The Lagoon

by Armand Marie Leroi

  A. and the fishermen. A. speaks of vocalizing fish at HA 535b14; ONUKI and SOMIYA (2004) describe the sounds that Zeus faber makes and the mechanism by which it makes them. Athenaeus waxes sarcastic at Athen VIII, 352. There is a sentimental idea that farmers and fishermen are unusually knowledgeable about the creatures that they see, but the evidence shows otherwise, e.g. THOMPSON (1998) on the seal folktales of the Scottish isles. A. discusses fellating fishes at HA 541a13, HA 567a32, GA 756a7; a story presumably due to Herod II, 93. It is often said that H.’s account refers to the mouth-brooding Tilapia (Oreochromis nilotica), but in both A. and H. the reference appears to be to a saltwater or estuarine fish whereas Tilapia are freshwater. A. presses the claims of expertise at PA 639a1 and HA 566a8.

  XIX

  Chameleons. On the chameleon, HA 503a15. This passage is unusual in that the animal in question has not been chopped up and distributed across HA system by system; instead it seems to be a preliminary summary of findings that await further analysis, BALME (1987a). LONES (1912) p. 157 says that the chameleon does have a spleen, but that it is small, about ‘0.11 inches long’.

  XX

  A. and Alexander. In his Life of Alexander, Plutarch, Plut 668, 7, 4 [trans. Dryden], relates Alexander’s education at A.’s hands. NATALI (2013) doubts the whole Mieza story, but it’s unclear why – he agrees that A. taught Alexander, and he must have done so somewhere. The story of Alexander’s Iliad is also told by Plutarch; A. wrote books for Alexander about how to lead and how to run colonies but, fragments aside, they have been lost. LANE-FOX (1973) gives a life of Alexander. Pliny tells the story that Alexander funded A.’s research: Plin VIII, 44; Athenaeus, Athen IX, 398e, amplifies it. LEWES (1864) p. 15, OGLE (1882) pp. xiii–xiv, ROMM (1989) and most recent scholars deny Pliny’s story, though JAEGER (1948) defended it since it fitted with his developmental scheme for the composition of A.’s works. LLOYD (1970) p. 129 points out that the idea that the state or a king would fund scientific research directly, rather than hosting scholars, as Hermias did, was probably alien to fourth-century Greece and that the first recording of state-funded research is the library at Alexandria, third century BC. Pliny (Plin VIII, 42) is usually credited with ex Africa semper aliquid novi, but A. tells us that the saying was old even in his day, HA 606b20. See Glossary II for a list of A.’s animals mentioned in this book and their identification.

  XXI

  Exotica. A. tells us about the martikhōras at HA 501a24, and goes on about Ctesias’ unreliability on elephant sperm at HA 523a26 and India at HA 606a8. A. mentions the oryx at HA 449b20 and the onos Indikos at HA 499b19 and PA 663a19. A. is ambivalent about the status of the ‘so-called’ Indian ass, and says that ‘it is reported’ that it is horned and has one hoof; if it is a rhino, then he’s wrong, for it has three toes: see Glossary II. Herodotus speaks of trusting his eyes at Herod II, 99, II, 147, IV, 81, V, 59. Information that A. takes from Herodotus, but does not credit him with includes: the menopausal priestesses, HA 518a35/Herod I, 175; Herod VIII, 104; camels fight horses, HA 571b24/Herod I, 80; lions, HA 579b7/Herod VII, 126; cranes, HA 597a4/Herod II, 22; Egyptian animals, HA 606b20/Herod II, 67; flying serpents in Ethiopia, HA 490a10/Herod II, 75; camel knees, HA 499a20/Herod III, 103. Ethiopean sperm, HA 523a17/Herod III, 101. Herodotus talks of gold-digging ants at Herod III, 101–5. For his serpents with wings see also Ch. XCIV. Besides Ctesias’ Persica and Indica and Herodotus’ Histories, A. may have drawn on Herodorus of Heraclea’s Heraclea which he mentions, but there are many other histories that he does not mention, but that he might have drawn upon nevertheless, e.g. Heraclides of Cyme’s Persica (mid-fourth century) and Damastes’ Periplus (fifth century).

  The elephant et al. There is a substantial literature on whether or not A. saw an elephant and, if so, whether it was an Asian or African one. I think he saw neither; however, PREUS (1975) p. 38 suggests that A. may have seen an elephant in a Macedonian zoo even though there is no evidence that the Macedonians ever had a zoo. ROMM (1989) discusses the issues and tries to disprove Pliny’s story by arguing that A. saw an African elephant, while BIGWOOD (1993) concentrates on the possible literary sources of A.’s knowledge of the elephant. See Chs XXXVI and XLVII for more on elephants. A. gives his mostly inaccurate information about the lion at HA 579a31, HA 594b18, HA 629b12 and GA 760b23. His information about the European distribution of the Asiatic lion mostly comes from Herodotus, writing around 430 BC, but HA 629b12 also seems to rely on information from hunters and distinguishes two kinds of lion; Xenophon, writing around 380 BC, independently speaks of hunting lions in Macedonia; see BIGWOOD (1993) p. 236 n. 6 and SCHNITZLER (2011) on its historical distribution. A. talks about the ostrich at HA 616b5, PA 644a33, PA 658a10, PA 695a15, PA IV, 14, GA 749b15 and GA 752b30. He discusses the camel’s toes at HA 499a23. What he says about them is a bit obscure and various interpretations turn on exactly what A. meant by ‘back’ and ‘front’, LONES (1912) pp. 191–2. I interpret ‘back’ and ‘front’ to mean ‘hind limb’ and ‘forelimb’. If this is correct, then A.’s statement is correct since the cleft of the hind feet is indeed deeper than that of the forefeet. A. does not say exactly how many chambers the camel’s stomach has, which is just as well: their number and relationship to ruminant stomachs has been the subject of debate for centuries, WANG et al. (2000). On projectile-defecating bison see HA 630b9, cf. Mirab 1, and anti-predator behaviour in the Bovinae, ESTES (1991) p. 195; the same behaviour has been recorded in American bison.

  XXII

  The hyena. A. describes the hyena at HA 579b15; cf. GA 757a3. Many have seen in this account a description of the spotted hyena’s (Crocuta crocuta) pseudohermaphroditism, but this is implausible, see Glossary II: hyaina/glanos/trochos. THOMPSON (1910) at HA 579b23 has a translation error – ‘male’ should read ‘female’ – A. is not saying the female has an organ resembling the male’s. BIGWOOD (1993) postulates Callisthenes as a source of A.’s knowledge about exotic zoology; he also mentions Eudoxus of Cnidus, see Ch. CII. BROWN (1949) discusses the relationship between A., Alexander and Callisthenes, while ROMM (1989) talks about the reputation-boosting tradition. There may, of course, be more than one Unknown Collaborator; recall the immense network of correspondents that Darwin drew on.

  XXIII

  The anatomies. It’s hard to know exactly how many different kinds of animals A. dissected, but LONES (1912) pp. 102–6 suggests forty-eight spp., which is surely too generous since he includes the elephant and other animals about which A. is pretty vague. A. talks about dissecting the mole or aspalax at HA 491b28; see Glossary II. His tour de force of cuttlefish anatomy is given at HA IV, 1. A. refers to the diagram of the dissected cuttlefish at HA 525a8. He frequently appeals to diagrams or tables in his works as discussed by NATALI (2013) ch. 3, 3.

  XXIV

  Human internal anatomy. A. says that we should first understand the parts of humans at HA 491a20. LLOYD (1983) ch. I, 3 discusses man as a model and gives a list of features that A. claims are unique to humans, but notes that this list is qualified in various places, e.g. when A. considers apes. A. speaks of the obscurity of the internal anatomy of humans at HA 494b19. He does specifically refer to the shape of the human stomach and spleen, HA 495b24 and HA 496b22, but otherwise there is little evidence to suggest he dissected a human corpse. LEWES (1864) pp. 160–70 discusses whether A. dissected a man and, p. 157, unfairly dismisses A.’s dissections by arguing that his skills are inferior to those of a modern-day anatomist; COSANS (1998) gives a more sympathetic account. LLOYD (1973) ch. 6 and LLOYD (1975) discuss Erasistratus and Herophilus and Alexandrian dissection. On A.’s claim that the human uterus is bipartite see HA 510b8 and OWEN (1866) vol. 3, pp. 676–708; on the number of human ribs, see HA 583b15, and on why he may have been mistaken see LEWES (1864) pp. 155–70, OGLE (1882) n. PA I, 5. None of the common domestic mammals that A. might have seen has eight pairs of ribs. On kidneys of domestic animals see OWEN (1866) vol. 3, pp. 604–9, SISSON (1914) pp. 564–70. A. describes a human fo
etus at HA 583b14. His excellent, if partly faulty, cardiovascular anatomy is given at HA III, 2–4; cf. HA 496a4 and PA III, 4. He refers to his predecessors: Syennesis at HA 511b24, Diogenes at HA 511b31 and Polybus at HA 512b12. For A.’s relationship to the Hippocratics see OSER-GROTE (2004). A.’s claim to authority in his dissections: HA 513a13, cf. PA 668a22; HA 496a8; PA 668b26. When in PA he refers to ‘Dissections’ or ‘Anatomies’ I assume he’s referring to books, but he may just mean general studies, LENNOX (2001a) pp. 179, 257, 265. There is an enormous literature on the veracity of A.’s account of the cardiovascular system, in particular why he thought mammals have three-chambered hearts; some of the more important discussions are: HUXLEY (1879), OGLE (1882) pp. 193–6, THOMPSON (1910), n. HA 513a30, LONES (1912) pp. 136–47, HARRIS (1973) pp. 121–76, COSANS (1998), KULLMANN (2007) pp. 522–51. A. refers to capillaries at HA 513b21, HA 514a23 and PA 668b1.

  XXV

  How good is the descriptive zoology? A. describes the urogenitary anatomy of live-bearing tetrapods at HA 506b26. BOJANUS (1819–21) illustrates the classic bean shape and modular structure of the kidneys of a tortoise. A. tells of the sea urchins at the euripos Pyrrhaiōn at HA 544a20. The edible sea urchin is Paracentrotus lividus. A. claims that the edible sea urchin may be recognized by the seaweed and other debris that it carries in its spines (HA 530b16); in the Aegean, only P. lividus does this, though why it does so is something of a mystery, CROOK et al. (1999). Even today the natives of Lesbos hunt only decorated urchins – though the inedible, undecorated Arbacia lixula is more common. A. describes the structure that would come to be known as ‘Aristotle’s Lantern’ at HA 531a3, cf. HA 530b24; LENNOX (1984) argues that the part we now refer to as ‘Aristotle’s Lantern’ is only part of what he intended by the simile, but VOULTSIADOU and CHINTRIROGLOU (2008) have clarified the whole matter with a picture of an ancient lantern. For the woodpeckers nesting in olive groves see HA 614b11 and, more generally on woodpeckers, Glossary II. CUVIER (1841) vol. I, p. 132 commends A.’s zoology; LEWES (1864) pp. 154–6, BOURGEY (1955) and LLOYD (1987) p. 53 collect similar passages from zoologists past. HALDANE (1955) and BODSON (1983) among others have called for a systematic examination of the quality of A.’s empirical work in the light of modern biology – it still needs to be done.

  XXVI

  The caring catfish. A. describes parental care in his catfish at HA 621a21, its development at HA 568a20 and its anatomy at HA 490a4, HA 505a17 and HA 506b8. CUVIER and VALENCIENNES (1828–49) vol. 14, bk 17, ch. 1, pp. 350–1 identified the glanis as S. glanis; AGASSIZ (1857) proposed the name S. aristotelis but did not formally describe it; GARMAN (1890) did. AGASSIZ, GARMAN, HOUGHTON (1873) and GILL (1906), GILL (1907) all repeat the story, but none of them appears actually to have seen male S. aristotelis build a nest and guard its eggs; however I. Leonardos, University of Ioannina (pers. comm. 2010) confirms A.’s facts and adds that the juvenile fish are slow growing. I thank him for this information. At HA 607b18 A. describes parental care in another fish, the phykis, and claims that it is the only marine species to do this. Its identity is uncertain, but A. is wrong to suppose that there is only one kind of nest-building marine fish, since several wrasses, gobies and blennies in Aegean waters build nests and guard their young. He speaks of the characters of animals at HA 608a1.

  XXVII

  The hectocotylus. A. speaks of the nautilos at HA 525a19 and HA 622b8. OWEN (1855) pp. 630–1 gives the early history of the discovery of the hectocotylus. A. describes the tentacles of the male octopus at HA 524a4 and HA 541b8 and the octopus’ breeding habits at HA 544a8 and GA 720b32. LEWES (1864) pp. 197–201, sour as ever, pours scorn on the idea that A. had seen the hectocotylus, but Lewes was wrong, for STEENSTRUP (1857) and FISCHER (1894) demonstrated what A. saw. THOMPSON (1910) illustrates A.’s passage with an elaborate hectocotylus belonging to a species he could not have seen; the real thing, in Octopus vulgaris, is much more subtle.

  XXVIII

  The reproduction of sharks. A. describes selachean reproductive anatomy at HA VI, 10–11; cf. HA 511a3 and GA III, 3. The famous description of the smooth dogfish’s placentation is at HA 565b4; cf. GA 754b28. See MüLLER (1842), COLE (1944), THOMPSON (1947) pp. 39–42 and BODSON (1983) for the history of A.’s smooth dogfish. On the batrakhos, its identity and reproduction see HA 505b4, HA 564b18, HA 570b29, GA 749a23, GA 754a26, GA 754b35, GA 755a8, GA 749a24. THOMPSON (1940) p. 47 gives his summary of A.’s accomplishments.

  XXIX

  Natures. Schiller on nature is quoted by THOMPSON (1940) p. 39, but the source is the essay On Simple and Sentimental Poetry, 1884. Alcaeus’ verse is translated by BARNSTONE (1972) pp. 56–8. The Homeric quote is from Odyssey X, 302–3 [trans. MURRAY (1919)]. Democritus refers to natures at DK 68B33 [trans. BARNES (1987)]. LLOYD (1991) ch. 18 discusses the social context of the ‘invention of nature’ in ancient Greece. A. defines natures at Metaph IV, 4 and Phys II, 1; see LEAR (1988) pp. 16–17 for an introduction to Aristotelian natures. A. asserts the self-evident quality of natures at Phys 193a3.

  XXX

  The materialists. Plato is said to have wanted Democritus’ books burnt at DL IX, 38–40. A. by contrast wrote a book about D. which evidently gave a synopsis of the latter’s physical theory and its implications for biology: FR F208R3. A. repeatedly attacks the materialists, e.g. at Phys II, 4–8, Metaph I, 3–4, DA I, 2–3 and PA 640b5. At the heart of his assault is the notion of ‘spontaneous’, which is the single word that I use for two of A.’s: automaton and tychē. Both words refer to events or phenomena that appear to be the product of a purposeful agent but aren’t. They differ from each other in that tychē (often translated as ‘luck’) could be, but isn’t, due to human intelligence while automaton (often translated as ‘spontaneous’, ‘the automatic’, ‘the fortuitous’) could be, but isn’t, due to any purposeful agent, e.g. the desires of some animal. So automaton is the more inclusive term. Both words are sometimes translated as ‘chance’, but that suggests the outcome of a probabilistic process such as flipping a coin which is not what A. has in mind here. I use ‘spontaneous’ for both since: (i) I do not treat human agency; (ii) A. doesn’t consistently distinguish them either; (iii) ‘spontaneous’ seems to capture the idea of a determinate but undesigned outcome. Finally, it should be noted that A. also uses automaton in a different way when describing spontaneously generated animals; see Chs LXXVI–LXXVIII.

  Empedocles & selection. E.’s theory of mixing is given at DK 31B8 and is quoted by A. at Metaph 1015a1. E.’s zoogony can be reconstructed from the following fragments: tissue formation, DK 31B96, DK 31B98; body parts, DK 31B57; random combination, DK 31B59. Much about the theory is opaque, in particular whether Love and Strife are to be understood as intrinsic properties of elements, external physical forces or divine powers, or all three. Simplicius analyses E.’s account in his Physics 371.33–372.11 [trans. LONG and SEDLEY (1987)]. Although a clear statement of the principle of selection, E. did not imagine continuous evolution. A. also attributes embryonic selection to E. in his critique of preformationism (see ch. LXVII), but it’s uncertain whether or not E. did, in fact, believe this – though he did seem to recognize that monsters still occur in our time; see SEDLEY (2007) pp. 31–74. CAMPBELL (2000) claims to detect evolution by natural selection in the Hippocratic On Ancient Medicine 3.25. However, although this text clearly discusses selection (by diet) it’s unclear whether the more robust individuals transmit their tougher constitutions – that is, evolve. The case for selection in Epicurus/Lucretius is much more convincing; see CAMPBELL (2000) and SEDLEY (2007) pp. 150–5. In Phys II, 8 A. expresses himself more abstractly than I have here, but it’s clear that he has organic development in mind. LLOYD (1970) ch. 4 and SEDLEY (2007) chs II, V discuss the Pre-Socratic materialists in general; for the texts and commentary see BARNES (1982) chs XV–XX. For Democritus’ atomism see BARNES (1982) p. 377. For A.’s critique of the materialists see NUSSBAUM (1978) pp. 59–99, WATERLOW (1982) ch. II and JOHNSON (2005) chs 4, 5.

>   XXXI

  The origin of teleological explanation. A. commends Anaxagoras at Metaph 984b15, cf. DA 405a20, and then criticizes him, Metaph 985a19. Socrates–Plato criticizes Anaxagoras, Phaedo 98B–99C; see JOHNSON (2005) pp. 112–15. On the eighteenth-century origin of the term ‘teleology’ see JOHNSON (2005) p. 30. PALEY (1809/2006) p. 24 sings the praises of the eyelid, so does Socrates according to Mem I, 4.6 [trans. DAKYNS (1890)]; for A. on eyelids see PA II, 13. For Socrates as the origin of the Argument from Design see JOHNSON (2005) pp. 115–17 and SEDLEY (2007) pp. 78–92. For Plato on the good and the divine Tim 29A, Tim 30A and Rep 530A. For P. on human craftsmen see Gorgias 503D–504. P.’s zoology is given in Tim 72D–73, Tim 74E–75C. For P. on the digestive tract see Tim 73A, and on the transformation of fingernails into claws, Tim 76D–E. P.’s dislike of materialism is evident at Laws 889A–890D. LENNOX (2001b) ch. 13 discusses P.’s unnatural teleology. LLOYD (1991) ch. 14 gives a less jaundiced view of P.’s science than I do.

  XXXII

  Teleology. ‘We all say x is for the sake of’: PA 641b25; see GOTTHELF (2012) pp. 2–5 for other uses of the phrase or its grammatical relations. There is a huge literature on A.’s system of teleological explanation; here is a selection of important recent monographs and collections of essays weighted towards biology: KULLMANN (1979), GOTTHELF and LENNOX (1987), LENNOX (2001b), QUARANTOTTO (2005), JOHNSON (2005), LEUNISSEN (2010a), GOTTHELF (2012). A. speaks of automatic puppets and living things, MA 701b2; see Ch. LIX. A. compares artefacts and living things, Phys II, 8, PA I, 1 and Metaph VII, 7, but argues against an intelligent craftsman at Phys 199a8 and Phys 199b30. A. denies Plato’s teleology at Metaph 988a7, but P. does use ‘for the sake of which’ when speaking of generation at Philebus 54C; see JOHNSON (2005) pp. 118–27. A. on the workings of the digestive tract, PA 675b23; for a parallel argument with respect to reproductive morphology, see GA 717a21. A. on the purpose of the body, PA 645b15.