Γένοςand Ει̑̓δοςin aristotle's biology

7/29/2019 and in Aristotle's Biology

1/19

and in Aristotle's BiologyAuthor(s): D. M. BalmeReviewed work(s):Source: The Classical Quarterly, New Series, Vol. 12, No. 1 (May, 1962), pp. 81-98Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical AssociationStable 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 [email protected].

.

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 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cuphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=classicalhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/638031?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/638031?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=classicalhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup


2/19

'ENOL' AND EIA OLE N ARISTOTLE'SBIOLOGY

IT is not certain when or by whom yd&osand E~8OSwere first technically dis-tinguishedasgenusand species.The distinction does not appearin Plato's extantwritings, whereasAristotleseems to take it for granted in the Topics,which isusually regarded as among his earliest treatises. In his dialogues Plato seemsable to use yEvos, ESos, 181a, tppos interchangeably to denote any group ordivision in a diairesis, including the group that is to be divided.' As Rittershowed, it is possible to see an increasing preference for ydvosin the latedialogues, where diairesis is in full use, as compared with the Republic ndPhaedrus.y'vos, as a 'kind' composed of related members,would be a naturalchoice for a class-word;it is indeed ready to mean the genuswhich is divisibleinto related species. But the restriction of E18oso mean species would be, inPlato, an unexpected development. Speciesis necessarilysubordinate, mplyinga genus above it; moreover it is the group-conceptnearer to particularsandtherefore-for Plato-farther from certainty and reality. It seems improbablethat, if he had wished to confine one word to the lower status,he would havechosen ElOSgwith all its tremendousassociations.If he did so distinguishyvohand ELf0OS,t can only have been in the unwritten practice of the Academy. Butthose who have taken this view have had to rely mainly on the AJtaparE~LAptp-ro-rEAovs4-65,2 which is weak evidence. These two sections are givenonly in the Codex Marcianusversion,not even in the version that Diog. Laert.says Aristotle attributed to Plato (D.L. 3. 8o); ? 64 contains the reference todcyyEAOLhich Rose pointed to as one of the marksof a Christian editor; thestatements about y7&osand E8OSn ?? 64-65 are commonplacesof Aristotleand his Greek commentators, and could have been extracted from thesesources. While it is likely that parts of the AlLaLpaYcL4ApLrrodEAovSescend fromAcademic origins,4only the thinnest chain of probability could connect anyparticular statement or terminology with Plato himself. That Plato's use ofanimal examples in the Politicus ame from an extended interest in biologicalclassification,has been inferredfrom the Epicratesfragment;s5 but this men-tions only the separatingof plants into yd7v,and not only is there no use of theword EL~o0but thereis no suggestionof hierarchicalor systematicclassification,which could have made rich material for a comedian.Such classificationmay develop in two stages,which give riserespectivelytothe relative and the absolute distinctionbetween genus and species.The rela-tive use is seen at Arist. Phys. 227bi I-14: EL''8.7Lv a K .L E at Ka E 87EUTCV,.. E l7-ETLUt'I7jl E18OS 'oA'j0EwS,o s-i-v E'7TLcrrrlqtLWv...Heretheclassificationrovides pattern sanaid to analysis,without mplyinghattheseconceptsare permanently lassified husin relation o otherconcepts.

Ritter, Neue Untersuchungen,p. 230 f.2 Hambruch, LogischeRegelnd.plat. Schule,p. 7, also cites Arist. Met. Io39a24, but A. isusing his own terminology there.3 Arist.Pseudepigr. . 678.4 Cf. Mutschmann, Divisiones Arist., pp.vii f.

s Fr. 287 (K.); cf.jAlexis fr. I. Usener,Preuss. Jahrb. 1884; Wilamowitz, Philol.Unters. v. 283; Stenzel, Studienz,1931, p. 82;Herter, PlatonsAkad.2, 1952, p. 21. Cf. Dies,Plat. Polit. (Bud6), p. xxvii, and the morecautious view of Jaeger, Diokles v. Karystos,p. 178.4599.1 G

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


3/19

82 D. M. BALMEThe absoluteuse, on the other hand, does imply a permanent and more com-prehensive scheme; this enables analogies to be drawn between one set ofgroups and another, and therefore has more significancefor science. Thus wesay that Dog is a speciesbut Cat is a genus, referringto a schemewhich givesthose groups a precise status in the animal kingdom. This use can be seen atArist. de Sensu 448ai3-I7 and G.A. 784b2I. If Plato had wanted to make thedistinction,either absolutelyor relatively,he could have done so by restrictingESOS to two of the senses that he already used, namely (i) a grouping ofparticulars,and simultaneously(ii) a division of a larger group: both sensescanbe seen, not simultaneouslybut separately,at Soph.219 a and d---EXYvv 7Tacr6vEL'89s0 (two forms among the plurality of rX aL), and K7r-q7CK7O El8l (twoforms into which K7r7TLKKs divisible). But he would hardly have wanted tomake it unless he were developing classificationin some degree. It is muchdebated whether he intended diairesis for this purposeor not. The fact that hedid not find it necessary o create a verbal distinctionbetweengenusand speciesis perhaps a straw on the side of thosewho hold that he did not use diairesisfor systematic classification.Moreover, if it is right to think that he was lat-terly more concerned with the inter-relationsbetween Forms than with therelations between Forms and phenomena, then a hierarchy of genera andspecies might not be the best conceptual framework for him but might evencreate difficulties.These considerationsprobably do not apply to Speusippus,who not onlyabandoned the theory of Forms but held that definitions can only be made aspart of a comprehensive classification.2Yet the positive evidence that hedistinguished yV&osrom EtSos is hardly better than in Plato's case. Stenzel,already believing in Platonic classification,and following Lang, relies on frs.8 and I6(L.) :3

Fr. 8(L.) : Athen. 3. 105 b ZirEVUaTLrTroSev /' OtolwJv rapanrArgada w ELvaL-rUv paAaKouTpcKUwV Kapalov, -raTaKo'v,V'4?V0,OpKTOV, KapKVov, 7ryOUvpOV.Fr. I6(L.): Athen. 7. 318 e EL0 8 ~l..oAv ..d8Y jAEVrJ, iroAvro8v77,3oA/flcr~7,c,1'XAoS,St"u)ro-rAq "lTOEL Kat 7TEVCUL1T0S.With these compare fr. Io(L.): Photius, Lexic. s.v. rrnv'ov: ov OJIOLOvKdvr7TL'-r&8U KuwW7T0 EL.OS EOTmL, ITEVL&7T7OS EV Tpw3-9'LWO-LOLOtr)-rioWV ?uoVTrWS")T* Lov, E/9rTS, KWVWO.In addition,the list of titlesattributed o him by Diog. Laert. ncludesr~ptyEVWVlKat EL'&iv.his is all that can be calleddirectevidence;to it must beaddedthefairprobabilityhatAristotle'sriticisms falyypappCqaqLeLpEfraes!ando1Xotropoiv-re, in P.A. I. 2-3, whereydvos ndel8oseemto meangenusand species,were aimed at Speusippus.Yet Aristotle's videncecannotbepressed verterminology, s is knownfromtheway he reportsotherphilo-sophers; ndin anycaseit wouldbepossibleo takeydvos nd E8Sosn thesepassages smeaningnothingmoretechnical han'kind'and 'form'.The same

Cf. Arist. Met. 1039a24, Io85a23; Cher-niss, A.'s Crit. of Plato, p. 46, Riddle of theEarly Academy,pp. 40, 54; but see Ross,Plato's Theoryof Ideas, p. 241, on depart-mental hierarchies. Cornford'sdivided circle(Plato's Th.of Knowledge, . 271) and Skemp'shachured map (Plato's Statesman,p. 74) are

better images than the family tree suggestedby A.'s y4v- S'r' AA77Aa.2 Anon. in Arist. An. Post. 584. 17; Cher-niss, A.'s Crit.,p. 59.3 Stenzel, R.-E. 'Speusippos', 1640, 1653;Lang,De Speus.Acad. criptis, . 9.



4/19

1ENOE AND EIAO, IN ARISTOTLE'S BIOLOGY 83applies to D.L.'s attribution: if there was such a title, it still need mean nomore than 'On kinds and forms'as Plato used the terms. It is doubtful, how-ever, whether Diogenes' evidence should be accepted, since there are neitherfragments nor testimonia for this book, and he attributes the same title toXenocrates with equally little to show for it.' Photius'excerpt (fr. Io) does notattribute the word d8OS-o Speusippus,and his actual quotationfails to supporthis interpretation, since rrqvlov s not shown as a species of KdvwV but both areshown togetherwith Eplrrsn a list: comparisonwith the otherfragmentsshowsthat this means that they form a group of 4L&oLa.o generic or class name issuggested,and in fact the two classes namedin frs.8 and 16 (lJaAaKo'r7paKaand7rroAvoSsE) are the only ones that Lang could find. The word EL8~s ccurs onlyin fr. I6, and here Athenaeus claims to be quoting both Speusippus andAristotle: but Aristotle does not speak of El8'7 rroAvrroT'v but of yEvr.z In theother 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 fromAthenaeus). The Epicrates fragment uses only y'vos. Therefore the positiveevidence that SpeusippusdistinguishedyCvosand EtL8On the technical sensecomes really to nothing. It may well be that he was attempting a comprehen-sive 'natural' classificationby grouping together similar animals and plants,and by arranging the groups dichotomously in sets, and that he called thegroups indifferently by the same class-words that Plato used, including SLalpeaLfor a complete set; but there is no evidence that he went farther and dis-tinguished genus from species, or that he even reached the point where thisdistinction becomes useful.There seems thereforeto be no satisfactoryevidence that anybodyother thanAristotle originated this verbal distinction. It appears unmistakablyin manypassages of the Organonespecially Top. 4 and 6) and Metaphysics,nd oc-casionallyin otherworks.3In the same treatises the wordssometimesseem alsoto be used without this technical sense,and to be interchangeable.4That thesame words should have sometimesa technical and sometimesa non-technicaluse, is not necessarilysignificant. But some passages, such as Met. I058b26-Io59a 14, exhibit both uses in a single discussion, in such a way as to cause con-fusionif the whole is read together.Here we may perhapssee one part writtenbefore Aristotle began to use the distinction, and another part added after-wards.5In the Topics l80o as speciestends to be applied to the subjectof discussion.6As such, it is a group-conceptwhose members areformally indistinguishable orthe purposesof the discussion.In orderto defineit, itsyEvosmustbe ascertained.So yCvos,although it too has unity of concept, is essentiallydivisible into dif-ferent EL8? 7 EL80S is treated as indivisible, and is essentially a member of a

i D.L. 4. 2. 13- Xenocrates would prob-ably have meant the non-technical sense, asused in his fr. 9 (H.): KLVaEws etL~77S,opaigQELt,rT7sElcS'eO1 opas E837.z H.A. 523b29, 525aI3, 622a 5; P.A.685b13. At 9- 393 f (= Arist. fr. 27I(R.),1527aI2) Athenaeus says even more pre-cisely. ApwaroTreA7)

"4y IpTEWarepwv pLVElves9v y'voS, EL'S77 7DET . . ., and names thesame five that A. gives at H.A. 593a15; butA. calls these rTepLctrpoeL&,vevq (544bI),never et~77.

3 Cf. Bonitz, Index 151a12-40.* Cf. Met. Io58b26, 28 (Ross), I07Ia25,27; Cat. 8b27, 9a14; An. Post. 97b24, 34;Top. 10IaI8, 105a11, 20, b14, Io6aI I, 24, 271o7b19, I09a2, al.s Ross ad o58b28.Cf.Long.Vit.465a2-6,H.A. 497b9- I2 (both discussed below).6 -E6Osvocatrem definiendam,Waitz ad14Ib28.

7 ravrs yevovs ELe7t 7rTALcL) Top. I23a30;cf. I27a24;Bonitz,Arist.Stud.v. 355-



5/19

84 D. M. BALMEy'vos. In a full analysis a hierarchy of ye'v trr' cJAA-Aa'may be disclosed, whilein the other direction the E18oSmay be found to be itselfdivisible into differentforms: then what was e8OS-n relationto the highergroupbecomes the yevosofthe lowergroups,2and so on until a truly indivisible formis reached,and this isthen the -Tropovr rEAEVratovel0S whose members are particular individualsdistinguished only by differencesof ;A-.sAs a method of analysis this contains nothing that cannot be found inPlato, except the distinction between ylvos and EL80. But this very distinction,which might have servedlittle purposefor Plato, becomes importantfor thosewho find reality in the rO7ETL.Genus and species then differ in epistemologicalstatus, and tend to be used not relativelybut absolutely.The infima speciesisabstractedimmediately fromsense-perception,whereasall classesabove it areabstracted from abstractions.In Aristotle'stheoryof substancethe form that isactualized in the individual's matter is that of the '-ro[lovELS80,while the suc-cessiveranksof genera are successivelyremote stagesof potentialitywhich canonly exist when the infima species is actualized. If the male sperma fails toinform the female matter fully, the offspringmay not resembleits parentsbutonly their genus, and this is a step on the way towards the monstrosity: the-repas is 5wdv TLbut no more.4 And by a similar argument Aristotle explainsthat the mule, which cannot resemble both horse and ass, resembles onlytheir common dyyv-ra-ray'vos and is unnatural and defective, rrapd dbtaYv,&dvrr1rpos.5 The stock example in the logical works of yE'vo0--EOS is ?(ov-avOpwrros,nd the real significanceof the distinction between genusand specieslies not in its relative use at all levels, but in its absoluteuse at the level of theinfima species.6One would have expected Aristotle to use this distinction above all inbiology, where it is most evident that the final differentiaexpresses he essence,7so that the immediate object of sciencemust be speciesratherthan genus. Butthe surprising act is that he makes least use of it in this field. It does not occurin the explanations of family resemblancesand rdepara,nor of the mule, justquoted; there the distinction is between the universal (both ?W-ovnd dv'pwrros)and the particular (Socrates); he speaks of y'vos and Kao'Aov as opposed tot&ov, KaO' EKaaUTov, nd in the only paragraphwhere Et80os ccurs it is inter-changed with yvos.8 It is true that P.A. I apparently distinguishes y'vos,

SLaqopa, E80OSn the same way as the Topicsdoes. But P.A. I is a book apart: itis not so much biology as a philosophical discussionof biology. Its usage ismarkedlydifferent from that of the worksin which Aristotleactually practisesbiology. There, in the strictlybiologicalworks,although it has been traditionalto interprety'vos and E~8O- s genus and speciesin many passages,examinationshows that there are only a few in which the technical sense is obligatory; ina few more it is possiblebut not demanded,while in othersit even causes con-fusion (as D'Arcy Thompson pointed out) and in some it is impossible.Now inthe case of the logical works the reader has a clear choice on each occasionbetween 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

between Plato and A. (ZurLehre . EidosbeiP. u. A., 1941, pp. 12, 21) depends uponidentifyingeidos with arojLov l8os.7 Met. Io38aI9-26;P.A. 644a3.8 G.A.747b33-748a7.At 770b17,772b25eso0smeans the formal cause opposed to;Aiq.)



6/19

FENOE AND EIAOZ IN ARISTOTLE'S BIOLOGY 85in practice,and, where the technicalsenseis required,it is requiredbecausethecontext distinguishescertain concepts in the way in which genus and speciesare distinguished, and these examples can be pointed to in the text. In thebiology, however, there is no such framework of reference. The traditionalinterpretationassumed that Aristotle did actually classifyanimals into generaand species,but this assumptionis not supportedby the evidence.' He acceptsas data the animal kinds (yCrv))that are presented to him by common par-lance, but does not try to groupthem furtherby findingsimilarities,as Speusip-pus appears to have done. Such kinds are: L'rros, KVCOV, KTA.;a very few widergroups such as -dadEXrAq,rdA'dovpa; and certain general groupings (p'yLamaY Zrz)2which comprisemost-but not all-animals, namelyJpvts, x6'V),v'opLa,KTA.The extant treatises examine the common and peculiarcharacteristicsofthese yEd'vq,heir functions, their reproduction,but nottheir taxonomy; more-over there is no classificationscheme in the background, and all attempts toconstruct one for Aristotle have failed.3 Consequently the question is not somuch why Aristotle usually fails to distinguish the words yCdos and ELo0S inbiology: it is rather, how does the distinction come to be there at all, in thefew cases where it does appear?In the zoological works excluding P.A. I4the occurrencesof the two wordsare, so far as I have observed:

_yvos (avyyvv t sim.) oElS0 (d4osELS t sim.)H.A.I-9 207 (13) 52 (5)P.A. 2-4 64 (2) 8 (0)Inc. A. 7 (I) o (0)G.A. I22 (21) 33 (6)Parv.Nat.4 13 (1) 3 (o)

413 (38) 96 (I1)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. 7roAAd4'v7?q ov), 25 to other kindsof thing (e.g. yevos wv-Y, d8o'drowv),nd the remaining 34 mean 'kind' in theabstract,including sometimesthe senseof genus as opposed to species.That isto say, in 354 cases yEvos denotes a kind of animal. On the other hand, ofthe 96 instances of 8os only 24 denote kinds of animal. Thus y'vos is far thecommoner word for a kind of animal, though it is of courseby no means thecase that Aristotle is concerned with genera rather than with species. He usesyEvosndifferentlyfor the type that is visible in nature and for all groupingsofsuch types. Bonitz is mistaken in applying the usage of the Topics(where

7ravT'o yevovs EL'S-7rrAeltw,23a30) to the biology, and inferring that ydvos isnever used of the infima species.5For not only is every visible type called aydvos, but if it has sub-types these are y'vqtoo. Thus dog is a yevos 658a29, andso are the breeds of dog, rrAetwyPv?7KvvWv 574a16; similarly r7~y -vos 5 765vAEdrwvTv79b5 and y' -qXE vrwv 8;o 629b33; compare foGv 782b7 with 666b19,' For details see my paper 'A.'s Use ofDifferentiae in Zoology', contrib. to 2ndSymp. Arist. (Louvain, I960).2 H.A. 490b7, 505b26. Not a technicalterm: cf. P.A. 683b26, H.A. 490bl6 yEvqILEya, 534b13 yer'7 7TEPtIx ....3 Full examination in Meyer, Arist.

Thierkunde, n which see my paper, loc. cit.4 i.e. H.A. 1-9, P.A. 2-4, Inc.A., G.A., andParv.Nat. 453b I--458a32and 464b 9--480b3ode Somno,Long. Vit., and all from Juv. to endof Resp.).Mot. A. and H.A. io can be ignoredfor this purpose.s Arist. Stud. iv. 386; Indexz Ib57-



7/19

86 D. M. BALME506a9; ETTlyWY 682ai8, 25 with 535b8; Kap'SWV25a33 with 34; KapKLvwVibid. ; 7mroAmvwrov22aI4 with 525"a3; 4Eov 511 a14 with 15, 505blO; &KaA'qq?GCv531a31 with blo; pv6ov676b31, 771a23 with 581a5;

xlVwv528a2, 683b14 with

530a34, 680a15. yEdv'7s the word for the different types of SaavvrrdTwv07a16,KOyXW 528a24, 7ropvpciv 547a4, KVL&8V548a24, crdyywv548a32, #UXcv 50b26,ApivOowv5Ia9, Op6ELv 57a4, JCE7V563b5, 618bi8, LEpdKCWV64a5, 620a22,81EAqWov66b12, KEUT7PWV69aI7, 'pwo&v 609b22, 8pvoKocTrr7-v614b7, KOT7-rtvowv617a1 I,oAo61iv 617b18, Kopv8ChAwv17b20, qaAayy'wv 622b28, dpaxvltovibid., &paXviwv Aawvp6-v 23a25, au/7Kcyv27b23, aUK63v 'idpwv 628a2, Oocov630oa2. Each of these subdivisions s clearly the type visible in nature, i.e. thefinal differentiationknown to Aristotle,what would now be called the speciesor variety, and what would in the Organon nd Metaphysics e called thea-ropov lT8os.Of the 96 instancesof 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-V49ob28, 78Ib34; lvas2536blO; KoLlas 674a23, cf. 507b23), and the remaining68 bear an abstract senseand occur largelyin oblique cases (e.g. E'EL8 ELPEL).Of these 68 abstract instances, 16 (all in G.A.) mean the formal cause, andmany others have a general sense of 'form', 'appearance',even 'nature'; butthere are some that seem to demand the sense of 'species',and these will be dis-cussed below.

Taking firstthe 13 references o named animal-types,we find that 5 of themrefer to types that are also called y~rV, o that the technical distinction is pre-sumably excluded:H.A. 532bI4 TETTrlWVC'8-;cf. 556ai4 TETTrlWVvrV,535b8 E77t'yWv7 yvoS.H.A. 557 24 'v EIS8su' bO~EpvvOa arwv ; cf. 557a4 ''L 8~ y~oS'OELpjyv.H.A. 617b16 KOAOLtVELC'i7pl; cf. 617bl8 tAtoydVosKOOtuV.P.A. 680oa5 orvrw 8 TAELdVWVEvv, o3 yap v EZ.80SYrc dXOVwv. ..rcvwv ud;cf. H.A. 530a34 yeV~Y7TAqEO y'Xvwv, b4-7 2AAa60 ye'vd,JAAoy'VoI.G.A. 758b9 SE 7~ Kac7Lrraso807LEvarLuK1,tKOS; C . 723b6YvOS 7ruWKhK2OV.Three refer to sub-types,such as have been seen above to be most commonly

called yv : E'&17bvCyV 92b7, ab,tOaAv 592bI8, KLXXAV17b18.In one case only do yEvosand d5os-appear to be distinguished:H.A. 593b8T7orTc AKVo'WVVUYEVOS'T'pVpoVEl.tLV. o rvYXvaSELaV'Ty0VT7a8o E!Lq. Inview of the overwhelmingvidenceof the othercases, t seemsclear thatE!'5'mustbe non-technical ere,and is usedto mean 'forms',mainlyforliteraryvariety.The remainingourcasesrefer o more abstract roupingshanthe visiblenatural orms:

H.A. 486a24 E1"7rEW lOl dov Ka'dpvOwv. his occurs in a context where thedistinction between genus and species seems to be really intended. It is dis-cussed below.P.A. 679b15 EUa78~y KatiEL''7IToAAa'7'ov drpaKo&'ppwv.No further sug-gestion is made of a distinction between ydvos and 8o0I among testaceans, andthe word E1'os does not again occur in connexion with them except in the non-technical use with dXtVOtuoted above (68oai5). Cf. H.A. 528a2 -b rv dXlvowvydEOs, 530a34 f. yv'I7 TdAELwXtvwY, JAAta to yev;, \A"oylvos; 528a24--~26 Kd'YXwvyd'w lvta, -r y'voS.The use of both words together here may show that they



8/19

FENOE AND EIA OE IN ARISTOTLE'S BIOLOGY 87have not completely lost their basic difference of meaning: i.e. y'vos is thegenetic 'kind', EL80sis the morphological 'form'.P.A. 683b26 ov-e8EdEv- 7v-77-Erapa7apClyar' aiTr3ov sc. 7~6vtaAaKKoorpcdKwv). V. rToVWy KCUovrr7TAETo L87r' . The same applies to this passage as to679b15 above. ELOS is not again used in connexion with crustaceans, exceptonce in the abstract sense of 'shape': H.A. 525blO ETpov yV&os tKpbVpLVtorrEpof KCaPKVOL,6 8 60S OLOV7'otS auraKo~. yEvoS is the word used other-wise for all groups of A/Kdt7TpaKa : cf. 525a34 yvW7ITAdEI Kap'8wv KiaapKV'c Vb. 2 73 tLKpOVEVOS.G.A.719a7 p,or.EpwovLETEXELvr3. v E&ovsc. cpordKCKalcdo'rKcwv).heovo-viviparouselachians ndvipershave some of the characteristicsf eachgroup.E13osbearsa general enseof 'class'.

The aboveevidence hows hat,wherevert ispossibleo testthe denotationsof yd'vosnd E38O- y referenceo actualanimals,Aristotle's sagemakesnotaxonomicdistinctionbetween hem.yEvosmeansa 'kind'at any levelfromthe most abstract roupto the immediately isibletype.EtLSOSs far lesscom-monlyused,andrepresentsogroup hatyE'vosoesnot alsorepresent.f theydiffer n meaning, he differences not that of higherandlowerrungson thesame ladder.They belongto different adders,and the originaldifferencesometimes howsthrough,yevosbeinga statementaboutkinshipand EtSosa statement boutshapeorform.'Thereremains,however,a numberof passagesn thesebiologicalworks nwhichEdLOSs usedwith a moregeneral eferencen oppositiono ytvos,andinsome of these the senseof 'species' ppearsobligatory. n the followingpagesI offeran examination f all passages hat appearto be at leastcapableofbearing hissense these nclude he I I general eferencesoanimals, ndsomeof the 68 abstractnstances, eferred o above).H.A. I. 486ai6ra'a &ra v LELTWVLOplWYYTWV,LtoI7 I Ypdrrov icalJ9aA/tus&gvpdrrovpwtvKaL 60aAtz-,

18 ... rcOY hOcv -rpcrTOv Kalt19 LoTOV at TWVAAwv OV'V,ua rlaELTa-AA'ooEv..21 ... r 6Uravl-adv EOTtLV,22&Sa#EPELE'~a9i'Y7TEpoX'IV Ka'EAAEL4o , xOUWvTo EVOSUl

23 Tairov.Ayw 84y'vosotovopvtOa at Xv'vrTOWrcodp24 EKaI7pOVXELaqopdv KaTa7o yVos, Kal 'Ttv EL 7TAEEI125 txd(,wvKaldpvlcov...b17" EvatEaTC3vcWov18 Ov"TEEt"lE 7a~LpLa TavTCEXELt0vEKaOGVTEPOX7qV al 9A-19 AELW&v, a'Kadar&vaAoytav,otov 7ITETOVOEVuozv 7rrpo a-20 KavOavKa . .. rrpog21I7TTpv AvTLSo'yapE opYLOLITTrEpdV,o7070v lxO'EUEA'vs.488b3o Ta7a 6' Eart TadTa Kal 7EEpa31 Ka-T Os. EpYqLVovSTpdo'Tovs,, KaT Lo-7) KaG'iaTEPOX)V32 Ka7r' vaAoy'av ...491AnI8asrElp7)LeVaS8,aqopas, LEKia,TLEpoXnKat&vaAoyla..These three passages together with 497bo-I2 (see below) distinguish thelevels of comparison n a way that is foundin P.A. I, and occasionally n logical

xAs also perhaps in Plato's diairesis: cf. Dies, Plat. Polit., p. xxi.



9/19

88 D. M. BALMEusage, but not elsewhere in the biology. There are three levels: between in-dividuals,betweenspecies,and betweengenera.The languageof thesepassagesis over-condensed and confusing, but from other references' it is clear thatAristotle means the following:

(JpdE5O -the individual)dptELOEapovra ) differentindividualsin one speciesEl'8 &taqE'povTra -different species in one genusepcies one genusYEVE tavaYdva511va -different genera(dvaAoyl&aSaE'povvraincomparables)Sincebiology s not concernedwith individuals,here are in effectonly twostandardsof comparison,namely betweenspecies (`r7rTpox4)nd betweengenera(dcvaAoyla).encetheexpressiont 488b3os too condensed: aidr KalcrEpa oes not applysimplicitero each of the three evelsmentioned,but Kar'

ESOS- goes only with -rEpa, KaO wTEpOXV goes with both razvra' nd ;1rEpa, andKa7r dvaAoylav goes only with ra3-rd. At 49Ia18 the statement is further con-densed and has become actually incorrect, for St&aopac annot apply to&vaAoyltat all.2 At 497bo10 he theory is correctly stated, but comes in the samesentence with an incompatible usage of ylvos and EL0s, as will be seen.Now the terms dvaAoyla and Y7TrEPOX-7often called r/-iAAov Kal r770-ro)reused throughout the biology, but they are not distinguishedin this way. Forexample, both d&v'Aoyovnd -r8 AAovKal r770v are applied together to thecomparisonsbetween man and other animals at H.A. 588a25-28; ava7rvo4*scalled dv4Aoyov o the use of /3pdyXLaat H.A. 589b18 (also at P.A. I. 5. 645b6)although this comparisonis made within the y'vos lX6Oov; within a species,male sperma is called dv&\Aoyovo female KaTrap7va, G.A. 727a3; daroiovandXov3posare d'v&Aoyovt P.A. 653b36 (cf. H.A. 5 Ib7) but differ 7o ~~AAov KaL77r70oat 655a32; do'rov is 'vdaAoyovo d"KavOaccording to the theory at 486bI9, yetthis comparisonoccurs within both the yvos- ~xOwvand the yvos- -rpa7rnd6wvcordtwv, H.A. 516b,4-22: dvaAoylais applied to the differences of hardness inthe bones of TErra'~corodKa, H.A. 516b4, although this type of comparison isdistinguished from davaAoylaand classed as TrTEpoX-It P.A. I. 644bII andcorrespondingly at H.A. I. 486a25 f. In practice advaAoylas most often used tocompare Gvapa with d'vaqa, a difference that is wider than the 'ytarayE'v,while-7r8 AAoval7-q70v susedpromiscuously.3hereason or this s that thedistinctionbetweengenusandspeciess not drawn n practice,andhence thetheoretical istinction etweendvaAoyland37TEpox4,hich smadetodependuponit in 486aI6,etc., is not andcannotbe applied.

It is equallyinapplicable o the hierarchicalype of classificationhat isoften envisaged in the logic. It could only apply where there arejust the twolevels of division, a genus and its member-species,of which the distinction canbe used absolutely. Thus it could apply to the simple classificationAov-' Top. 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 VocisdvaAoylasSignifica-tione,etc. (Groningen, 1943), P- 43.3 Cf. Meyer, Arist. Thierkunde,p. 335-44-



10/19

FENOL AND EIAO IN ARISTOTLE'S BIOLOGY 89OpvEOV-Kdpae (Top. 1o7a23) but not to any longer ladder of yE'v 5T' 2MX?7Aa,such as would result if intermediategroupswere inserted in that classification.Still less could it apply to Aristotle's flexible or indeterminate grouping ofmany animals.Further, it sets the genus-species distinction at the level of opvWs Kal IXOsg.This is a very simple degreeof classification.It is used in the discussionat P.A.I. 2-4, but does not appear elsewherein biology except in the two statementsabout IyEycaraE'vlhat are discussedbelow (490b7and 505b26).It is also rarein the logic (e.g. An. Post. 97a4, Top. 10o7a23); there, if an example of genus-species is wanted, the commonest is ?Wov-dvOpwrros; but in practice a moreelaborate hierarchy is used, of which the biological counterpart would be amore advanced degree of classificationthan this.These passagesin H.A., therefore,are strangelyout of key. The concepts ofavaAoyla and TrEpox7)proved useful to Aristotle, and led to the modern con-cept of homology; but they would have been useless if tied artificiallyto genusand species, as they are tied here but nowhere else. Seen against Aristotle'spractice in biology, these statements are too doctrinaire.Yet if they are com-pared with his logic, with which they seem more akin, they are too primitive.This incongruity, coupled with their curious incorrectness,suggeststhat theyare not integral parts of the biology.H.A. I. 490b7 y 8Ev ' tE'ycura r'v ~wcov, Elsa&'4qpypratAAa

8 Lia,rdi-'ETriv, v&V opvlwov, Ev 8' IxOw'ov, iAo 8S

9 K7TO7VS.7-rara LpvVOvV7Travava. LTaETWV.aAAOEYEVOS10oE'of 'rT 3v voo-rpaKoUUpl?v, 3 KaAEL7ra UOTpEOV"'AO 7~VII taaKoaupaKwv, avwvvptovEwovoVta7,t, LOVKapaftOo aC12 yE'v)T1v a KapKlvwv KalauaKicv* AAod 7-Tv?taaKLwv,13 OtOV TEvOcES TE KaCTEVOOt Kat U7r/7Tt ET7EPOV 7TO7TV EVTO/LWV.6... r6v8E AorTC-6vWCv,KE'Ct7YEVr)tLEydaAa?i3yap 7TEEPtECEXI7 oAAadE'Er-v E8OS, AAdO pdv Earw&drAoovvvr3 oK,8 lXovrcaopavToE18os',olov cvXpw7TOS, d 8' EXE /1E6,19 dAA' vavv1a TI E''3 ...31 To70 E Vyov t70 rV TEpa7ToSwrvao JOTOr7dKOV''832 /LV EV-o7ToAA4, &vdcvvja 8 '-cAAd ,aO' EKaKUTOvu7rwI33 CSE'/TElC, I7TEp dVpW7TOS Etp7rae, AEwV,AaorS,Ln7TOS,34 Kwv Kal T aa TOVTOVTOVpd7TOV,7TE EUTV EV7TLYEVOSKal491 a r7Ttos" Ao oVpotsKaAohvUOCS,tOV T7TKat 6VpOal opEC2 ... Kal TaJ E)V vp1`t KaAOvUuE`aVas- `uo'vocs-,

3 at' KaAov-vrat dlovot &'WorJOrp7-qa, OK oviat &a6cs"?"T Elio.'The whole passage is very troublesome,and Aristotle seems to juggle withthe terms ydvos and E0'S,' Thompson.This is one of the only two discussionsof ,Edy`craE&-the other is at 505b26,see below). It comes towards the end of the introductorysection of H.A. (i.1-6), in which Aristotlehas explained that the treatiseconcerns the likenessesand differences between animals, and has analysed these 38amopalgenerallyunder certain main headings,accordingto which the treatisewill be arranged.Now finally he says that there are certain main groups' into which animalsfall, implying that he will take the animalsby these groups, as in fact he does.

/Lyd7ara: not 'highest' but 'largest': not a vertical but a horizontal division. So Thomp-son: 'very extensive'.



11/19

90 D. M. BALMEBut 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 theconnexions between four-footedness,viviparousnessor oviparousness,hair orscales,and concludesthat thereare two furthermain groups,namelyviviparousand oviparous quadrupeds,but that no more grouping can be done by com-binations of these factors. Then comes 1.31 where he says that the group ofviviparous quadrupeds contains unnamed EI'8A7.He has therefore made two chief points: (I) that these utyc7-r7ayEvr-do notinclude all animals (for the two reasons given in 11.16-19); (2) that the y7EoSTErpaTrd wv ~poro'dKOV includes EZ'-7dvaovvbLa. he difficultyn thepassage on-cerns the meanings of EL8OSnd &vdvv/osg.It is first clear that E80OS s not being used absolutely: o03 ydp 7rTEPEXEcroAAalEdl'7 Ev EtOS (16). Thompson suggests that y'vos and E18osare used as relativeterms here, but even this does not solve the difficulty,since EvE18osrepresentsyd7r FuLEYdAa16) while roAAaEL'~- s on the same level as yEv7 KapKivwv (12).Hence y'vos and E18OSre being used interchangeably, 'kind' and 'form'.

Thompson also notes that rTEPLEXEcs technical, and compares de Caelo312ai2 and Phys. 207bI, where E18STEPLEXEt iA-v.But perhaps a better com-parison lies in the logic where classes embrace classes: Top. 12Ib25 TEP7TXEXTO7T?o800'v yyvos ... .0 AOL7oV rTEPLEXE. .. OKEEyap, 07( EVv08oS v7To VO yEV7

O, ETEpov r7T 70To Tpov TrEPEXEOatL... 140a2 1apE17l7V u vlavTEXEC... I44aI2 EPLEovw lAAXE7a. .Tyav l LV7TEPf XE?... 144b3 71r7TEPLXOLEVovt(tE EPLE'orXOrO.. al. (Cf. P.A. I. 644 14, b5.)

This usage seemsto be Platonic: cf. Soph. 250 b, 253 d, Parm. 138 a, b, 145 b, a5' a, b. &eabopdis also technical here in the mannerof the Topics atherthan in the loosersenseof 'difference'that is common in H.A: This technical use too may derive fromPlato: cf. Theaet. 208 c f., Polit. 285 b, and the Academic Definitiones414 d, 416.This passage, then, is concernedwith an elementarydegree of classification,and usesterminologyfamiliar fromthe Topics nd from Academic usage.But itdoes not consistently distinguish yvos- and Edo0s.It becomes manageable ifthese words are translated not 'genus' and 'species'but 'kind' and 'form'.dvy vvuo s. What, then, are the El'' dvwyvvlvaat line 32 ? In order to preservethe sense 'species'here, Schneider' altered Scaliger'stranslationfrom 'nominecarent' to 'unoaliquo communi nomine carent',understandingEvlodvlpa-'cwithcdvovv/_a, and compared Aristotle's statement that the darpaKdoEpCLa re called

oa-pEa while the taAhaKo'KdaKa have no single name (11. 1o-i above). Intaking av6vvt/os to mean t%dvzant dvcovv/tos, Schneider is surely on goodground: cf. 490a 3, b 1 (above), 623b5, P.A. 642bi5, de An. 419a4. But I canfind no parallel to his translation'lackinga commoname', meaning that thingswhich have single names of their own lack a name sharedjointly with eachother (unlessH.A. 505b3ohas this sense: but see below). All the other instancescited by Waitz ad Int. i9b6 and by Bonitz, Index69b2-26, have the straight-forward meaning 'nameless', i.e. the object referredto has no &vopLacf. Int.I9b6 7) voYtta7 JdVP;vv/tov).he same is true of the following instances whichthey do not cite: 492ai5, 493a28, 494a3, 14, 515bIo, 552b31, P.A. 669b9,683b24. When Aristotle means that a commoname is lacking he says, as at669b9, cvdvvjov i- KOLVdV;f. H.A. 531b23, Phys.226a30, 32, Pol. I275a30. AtAn. Post. 74a2I &, "7- I EdCvaLovoLaaydLvov TL-rdvra rao-ra yv,the subject isirdvra raeia and drvotaacrpvov 3L is complement with 'v; cf. ibid. 8 &v;vvbtovI Following Camus, and followed by Thompson; so Waitz ad I9b6.



12/19

1ENOL AND EIA OL IN ARISTOTLE'S BIOLOGY 91taSaEopo- E8sEtirpadytaLwv(sc. obvw-rEpov). At 490b1 I it is not the KpafooOKat y',l KapKivvV KA. that are &vcyvv1tov Evi dovoLaTL,ut the kaAaKoaurp4Kwylvog:the reason s that an adjective s not an ovov/aevenwhen used 'sub-stantivally',unless t hasreallybecomea noun; cf.49oaI3 (TrArtrraWTKat7T

SEP~orEpa. . .) avovv/La E. ddvoLaoTL,23b5 y'vos 7-r a-v 7d'LuWW odvLaTLavcvviov ....a Kc7pOtoroLa,.A. 642b15 d'oVVl~OL,ov '7bEvaL/OVKat7(lva'qov"E'EKaTrEpcyaP70ror7V OK KELTraLV bvoia, and 669blo, de An. 4 7b32, 418a27.At 49 a, ' AdAovpa can count as a named yd'os (if this passage is genuine inspite of the contradiction at Met. 1o34al) because it has become a noun:L.S.J. quote it only in the neuter plural and give no instanceof its use as anadjective; thereforeit differs from the adjectiveswhich Aristotle calls avw'vv1la(cf. GoIa17 for adjectival _,aAaKdarpaKo&and duapaKEdSEp/o&).It may be alsothat a descriptivephraseor periphrasis s not a name: cf. above examples,andMet. To56a25 T7 VI1-7E yaOlv i-7E KaK3v A&vyvLov, E.N. I107bI, 7, 30. Thiswould explain why the a 7rO-'pwptovf touch is a'vwvv/Lovt 489a18: it can onlybe expressed by the phrase audp-q cvaAoyov (unless Aristotle here refers to hismore accurate doctrine that the atldaOcr4pLovs not the flesh but 7 EVrOr).If 'E8' v-vo'vla means ELI8) that have no dvdl4ara, it cannot refer to AEwv,gAakos,KTA. t must referto groupsthat contain these typesand are themselvescontained within rE-rpdTo8a po-rdKa. What, for example, is the name of thegroup that contains the lion ? We have one ('Cat'), but Aristotle has not. Allthat he has at this level is -i A6dovpa,and the rest are nameless. &')&vdo'vvlatherefore denotes the same missing groups as at 1. 19 above, i.e. groups inter-mediate between the main groups and the types visible in nature.At 491a3,r a3rd E~Tsog,he sense 'species' would be possible, but the con-text demands no more than 'form'.This type is elsewherecalled only a yv&og:577b24 (al ivEvple tj vovoL . .) EartLTo yEVO&OLo0ovtEV TEPpovE, 58o0b1y,vpl odKaA1OVLEVOL)11/.vOL, ETEpOVYEVO.H.A. 2. 497b9 aXE~v yap o ya y arL yEvELEEpa crWV ,oWV,KatI0oTa7AEFraACTC rWVLEpWVEXEL"rEpaTcp El(SEL, -r CII Ka-r

T avaAoytalvO8aoopa Itvov, "r-E Er8"Epaa, T S E'ri12 'vEL/ LM -i-t av- i) EteSEL S'E"Epc.Thompson, ad loc.: 'In the opening sentences,which must be read togetherwith those of BookI, brevity leads to a certainappearanceof confusion: we arereminded that a generic difference between two animalscarrieswith it genericdifference between certain parts as well as specificdifferencebetweenmanyothers.'But the words which I have italicized are not in accord with I. 486ai6 f.(above). y'vELF-Epa are, for example, 'pvL, and 1xOig (486a2 I). Their parts areto be compared ov-TEE'SEC OVTEKaO vrTEpoXV Kal AAELULV,AA K7a~ avaAoyIav... ydp EvopVLE7T~Epd,0o70ro VLXOVLTLr EMT.Ka7TCLEVOU'Lopl" C. EXOVULvEKcLU7a 7W1) T0VT01701)7 7pdWO) E7Ep E7 KL 7874 (486bl8-23). TheEKaara Tcv dWov,ToVTov0v

Tpo7rcovTEpa' &a Kati

Tavra'Theexpression Epa 7T EdlSE, if used technically, is applicable only to yEv~e 'av '(e.g. the difference between ptaKrp'vt;yXog and /3paXO;yxos 486b1o). Henceat 497bIo EL3EL annot mean 'species' but must either mean 'form' or beequivalent to y'v1eLas CaCat. Ib16 -ra EpoynvEv ... -rEpacL-r-1EL3EL sacaSaopcdal,cf. Top. 1o7b19). The rest of the sentence, from Ka 7t /~Lv KaR'cvaAoylac, summarizes exactly the doctrine of I. 486a16, etc. Therefore E'3EL

SDuring thinks not (Arist.'sP.A., CriticalandLiteraryCommentaries,. 130).



13/19

92 D. M. BALMEin 1. 12 requiresthe sense of 'species',which in 1. Io is impossible.This sug-gests that the two parts of the sentence originated separately.H.A. 2. 504b13 T77'YvXOdoV'vo' . ..0ro'AAS rEPLXOV tSas.Thompson translatesISE'asforms',but comments: o'lSa,frequent in Aris-totle of a logical pecies, is not used of the speciesof animals or plants. It mayhere mean the sensiblepecies.'It is true that 'SEas not used of animal or plantspecies, but I cannot find it used of any other sort of species either. In theTopicst is used always, I think,sensuPlatonico. onitz, Index .v. 18a338b34-48'logice i.q. species generis' cites various passages, of which none is from thelogical works and none supportshis interpretation.They are as follows: E.N.Io96bi6, 25 E1dais meant sensu Platonico; de Caelo 274b2 18ida 7Tov a" vAvawocldzowveans 'kinds' (Stocks)or 'forms'(Guthrie); 'form' is also the mean-ing at 276b2, 285a25, Meteor. 380ai7, b30; de Caelo 268a2I 1 Sa as 'form' isdistinguishedfrom ,An7;P.A. 656a3 ItSa evyri means 'configuration' (Ogle) or'formation' (Peck); Poet. 1458a26 alvlyCta-os 184a 'the essence of a riddle';1449b8and 1458bi8 'form'. Now Bonitz, loc. cit., refers to Waitz ii. 40o6andmay have made an error of recording,for there Waitz quotesfourof the abovepassagesto demonstrateprecisely the reverse,namely that 1S/acan mean (a)odi.a, 1rO 1'v ELLatL,r (b) outward form ('externa species') in distinction fromthe sense of 'species generi subiecta' which Waitz proposestentatively ('haudscio an') in only two passages.These two passagesare deCaelo 85a25 and H.A.504b14 (above). But at deCaelo285a25 '1daLs used of* LoY,70 K 7 , 7b dv,K7A., i.e. the 'forms' of position (Stocks, Guthrie) : cf. Phys. 205b32 -rdrov ELi'rKaci oLaopal, 208bI3 -rrrov ~'p- Kai ELr,clearly non-technical, in the Platonicusage. There remains therefore only the present H.A. passage as a supportfor Bonitz's sub-heading. But the other instances of 1S'a in H.A. all meanexternal 'form': 615b8 184&av Kpbs Ka AETo7d',f. 530a30, 577a 0, 58oa28,592blo, 615b28, 616b , 63obi3. The mere use of the word 7rTEPLXELWere isnot enough to give to 18'aa meaning which would be unique, and the passagetranslatesperfectlywell without that.It is a generalintroductorystatementthatthe class of Fishes comprisesmany animal forms.H.A. 2. 505b26 707ov' yp L8atadpErtd tEy~uara y'V Trpcas Aotnrr27 Tvw 'AovwCOv, 7 Td EvraLLa rrovaL/La CaL.

28 E"aT7Lrarva avOpwo6 TE Ka' 7(2 pTO'Ka TovT)E7paIToSwv,29 E7LUKat %Ta p7Ola T7EcpcTTao'V KatiJPVL Kat(A30 KatKq7T0o, al 't7LcAAOavWovvo.LOVE 3rTL0S%TLT/ EtVLLa31 y~EvoS )AA' rrAoovvdoE'8o0 lET^ KaO EKaUTOV,l ov o(L32 Kl KpOKdoSELAOS..

29 ErTE Katd OTrdKa7roV rE7paro'dWv om. Da.3' O&LSaLdpOKdELAOS]XLSatKopPtAosi. Dittmeyer.The natural readingmakesEL0Soopposedto ydvogn 1.31 ; but it is not clearwhat EcS0&denotes, nor what 11.30-31 mean from cKa '' TLto EKaCLTOV.What is avc6vvyLov? bviously not o'q Kat KpOKdS8ELAo,ut the missing y'vosof which they are E'8s7.In that case the meaning is: 'and anything else (i.e.any other 'dytcrrovdo&)that is namelessbecause of there being no yvos- butonly the EL80S-which is simple and is predicated of the individuals'. There is aslight oxymoron: the (group) is namelessbecausethere is no group-i.e. thereis nothing but unrelated simple Et?7.



14/19

IENOZ AND EIAOZ IN ARISTOTLE'S BIOLOGY 93Eivat(30) surely means 'exist'. If it were copulative, with subject suppliedfrom ejAAoand with yvos as complement, then Aristotle would be sayingthat the - &cJAAos not a yvos but is the ESoisby itself, e.g. snake; but if he were

saying this he could not also say that it is dvco'vvLov,ince jbLt is its Jvopa.Camus, followed by Schneider,Wimmer, B. St-Hilaire,Thompson, takesedvatas copulative'and davvvlyovlackinga common name'. SoThompsontranslates:'and all the others that come under no general designation by reason of theirnot forming genera, but groups of which simply the specific name is pre-dicable', and refers n his note to the relative use of ylvos-EESos,comparinghisinterpretationof 490bi6 (on which see above). But this interpretationleads todifficulties:I. There is the objection, explained above, to translating aJ'&vvfLoslackinga commonname'.2. Schneider himselfobjectedthat eg has in fact alreadybeen called a y'vos(no doubt thinking of 490b24, 505b5), and concluded that the word is corrupt.Dittmeyer conjectured 'XLs,o which Thompson (followed by Tricot) replied:'As Meyer, Arist. Thierk.p. 155, says, the serpent as y'vos contains many e!'Y7,but is also, as here, a single ELsosn the great yvos, e.rpao8a 4oro'ca oAO80W7cThat is, he appeals to the relative sense of yEvoS-E'8OS.But this answer raisesa furtherdifficulty:3- If 5LS K'KpOKd3EL are members of the yvos Terpanrd?3wvcordKOcv,then how can Aristotle say td7r ELvatYlvoS? For he has just named the

E7pda7To8a COo7-rKaamong his list of V'yLramav'vr-.Meyer answered: the yvosthat is missing and nameless is the intermediate group between &5gnd'ETpd7o8aa o'-rdora.But this answer would equally apply to the majority ofanimals, since there are extremely few intermediate groupings to be found.Moreover,Aristotle is speakinghere of L,ayamYvy-,and the plain implicationof the sentence is that some animalsare not containedwithin the 'ytaday~rthat he has just listed.The traditional interpretationstherefore fail to solve the problem, and inaddition they depend upon an unlikelysense of d&vdvvtoso.ittmeyer'semenda-tion does not suffice,since 'XtSs certainlya yvoswithin the yvos ~EWV3 eventhough Kop8iAoss admittedly in an ambiguousposition).If 7- iAAos a missing 1LytarovY 'voS, as seems likely, then what is rd EL30s?And what is exemplified by ot'orv Ls Kal KpOKd'ELAoSThis is the crux of theproblem. E~38S may be either technical (species) or non-technical (form,group), while 7d KaO' Kaar-ov is used by Aristotle to mean either d-ro(paErL77rindividualparticulars.Since it is stated not to be a member of a yvos (&ad7 ~ELvaLvos 30),Tos cannot be used technically here, unless by a sort of meta-phor, but more probably means El80oS ov, form of animal. It refers, accordingto the meaning of KaO' KaarTov,ither to a group of types or to a type of in-dividuals. Either could be exemplifiedby &50t assumingthat Meyer is wrongin grouping Ltsunder E7-rpdro38aoIo'da) since ?tLs is the name both of a typeand of a group of types,while not itselffallingunder a cdytaov y'vos.The factthat it is elsewherecalled a y6vos (Schneider'sobjection)does not matter, if thewords YLvoSand ES3oSare not being used technically. On the other hand,

I Karsch, Kuilb, Tricot also take ETvacopulative, but dvwvvypovs simply 'name-less'.2 This is true of KpoKdSELosEcf. 5o6a2o,

509b8), but doubtful of jot,; cf. my paperquoted above.3 511a14-16; Meyer, p. 312.



15/19

94 D. M. BALMEKpOKdsoLAsOmust be wrong on any interpretation.' It is certainlya member ofrE7-pdorro8a 0o7rdKa, and is itself a yvos possessing yEv?7.2There is no sense inwhich it exemplifies 7rd16) dvaL yvos KTA., whether it be regarded as anindividual, a type, a group of types, or a member of a dLEya-rovlvoS.There is evidently an error here, and with it, I suggest, should be linkedanother difficulty in the passage, namely the position of avOpwTros, . 28.Although his characteristicsare taken as standard and compared with thoseof entire dLEy'aray~v?, Aristotle nowhere else says that Man is himselfa ~y~ya-rovyoS; and if this term means not a 'top' group in a hierarchy buta 'mostextensive'groupin a horizontaldivision,he could hardlycall Man one.In the only other discussion of dLE'yaTaEbv (49ob7), avOpwrosis twice men-tioned as an exampleof a type that belongs to no named group and to no yvos'Eya,

but is drrAoivEL3oSnd must be dealt with separately. The same is statedin a very similar passage at P.A. I. 644b4: oppv~sK ;al s Ka EL7-L AL o Et-vWWVoVLOVI,LEV, c7EV4tEL" LOLWS7TEptEXJELX EV aVT-cE-T'3-oaa E1L7 -oLav7a,KaG 2Ka7-ov, OLOVTEpdVOpwTTOVal ELr7t 7-0tLO07v -7povoErT. Both passages(490b7and 644b4) distinguishtwo cases: (i) unnamed groupswhich comprisesub-groups, (ii) (named) groups which do not comprise sub-groups, e.g.Man. But 505b30telescopesthe statementand produces only the secondof thetwo cases. If the text is genuine, it shows a threefoldmisunderstanding:(I) ithas confounded two distinct cases; (2) it wrongly puts 4vOpwros as a Ldy7TovyEvos; (3) the example KpOK8ELAois false (if not o&0stoo). The whole passagemay simply be an interpolation by an inferior student: its removal, in fact,would not only not upset the argumentbut would even improve the sequence.Alternatively, it must be corrupt. The right place for v0ppworosis after otov,whence 6LS aaKPOKd'ELAo should be removed. Possibly avOpwCTrosn itspresentpositionhas displacedan original7 coTro'Ka;his loss would then havenecessitated the addition of the words L'71 Kal 7Td WoTdKa ,cv 7TE7-paTTo80vomakeup the missing~ydyrovy vos; thesewordsare not readin Da, whichmay therefore e preserving n oldertradition.If thepassages soemended,t stillonlystatesone of thetwocases;but thisoneis nowcorrect,andagreeswith490b7. t wouldseemthatin bothpassagesy'vosandEt3OS reusednon-technicallyorconfusedly), nd it is worthnotingthatthesimilarpassage t P.A.I. 644b4 ccursn a contextwhere hetechnicaldistinctionhas not been successfully reserved:cf. 644a 7 &ra&aE'pet 7-w3vyEVV KaO V7TwEpoX'v.. 7ra7-a ,TE.EUKTaLEV1YEEL.In all three passages thegenusis only to be found at the level of Bird and Fish, the 'yLyrn-a 'rqy,if at all.H.A. 4. 523bI2 7-17-rcv 7v'-6twov EVoS) ToAAa7TEpLEA'JcEl377 COtov.Note Wcowv: ot, therefore, 'speciesof the genus Insects',as every translatorsince Camus has it, but 'forms of animals'. In the context, yEvos is used ofvarious groups: 523b2 y7'77TAE~ (dval4twv wv), . . . bI I" 7-r.V KOXAWVYVOSb19 yEvoSotov jtvp'pcKEs. The only insects named elsewhere as Et&77arecertain forms of 1-rlLyES, and qOEPEs, on which see above (532bi4, 557a24).he distinction here is simply that between 'kind' and 'form'.H.A. 4- 53Ib2I 7- yvos (v-n4twv) roAA ElY iE'L&77v av7-r.ELd7 : sc. 4wov, as at 523bi2 (above). Only Evea of them are avyyEVLKd, bid. 22.

' 'Num cfst genuina lectio sit, incertushaereo; ... at KpOK'SCLAOSerte mutandum censeo', Dittmeyer.2 Cf.506a20, 5o8a5, 509b8, 558aI5, 6o09a.



16/19

IENOE AND EIAOZ IN ARISTOTLE'S BIOLOGY 95H.A. 5. 539a27

,v ~,1'v y'vE vEn ylvera oTE appEva ove O4AEa,0

yEVEL v ovora ETEpOLS&y LXVWVv avra, 7TC E ETpa, EV 8 Kacarrav '8sa.Evidently the technical distinction. The same information is given withmore detail at 569a17, 570a3, G.A. 74IbI, 762b22, from which it appears thatthe fish here referred to as7rC0

yEVELzv -rda'rc,7rv c El'EL"8' Epa is one of theKEaTpE9, while the rcdlrav t'ta are the EyxE`Avs.But the distinction betweengenus and speciesin KEaTpE7VpEccurs only here; no use is made of it elsewhere,and the fish is quoted only as ydvos 7 KEOTpE'WOVr 'vE 765VKEUTpCV. Thisstatement (from 1. 28 7&yE'VELtV to 30 t'3a) is the only one in this chapter thatis not paralleled in G.A. (apart from certain introductory matter and re-ferences). Its removal would not affect the sequenceof thought. It could there-fore be a later addition.G.A. 5- 784b2I T7 tLEVap 7 yvEL 7 7ETLT TaE7E d vEaLV, 7 tLEVrraXvrl7"YEVEL aiTfiS yaPiat--b), J 5 EEpw% rTpEl"SEL(U^btS yaPp lwO).

The technical usage of ylvos-l0os is invoked to justify calling grey hair bothEvpoSg and rdaXvY7.ut this has already been justified above by another logicalmetaphor: 784bi6 oaCrEp dp &vrTEuTpattdvovr daXv~co ~ rw" av -vadprayq avro ua cTC9, 'TXv77Y vE 'VL,V 3 ~a~T q, EvpcoS. &%87L7ETOAX1er'%vi4iw ..., i.e. theprocess ango in oppositedirections utstillproducethe same effect. (Cf. Phys.207a23 whererrpdocEaLos aVTEcrpap4LE'V7to KaOatpEalS,which is explained by 2o6b3 f. 7 83 Ka ~ 7TpdacEOaw7 aV7d ' aTL7rws Kal T7 KT3LalpEtal KTA.,i.e. an equivalent result is obtained either by indefinite divisionor by indefinite addition.) The use of this device is satisfactoryand pointedhere. But the further explanation in terms of genus and species imports aquite different metaphor, which has no biological significance here and,although it is correctlyused, is otiose. It is the only appearanceof the technicalusage ofyEvos--e3os in G.A.' Its removal would not disturb the sequence. It maywell be a later addition.Long. Vit. 465a2 orT ' XovTa3 77v1LaopadvaVt77voAaTET~SAayE77, Kal7clvv4 ovEL0s ETEpa7TPoETEpa.hAdyw KaTayEvOS V 8a-5 EpEtvtov a"vOpwToov0-rp(t, rrov (laaKpoflo'7Epov yap 7ryV avOpw6TTWoEvosg 7To3 aV Lr7TWv),Ka7"Et380 SV-7 OpWTv TTpS%VOpW7TOWEltayap Kat LVOpwcoTOLl tev ta-8 Kpo'flwLd3fl8EpaXv'LtoL0TEPOL Ka' E7TEPOUSdT7TOUSLEcTTW-9 TES'Tartzv yaP E'vr70oo-EptotS V Er OvvcLa^KpofldrTEpa,Io d 8' EV 70L vUXpoLgSaXpvgryEEpa. Ka 7tV OV av-rov

II 8~ rov olKOVT0V 8La EpovrLv O/LOUOSTLVTaT77VTfpo~12 &AAi4Aovs 77V&Saopav.Ross, ad loc., discusses the difficulty, and concludes that yE'os and E38OSareused without distinctionin a2-4, but in the technical sense in 4-6. The latteris then unique in treating av~pwrrosas a genus whose species are the GvrlZ2forRhet. I427b34 Et'37 JvMpcdrrwvs non-technical, 'sorts of men').

Interchangeableat 725b27 ev 7 ,yEVEL7~ a&" E70o'dt'OESi"L,46a30o rLdLOyEVEaLYSSaopo s- T ELSEL; 746b3 lpa'KES SLa-d4povTrs dELEL,cf. H.A. 620a22 yvr l?EpdKOwv,

564a5 ye4vos Lr; interchangeable at 747b30-748a 5.2 Bonitz, Index 218a41 'non videtur con-cinere'.



17/19

96 D. M. BALMETheiler' quotes this interpretationtogetherwith P.A. 645b23 . to supporthisview of de An. 402b2 ECL d/OEL7S9 ( t/exo), Trd7povEI ota dpovaa 7) ,yVEL;where he regards the specific (E1'Et)differences as being those between races

of men. But the immediately following lines 4o2b3-8 show that Aristotle iscriticizingthose who deal only with the human soul, and is askingwhether thesoul is the same for all 4(a (e.g. as distinct from %wrCd)r whether it differs asbetween JvOpwaros,LMTOS7,KOWV.The yvos is S?(ov, the Et'S7are avOpworros,T7Tor, KTA.Nor does P.A. 645b23 f. support his view, for it distinguishesBirdas a y~vos from Man as an Ed8os- KaaT 71VKaOodovAdyOv t71EtU'aVEXELa-bopyv. It seems therefore that de An. 402b2 does not agree with the above

interpretation of Long. Vit. 465a4-6.It may also be doubted whether the referenceto Ov-q t 465a9is sufficienttogive them the status of speciesupon which this whole passagewould depend.Elsewhere Aristotle uses r 1'Ovyqostly to denote foreigners and especiallythose foreignerswho live in primitive conditions and not in a Ardts-cf. G.A.775a33; Pol. 1252b20, I26Ia28, 1276a29, 1324bio; Meteor. 350a34, 35IbII;compare 'tribesmen'in popular English). The nearestparallel to the presentpassage is probably Pol. 1327b23 f.: 7r pv ydp v 70ro IvXpos 7dTroLS 7 .O .a' U 7TEpt T)vA%'oav.. T U rTWvEM7AvwvEvoS.... . rv 'EAA4vwovOv-qy;utthis cannot mean 'species',for if it did it would have to imply generic-specificgroupingsof the Greekyvos with its member-speciesand the barbarianswiththeirs. The context, however, shows that no technical sense is intended:1329a20 3flavavrov

.. .o3'

dAoyvos,

. ..., a27 To Tv" "LEpEWVEroS ..., a4I8npcTlOaLKaT~yv-7 q qv RdLV, Td TE dXOO Kat 7o yEpyOOv.2 Moreover,465aI0-12 adds (as a further example of vOppworrovrpo vOpwr7ov 8taOEdpEtv):Kat TWV7~Oy aro 8E r7TOVOLKOVVT0V. ., and these presumablybelong to oneJ6vo-.Lines 7-12 are therefore quoting examples of individuals, not of species.Hence if KaT7 yEvos and KaT' E18OS ear their usual meaning 'in respect ofyvos-, E1oso' (as seen at H.A. 486a24, P.A. 645b22-25),3 then 465a4-7 fromAE'yw KaT7yvos to dvOpworvorrpodvOpworovs wrong on two counts: (I) itdoes not fit the examples that follow; (2) it conflicts with Aristotle'stheory ofavOpwrros.Once again, these are lines that could be removedwithout affectingthe argument, which would connect smoothly from 1. 4 7rp' ETEpato 1. 7 E'(tyap ..., and would be makingthepoint that is developedat 466b16 f. Lines4-7may therefore be an addition by somebodywho misunderstoodthe usage.The technical distinction between genus and species appears obligatory,therefore, n only seven of the above passages,while in two more it would seemthe natural meaning were it not that this involves difficulties.These passagesare: 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 twoappear to be inferior interpolations,and are in any case insignificant.H.A.539a28-30 is also suspicious,and the distinction it suggestsis never referredtoagain.These threepassagesmaybe disregarded,but the othersrequireexplana-tion. They are really concernedwith two points: the levels of comparison,andthe definition of tdE'YtTa yE'vir. They share certain features, in which they

I Arist. ii. d. Seele(Grumach series), (Ber-lin, I959), p. 89.2 The pygmies are a y'vog at H.A. 597a8.But see above on 488b3o and 49zaz8:

such misstatements might cause an unwaryreader to take Ka-r' EISog as 'within aspecies'.



18/19

'ENOE AND EIAOE IN ARISTOTLE'S BIOLOGY 97disagree with the rest of the biological works but agree with P.A. I and tosome extent with the logical works:

I. They draw an absolute technical distinction between y'vos and El0OS-which is neither absolutelynor relatively used elsewherein the biology.2. They distinguishaccordinglytwo levels of comparison(dvaAoyla etweenYEVq, 1TEPOX4 between d78q)which, though much used in practice, are not sodistinguished.

3. They apply the genus-species distinction only to the tdIyt,ra y&'vl. Anexception to this would be 539a28 if genuine.) This is a simplificationwhichdoes not correspondto Aristotle'spractice either in biology or in logic; else-where it is found only in P.A. I and in a few logical passages.When the H.A.passagesdiscuss the possibility of intermediate groups, the verbal distinctionbetweeny7vos

and EL8osbecomes blurred (49obi6, 505b3I1). They state thestandards of comparisonwrongly (488b3o,491a18), and confuse the technicaland non-technicaluses (497b9). So the degree of classification s more elemen-tary, and the terminologyless precise, than in the logical works.4. The position of avOpwC7ros.Throughout the logical works Man is a stockexample of species, whose genus is 540ov; often he is accompanied by 7Trro- rKioV,as though they were all specieson a level together.' But only here in thebiological works is this the case, namely at 486aI7-19, 490bi8, 33, and bypossible emendation at 505b331 Elsewhere he is always a y'vos;3 nor is hetreated as one with n'TTOS- nd KV'wv, but they are two among many members ofthe yE'vos E7pa7rodvV owrJdKWVhile Man is a type on his own. This is anenhancing of his status; for in the logic and metaphysics, where there is atension between the superiorsubstantialityof the concrete individual and thesuperiorknowability of the abstract, and where we are often reminded thatgenus is AC6rs,3vwptLjTEpov, Man is but one (even if a special one) of thespecies of the genus ?5Cov.In the simpler outlook of the biology, where theactualized form is more importantthan general groups,Man's higher positionis perhaps characteristicof Aristotle's more developed view of bvx' and ofnature's teleology.The effect of these passagesis to provide a bridge between the biology andthe logic. Yet their treatment of genus and species is less elaborate than thehierarchyenvisaged in the logic, and may therefore be more primitive, whileon the otherhand suchbiology as there is in the logic (e.g. the positionof Man)looksmoreprimitivethan the view in the biologicalworks. If that were all, theexplanation might be simply that Aristotle took his logic fartherin the logicalworks,and his biology farther in the biological works,without any too carefulaccommodationof the two. But this explanation,which may yet be right, doesnot answerthe difficultythat these quasi-logicalpassagesin the biology are atvariance with the rest of the biological works: their genus-species doctrinewith its theory of comparisonsis never carried out. What then is their pro-venance? And what happened to the theory of classificationTo attempt an answer in termsof Aristotle'sdevelopmentwould requireanassessment of 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 At G.A. 730b35 ELa'E means 'kind' ingeneral, not species as opposed to genus: A.

did not think that interbreeding was limitedto specifically identical animals, cf. 746a29f.3 Cf. H.A. 584b29, P.A. 655bi5, 656a7, 16,676b33, G.A. 73Ib35, 767b33, 777b5-4599.1 H



19/19

98 D. M. BALMEaccount of Theophrastus, whose practical use of ylvos and ES'0Mseems no moretechnical than Aristotle's.' This suggests that Aristotle's Peripatos got nofarther in developing genus-species classification n biology than is to be seenin these passages. If that is so, it would seem that, contrary to what is oftensaid, Aristotlemust have developedthe technical distinction fromlogic and notfrom biology.2He must have intended to apply it to biology, for it is incrediblethat he should have abandoned systematics in the very field where it hasproved most fruitful, and proved so for the very reasonsthat he himselfpre-dicted in An. Post.B 13-14. In that case his biologicalwork is incomplete.Thisis indeed self-evident:what is missingis a straight descriptive zoology, togetherwith the classification system that a descriptive zoology needs if only fororderliness. The H.A. does not primarily describe animals but the likenessesand differences between them; as such, it must be a preliminarystudy. If oneasks to what it is the preliminary, a likely answerwill be that an analysisofdifferentiaeis necessaryto any descriptivezoology, but it is necessaryabove allto systematics.The passagesthat use the genus-speciesdistinction all occur in introductorysectionsof H.A. The generalintroductionextends from the beginningto 491a26and thus includes the first three (? four) passages.497b9comesin the introduc-tion to the externalpartsof animals,while 505b26 s in the introduction to theinternal partsof animals (and 539a28, if it has to be consideredat all, comes inthe chapter introducing the whole section on yEv&CELs, ooks 5-7). Introduc-tions are naturallywritten last, and it may be that in preparingthe treatise forschool use Aristotle--or an editor-wished to give it its proper systematicbasis, connecting it with the doctrines of logic. He may have written thesepassages then, but perhaps more probably he incorporatedolder notes: thismight account for their somewhat elementary and doctrinaire character.However that may be, they seem to represent an intention that was neverfulfilled.QueenMary College, London D. M. BALME

x Cf. Schneider ad Theophr. H.P. 6. I. 2.2 So I venture to differ from le Blond,Logiqueet mithode hezA., p. 72, A. philosophede la vie, p. 59, note 3.

Γένοςand Ει̑̓δοςin aristotle's biology

Documents