ite

Article history:

Argumentative strategies

This contribution deals with the question of where and why in his biological writings Aristotle uses dia-

with the way of presenting knowledge. It can thus be said that at the moment in which the dialecticalprocedure is translated into the medium of writing, a fact-oriented presentation is also an addressee-ori-ented representation. Nowadays we are more accustomed to a technical literature which, after complet-

s paper

totles style of writing in general in the following way: Erhandelt Dinge ab, wie sie ihm einfallen, ohne sie vorher durchdachtund sich ein deutliches Schema entworfen zu haben: er denkt mit

derselben pltzlich von vorne an mit kabxlem otm akkgm aqvgmsg1 rjewex1, und das sechs Mal in einer Schrift, daher mit EinemWort, ist er so oft konfus und ungengend.1 This strict reproach by

E-mail address: foelling@staff.uni-marburg.de1 Schopenhauer (1988/1851) pp. 55ff.: He deals with things, as they occur to him, without having thought over them beforehand and having drawn up a clear pattern: he

thinks with his quill in his hand, which is, it is true, a great deal easier for the writer, but a great inconvenience for the reader. Hence the aimlessness and inadequacy of hisdescription; that is why he comes to talk about the same thing a hundred times, because something strange has cropped up in between; that is why he can not keep to the point,but rambles from one subject to another; that is why he leads the reader, who is looking forward to the solution of the problems raised, up the garden path; that is why, after hehas devoted himself to a matter for several pages, he suddenly starts his examination of the same thing afresh with kabxlem otm akkgm aqvgm sg1 rjewex1, and that six

tory.

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 43 (2012) 237244

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/ locate/shpsatimes in one work, that is why, with one word, he is so often confused and unsatisfacThis contribution deals with one aspect of Aristotelian sciencewhich links the content and form of his biological writings. It con-cerns the question of which characteristics show Aristotles biolog-ical works to be scientific literature, and why. How can the specialcharacteristic style of his observations be explained? Arthur Scho-penhauer, in his Kleine philosophische Schriften criticised Aris-

das Planlose und Ungengende seiner Darstellung; daher kommter hundert Mal auf das Selbe zu reden, weil ihm Fremdartiges da-zwischen gelaufen war; daher kann er nicht bei der Sache bleiben,sondern geht vom Hundertsten ins Tausendste; daher fhrt er, wieoben beschrieben, den auf die Lsung der angeregten Problemegespannten Leser bei der Nase herum; daher fngt er, nachdemer einer Sache mehrere Seiten gewidmet hat, seine Untersuchungspecialist literature

1. Introduction to the problematic nature of Aristotles der Feder in der Hand, was zwar eine groe Erleichterung fr den

Schriftsteller, aber eine groe Beschwerde fr den Leser ist. Daher(Argumentationsstil)Medium of literature (Medium derLiteratur)Dialectical method (dialektische Methode)Acquiring knowledgepresentingknowledge (WissensgewinnWissensvermittlung)Fact-oriented representationadressee-oriented representation (sachorientierteDarstellungrezipientenorientierteDarstellung)

When citing thi0039-3681/$ - see front matter 2011 Elsevier Ltd. Adoi:10.1016/j.shpsa.2011.12.025ing the first step of the deduction of knowledge, presents the results in a systematic and hierarchical wayin its literary representation; in such technical literature, normally an individuals thought process is notset out in writing. Admittedly, with the application of the dialectical method and with the attempt to setdown ones own thought process in the medium of writing, other elements also come in.

2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

, please use the full journal title Studies in History and Philosophy of ScienceAvailable online 17 March 2012

Keywords:Dialogical elements/Discursive style(dialogische Elemente/diskursivesVorgehen)

logical elements, examining which dialogical structures can be found and what the meaning of the dia-logical structures is in respect of the argumentative strategies used in literature. This discursive style hasto be seen in relation to the importance of the dialectical method which was practiced in the PlatonicAcademy and on which Aristotle reflected in his Topics. For Aristotle the dialectical method also becomesthe method of the investigator researching for himself. But more than that one can see the reason for thedialogical structures in Aristotles writings in his attempt to combine the way of acquiring knowledgeAristotles biological works as scientific l

Sabine FllingerUniversitt Marburg, Germany

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c tll rights reserved.rature

a reader who has been led up the garden path does contain quitecorrect observations on Aristotles manner of representation, suchas the to-and-fro in his train of thought, a new beginning in theargumentation, etc.I shall return to this later. Nevertheless, Scho-penhauer is not correct in his appraisal of his observationsforinstance when he substantiates it with Aristotles superficiality andcompares him with a child who can not remain long with one play-thing. How can the special structure of Aristotles written style beexplainedthe reflections which are presented here are thusintended to be a contribution to the understanding of this problem.My focus in this connection is on Aristotelian biology2 and withinthat procreation and genetics. The examination of what character-ises Aristotles biological works as scientific literature appearsimportant for three reasons: 1) Firstly, with the writing of the biolog-ical works we experience the coming into being of a genuinelyscientific literature such as had not previously existed.3 2) Secondly,ones understanding of the investigations which Aristotle conductedand the results which he arrived at deepens if one looks into the waythey were set down in writing. 3) Thirdly, the conclusions which onecan draw from the way in which Aristotle used the medium of liter-

for a wider readership and which, according to classical opinion,have a comprehensible style, the pragmateiai are more awkwardto read. The difficulties which the modern reader had and has withunderstanding Aristotles diction are attributable to the in partelliptic style, but also to redundancy on the one hand and lack ofexplanation on the otheras Schopenhauer complained, to whatone might call the fruits of a spontaneous idea. The fact that thewritten remarks sometimes require explanation was justified bythe fact that they had not been intended for reading, but for listen-ing, thus for a reception situation in which the lecturer would giveoral explanations about things. As is well known, Werner Jaegerwas of the opinion that these writings had developed from thepractice of the lecture,6 that they had been written in the school,for the school.7 As a result they were and are commonly calledlecture notes which did not constitute literature.8 In responseto this, it has to be said that in the past few years, in connection withthe increased occupation with classical specialist literature, doubtshave occasionally been voiced about this designation of lecturenotes, or at least about its unrestricted use for all Aristotles pragmat-eiai.9 Van der Eijk advanced general doubts on principle to the use of

8);tenss tor anWhe cospeaspelettworbsich119

238 S. Fllinger / Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 43 (2012) 237244ature in the context of the acquisition and imparting of knowledgecontribute towards a better understanding of the current questionof how knowledge can be acquired and passed on. In the past twodecades,4 increased attention has been accorded to the formalaspects of Greek scientific literature of the 6th to 4th centuries, tothe pre-Socratic literature above all, and also to the Hippocraticwritings. This is the consequence of a research approach which doesnot proceed in accordance withthe sometimes unclearaestheticdivisions into literary prose and artless prose, but which examinesthe writings in accordance with their construction, their structuraland linguistic peculiarities, and in accordance with pragmaticlinguistic aspects, such as the intended readers, the publication situ-ation etc., in order to also gain ideas about the context of thecircumstances of their origin. In this connection, as Philip van derEijk explains,5 approaches asking about the respective didacticfunction of a work and the origin of its manner of representationhave been fruitful. It was more easily possible to do justice to thecharacter of individual works in this way than with a division intoliterary and unliterary.

Questions about the exact structure and manner of representa-tion, and the readership of the texts have also not yet been satisfac-torily answered for Aristotles specialist scientific works, thepragmateiai. In contrast to the dialogues, which Aristotle wrote

2 For Aristotles importance for the genesis and history of biology cf. Kullmann (1993 Aristotle is not the first scientific author, but he is the first to have produced an ex

represents a major part of the ancient literature that has come down to us. It belongrecently brought out, specialist literature is an imprecise concept, as there is neithedifferent form and also different function are subsumed under specialist literature.necessarily apply to the content of ancient specialist literature. On the other hand, thplain and literary prose, or specialist prose and literary prose as a criterion for ancientmany cases to produce an elaborate stylea classification in accordance with aestheticforms themselves are of the most diverse kinds: Apart from the didactic poem, we findcommentaries. One may possibly gain more information if one asks a question about a. . ., deren Autoren in erster Linie belehren und informieren wollen und sich in dieser Ato enlighten and inform and, with this intention, turn to certain readers) (Ax, 2005 p.literary theory, is difficult to make for antiquity (cf. Fllinger, 2005, pp. 222 ff.)

4 Kullmann & Althoff (1993), Kullmann et al. (1998); cf. the Introduction.5 Van der Eijk (1997).6 Jaeger (1912), p. 187. Cf. W. Jaeger (1955).7 Jaeger (1912), p. 187.8 Jaeger (1912), p. 133, Dirlmeier (1962), p. 12.9 Cf. Flashar (2004), p. 180. See also Taub (2008), p. 18.

10 Cf. van der Eijk (1997), p. 92-93; Taub (2008), pp. 19-20.11 Schtrumpf (1989).12 Fllinger (1993).

13 Lengen (2002).14 A piece of luck, as it were, for the study is the circumstance that Aristotle presents the cstudy is possible.such vague terms.10 Eckard Schtrumpf reached the conclusion in apilot study in 1989 that there are certainly artistically stylisedpassages in the pragmateiaiwhich can be compared with the master-pieces of Attic prose of the fourth century BC, and that the termlecture notes cannot in every case be retained for all the pragmat-eiai;11 I myself have done some research on oral elements inAristotles writings.12 Ralf Lengen13 looked into passages fromvarious texts as examples and come to the conclusion that thereare considerable differences in the form of representation of thevarious pragmateiai. Problem-oriented ways of representation, suchas those seen in the Nicomachean Ethics and also the biological workDe partibus animalium, are contrasted with the result-oriented formof presentation of the Rhetoric, which was suitable for consultationby the reader.14

Thus, some things appear to be in a state of flux as far as theevaluation of Aristotles written form is concerned. In order toarrive at really exact propositions, an examination would have tobe carried out systematically, work by work, as Lengen has donefor some works,in part there are forms of representation ofdiffering character side by side in the writingsin order then alsoto be able to propose more reliable premises about their contextualembedding. However, such detailed examinations have still tobe carried out.

S. Fllinger, Discursivity in Aristotles biological writing, forthcoming.ive biological oeuvre by following a genuine scientific programme. Scientific literaturethe field that is described as ancient specialist literature, whereby, as Wolfram Axancient genre theory nor a generally valid modern definition for it, rather works ofat is more, on the one hand the term specialist arouses associations which do notncept literature is problematic. Because one can not refer to the distinction betweencialist literature, because ancient specialist authors, as is well known, endeavoured incts then becomes quite problematic, for instance in the case of the didactic poem. Theers (Epicurus), dialogues, speeches, manuals (technai), eisagogai, synagogai, aphorisms,ks intention. Then, to quote Ax, specialist literature can be defined as eine Textsortet bestimmten Adressaten zuwenden (a text type . . ., whose authors primarily want). A differentiation into specialist literature and factual literature, as made by modernonception of luck in different works (EN I, Rh. I 5 and Pol. VII 1-3) so that a comparative

In the course of the following, we will take a look at a character-istic manner of representation which is to be found in large parts ofAristotles writings and can be described as discursive. This is in-tended to show how Aristotle uses the medium of literature forthe purpose of achieving a scientific finding. In conclusion, I wouldlike to evaluate what I call Aristotles writing strategy in accor-dance with the criteria of modern research on writing.

to find out more easily what is true and what is false. In the case ofthis third point, help in finding the truth, one can thus speak of aninternalisation of the dialectical proceedings, because this procedure,which in fact takes place between the interlocutors, becomes themethod of the investigator researching for himself. The advantagewhich the researcher draws from it lies above all in its privative ben-

to betoriises

S. Fllinger / Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 43 (2012) 237244 2392. Characteristics of the writing strategies to be observed inAristotles works

a) General

As already stated, the Aristotelian style of writing in someworks can be described as discursive and argumentative (diskur-siv-argumentierend), particularly if, for example, one comparesthe De generatione animalium with the manner in which Aristotleproceeds in De historia animalium, but also, for instance in the Rhet-oric. In an early work, Dirlmeier already spoke of the oral stylewhich the pragmateiai display. Aristotle was basically speaking ina dialogue in these internal (so-called esoteric) writings, henoted, not a monologue ex cathedra.15 However, one can go beyondhis results in the description and the classification of these writings.

The manner of representation produces the impression of beingpresent in a dialogue. But no imitation of a dialogue takes place, asin Platos works or in Aristotles dialogues, the exoteric writingswhich he produced for a wider audience and of which, as is wellknown, only fragments have survived. Rather, the to-and-fro ofthe argumentation conveys the impression to the reader that anexchange is taking place with an imaginary interlocutor. All inall, the action is procedural, which means that in many cases re-sults are not presented, but elaborated in a process. In this context,the discussion often takes an aporia as its starting point.

Now in my opinion, Aristotles form of representation or writingstrategy is not an indication of literary incompetence, but should beseen as being methodically based in the dialectic method, as it wasapplied in the school conversations of Platos Academy. Aristotlepresents the dialectic method in his Topics. To put it briefly, the dia-lectic conversation follows a certain pattern: the starting point forthe exchange between the person questioning and the personanswering is a problema, and thus a question with two sides, forone of which one must decide. The problem is framed in the formof a double question formulated with pseqom. The questionerproposes the problem, the person answering chooses one of thetwo sides as his position. The person questioning takes on the otherand now has the task of refuting the position of the person answer-ing. For this purpose he asks questions, the protaseis. He must selectthem so skilfully that, as a consequence of the answers, the requiredresult, namely the side of the problem represented by the ques-tioner from the outset, comes out as the answer. According toTop. I 2. 101a 25-36, the dialectic has a threefold benefit: firstly, itis an intellectual exercise (gymnasia)a point which refers backto the exercises of the academic school conversations.16 It is anaid for argumentation with people from the crowd (enteuxeis), andit helps in finding the truth; as in the case of a problem it enablesthe arguments to be gone through from both sides and in this way

15 Dirlmeier (1962), p. 12.16 Cf. Schickert (1977).17 Dirlmeier (1962), p. 13.18 This in turn is connected with the fact that certain linguistic characteristics that areof methodological advice, which Aristotle gives in refutation in Topics, Analytics and Rhdiffer in each case (cf. Schickert (1989), p. 1) and, as a result, the premises: the prem

rhetoric are probabilities. For this reason, it is not surprising that in the transformation intoin rhetorical contexts. This is also true for the formulation aporeseien an tis (someone cou(2002), p. 227 thinks, a counter-argument against the thesis that Aristotles way of descriefit: by eliminating wrong solutions, one reaches the correct result.Aristotle chooses this internalisation of the dialectic proceedings asa theme in De caelo II 13. Here he states that the investigatorresearching for himself would raise objections inherent to the genrefor himself until he could no longer contradict himself. Thus thetransfer is not made, as Dirlmeier believed, from the innermost psy-chic debate with the innermost psychic opponent to the debate withexternal opponents17, but the procedure designed for and depen-dent on an interlocutor is transferred to the conversation withoneself.

If this procedure is now followed in the medium of writing, itserves to facilitate ones own acquisition of knowledge. Thus with-in the written form itself, an ordering of knowledge takes place,especially as longer argumentation processes can be followed,and as the factual material which is integrated into the argumen-tation can be absorbed. The integration of empirical material is,of course, quite important for biology. This procedure thus allowsone to gain knowledge.

At the same time, however, this procedure also serves forimparting knowledge. The question is why, because it does notobviously appear very reader-friendly to a modern audience. It is,however, a good means for imparting knowledge for Aristotle be-cause it makes the way the investigator has arrived at his conclu-sion comprehensible for the recipient. Thus in De caelo I 10 heexplains why he begins the question about the eternity of the worldwith a discussion of other opinions (279b7-9, translation Guthrie):

. . .lkkomm egpirs slkkomsa kevhrerhai pqoajg-jori s sm luirbgsomsxm kcxm dijailasa. T cqqlgm jasadijferhai dojem ssom m lm pqvoija cq de diaisgs1 kk oj msidjot1 emai so1lkkomsa1 skgh1 jqmeim jam1.. . .the arguments which are to follow will inspire more confi-dence if the pleas of those who dispute them have been heardfirst. It will not look so much as if we are procuring judgementby default. And indeed it is arbiters, not litigantswho arewantedfor the obtaining of an adequate recognition of the truth.

It is thus here a matter of the situation in which knowledge is im-parted. In a decontextualised situation, in which there are not twointerlocutors facing one another but a speaker or writer and hisrecipients, for reasons of integrity, the author must also list theopponents arguments. With the we the author also includes hisrecipients. Ultimately, he does, it is true, make the decision as towhich opinion is the correct one, but, thanks to the transparencywhich arises from the discussion of other views, the recipient is in-tended to be able to share his decision and thus the result that hasbeen achieved. Objectivity analogous to that of court proceedingsis thus guaranteed.

It can thus be said that at the moment in which the dialecticprocedure is translated into the medium of writing, a fact-orientedrepresentation is also a recipient-oriented representation.18 Thus

e observed can be assessed as being both dialectical and rhetorical. Because the piecesc, coincide in principle. All the same, the speaking situations in which they are appliedin dialectic discussion are endoxa, those in the context of a proof are facts, those in

writing in the case of a dialectical procedure, the same expressions are to be found asld ask). For this reason, the fact that Aristotle uses this formulation is not, as Lengenption had its origin in academic school discussions.

the deduction of knowledge on the one hand and the presentation ofknowledge on the other hand coincide. Niklas Luhmann has pointedout that these two have to be seen separately.19 And nowadays weare more accustomed to a technical literature which, after complet-ing the first step of the deduction of knowledge, presents the resultsin a systematic and hierarchical way in its literary representation,but we do not set down our own thought process in writing. Admit-tedly, with the application of the dialectic method in the medium ofwriting other elements also come in.

In general, the following characteristics of the transformationinto writing can be distinguished.20

after a question seems to have been dealt with, further con-firmation or justifications are also added (cf. Schopenhauerscriticism cited at the outset above). Precisely this point, theheterogeneity in the implementation, shows how writing asa medium of discursive thinking leads to a further develop-ment of oral and dialectical approaches, for instance in theform of a hierarchic list of questions put forward at thebeginning of the investigation, and how at the same time acertain spontaneity and the immediacy of the thinking pro-cess is maintained.

7) Premises are not disclosed in detail.8) However, it is precisely this discursiveness of the thinking

g in

tionanim

240 S. Fllinger / Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 43 (2012) 2372441) A direct or indirect question-and-answer structure is to befound, consequently direct and indirect speech, from timeto time also an abrupt change from indirect into directspeech. In the written representation, the syntactic units ofa conditional construction can correspond to the roles whichare allocated to the interlocutors in the conversation: theprotasis brings the premise, which results from the interloc-utors position, the apodosis the refutation. The apodosis canstate a reductio ad absurdum or, what plays an important rolein the biological context, a counterargument from empiricalexperience. It can be formulated as a declarative statementor, as a rhetorical question.

2) The author calls for a certain problem to be examined, eitherin the form of a verbal adjective or with the 1st personplural.

3) Through the formula poqreiem m si1 (someone couldask), an imaginary interlocutor is brought into the game.This serves to bring a new question or a new perspective intoa discussion already in course.21

4) The fact that the investigator conducts an internal dialogue,in which, according to Topics VIII 14. 163b9-12, he himselfquotes the arguments for and against a position, results inhim, as author, having to play various roles. This leads to a(from time to time abrupt) change of perspectives inasmuchas the premises of different positions are quoted in the formof conditional sentences, or the point of view is changedwithin a direct to-and-fro. This not explicitly markedchange of speakers requires the recipient to follow the trainof thought with particular alertness.

5) Often there is not just one counterargument, but Aristotlequotes several at once in order to make his refutation of acertain position more compelling. The passage in the Topicsalready mentioned (VIII 14. 163b4-9) recommends thismanner of procedure within a dialectic conversation.

6) The treatment of a question is sometimes not subject tostrict planning, even if its introduction, for example in theform of a prepared list of questions, suggests this. Rather, anew approach is suddenly undertaken from a different per-spective, a question connected with the topic is opened, or,

19 Cf. Luhmann (1990), p. 135.20 Cf. Fllinger (1993), p. 167-168.21 The fact that this formulation is also found in rhetorical contexts is not surprisindialectics and rhetoric formally), cf. above, note 18.22 Cf. Dirlmeier (1962), p. 12.23 Cf. Krmer (1971), pp. 19ff.24 Koch and Oesterreicher (1985).25 Dirlmeier (1962), p. 17.26 Dirlmeier (1962), p. 16: Willen zur Fiktion.27 Fllinger (1993), p. 280.28 Among Aristotles biological works are to be reckoned Historia animalium, a colleccalled the programmatic work of zoology (Dring, 1966 p. 509), then De generatione

the works De partibus animalium and De generatione animalium often refer to Historia animathe other two works can draw. In contrast to the Historia animalium, whose manner of pcharacter, De partibus animalium and to an even greater extent De generatione animaliumwhich the recipient also includes in the authors internaldialogue; that means that the reader has the impression ofparticipating in the to-and-fro of the authors self-reflection22

9) Apart from the structural features, the semantics also pointsto an oral style of argumentation. Thus terms taken from thefield of dialectics are to be found, such as logon labein, logonhypechein, tithenai, lyein etc.23

These characteristics are typical for a Sprache der Nhe (lan-guage of proximity), to use the terminology introduced by the Ro-mance scholars Koch and Oesterreicher.24 Its distinctive features areits dialogicity, process-oriented character and abruptness. They mustbe considered independently of the written or oral medium, thatmeans if such characteristics do arise, it is not necessarily due tothe fact that the text is also being presented orally. Thus in Aristotlescase they have a methodological value, without one having abso-lutely necessarily to conclude a lecture context from this. Thus, thesecharacteristics are not signs of a lack of literary ability, as Schopen-hauer, Jaeger and Dirlmeier pronounced: they are not, to use Dirl-meiers assessment, a residuum of an original oral presentationwhich breaks through the literature victoriously again and again.25

But it is also not a fictive oral presentation as Dirlmeier also calledit,26 because, of course, no mimesis of a dialogue takes place, such asin Platos and Aristotles dialogues. In order to name the phenomenonof this oral presentation, elsewhere I have designated it ImaginierteMndlichkeit (imagined oral presentation).27

b) Biology

The manner of proceeding in elaborating a result in writing by aso-called agonistic process is thus also to be found in Aristotlesbiological writingspecifically in those places where it is a matterof attempting to recognise general conformity with laws or to inte-grate individual knowledge into causal connections, thus about theordering of knowledge. This means it is not to be found in collec-tions of material, thus not in the Historia animalium, but in worksdealing with aetiology, thus in De partibus animalium, but aboveall in De generatione animalium.28

view of the close affinity of dialectic and rhetoric (thus the Stoa only distinguished

of zoological facts, the work De partibus animalium, the first book of which has beenalium, which presents Aristotles views on procreation, genetics and ontogenesis. Aslium, it can be said that Historia animalium represents the reservoir of facts from whichresentation, in keeping with its intention, has more of a descriptive,documentaryargue discursively.

De generatione animalium I 17.721 a 3018. 722 b 629

In his work De generatione animalium Aristotle uses the fac-(And there is a further question which we must consider):

What is it which those animals that discharge semen contributetowarure of

S. Fllinger / Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 43 (2012) 237244 241tual material which he propagates meticulously and preciselyin his Historia animalium with the objective of producing con-nected statements of explanation by attributing the biologicaldetails to the principles of his elementary science or attemptingto bring them into agreement with it. That means that whatmatters to him is linking his four-cause theory with biology.Books I-III deal with the different means of reproduction of liv-ing creatures divided up according to animal classes. In opposi-tion to other, pre-Socratic and Hippocratic theories, Aristotledevelops his own theory of procreation, starting out from thedifference between the male and female contribution to procre-ationthe ovum was still not discovered until long afterward,therefore there was generally a great deal of speculation in clas-sical antiquity about the female contribution to procreation. InBook IV, Aristotle develops his theories on genetics and on var-ious hereditary transmission processes and on the process ofsexual differentiation in ontogenesis, in order then to devotehimself in Book V to the development of secondary attributeswhich form in the course of life.30

In De generatione animalium 17-18, Aristotle deals with thequestion of what the female contribution to procreation consistsin. As already mentioned, it was still a long time before the femaleegg cell was discovered, and predecessors and contemporaries ofAristotle, thus some adherents of Hippocrates, held the view thatthe females (using this designation because we are in a biologicalcontext here) possessed a seed, and to this they linked the opinionthat the seed came from all parts of the body of both sexual part-ners, by means of which they wanted to explain the similarity ofparents and children, the so-called pangenesis theory. The follow-ing text shows extracts how Aristotle refuted this pangenesistheory.

At the beginning is the differentiation of the list of questions.The problematic questions are followed by the questions of thenature of the seed and the catamenia (721 a 30b 13; Translation:A.L. Peck):

T lm cq pqoesai uameq1 rpqla sm fxm oom raasm maila sm urim rs, s d msola ja s lakjiaposqx1 dgkom. rse soso hexqgsompseqom pmsa pqoesai rpqla s qqema o pmsa,ja e l pmsa, di sm asam s lm s d o

ja s hkea d pseqom rtlbkkesai rpqla si o,ja e l rpqla, pseqom od kko ohm, rtlbkke-

sai lm si, o rpqla d.si d ja s pqolema rpqla s rtlbkkesai di sorpqlaso1 pq1 sm cmerim rjepsom ja kx1 s1 rsim so rpqlaso1 uri1 ja sm jakotlmxm jasalg-mxm, ra sasgm sm cqsgsa pqoesai sm fxm.

Some animals discharge semen plainly, for instance those whichare by nature blooded animals; but it is not clear in which way In-sects and Cephalopods do so. Here then is a point we must consider:

Do all male animals discharge semen, or not all of them?and if not all, why is it that some do and some do not?

Do females contribute any semen, or not?and if they contribute no semen, is there no other substance

at all which they contribute, or is there something else whichis not semen?

29 Cf. also the study of the passage in Bolton (1987).

30 Book V was originally probably an independent work; it takes up topics dealt with in31 Cf. Koch and Oesterreicher (1985), p. 20.32 Suppl. Peck (1942).this fluid) what is the nature of the menstrual discharge?The hierarchic arrangement of the list of questions as well as

the systematic way in which these questions are gone throughshows a degree of planning which one can describe as the fruitof the transformation of oral and dialectic approaches into writtenform.31 However, this list is not strictly adhered to in what follows.

With the exhortations hexqgsom (theoreteon) and rjepsom(skepteon), attention is already called to the procedural aspect ofthe following comments, as well as the involvement of the readersin accordance with De caelo I 10. Following the list of questions,Aristotle lists the arguments of the advocates of the pangenesistheory in detail, in order then to refute them individually, in whichreferences to empirical facts, which contradict his opponents opin-ions, play a central role. In this connection, the advice given in theTopics to use several parallel arguments at the same time in orderto eliminate all possible objections from the outset is followed. Theparticle eti (besides) is the indicator of a parallel argument.

In the next piece of text quoted, Aristotle proves the impossibil-ity of a seed coming from one of the two constituent parts of thebody (722 a 16ff.). The two parts which constitute the body accord-ing to Aristotle are the anhomoiomere and homoiomere. In Aristotlesopinion, homoiomere, similar parts, are the constituent parts ofthe body in which each part consists of the same thing, for instancefat, blood, flesh and sinews. In the case of the anhomoiomere, notevery part is the same as the whole, these are thus, for instance,the head, hands, eye. The anhomoiomere consist of homoiomere.

After the introductory eti follows the question in the form of aproblema question (a 16-18):

si pseqom p sm loioleqm lmom pqvesai ujrsot oom p raqj1 ja rso ja meqot, jap sm moloioleqm oom pqorpot ja veiq1;

Here is a further question. Is the semen drawn only from each of theuniform parts of the body, such as flesh, bone, sinew, or is it drawnfrom the non-uniform parts as well, such as face and hand?

Now the individual possibilities are proved to be untenable (a18ff.):

e lm cq p jemxm lmom,32 ojari d lkkom

sasa so1 comeri s moloioleq oom pqrxpom javeqa1 ja pda1 epeq om lgd sasa s p pams1pekhem, s jxkei lgd jema s p pams1 pekhemloia emai kk di kkgm asam;e d p sm moloioleqm lmom ojotm p pmsxm. pqorjei d lkkom p jemxm

pqseqa cq jema ja rcjeisai s moloioleq njemxm, ja rpeq pqrxpom ja veqa1 ccmomsaioijse1 osx ja rqja1 ja mtva1.e d p luosqxm,s1 sqpo1 m eg s1 cemrex1; rcjeisai cq j sm

loioleqm s moloioleq rse s p sosxm pimais p jemxm m eg pimai ja s1 rtmhrex1;

(1) The semen may be drawn from the uniform parts only. If so, (then children ought to resemble their parents in respect of

these only),but the resemblance occurs rather in thePA II-IVds generation by means of it? and generally, what is the nat-semen, and (in the case of those animals which discharge(cf. Liatsi, 2000, pp. 13-25).

This pjemspect oas is afurthekei) w

ema qquestiargumteratta

The

text, h

sp

ef

ja

hiloste existence of the individual parts in the seed. In this con-e goes over to the direct question form (722 b 3-6):

i e lm dierparlma s lqg m s rpqlasi1 f;d rtmevhow, if one accepts the pangenesis theory, one has to imagine theseparase; strictly speaking it is inadmissible in the case of a probluestion and was also not included in the preceding list ofons. Rather, this possibility is inserted subsequently. Theentation is intensified, so to speak, into a concentrated coun-ck on the position to be rejected.next section comes from the examination of the question oftation is intended to make the refutation more compelling. Thediscussion of a third assumption, as now follows, serves the samepurpoesemble the parents more with regard to the anhomoiomere.robably caused Peck to make the addition (then children ought to resemble their parents in re-f these only). However, this does not agree with the premise,lso not further elaborated. In the case of both refutations, ar confirmation of the result is attached (eiper etc. and prose-hich is logically not really necessary. This parallel argumen-non-uniform parts such as face, hands, and feet. There-fore if even these resemblances in the non-uniform partsare not due to the semen being drawn from the wholebody, why must the resemblances in the uniform partsbe due to that and not to some other cause?

(2) The semen may be drawn from the non-uniform parts only. This means that it is not drawn from all the parts. Yet it is

more in keeping that it should be drawn from the uni-form parts, because they are prior to the non-uniform,and the non-uniform are constructed out of them; andjust as children are born resembling their parent in faceand hands, so they resemble them in flesh and nails.

(3) The semen may be drawn from both uniform and non-uni-form parts. The question then arises: What can be the manner in

which generation takes place? The non-uniform partsare constructed out of uniform ones assembled together;so that being drawn from the non-uniform parts wouldcome to the same thing as being drawn from the uniformparts plus the assemblage of them.. . .

The first possible position of the problema-question is refuted byempiricism: If the seed were to come from the homoiomere, thechildren would have to look similar to the parents with respectto these, thus, for instance, with respect to fat and sinews. How-ever, empiricism shows that they resemble each other with respectto anhomoiomere, i.e. the face, etc. The second refutation is madethrough a reductio ad absurdum: if the seed were to come fromthe anhomoiomere, it would not come from all parts of the body.But this contradicts the premise.

It is interesting to observe now how distinctive features ofshaping in writingon the one hand a greater planning effort inthe form of the disjunctions made, on the other hand syntacticellipsis through the omission of the verb in all three protaseisgohand in hand with the previously discussed elements that are typ-ical for a language of proximity. Thus the aposiopesis in the case ofthe first refutation is typical for the direct train of thought. Here itis not explained linguistically that, in the case of the assumptionthat the seed came from the homoiomere, the children would haveto resemble the parents in them. Rather, by omitting this idea, onlythe empirical phenomenon is explicitly explained, that is the chil-dren r

242 S. Fllinger / Studies in History and Pom m eg lijqm. s sm adoxm p1;o cq loiom s pim p so qqemo1 ja so hkeo1.Further, if the parts of the body are scattered about within thesemen,how do they live?

If on the other hand they are connected with each other,then surely they would be a tiny animal.

And what about the generative organs?because that which comes from the male will be different from thatwhich comes from the female.

As one can see, the sentences become shorter, everything goesquickly. Thus the first refutation is formulated as a question whichalready contains the untenability of the assumption: furthermore,if the parts do already exist separated in the seed, how do they live?Thus this passage conveys the spontaneity of a discussion whichreally draws the recipients into a court trial on the different posi-tions and serves to provide clarity about the way in which Aristotlederives his own view.

A second example is that of Aristotles research on bees, or toput it more precisely, on the question of the sex of the differenttypes of bees and how procreation takes place. This questionproved to be a mystery for the whole of Antiquity and was only sat-isfactorily resolved in the 20th century. Aristotle deals with theproblem in three passages of his work. Two are to be found inthe Historia animalium (HA V 21.553a17ff. and IX 40. 624b12ff.),and one in his writing De generatione animalium (III 10. 759a8ff.).In accordance with the different character of these works, in theHA he brings variousin part also contradictorypieces of infor-mation alongside one another, because in both chapters of HA Aris-totle quotes various items of information about the behaviour ofbees which he evidently obtained from beekeepers. As a result,he simply quotes various opinions which partially contradict oneanother (with phasi), without discussing and evaluating them. Thisis in keeping with the fact that HA represents a collection of mate-rial. In GA, by contrast, his first step in a long discussion is to refuteall other views and then, using a discursive procedure, he developshis own opinion on how things stand in relation to the procreationand the sex of bees. This manner of proceeding is in keeping withthe aetiological character of GA. In GA he develops his result overthe course of a long process. I would like to present this resultbriefly: Aristotle distinguishes three groups of bees (gene): kingsor leaders (as is well known, for almost the whole of Antiquitythe leaders of a colony of bees were male) (basileis or hegemones),worker bees (melittai or ergtides), drones (kephenes). He comes tothe conclusion that the kings procreate themselves and the workerbees, the worker bees the drones, while the drones themselves donot procreate. There are no separate sexes in any of the groups, andthe procreation takes place without copulation. This is possible be-cause the worker bees have combined both male and female attri-butes in themselves, and are thus, so to speak, hermaphroditic.This also applies for the kings, even if Aristotle does not explicitlysay so.

Aristotle begins the first part of the explanation which involvesa discussion of the facts, with the declaration that the procreationof bees is an aporia, meaning a problem which requires discussion(759a8):

d sm lekissm cmeri1 vei pokkm poqam.epeq cq rsi ja peq so1 vh1 soiasg si1 cmeri1mxm rs met vea1 cemmm, soso rtlbameim oijeja peq s1 lekssa1 j sm uaimolmxm.

The generation of bees is a great puzzle.If it is a fact that certain fishes are generated without copulation,the same probably occurs among bees as wellor so it seems from

ophy of Science 43 (2012) 237244appearances.The discussion now following proceeds in the form of a series of

conclusions. Other opinions (quoted with tines) are refuted by

showing their incompatibility with established premises. However,these premises are not endoxa as in dialectics, but are zoologicalobservations of a general or special kind. Aristotle himself explainsthis method of dialectic procedure with premises from empiricism(759a24ff.):

We have only to bring before our minds the special and partic-ular facts concerning bees, on the one side, and on the other thefacts more generally applicable to other animals, to see that all ofthese theories are impossible.

All preceding theories prove to be untenable if one draws con-clusions from the facts concerning the bees behaviour and fromgeneral zoological observations. The theory to be developed mustbe in accord with a (supposedly) empirical fact, that bees procreatewithout copulation (nuptial flight!). The result must thus be in

ium of the research, because writing helps to order the ideas. Inthis way, however, Aristotles scientific literature can be classifiedeven more precisely in accordance with criteria which modern the-oretical studies of writing have developed. These are presented inthe volume Wissen und Textproduzieren34 edited by Gunter Eiglerand others with regard to factually oriented texts. Writing researchexamines the possible interactions between knowledge and writing,and thus whether writing itself has repercussions on knowledge.Bereiters model35 has been an important classification aid for clas-sifying the findings which I have presented. This model works withthe term Schreibstrategien (writing strategies) which I haveadopted for Aristotle. According to this model, writing is seen asan Wechselspiel von absteigenden und von aufsteigenden Prozes-sen (interplay of descending and ascending processes36). A final

so fatheee w

n besproen lintohe p

S. Fllinger / Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 43 (2012) 237244 243accordance with this premise and also will be so.If one looks at the text, then one can see that Aristotle first

quotes the different opinions on the procreation of bees in a kindof catalogue. Then he refutes the (in his view) wrong opinions,firstly that bees would bring their brood from elsewhere (759a27-b1), for example with the generally immutable law that all livingcreatures only take care of their own brood. Again the written formis that the protasis of a conditional sentence gives the premisewhich results from the interlocutors position, the apodosis the ref-utation. Then (from 759b1) follow the refutations of individualopinions on the sex of bees. Linguistically, the wrong opinion is firstquoted with ouk eulogon (meaning not well-founded; this expres-sion comes actually from dialectics), then a sentence introducedwith gar (therefore, or namely) substantiates the incorrectness,in that the untenability of the opposing opinions is proved in viewof general zoological tenets. These contradictory observations aremainly introduced by de or nun de (meaning but). After refutationof the wrong opinions, the solution is introduced with leipetai (itremains . . . ). This eliminative procedure as the way to the percep-tion is justified in the Topics (VIII 14. 163a36ff.).

After the conclusion of this discursive procedure begins theaetiological part (aition dhoti: 760a 4). General immutable lawsare indicated here by anagke, anagkaion, to kata physin, tei physei.And we find an aporia provided (sex of the kings) and empiricalproofs (evidence) (760b15ff). Finally Aristotles famous concludingsentence (760b27ff.)33 makes it clear that he himself sees his wholeresult as provisional, as new empirical findings could throw every-thing over board.

3. Classification of these findings in accordance with the criteriaof modern research on writing. (Schreibforschung)

To sum up, it can be said that Aristotles manner of presentationis a reflection of his thinking, but at the same time also makes theprocedure transparent for the recipient. Literature is thus the med-

33 This, then, appears to be the state of affairs with regard to the generation of bees,behaviour. But the facts have not been sufficiently ascertained; and if at any future timethan to theories,and to theories, too, provided that the results which they show agr34 Eigler and et al. (1990).35 Bereiter (1980).36 Eigler et al. (1990), p. 15.37 Eigler et al. (1990), p. 18.38 Cf. Eigler et al. (1990), p. 18.39 Eigler et al. (1990), p. 53.40 Eigler et al. (1990), p. 53:, Insgesamt zeigen sie ein Verhalten, das als ProblemlseEbene, aber eben eingebettet in zunchst globale, dann mit Fortschreiten des Klrung41 Eigler et al. (1990), p. 37: Spoken language is under a compulsion to act, writtverbalised to the reader. This leads to the spoken language giving a far-reaching insightwritten language, by contrast, rather conceals the processing process, only showing t

42 Holmes (1987).43 Holmes (1987), p. 226.44 Heintz (2000).step in the development of writing is taken when it is recognisedthat the text or the writing are themselves a medium in which think-ing takes place. Thus ist das Schreiben zu einem integralenBestandteil des Denkens geworden . . .Umgekehrt kann dann aberauch ein solches Schreiben bewut und instrumentell eingesetztwerden, um Beziehungen zwischen Elementen des eigenen Wissenszu klren und zu przisieren, ja um neue Beziehungen herzustellen.Schreiben ist zu einer Form des Weiterverarbeitens des Wissens, seies klrend-przisierender Art, sei es umstrukturierender Art gewor-den 37 (writing has become an integral part of thinking . . .But con-versely then, such writing is also employed consciously andinstrumentally in order to clarify and specify relations between ele-ments of ones own knowledge, indeed to create new relations. Writ-ing has become a form of further processing knowledge, either in aclarifying and specifying manner, or in a restructuring manner).The term epistemisches Schreiben (epistemic writing) has be-come established for this kind of writing.38 The model by Scardama-lia and Bereiter from 1985, that regards writing as a dialecticprocess, expresses something similar, stating: the ultimate textand the knowledge of the producer of the text develop in the transi-tion from mental to linguistic work, and from linguistic to mentalwork.39 Such a writing strategy is to be found above all in the caseof authors who are still fighting with their findings: All in all, theyshow a behaviour that can be described as problem solving, a grad-ual procedure, the formation of intermediate goals at a factual level,but precisely embedded in at first global processes, then with theprogress of the clarification process in the course of working onthe text, more specific ones.40 These distinctive features apply forwhat I have tried to bring out in Aristotles texts.41

For modern scientific writing Frederic Holmes42 shows thatthere is an interdependence between writing and investigation:that experimental scientists commonly begin writing up their pa-pers during the investigations those papers are intended to report,and that the writing helps us to guide the further course of theinvestigation.43 For mathematics Bettina Heintz44 showed how

r as theory can take us, supplemented by what are thought to be the facts about theiry are ascertained, the credence must be given to the direct evidence of the senses moreith what is observed.

schrieben werden kann, schrittweises Vorgehen, Zwischenzielbildungen auf sachlicherzesses im Zuge des Arbeitens am Text spezifischere Prozesse Cf. also p. 57.anguage has a far more distant relationship to the situation in which something isthe processing process, into the struggle for the appropriate formulation, whereas theolished product.

important for the certainty of a demonstration writing is: Oftstellen Mathematiker erst beim Aufschreiben fest, dass die ursprng-liche Gewissheit trgerisch wardass die Beweisidee nicht umsetz-bar ist, ein wichtiges Resultat, das man leicht zu beschaffen glaubte,doch nicht so einfach zu haben ist, oder ein Ergebnis, auf das mansich sttzte, falsch ist. . . .Erst mit dem Aufschreiben des Beweiseswird subjektive Gewissheit in Sicherheit berfhrtund genau darinliegt auch dessen epistemologische Bedeutung.45 (Often mathema-ticians first notice through the act of writing that their originalcertainty was illusory, that their idea for a proof is not feasible, animportant result believed easy to obtain was not so simple toachieve, or that a result on which it relies is false . . .Only with thewriting out of the proof is subjective certainty reliably estab-lishedand it is precisely therein that the epistemological signifi-cance lies.)

It is as a result of this ordering while writingthat means to saythe merging of knowledge production and presentation of knowl-edge in Aristotlethat the text is not in our sense drafted as didac-tic literature. Aristotle thinks with his quill in his hand46, asSchopenhauer put it, but this procedure is not the product of inepti-tude, but a method in the sense of a means of constituting knowl-edge and, to close with a remark by Dirlmeier, this makes up dasinnere Leben des aristotelischen Pragmatien-Stils (the internal lifeof the style of the Aristotelian pragmateiai).47

Eigler, G. et al. (Eds.). (1990). Wissen und Textproduzieren. Tbingen: Narr.Eijk, Ph., & van der, J. (1997). Towards a Rhetoric of Ancient Scientific Discourse.

Some Formal Characteristics of Greek Medical and Philosophical Texts(Hippocratic Corpus, Aristotle). In E. J. Bakker (Ed.), Grammar as Interpretation.Greek Literature in its Linguistic Contexts (pp. 77129). Leiden & New York: Brill.

Flashar, H. (Ed.) (2004). Aristoteles. In: Die Philosophie der Antike Bd. 3: ltereAkademie, Aristoteles, Peripatos. 2. durchges. und erw. Aufl. (pp. 167-492), Basel:Schwabe.

Fllinger, S. (1993). Mndlichkeit in der Schriftlichkeit als Ausdruckwissenschaftlicher Methode bei Aristoteles. In W. Kullmann & J. Althoff (Eds.),Vermittlung und Tradierung von Wissen in der griechischen Kulur (ScriptOralia 61)(pp. 263280). Tbingen: Narr.

Fllinger, S. (2005). Dialogische Elemente in der antiken Fachliteratur. In Th. Fgen(Ed.), Antike Fachtexte / Ancient Technical Texts (pp. 221234). Berlin & NewYork: De Gruyter.

Heintz, B. (2000). Die Innenwelt der Mathematik. Zur Kultur und Praxis einerbeweisenden Disziplin, Wien & New York: Springer.

Holmes, F. L. (1987). Scientific Writing and Scientific Discovery. Isis, 78.2, 220235.Jaeger, W. (1912). Studien zur Entstehungsgeschichte der Metaphysik des Aristoteles.

Berlin: Weidmann.Jaeger, W. (1955). Aristoteles. Grundlegung einer Geschichte seiner Entwicklung (2nd

ed.). Berlin: Weidmann.Koch, P., & Oesterreicher, W. (1985). Sprache der NheSprache der Distanz.

Mndlichkeit im Spannungsfeld von Sprachtheorie und Sprachgeschichte.Romanistisches Jahrbuch, 36, 1543.

Krmer, H.-J. (1971). Platonismus und hellenistische Philosophie. Berlin & New York:De Gruyter.

Kullmann, W., & Althoff, J. (Eds.). (1993). Vermittlung und Tradierung von Wissen inder griechischen Kultur. Tbingen: Narr.

Kullmann, W., Althoff, J., & Asper, M. (Eds.). (1998). Gattungen wissenschaftlicherLiteratur in der Antike. Tbingen: Narr.

Kullmann, W. (1998). Aristoteles und die moderne Wissenschaft. Stuttgart: Steiner.

244 S. Fllinger / Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 43 (2012) 237244References

Ax, W. (2005). Typen antiker grammatischer Fachliteratur am Beispiel derrmischen Grammatik. In Th. Fgen (Ed.), Antike Fachtexte / Ancient TechnicalTexts (pp. 117136). Berlin & New York: De Gruyter.

Bereiter, C. (1980). Development in Writing. In L. W. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.),Cognitive Processes in Writing (pp. 7393). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

Bolton, R. (1987). Definition and Scientific Method in Aristotles Posterior Analyticsand Generation of Animals. In A. Gotthelf & J. G. Lennox (Eds.), PhilosophicalIssues in Aristotles Biology (pp. 120166). Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Dirlmeier, F. (1962). Merkwrdige Zitate in der Eudemischen Ethik des Aristoteles(Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse 1962, 2). Heidelberg: Winter.

Dring, I. (1966). Aristoteles. Darstellung und Interpretation seines Denkens.Heidelberg: Winter.45 Heintz (2000), p. 169.46 Schopenhauer (1988/1851), p. 55.47 Dirlmeier (1962), p. 16.Lengen, R. (2002). Form und Funktion der aristotelischen Pragmatie. DieKommunikation mit dem Rezipienten. Stuttgart: Steiner.

Liatsi, M. (2000). Aristoteles, De Generatione Animalium, Buch V. Einleitung undKommentar (AKAN-Einzelschriften Vol. 1). Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier.

Luhmann, N. (1990). Die Wissenschaft der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt am Main:Suhrkamp.

Peck, A.L. (1942). Aristotle. Generation of Animals. With an English Translation by A.L.Peck. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Repr.

Schickert, K. (1977). Die Form der Widerlegung beim frhen Aristoteles (Zetemata 65).Munich: Beck.

Schopenhauer, A. (1988/1851). Parerga und Paralipomena: Kleine philosophischeSchriften. First volume, Zurich: Diogenes (new edition of the first edition Berlin1851).

Schtrumpf, E. (1989). Form und Stil aristotelischer Pragmatien. Philologus, 113,177191.

Taub, L. (2008). Aetna and the Moon: Explaining Nature in Ancient Greece and Rome.Corvallis: Oregon State University Press.

Aristotles biological works as scienti1 Introduction to the problematic nature of A2 Characteristics of the writing strata\) Generalb\) Biology

3 Classification of these findings in accordaReferences