perhaps the lost work of Ctesias on India, to whose writings he occasionally alludes, supplied him with some materials. The Indian elephant, however, was, there is reason to believe, never known to the ancient Greeks in Aristotle's time, but there can be no doubt that the African species was tolerably well known. It is true that we do not read of elephants being employed in war before the time of Pyrrhus, who, in B.C. 280, made use of these animals in the war with Tarentum against the Romans. Pyrrhus was King of Epirus, a country which adjoined Macedon, and as the elephant was used by him not more than forty years after the death of Aristotle for the purposes of warfare, it is probable that the people of Epirus had long before that time been acquainted with elephants, which they could have procured from the Carthaginians, who also in the time of Hannibal (B.c. 210) certainly, if not before, used these animals in war. But be this as it may, it is evident that Aristotle's knowledge of the habits and form of the elephant does not oblige us to suppose that any specimens were procured for him through the liberality of Alexander; on the contrary, there is good reason for believing that the best and most reliable sources of information are to be traced to authorities nearer home.

The editions of Aristotle's History of Animals,' whose titles we have given at the head of this article, demand from us a few words of notice. Scaliger's work, which probably is indebted, as Külb has remarked, to the labours of the learned naturalist Gesner, who has admirably commented on the observations of the ancients in Natural History, was followed by that of Camus, containing the Greek text, with a French translation, which, on the whole, is commendable, and a volume of notes, which, though they do not answer the present demands of zoological science, are valuable, as comprising under their respective heads all that Aristotle has said on the various subjects. Schneider's edition is far superior to any other; it is the work of an erudite scholar and an excellent naturalist. Kulb's German edition has quite superseded that of Strack. The translator tells us, that he endeavours to avoid Strack's faults-of not adhering sufficiently to the Greek text, and of making too little of the idiom of the German language.' Külb has embodied in his short, but valuable, foot-notes the remarks of Billerbeck, Müller, Wiegman, and others, who have studied Ancient Natural History. The English version of Cresswell-which forms one of Mr. Bohn's classical translations-quite supersedes the uncouth and incorrect version of Taylor. This translation, on the whole, is carefully made, but we miss the foot-notes which illustrate the very

useful

useful edition of Pliny by Bostock and Riley. It would be easy, moreover, to point out errors in Physiology or Natural History, both in the very few explanatory notes which are given, and in the identification of many animals. The vein (!) (péy) which extends from the brain to each ear,' for instance, is curiously explained by Mr. Cresswell (p. 13) to be the Eustachian tube, instead of the auditory nerve. The identification of the various animals mentioned by Aristotle is often a difficult matter. Mr. Cresswell has depended too much, in this respect, upon the explanations of Strack, which are often unsatisfactory.

The Natural History of Aristotle, of which we have sought to give some general notions in this paper, will ever remain a monument of the extraordinary diligence and mental power of the Stagirite; but we must also say, Those pay a very absurd homage to antiquity who, on occasions like the present, would place the pretensions of the ancients upon an equality with those of the moderns: for the question does not regard the original powers of the mind, but the amount of accumulated knowledge. on which those powers are to be exercised; and it would, indeed, be extraordinary if, inverting the analogy of individuals, the world should not be wiser in its old age than it was in its infancy.'* ART. III.

*Kidd's Adaptation of External Nature, &c. Bridgwater Treatise, p. 299. Bohn's Ed.

NOTE. Since the above article was written we have received Mr. G. H. Lewes's recently published work (mentioned in the heading), and are glad to find that the views which we have expressed in this paper are in accordance with those of so able a writer. Mr. Lewes's book, which, like his other works, is distinguished by great vigour and independence of mind, together with characteristic clearness of exposition, is the first portion of a large scheme in contemplation, viz., The Origin and Development of Science, a sketch of the embryology of science, so to speak.' In the first volume Mr. Lewes discusses Aristotle's claims as a natural philosopher, by a careful and succinct analysis of the whole of his physical writings. The chapter on Anticipation of Modern Discoveries is extremely interesting; indeed the whole work has been admirably done, and we heartily congratulate the author on his success. We must also call attention to a work which has lately appeared on Aristotelian Zoology, viz., Die Thierarten des Aristoteles, von den Klassen, der Säugethiere, Vögel, Reptilien und Insecten, von Carl J. Sundevall. Uebersetzung aus dem Schwedischen.' Stockholm, 1863. 1 vol. 242 pp. We have not seen this work, of which a writer in the Natural History Review' (Oct. 1864), p. 494, thus speaks:-' Professor Sundevall's treatise constitutes-what was much needed-a zoological index to the species of animals mentioned by Aristotle in his great work, arranged according to modern classification. Taking the species one after another, under the Greek name used for it by Aristotle, Professor Sundevall cites the different passages in which it is mentioned, and the chief peculiarities recorded of it. He then proceeds to comment upon these points, and gives the most probable determination of the species, as deducible from Aristotle's account of it. The total number of mammals indicated by Aris

totle

ART. III.-Sir John Eliot: a Biography, 1599-1632. By John Forster. 2 vols. London, 1864.

WHEN Tocqueville published his excellent book on the

'Ancien Régime' and the Revolution, most people were surprised to find how closely the period of terror and anarchy had been connected with that which preceded it. The tree which had shot up with such rapidity, when once above the surface, had been long collecting its strength and fastening its roots in the soil below. The author himself begins by observing that the French in 1789 had tried, as it were, to cut their destiny into two parts, and to place an abyss between that which they had been and that which they were afterwards to be. He adds that they had been less successful than they themselves supposed in this singular enterprise; and he then goes on to show that the Revolution was the just and natural result of the state of things which the tyrannical centralisation of Louis XIV. and the reckless profligacy of the Regency and of Louis XV. had produced in France. No one can understand the true spirit of the French Revolution without looking carefully at the institutions of the country as they were already administered in practice, and considering the condition of its people in the preceding century.

The coherence of events is perhaps still more obvious with reference to our great rebellion in the seventeenth century, inasmuch as the growth of disaffection to the Crown, and the increase of the popular power were more gradual, and admit of being more distinctly traced. The epoch of the Stuarts, from the accession of James I. to the ignominious flight of his grandson, is a story or great drama complete in itself, and only to be understood as a whole. To comprehend the struggle of the Civil War and the final catastrophe of the race, we must look back to the early Parliaments of James and his son, and to the personal character of both of them. Ranke has observed with perfect truth that

totle, and thus reduced into order by Professor Sundevall, appears to be about 70; of birds, 150; of reptiles, 20; and of fishes about 116; making altogether 356 species of vertebrate animals. Of the invertebrate classes, about 60 species of insects and arachnida seem to have been known to Aristotle; some 24 crustaceans and annelides; and about 40 molluscs and radiates; making altogether 124 species of this division. On the whole we may consider that Aristotle had a more or less intimate acquaintance with about 500 different species of animals—a wonderful fact, when we consider the age in which he lived (385-335 B.C.), and that he was absolutely the earliest writer on Natural History.' It would indeed be a wonderful fact, if true, but surely the mere enumeration of 500 species of animals does not warrant us to conclude that Aristotle had any acquaintance with all of them. We have already shown that the philosopher's practical knowledge of zoology was extremely limited. None will remain sceptical on this point after a careful perusal of Mr. Lewes's recent volume.

James I.

James I. gave the keynote for the government of the Stuarts, and tied the knot of fate which bound his successors.*

Mr. Forster, in his preface, observes :

*

'No one will ever fully understand what the rising against the Stuarts meant, who is not thoroughly acquainted with its beginning; with the loyalty to the throne that then accompanied the resolves of its heroes to maintain the popular liberties, and with the reverent regard for law and precedent by which all its opening movements were so implicitly guided as to have left upon it, to the very last, a deep and ineffaceable impress.'-vol. i. p. xii.

We can never be sufficiently thankful that our statesmen, in the commencement of this struggle, did then take their stand, not on abstract principles, but on law and precedent;' in short, that instead of seeking to make a gulf, as Tocqueville says was done in the French Revolution, between themselves and the past, they based their claims on Magna Charta and on the old institutions of the land. They did not acknowledge-what appears to be Hume's theory-that the House of Commons first rose out of insignificance in the reign of James I., and then arrogated to itself new functions. The arbitrary acts of Henry VIII. and other sovereigns did not in their eyes prove the non-existence of lawful rights, though they showed instances of their infringement, and the Act of the 15th of Edward II. (1322) referred to by Mr. Hallam † is alone sufficient to establish the acknowledged authority of Parliament in matters of general legislation.

Elizabeth, no doubt, had disputed with her Parliament, and had not scrupled to deal harshly with its members; but she never treated the House of Commons as a party opposed to her. She was sparing in her demands for money, and though she had an irritable temper and a strong hand, she knew how to stop before she had compromised her own dignity or got involved in an inevitable quarrel. This is clearly shown by what happened in Dutton's case (1566). He had touched in Parliament on the question of the Scotch succession. The Queen caused him to be arrested and examined in the Star Chamber. The House of Commons, on the other hand, showed themselves determined to take up the question of privilege, and Elizabeth, who had intended to prosecute Dutton, released him without further question or trial, professing at the same time her intention of not interfering with their privileges. As her latest historian says, 'No one knew better than Elizabeth how to withdraw from an indefensible

* Er hat den Ton für die Regierung der Stuarts angegeben, und den Knoten der Geschicke seiner Enkel geschürzt.'' Geschichte von England,' ii. s. 10. † Constitutional History,' i. p. 3.

position.

position. The exact contrary of this proposition may be asserted with equal truth of James I. and of his son; in addition to which they had the knack of putting themselves into such a position with extraordinary readiness.

James himself was incapable of comprehending, much less of assuming, the relation in which Elizabeth had stood to her Parliament and her people. His accession to the throne of England was to him a liberation from the turbulence of an aristocracy whom he could not curb, and the meddling democracy of a Church which he detested. He felt as the heir to 20,000l. a year may feel when, after being pinched and cramped in his allowance and lectured by a morose father, he succeeds to his estates. He came with a full conviction of his own divine rights as paramount over everything, and the incident which occurred on the way to London of his causing the pickpocket at Newark to be hanged without trial, is a curious illustration of the temper and spirit in which he took possession of the throne. He considered that as a king he was on the same footing as all other kings, and entitled to the rights, not of the sovereign of England, but of the class generally. It went against him to treat the Dutch otherwise than as rebels, although their national existence was the first element in that great league against the House of Austria, which he ought to have headed. Nothing was ever more unpopular than the peace of 1604 with Spain, and the subsequent intrigues about the Spanish marriage. The King's whole policy was vacillating and uncertain. He had two courses open to him: he might have opposed his son-in-law's acceptance of the Bohemian Crown, and then have thrown all his weight on the side of the preservation of peace; or he might have joined the league of Protestant Germany with heart and hand. He took neither of these courses, but halted between the two. He offended his own subjects by his lukewarmness in the cause of Protestantism, whilst he conciliated no one of his enemies, and failed even to save the

*Froude, vol. viii. p. 321.

It is against this argument of James's that Selden's remarks in his "Table Talk' are directed when he says, 'kings are all individual-this or that kingthere is no species of kings; and again, a king that claims privileges in his own country, because they have them in another, is just as a cook that claims fees in one lord's house, because they are allowed in another. If the master of the house will yield them, well and good' (in v. King.')

This view Hume seems to attribute to a sense of justice!' He says, that having conversed more fully with English ministers and courtiers, he found their attachment to that republic so strong, and their opinion of common interest so established, that he was obliged to sacrifice to politics his sense of justice; a quality which, even when erroneous, is respectable as well as rare in a monarch.' -Vol. vi. p. 7.

inheritance