8/14/2019 Barnes Review

1/4

Aristotle's Biological Studies

Method and Practice in Aristotle's Biology by Michael BoylanReview by: Jonathan BarnesThe Classical Review, New Series, Vol. 34, No. 1 (1984), pp. 55-57Published by: Cambridge University Presson behalf of The Classical AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3064449.Accessed: 06/11/2012 17:50

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 ofcontent 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 support@jstor.org.

.

Cambridge University Pressand The Classical Associationare collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve

and extend access to The Classical Review.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cuphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=classicalhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3064449?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3064449?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=classicalhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup

8/14/2019 Barnes Review

2/4

THE CLASSICAL REVIEWPoetics about katharsis t 1449b27-8). He has othergood things o say about thetangled elationshipetweenhePoetics nd thePolitics89-92,119-20,148-50,152).L.'s thoughtfulndstimulatinghesis as thegreat dvantage fmakingAristotle'sliterarynd political heorymeshfarmoreclosely nd intelligiblyhanhithertocf.173-4),and I believe tveryikely obe right.t ispleasing o notethat n L. himselfculture ndpoliticalnvolvementrecombined, s in theAristotelianroAt,IKO6S:hedust-cover ellsus thathe is currently member ftheNationalSecurity ouncil'.UniversityfNewcastle ponTyne TREVOR J.SAUNDERS

ARISTOTLE'S BIOLOGICAL STUDIESMICHAEL BOYLAN: Method and Practice inAristotle'sBiology. Pp.300; 7 figures.Washington D.C.: UniversityPress ofAmerica, 1983.$22.50 (paper, $11.75).There s a new nd welcome urge f nterestn Aristotle's iological tudies.MichaelBoylan s an enthusiasticarticipantnthebusiness, nd in his book he setshimself'to illuminate he significancef Aristotle s a philosopher f biologyand as abiologist'.How fardoes he succeed?Itis hardtotell;for uthor ndpublishers aveenterednto comic onspiracyobamboozle their readers.The publishersdid theirbit by producingpages ofphotographedypescript,lose-setndcramped,which reaestheticallyepulsivenda paintoperuse.Theyhave also madea successfulttemptntheworldrecordheldup tonow, believe, ytheClarendonPress)for hehighest umber fmisprintsothepage.' The author'scontributions a stylewhichnotevenM. Jourdainwouldrecognizes prose, naddiction omalapropisms,2nd anidiosyncraticrthography.3'Niggling, edantic eviewer, hy o tetchy? hese are trifles.' Butmaywe notexpect nauthor nda classical cholar owrite,nd a writerospell?Do copy-editorsno longer ditcopy?As for cameraready'copy, t s an excellentnvention. utthenewmachinery illproduce legant opyas easily nd as cheaply s shoddy opy:why, hen, houldwetolerate glinessn thename ofeconomy?Thesethingshouldbe shouted.Readers lwaysmumble hem othemselvesntheirstudies, utclosetgrousingwillnotchangethepublishingworld.'Butwhatdoesthebooksay?What ightsshed- throughowever ark glass- onAristotle's iology?' Chapter1, The Context', ocates Aristotle t theconfluenceof twomethodologicalraditions,he one an 'uncritical mpiricism',heother n'uncritical ationalism':Aristotle dvocatesa 'criticalempiricism'.An importantelement ncritical mpiricisms induction.Ideally,forAristotle,heprincipalworkof thebiologist s in working rom...established roups i.e.,roughly,heanimalspecies] iaperfectnductions ogeneralisationsbout their espectiveunctions'; utsincebiology s still n its nfancy,he must penda greatdeal of time reating hegroupsthrough mperfectnduction'. No doubtAristotles a critical mpiricist(who,outsideElea, isnot?).But there sveryittlenductionnthebiologicalworks.Aristotlenowhere riesto 'create thegroups' by examining umerous ndividualspecimens: ather,s B. himselfaterobserves, e takesthespecies s for he mostpartantecedentlyeterminedy thespecies-termsf ordinaryGreek. Nor can B.pointtomany xamples fperfectnduction nAristotle'swritings.

55

8/14/2019 Barnes Review

3/4

Itmight e thoughthatcritical mpiricism's themethod lludedto inB.'s title.Not so: Chapter andChapter ,which eara common itle,rerequiredoexpoundthemethod' tself. hapter is concernedwith lassificationrtaxonomy. . holdsthatAristotlewas a philosopherfbiology ngagednsystematics.hathis systemseems ncomplete...canbe explainedbythe factthat he had no system'. n otherwords,Aristotle askeenlynterested,s a theoretician,nthe ppropriatemeansofconstructingbiological axonomy; utwhen s a scientist e turned o biologicalinvestigationse showed no interestn actually rectingny such structure.hatstrikesmeas a strange,ndeed paradoxical, onclusion, lthoughB. appearsto seenothingdd about t.B.'s discussion asthemerit fexposing ome ofthedifficultieswhich erplexAristotle's arious ttemptst andremarks ponclassification,uttheinterestedtudent ill ind more ucid nd a more ersuasiveccount f hesemattersinPierre ellegrin's ecentmonograph n the ubject see CR n.s.33 (1983), 333-4).Chapter turns o the econd spectofAristotle'smethod'.Biologyrequireswocomplementarytyles fexplanation,heteleological which ollects he formal ndthefinal auses)and thematerialwhich ncompassesfficientauses as well s matterand which herebynvokesnecessity). ristotle'seleology,ccording o B., neitherpersonifies ame Naturenoryetreducesto an 'als ob' Reflexionsbegriff.ather,nature s merely 'principle' in factnoneother hantheprinciple hat the fittestsurvive')- and yet thisprinciple cts as a real cause'. As formaterial, r 'quasi-mechanical',explanation,that calls upon hypotheticalnd not upon absolutenecessity;nd since thevery tatement fconditional ecessitynvolves eleology',Aristotle's womodes ofexplanation re thoroughlyompatible. B. dismisses he' als ob' interpretationfAristotelianeleologynhalf page,and I do not think hathe has troubled o understandt.His ownaccountofteleology emains paque tome. Nor do I understandwhat it means to say that a 'principle' even such apost-Aristotelianrinciples the urvival f thefittest)acts as a realcause'. Again,B.'s account fhypotheticalecessityscuriouslylusive.And hedoes notappreciatethe hesis hatAristotle'siological xplanationsftennvolve n' absolute'necessity.(B.'s critical iscussion fSorabji'sargumentsor hethesis s confused nd inade-quate.)A simple xample: ntlersrenecessarily adeofhorn rsome imilarlyoughstuff- hat s indeedhypotheticalecessityantlersmust emadeofhorn f hey re

to serve s weapons); antlers re shed forthesake ofadvantage nd by necessitybecauseoftheirweight' PA 663b13)- that s nothypotheticalut bsolutenecessity.There regenuine roblems ere, othexegeticalndphilosophical; ut B. does notcontribute o their olution.InChapter B.moves n toAristotle'sractice.He examines number fpassagesin GA, HA, and PA, and asks to whatextent he method' of classificationndexplanation, nd theprogramme f critical mpiricism,re actuallyobservedbyAristotlenhisbiologicalwritings.his s the ongest nd themost nterestinghapterin B.'s book. Althought is marred yseveral rrors n interpretation,tcontainsnumber fuseful nalyses nd tdisplaysnenviable cquaintancewith hebiologicaltexts.Chapter5, on 'Modern Criticisms',s devoted to twodistinct ssues.First,B.discusseswhathecallshe' tandard iew'- ascribedoDuring, wen ndBarnes thatwhen tcomestoscienceAristotleaysonethingnd doesanother'.B. accepts omepartsofthis tandard iew butrejects thers.He thusdefendsAristotlegainst hechargethat his theory nd his practicedo not cohere; indeed,he holds that theMetaphysics... rounds heOrganon nd theOrganon...grounds ll ofAristotle'sbiological nvestigations'.econdly, . considers hemodern ontentionhat teleo-

56 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

8/14/2019 Barnes Review

4/4

logical xplanations... re nottrulyxplanatory'. gain,he seeks odefendAristotle,arguing hatteleology othyieldsgenuine xplanations nd is indispensableo thebiological ciences. Thesecondpartof the hapter id notconvinceme and willnotconvince hetheoristst s aimedagainst. t is not thatB.'s argumentsre notclearlyright, oreventhat hey reclearlywrong: hey renotclearlynythingt all.Thesesofgreat cope e.g.that'Biology annotbe reduced oPhysics') resupported ypithyDelphicisms,nd a litany f modern echnicalitiesonfusesmorethan tenlightens.It ismuch he ame nthefirstartof the hapter.B.'s strikinglaimthatAristotle'sbiology s all ultimately rounded n theMetaphysicss givenonlythe sketchiestsupportand itdoes not consistwell with hecontentions fChapter2). Moreover,B. hasmisunderstoodeveral fthevarious uggestionsromwhich ecompounds he'standardview' of therelation etweenAristotle'smethod nd hispractice.This s a young cholar'sfirstublished ook.Myreviewwillbe regardednmanyquarterss uncharitablyavage. rritation,confess, asmymain motion nreadingB.'s pages- irritationt sloppypresentation,t a wretchedtyle,t simple rrors,tbad arguments,ut above all irritationt a fine pportunityeedlesslymissed.ForB.'s subject s an extraordinarilynterestingne,both from scholarlynd fromphilosophical ointofview. t concerns,moreover,n area ofAristoteliantudies nwhich heres still oom for riginal nd important ork.Andfrom ime o timeB.gives vidence hathe stheman for heob: heknows he ncient exts, e s familiarwithmodernbiology,he has read thepertinentiteraturen recentphilosophy fscience, e isplainly n engaged nddevoted tudent f the ubject.Had hefollowedHorace's advice hemight ave written first-rateook on a first-rateubject.Whata pity.BalliolCollege,Oxford JONATHAN BARNES

1 Inone f he ortunatelyare assages rintednGreekherere hirteenisprintsn welvelines.2 Epitaphs,pitaphs,o ess.3 But confesshat was ickledyB.'sdecisionouse he ameSolmsen' oreferoBarnes.

PORPHYRY'S LIFE OF PLO TINUSLuc BRISSON, MARIE-ODILE GOULET-CAZE, RICHARDGOULET, D E N S O' BR E N. Preface de JEAN IPIN: Porphyre,Vie dePlotin, I: Travaux preliminaires t indexgrec complet. Histoire desDoctrines de l'Antiquite Classique, 6.) Pp. 436; 1plate,2 maps. Paris:Librairie Philosophique J.Vrin, 1982. Paper, 330 frs.The size of thisvolumeofpreliminarytudies f theLifeofPlotinus,o be followedbya secondvolume ontainingext, ranslation nd commentary, ayat firstightappear a little xcessive: nd it cannot be denied that sometimes here s a certainamount of inflation: .g. someof the entriesn the mostcomprehensivend ofteninterestingrosopography o takerather longtime o saythatnothingwhateveris known bout thisperson.But theLife s a document funique mportanceor urknowledge fthird-centuryhilosophynd most of the work avished n it bythisvery ompetent roupof scholars t the CentreNationalde la Recherchecientifiquehas been wellexpended. here s one rathermportant uestion bout theLifewhich

OCR

57HE CLASSICAL REVIEW