Aristotle’s Parts of Animals offers a careful study of the forms of living creatures in order to better understand their nature. The text offers exquisite close readings of blood vessels, scales, and limbs, subjecting them to the kind of attention that we generally give to a Shakespearean sonnet. And Aristotle does not merely analyze single bodies, but allows his scientific imagination to leap across species – even from animal to plant – to find “analogies” between, for example, the pulp in fig leaves and the flesh of bodies.

But despite the many commonalities he is eager to observe, Aristotle’s argument asserts that one particular physical feature is absolutely unique to the human being. At the end of the first part of Book III, he writes, “In man, however, the part which lies between the head and the neck is called the face, this name (prosopon) being, it would seem, derived from the function of the part. For as man is the only animal that stands erect, he is also the only one that looks directly in front (proso) and the only one whose voice is emitted in that direction.”

Many animals have eyes, noses, and mouths – so what does it mean to suggest that the animal does not have a face? What are the requirements to recognize a face as such? And what is at stake in denying a face to animal beings? Aristotle argues we are unique in our ability to look forward – does this suggest we only recognize a face if it can somehow meet our gaze? And why does Aristotle emphasize our voice at the end of this passage? What is the relationship between the face and language? 

— Alison Chapman, Faculty Member