The Lagoon: How Aristotle Invented Science

by Armand Marie Leroi

In the Eastern Aegean lies an island of forested hills and olive groves, with streams, marshes and a lagoon that nearly cuts the land in two. It was here, over two thousand years ago, that Aristotle came to work.

Aristotle was the greatest philosopher of all time. Author of the Poetics, Politics and Metaphysics, his work looms over the history of Western thought. But he was also a biologist - the first.

Aristotle explored the mysteries of the natural world. With the help of fishermen, hunters and farmers, he catalogued the animals in his world, dissected them, observed their behaviours and recorded how they lived, fed, and bred. In his great zoological treatise, Historia animalium, he described the mating habits of herons, the sexual incontinence of girls, the stomachs of snails, the sensitivity of sponges, the flippers of seals, the sounds of cicadas, the destructiveness of starfish, the dumbness of the deaf, the flatulence of elephants and the structure of the human heart. And then, in another dozen books, he explained it all.

In The Lagoon, acclaimed biologist Armand Marie Leroi recovers Aristotle's science. He goes to Lesbos to see the creatures that Aristotle saw, where he saw them, and explores the Philosopher's deep ideas and inspired guesses - as well as the things that he got wildly wrong. Leroi shows how Aristotle's science is deeply intertwined with his philosophical system and how modern science even now bears the imprint of its inventor.

Genres: Science, Nonfiction, History, Philosophy, Biology, Biography, Nature

512 pages, Paperback

First published August 28, 2014

Reviews

[Ali · Rating 2 out of 5]

Most of the way through this terminally repetitive book I was thinking that I would write a gently critical review of this book, which seems to miss its own point. But then I got to part where the author defends Aristotle's views on 'natural slavery' by referencing factory-floor capitalism and Apartheid South Africa (the idea that some people are suited for manual labour only has persisted through state societies). While he coyly declines to either endorse or condemn the idea that some people deserve to be treated like disposable machinery (in a different section he also notes that it isn't his place to discuss Aristotle' views on women as 'monstrous'), on the very next page he is not so coy in roundly denouncing Athenian democracy. So y'know, I decided to be less coy.
The biggest problem with this book is not actually that Leroi doesn't understand Aristotle (although he doesn't). It is that Leroi doesn't understand Leroi - that is he doesn't see himself as having a worldview at all. He has no sense of how societies shape the values, the ideas and hence the science around them. Leroi himself has all the marks of a crude Dawson acolyte, who treats differences of worldviews as hallmarks of genetic stupidity, and assumes that Science is always capitalised.
Consequently, the book's entire purpose seems to be to reinvent Aristotle as an evolutionary biologist, who, maddeningly and inexplicably, doesn't get evolution. (Leroi pouts in several places that Aristotle had all the tools he needed to understand natural selection and evolution, he just didn't have the 'will'). And while in service of this, Leroi does a solid - if often tedious - job of constructing and analysing Aristotle's contribution to natural science, it turns the brilliant, holistic philosopher who did more than anyone else to synergise philosophy, science, educational theory and politics into a single entity into a banal and two-dimensional natural scientist. By missing the way that Aristotle's ideas about form, about human processes intersect with the idea of the mind and how we think - and how that fits within a universal pattern - Leroi misinterprets much of Aristotle.
The book gets two stars because he really does do a passable job of summarising - and this IS the bulk of the book - Aristotles anatomical findings and reporting them against modern findings. Even there though - this book is a chore to read and Aristotle is sheer magical pleasure to read. So I can't help but to recommend to leap straight into Aristotle's work with a good modern commentary - trust me, it is a life changing experience and much more joyful than this repetitive, offensive work.
(edited to fix typos, one of my phone reviews)

[Corey · Rating 5 out of 5]

Note: I won this book from First Reads.

One of the marks of greatness (and indeed goodness as well) in art, writing, film, etc, is that it sometimes makes you think, other times makes you more interested in a subject and wish to learn more about it. This book does that for me. I was always vaguely interested in science, and vaguely interested in history, and vaguely interested in philosophy. At times in my life I've considered myself something of a philosopher, albeit a lonely one as I've had so few opportunities to debate with others. "The Lagoon" has got me hyped up on all these subjects now. My interest is more than a vague passing fancy after having read this book.

It took me a while to get through it, there's so incredibly many scientific terms at work within it that its a bit difficult for us non-scientists to muddle our way through, so be warned about that. You may find yourself with a dictionary or a tablet at hand to check words' meanings on nearly every page. Having said that though, I didn't really mind that. I feel like this book sparked something in me, its raised not only my level of interest in science, history, philosophy and of course in Aristotle. It has also raised my level of comfort in language, I felt like I was learning new words as I went along.

There are times when reading it that its almost boring, I won't deny that, there's just so much to it, and it gets bogged down in detail and scientific mumbo-jumbo from time to time that most of us would have a hard time dealing with those bits. However I think its worth pushing your way through, and striving to open yourself up to books like this. It was just as interesting and as fun as many fantasy novels, with the added bonus of knowing that it was real.

Is this author an expert on Aristotle? I have no idea, but he's got me interested in learning more, and I have to thank him for that. He's told this story in a great way, his own personal experiences with studying the places and history behind Aristotle's methods, and locales where the great philosopher once was.

Did Aristotle really invent science? I think so, its hard to say any one person invents anything, of course. Other people invented ceramics, glass blowing, welding, discovering techniques for creating a vacuum, and wire-making, yet we credit Edison with the invention of the light-bulb. Also, there was such a big gap between Aristotle and Newton, or Aristotle and Darwin, or Aristotle and the renaissance. Much was lost, not all of Aristotle's writings have been recovered, and not everyone learns from history of course.

Science was clearly 'invented' in waves, and one of those waves I believe belonged or can be credited to Aristotle. This book helps you to understand a bit of what kind of impact he had. I enjoyed the process of learning about that. And I look forward to learning more in future, because of this book.

[Koen Crolla · Rating 1 out of 5]

Hyper-pretentious, wildly inadequate. It's honestly staggering that Leroi is apparently a professor of biology (if only at an English university), because this reads exactly like the sort of pseudo-intellectual drivel produced by people who have never left the echo chamber of academic philosophy to interact with historians, philologists, or, yes, scientists.
I stopped counting factual errors and deep misunderstandings of subject matter a few dozen pages in,† because it became clear that Leroi doesn't actually care whether anything he says is true—he just wants to carry himself away on the froth of his horrid prose and hopes that that will also hypnotise the reader into not paying too much attention to its contents. (It seems to have worked.)

Was Aristotle "the first biologist" in any meaningful sense (never mind the even stupider claim that he "invented science")? Obviously not. He wasn't entirely the obscurantist mystic Plato was and, generously, it would be fair to consider him a sort of proto-biologist, but by those criteria he's far from the first, even among the Greeks, and his influence on modern biology is negligible.
Leroi doesn't care. He got to charge his holiday in Greece as a research expense because he asked some local fishermen some condescending questions, and that's the main thing.


--------

† What put me over the edge was actually not a biological claim or even anything to do with Aristotle, but the off-hand claim that Alcaeus "may have been Sappho's lover".

[Lisa Kelsey · Rating 5 out of 5]

For some reason I love squids and octopi so if there's one on the cover of a book I'm automatically interested. Add the word "lagoon" which I think is wonderfully evocative of sunny, salty, calm waters teaming with life, and I am definitely hooked. The fact that this book is about Aristotle didn't really have much to do with me wanting to read it.

Sooo..I am not a scientist or a philosopher so many of the concepts were difficult for me to grasp. I found myself looking up words every other paragraph and then sometimes having to look up words that were in the definition, BUT...it was worth every minute!

I loved Leroi's light, humorous touch, and his obvious affection for Artistotle shines through in every line. Far from being a stuffy, ancient dude, Leroi brings Aristotle to life as a man filled with an almost child-like wonder at the wealth of variety he saw in nature. Hard as it may be to believe now, presenting the simple act of observing mussels and cuttlefish and crabs (and even talking to fisherman about them) as a worthy activity was a pretty revolutionary idea at the time.

It's fascinating to know that someone who lived 2000 years ago contributed to what we know about the world and basically created the foundation of how science is practiced today. It doesn't really matter that a lot of what Aristotle wrote is actually incorrect, it was his method and his outlook that was his real contribution.

[Victor Sonkin · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an amazing feat. I always wanted to know more about Aristotle, but the closest I could get was Gasparov's chapter about him in Zanimatel'naja Grecija. I tried to read Jonathan Barnes's (who incidentally has a brother called Julian) "very short introduction" to Aristotle in the famous and generally very readable Oxford series, but he lost me very soon.

This is not an introduction to all of Aristotle, but, rather, a description of how he had founded biology and, through the view of a biologist — modern science in general. It's brilliant, accessible, well-written, passionate in a quiet and reserved sort of way, humorous without being jeering, and rich in amazing detail. It is, perhaps, a bit too long, but on the other hand, one doesn't want this book to end fast. I'll be savoring clippings and ideas from this book for a long time; an achievement of Aristotelian proportions.

It was said (by Borges, and by Coleridge before him) that all men by nature are either Platonists or Aristotelians. I have always known that I was a staunch Aristotelian, and it gladdens me boundlessly to see at last the book about my cultural hero that's worthy of him. I tried to read "Mutants" but somehow it didn't go well; perhaps the translation was to blame (yes, I know how vapid this argument is, but these things do happen). I should give it another try.

[Kevin Orrman-Rossiter · Rating 4 out of 5]

Near five stars if it were not for the author's hatred of Plato. This blemishes what is otherwise an elegantly written introduction to the beauty of Aristotle's biology. I still recommend it.

[Christopher McCaffery · Rating 2 out of 5]

I skipped a bunch of chapters in the middle of this book. Leroi has some amazing moments early on, and it's enjoyable to watch him wax poetical about just how much he loves Aristotle. But it's also clear that he doesn't really 'get' Aristotle, and constantly judges those doctrines of his with a properly metaphysical basis simply on the grounds of "we don't believe that sort of thing anymore". Disappointing by the end after a strong and promising beginning.

[Ushan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Any 21st century high school graduate knows a great deal about animals. An animal is made of organs, which are made of tissues, which are made of cells, which are made of macromolecules, which are made of atoms. An animal has circulating blood (hemolymph for invertebrates) pumped by the heart; it moves by contracting muscles as commanded by nerve impulses coming from the brain. Animals obtain energy by eating and breathing. When animals mate, the male animal's sperm combines with the female animal's egg; the genetic material of the two cells join into one, which provides the information that organizes the developing embryo. Animals are divided into species, which are grouped into higher taxons: genera, families, orders, classes, phyla. All animals are descended from a common Precambrian ancestor; their present diversity is due to evolution as guided by natural selection. None of it was known to humanity from the beginning; all of it was discovered in the last few centuries.

Now, suppose you know none of it because it hasn't yet been discovered, and do not even have the language to describe it. You cannot speak of sperm and eggs containing information or food containing energy because the concepts of information and energy haven't yet been invented. You have never seen spermatozoa because the microscope hasn't yet been invented. You don't understand that inheritance comes in discrete units of genes, which appear in variants - alleles. You have no clue, what the heart, muscles, brain are for, or that blood circulates. You don't have a good notion of species and never thought of evolution. You have never dissected a human corpse. Yet you are one of the greatest geniuses in the history of humanity, and you want to write a treatise on the anatomy, physiology and ethology of animals, including humans. What do you do?

What Aristotle did was, inevitably, to get almost all the theory wrong: the purpose of the brain and the heart, the process of fertilization, the sexes of the bees. Some observations, however, are right: that sponges aren't plants, that whales and dolphins aren't fish, that in a certain species of catfish, the male guards the brood, that the octopus has a breakable penis-tentacle, that the dogfish give birth to live young, which are attached to the womb through a kind of placenta, like mammals. The worst thing is that for almost 2000 years his writings were considered the absolute truth. It was only during the Renaissance that science advanced beyond: Harvey and Malpighi discovered the circulation of blood, Vesalius produced a correct human anatomy based on dissecting many corpses, van Leeuwenhoek and Hooke discovered cells, Linnaeus took a stab at classifying animals. Over the next few centuries, this knowledge was refined and added to by Darwin and Wallace, Watson and Creek, and other biologists. What this book is trying to do, though, rather than condemn Aristotle for being wrong, to look at him on his own terms.

[Nancy · Rating 1 out of 5]

This should have been absolutely fascinating. It wasn't. The content was was probably ok, but I didn't jive with the writing style. He's as interesting as reading the phone book. I'm disappointed and didn't finish. Couldn't take the dryness.

[Scott Markley · Rating 3 out of 5]

2021 Reading Challenge
Topic: A book that intimidates you
Book: The Lagoon by Armand Marie Leroi
Marie Leroi obviously has a passion, an intellect, and a knowledge of Classical figures and Biology. He has a command over the history of Science that is impressive and a love for Aristotle which is infectious.
I am an academic at heart. I am a Physical Science teacher with a background in History. Both Biology and the Classics are things that I have at least passing familiarity with.
Linnaeus, Bacon, Cuvier are names I recognize and can place rather confidently in time and field. Natural Selection, DNA, Evo Devo, etc are all scientific theories that I don't have to pull up a second book for.
With that said, I thought I was the intended audience for this book. It is full of things I am knowledgeable about, and interested in. Marie Leroi doesn't hand hold, and explanations for things are more on the Greek translation end, which, is good, because it's all Greek to me.
So why can't I give this book a higher rating?
There's a line in the book where Marie Leroi says something to the extent of Aristotle trying to be clear, and, often times, failing. Marie Leroi seems to have taken that from his hero, as the text itself is tangled, disorganized (or, weirdly organized), and with about 100 unnecessary pages.
At the end of the book, Marie Leroi attempts to save his organizational structure. He says that he's tried to divide the book into 5 subsections of importance, and, in retrospect, he does. But, while reading the book, I was often forced to tie things together myself that should have been clear. Much of this comes from the monumental task he's undertaking. He explicitly states that he won't try and put words and phrases into Aristotle's mouth, which means he's often taking much longer to get to an obvious points because he's handicapped himself.
This torturous roundabout is only that much more disappointing because 1/2 the book is extremely interesting, moving, enlightening, and inspiring. The latter 1/4 of the book is fantastic, with much of the strings Marie Leroi has spread being tied into neat knots. The book has two strengths: When Aristotle's later influence on scientists is discussed, and Marie Leroi's reflections on the island from his own time. Sadly, and, more importantly, the book mostly fails at giving us an understanding of what Aritstotle really thought. Marie Leroi knows that he has done this. In a latter chapter he reveals some of what he's been hiding and that Aristotle's true thoughts aren't easily seen by even the most quickest of intellects. He's taken on an impossible task, and I don't envy him.
Final score: 2.5/5

[Mark · Rating 4 out of 5]

A lengthy, detailed, and fascinating examination of the life and works of Aristotle with the position that Aristotle was the first scientist, and that since his proposed mechanisms (see the brilliant appendices) haven't aged well, his thoughts and techniques have been unjustly ignored or belittled.
This alone would be sufficient for me, but there are many interesting associated ideas here including the detective work necessary to locate Aristotle's workplace in Lesbos and to determine which animals he is referring to, the discussions of Aristotle's relationship to Darwin, the history and philosophy of biological taxonomy, some comparative anatomy to explain the source of Aristotle's classifications, some embryology, and some animal physiology and evolutionary biology to explain Aristotle's discussion of the relationship among animal size, longevity, and fecundity. As a seeming bonus we also read the author's comments on Aristotle's theory of the structure of the universe and his views on human society – including whether all modern battles over inequality ultimately turn on the question of whether "natural slaves" exist and, if so, how to distinguish them from "legal slaves".
------------------------------------------------
Words of interest include apophthegm (an aphorism, and Grammarly recommends spelling it apothegm), and although I knew that chorion and cotyledon came from the Greek, I did not know that they came so directly from the Greek.
Interesting quotes include Bertrand Russell Aristotle was the first man to write like a professor,
and Borges It has been said that all men are born either Aristotelians or Platonists.
I also liked the author's That the physical theory is wrong is irrelevant; in the long run, all physical theories are. and to be reminded of the expressions Natura non facit saltum (that Darwin liked), and the origin of virtus dormitiva.

[Malcolm Little · Rating 3 out of 5]

A solid dissertation on Aristotle’s early endeavors, especially those relating to biology and zoology, but nothing more.

Unlike the author, I would not classify Aristotle as a scientist. The old Greek was more as a polymath developing - by happenstance – methodologies of investigation. Science centers around the scientific method. Aristotle was no closer nor aiding in developing that particular method than anyone else; frankly, some of Aristotle’s methods were antithetical to the scientific method. Therefore, Aristotle no more invented Science than Thomas Aquinas invented modern philosophy, or James Ussher determined the age of the Earth.

Another strike against this book is the preponderance to an excess degree of Aristotle’s zoological investigations. By the umpteenth description of the ancient Greek’s next batch of dissections, the prose repeats itself while adding a pittance to the overall theme. The book could have either been shortened or more thorough discussion to strengthen the argument for the title.

As the entirety stands, this is a quaint and fun read of an ancient polymath, worthy of attention for his sharp mind amid a rationally immature world. However, the author meanders, repeats, and fails to span the breadth of possibilities. I would have called it “The Lagoon: How Aristotle Bolstered Zoology”.

[JV]

Dificilmente acho alguém a quem recomendar essa obra. Ainda assim me valeu nas filas e de passatempo. Para quem se interessa em filosofia clássica e Aristóteles, apenas isso: leiam 3 primeiros livros da Física (Φυσικη, Physica); Da geração e da corrupção(Περὶ γενεσεως και φθορας, De generatione et corruptione); Da alma (Περὶ ψυχης, De anima); Das partes dos animais (Περὶ ζωων μοριων, De partibus animalium); partes da Da história dos animais (Περὶ τα ζωα ιστοριαι, Historia animalium); Do movimento dos animais(Περὶ ζωων κινησεως, De motu animalium); Da marcha dos animais (Περὶ πορειας ζωων, De incessu animalium); e principalmente Da geração dos animais (Περὶ ζωων γενεσεως, De generatione animalium)

São obras de inestimável valor e interesse, a carne que cobre os ossos vazios do Organon. Imprescindíveis.

[Maria · Rating 4 out of 5]

Aristotle, one of the most influential philosophers of all time; up in the pantheon – Socrates, Plato, Aristotle. He arrived on the Aegean island of Lesbos in the 4th century BC. Aristotle’s biological writings have been extensively studied by historians of philosophy and science however, the author Armand Leroi , as an evolutionary biologist, took the opposite path into the study of Aristotle. He goes to Lesbos to see the creatures that Aristotle saw, and where he saw them.

This book is both a travelogue and a study of the origins of science and shows how an ancient thinker still has much to teach us today. Aristotle wrote a lot on animals. He dissected them, classified them, and recorded how they lived, ate, and reproduced.

[Kiril Valchev · Rating 3 out of 5]

Аристотел- философ и учен с изключително широк спектър от интереси: физика, астрономия, биология, геология, етика, политика, реторика... Σαξκ οφ αλλ τραδεσ, както са казвали елините. "The Lagoon" е книга за Аристотел- зоолога; може би първият заслужаващ тази "титла". Захвърлен сред лазурните води на Егейско море, проницателният ум на Аристотел не престава да задава въпроси и да търси техните отговори. Докато съзнанието му е заето с това, ръцете му не престават да ръчкат всичко скачащо, летящо, пълзящо и плуващо на и около о-в Лесбос. От привилегированата ни позиция на жители на XXI век, немалка част от размишленията му звучат абсурдно, но не са и малко тези, които впечатляват с изключителна прозорливост и чието ехо продължава да отеква през вековете.

[zunggg · Rating 4 out of 5]

An account of Aristotle's bio/zoological investigations, centred on his home isle of Lesbos, which is perhaps over-optimistically subtitled but nonetheless a very entertaining read. Aristotle is sometimes right, more often wrong, but the important thing is the way he goes about his science, plunging his hands into (sometimes, it is hinted, live (ugh)) specimens and having a good root around before trying to make sense of what he finds. He comes across as a thoroughly good egg. I don't think the author ever really decided whether he was writing about Aristotle, or about science, or about the history of science or the scientific method, but I didn't mind the book's dilatory style. Would be a good one to read on holiday, on a beach.

[Howard · Rating 5 out of 5]

This man knows his Aristotle! I don't know if the book would appeal to a wide audience but I know I enjoyed and was very impressed with this account of Aristotle's work. The point is made several times that Aristotle wrote even his works on drama and economics from the point of view of a biologist, a point often not recognized by students forced to digest turgid chunks of Aristotle as undergraduates. The book goes into all sorts of subject matter without straying far from the thesis and easily merits 5 stars for the pleasure derived from reading it. It should appeal to History of Science and Philosophy peeps.

[Argiris Fakkas · Rating 3 out of 5]

A book about the great ancient philosopher and his famous trip to Lesbos, where he stayed and studied the island's flora and fauna.

For the most part I can say I enjoyed this book and the valuable information that it contains. For some of them I had no clue whatsoever. There are some really interesting stories not only about Aristotle but about ancient greek time period in general.

Be warned though. This book is not an easy one to grasp. There are many detailed biology information, difficult to pronounce names of body parts and complex diagrams. But if you are interested either in Aristotle or ancient biology this book won't let you down.

[I-kai · Rating 4 out of 5]

A modern biologist's very sympathetic look at what he thinks is a kindred spirit from ancient times. An assessment of Aristotle's major biological works, mostly drawn from Generation of Animals, Parts of Animals, and History of Animals and a fascinating account of why Aristotle's questions, and sometimes answers as well, still matter. If one can look past Leroi's caricature of Plato (and Bacon near the end), his relative but perhaps wise neglect of the more "philosophical" works, and his abuse of the word "literally" (I actually enjoyed the prose overall), this is a highly useful book. I'm certain I'll borrow parts of his discussion next time I teach an upper level Aristotle survey.

[Kyle Wright · Rating 4 out of 5]

Some good sections on Aristotle's thought. I particularly like the section "Foam" pertaining to human anatomy. In particular, what I like best about this book is the insight into the conclusions an uneducated (by modern standards) genius came to with regards to the science of biology. That being said, there were a lot of sections I didn't really care about. It often seemed discursive from one section to the next, redundant frequently, and there were some digressions that made the book feel a bit too long winded. I wish I could give it 3.5.

[Alis · Rating 1 out of 5]

If you want to read some guy tell you what thing Aristotle wrote are true and which are not I guess this might be a good time for you. Personally I think he makes the argument for why science without historical knowledge or abstract thought is hollow, useless and boring pretty well by offering the dry dissected carcass of a book. I hate Aristotle and still I feel he has been done an injustice. Gently being spoon fed shallow opinions disguised as objective truth with the clear assumption that you (the reader) are pretty stupid is not my idea of fun.

[Kevin · Rating 3 out of 5]

A delightful little book making the case that Aristotle was not just one of the greatest philosophers in history; he was the first real scientist too. It's part travelogue, part encyclopaedia and part biography.

Aristotle wrote several books on zoology and anatomy and Lagoon quotes from them liberally. It's amazing how much he got right and even more amazing how much he got wrong.

There's a fascinating section at the end that speculates whether Aristotle should have discovered evolution and why he didn't.

Loved the book but it dragged a bit halfway through.

[Liam · Rating 5 out of 5]

"Sea urchins, snakes and sharks, gall bladders, penises and spleens -- as Aristotle dissects and analyses, he's picking his way along a precarious path. Above him soar the heights of Plato's heedless teleology; beneath him lies the abyss of the physiologoi's relentless materialism. Aristotle, recognizing that neither cause can be ignored, considers every part in turn and assigns primacy now to functional goals, not to physiology, and often -- and this is his great contribution -- to the subtle interplay between the two." (146)

[Colin · Rating 5 out of 5]

A book that taught me so much about Aristotle that I thought I already knew . . .

I felt challenged by this book's subtitle - "How Aristotle Invented Science" - feeling I knew enough about Aristotle to know THAT isn't true. But the author makes a compelling case that, in a way, Aristotle DID invent science . . . and how his detractors over the years have obscured that fact and misrepresented Aristotle. This read can be dense and somewhat technical at times, but I HIGHLY recommend it!

[Pater Edmund · Rating 3 out of 5]

A sympathetic portrait of Aristotle as a biologist. The feuilletonistic style is amusing at first, but gets tiresome after a while. The main virtue of this book was that it got me to read D'Arcy Wentworth Thompson's much shorter and much better account of Aristotle as a biologist: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2...

[Andrea]

If the writer could have resisted the urge to include literally everything he could find out about everyone Aristotle ever knew and had stuck to the fascinating science material this would have been shorter but much better.

[Jessica Cockburn · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a good read indeed. It is thoroughly researched, carefully constructed and an insightful perspective on a misunderstood figure of history. I found the detailed chapters in the middle of the book a little dense and tedious but I see they were necessary to paint the whole picture.

[Phil Sinner · Rating 4 out of 5]

Detailed perspective. Learned a lot about Aristotle and his influence on the development of science as a discipline. Writing style was less approachable for me than other books of this kind that I have read, but I do not have a background in the classics. Overall, I am very glad I read it.

[Carol Griffiths · Rating 3 out of 5]

Quite a bit of concentration involved for a non-scientist but very interesting and rewarding. The author describes Aristotle's Natural History observations and relates them to present understanding of ecology and evolution.

[Reader · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a great book!