CHAPTER 4
1. SOURCES OF ARISTOTLE’S BIOGRAPHY
For the contemporary reconstruction of the biography of Aristotle, we rely upon various kinds of surviving sources and testimonia, such as texts by Aristotle (in particular the fragments of the lost works and the texts of the surviving works, his last will and testament, his poetry, and his letters), official documents, ancient biographies of Aristotle, and testimonia from ancient authors. In this chapter we shall first have a look at what these sources are and what reliability each of them may have, according to the current opinions of scholars. A large part of this section derives from Düring (1957); I have updated the information provided by this magisterial work on the basis of later studies up to 1990, and I have revised its interpretations on a few marginal points. (For more recently published scholarship, see my author’s postscript, below, p. 145.) I shall then, in section 2, look at the various phases of the history of studies on Aristotle’s biography, and then I shall describe in broad outlines how the picture of the philosopher varies over different historical periods and in different cultural milieus during the past hundred years.
1.1. TEXTS OF ARISTOTLE
1.1A. Fragments of the Lost Works and Texts of the Surviving Works
From these texts it is not possible to gather much biographical material. Aristotle, it would appear, adhered to the Ionic scientific tradition of saying little about himself in his works, and we have nothing for him comparable to the Seventh Letter of Plato. It is therefore difficult to gather information about the external events of Aristotle’s life from reading his works, except in a few obvious cases. For instance, it is safe to say that he had some kind of relationship with Themison of Cyprus, to whom he dedicated theProtrepticus,1 and a passage of the Nicomachean Ethics (I.6, 1096a11–13) attests to his friendship with Plato, which is described by a vast tradition (although another very broad tradition attests the exact opposite, confusing doctrinal dispute with personal discord). Yet this information is not actually autobiographical in intent, just as the opinions expressed by Aristotle’s contemporaries about him, generally very critical, are not actually serious works in the genre of biography. Beginning in the 1920s, as we will see, the philosophical works of Aristotle were analyzed to reconstruct the various phases of the “spiritual evolution” of the philosopher, and therefore also, indirectly, of his life.
1.1B. Aristotle’s Last Will and Testament
Today there are no longer any doubts concerning the authenticity of Aristotle’s will, on which see section 3 of chapter 3. It has been transmitted to us in two different versions, a Greek version in Diogenes Laertius 5.11–16 and an Arabic version reported in al-Nadim, al-Qifti, and Usaibia (on these authors, see below, section 1.3). These versions were published by the editors of the ancient biographies of Aristotle, and in Düring 1957 (pp. 238–241),2 Plezia 1961 (pp. 67–70),3 Chroust 1967, Chroust 1973 (pp. 183–120),4Plezia 1977 (pp. 35–42, together with the few relatedtestimonia),5 and Gigon 1987 (pp. 21a–b and 37b–38b).
1.1C. The Poems of Aristotle
The poems of Aristotle consist of five compositions, as follows.
Hymn to Hermias: cited in Diogenes Laertius 5.7, in Athenaeus 15 (696c–e), and in Didymus Chalcenterus, On Demosthenes 6.19–36.6 There are modern editions in various texts, within the editions of Diogenes Laertius, Athenaeus, and Didymus, as well as in Rose 1886 (fr. 675), Ross 1955 (fr. 4), Plezia 1977 (pp. 4–5),7 and Gigon 1987 (p. 20a).
Epigram for Hermias: cited in Diogenes Laertius 5.8, in Didymus Chalcenterus 6.39–43, and in the Palatine Anthology 7.107. There are modern editions in various texts, within the editions of Diogenes Laertius, Didymus, and the Palatine Anthology, as well as in Rose 1886 (fr. 674), Ross 1955 (fr. 3), Plezia 1977 (p. 5), and Gigon 1987 (p. 20b).
Elegy to Eudemus: partly cited in Olympiodorus, Commentary on Plato’s Gorgias 41.9 (Norvin). There is a modern edition on pp. 115+ of the Anthologia lyrica graeca,8 as well as in Rose 1886 (fr. 673), Ross 1955 (fr. 2), and Plezia 1977 (pp. 5–6).
In the catalog of the writings of Aristotle in Diogenes Laertius 5.27 (title 146 and 147), the opening words of two poems are preserved and are available in Rose 1886 (frs. 671 and 672), Plezia 1977 (p. 6), and Gigon 1987 (p. 24b). The poems were a hymn in hexameters to an unnamed god, and an elegy to Artemis.
1.1D. The Letters of Aristotle
Aristotle’s letters comprise fragments 651–670 in Rose 1886, and they have recently been republished in Plezia 1961 and Plezia 1977, pp. 7–33, with the related testimonia. Their usefulness for the reconstruction of the biography of Aristotle naturally depends on a judgment about their authenticity, a very intricate problem. Zeller recommended that they be used in a limited way and with a certain carefulness (1897, 1:53–54), while Wilamowitz maintained that in all likelihood these are authentic letters, published to defend Aristotle from the calumnies of his enemies (1881, 151n15 and 1893, 1:339n39). On the other hand, while admitting that there might have been authentic letters of Aristotle, and that the Peripatetics might well have published an edition of them, Susemihl doubts that the letters we possess can be used to reconstruct the biography of Aristotle (1891–1892, 2:579–581); but he is open to accepting the authenticity of fr. 658 Rose (Plutarch, Alexander: Fortune or Virtue? I.6, 329b = fr. 6a Plezia 1977 = fr. 7 Plezia 1961), which includes the famous advice given to Alexander, to “behave towards Greeks as their leader and towards foreigners as their master, taking care of the former as friends and kinsmen and dealing with the latter as animals or plants.” (Other scholars, however, believe that this evidence is derived from Aristotle’s work on colonies, entitled Alexander; see above, pp. 45–46.) In the twentieth century, Brink (1940, col. 913) returns to Wilamowitz’s view, Plezia (1951, pp. 77–85) supports the authenticity of all the letters and produced editions of them in 1961 and 1973, and Moraux (1951, pp. 133–143) is more or less in favor of their authenticity. A limited utilization of the letters of Aristotle was also accepted by Jaeger (1923, pp. 5 and 259n2) and Düring (1968, cols. 163–165); the latter offers an excellent overview of the situation, and holds to be authentic at least the letters to Antipater, while the others are held to be inauthentic (see also Düring 1957, pp. 235, 286, 392, and 433–434).
On the topic of the letters to Alexander the Great, however, Pearson (1954) rightly noted that establishing the authenticity of a letter of which we have only a few fragments is practically impossible. Gigon (in 1958 (pp. 177 and 186), 1961 (pp. 18–20), 1962 (p. 14), and 1987, pp. 3b and 215a–b) strongly questions the authenticity of these letters (see also Berti 1977, p. 14). Gigon considers the surviving complete letters to Alexander to be certainly fabricated (almost everyone agrees on this point), and the others, those that we know through fragmentary quotation, to be highly questionable. Indeed, in Gigon’s 1987 collection of fragments and testimonia published in the new edition of the works of Aristotle of the Academy of Science in Berlin,9 there is no section devoted to the letters of Aristotle. Of all this material, Gigon publishes only a few fragments, which may not derive from the letters, and the fragments of letters included in the ancient biographies of Aristotle (frs. 8, 9, 11, 107, and 108, and testimonia 3, 5, 10, 16, and 23). As far as the fragments of other letters are concerned, Gigon believes that any and every citation of them should be confirmed with some passage in the reliably authentic works. Gigon’s criterion is surely ideal, but it is difficult to implement because, as Wilamowitz reminds us (1881, p. 151), unlike the letters of Plato and Epicurus, which are doctrinal in character, Aristotle’s letters, if they are authentic, form part of the philosopher’s private correspondence. Doubts are also voiced concerning the authenticity of the letters by Chroust (1973, p. xxv); see also below, section 1.4.
A letter from Aristotle to Alexander the Great on his policy toward the Greeks and Persians had been published by Lippert (1891), and judged authentic by Nissen (1892) but spurious by many others. The letter has now been republished by Bielawski and Plezia (1970, pp. 161–166), who defend its authenticity (see further Plezia 1961, pp. 50–63 and 131–151). If it were possible to authenticate the letter, it would constitute a major contribution to our knowledge of the relationship between Aristotle and Alexander the Great. But the opinion of the Polish scholars mentioned has failed to take hold. Also on this question, Stern (1968) supplemented the Lippert edition with passages drawn from the new Arabic manuscripts, but without producing a definitive edition, and also without reaching definite conclusions; he did not exclude the authenticity of the letter. Arguments in favor of its authenticity can also be found in Sordi (1984) and Prandi (1984), on the basis of a comparison between this text and the fragment of advice transmitted by Plutarch (see above, p. 45), presumably in a Letter to Alexander, or else in a work entitled Alexander. But many doubts remain when the text of the letter is compared with the doctrines set forth in the Politics. Despite many textual similarities to passages of thePolitics and Nicomachean Ethics, this text has a basic approach entirely different from that of the Aristotelian treatises. The central problem is no longer the polis, but a projected global state in which the city is being overcome and engulfed by a politically superior entity; but this view is entirely absent from the Aristotelian works that we know, as is argued by Thillet (1972, pp. 541–542). Opposed to the authenticity of this letter is also Wes (1972) and especially von Fritz (1972), who reconstructs the main points of the history of the matter; he considers the work a pure pastiche, made by someone who was familiar with the treatises of Aristotle and made particular use of the now lost works On Royalty and On Colonies. A recent full discussion of the problem is available in Laurenti (1987, pp. 942–948), who seems to be in substantial agreement with von Fritz. No one has ever suspected that the letters from Alexander the Great to Aristotle were authentic; on these letters, see Pearson 1954, Merkelbach 1954, and Boer 1973.
1.2. OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS
Three official documents survive.
1. The most important document is the inscription mentioning Aristotle and Callisthenes that was found at Delphi in 1898 and published in Homolle 1898 (see above, p. 60). The text, which has been repeatedly emended, can be found in Dittenberger 19153 (no. 275), Düring 1957 (p. 339 =testimonium 43, with a discussion of the associated bibliography), and FGrHist 124T23. For the issue about its dating, see above, p. 60.
2. An inscription at Ephesus, published in Heberdey 1902, describes the privileges of proxenia conceded to “Nicanor son of Aristotle of Stagira.” See Düring 1957 (p. 270 = testimonium 13 b), and above, in section 3 of chapter 1.
3. An honorary decree that the city of Athens is said to have conferred upon Aristotle, and inscribed on a column, is referred to in Usaibia’s Arabic translation of Ptolemy’s Life of Aristotle (see section 1.3 below). Usaibia also states that a certain Himeraios knocked down the column upon which the inscription had been engraved. Antipater had him killed for this act, and later the inscription was restored by a certain Stephanos, who added to the inscription the story of the misdeeds of Himeraios (see section 8 of chapter 1, p. 59). It is unlikely that Usaibia could have invented all this, including the Greek names. Concerning this text, Drerup (1898) showed, by means of a comparison with similar decrees preserved in the form of inscriptions, that underlying the Arabic text must have been a very ancient Greek source, capable of reproducing exactly the distinctive forms of speech of genuine Athenian decrees. Düring thinks of it as a Hellenistic counterfeit (1957, pp. 232–236), given that, in his opinion, the other information that we have about the life that Aristotle led at Athens makes it unlikely that the Athenians would ever consider honoring Aristotle with a decree of this sort; but even from this point of view, the information seems to come from a good source, because it speaks explicitly about the fact that in Athens there were currents of opinion that were hostile to Aristotle. Gigon believes that it all must derive from the Life of Aristotle by Hermippus (1987, p. 7a).
1.3. ANCIENT BIOGRAPHIES OF ARISTOTLE
On Greek biography in general, see the classic works by Leo (1901) and Misch (1907), and the more recent studies by Dihle (1956), Momigliano (1971), and Gigon (1965). Specifically for Aristotle, the most important contributions are those by Wilamowitz (1881), Wehrli (1959),10 and Huxley (1964); concerning the biographical tradition on Aristotle in the general context of Greek biography, see also Düring (1957, pp. 459–476), Gauthier (1970, his introduction to the second edition), and Momigliano (1971, pp. 69–105 and 113–130). It was only in a certain rather advanced phase of its development that Greek biography took the lives of philosophers as a subject. But it is difficult to find in that treatment any interest in history in the modern sense of the term, or any intention to place the philosopher in the context of his time and culture. As Steiner (1988) lamented (see above, p. 1), in these biographies what prevails is an interest in anecdotes, a quest for erudite curiosities, a reconstruction of his personality, and the reactions of the man; and when materials are lacking, they are ready to invent them. For instance, the Peripatetic Clearchus (who had Pythagorean tendencies) in his On Sleep tells of a conversation between his master Aristotle and a Hellenized Jew, who, by telling him stories of miracles, brings him around to a less rationalistic position (fr. 6 Wehrli). The story was judged authentic by Jaeger (1938a), who viewed it as documentation of the fact that Aristotle had a full-fledged school at Assos, already organized, but this view has not prevailed.
At a certain point within the Aristotelian school, a full-fledged biography of Aristotle was compiled. There has been much discussion as to whether Ariston of Ceos, according to tradition the scholarch after Lyco, actually compiled a Life of Aristotle; as we have seen, the proposition is doubtful (see Lynch 1972). Wehrli maintains that he did (1952, 6:65), and he collects a number of fragments (frs. 28–32) of his Lives of the Philosophers, all taken from Diogenes Laertius, and claims that the fact that the biographies of the Peripatetic scholarchs end with Lyco, the predecessor of Ariston, shows that Diogenes Laertius based his work largely on the work of Ariston in his composition of the section of the Lives of the Philosophers dedicated to the Peripatetics.11 No one doubts that the “Peripatetic” Hermippus, an Alexandrian grammarian who lived in the second century BCE, practically a contemporary of Ariston, compiled a biography of Aristotle,12 very likely of a predominantly laudatory character.13 There are doubts about whether this writing has any scholarly qualities,14 though it must have been impressive in its great display of erudition and its “research” into marvelous stories and curious anecdotes, so typical of its time. In general, it is said that this text must have been written for the purpose of providing “erudite entertainment,” whatever it is that this obscure expression might mean; perhaps it would be better to speak of a “fictionalized biography.” These characteristics will reflect on all the successors of Hermippus, in particularly Diogenes Laertius.15See Plezia 1951a, Düring 1957 (pp. 57–61, 263, 269, 278–279, 313, 346, 352, 406, and 464–467), and Chroust 1964. There is a collection of fragments of Hermippus in Supplementband 1 (1974) of F. Wehrli’s Die Schule des Aristoteles, which was in 1999 superseded by the thorough edition of J. Bollansée.
1. The Life of Aristotle by Diogenes Laertius (5.1–35) is published in the general editions of Diogenes Laertius, among which we should mention Cobet 1850, Long 1964, and most recently Marcovich 1999, but it should be examined especially in light of the particular editions of the Life, of which the Buhle 1791 and Bywater 1879 editions have only historical value, while the most authoritative editions are in Düring 1957 (pp. 29–56), and Gigon 1987 (testimonium 1); see also Schwartz 1905, Moraux 1949, Moraux 1951, Moraux 1951a, Moraux 1955, Gigon 1958, Gigante 1962 (introduction), and Chroust 1965a. An overall examination of the scholarship and the problems created by this text is found in Moraux 1986, where we find his concise judgment on the worth of this biography: “in Diogenes Laertius the best is right next to the worst,” in which “the best” is constituted by the chronology of the life of Aristotle (taken from Apollodorus) and by many ancient and authentic documents (such as Aristotle’s will) and by the ancient lists of his works, and “the worst” consists of the fanciful details of which the work is full. An important characteristic of this biography is the effort it makes to be impartial; anecdotes that tend to show Aristotle in a good light and negative anecdotes are both reported with the same credence. The problem lies in the fact that they are in large part quite unreliable.
2. A brief Life of Aristotle, with a long list of his works, published for the first time in 1663 by Gilles Ménage, and therefore called the Vita Menagiana or Anonymus Menagii, but later attributed to Hesychius of Miletus (sixth century CE; see Schultz 1913), was then published in Buhle 1791, Westermann 1845, and von Flach 1882. Part of it is in the Suda (3929 Adler); there are editions also in Rose 1886 (pp. 9–18), Düring 1957 (pp. 82–89), and Gigon 1987 (testimonium 2). According to Düring this is a brief biography whose sources are as yet unknown, while Chroust (1973) claims that it derives from Hermippus and the Neoplatonists, concerning whom see below. There is also a brief life falsely ascribed to Hesychius, concerning which see Düring 1957, pp. 92–93.
3. The other biographies of Aristotle depend entirely or in part on the biography written by a certain Ptolemy, whom the Arabs called al-Garib (viz., “the unknown,” or “the stranger”); this was long believed lost in every language, until allegedly found again by Professor Mushin Mahdi, who claims that the “Treatise of Ptolemy containing his testimony about Aristotle, a catalogue of his writings, and part of his biography, dedicated to Gallo,” contained in an Istanbul codex Aya Sofya 4833 (folios 10a–18a), is the original treatise of Ptolemy (see Düring 1971, Plezia 1975, and Plezia 1985). On the other hand, Düring states that the text of this codex is identical to the text of the biography of Usaibia, concerning which see below. This text was edited and translated into German by Hein (1985, pp. 388–446), who also studied its relations with other Arabic and Greek evidence; see my author’s postscript, p. 146.
In the nineteenth century and at the beginning of the twentieth century, this Ptolemy was identified with Ptolemaios Chennos (a grammarian of the first century CE) by many scholars: Christ, Schmid, and Stählin (1912–1924, 1:723n4), Chatzis 1914, and many others, from Littig 1890–1895 to Plezia 1985. Others have claimed that the author was a Neoplatonist, who was cited also by Iamblichus and Proclus; see Rose 1854, Busse 1893, Moraux 1951 (pp. 292–294), Düring 1957 (pp. 209–211), Gauthier 1959 (p. 8), Dihle 1957, and Gigon 1965 (p. 10), while Moraux is not certain of this last indication (1973, 60n6). Plezia 1985 holds that he was a professor of Aristotelian philosophy from the fourth century CE, because his work is similar to writings by the grammarian Donatus.
On the reconstruction of this biography, see Düring 1957 (pp. 472–474), Chroust 1964, and Plezia 1985. This is an extremely laudatory biography, which leads us to think that the identification of the author as a Neoplatonist is the most reliable, given the tendency among Neoplatonists to reconcile the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle, and to celebrate in the most exalted language both the master and the student. In the account of Aristotle’s life, reports that might have clouded his fame are passed over in silence; for instance, the story of his ties to Hermias of Atarneus, who had a bad reputation in ancient times, was eliminated. Then reports were added that increased Aristotle’s fame; for instance, a legend was created about a voyage into Asia that Aristotle and Alexander made together. The general image of Aristotelian philosophy offered in this biography is the laudatory one typical of Neoplatonic commentators: Aristotle is the “divine Aristotle,” his meeting with Plato was due to an oracle at Delphi, he was honored by Philip and Alexander, he had a great influence on Macedonian politics, he was a great benefactor both of individuals and of cities, he was accorded honors worthy of a hero after his death, and whoever visited his tomb came away purified in spirit. Despite this, the biography of this Ptolemy is a useful text, as it is based on good sources, such as Philochorus (on whom see below). It was written for the purpose of being used as an introduction to a reading of the works of Aristotle, perhaps in the school of Ammonius and his successors; see Busse 1893, Düring 1957 (pp. 107–119, 137–139, 158–163, 444–456, and 469–472), and Düring 1968 (cols. 170–172).
We have various versions of this biography, more or less complete, in four different classical languages. The Vita Aristotelis Marciana, preserved in a single Greek manuscript in the Biblioteca Marciana in Venice, was published in Robbe 1861, and then in von Flach 1882, Rose 1886 (pp. 426–436), Düring 1957 (pp. 96–106), Gigon 1962, and Gigon 1987 (pp. 28b–31a). The Vita Lascaris, according to Düring (1957, pp. 122 and 140–141), is only an excerpt of the Vita Marciana. Others, such as Tovar (1943) and Alfonsi (1949), think that it is the source of the latter. The so-called Vita Vulgata, which is also falsely attributed to Ammonius, was published in Rose 1886 (pp. 437–441), Düring 1957 (pp. 131–136), and Gigon 1987 (pp. 34a–36a). On this text, see also Busse 1893, p. 253n3.
There is a Latin version of this biography, called the Vita Latina, published in Rose 1886 (pp. 442–450), Düring 1957 (pp. 151–158), and Gigon 1987 (pp. 31b–34a).
There are two summaries of the Syriac translations of Ptolemy’s Life of Aristotle, Syriac translations from which the Arabic versions were later done; these summaries, referred to as Vita Syriaca I and Vita Syriaca II, were published by Baumstark (1898). English translations are offered in Düring 1957, pp. 185–188.
The Arab tradition of Ptolemy is, along with the Greek tradition, the most important one. These are translations taken from a source that is independent of the Greek and Latin versions mentioned above, and which adds unique material, such as the reports on the Athenian honorific decree for Aristotle, and certain details on Aristotle’s last will and testament; see Düring 1957, pp. 183–246. This tradition comprises different Arabic translations, done from the Syriac translations, by four authors, as follows: (1) Ibn al-Nadim,Kitab al-Fihrist, edited by Flügel-Rödiger (1871–1872, 1:246–252) and Müller (1873, with notes and translation); other translations are in Baumstark 1898 and in Düring 1957, pp. 193–195. (2) Al-Mubashir, Kitab mukhtar al-hikam wa-mahasin al-kilam, edited by Lippert (1894, pp. 4–19); translations are available in Baumstark 1898 and in Düring 1957, pp. 197–201. (3) Al-Qifti Gamaladdin, Tabaqat al-hukama, edited by Lippert (1894); a paraphrase and partial translation are available in Düring 1957, pp. 208 and 211–212. (4) Ibn-abi-Usaibia, ‘Uyun al-anba fi tabaqat al-stibba, edited by Müller (1884, 1:54–69); the translation in Düring 1957, pp. 213–231, was reprinted in Gigon 1987, pp. 36a–38b.
1.4. THE TESTIMONIA OF ANCIENT AUTHORS
The testimonia of ancient authors concerning the life of Aristotle were collected by Stahr as early as 1830–1832; and they were again collected, partially reedited, and extensively commented on, in the fundamental study of Düring 1957.16 In this work we find a careful evaluation of the reliability of every single piece of information. Some further elements were added in Plezia 1961a. According to the studies of Foucart, Wormell, Düring, Gigon, Moraux, Gauthier, and Chroust, the opinions and the gossipy comments of Aristotle’s contemporaries are the headwaters of two major biographical currents, one favorable and one critical, which influenced the entire later ancient biographical tradition. Even in the case of very ancient reports, then, it is necessary to weigh their reliability carefully.
Polemics among philosophers of different schools were a fairly common thing in ancient Greece, and, in the presence of a public opinion that was often indifferent or even hostile, the level of criticism was at times embarrassingly low; see Luzac 1809, Düring 1957 (p. 384), Sedley 1976, and Natali 1983. Aristotle himself was often a bit harsh with those who did not think like him; see section 4 of chapter 1. But his attacks never reached the personal sphere, which was in fact usually respected (e.g., Plato, Eudoxus); but the attacks described by Aristocles of Messene, our chief source for these early polemics,17 had mainly to do with Aristotle’s personality and way of life, and the level of these accusations justifies the disdain with which Aristocles of Messene regards these “orators, whose names and books are both more dead than their bodies.”18
The first to launch polemics against Aristotle must have been the student of Isocrates, Cephisodorus, who reacted to the attacks against the rhetorical teachings of his master. These criticisms, according to modern reconstructions, were made by Aristotle during his first “course of lessons,” delivered in the Academy and dedicated to rhetoric; but this is by no means certain (see section 4 of chapter 1). Apparently Cephisodorus wrote a treatise in four books entitled Against Aristotle, which is also important for the reconstruction of the evolution of the thinking of the young Aristotle. The passages are testimonia 58h, 59h, 63a–e in Düring 1957;19 on Cephisodorus in general, see Gerth 1921.
Despite their theoretical disagreements, there are no documented polemics of Speusippus and Xenocrates against Aristotle. As we have seen in section 4 of chapter 1, Aristocles of Messene says that Aristoxenus, despite having nothing but praise for Aristotle in his Life of Plato, claimed in that work that some students rebelled and founded a Peripatos against Plato during his absence, and that unnamed others believed that this report refers to Aristotle;20 and in fact in the Elements of Harmony 31.10–15, Aristoxenus speaks of Aristotle with great respect (see Bélis 1986, p. 45). A polemical dig against Aristotle can perhaps be seen as well in the criticism of Dicaearchus mentioned above (section 3 of chapter 3, p. 117), against the bios theōretikos and the life of study practiced in organized philosophical schools.
There is no shortage of accusations against Aristotle on the part of representatives of the other schools, such as the Megarian philosopher Eubulides of Miletus; concerning him, see Döring 1972 (pp. 102–104) and Giannantoni 1990 (1:591–592, 4:61–71, and 4:83). Eubulides wrote a book on the relations between Aristotle and Hermias of Atarneus and about relations between Aristotle and Philip of Macedon;21 these passages are testimonia 58f, 59b, 62a–b in Düring 1957.22
Aside from these contemporaries, in the generation that immediately followed, we should mention the eristic Alexinus of Elis, who lived between the fourth and the third centuries BCE and carried on a long polemic against Zeno the Stoic; see Döring 1972 (pp. 21–27 and 115–123) with Giannantoni 1990 (1:401–408). Alexinus provides the earliest text to refer to a relationship between Aristotle and Alexander the Great (see section 6.1 of chapter 1), and he depicts Alexander as being full of scorn for Aristotle’s logoi; the passage in question is testimonium 58e Düring 1957 (seesection 6.1 of chapter 1). Moreover, the Pythagorean Lyco of Tarentum (fourth century BCE) was the author of a very stupid story about the number of saucepans owned by Aristotle, as reported with disbelief by Aristocles in his On Philosophy. “Surpassing in foolishness all [the other accusations], are what Lyco said, the one who calls himself a ‘Pythagorean’: he actually claimed that Aristotle made sacrifice to his dead wife, the same sort of sacrifice that the Athenians make to Demeter, that he used to wash himself in hot oil and then sell this oil, and that, when he fled to Chalcis, the customs officials found on his ship seventy-five bronze saucepans”23 (excerpted in Eusebius 15.2.8 = testimonium 58i).
The polemics of Epicurus and the Epicureans are on the same level, and, for our purposes, the most important among the Epicureans was Philodemus of Gadara. Concerning Aristotle and the Epicureans, there are useful studies, aside from Sudhaus 1893, in Bignone 1936 and Sedley 1976. The texts are collected in Düring 1957: testimonia 58b and 59a–e for Epicurus, and testimonium 31 for Philodemus.24 From these texts we can also derive some reports on Aristotle’s teaching activity in the Academy. But for the most part we find only insults: wastrel, glutton, seller of drugs (seesection 3 of chapter 1).
As far as we can tell, some historians from Chios, such as Theopompus and Theocritus, conducted polemics against Aristotle, whom they never forgave for his friendship with Hermias of Atarneus, because he had intervened in the internal affairs of Chios. The Theopompus texts are in Jacoby 1923 (FGrHist 115F250 and 115F291), and the Theocritus texts are in Müller 1841 (2:86a–87b), and in the editions of Didymus; they are also collected in Düring 1957 (testimonia 15c [Theopompus] and 15h, 58k, and 65b [Theocritus]). Other polemics against Aristotle were leveled by Timaeus of Tauromenium, apparently because Aristotle had mistreated the inhabitants of Locri (see Polybius 12.8.1), as well as other pointless reasons. The texts are in Jacoby 1923 (FGrHist 566F11, 12, 152, and 156) and in Düring 1957 (testimonia 9c, 12b, 58c, 60a–b, 60d).
Fortunately, there were also favorable sources, in the first place Aristotle’s nephew and collaborator, Callisthenes of Olynthus, who wrote a book about Hermias full of praise (see section 6.1 of chapter 1). More neutral than favorable as a source is Philochorus, who gave, in his chronological work Atthis, the date on which Aristotle entered the Platonic Academy and the period for which he remained; see also Jacoby 1926 (FGrHist 328F223–224) and Düring 1957 (testimonia 1f and 3). Similar in nature are the reports offered by Apollodorus of Athens (second century BCE), an author generally considered to be very reliable; see Boeck 1872 (6:195+), Diels 1876 (pp. 43–47), Jacoby 1902 (pp. 318+), and Chroust 1965. The chronology provided in the so-called Marmor Parium (a marble stele found at Paros, on which is engraved a chronicle of all the important events that occurred in Athens from the time of its founder Cercops until 264/263 BCE) differs considerably from the one given by Apollodorus, because it states that Aristotle died in 321, at the age of fifty. This would mean that Aristotle was a student of Plato for only seven years, not twenty years, as all other sources claim. Such a chronology, despite the customary reliability of this source, is considered unacceptable precisely because it clashes with Apollodorus; see Jacoby 1904 and 1926 (commentary to FGrHist 239B11).25 And for that matter, in Aristotle’s works we find sufficient traces of a long period of philosophical discussion with Plato.
In the Hellenistic period, numerous legends were fabricated about Aristotle, and spurious works were created in support of them. In particular, it would seem that the attention of the Hellenistic authors was attracted by the relationship between Aristotle and Alexander the Great, the relationship between Aristotle and Hermias of Atarneus, and the trial for impiety to which Aristotle was subjected, and which may possibly have been linked to the Hermias affair. An Apology of Aristotle was composed (see Düring 1957,testimonia 22 and 45a–d and pp. 343–344). It would seem that authors such as Favorinus and Eumelus wanted to compare Aristotle to Socrates, despite the evident difference in behavior in their respective trials, since Socrates faced execution rather than disobey the laws of Athens, while the metic Aristotle preferred to flee the city (see FGrHist 77F1–2 of Jacoby 1923, with Gigon 1958, pp. 275–276). A certain Apellicon, a “Peripatetic” of the first century BCE, wrote a book about the relationship between Aristotle and Hermias. Another author, Artemon, published a collection of Aristotle’s letters, in the same period, the first century BCE.26 Not much later, the Epicurean Philodemus of Gadara, in his On Rhetoric, gathered and recycled all of the polemical accusations of his school against Aristotle. The reports on Aristotle found in later authors such as Aulus Gellius, Aelian, Athenaeus, and Plutarch, derive largely from this Hellenistic tradition. In this period, there was also a certain interest in the relations between Aristotle and Alexander the Great, which, from this point on, gave origin to a great many legends (see especially chapters 7–8 of Plutarch’s Life of Alexander = testimonium 10 of Gigon 1987).
In my opinion, the collections of letters between Aristotle and Alexander, as well as the collections of letters between Philip of Macedon and Aristotle, are to be reckoned among these literary fictions. We have, for example, a report in Aulus Gellius (9.3) about a letter in which Philip announces to Aristotle the birth of Alexander and suggests that he become his tutor (testimonium 30f); but it is difficult to see this as a reliable document, since Aristotle was only twenty-eight years old when Alexander was born, and was an unknown student of Plato. More credibility has been acquired by a letter from Aristotle to Philip, in which Aristotle says that he was a student of Plato for twenty years,27 but this is also to be reckoned as the same sort of production; it is reported at Vita Marciana 5 (fr. 652 Rose 1886 = fr. 2a Plezia 1961 = Plezia 1977, p. 15), and at Vita Latina 5 (fr. 2b Plezia 1961 = Plezia 1977, p. 15). It is said here that Aristotle had been summoned by the Pythian Apollo to go to Athens, and that he had been a student of Socrates for three years, both of which are historically unreliable reports; see Gigon 1946 (pp. 17+), Gigon 1958 (p. 185), and Chroust 1973 (p. 129). Concerning the letters in general, see above, section 1.1D.
There has been a great deal of discussion concerning the issue of whether Andronicus of Rhodes wrote a biography of Aristotle prefacing his edition of the works of the philosopher. On the affirmative side are Littig 1890–1895, Brink 1940, Plezia 1946, Plezia 1961a (pp. 247–249), Gigon 1962 (p. 10), Momigliano 1971 (p. 89), and Chroust 1973 (p. 12). On the negative side stand several publications of Düring: 1957 (pp. 420–425), 1963, 1966 (pp. 50–54), 1968 (cols. 166–167). Moraux 1973 gives us the most recent and complete study of Andronicus (pp. 45–141), but takes no position on this point. Later, in Christian times, such scholars as Numenius, Atticus, and Aristocles of Messene28 reported information on the calumnies against Aristotle and on the relations between Aristotle and Plato; see testimonia 40c–e, 58, and 63c Düring.
After this period begins the time of the versions of the ancient biographies of Aristotle, which we have just discussed. Concerning the Middle Ages and the modern period, references can be found in Düring 1957 (pp. 164–179),29 and the most complete list is in Schwab 1896 (pp. 13–29). A few episodes triggered the fantasies of medieval moralists, such as the episode of Aristotle being ridden like a horse, in which the philosopher yields to the claims of a lovely courtesan without too much concern for his own dignity.30The legends concerning the relationship between Aristotle and and Alexander the Great (which the Arabs viewed as being on a par with the relationship between a vizier and his sultan) are examined in Brocker 1966.31 The legends concerning Aristotle’s dying in the manner of Plato’s Phaedo, described in the Liber de pomo (testimonium 12 in Gigon 1987) have been studied in Plezia 1960, Krämer 1956, and Rousseau 1968.
2. IMAGES OF ARISTOTLE FROM THE NINETEENTH CENTURY TO THE PRESENT
In his monumental 1879 work (of which the portions on Arisotle and the earlier Peripatetics were published in English translation in 1897), Zeller summarized the studies on Aristotle’s biography up to his own time, and today his reconstruction still remains one of the most balanced and reliable. Zeller does not try to fill in the gaps in the data with more or less plausible hypotheses, but tends to select those reports that are most worth relying on, so as to reconstruct a coherent picture. For instance, Zeller refuses to offer conjectures as to what Aristotle might have taught Alexander. The Aristotle of Zeller is a scholar, whose interests are limited to research; and since Aristotle was not Athenian, his philosophy was free of the political purposes of Socrates and Plato. With regard to his philosophy, the external events of Aristotle did not have any decisive significance, and, in the final analysis, they constitute nothing more than a series of events that happened to a great philosopher in the course of his human existence; if we leave aside the decision to attend Plato’s school, we cannot say what effect these events had on the development of his thinking. Perhaps the biography of Aristotle in the version of Zeller is actually too thin, and for this reason the objection that can be made to it is opposite to the one that can be made against very many other scholars who have taken up this topic; today it seems to us that we know something more, even though the basic approach given by Zeller remains one of the most valid.
Substantially similar is the biography of Aristotle in Gomperz 1906, even though it is more colorful and anecdotal; Aristotle is an encyclopedic spirit, moderate to an immoderate degree, with a great love of detail and great serenity of expression, not without a certain ironic wittiness. In his reconstruction of the philosopher, Gomperz was able to make use of the research that Jaeger later published in 1912, and to give many details on the school’s activities; see above, chapter 3.
Since the time of Zeller, the study of Aristotle’s biography has gone through three distinct phases, separated by the publication of two crucial works: Jaeger 1923 and Düring 1957. Around and soon after Zeller’s time, there was a rapid flourishing of studies of the Arabic biographical tradition, beginning with an article by Steinschneider 1869, and books by Müller 1873, Lippert 1891, and Baumstark 1898, mentioned above on pp. 129–130; on the Neoplatonic tradition, see the article of Busse 1893; on the Greek biographical tradition, see the article of Maas 1880.
At the end of the nineteenth century, there developed a distinct tendency toward a political interpretation of the activity of ancient philosophers. Bernays 1881 attributed an openly pro-Macedonian slant to the philosophical schools of Plato and Aristotle, construing them as centers of intellectual propaganda in favor of the expansionism of King Philip. This was especially true of Aristotle, who, according to Bernays (1881, p. 110), served as an observer of Athenian political events in his two Athenian periods, stayed in touch with the royal court of Macedonia, and silently influenced the chief political circles of the city, without being much hindered by his legal status as a metic. This is a reconstruction largely based on hypothesis, and yet the idea of Aristotle as a pro-Macedonian political agent reappears from time to time, including in more recent studies such as those by Chroust, Grayeff, and Maddoli. Of the same opinion as Bernays were Nissen (1892) and Wilamowitz (1881).32
By contrast, Wilamowitz (1893, 1:308–372) undertook a reconstruction of Aristotle’s biography based entirely on a political judgment that he was hostile to the extreme democratic party, an animosity that we can find in the Constitution of Athens, a work that had been rediscovered and published just a few years before, in 1891. Since the style of this work is typical of an exoteric writing, that is, a work directed toward a broader audience, Wilamowitz imagines Aristotle as striving single-mindedly in favor of the preservation of a city-state in the face of a Macedonian drive for unification (p. 371), adverse to the democratic forces (whom Wilamowitz constantly refers to as demagogues), and as a friend of Isocrates. In this work there is no interest whatsoever in the reconstruction of the development of Aristotelian thought, though we already find the division of Aristotle’s life into youth, travels, and teaching (Lehrjahre, Wanderjahre, and Meisterjahre) that would later be adopted by Jaeger. There is also a reference to an initial Platonism on Aristotle’s part subsequently abandoned at the same time as the more general crisis of Platonism itself, a crisis that, in the view of Wilamowitz, coincided with the development of the unwritten doctrines and the Laws.
On the other hand, not everyone accepted such “politicized” reconstructions. Some of the best-known critiques of Bernays and Wilamowitz were those of Gomperz in 1882, 1901, and 1906 (4:25–37). Gomperz reiterated the traditional image of Aristotle as a great scientist and encyclopedic thinker, devoid of practical political interests. Gercke 1896 maintained, in support of Bernays, and against Wilamowitz 1893, the idea of a pro-Macedonian Aristotle, but he greatly limited his real, political importance and speaks ironically of his “political armchair-wisdom” (politische Kathederweisheit). According to Gercke in the final analysis, it was not Aristotle who educated Alexander, but the other way around; from his regular contacts with the Macedonian prince, Aristotle got used to the world of Realpolitik, and it added a more realistic dimension to his thinking, typical of the Politics. In an article that is nowadays all but completely forgotten, Waddington (1893) is more sober in ignoring the cogitations of the great German philologists, and he gives us a correct sketch of the biography of Aristotle that is not very far distant from what is generally accepted even nowadays.
We have seen the impact of the rediscovery of large parts of his Constitution of Athens on the reconstruction of Aristotle’s biography. This major step forward took place on the basis of a papyrus codex found in Egypt and published by F. G. Kenyon in 1891, and there were also epigraphical discoveries of the same period that had the effect of partially modifying the preceding image; in 1898 and in 1902 were published the two inscriptions on Aristotle, mentioned above, section 1.2 of chapter 4. Also published in 1902 was the critical edition of Philodemus’s Index of Academic Philosophers, entitled by its editor S. Mekler Academicorum philosophorum index herculanensis; Mekler’s admirable work was the first to bring into evidence the second of two charred rolls from Herculaneum that transmit fragments of the Index. In 1904, finally, there was published a papyrus fragment of the commentary of Didymus Chalcenterus (first century BCE) on the Philippics of Demosthenes, containing much information about Hermias of Atarneus.33 These discoveries enriched the historical picture by contributing ancient documents, and to the present day there have been no others of comparable impact. The methodical analysis of the sources in this period was followed up in Mulvany 1926 and Wormell 1935.
All the same, the great change in the field of studies that we are examining did not come from these discoveries but rather from the beginning of an “evolutionary” interpretation of the work of Aristotle. Credit for this goes to Jaeger, unquestionably, despite certain precedents.34 At the beginning of the 1920s, there was a flourishing of general interpretations of Aristotle, many of which are now forgotten (by C. Lalo, A. Goedeckemeyer, P. Kafka,35 E. Rolfes, and Á. Pauler), but two of them, by Ross and by Jaeger, both dating from 1923, are still important.
The overview set forth in Ross 1923 is rather schematic: in Athens, Aristotle devoted himself chiefly to teaching, perhaps in a school of his own, in a rented building; the relationship with Hermias of Atarneus must have been more important than his relationship with Philip and Alexander of Macedon; Aristotle’s school had some influence on the political life of the time.
The volume by Jaeger 1923 has had a decisive impact on Aristotelian studies right up to the present day.36 As far as our limited point of view is concerned, Jaeger’s work reveals its originality right away with its formal structure, given that, unlike all other monographs offering a general overview, it is not composed of a brief opening mention of Aristotle’s biography and an exposition of his doctrines, but rather has a more complex structure. Jaeger mixes his exposition of Aristotle’s biography with a description of the evolution of his thought, stopping from time to time to offer a panoramic overview of Aristotelian thought in a certain phase of his life. He explicitly borrows from Wilamowitz the threefold division of Aristotle’s life into “youth, travels, and teaching” (Lehrjahre, Wanderjahre, Meisterjahre), but, in contrast with Wilamowitz, Jaeger also clearly states that he intends to oppose the political interpretation of Bernays, which he does not share (1923, p. 169). The spiritual evolution of Aristotle therefore serves as the energy source of this biographical reconstruction, and the volume thereby acquires a remarkable effect of compactness and historical concreteness.
Clearly the interest that guides Jaeger’s work is not only archaeological and antiquarian but philosophical; to him, Aristotle is a classic thinker, in that he succeeded in overcoming the archaic spiritual unity of Plato and of previous philosophers without going so far as the positivism of modern science, and in knowing how to carry out an original synthesis of speculative spirit and scientific rigor, a synthesis that Jaeger considers still authoritative. Like Usener (1884), Jaeger also sees the Aristotelian Peripatos as a forerunner of modern universities37 and, by means of his reconstruction of Aristotle’s spiritual evolution, also wants to describe the birth of this form of institution that is so central to Western culture and philosophy. It is an interpretation of Aristotle’s life that lines up on the side of the “philosophical” interpretations, not of the “political” interpretations of Bernays and Nissen, but it also tends just as much to give expression to the importance of the Aristotelian experience for contemporary problems.
One distinctive quality of Jaeger, and of the “compactness” of his text, as previously mentioned, is the way that it brings together the great events of Aristotle’s life with the principal about-turns in his thinking: the philosopher’s departure from Athens is linked to the crisis of his Platonism; his sojourns in Assos at the court of Hermias, and in Macedonia at the court of Alexander, are linked to a new phase of more original theoretical research, and not to any pro-Macedonian political engagement; and his second Athenian period is linked to the organization of the school and to his great scientific investigations. In this way, rather than seeing the historical conditioning of Aristotle’s thought, Jaeger shows how the external history of Aristotle was, in the final analysis, a function of his spiritual history, and depends on it, just as one would expect in the case of a great philosopher.
This criterion allows Jaeger to rid himself of many of the hypotheses and false problems38 of nineteenth-century critics, and to rely only on the more firm information. He establishes in a definitive manner that the crucial and essential point of departure for understanding both the philosophy and the life of Aristotle is his relationship with Plato; second in terms of importance is Aristotle’s relationship with Hermias of Atarneus, and of less importance still is Aristotle’s relationship with Macedonia and Alexander. In the years that followed, when the evolutionary method became the standard approach to the study of Aristotle, Jaeger’s reconstruction of the philosopher’s life would become the biographical vulgate, entirely overshadowing the preceding efforts of Nissen 1892, Wilamowitz 1893, Gercke 1896, and all political inter-pre-tations of the figure of Aristotle. We can see this in Bignone 1936,39 in Burnet 1924, in Brehiér 1928 (pp. 169–171), and especially in Prächter 1926(pp. 348–353), who states that one now ought to replace Wilamowitz’s colorful biographical reconstruction with Jaeger’s more sober one. See also Fuller 1931, Mure 1932, Robin 1932, Bidez 1942 (also 1943, 1943a, 1944),40 and Robin 1944. Some scholars attempted to use the genetic method to clarify relations between Aristotle and Alexander, such as Barker 1931; Kelsen 1937–1938 tried to interpret Aristotle’s Politics as a defense of Macedonian expansionism, but with few results; see also von Ivanka 1938, pp. 3–19.
An original intervention, immediately following the Second World War, was the one comprising three articles published by P. Merlan in 1946, 1954, and 1959.41 Merlan reexamines the sources of the Aristotelian biographical tradition and tries in every way to show that there was no theoretical opposition at all between Plato and Aristotle, that such opposition was the fruit of subsequent interpretations, and that Aristotle, in the final analysis, is nothing more than a link in the chain that runs “from Platonism to Neoplatonism,” as the title of his well-known book would have it. Essentially the same position was taken up again in Krämer 1959. Merlan claims that Aristotle and Xenocrates were the heads of two branches of the same school, separated only organizationally but not doctrinally, nor were they rivals; he believes, on the basis of the Isocratean Letter to Alexander,42 that Aristotle tried to educate Alexander the Great in the same way that Plato tried to educate Dion of Syracuse, that is, by trying to convert him to philosophy, with a proper course of studies similar to that of the Academy; he claims, finally, that there were no profound disagreements between Aristotle and Speusippus, and that, therefore, when Aristotle left the Academy after Plato’s death, he did not do so out of hatred for the new scholarch, as others claim; see, for example, Moraux 1951 (pp. 324–346).
A well-known article by Lee 1948 was authoritative for a long time; taking up indications from Thompson 1910 and Burnet 1924, Lee showed that many of the biological works of Aristotle had been written in Assos and in Macedonia, in the intermediate period between his first and his second stay in Athens. This hypothesis, however, had already been advanced in Zeller 1897 (1:26), and was recently questioned once again in Solmsen 1978 and Byl 1980; we have discussed this above, in section 6.1 of chapter 1. Solmsen suggested a straightforward return to Jaeger’s approach, according to which Aristotle’s great biological research was done in Athens, during his second stay.
The contribution that Düring 1957 brought to the study of the Aristotelian biographical tradition was so important that it could not be ignored, as was recognized even by those like Gauthier 1959 who maintain their faith in the validity of the Jaegerian schema and method, and by those like Gigon and Plezia who do not share his conclusions. Düring in general tends to eliminate the evolutionary schema that sees in Aristotle a transition from the speculative spirit of Platonism to detailed scientific investigations, and recognizes in Aristotle, right from the beginning, a plurality of tendencies, a polarity that persisted right to the end. From the biographical point of view, Düring goes on to reexamine the sources upon which Jaeger had relied and, following the traces of Foucart, Mulvany, and Wormell, tries to situate every report and every source in its time, determining whether it belonged to a tradition that was favorable, hostile, or indifferent to Aristotle. He thus makes a special effort to determine the purpose behind every report on Aristotle; for example, an anecdote written during the Hellenistic period is intended to amuse or intrigue the reader, without worrying about its historical accuracy, whereas a contemporary of Aristotle might write in order to attack him ferociously or defend him fiercely.
In the nineteenth century, there was a desire to reconstruct the life of Aristotle by picking and choosing among the various reports, often on the basis of a prefabricated picture, to which the available biographical information was fitted. After Düring, the study of Aristotle’s biography became a sort of trial of circumstantial evidence, in which the few entirely reliable reports are selected out from among the extremely many reports, and what is researched is the kernel of truth underlying all the others. This latter operation is of course conjectural, and it is difficult to find agreement among scholars on every single specific point. It thus becomes impossible to provide a complete and detailed reconstruction of Aristotle’s life, as the critics of the late nineteenth century attempted to do, by adding to the solid information certain hypotheses and all manner of inferences. One can, instead, describe much more easily the various images of Aristotle in the different eras and show, for instance, how the Aristotle of Cicero’s time is quite different from thedios Aristoteles (divine Aristotle) of the Neoplatonic era.
As for the results of his research, Düring’s greatest innovation has to do with Aristotle’s second Athenian period: in Athens, according to Düring, he was not the political and cultural master of the Greek nation described by Wilamowitz, nor was he the great and famous encyclopedic intellectual depicted by Jaeger, or the willing political instrument of Macedon, as suggested by Bernays, Kelsen, and others; he was rather an isolated and little-known philosopher, who enjoyed little success in his lifetime, certainly much less than Plato. In fact, according to Düring, Attic comedy of the fourth century, which was happy to poke fun at Socrates and Plato, and the secure and constant tradition of the Platonic dialogues, demonstrates the popular success of Platonic thought and the continuity of the school that institutionally guaranteed the preservation and use of the master’s works. In contrast, Aristotle is almost never quoted by Athenian authors; Athens seems not to have been aware of his existence, except to accuse him of impiety toward the end of his life, and the tradition of his writings is extremely confused and uncertain. In the city of Athens, according to Düring, Aristotle never had his own full-fledged school, but only a group of students who met periodically at the gymnasium located in the Lyceum grove. As a metic living in Athens, Aristotle was harmed by the rivalry between the city and the kingdom of Macedon, and he was forced to flee Athens twice by outbreaks of anti-Macedonian hatred, in 348 BCE, and upon the death of Alexander. Even the summons to the court of Pella to instruct Alexander, at that time certainly not the most important personage in the court of Philip of Macedon, was not due to the philosopher’s great fame but rather to his family ties with the lordling of Atarneus, Hermias, an ally of Philip. So goes Düring’s interpretation. We view this reaction against the “political” excesses of the biographies by Bernays and Wilamowitz as useful, if perhaps a bit too gloomy and pessimistic.
Much more willing to imagine a political Aristotle are Maddoli (1967), who imagines that the school of Aristotle was founded to support the spread of Macedonian hegemony,43 and Chroust, who states that he wished to achieve an “intelligent and imaginative” use of the biographical information, but despite an impressive number of contributions44 occupying a very large number of pages, because he often repeats his own positions as well as the status quaestionis of the debate, he reaches conclusions that are in the end difficult to accept. In fact, he holds that Aristotle was closely tied to Philip of Macedon, for whom he performed political missions to Hermias of Atarneus and in Athens. For Chroust, Aristotle is a Platonist philosopher who never moved away from the positions of his master, but who never had the necessary tranquillity in Athens to compose the works that bore his name. In his view, Aristotle tried in every way possible to assist in the expansionistic ambitions of Philip, and to defend the city of Athens through his powerful Macedonian friends; after the battle of Chaeronea (338 BCE), he is said to have defended Athens to Philip; in 335 he supposedly defended it to Alexander, and in 334 to Antipater. According to Chroust, Aristotle’s political commitments prevented him from writing the works attributed to him, and the “works of Aristotle” are actually a collection of writings by his students, especially Theophrastus, while the true philosophy of Aristotle can be found only in the fragments of his lost works. The corpus aristotelicum would therefore be, as Zürcher 1952 had previously ventured, a corpus aristotelicum peripateticorum veterum. So much for Chroust’s interpretation. Grayeff 1974 was of the same opinion, and both have been unconvincing, especially to me.
The method of source criticism took over little by little. There are no signs of the influence of Düring 1957 on either Randall 1960, Brun 1961, Moreau 1962, or Allan 1952 (not even in his revised edition of 1970). Instead they echo and discuss the previously published positions of Düring, Gigon, Gauthier, Plezia, and Chroust, on the texts we have cited several times. All of them cast doubt on the idea that Aristotle in Athens was an isolated and unknown philosopher, and they cite as proof the honorific inscription reported by Usaibia (see above, section 1.3, pp. 124–125). Many of them doubt that Aristotle, since he did not own a house in Athens because of his metic status, would have been unable to open a full-fledged school of his own, in rented or borrowed quarters, for instance (Gigon, Gauthier, Chroust). Quite close to Düring’s position, on the other hand, is the short and informative volume by Zemb 1961.
Berti (1962 and 1977) applies Düring’s method of source criticism with a notable equilibrium and, especially in the 1977 volume, limits himself to the best-attested biographical facts, such as the chronology and the few certainly reliable reports. Against the political interpretations of Aristotle, and basing himself primarily on the works of the philosopher, Berti rightly sees in theoretical research and the organization of the school the principal interests of Aristotle’s life, for whom political events were primarily negative in their influence, distracting him from the tranquillity necessary for research. In this way, the pages of Nicomachean Ethics X.6–8 on the bios theōretikos, in which Aristole describes it as a perfect state of being, take on an exactly autobiographical flavor. The position of Zeller, from which we began, emerges again at the end of this review as one of the most reliable interpretations.