have, in addition, adopted kingdom or class, order, sub-genus, individual, and variety.
Note 8, p. 13. The term animal, however, in an universal sense, &c.] This passage, which, in the original, is even more elliptical than its version, has engaged much of the attention of commentators without having been satisfactorily elucidated — some have explained it as a criticism of the ideas or archetypes of Plato; and others as an objection to every universal term, which, although an abstraction, is to typify actual beings; and this is, probably, the purport of the criticism. Thus[1], "the origin of the controversy, during the middle ages, between the nominalists and realists, may be traced down to Aristotle and his followers." Wording so elliptical must, of course, be subject, according to the bias of opinions, to different interpretations; but if it imply objection to every abstract term which is to embody, so to say, realities, this version may be accepted as its interpretation. The Latin version[2], however, is, "Animal autem universale aut nihil est aut posterius est, et quicquid itidem aliud communiter prædicatur;" and the French[3], "C'est que l'animal pris en un sens universel ou n'est rien, ou bien n'est que quelque chose de très ultérieur."
Note 9, p. 13. The mind before thought, &c.] Aristotle[4] says that among the philosophers who were engaged
