Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 43 (2012) 300306

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/shpsa

A close examination of the pseudo-Aristotelian Mechanical Problems:

The homology between mechanics and poetry as techne
Michael A. Coxhead
Department of Philosophy, Kings College London, Strand, London WC2R 2LS, UK

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Available online 4 January 2012
Keywords:
Aristotle
Mechanics
Poetry
techne
History of science
Ancient Greek philosophy

a b s t r a c t
The pseudo-Aristotelian Mechanical Problems is the earliest known ancient Greek text on mechanics, principally concerned with the explanation of a variety of mechanical phenomena using a particular construal
of the principle of the lever. In the introduction, the authorthought to be an early Peripateticquotes
the tragic poet Antiphon to summarise a discussion of the techne-physis (art-nature) relationship and
the status of mechanics as a techne. I argue that this citation of a poet is an Aristotelian cultural signature,
intended to guide its readers towards a better understanding of the nature of mechanics as expounded in
the Mechanical Problems. By analysing several instances where Aristotle cites Antiphon (as well as other
tragic poets) in the Aristotelian corpus, I propose that both the author of the Mechanical Problems and
Aristotle use poets for the purpose of persuasion. This is in turn explained by understanding the homologous relationship between mechanics-as-techne (according to the author of the Mechanical Problems)
and poetics-as-techne (according to Aristotle) in terms of their shared status as poietike techne (productive
art) and claims to universal knowledge. A nal facet of the proposed relationship between mechanics and
poetry is hypothesised on the grounds of their mimetic nature.
2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

When citing this paper, please use the full journal title Studies in History and Philosophy of Science

1. Introduction
The pseudo-Aristotelian Mechanical Problems (MP) is considered
to be the rst surviving ancient Greek text on mechanics.1 In the
introduction the author presents the focus of the text as questions
of a mechanical kind, in particular, those which are connected with
the lever.2 He remarks that the phenomena observed in the balance
can be referred to the circle, and those observed in the lever to the
balance; while practically all the other phenomena of mechanical
motion are connected with the lever.3 Thus the authors method
of analysis is dened: mechanical phenomena may be explained
by a consideration of the properties of the circle. Working with the
observation that by using a lever a great weight can be moved with

but little force (a particular construal of what is now commonly

known as the principle of the lever or principle of moments),
the author embarks on the main body of the text, in which thirty-ve
mechanical questions are posed.4
The type of phenomena these questions address are wideranging, from the more general (e.g., Why . . . the exercise of little
force raises great weights with the help of a lever, in spite of the
added weight of the lever), to those specically concerned with
natural phenomena (e.g., Why is it that the so-called pebbles
found on beaches are round?), and the relatively domestic (e.g.,
Why do they construct beds so that one dimension is double the
other, one side being six feet long or a little more, the other three
feet?).5 However, despite the eclectic mixture of topics addressed,

E-mail address: michaelcoxhead@gmail.com

Berryman (2009, pp. 106).
2
[Aristotle] Mechanical Problems (847b10-11). I use Forsters translation entitled Mechanics in the second volume of Barnes (1984) Complete Works of Aristotle (pp. 12991318). From hereon in I refer to this translation of the Mechanical Problems simply as the MP.
3
[Aristotle] MP (848a12-16).
4
[Aristotle] MP (847b11-15).
5
[Aristotle] MP (850a30-32, 852b29-30, & 856b1).
1

0039-3681/$ - see front matter 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.shpsa.2011.12.015

M.A. Coxhead / Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 43 (2012) 300306

each question shares two important aspects in common. First, there

is the manner in which they are posed: almost every question asks
why?introduced with the distinctive formula dia tifollowed
by a solution offered in the interrogative, is it because . . .? That
is, an answer in the form of a further question.6 The answer is commonly supported with further explanation, usually by a reduction of
the phenomena in question to a problem soluble using the principle
of the lever. For instance,
Why is it that the rudder, being small and at the extreme end of
the ship, has such power that vessels of great burden can be
moved by a small tiller and the strength of one man only gently
exerted? Is it because the rudder, too, is a lever and the steersman works it?7
The questions are thus linked in a second way: the lever is used to
explain the various phenomena under examination.8 On the whole,
these explanations are provided by means of geometric proofan
important element of the text, as will become apparenthowever
suggestions are also made on other grounds (for instance, do they
make [beds] of this size so as to t the body?).9
Berryman (2009) classies the MP as a treatise (pp. 106-108),
but the text also bears a striking similarity to the pseudo-Aristotelian Problems and other problemata texts, such as Senecas Natural
Questions (1st century CE).10 For instance, as with the MP, the Problems consists primarily of a list of questions that ask why? (dia ti)
followed by solutions offered in the interrogative (is it because . . .?).
Furthermore, in book XV of the Problemsentitled Problems Connected with Mathematical Theorysolutions are often attempted
by means of geometric proof.11 The thirty-eight books of Problems
may have originally been a set of lecture notebooks divided by
subject area, to which new problems and answers were continually
added.12 In this sense, it is best viewed as a collective work by a variety of authors. It is likely the MP had a similarly uid history of
authorship. Unlike the Problems, however, the MP includes an introduction that clearly denes the subject matter of the text.
Although it is unclear whether the original author(s) of the
MP were also the author(s) of this introduction, its resonance with
the content that follows it may allow us to glean insights into the
nature of mechanics for its author(s).13 Indeed, writing more generally on the works in the Aristotelian corpus, Nussbaum (1996) claims
that many introductory and concluding sentences are likely to be
the work of later editors (pp. 166). However, as we will see, what
is important is that the author of the introduction was writing, in
some sense, from an Aristotelian perspective. In this essay it is a
particular literary dimension of the introduction that I will explore,
one thus far untouched by modern scholarship.
The introduction to the MP opens by juxtaposing phenomena
which occur in accordance with nature [physis] with those which
are produced by art [techne] despite nature for the benet of
mankind, among which mechanical phenomena are classied.
The author continues to discuss the relationship between art
and nature in general terms, summarising his discussion with a
quote from a poet, Antiphon:

301

The words of the poet Antiphon are quite true:

Mastered by Nature, we oercome by Art.14
Why did the author choose to quote a poet in the introduction to a
text devoted to the explanation of mechanical phenomena?15 An
ancient author quoting a poet when writing about the natural world
is not uncommon, indeed many instances exist.16 However, I propose that this authors choice ts closely with Aristotles views on
poetry as enunciated in the Poetics and his classication of
knowledge in the Nicomachean Ethics. The author of the MP regarded
mechanics as an art (techne) and Aristotle classied poetry
similarly.17 The relationship between mechanics-as-techne and poetry-as-techne may be understood in terms of their shared status and
nature: each is considered a poietike techne (productive art) in the
MP and Poetics, and each offers a type of universal knowledge, and
has mimetic qualities.
I will offer, then, an explanation as to why the author of the
MP would have chosen to quote a poet in the introduction to the
MP. That is, the poetic reference is distinctly Aristotelian. Rather
than simply decorating the text, the author is making a cultural
reference that would have been fully understood by his audience
and acts to set the tone of the text. Furthermore, the particular
quotation from Antiphon serves to situate the MP squarely within an Aristotelian framework for understanding the character of
mechanics itself.
2. Context
Schiefsky (2007) offers a close reading of the MP in the context
of a larger discussion about the art-nature relationship alluded to
in the introduction of the text. His aim is to debunk the view endorsed by Krafft (1970) that ancient authors conceived of mechanics as causing effects contrary to nature and that, as a consequence,
knowledge of nature cannot be gained through the study of
mechanics. Schiefskys approach to the text provides the paradigm
for my essay and I will draw on his conclusions in what follows.
However, Schiefsky claims without any specic references that
the MP was commonly ascribed to Aristotle in antiquity and early
modern times and, what is important for my purposes is simply
that the MP clearly lies in the tradition of Aristotelian science
(2007, pp. 67-68, & 98n.8). As a consequence he chooses not to deal
with the question of authorship.
A lack of concern for authorship is forgivable in Schiefskys
case; it is important for his rebuttal of Kraffts thesis only that
the MP represents a view from an ancient author writing about
mechanics. This, along with his careful reading of Aristotles
views on the art-nature relationship, is sufcient to demonstrate
that Kraffts claims are not universally true for antiquity. Nonetheless, Schiefskys concept of Aristotelian science is vague
and, in order to understand better the authors choice to invoke
Antiphon, it is my intention to situate the MP within the context
of its time. For this reason, I shall consider the question of
authorship.

Cf. [Aristotle] MP (848b1-850a2, & 850a30-b7).

[Aristotle] MP (850b28-31).
8
On modes of explanation and structures of argumentation in the MP, see De Groot (2009) and Schiefsky (2009).
9
[Aristotle] MP (856b4-5).
10
On treatise and problemata as ancient genres of scientic communication in antiquity, see Taub (2008, pp. 18-25) and Blair (1999, pp. 171-178).
11
E.g. [Aristotle] MP (850b28-851a37) and [Aristotle] Problems (911a14-b2).
12
Hett (1936a, pp. vii) and Louis (1991, pp. xxv). Cf. Sharples (2006, pp. 24-25).
13
Cf. Schiefsky (2007, pp. 82-84, & 92-94). On the importance of introductions and conclusions to the interpretation of ancient texts, see van der Eijk (1997, pp. 113-115).
14
[Aristotle] MP (847a2021).
15
Taub (2008) concerns herself with similar questions (e.g., pp. 37).
16
E.g., Theophrastus Enquiry into Plants (IX.15). Cf. Taub (2008, pp. 31-45).
17
Aristotle mentions mechanics very rarely in the extant corpus. However, it seems likely that he would have classied it as a theoretike episteme. See Aristotle Posterior Analytics
(76a24, & 78b39). Cf. Peters (1967, pp. 60).
7

302

M.A. Coxhead / Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 43 (2012) 300306

2.1. Authorship
The MP has traditionally been included in the Aristotelian corpus but there has been considerable debate over Aristotles (384322 BCE)18 status as the author. The conclusion of most modern
scholars is that it is almost undoubtedly not by Aristotle.19 As a consequence, the text has been dubbed pseudo-Aristoteliani.e., it was
at some point incorrectly attributed to Aristotle and thus entered the
Aristotelian corpus, as we now know it.20 The ancient biographer
Diogenes Laertius (. c. 200-250 CE) lists a book on mechanics in
his catalogue of works by Aristotle, as well as two books of problematapotentially referring to some early form of the MP and pseudoAristotelian Problems, respectively.21 As previously stated, it has
been suggested that the Problems may have had its origin in Aristotles hand before reaching its notebook form. Diogenes testimony suggests either that the MP may have had a similar origin,
or that confusion over Aristotles authorship already existed for
Diogenes and his contemporaries by the third century CE.22 In the
absence of any rm conclusions concerning the origins of the MP,
it is of most importance that the text had (and still has) a long history of association with Aristotle.
Interest in the authorship of the MP continues and modern
scholars have approached the question from several different angles. For instance, some have attempted to reconcile the physical
and/or philosophical ideas that underpin or may be inferred from
the content of the MP with those found in other works more rmly
attributed to Aristotle.23 Generally speaking, the conclusion of these
analyses is that the text is, at least to some degree, Aristotelian.
Bottecchia Deh (2000) offers a survey of both ancient and contemporary ascriptions of the text, concluding that it is not possible to
dismiss all points of uncertainty concerning Aristotles authorship
(pp. 27-51). Bottecchia Dehs conclusions represent the general
consensus and De Groot (2008), among others, has proposed the
working assumption that the text may well belong to a student of
Aristotles school, potentially within fty years of Aristotles oruit
(pp. 45).24 Berrymans (2009) recent review of the scholarship,
although brief, suggests Straton of Lampsacus (c. 287-269 BCE)
head of the Peripatetic school after Theophrastus (c. 372/370-288/
286 BCE), himself the successor of Aristotleas the author (pp.
108). But this remains a suggestion.25
Winter (2007), however, has argued that Vitruvius (. 1st century BCE) used the MP as a source for book X of On Architecture
but includes neither Aristotle nor Straton in his list of sources on
machines. By exhausting Vitruvius source list, Winter concludes
that Archytas of Tarentum (. 4th century BCE) is the true author
(pp. iv-ix). This claim is difcult to assess; Winter offers no evidence for the claim that Vitruvius knew (and was correct about)
who the author of the MP was. Considering that confusion over

18

the true author already existed in antiquity, I will work on the basis
that the author of the MP was an early Peripatetic.26
2.2. The Peripatetic school
Assuming that a member of the early Peripatetic school wrote
the MP, it is important to account for the social environment and
philosophical context in which the text was produced. Aristotle
lectured students in his school who also knew of his esoteric works
(or school treatises), which now comprise the Aristotelian corpus.
Furley (1996) points out that a library was built under Theophrastus headship and that foundations were laid for systematic, cooperative research into nearly all the branches of contemporary
learning (pp. 1141). The Peripatetic school constituted an environment where ideas were shared and the works of others were
discussed. Evidence of this is the tradition of doxography encouraged by Aristotle and taken up by students such as Theophrastus,
in which students drew upon the opinions (doxai) of other philosophers and philosophical schools.27 As a consequence, the author of
the MP would have not only been well acquainted with the philosophy of Aristotle, in all its manifestations, but also of the thought of
his contemporaries. This is an important point and will serve as a
lens through which the reference to Antiphon in the introduction
of the MP may be understood.
3. Why quote a poet?
3.1. The identity of Antiphon
Antiphon was an unexceptional name in Classical Athens and
there has been considerable scholarly debate over the identity behind references made to this name.28 Typically, Antiphon may relate to three possible identities: (i) Antiphon of Rhamnus the
orator, (ii) Antiphon of Athens the sophist, and (iii) Antiphon the tragic poet (all 5th century BCE).29 It is tempting to assume the Antiphon referred to in the MP is the tragedian, considering the
authors use of the moniker poet. However, Aristotle (and others
in antiquity) knew of Antiphon (ii) for his ability as a geometer, particularly for his famous attempt to solve the problem of squaring the
circle.30 Considering that a large proportion of the MP is devoted to
answering mechanical questions by means of geometric proof, the
invocation of Antiphon (ii) would align with the mathematical nature of the text and offer a potential answer as to why Antiphon is
cited.
A degree of confusion over the identity of different Antiphons
appears to have also existed in antiquity. For instance, Brown
(1996) states that stories concerning the tragic poet were ascribed
to Antiphon (i) in the ancient biographical tradition (pp. 112).

Unless otherwise stated, all dates are taken from Hornblowers & Spawforths (1996) Oxford Classical Dictionary.
E.g., Hett (1936, pp. 329), Barnes (1984, Note to the reader), and Nussbaum (1996, pp. 166).
20
For an introduction to the historical signicance of this label, see Kraye et al. (1986).
21
Diogenes Laertius Lives of Eminent Philosophers (V.26).
22
The origin(s) of Diogenes catalogue is a controversial issue. For now it should be noted that Diogenes drew his catalogue from (at least) secondary sources and the degree of
scrutiny he was able to apply is unclear. Nonetheless, some suggestive points may be drawn from Diogenes catalogue. Long & Sharples (1996, pp. 475). Cf. Dring (1956) & (1957,
pp. 67-69, & 466-467).
23
E.g., see De Groot (2008, pp. 43, & 45n.5-8) for a brief bibliography of scholars who compare the MP with Aristotles Physics.
24
Cf. Berryman (2009, pp. 107) and Hett (1936, pp. viii).
25
Bodnr (2011) has recently argued, predominantly on doctrinal grounds, against the assertion that Straton is the author of the MP. His discussion makes apparent the
possibility that the author may not have been an early Peripatetic at all, and that a more thorough analysis of the manuscript tradition is required before such claims can be
readdressed with any certainty. However, for my purposes this is not a serious concern. What I hope to argue is that the authors understanding of mechanics-as-techne resonates
with the Aristotelian notion of poietike techne, and thus that the authors conception of mechanicswhoever they may have beenwas in this sense Aristotelian.
26
Winters paper remains un-cited in all other literature on the subject and, to the best of my knowledge, no other scholar has engaged with his claim.
27
Taub (2008, pp. 16-17) and Schoeld (1996, pp. 1170).
28
Avery (1982, pp. 145n.1).
29
Gagarin (1996, pp. 111), Taylor (1996, pp. 112), and Brown (1996, pp. 112).
30
Classied by Thomas (1939) as one of three notorious problems of ancient Greek geometry (pp. 308-315). Aristotles knowledge of this association is apparent in both the
Sophistical Refutations (172a7) and the Physics (185a17).
19

M.A. Coxhead / Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 43 (2012) 300306

Pendrick (2002) argues against the unitarian claim that Antiphon

(i) was identical to (ii), contending further that the tragic poet may
be distinguished from Antiphon (i) with relative certainty (pp. 1).31
Although his claim does not constitute the nal word on the debate,32 the question as to whether or not the author of the MP distinguished the tragic poet from the other Antiphons is most pertinent
(not whether modern scholars are able to distinguish them).
Pendrick locates eleven references to Antiphon within the
Aristotelian corpus. Although they are not always distinguished
by means of an epithet, Pendrick argues that, given the specialized
and knowledgeable nature of Aristotles Peripatetic audience,
Aristotle was able to omit an explicit identication of each reference to an Antiphon on the assumption that his audience could
determine the Antiphon being described from context alone (pp.
14-15). Considering that the surviving Aristotelian corpus is that
of Aristotles esoteric worksthose used within the Peripatetic
school, possibly in the form of lecture notesPendricks claim
seems reasonable. Furthermore, although it is uncertain whether
three different Antiphons existed (or were thought to exist) in
antiquity, what is important is that Aristotle apparently delineated
different personalities of Antiphon. Similarly, when the author of
the MP invokes the poet Antiphon he orientates his Peripatetic
audiencepossibly the same audience as that of Aristotles esoteric
works, or at least one that had the same intellectual heritage
towards Antiphon in the form of the tragic poet, not the Antiphon
who attempted to square the circle (or otherwise).
It is hard to discern what the author of the MP may have known
about the personality and writings of Antiphon the tragic poet
(hereafter referred to simply as Antiphon). Very little biographical
information is available and only the titles and fragments of his
tragedies (some found in the Aristotelian corpus) are known.33
However, the little that is known of the content of Antiphons tragedies does not appear to have any direct relevance for the explicit
content of the MP, aside from his remark on the art-nature relationship previously described.34 Although time may have concealed the
immediate relevance of Antiphons tragedies to the MP, I will now
demonstrate the relevance of poetry in general to the MP within
the context of Aristotles philosophical works.
3.2. Poets and poetry in Aristotles work
The quotation of a poet in the introduction to the MP is a type of
cultural reference that Aristotle had a habit of making. In particular, there are four instances in which Aristotle references Antiphon.
In the Rhetoric, Aristotle uses an event from Antiphons tragedy,
Meleager, as a specic example of the general case he is describing:
Again, we feel angry with friends if they do not speak well of us
or treat us well; . . . or if they do not perceive our needs, which is
why Plexippus is angry with Meleager in Antiphons play.35
The reference to Antiphons tragedy works to help Aristotles reader
understand the account of anger that he proposes.

303

In the other casestwo more in the Rhetoric and one in the

Eudemian Ethicsthe references are used as an example of, and in
order to justify, statements made by Aristotle. For instance:
The friend would choose, if both were not possible, rather to
know than to be known, as we see women do when allowing
others to adopt their children, e.g. Antiphons Andromache.36
Here, some feature of the character Andromache is illustrative of
what Aristotle means, but the reference also serves as a realistic
and tangible example of human behaviour. Later in the Rhetoric,
Aristotle employs an anecdote of Antiphons (at his own execution)
in order to bolster an account of shame claiming that, when put on
display to those who know of our disgrace, we feel more shame
(1385a8-13).37 In these cases Aristotles references to Antiphon act
as an authoritative account of reality, conrming what he describes.
That is to say, in quoting Antiphon, Aristotles claims gain further
force.
In the MP, the Antiphon quotation similarly acts as an authoritative restatement of the authors claims about the art-nature relationship. After an abstract discussion of how nature always acts
uniformly, not taking heed of human needs and thus producing effects that do not always suit these needs, the author claims that
humans may turn to art to overcome nature and be satiated. This
is then reafrmed and summarised with the quotation of
Antiphon:
The words of the poet Antiphon are quite true:
Mastered by Nature, we oercome by Art.38
Here Antiphons words, as when quoted by Aristotle, act as a conrmation of the authors generalised conclusion about the art-nature
relationship.
This characteristic of Aristotles use of Antiphon is not exclusive
to this poet alone. For instance, in the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle
cites the tragic poet Agathon (5th century BCE) to conclude a brief
discussion on the notion of choice and the past:
Nothing that is past is an object of choice, e.g. no one chooses to
have sacked Troy; . . . what is past is not capable of not having
taken place; hence Agathon is right in saying
For this alone is lacking even to God,
To make undone things that have once been done.39
Again, the formula is distinctly similar to the introduction to the MP.
In fact, this denes a particular argumentative style of Aristotles:
rst a generalisation is made, possibly in somewhat abstract terms
(in this case concerning the nature of choice), the statement is then
supplemented with a tangible example (the sacking of Troy)40 and
reafrmed (in this case) by a quotation from a poet.
3.3. Poetry as universal knowledge
Although incomplete, the Poetics contains Aristotles accounts of
both tragic and epic poetry; Geoffrey Lloyd (1968) describes the

31
Pendrick makes his claim for the differentiation of the tragic poet from Antiphon (i) on the grounds that (i) was put to death at Athens in 411 [BCE] on a charge of treason,
whilst there is a widespread ancient tradition that claims the poet was executed by Dionysius in Syracuse. Snell (1971) does also list the particular quotation in question as an
uncertain fragment of the tragedian Antiphon (pp. 194-196). Cf. Avery (1982) for an example counter-argument.
32
For instance, Williams (2009) decides to take a neutral stance on the issue until more evidence can be presented (pp. 69).
33
Pressler (2002, pp. 779).
34
On the known content of Antiphons tragedies see Webster (1954, pp. 299).
35
Aristotle Rhetoric (1379b13-15).
36
Aristotle Eudemian Ethics (1239a35-37).
37
See also 1399b27.
38
[Aristotle] MP (847a2021).
39
Aristotle Nicomachean Ethics (1139b5-11). Other cases exist of a similar form. For instance, Aristotle cites Agathon again in the Nicomachean Ethics as part of a discussion of the
distinction between action and production, and art and nature (1140a16-20).
40
Similarly, the observation of the principle of the lever acts as an example for the author of the MP: [Aristotle] MP (847b11-15).

304

M.A. Coxhead / Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 43 (2012) 300306

work as Aristotles defense of the usefulness of poetry (pp. 272).41

Within the Poetics, Aristotle discusses poetry and the poets function in comparison to history (1451b5-9):
. . . [history] describes the thing that has been, and [poetry] a
kind of thing that might be. Hence poetry is something more
philosophical and of graver import than history, since its statements are of the nature rather of universals, whereas those of
history are singulars. By a universal statement I mean one as
to what such or such a kind of man will probably or necessarily
say or dowhich is the aim of poetry.42
Aristotle here alludes to a dichotomy between knowledge of universals and knowledge of particulars. History is an account of particular events whilst poetry describes ideal or expected sequences of
events: that which is probably or necessarily so. The universals
of human behaviour, as described by poets, relate to how a man
ought to act (e.g., wicked men live in ignorance of the universal).43 Thus, the poet aims to offer a true description of the expected
behaviour of men, even though this behaviour may deviate in particular cases from what is universally expected (as history testies).44
In Aristotles opinion, the content of Antiphons and Agathons
tragedies offer a form of universal knowledge; this helps explain
the argumentative force the poets offer in the examples described
previously. This also helps to partially explain the author of the
MPs invocation of Antiphon: he chose to adopt Aristotles style
of argument. But with this in mind, a deeper understanding of
why a poet was quoted in a text on mechanics in particular may
be attained through an examination of Aristotles notion of poetry
as a poietike techne (productive art).
3.4. Poetry as poietike techne
Peters (1967) offers two meanings of poiein within Aristotles
classication of knowledge. He broadly translates it as to act, action
and tells us that in the Categories, Aristotle placed action as one of ten
kategoriai. However, he also points out that, in the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle discriminates between poiein, in the sense of to produce (hence poietike episteme, productive science) and prattein
(to act), hence praktike episteme, practical science (pp. 162).
Peters also denes poietike, of which poiein is a verbal form, as
productive science, art or poetics. The understanding of poietike
as a productive science (poietike episteme) is described by Aristotle
as an art (techne), and Peters states that the poietike techne par
excellence is poeticsi.e., the study of poetry found in the Poetics
(pp. 162). This ties in directly with Barnes (1982) claim that the
Poetics is a contribution to productive scienceits aim is to tell us
not how to judge a work of art, but how to produce one (pp. 83). That
is to say, there is an intimate link between poetry and the notion of
productive science (poietike episteme) within Aristotles writings.
This is of great signicance. The author of the MP would have been
well acquainted with Aristotles classication of knowledge. That
Aristotle aligns poetry with productive knowledge, that he directly
links this type of knowledge to the notion of productive art (poietike
techne), and that the author of the MP is discussing the art (techne) of
mechanics, offers a further reason why the author of the MP decided
to quote Antiphon. Not only was the author following the argumen41

tative style of Aristotle as detailed in Sections 3.2 and 3.3, but also the
quotation of a poet to summarise that authors opinion of the human
use of art (techne) ts rmly within the Aristotelian notion of poetry
as a productive science. By quoting Antiphon, the author of the MP
activates his readers awareness of Aristotles classication of knowledge, within which poetry as poietike techne aligns directly with the
subject matter of the text: mechanics.
Another signicant comparison may be drawn between the
invocation of Antiphon in the MP and Aristotles classication of
knowledge. In his initial statement of the structure of the sciences
in the Posterior Analytics, Aristotle creates a two-tier system: to the
lower tier belong sciences that present empirical factsoptics,
mechanics, harmonics, and star-gazing. The subjects of the upper
tierconsisting of geometry, solid geometry, arithmetic, and
astronomyoffer explanations for these facts via mathematical
demonstration. He explains that the relation of optics to geometry,
and mechanics to solid geometry, and harmonics to arithmetic, and
star gazing to astronomy is one of subordination. Thus Aristotle remarks: . . . it is for the empirical scientists to know the fact and for
the mathematical [scientists] to know the reason why (79a3-5).
Aristotle then deploys another dichotomy between the universal and the particular. Just as the mathematician may not know of
the particular fact in question, he may still be capable of explaining
it: just as those who consider the universal often do not know
some of the particulars through lack of observation (79a5-7).45
He justies this statement with the assertion that mathematical objects, although capable of representing particular objects, are themselves something different in substance to the objects they
represent (79a7-8). Thus Aristotle conceived of both mathematics
and poetry as offering universal knowledge.
As I have discussed, the problems in the MP are often solved by
means of geometric proof. Take, for instance, problem twenty-four,
which contains the paradox known as Aristotles wheel. Forsters
translation describes a circle (kyklos) that rotates about its centre
(kentron), and travels along a path (gramme). This translation suggests that the author of MP approaches the paradox in (abstracted)
mathematical terms alonesuch as circles and pathsrather than
more tangible, physical termssuch as wheels and axles. But kyklos has a plurality of potential interpretations, including a circle,
any circular body, circular motion, and sphere.46 On this basis
alone, the authors use of kyklos is ambiguous. However, some light
may be shed on the use of these terms in the MP with reference to
other mathematical and mechanical authors in antiquity.
In the same way as the author of problem twenty-four of the
MP, Euclid (. c. 325-250 BCE) uses kentron to describe a centre
in his mathematical denition of a circle (kyklos) in the Elements.47
However, Heron of Alexandria (. 62 CE) uses tympanon to describe a
toothed wheel or roller and axon (axle) to refer to the centre
around which a tympanon rotates.48 Importantly, Heron describes
the tympana within a physical machine that use different sized cogs
in order to lift a weight by connection with a handle. It seems clear
that Heron is here describing something physical whereas the author
of the MP, like Euclid, describes mathematical (or, more specically,
geometric) objects.49 Thus, not only is problem twenty-four of the
MP solved with geometry but the authors language is distinctly
mathematical.

Cf. Barnes (1982, pp. 20).

Cf. 1451a37-9 and Barnes (1982, pp. 35).
43
Aristotle Nicomachean Ethics (1110b28-1111a2).
44
Cf. Lloyd (1968, pp. 274-5).
45
Cf. Mendell (2004, pp. 5).
46
Liddell et al. (1940/1968, pp. 1007).
47
Euclid Elements (I. denition 15).
48
Heron Dioptra (490-491).
49
Similarly, other interpretations of tympanon tend to refer quite specically to physical objects such as wagon-wheels made of a solid piece of wood. See Liddell et al. (1940/
1968, pp. 1834). A similar conclusion may be drawn for the use of gramme in problem twenty-four of the MP. Cf. Euclid Elements (I. denition 2 & 16).
42

M.A. Coxhead / Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 43 (2012) 300306

A large portion of the MP is dedicated to explaining mechanical

problems via abstracted, geometric proof. In the MP, geometry
offers explanations for questions concerned with mechanics just
as Aristotle conceived of the role of mathematics. The use of mathematics in this way again illustrates why the author of the MP
would be equally likely to cite a poet and a mathematician; for
mathematics, as poetry, is concerned with universals.
3.5. Mechanics and mimesis
Schiefsky (2007) argues that both the author of the MP and
Aristotle believe that art (techne) in a sense imitates nature.
Schiefsky explains that art behaves in a manner that is articial
but analogous to nature and, in doing so, yields effects that nature
alone cannot cause; art makes creative use of natural regularities
in order to produce effects beyond nature (pp. 69, 72, & 86). It is a
relationship based on more than imitation or mimicry alone and, in
part, relies on creative representation.
Let us now return to the Poetics. Aristotle begins his analysis by
describing a fundamental quality of poetry:
Epic poetry and tragedy, as also comedy, dithyrambic poetry,
and most ute-playing and lyre-playing, are all, viewed as a
whole, modes of imitation [mimesis].50
However, the translation of mimesis as imitation is too narrow.51
Aristotle himself does not dene exactly what he means by mimesis,
and modern scholars such as Barnes (1995) have frequently concluded that a denition cannot be pinned down with any certainty.
Barnes chooses ctional representation as the closest t (pp. 273, &
276).52 The ctional element of this description ties in directly with
the articial nature of mechanics. And although the arts described in
the Poetics may differ in terms of their means, their objects, and
their manner of representation (1448a25), the fact that they are representative of something is fundamental.
A full discussion of mimesis as used in the Poetics exceeds my
present scope. It will have to sufce to say that, from a synthesis
of Schiefskys analysis and Barnes reading of the Poetics, it is clear
that both poetry and mechanics produce something that has a representative quality of their object(s) of study in a manner that is
ctional or articial (i.e., a human rather than natural creation).
This similarity in what is fundamental to poetics-as-techne for
Aristotle and mechanics-as-techne for the author of the MP,
provides further insight into the manner in which Aristotles
conception of poetry is appealed to by the invocation of Antiphon
the tragic poet in the introduction to the MP.
4. Conclusion
Plato (c. 429-347 BCE) thought that poetry was an image of an
image of reality and put forward that all poetry, bar hymns to the
gods and eulogies to good people, should be banish[ed] . . . from
the [well-governed] city that he sets out to describe in the Republic
(607a2 ff.).53 Considering that Aristotles and Platos views on poetry
were so opposed, as well as the proximity and notoriety of their
opinions (both now and in Greco-Roman antiquity), the invocation
of a tragic poet in the introduction to the MP aligns directly with a
distinctly Aristotelian perspective on the function of poetry. That
Aristotle conceived of poetry as productive art (poietike techne)
containing universal knowledge explains why the author of the
MPa Peripatetic who conceived of mechanics similarly as a type
50
51
52
53
54

Aristotle Poetics (1447a14-15).

Cf. Lloyd (1968, pp. 274).
Cf. Liddell et al. (1940/1968, pp. 1134).
Cf. Murray (1997, pp. 1, 6, & 189-190).
Aristotle Metaphysics (995a5-8).

305

of technechose to invoke the poet Antiphon. Furthermore, the representative or mimetic quality shared between both poetry and
mechanics goes some way to reafrm this view.
Aristotle thought that lecture audiences have clear expectations
of their lecturer:
Some people do not listen to a speaker unless he speaks mathematically, others unless he gives instances, while others expect
him to cite a poet as witness.54
Apparently, the author of the MP shared Aristotles thoughts
about his audience, as well as some of Aristotles views on poetry
regarding its argumentative utility and its relation to mechanicsas-techne, as demonstrated by this reading of the Mechanical
Problems.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Liba Taub for her unwavering support,
encouragement, and contributions to this paper; Laurence Totelin
for her enthusiasm and input; G. E. R. Lloyd for his useful comments; and all those who attended and discussed an earlier version
of this paper at the 2010 Workshop on Ancient Greek and Roman
Medical and Scientic Writing, hosted at the University of
Bamberg; I should also thank the Arts and Humanities Research
Council for funding this research.

References
Ancient authors
[Aristotle]. Mechanics (E. S. Forster, Trans.). In J. Barnes (Ed.) (1984), The complete
works of Aristotle, the revised Oxford translation. Volume two (pp. 12991318).
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
[Aristotle]. Problems (E. S. Forster, Trans.). In J. Barnes (Ed.) (1984), The complete
works of Aristotle, the revised Oxford translation. Volume two (pp. 13191527).
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Aristotle. Eudemian Ethics (J. Solomon, Trans.) In J. Barnes (Ed.) (1984), The complete
works of Aristotle, the revised Oxford translation. Volume two (pp. 19221981).
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Aristotle. Metaphysics (W. D. Ross, Trans.). In J. Barnes (Ed.) (1984), The complete
works of Aristotle, the revised Oxford translation. Volume two (pp. 15521728).
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics (W. D. Ross, & J. O. Urmson, Trans.). In J. Barnes (Ed.)
(1984), The complete works of Aristotle, the revised Oxford translation. Volume two
(pp. 17291867). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Aristotle. Poetics (I. Bywater, Trans.). In J. Barnes (Ed.) (1984), The complete works of
Aristotle, the revised Oxford translation. Volume two (pp. 23162340). Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Aristotle. Posterior Analytics (J. Barnes, Trans.). In J. Barnes (Ed.) (1984), The
complete works of Aristotle, the revised Oxford translation. Volume one (pp. 2316
2340). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Aristotle. Rhetoric (W. R. Roberts, Trans.). In J. Barnes (Ed.) (1984), The complete
works of Aristotle, the revised Oxford translation. Volume two (pp. 21522269).
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Aristotle. Sophistical Refutations (W. A. Pickard-Cambridge, Trans.). In J. Barnes
(Ed.) (1984), The complete works of Aristotle, the revised Oxford translation.
Volume one (pp. 278314). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Diogenes Laertius (1925). Lives of Eminent Philosophers (R. D. Hicks, Trans.). In R. D.
Hicks (Ed.), Diogenes Laertius, lives of eminent philosophers. Loeb classical library,
series no. 184185. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Euclid. Elements (R. Fitzpatrick, Trans.). In R. Fitzpatrick (Ed.) (2008), Euclids
Elements of Geometry. The Greek text of J.L. Heiberg (18831885), from Euclidis
Elementa, edidit et Latine interpretatus est I.L. Heiberg, in aedibus B.G. Teubneri,
18831885. Edited, and provided with a modern English translation, by Richard
Fitzpatrick (2nd ed.) [Online]. Available from: <http://www.lulu.com/items/
volume_64/1400000/1400539/4/print/Elements.pdf> Accessed 7.11.09.
Heron (1939). Dioptra (I. Thomas, Trans.). In I. Thomas (Ed.), Selections illustrating
the history of Greek mathematics. Volume II: From Aristarchus to Pappus. Loeb

306

M.A. Coxhead / Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 43 (2012) 300306

classical library, series no. 362 (pp. 488497). Cambridge: Harvard University
Press.
Plato (1997). Republic (G. M. A. Grube, C. D. C. Reeve, Trans.). In J. M. Cooper & D. S.
Hutchinson (Eds.), Plato. Complete works (pp. 9711223). Indianapolis &
Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company.
Seneca (1971). Natural Questions (T. H. Corcoran, Trans.). In T. H. Corcoran (Ed.),
Seneca, natural questions. Loeb classical library, series nos. 450 & 457. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
Theophrastus (1980). Enquiry into plants (A. F. Hort, Trans.). In A. F. Hort (Ed.),
Enquiry into plants, volume II: Books 6-9. On odours. Weather signs. Loeb classical
library, series no. 79. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Modern authors
Avery, H. C. (1982). One Antiphon or two? Hermes, 110(2), 145148.
Barnes, J. (1982). Aristotle. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Barnes, J. (Ed.). (1984). The complete works of Aristotle, the revised Oxford translation.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Barnes, J. (1995). Rhetoric and poetics. In J. Barnes (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to
Aristotle (pp. 259286). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Berryman, S. (2009). The mechanical hypothesis in ancient Greek natural philosophy.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Blair, A. (1999). The problemata as a natural philosophical genre. In A. Grafton & N.
G. Siraisi (Eds.), Natural particulars: Nature and the disciplines in renaissance
Europe (pp. 171204). Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Bodnr, I. (2011). The pseudo-Aristotelian mechanics: The attribution to Strato. In M.-L.
Desclos, & W. W. Fortenbaugh (Eds.), Strato of Lampsacus. Text, translation, and
discussion (pp. 443455). New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
Bottecchia Deh, M. E. (2000). Aristotele, Problemi Meccanici: Introductione, testo
Greco, traduzione Italiana, note. Catanzaro: Studia Aristotelica.
Brown, A. L. (1996). Antiphon (3). In S. Hornblower & A. Spawforth (Eds.), The Oxford
classical dictionary (3rd ed., pp. 112). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
De Groot, J. (2008). Dunamis and the science of mechanics. Journal of the History of
Philosophy, 46(1), 4368.
De Groot, J. (2009). Modes of explanation in the Aristotelian Mechanical Problems.
Early Science and Medicine, 14(13), 2242.
Dring, I. (1956). Ariston or Hermippus? Classica et Mediaevalia(17), 1121.
Dring, I. (1957). Aristotle in the ancient biographical tradition. Stockholm: Almqvist
and Wiksell.
Furley, D. J. (1996). Peripatetic School. In S. Hornblower & A. Spawforth (Eds.), The
Oxford classical dictionary (3rd ed., pp. 1141). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gagarin, M. (1996). Antiphon (1). In S. Hornblower & A. Spawforth (Eds.), The Oxford
classical dictionary (3rd ed., pp. 111112). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hett, W. S. (Ed.). (1936a). Aristotle in twenty-three volumes: XIV, minor works. Loeb
classical library, series no. 307. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Hett, W. S. (Ed.). (1936b). Aristotle: Problems, books I-XXI. Loeb classical library, series
no. 316. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Hornblower, S., & Spawforth, A. (Eds.). (1996). The Oxford classical dictionary (3rd
ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Krafft, F. (1970). Dynamische und statische betrachtungsweise in der antiken mechanik.
Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag.
Kraye, J., Ryan, W. F., & Schmitt, C. B. (Eds.). (1986). Warburg Institute surveys and
texts, XI. Pseudo-Aristotle in the middle ages: The theology and other texts.
London: Warburg Institute.
Liddell, H. G., Scott, R., & Jones, H. S. (1940). A Greek-English Lexicon, with
supplement by Barber, E.A. et al., reprinted in I volume (9th ed.). Oxford:
Clarendon Press.

Lloyd, G. E. R. (1968). Aristotle: The growth and structure of his thought. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Long, H. S., & Sharples, R. W. (1996). Diogenes (6) Laertius. In S. Hornblower & A.
Spawforth (Eds.), The Oxford classical dictionary (3rd ed., pp. 474475). Oxford
University Press: Oxford.
Louis, P. (1991). Aristote, Problmes, I, sections I X (collection des Universits de
France). Paris: Les Belles Lettres.
Mendell, H. (2004). Aristotle and mathematics. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford
encyclopedia of philosophy [Online]. Available from: <http://plato.stanford.edu/
entries/aristotle-mathematics/> Accessed 3.11.09.
Murray, P. (Ed.). (1997). Plato on poetry: Ion; Republic 376e-398b9; Republic 595608b10. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nussbaum, M. C. (1996). Aristotle. In S. Hornblower & A. Spawforth (Eds.), The
Oxford classical dictionary (3rd ed., pp. 165169). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Pendrick, G. (2002). Antiphon the sophist: The fragments. Edited with an introduction,
translation, and commentary by Gerard J. Pendrick. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Peters, F. E. (1967). Greek philosophical terms: A historical lexicon. New York: New
York University Press.
Pressler, F. (2002). Antiphon [3] Tragedian. In H. Cancik, H. Schneider, C. F. Salazar, &
D. E. Orton (Eds.), Brills encyclopedia of the ancient world: New pauly, antiquity,
volume 1: A-ARI (pp. 779). Leiden: Brill.
Schiefsky, M. J. (2007). Art and nature in ancient mechanics. In B. Bensaude-Vincent
& W. R. Newman (Eds.), The articial and the natural: An evolving polarity
(pp. 67108). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Schiefsky, M. J. (2009). Structures of argument and concepts of force in the
Aristotelian Mechanical Problems. Early Science and Medicine, 14(13), 4367.
Schoeld, M. (1996). Philosophy, history of. In S. Hornblower & A. Spawforth (Eds.),
The Oxford classical dictionary (3rd ed., pp. 11701171). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Sharples, R. W. (2006). Pseudo-Alexander or pseudo-Aristotle, medical puzzles and
physical problems. In P. De Leemans & M. Goyens (Eds.), Aristotles Problemata in
different times and tongues (pp. 2132). Leuven: Leuven University Press.
Snell, B. (Ed.). (1971). Tragicorum graecorum fragmenta. Volume 1: Didascaliae
tragicae. catalogi tragicorum et tragoediarum, testimonia et fragmenta
tragicorum minorum. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Taub, L. (2008). Aetna and the moon: Explaining nature in ancient Greece and Rome.
Corvallis: Oregon State University Press.
Taylor, C. C. W. (1996). Antiphon (2). In S. Hornblower & A. Spawforth (Eds.), The
Oxford classical dictionary (3rd ed., pp. 112). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Thomas, I. (Ed.). (1939). Selections illustrating the history of Greek mathematics,
Volume I. Loeb classical library, series no. 362. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press.
van der Eijk, P. J. (1997). Towards a rhetoric of ancient scientic 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. 77130). Leiden: Brill.
Webster, T. B. L. (1954). Fourth century tragedy and the Poetics. Hermes, 82(3),
294308.
Williams, J. D. (2009). An introduction to classical rhetoric: Essential readings.
Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
Winter, T. N. (2007). The mechanical problems in the corpus of Aristotle. Lincoln:
University of Nebraska [Online]. Available from: <http://digitalcommons.unl.
edu/classicsfacpub/68> Accessed 5.10.09.