of the AlLaLpaYcL descend from t4ApLrrodEAovS

the classification a as withoutimplying that provides pattern an aid to' analysis, E'7TLcrrrlqtLWv... these conceptsare permanently classified thus in relationto other concepts.
s Fr. 287 (K.); cf.j Alexis fr. I. Usener, Preuss. Jahrb. 1884; Wilamowitz, Philol. Unters.iv. 283; Stenzel, Studienz,1931, p. 82; Herter, PlatonsAkad.2, 1952, p. 21. Cf. Dies, Plat. Polit. (Bud6), p. xxvii, and the more cautious view of Jaeger, Diokles v. Karystos, p. 178.

using his own terminology there. 3 Arist. Pseudepigr. 678. p. 4 Cf. Mutschmann, Divisiones Arist., pp. vii f.
4599.1

Ritter, Neue Untersuchungen, 230 f. pp. 2 Hambruch, Logische Regelnd. plat. Schule, p. 7, also cites Arist. Met. Io39a24, but A. is

This content downloaded on Tue, 12 Mar 2013 07:28:03 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

82

D. M. BALME

The absolute use, on the other hand, does imply a permanent and more comprehensive scheme; this enables analogies to be drawn between one set of groups and another, and therefore has more significance for science. Thus we say that Dog is a species but Cat is a genus, referring to a scheme which gives those groups a precise status in the animal kingdom. This use can be seen at
Arist. de Sensu 448ai3-I7

distinction, either absolutely or relatively, he could have done so by restricting ESOS to two of the senses that he already used, namely (i) a grouping of particulars,and simultaneously (ii) a division of a larger group: both senses can be seen, not simultaneouslybut separately, at Soph.219 a and d--- EXYvv 7Tacr6v EL'89 (two forms among the plurality of v aL), and K7r-q7CK7 8s0 rX 8O El8l (two forms into which K7r7TLKK divisible). But he would hardly have wanted to is make it unless he were developing classification in some degree. It is much debated whether he intended diairesisfor this purpose or not. The fact that he did not find it necessaryto create a verbal distinctionbetween genus and species is perhaps a straw on the side of those who hold that he did not use diairesis for systematic classification. Moreover, if it is right to think that he was latterly more concerned with the inter-relationsbetween Forms than with the relations between Forms and phenomena, then a hierarchy of genera and species might not be the best conceptual framework for him but might even create difficulties. These considerationsprobably do not apply to Speusippus, who not only abandoned the theory of Forms but held that definitions can only be made as part of a comprehensive classification.2Yet the positive evidence that he from EtSos is hardly better than in Plato's case. Stenzel, distinguished yV&os in Platonic classification, and following Lang, relies on frs. already believing 8 and I6(L.) :3

and G.A. 784b2I. If Plato had wanted to make the

& ev Fr. 8(L.) : Athen. 3. 105 b ZirEVUaTLrTroS /'

-rUv paAaKouTpcKUwV Kapalov, -raTaKo'v, VV'4?V0, aOpKTOV,

OtolwJv rapanrArgad -a
KapKVov,

wtELvaL

Athen. 7. 318 e EL0 8' ~l ..oAv ..d8Y jAEVrJ, iroAvro8v77, S 3oA/flcr~7, PEL Kat t"u)ro-rAq "lTO c,1'XAoS, 7TEVCUL1T0S. With these compare fr. Io(L.): Photius, Lexic. s.v. rrnv'ov: ov OJIOLOv Kdvr7TL' O-r&8U KuwW7T0 EL.O EOTmL, EV Tp ?u S w3ITEVL&7T7OS 9'LWO-LOLOtr)-rioWV Fr. I6(L.):
7T* oVTrWS") Lov, E/9rTS, KWVWO.

7ryOUvpOV.

In addition,the list of titlesattributedto him by Diog. Laert.includesr~pt This is all that can be called directevidence;to it must be yEVWVlKat EL'&iv. addedthe fairprobability Aristotle's that criticisms al of aLpEfraes! and o1 in P.A. I. 2-3, whereydvos el8os and yypappCqaqLe seemto meangenus 'Xotropoiv-re, and species,were aimed at Speusippus. Aristotle's Yet evidencecannot be over terminology, is knownfrom the way he reportsother philoas pressed and to and in sophers; in any case it wouldbe possible take ydvos E8Sos these as meaningnothingmoretechnical than 'kind'and 'form'. The same passages
Cf. Arist. Met. 1039a24, Io85a23; Cherniss, A.'s Crit. of Plato, p. 46, Riddle of the Early Academy, pp. 40, 54; but see Ross, Plato's Theory of Ideas, p. 241, on departmental hierarchies. Cornford's divided circle (Plato's Th. of Knowledge, 271) and Skemp's p. hachured map (Plato's Statesman,p. 74) are better images than the family tree suggested by A.'s y4v- S'r' AA77Aa. 2 Anon. in Arist. An. Post. 584. 17; Cherniss, A.'s Crit., p. 59. 3 Stenzel, R.-E. 'Speusippos', 1640, 1653;

Acad. Lang, De Speus. scriptis, 9. p.

This content downloaded on Tue, 12 Mar 2013 07:28:03 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

1ENOE AND EIAO,

IN ARISTOTLE'S

BIOLOGY

83

applies to D.L.'s attribution: if there was such a title, it still need mean no more than 'On kinds and forms' as Plato used the terms. It is doubtful, however, whether Diogenes' evidence should be accepted, since there are neither fragments nor testimonia for this book, and he attributes the same title to Xenocrates with equally little to show for it.' Photius' excerpt (fr. Io) does not to attribute the word d8OS- Speusippus,and his actual quotation fails to support in shown together with Eplrrs a list: comparisonwith the other fragmentsshows
(lJaAaKo'r7paKa occurs only 7rroAvoSsE) are the only ones that Lang could find. The word EL8~s

his interpretation, since rrqvlovis not shown as a species of KdvwV but both are

suggested, and in fact the two classesnamed in frs. 8 and 16

No that this means that they form a group of 4L&oLa. generic or class name is

and

in fr. I6, and here Athenaeus claims to be quoting both Speusippus and
Aristotle: but Aristotle does not speak of El8'7 rroAvrroT'v but of yEvr.z In the other fragments Speusippus regularly says that animals are Jpota, lapalrTwA7ca, eL~Ep?7. The only other class-word to be found is pipos, fr. 7 (also from Athenaeus). The Epicrates fragment uses only y'vos. Therefore the positive

in evidence that Speusippus distinguished yCvosand EtL8O the technical sense comes really to nothing. It may well be that he was attempting a comprehensive 'natural' classification by grouping together similar animals and plants, and by arranging the groups dichotomously in sets, and that he called the
SLalpeaL for a complete set; but there is no evidence that he went farther and distinguished genus from species, or that he even reached the point where this distinction becomes useful. There seems thereforeto be no satisfactoryevidence that anybody other than Aristotle originated this verbal distinction. It appears unmistakably in many and ocpassages of the Organon(especially Top. 4 and 6) and Metaphysics, casionally in other works.3In the same treatisesthe words sometimes seem also to be used without this technical sense, and to be interchangeable.4That the same words should have sometimes a technical and sometimes a non-technical use, is not necessarily significant. But some passages, such as Met. I058b26groups indifferently by the same class-words that Plato used, including

fusion if the whole is read together. Here we may perhaps see one part written before Aristotle began to use the distinction, and another part added afterwards.5 In the Topics el80o as species tends to be applied to the subject of discussion.6 As such, it is a group-conceptwhose membersare formally indistinguishablefor the purposesof the discussion.In order to define it, its yEvos must be ascertained. So yCvos,although it too has unity of concept, is essentially divisible into different EL8?;7
EL80S

Io59a 14, exhibit both uses in a single discussion, in such a way as to cause con-

is treated as indivisible, and is essentially a member of a

3 Cf. Bonitz, Index i D.L. 4. 2. 13- Xenocrates would prob151a12-40. ably have meant the non-technical sense, as * Cf. Met. Io58b26, 28 (Ross), I07Ia25, used in his fr. 9 (H.): KLVaEws etL~77S, Cat. 8b27, 9a14; An. Post. 97b24, 34; qopaig 27; El QELt,rT7s Top. 10IaI8, 105a11, 20, b14, Io6aI I, 24, 27 cS'eO1 opas E837. z H.A. 523b29, 525aI3, 622a 5; P.A. 1o7b19, I09a2, al. 685b13. At 9- 393 f (= Arist. fr. 27I(R.), s Ross ad o58b28.Cf. Long.Vit.465a2-6, H.A. 497b9- I2 (both discussed below). 1527aI2) Athenaeus says even more pre" vocat rem definiendam,Waitz ad Elves 6 -E6Os ApwaroTreA7) 4y IpTEWarepwv pLV cisely. 9v y'voS, EL'S77 7DET . . ., and names the 14Ib28. same five that A. gives at H.A. 593a15; but ELe7t 7rTALcL) Top. I23a30; yevovs 7 ravrs A. calls these yevq (544bI), cf. I27a24; Bonitz,Arist.Stud.iv. 355rTepLctrpoeL&,v never et~77.

This content downloaded on Tue, 12 Mar 2013 07:28:03 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

84

D. M. BALME

in the other direction the E18oS may be found to be itself divisible into different in forms: then what was e8OS- relation to the higher group becomes the yevosof the lower groups,2and so on until a truly indivisible form is reached, and this is
then the
el0S distinguished only by differences of ;A-.s As a method of analysis this contains nothing that cannot be found in

may be disclosed, while y'vos. In a full analysis a hierarchy of ye'v trr' cJAA-Aa'

or -Tropov rEAEVratov

whose members are particular individuals

which might have served little purpose for Plato, becomes important for those
who find reality in the rO7E TL.Genus and species then differ in epistemological

Plato, except the distinction between ylvos and EL80. But this very distinction,

status, and tend to be used not relatively but absolutely. The infima species is abstracted immediately from sense-perception,whereas all classes above it are abstracted from abstractions.In Aristotle'stheory of substance the form that is
actualized in the individual's matter is that of the '-ro[lovELS80,while the suc-

cessive ranks of genera are successivelyremote stages of potentiality which can only exist when the infima species is actualized. If the male sperma fails to inform the female matter fully, the offspringmay not resemble its parents but only their genus, and this is a step on the way towards the monstrosity: the
-repas

that the mule, which cannot resemble both horse and ass, resembles only and avOpwrros, the real significanceof the distinction between genus and species lies not in its relative use at all levels, but in its absolute use at the level of the infima species.6 One would have expected Aristotle to use this distinction above all in biology, where it is most evident that the final differentiaexpressesthe essence,7 so that the immediate object of science must be species rather than genus. But the surprisingfact is that he makes least use of it in this field. It does not occur in the explanations of family resemblances and rdepara,nor of the mule, just
and dv'pwrros) quoted; there the distinction is between the universal (both ?W-ov and the particular (Socrates); he speaks of y'vos and Kao'Aov as opposed to and in the only paragraph where Et80os occurs it is intert&ov, KaO' EKaaUTov, changed with yvos.8 It is true that P.A. I apparently distinguishes y'vos, in SLaqopa, E80OS the same way as the Topics does. But P.A. I is a book apart: it their common dyyv-ra-ray'vos and is unnatural and defective, rrapd dbtaYv, is ?(ov&dvrr1rpos.5 The stock example in the logical works of yE'vo0--EOS

is 5wdv TLbut no more.4 And by a similar argument Aristotle explains

is not so much biology as a philosophical discussion of biology. Its usage is markedly different from that of the works in which Aristotle actually practises biology. There, in the strictly biological works, although it has been traditional to interpret y'vos and E~8O- genus and species in many passages,examination as shows that there are only a few in which the technical sense is obligatory; in a few more it is possible but not demanded, while in others it even causes confusion (as D'Arcy Thompson pointed out) and in some it is impossible. Now in the case of the logical works the reader has a clear choice on each occasion between the technical and the non-technical senses: both have been established
Top. 107a22, Cat. 1b21; Bonitz, Ind. 5I a45. 2 Phys. 227bI4. 3 An. Post. 96bi5, 97a35-b6; Met. Io34a7. 4 G.A. 4. 3 (cf. 769b9). s Met. o34a,; G.A. 2. 8. 6 The contrast that N. Hartmann draws P. u. A., 1941, pp. 12, 21) depends upon identifyingeidos with arojLov el8os.
7

between Plato and A. (ZurLehre Eidosbei v.

Met. Io38aI9-26; P.A. 644a3. 8 G.A. 747b33-748a7.(At 770b17,772b25 eso0smeans the formal cause opposed to

;Aiq.)

This content downloaded on Tue, 12 Mar 2013 07:28:03 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

FENOE AND EIAOZ IN ARISTOTLE'S

BIOLOGY

85

in practice, and, where the technical sense is required,it is requiredbecause the context distinguishes certain concepts in the way in which genus and species are distinguished, and these examples can be pointed to in the text. In the biology, however, there is no such framework of reference. The traditional interpretation assumed that Aristotle did actually classify animals into genera and species, but this assumption is not supported by the evidence.' He accepts as data the animal kinds (yCrv))that are presented to him by common parlance, but does not try to group them furtherby finding similarities,as Speusip-

pus appears to have done. Such kinds are: L'rros, KVCOV, KTA.;a very few wider groups such as -d adEXrAq,rd A'dovpa; and certain general groupings (p'yLama which comprisemost-but not all-animals, namely Jpvts, Y Zrz)2 x6'V), Iv'opLa,

much why Aristotle usually fails to distinguish the words yCdos and

extant treatises examine the common and peculiar characteristicsof these yEd'vq, their functions, their reproduction, but nottheir taxonomy; moreover there is no classification scheme in the background, and all attempts to construct one for Aristotle have failed.3 Consequently the question is not so
ELo0S

KTA.The

in

biology: it is rather, how does the distinction come to be there at all, in the few cases where it does appear? In the zoological works excluding P.A. I4the occurrencesof the two words are, so far as I have observed:
_yvos

(avyyv t sim.) ev
(13)

Inc. A.

P.A. 2-4

H.A. I-9

oElS0
52

et (d4osELS sim.)
(5)

207

G.A. Parv.Nat.4

64 7
I22

(2)
(I)

8
o

(0)
(0)

13 413

(21) (1) (38)

33 3 96

(6) (o) (I 1)

abstract, including sometimes the sense of genus as opposed to species. That is to say, in 354 cases yEvos denotes a kind of animal. On the other hand, of the 96 instancesof 8os only 24 denote kinds of animal. Thus y'vos is far the commoner word for a kind of animal, though it is of course by no means the case that Aristotle is concerned with genera rather than with species. He uses yEvosindifferently for the type that is visible in nature and for all groupings of such types. Bonitz is mistaken in applying the usage of the Topics (where
yevovs EL'S-7rrAeltw, I23a30) 7ravT'oused of the infima never

Of the 413 instances of yCvos, 275 are applied to a named type of animal (e.g. yfvos 7rTrwv),79 to animals in general (e.g. 7roAAd '?q ov), 25 to other kinds y4'v7 of thing (e.g. yevos wv-Y, d8o'drowv), and the remaining 34 mean 'kind' in the

too. Thus dog is a yevos 658a29, and ydvos, but if it has sub-types these are so are the breeds of dog, rrAetwyPv?7y'vq 574a16; similarly r7~y 5 765v KvvWv -vos and y' -q XE vrwv 8;o 629b33; compare foGv 782b7 with 666b19, 579b5 AEdrwvTv
' For details see my paper 'A.'s Use of Differentiae in Zoology', contrib. to 2nd Symp. Arist. (Louvain, I960). on Thierkunde, which see my paper, loc. cit. 4 i.e. H.A. 1-9, P.A. 2-4, Inc. A., G.A., and Parv. Nat. 453b and 464b 9--480b3o (de Somno,Long.I--458a32all from Juv. to end Vit., and of Resp.). Mot. A. and H.A. io can be ignored for this purpose. s Arist. Stud. iv. 386; Index Ib57-

species.5For not only is every visible type called a

to the biology, and inferring that ydvos is

2 H.A. 490b7, Not a technical 505b26. term: cf. P.A. 683b26, H.A. 490bl6 yEvq EIx ILEy da, 534b13 yer'7 7TEPt ....
3

Full

examination

in

Meyer,

Arist.

This content downloaded on Tue, 12 Mar 2013 07:28:03 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

86

D. M. BALME

with 535b8; Kap'SWV 525a33 with 34; KapKLvwV 506a9; 682ai8, 25 ETTlyWY ibid. ; 7mroAmvwrov 1; &KaA'qq?GCv 622aI4 with 525"a3 4Eov 511 a14 with 15,
528a2, 683b14 with 531a31 with blo; pv6ov 676b31, 771a23 with 581a5; xlVwv is 507a16, 530a34, 680a15. yEdv'7 the word for the different types of SaavvrrdTwv 550b26, KOyXW 528a24, 7ropvpciv 547a4, KVL&8V548a24, crdyywv 548a32, v #UXcv 557a4, JCE7V563b5, 618bi8, LEpdKCWV 564a5, 620a22, 55Ia9, Op6ELv ApivOowv ' 566b12, KEUT7PWV 569aI7, pwo&v 609b22, 8pvoKo acTrr7-v614b7, KOT781EAqWov 617b18, Kopv8ChAwv 617a1 I, 617b20, q aAayy'wv 622b28, dpaxvltov rtvowv KoAo61iv K ibid., &paXviwv yAawvp6-v623a25, au/7Kcyv 627b23, aUK63v 'idpwv 628a2,
630oa2.

505blO;

Oocov Each of these subdivisionsis clearly the type visible in nature, i.e. the final differentiation known to Aristotle, what would now be called the species and Metaphysics called the or variety, and what would in the Organon be
a-ropov lT8os.

Of the 96 instances of Ed8os,only 13 are applied to named types of animal, and a further II to animals in general; 4 refer to other things (t8s- 7P-X-V 49ob28, 78Ib34; lvas2 536blO; KoLlas 674a23, cf. 507b23), and the remaining 68 bear an abstractsense and occur largely in oblique cases (e.g. E'EL8 3ELPEL). Of these 68 abstract instances, 16 (all in G.A.) mean the formal cause, and many others have a general sense of 'form', 'appearance', even 'nature'; but there are some that seem to demand the sense of 'species', and these will be discussed below. Taking first the 13 referencesto named animal-types, we find that 5 of them refer to types that are also called y~rV,so that the technical distinction is presumably excluded:
H.A. 532bI4 TETTrlWV dC'8-;cf. 556ai4 TETTrlWV yvrV, 535b8 E77t'yWv7 yvoS. su' H.A. 557 24 'v EIS8s bO~Epvv arwv ; cf. 557a4 '' L 8~ y~oS 'OELpjyv. Oa cf. 617bl8 tAtoydVosKO H.A. 617b16 KOAOLtV '7pl; ELC'i OtuV. 8 TAELdVWV P.A. 680oa5 Yrc dXOVwv. yEvv, o3 yap v .. ..rcvwv ud; orvrw EZ.80S cf. H.A. 530a34 yeV~Y7 ITAqEO y'Xvwv, b4-7 2AAa ye'vd, JAAoy'VoI. 860 G.A. 758b9 SE C . 723b6 YvOS7r Kac7Lrras s7LEvarL Eo80
7~ uK1,tKOS; uWKhK2OV.

Three refer to sub-types, such as have been seen above to be most commonly
called yv
T7 orTc

ab,tOaAv ybvCyV E'&17 In one case only do yEvosand d5os-appear to be distinguished: H.A. 593b8
VU AKVo'WV

592b7,

617b18. 592bI8, KLXXAV

7T'pVpoV YEVOS' El.tLV. evidenceof the othercases,it seemsclearthat E!'5' view of the overwhelming o must be non-technical here, and is used to mean 'forms', mainlyfor literary variety. four casesreferto more abstract The remaining than the visible groupings naturalforms: This occurs in a context where the H.A. 486a24 E1"7 IrEW lOl dov Ka' dpvOwv. distinction between genus and species seems to be really intended. It is discussed below. b IToAAa' d rpaKo&'ppwv. No further sugS 8~ P.A. 679b15 EUa7 y Kati 7'ov EL''7 gestion is made of a distinction between ydvos and E8o0I among testaceans, and the word E1'os does not again occur in connexion with them except in the nontechnical use with dXtVOt quoted above (68oai5). Cf. H.A. 528a2 -b rv dXlvowv 530a34 f. yv'I7 TdAELw ylvos; 528a24--~26 Kd'YXwv dXtvwY, ydEOs, JAAta8to yev;, \A"o yd'w lvta, y'voS. The use of both words together here may show that they -r

8 OT7a rvYXvaSEL aV'Ty0V 8o E!Lq.

In

This content downloaded on Tue, 12 Mar 2013 07:28:03 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

FENOE AND EIA OE IN ARISTOTLE'S

BIOLOGY

87

have not completely lost their basic difference of meaning: i.e. y'vos is the
genetic 'kind', EL80s is the morphological 'form'. 7apClyar' aiTr3ov(sc. 7~6v taAaKKoorpcdKwv) P.A. 683b26 ov-e8E ydEv- 7v -77-Erapa. The same ' E' . V. rToVWy KCUov rr7TAETo applies to this passage as to EL87r 679b15 above. ELOS is not again used in connexion with crustaceans, except once in the abstract sense of 'shape': H.A. 525blO ETpov yV&os tKpbV pLV 76 60S OLOV auraKo~. yEvoS is the word used otherof KCaPKVOL, 87'otS torrEp : cf. 525a34 of wise for all
groups

The v t&ov G.A. 719a7 LETEXELv E (sc. cpordKCKalcdo'rKcwv). p, or.Epwov vipershave someof the characteristics each of selachians r3. and ovo-viviparous bearsa generalsenseof 'class'. group.E13os it to showsthat,wherever is possible testthe denotations The aboveevidence to and of yd'vos E38O- reference actual animals,Aristotle's usagemakesno by meansa 'kind'at any level from betweenthem. yEvos taxonomicdistinction is far visibletype. EtLSOS less comthe most abstract groupto the immediately If and represents groupthat yE'vos not alsorepresent. they no does monlyused, is differin meaning,the difference not that of higherand lowerrungson the same ladder. They belong to differentladders,and the originaldifference sometimesshows through,yevosbeing a statementabout kinshipand EtSos aboutshapeor form.' a statement in There remains, however,a numberof passages thesebiologicalworksin in to whichEdLOS with a moregeneralreference opposition ytvos, and in is used In someof thesethe senseof 'species' pages appearsobligatory. the following I offer an examination all passagesthat appearto be at least capableof of to and bearingthissense(theseincludethe I I generalreferences animals, some of the 68 abstract referred above). to instances, H.A. I. 486ai6 ra'a & ra v ELELTWV EYTWV, tLOplWY OLto 6 ic I7 I &gv KalJ9aA/tus pdrrovpwtvKaL 0aAtz-, vYpdrrov
21 ...

b.

2 73

A/Kdt7TpaKa YEVOS. tLKpOV

KapKV'c yvW7ITAdEI Kap'8wv Kia

OV aAAwv'OV'V,T ElaEL r 'Ta-A Tua ... 19 LoTKat TWV A'ooEv

r 6Uravl-a rdv
EOTtLV,

18 ...

rcOYahOcv '

-rpcrTOv Kalt

To EVOS 22 &Sa#EPEL EUl Ka SE'~ Ka9i , 'Y7TEpoX'IV otovopvtOa IXv'vr 'EAAEL4o KatxOUWv Ayw 84y'vos 23 Tairov. ydp TOWrco
Kaldpvlcov .... 25 ' TC3vcWov txd(,wv EvatEa b17 " Et"lE 7a~LpLa TavTC Ot0vEKaOG Kal 9A18 Ov"TE . EXEL VTEPOX7qV & A Juozv 7rrpo as otov 7ITETOVOEV 19 AELW&v, a'Kadar
488b3o

& TAEEI1 24 EKaI7pOV Saqopdv KaTa7o yVos, Kal 'Ttv EL 7 EXEL

TO V 31 Ka-T s. tiaTEPOX) Tpdo'Tovs, ELo-7) KaG' EpYqLVovST 7, KaT ... 32 Ka7r'-vaAoy'av ? ... rTLEpoXnKat&vaAoyla asr 491AnI8 Elp7)LeVaS ELE

0 yap 21I7TT AvTLSo' E opYLOL ro7070v lxO'E Epv 'UE ITTrEpdV, A'vs. Ta7a 6' Eart TadTa Kal
7EEpa

&vaAoytav, 20 KavOav Ka . .. rrpog

These three passages together with 497b io-I2 (see below) distinguish the levels of comparisonin a way that is found in P.A. I, and occasionallyin logical

8,aqopas, Kia,

x As also perhaps in

Plato's diairesis: cf. Dies, Plat. Polit., p. xxi.

This content downloaded on Tue, 12 Mar 2013 07:28:03 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

88

D. M. BALME

usage, but not elsewhere in the biology. There are three levels: between individuals, between species, and between genera. The language of these passages is over-condensed and confusing, but from other references' it is clear that Aristotle means the following: ~ -the individual) y (JpdE5O dptELO aEapovra
El'8 &taqE'povTra YEVE rava t

different individuals in one species

-different species in one genus ecies sep one genus

Ydva511va

-different genera

-incomparables) (dvaAoyl &aSaE'povvra there are in effect only two with individuals, Since biologyis not concerned and standardsof comparison,namely between species (`r7rTpox4) between at is Hencethe expression 488b3o too condensed: genera(dcvaAoyla). raidr Kal but to does not applysimpliciter each of the threelevelsmentioned, Kar' crEpa
ESOS-

&vaAoyltat all.2 At 497bo10the theory is correctly stated, but comes in the same sentence with an incompatible usage of ylvos and EL0s, as will be seen. Now the terms dvaAoyla and Y7TrEPOX-7 called r/-iAAov Kal r770-ro) are (often
and r8 example, both d&v'Aoyov

densed and has become actually incorrect, for St&aopaccannot apply to

V goes with both razvra' and ;1rEpa, and goes only with -rEpa, KaO wTEpOX with ra3-rd. At 49Ia18 the statement is further conKa7r dvaAoylav goes only

used throughout the biology, but they are not distinguished in this way. For is comparisons between man and other animals at H.A. 588a25-28; ava7rvo4*
AAovKal r770v are applied together to the

called dv4Aoyovto the use of /3pdyXLa at H.A. 589b18 (also at P.A. I. 5. 645b6) although this comparison is made within the y'vos lX6Oov; within a species, to male sperma is called dv&\Aoyov female KaTrap7va, G.A. 727a3; daroiovand are d'v&Aoyov P.A. 653b36 (cf. H.A. 5 Ib7) but differ ~~AAov KaL at Xov3pos 77r70o 7o at 655a32; do'rov is 'vdaAoyov d"KavOa to according to the theory at 486bI9, yet this comparison occurs within both the yvos- ~xOwvand the yvos- -rpa7rnd6wv H.A. 516b,4-22: dvaAoyla is applied to the differences of hardness in cordtwv, of the bones TErra'~corodKa, H.A. 516b4, although this type of comparison is at distinguished from davaAoylaand classed as TrTEpoX-I P.A. I. 644bII and is correspondingly at H.A. I. 486a25 f. In practice advaAoyla most often used to with d'vaqa, a difference that is wider than the compare Gvapa yE'v, while-7r8 AAov 7-q70vis usedpromiscuously.3 reason thisis that the The for 'ytara Kal

distinction betweengenusand speciesis not drawnin practice,and hencethe theoretical distinction betweendvaAoyla 37TEpox4, and whichis madeto depend it in 486aI6,etc., is not and cannotbe applied. upon It is equally inapplicable the hierarchical to that is type of classification
often envisaged in the logic. It could only apply where there are just the two levels of division, a genus and its member-species,of which the distinction can be used absolutely. Thus it could apply to the simple classification (AovTop. Io03a8, An. Post. 98a2o, Met. 1oi6b33, Io08a13, Phys. 228bi2, 242b4, P.A. 639a28, 644a16, 645b 6. Cf. Bonitz, Arist. Stud. iv. 386. '

2 Cf. Muskens, De VocisdvaAoylas Significatione, etc. (Groningen, 1943), P- 43. 3 Cf. Meyer, Arist. Thierkunde, 335-44pp.

This content downloaded on Tue, 12 Mar 2013 07:28:03 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

such as would result if intermediate groups were inserted in that classification. Still less could it apply to Aristotle's flexible or indeterminate grouping of many animals.
Further, it sets the genus-species distinction at the level of
Kal

FENOL AND EIAO IN ARISTOTLE'S BIOLOGY but not to any longer ladder of yE'v q5T' OpvEOV-Kdpae (Top. 1o7a23)

89 2MX?7Aa,

opvWs IXOsg. This is a very simple degree of classification.It is used in the discussionat P.A. but does not appear elsewhere in biology except in the two statements I. 2-4, about IyEycara that are discussedbelow (490b7and 505b26). It is also rare yE'vl

in the logic (e.g. An. Post. 97a4, Top. 10o7a23); there, if an example of genusspecies is wanted, the commonest is ?Wov-dvOpwrros; but in practice a more

elaborate hierarchy is used, of which the biological counterpart would be a more advanced degree of classificationthan this. These passages in H.A., therefore, are strangely out of key. The concepts of cept of homology; but they would have been uselessif tied artificially to genus and species, as they are tied here but nowhere else. Seen against Aristotle's practice in biology, these statements are too doctrinaire. Yet if they are compared with his logic, with which they seem more akin, they are too primitive. This incongruity, coupled with their curious incorrectness,suggests that they are not integral parts of the biology. H.A. I. 490b7 y 8Ev ' tE'ycura r'v ~wcov, Els a &'4qpyprat rAAa
Lia, rdi-' ETriv, v V opvlwov, Ev 8' IxOw'ov, iAo 8S & OvV Eva. LTaETWV.aAAO E YEVOS 9 K7TO7VS. 7-rara LpvV 7Trava 10 7 3 KaAEL7ra oE'of 'rT r 3v voo-rpaKoUUpl? Ov, AAO 7~V UOTpEOV"' KaC OLOV KapaftOo II taaKoaupaKwv, avwvvptov ovoVta7,t, Ew a 12 yE'v) d KapKlvwv KalauaKicv* AAo 7-Tv?taaKLwv, 8
'TEVOOt Kat TE KaC E8OS,

avaAoyla and

TrEpox7) proved

useful to Aristotle, and led to the modern con-

T1vv 13 OtOV TEvOcES

6...

r6v8E AorTC-6v OKE'Ct7YEVr) ?WCv o, T

rO AAd

U7r/7Tt

ET7EPOV

7TO7TV

EVTO/LWV.

19 dAA' dvavv1a TI E''3 ... 8 yov v 31 To70 E V t70 rV TEpa7ToSwrv Kao JOTOr7dKOV E''8 au7rwI u-o7ToAA4, &vdcvvja 8 '-cAAd ,aO' EKaKUTOv 32 /LV EV JAa 33 CSE'/TElC, I7TEp dV pW7TOS Etp7rae, AEwV, orS, Ln7TOS, a E7TE 7TOV Kal 34 Kwv Kal T a TOVTOV 7pd7TOV, EUTV EV 7TL YEVOS 491 a
2 ...

18 lXovr Td Scaopav ToE18os', olov cvXpw7TOS, 8'

I7

oAAadE'Er-v

pdv Earw avvr3 &drAoov oK, EXE /1E6,

tLEydaAa?

oi3yap

7TEEPtECEX

OtOV 7T7TKat 6VpO opEC Kal VOCS, r7Ttos" Ao oVpotsKaAohvU Kal TaJ `uo'vocs-,
E)V 2vp1`t KaAOvUuE`aVas-

at'

KaAov-vrat dlovot &'W o" a?"T orJOrp7-qa, OK oviat &a6cs

Elio.

This is one of the only two discussionsof yE&(the other is at 505b26, ,Edy`cra see below). It comes towards the end of the introductory section of H.A. (i. 1-6), in which Aristotle has explained that the treatise concerns the likenesses and differences between animals, and has analysed these 38amopal generally under certain main headings, according to which the treatisewill be arranged. Now finally he says that there are certain main groups' into which animals fall, implying that he will take the animals by these groups, as in fact he does.
/Lyd7ara: not 'highest' but 'largest': not a vertical but a horizontal division. So Thompson: 'very extensive'.

the terms ydvos and E0'S,' Thompson.

'The whole passage is very troublesome, and Aristotle seems to juggle with

This content downloaded on Tue, 12 Mar 2013 07:28:03 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

90

D. M. BALME

But here lies a difficulty: not all animals fall into main groups; or, if they do,
their groups are not all recognized (490ob6-I 9). In lines 19-30 he discusses the

connexions between four-footedness,viviparousnessor oviparousness, hair or scales, and concludes that there are two furthermain groups, namely viviparous and oviparous quadrupeds, but that no more grouping can be done by combinations of these factors. Then comes 1. 31 where he says that the group of
viviparous quadrupeds contains unnamed EI'8A7. He has therefore made two chief points: (I) that these yEvr-do not include all animals (for the two reasons given in 11. 16-19);utyc7-r7a the y7EoS (2) that conThe difficulty the passage in wv ~poro'dKOV includes EZ'-7 cdvaovvbLa. TErpaTrd and cerns the meanings of EL8OS &vdvv/osg. It is first clear that E80OSis not being used absolutely: o03 ydp 7rTEPEXEc 7roAAal that y'vos and E18osare used as relative Edl'7 Ev EtOS (16). Thompson suggests terms here, but even this does not solve the difficulty, since Ev E18osrepresents (16) yd7r FuLEYdAa while roAAaEL'~-is on the same level as yEv7 KapKivwv (12). are Hence y'vos and E18OS being used interchangeably, 'kind' and 'form'. is also notes that rTEPLEXEc technical, and compares de Caelo Thompson where But perhaps a better comand Phys. 312ai2 rSTEPLEXEt 207bI, E18 1 classes: Top. 12Ib25 TEP7TXEXTO parison lies in the logic where classes embrace iA-v. ... 140a2 1 vlavTEXEC Tl7V u apE17 TrEPEXEOatL l Epov . . .Tyav EPLE LV7TEP ... 144b3 71 I44aI2 Xovw lAAXE7a ... f XE? JtE ... EPLE'orXOrO al. (Cf. P.A. I. 644 14, b5.) This usage seems r7TEPLXOLEVov t( to be Platonic: cf. Soph. 250 b, 253 d, Parm. 138 a, b, 145 b, a5' a, b. &eabopd
O, ET r7T 70To ETpov
7T?o800'v yyvos
... .0

AOL7oV rTEPLEXE. .. .

OKEEyap, 07(

EV Ev08oS

v7To VO yEV7

rather than in the looser sense is also technical here in the manner of the Topics of 'difference' that is common in H.A: This technical use too may derive from
Plato: cf. Theaet. 208 c f., Polit. 285 b, and the Academic Definitiones414 d, 416.

This passage, then, is concerned with an elementary degree of classification, and from Academic usage. But it and uses terminology familiar from the Topics
does not consistently distinguish yvos- and Edo0s. It becomes manageable if

these words are translated not 'genus' and 'species' but 'kind' and 'form'.
dvy vvuo s. What, then, are the El''

Schneider is surely on good taking av6vvt/os to mean t% dvzant dvcovv/tos, ground: cf. 490a 3, b 1 (above), 623b5, P.A. 642bi5, de An. 419a4. But I can

dvwyvvlva the sense 'species' here, Schneider' altered Scaliger's translationfrom 'nomine with carent' to 'uno aliquo communi nomine carent', understandingEvl odvlpa-'c are called cdvovv/_a, and compared Aristotle's statement that the darpaKdoEpCLa paKa have no single name (11. 1o-i above). In oa-pEa while the taAhaKo'Kd

at line 32 ? In order to preserve

find no parallel to his translation 'lacking a common name', meaning that things which have single names of their own lack a name shared jointly with each other (unlessH.A. 505b3ohas this sense: but see below). All the other instances cited by Waitz ad Int. i9b6 and by Bonitz, Index69b2-26, have the straightforward meaning 'nameless', i.e. the object referred to has no &vopLa Int. (cf.

J The same is true of the following instances which I9b6 7) voYtta7 dVP;vv/tov). they do not cite: 492ai5, 493a28, 494a3, 14, 515bIo, 552b31, P.A. 669b9,

name is lacking he says, as at 683b24. When Aristotle means that a common cf. 669b9, cvdvvjov i- KOLVdV; H.A. 531b23, Phys. 226a30, 32, Pol. I275a30. At
TL An. Post. 74a2I the subject is "7- tI EdCvaLovoLaaydLvov -rdvra rao-ra yv, 3L is complement with 'v; cf. ibid. 8 &v;vvbtov and&, irdvra raeia drvotaacrpvov

I Following

Camus, and followed by Thompson; so Waitz ad I9b6.

This content downloaded on Tue, 12 Mar 2013 07:28:03 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

1ENOL

AND EIA OL IN ARISTOTLE'S

BIOLOGY

91

Kat

ylvog: adjective ovov/a 7T unlessit has reallybecomea noun; cf. 49oaI3(TrA stantivally', 7rtrraWT Kat
EW odvLaTL . .) avovv/La E. 623b5 y'vos 7-r a-v 7d'LuW ddvoLaoTL, SEP~orEpa. P.A. 642b 15 Eva ... ..a oov Kat7( S Kc7pOtoroLa, lva'qov" d'oVVl~OL, '7b L/OV avcvviov E' yaP70ror7V OK KELTraLV bvoia, and 669blo, de An. 4 7b32, 418a27. EKaTrEpc ' A At 49 a, dAovpa can count as a named yd'os (if this passage is genuine in of the contradiction at Met. 1o34al) because it has become a noun: spite

At 490b1 I it is not the ta E8sEt (sc. ob avw-rEpov). KpafooO SaEopoirpadytaLwv but the kaAaKoaurp4Kw KapKivvV KA. that are &vcyvv1tov Evi dovoLaTL, v y',l the reasonis that an when used 'subeven is not an

L.S.J. quote it only in the neuter plural and give no instance of its use as an adjective; therefore it differs from the adjectives which Aristotle calls avw'vv1la and duapaKEdSEp/o&).It may be also (cf. GoIa17 for adjectival _,aAaKdarpaKo& that a descriptive phrase or periphrasisis not a name: cf. above examples, and

Met. To56a25 T7 VI1-7E yaOlv KaK3v A&vyvLov, E.N. I107bI, 7, 30. This i-7E of at would explain why the a 7rO-'pwptov touch is a'vwvv/Lov 489a18: it can only be expressed by the phrase audp- q cvaAoyov (unless Aristotle here refers to his is more accurate doctrine that the atldaOcr4pLov not the flesh but 7 EVrOr). it cannot refer to AEwv, If 'E8' means ELI8) that have no Av-vo'vla dvdl4ara, KTA.It must refer to groups that contain these types and are themselves gAakos, contained within rE-rpdTo8a po-rdKa. What, for example, is the name of the

group that contains the lion ? We have one ('Cat'), but Aristotle has not. All and the rest are nameless. that he has at this level is -i &vdo'vvla A6dovpa, &') therefore denotes the same missing groups as at 1. 19 above, i.e. groups intermediate between the main groups and the types visible in nature. text demands no more than 'form'. This type is elsewhere called only a yv&og: . To OLo0ovtEV TEPpov 58o0b1y 8E, tEvple 577b24 (al iv tj vovoL . .) EartL yEVO&
,vpl H.A. 2. 497b9 aXE~v yap o ya y At 491a3, ar the a3rd E~Tsog, sense 'species' would be possible, but the con-

odKaA1OVLEVOL t)11/.vOL, ETEpOV "YEVO.

arL yEvELE Epa crWV

Ta 7ACTC E"rEpaTcp El(SEL, -r CII EXEL I0o- 7AEFra rWVLEpWV K avaAoytalv -'ri E O8aoopa Itvov, "r-E v r8"Epaa, T S'E T / i) EteSEL av12 'vEL -i-t LM (S S'E"Epc.

Kat ,oWV,
Ka-r

Thompson, ad loc.: 'In the opening sentences, which must be read together with those of Book I, brevity leads to a certain appearance of confusion: we are reminded that a generic difference between two animals carrieswith it generic
(above). y'vELF-Epa are, for example, 'pvL, and 1xOig (486a2 I). Their parts are aAA to be compared ov-TE E'SEC OVTE KaO vrTEpoXV Kal AAELULV, K7a~ avaAoyIav C EXOVULv rLE EV ... ydp EvopV 7T~Epd, 0o70ro LXOVL AEMT.Ka7TCLEV ETLr OU'ETEpa' E7 . E7Ep T0VT01701)7 7W1) EKcLU7a The 7pdWO) Lopl" &a KL 7874 Kati (486bl8-23). EKaara Tcv dWov,ToVTov Tpo7rcov T0v Tavra'The Epa 7T EdlSE, if used technically, is applicable only to yEv~e 'av ' expression and /3paXO;yxos 486b1o). Hence (e.g. the difference between ptaKrp'v t;yXog at 497bIo EL3EL cannot mean 'species' but must either mean 'form' or be ... (as equivalent to y'v1eL Ca Cat. Ib16 -ra wEpoynvEv 7r-1EL3EL a Ksac -rEpacLcf. Top. 1o7b19). The rest of the sentence, from Ka 7t /~Lv KaR' Saopcdal, cvaAoylac, summarizes exactly the doctrine of I. 486a16, etc. Therefore E'3EL
SDuring thinks not (Arist.'s P.A., Criticaland LiteraryCommentaries, 130). p.

But the words which I have italicized are not in accord with I. 486ai6 f.

betweenmany others.' difference between certain parts as well as specificdifference

This content downloaded on Tue, 12 Mar 2013 07:28:03 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

92

D. M. BALME

in 1. 12 requires the sense of 'species', which in 1. Io is impossible. This suggests that the two parts of the sentence originated separately.
H.A.
2. 504b13 T7 'XOdoV 7'Yv 0ro'AAS y'vo'

. ..

rEPLXOVltSas.

'forms', but comments: frequent in ArisThompson translates ISE'as o'lSa, totle of a logicalspecies, is not used of the species of animals or plants. It may is here mean the sensible species.' It is true that 'SEa not used of animal or plant but I cannot find it used of any other sort of species either. In the species, Platonico. Bonitz, Indexs.v. 18a338b34-48 Topicsit is used always, I think, sensu 'logice i.q. species generis' cites various passages, of which none is from the logical works and none supports his interpretation. They are as follows: E.N.
ing at 276b2, 285a25, Meteor. 380ai7, b30; de Caelo 268a2I 1 Sa as 'form' is P.A. 656a3 ItSa means 'configuration' (Ogle) or distinguishedfrom evyri Poet. 'formation' (Peck);,An7; 1458a26 alvlyCta-os 184a 'the essence of a riddle'; 1449b8 and 1458bi8 'form'. Now Bonitz, loc. cit., refers to Waitz ii. 40o6and

means 'kinds' (Stocks) or 'forms' (Guthrie); 'form' is also the meanawocldzowv

Io96bi6,

25 E1da is meant sensu Platonico; de Caelo 274b2 18ida 7Tov a" vAv

may have made an error of recording,for there Waitz quotes four of the above passages to demonstrate precisely the reverse, namely that 1S/a can mean (a)
odi.a, the sense of 'species generi subiecta' which Waitz proposes tentatively ('haud scio an') in only two passages.These two passagesare de Caelo285a25 and H.A. 0 r* 70 K 7 , 7b is used of 504b 14 (above). But at de Caelo 285a25

d or 1rO 1'v ELLatL, (b) outward form ('externa species') in distinction from

ELr, usage. There remains therefore only the present H.A. passage as a support for Bonitz's sub-heading. But the other instances of 1S'a in H.A. all mean external 'form': 615b8 184&av cf. aKpbs Ka AETo7d', 530a30, 577a 0, 58oa28, here is 615b28, 616b , 63obi3. The mere use of the word 7rTEPLXELW 592blo,

dv, LoY, '1daL K7A., i.e. the 'forms' of position (Stocks, Guthrie) : cf. Phys. 205b32 -rdrov ELi'r clearly non-technical, in the Platonic Kaci oLaopal, 208bI3 -rrrov ~'p- Kai

not enough to give to 18'a a meaning which would be unique, and the passage translatesperfectlywell without that.It is a general introductorystatement that the class of Fishes comprises many animal forms.
H.A. 2. 505b26 707ov' yp L8atadpE tEy~uara y'V Trpcas Aotnrr prtd Ev raLLa a ovaL/La 27 Tvw 'Aovw oCOv, 7 Td rr ECaL.
28 E"aT7L Urarva avOpwo6

CUKat %Ta(p7O 'la 29 E7L

TE Ka' 7(2

T7EcpcTTao'V

pTO'Ka Tov T)E7paIToSwv,

' (A Kati JPVL Kat

70S E 3rTL%TLT/ EtVLLa 30 Kat Kal Et 7L cAAO ' Kq7T0o, avWovvo.LOV l 31 y~EvoS )AA' rrAoovv ol rd ToE'8o0 7ET^ KaO EKaUTOV, ov o(L
32 Kl KpOKdoSELAOS..
29 TE Er

what EcS0&denotes, nor what 11.30-31 mean from cKa TL to EKaCLTOV. E'' What is avc6vvyLov? but Obviously not o'q Kat KpOKdS8ELAo, the missing y'vos of which they are E'8s7.In that case the meaning is: 'and anything else (i.e.

Ka rE7paro'dWv ci. Kat 3' O&LS EXLS Dittmeyer. KaLd pOKdELAOS] KopPtAos The natural reading makes EL0Soopposed to ydvog 1. 31 ; but it is not clear in

td

OTrdKa 7roV

om. Da.

any other ydo&) that is nameless because of there being no yvos- but 'dytcrrovis which simple and is predicated of the individuals'. There is a only the EL80Sslight oxymoron: the (group) is nameless because there is no group-i.e. there
is nothing but unrelated simple
Et?7.

This content downloaded on Tue, 12 Mar 2013 07:28:03 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

IENOZ AND EIAOZ IN ARISTOTLE'S

BIOLOGY

93

Eivat(30) surely means 'exist'. If it were copulative, with subject supplied from jAAoand with yvos as complement, then Aristotle would be saying e that the is not a but is the snake; but if he were as copulative' and 'lackinga common name'. So Thompson translates: davvvlyov 'and all the others that come under no general designation by reason of their not forming genera, but groups of which simply the specific name is predicable', and refersin his note to the relative use of ylvos-EESos, comparing his interpretation of 490bi6 (on which see above). But this interpretation leads to difficulties:
'lacking I. There is the objection, explained above, to translating aJ'&vvfLos a commonname'.

yvos &cJAAo ESois by itself, e.g. since jbLt is its Jvopa. saying this he could not also say that it is dvco'vvLov, Camus, followed by Schneider, Wimmer, B. St-Hilaire, Thompson, takes edvat

to Dittmeyer conjectured 'XLs, which Thompson (followed by Tricot) replied:

Schneider himself objected that eg has in fact already been called a y'vos doubt thinking of 490b24, 505b5), and concluded that the word is corrupt. (no
2.

'As Meyer, Arist. Thierk. p. 155, says, the serpent as y'vos contains many e!'Y7, but is also, as here, a single ELsos the great yvos, e.rpao8a 4oro'ca oAO80W7 in o -c That is, he appeals to the relative sense of yEvoS-E'8OS. this answer raises But

a further difficulty:

K'KpOKd3EL are members of the 3- If Terpanrd?3wvcordKOcv, 5LS then how can Aristotle say td7r p ELvat For YlvoS?yvos he has just named the E7pda7To8a COo7-rKa among his list of V'yLrama yv'vr-.Meyer answered: the yvos that is and nameless is the intermediate between and

missing

group

'ETpd7o8aa

animals, since there are extremely few intermediate groupings to be found. a Moreover, Aristotle is speaking here of mYvy-, and the plain implication L,ay of the sentence is that some animals are not contained within the ya y~r 'ytad that he has just listed. The traditional interpretations therefore fail to solve the problem, and in addition they depend upon an unlikely sense of d&vdvvtoso. Dittmeyer's emendation does not suffice,since 'XtS certainly a is within the ~EWV3(even yvos is though Kop8iAos admittedly in an ambiguous position). yvos
If
7-

o'-rdora.But this answer would equally apply to the majority of

&5g

And what is exemplified 1Lytarov Ls Kal KpOKd'ELAoSThis is the crux of the ? by ot'orv problem. E~38S may be either technical (species) or non-technical (form, or group), while 7d K aO' Kaar-ov is used by Aristotle to mean either d-ro(pa ErL77 ~ individual particulars.Since it is stated not to be a member of a (&ad r7
cannot be used technically here, unless by yvos of metaa sort ETosyvos 30), ELvaL , phor, but more probably means El80oS ov, form of animal. It refers, according to the meaning of KaO' KaarTov, either to a group of types or to a type of inLtsunder
coIo'da) since ?tLs is the name both of a type

is iAAo a missing

Y 'voS, as seems likely, then what is rd EL30s?

dividuals. Either could be exemplified by &50t(assuming that Meyer is wrong

in grouping E7-rpdro38a and of a group of types, while not itself falling under a cdytaov The fact y'vos. that it is elsewhere called a y6vos (Schneider'sobjection) does not matter, if the words YLvoSand ES3oSare not being used technically. On the other hand,
I Karsch, Kuilb, Tricot also take ETva as copulative, but dvwvvypov simply 'nameless'. 2 This is true of KpoKdSELosE 5o6a2o, (cf. 509b8),
3

but doubtful

of

quoted above.
511a14-16;

jot,;

cf. my paper

Meyer, p. 312.

This content downloaded on Tue, 12 Mar 2013 07:28:03 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

94
KpOKdsoLAsO must be

D. M. BALME

wrong on any interpretation.' It is certainly a member of

rE7-pdorro8a 0o7rdKa, and is itself a yvos possessing yEv?7.2There is no sense in which it exemplifies 7rd16) dvaL yvos KTA., whether it be regarded as an individual, a type, a group of types, or a member of a dLEya-rov ylvoS.

There is evidently an error here, and with it, I suggest, should be linked another difficulty in the passage, namely the position of avOpwTros, 28. 1. Although his characteristicsare taken as standard and compared with those
of entire dLEy'ara y~v?, Aristotle nowhere else says that Man is himself a ~y~ya-rov and if this term means not a 'top' group in a hierarchy but 7yoS; avOpwros tioned as an example of a type that belongs to no named group and to no yvos In the only other discussion of dLE'yaTa yEbv (49ob7), is twice men-

a 'most extensive' group in a horizontal division, he could hardly call Man one.

KpOK8ELAo o&0s may simply be an interpolation by an inferior student: its removal, in fact, would not only not upset the argument but would even improve the sequence.

has confounded two distinct cases; (2) it wrongly puts 4vOpwros as a Ldy7Tov is false (if not yEvos; (3) the example too). The whole passage

(490b7 and 644b4) distinguish two cases: (i) unnamed groups which comprise sub-groups, (ii) (named) groups which do not comprise sub-groups, e.g. Man. But 505b30 telescopes the statement and produces only the second of the two cases. If the text is genuine, it shows a threefold misunderstanding: (I) it

but is drrAoivEL3oS and must be dealt with separately. The same is stated 'Eya, in a very similar passage at P.A. I. 644b4: oppv~sK L AL al s Ka EL o ; 7Et-v E c7EV4tEL LOLWS7TEptEXJEL 3" V aVT-cE-T'3-oaa E 1L7 7-oLav7a, WWVoVLOVI, oLEV, TX ELr 7-0tLO07 -7pov ErT. Both passages KaG Eo Kal E2Ka7-ov, OLOV aVOpwTTOV 7t ov TEpd

. .. yEVV KaO V7TwEpoX'v 7ra7-a

make up the missing~ydyrovy vos; these wordsare not read in Da, which an be may therefore preserving oldertradition. If the passage so emended,it stillonly statesone of the two cases;but this is one is now correct,and agreeswith 490b7.It wouldseemthatin bothpassages are and (or y'vosand Et3OS usednon-technically confusedly), it is worthnoting that the similar at in occurs a contextwherethe technical passage P.A. I. 644b4 distinctionhas not been successfully preserved:cf. 644a 7 &ra&aE'pet 7-w3v
EV1YEEL.In all three passages the

is after otov, Alternatively, it must be corrupt. The right place for v0ppworos whence 6LS a should be removed. Possibly avOpwCTros its in aKPOKd'ELAo this present position has displaced an original 7 coTro'Ka; loss would then have necessitated the addition of the words L'7 Kal 7Td WoTdKa to 7,cv 7TE7-paTTo80v 31

,TE.EUKTaL genus is only to be found at the level of Bird and Fish, the 'yLyrn-a y'rqy, if at all.

ToAAa H.A. 4. 523bI2 7-17-rcv 67v'-6twov(EVoS) 7TEpLEA'JcE COtov. l377 Note Wcowv: of the genus Insects', as every translator not, therefore, 'species since Camus has it, but 'forms of animals'. In the context, yEvos is used of
various groups: 523b2 y7'7 . . . bI KOXAWV YVOS v7TAE~ (dval4twv wv), I" 7-r.V b19 yEvoS otov jtvp'pcKEs. The only insects named elsewhere as Et&77are certain forms of and qOEPEs, on which see above (532bi4, 1-rlLyES, The distinction here is simply that between 'kind' and 'form'. 557a24).

iv H.A. 4- 53Ib2I 7- yvos (v-n4twv) roAA ElY iE'L&77 av7-r. : sc. ELd7 4wov, as at 523bi2 (above). Only Evea of them are avyyEVLKd,ibid. 22.
' 'Num cfst genuina lectio sit, incertus certe haereo; ... at KpOK'SCLAOS mutandum

censeo', Dittmeyer. 2 Cf. 506a20, 5o8a5, 509b8, 558aI5, 6o09a.

This content downloaded on Tue, 12 Mar 2013 07:28:03 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

IENOE AND EIAOZ IN ARISTOTLE'S BIOLOGY 95 H.A. 5. 539a27 T0 1'v y'vE vEn ylvera oTE appEva ove O4AEa, mv EE yEVEL Iv avra, 7TC ETpa, EV 8 TEpOLS& y LXVWV ,v E ~, t Ka ovora '8sa. carrav

Evidently the technical distinction. The same information is given with

is not paralleled in G.A. (apart from certain introductory matter and references). Its removal would not affect the sequence of thought. It could therefore be a later addition.
7 7 yvEL ETLT TaE7E d7vEaLV, 7 tLEV TrraXvrl 7" yaP Cp lwO). (U^btS yaP piat--b), J 5 EEpw% rTp El"SEL The technical usage of is invoked to justify calling grey hair both ylvos-l0os and rdaXvY7. this has already been justified above by another logical But EvpoSg -v 7 o E~ metaphor: 784bi6 oaCrEp ydp &vrTEuTpattdvovr % av rw" ? avro uaua~T 'TXv77Y vE 'VL,V 3 daXv~c ~q, EvpcoS. &%87 adp rayq cTC9, L7ETOAX
YEVEL(aiTfiS

more detail at 569a17, 570a3, G.A. 74IbI, 762b22, from which it appears that c the fish here referred to as -rd yEVEL Epa is one of the zv "7rv El'EL distinction between a'rc, while the rcdlrav 7rC0 are the EyxE`Avs.But the"8' t'ta KEaTpE9, occurs only here; no use is made of it elsewhere, genus and species in KEaTpE7VpE and the fish is quoted only as ydvos This or KEOTpE'WOV 'vE 765V KEUTpCV. statement (from 1. 28 7&yE'VEL tV to 307 t'3a) is the only one in this chapter that

yap G.A. 5- 784b2I T7 tLEV 7

1er'%v ..., process go opposite produce i4iw the same effect. (Cf. Phys.207a23 where rrpdocEaLo is to KaOatpEalS, aVTEcrpap4LE'V7 which is explained by 2o6b3 f. 7 83 Ka ~ 7TpdacEOaw c7 aV7d ' aTL7rws Kal T7 KT
or by indefinite addition.) The use of this device is satisfactory and pointed here. But the further explanation in terms of genus and species imports a quite different metaphor, which has no biological significance here and, although it is correctlyused, is otiose. It is the only appearance of the technical
usage ofyEvos--e3os in G.A.' Its removal would not disturb the sequence. It may
3LalpEtal KTA.,i.e. an equivalent result is obtained either by indefinite division

i.e. the

can

in

directions still but

well be a later addition.

Long. Vit. 465a2

4 ovEL0s ETEpa7TPo ETEpa. 3 hAdyw KaTayEvOS V 8aotov EpEtv 5 T-rp( (laaKpoflo'7Epov yap a"vOpwToov0 t, rrov 6 ryV avOpw6TTWo 7 o yEvosg To3 aV Lr7TWv),Ka7"Et380 SV- 7 %VOpW7TOW Elta yap Kat LV 7 OpwcoTOLtev taol OpWTv rTTpS 8 Kpo'flwLd3fl 3LEcTTW7dT7TOUS 8EpaXv'LtoL E0TEPOL Ka' E7TEPOUS E'v TES' Ta cv 9 0EptotSr V EOv rtzv yaP cLa^KpofldrTEpa, r70ooIo d 8' EV T vUXpoLgS 70L 7 paXpvgryEEpa. Ka tV OV av-rov 3~ rov olKOVT0V 8La EpovrLv II 8 dO/LOUOS Tfpo~ TLVTaT77V
12 &AAi4Aovs T77V&Saopav.

orT 3 77v1 TaVt77v rTE yE77, Kal7clvv 3 Laopadv oAa 7T~S Aa

3' XovTa

used without distinction in a2-4, but in the technical sense in 4-6. The latter
is then unique in treating av~pwrrosas a genus whose species are the (for GvrlZ2 Rhet. I427b34 Et'37 JvMpcdrrwv non-technical, 'sorts of men'). is Interchangeableat 725b27 ev 7 yEVEL 564a5 ye4vos Lr; interchangeable at 747b30, 7~ a&" E70o' 746a30o sdLOyEVEaLY748a 5. orL dt'OESi"L,
SSaopo

Ross, ad loc., discusses the difficulty, and concludes that yE'os and E38OSare

s- T

ELSEL; 746b3

lpa'KES

SLa-

2 Bonitz,

H.A. 620a22 d4povTrs dELEL,cf.

Index 218a41 'non videtur con-

yvr

l?EpdKOwv,

cinere'.

This content downloaded on Tue, 12 Mar 2013 07:28:03 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

96

D. M. BALME

view of de An. 402b2 E CL d/OEL7S9 ( t/v ota dpovaa 7) 7 exo), Trd7pov EI races where he regards the specific (E1'Et)differences as being those between ,yVEL;

Theiler' quotes this interpretation together with P.A. 645b23f. to supporthis

of men. But the immediately following lines 4o2b3-8 show that Aristotle is criticizing those who deal only with the human soul, and is asking whether the or soul is the same for all 4(a (e.g. as distinct from %wrCd)whether it differs as

between JvOpwaros,LMTOS7,KOWV.The yvos is S?(ov, the Et'S7are avOpworros, Bird T7Tor, KTA.Nor does P.A. 645b23 f. support his view, for it distinguishes as a y~vos from Man as an Ed8os- KaaT 71V KaOodov AdyOv 8a~t71EtU'aVEXEL
bopyv.

It seems therefore that de An. 402b2 does not agree with the above

at It may also be doubted whether the referenceto Ov-q 465a9 is sufficientto give them the status of species upon which this whole passage would depend. Elsewhere Aristotle uses r 1'Ovyq mostly to denote foreigners and especially those foreigners who live in primitive conditions and not in a Ardts- G.A. (cf. compare 'tribesmen' in popular English). The nearest parallel to the present this cannot mean 'species', for if it did it would have to imply generic-specific groupings of the Greek yvos with its member-speciesand the barbarianswith theirs. The context, however, shows that no technical sense is intended:
1329a20 775a33;

interpretation of Long. Vit. 465a4-6.

Pol.

1252b20,

I26Ia28, 1276a29,

1324bio;

Meteor. 350a34,

35IbII;

passage is probably Pol. 1327b23 f.: 7r pv ydp v 70ro IvXpos .O . . 7 7dTroLS but a' U 7TEpt A%'oav .. ToU rTWv . Ov-qy; yEvo 'EM7Avwv S.... . rv 'EAA4vwov rT)v

dAo yvos, . ..., a27 To Tv" "LEpEWV ..., a4I .. . yEroS o3' oflavavrov 3 q qv RdLV, Td TE dXOO Kat 7o yEpyOOv.2 Moreover, ayv-7 8npcTlOaLKaT~ a of rrpo lvOpwr7ov 8taOEdpEtv): 465aI0-12 adds (as further example vOppworrov Kat TWV 7~Oy OLKOVVT0V ., and these presumably belong to one .. 8E 7aro
J6vo-. r7TOV

Lines 7-12 are therefore quoting examples of individuals, not of species.

bear their usual meaning 'in respect of Hence if KaT7 yEvos and KaT' E18OS seen at H.A. 486a24, P.A. 645b22-25),3 then 465a4-7 from yvos-, E1oso' (as is U AE'yw KaT 7yvos to dvOpworvo Trrpo dvOpworov wrong on two counts: (I) it

does not fit the examples that follow; (2) it conflicts with Aristotle's theory of Once again, these are lines that could be removed without affecting avOpwrros. yap ..., and would be making the point that is developed at 466b16 f. Lines 4-7 may thereforebe an addition by somebody who misunderstoodthe usage. The technical distinction between genus and species appears obligatory, therefore,in only seven of the above passages,while in two more it would seem the natural meaning were it not that this involves difficulties. These passages appear to be inferior interpolations, and are in any case insignificant. H.A. 539a28-30 is also suspicious, and the distinction it suggests is never referredto again. These three passagesmay be disregarded,but the others requireexplanation. They are really concerned with two points: the levels of comparison,and
the definition of tdE'YtTa yE'vir. They share certain features, in which they
I Arist. ii. d. Seele (Grumach series), (Berlin, I959), p. 89. 2 The pygmies are a y'vog at H.A. 597a8. But see above on 488b3o and 49zaz8:

to the argument, which would connect smoothly from 1. 4 7rp' ETEpa 1. 7 E'(t

are: H.A. 486aI6-b2I, 488b30-32, (? 490b7-49Ia4), 49IaI8-I9, 497b9--I2, (? 505b26-32), 539a28-3o, G.A. 784b21-23, Long. Vit. 465a4-7. The last two

such misstatements might cause an unwary reader to take Ka-r' EISog as 'within a species'.

This content downloaded on Tue, 12 Mar 2013 07:28:03 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

'ENOE AND EIAOE IN ARISTOTLE'S

BIOLOGY

97

disagree with the rest of the biological works but agree with P.A. I and to some extent with the logical works: which is neither absolutely nor relatively used elsewhere in the biology. 2. They distinguish accordingly two levels of comparison (dvaAoyla between YEVq, 1TEPOX4 between d78q) which, though much used in practice, are not so distinguished.
3. They apply the genus-species distinction only to the y&'vl.(An I. They draw an absolute technical distinction between y'vos and El0OS-

tdIyt,ra exception to this would be 539a28 if genuine.) This is a simplification which does not correspond to Aristotle's practice either in biology or in logic; elsewhere it is found only in P.A. I and in a few logical passages. When the H.A. passages discuss the possibility of intermediate groups, the verbal distinction

between

y7vos standards of comparison wrongly (488b3o, 491a 18), and confuse the technical and non-technical uses (497b9). So the degree of classificationis more elementary, and the terminology less precise, than in the logical works. 4. The position of avOpwC7ros. Throughout the logical works Man is a stock or example of species, whose genus is 540ov; often he is accompanied by 7Trro-

and EL8osbecomes blurred (49obi6, 505b3I1). They state the

as though they were all species on a level together.' But only here in the KioV, biological works is this the case, namely at 486aI7-19, 490bi8, 33, and by
possible emendation at 505b331 Elsewhere he is always a y'vos;3 nor is he treated as one with n'TTOSand KV'wv, but they are two among many members of the yE'vosrE7pa7rodv cV while Man is a type on his own. This is an owrJdKWV

enhancing of his status; for in the logic and metaphysics, where there is a tension between the superior substantiality of the concrete individual and the superior knowability of the abstract, and where we are often reminded that
AC6rs,3 species of the genus ?5Cov.In the simpler outlook of the biology, where the actualized form is more important than general groups, Man's higher position is perhaps characteristic of Aristotle's more developed view of bvx' and of nature's teleology. The effect of these passages is to provide a bridge between the biology and the logic. Yet their treatment of genus and species is less elaborate than the hierarchy envisaged in the logic, and may therefore be more primitive, while on the other hand such biology as there is in the logic (e.g. the position of Man) looks more primitive than the view in the biological works. If that were all, the explanation might be simply that Aristotle took his logic farther in the logical works, and his biology farther in the biological works, without any too careful accommodation of the two. But this explanation, which may yet be right, does not answer the difficulty that these quasi-logical passagesin the biology are at variance with the rest of the biological works: their genus-species doctrine with its theory of comparisons is never carried out. What then is their provenance ? And what happened to the theory of classification ? To attempt an answer in terms of Aristotle's development would require an assessmentof many more factors than this. But any answer will have to take
Cf. Top. 10o3a14,Io8a15, 133b2, An. Pr. 26a8, 28a32, Met. IoI6a27, I038bI8, I058a4, al.; P.A. I. 639a25.
2

genus is

yvwptLjTEpov, Man is but one (even if a special one) of the

general, not species as opposed to genus: A.

4599.1

At G.A. 730b35 ELa'E means

'kind'

in H

did not think that interbreeding was limited to specifically identical animals, cf. 746a29 f. 3 Cf. H.A. 584b29, P.A. 655bi5, 656a7, 16,
676b33, G.A. 73Ib35, 767b33, 777b5-

This content downloaded on Tue, 12 Mar 2013 07:28:03 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

98

D. M. BALME seems no more

ES'0M technical than Aristotle's.' This suggests that Aristotle's Peripatos got no farther in developing genus-species classificationin biology than is to be seen in these passages. If that is so, it would seem that, contrary to what is often said, Aristotle must have developed the technical distinctionfrom logic and not from biology.2 He must have intended to apply it to biology, for it is incredible that he should have abandoned systematics in the very field where it has proved most fruitful, and proved so for the very reasons that he himself predicted in An. Post.B 13-14. In that case his biological work is incomplete. This is indeed self-evident: what is missing is a straight descriptivezoology, together with the classification system that a descriptive zoology needs if only for orderliness. The H.A. does not primarily describe animals but the likenesses and differencesbetween them; as such, it must be a preliminary study. If one asks to what it is the preliminary, a likely answer will be that an analysis of differentiae is necessaryto any descriptivezoology, but it is necessaryabove all to systematics. The passagesthat use the genus-species distinction all occur in introductory sections of H.A. The general introduction extends from the beginning to 491 a26 and thus includes the first three (? four) passages.497b9 comes in the introduction to the external parts of animals, while 505b26is in the introduction to the internal parts of animals (and 539a28, if it has to be consideredat all, comes in

account of Theophrastus, whose practical use of ylvos and

tions are naturally written last, and it may be that in preparing the treatise for school use Aristotle--or an editor-wished to give it its proper systematic basis, connecting it with the doctrines of logic. He may have written these passages then, but perhaps more probably he incorporated older notes: this might account for their somewhat elementary and doctrinaire character. However that may be, they seem to represent an intention that was never fulfilled.
Queen Mary College, London D. M. BALME
Logiqueet mithodechez A., p. 72, A. philosophe de la vie, p. 59, note 3.

the chapter introducing the whole section on yEv&CELs, books 5-7). Introduc-

x Cf. Schneider ad Theophr.

2

H.P. 6. I. 2. So I venture to differ from le Blond,

This content downloaded on Tue, 12 Mar 2013 07:28:03 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions