Metaphors as models: Towards a typology of metaphor in ancient science.

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.

Aristotle's lobster: the image in the text.

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.

A cladistic analysis of Aristotle's animal groups in the Historia animalium.

The Historia animalium (HA) of Aristotle contains an extraordinarily rich compilation of descriptions of animal anatomy, development, and behaviour. It is believed that Aristotle's aim in HA was to describe the correlations of characters rather than to classify or define animal groups. In order to assess if Aristotle, while organising his character correlations, referred to a pre-existing classification that underlies the descriptions in HA, we carried out a cladistic analysis according to the following procedure: by disentangeling 147 species and 40 higher taxa-designations from 157 predicates in the texts, we transcribed Aristotle's descriptions on anatomy and development of animals in books I-V of HA into a character matrix for a cladistic analysis. By analysing the distribution of characters as described in his books, we obtained a non-phylogenetic dendrogram displaying 58 monophyletic groups, 29 of which have equivalents among Aristotle's group designations. Eleven Aristotelian groupings turned out to be non-monophyletic, and six of them are inconsistent with the monophyletic groups. Twelve of 29 taxa without equivalents in Aristotle's works have equivalents in modern classifications. With this analysis we demonstate there exists a fairly consistent underlying classification in the zoological works of Aristotle. The peculiarities of Aristotle's character basis are discussed and the dendrogram is compared with a current phylogenetic tree.