The Anatomai, a lost work written by Aristotle, must have contained a collection of various drawings and figures of species as well as their organs. In his texts (mainly the Historia animalium), Aristotle is often referring to the drawings after the description of species. Our study applies the method of the comparative view (‘Vergleichendes Sehen’) to provide an access to and reconstruction of Aristotle’s lost illustrations based on his textual descriptions. As an example, we chose the treatment of the European lobster (Homarus gammarus L., 1758) in the Aristotelian corpus as a case study. First, we analyse the etymology of the Greek term astakós referring to the lobster and provide an overview on the putative synonyms. Second, we confront the textual basis of the description with several questions concerning the degree of abstraction, the relation between text and image, and the spatial orientation of the image. Finally, we present a step-by-step reconstruction of Aristotle’s illustrations of the lobster based on the various passages dealing with its anatomy in the text of the Historia animalium. The problems which arise by a confrontation of the textual basis with hypothetical images are discussed at a more general level. We conclude that this kind of a text-based image reconstruction is only possible if the object described by Aristotle is unambiguously identifiable and still visually accessible.

Metaphors play a crucial role in the understanding of science. Since antiquity, metaphors have been used in technical texts to describe structures unknown or unnamed; besides establishing a terminology of science, metaphors are also important for the expression of concepts. However, a concise terminology to classify metaphors in the language of science has not been established yet. But in the context of studying the history of a science and its concepts, a precise typology of metaphors can be helpful. Metaphors have a lot in common with models in science, as has been observed already. In this paper, therefore, I suggest a typology of metaphor in ancient science to fill this terminological gap by using concepts applied to the classification of models in science, as coined by Rom Harré. I propose to differentiate between homeoconceptual metaphors (with the same conceptual frame between source and target) and paraconceptual metaphors (mapped via a different conceptual frame). Furthermore, functional and structural aspects of metaphors in ancient science are taken into account. Case studies from ancient texts displaying metaphors in ancient science are presented and classified following the outlined typology of metaphors.

The influential Greek philosopher Aristotle (384-322 BCE) is almost unanimously acclaimed as the founder of zoology. There is a consensus that he was interested in attributes of animals, but whether or not he tried to develop a zoological taxonomy remains controversial. Fürst von Lieven and Humar compiled a data matrix from Aristotle’s Historia animalium and showed, through a parsimony analysis published in 2008, that these data produced a hierarchy that matched several taxa recognized by Aristotle. However, their analysis leaves some questions unanswered because random data can sometimes yield fairly resolved trees. In this study, we update the scores of many cells and add four new characters to the data matrix (147 taxa scored for 161 characters) and quote passages from Aristotle’s Historia animalium to justify these changes. We confirm the presence of a phylogenetic signal in these data through a test using skewness in length distribution of a million random trees, which shows that many of the characters discussed by Aristotle were systematically relevant. Our parsimony analyses on the updated matrix recover far more trees than reported by Fürst von Lieven and Humar, but their consensus includes many taxa that Aristotle recognized and apparently named for the first time, such as selachē (selachians) and dithyra (Bivalvia Linnaeus, 1758). This study suggests that even though taxonomy was obviously not Aristotle’s chief interest in Historia animalium, it was probably among his secondary interests. These results may pave the way for further taxonomic studies in Aristotle’s zoological writings in general. Despite being almost peripheral to Aristotle’s writings, his taxonomic contributions are clearly major achievements.

No abstract

No abstract