NOTES

NOTES TO CHAPTER ONE

THE BIOGRAPHY OF ARISTOTLE: FACTS, HYPOTHESES, CONJECTURES

Page 6, note 1. See Meritt, Wade-Gery, and McGregor 1939–1949, 1:412 and 2:122.

Page 6, note 2. On this story, see Wilamowitz 1881, pp. 194–197 (and the related texts, of which there is an Italian translation in Natali 1981, at pp. 32–34 and 150–152); see 1T9 Lasserre 1987 (and the related commentary on pp. 439–440) and section 4 of chapter 2, below.

Page 6, note 3. The ancient biographies say that Aristotle had Stagira rebuilt and gave laws to it after Philip destroyed it, and that the inhabitants awarded him worship similar to that of a hero cult (Diogenes Laertius 5.4; Vita Marciana 17–18; Mubashir 29–30; Usaibia 13 and 30; see testimonia 27a–k). Aristotle’s Letters contain fragments linked to this episode (fr. 657 Rose 1886 = fr. 13 Plezia 1961 = p. 22 Plezia 1977).

Page 7, note 4. Diogenes Laertius 5.14. The Arabic versions of the will expand on the Greek version, mentioning the house “of my ancestors.” On this detail, see Zeller 1897 (1:25n2), Düring 1957 (p. 200), Plezia 1977 (p. 41), and Gigon 1987 (p. 38a).

Page 7, note 5. This account is repeated by Pliny, in Natural History 16.133. (This Pliny passage is not cited by Sollenberger in his 1985 study of the Vita Theophrasti in Diogenes Laertius 5.36–57.)

Page 8, note 6. In Book I of his Aristotle, Hermippus cited Aristotle’s will in connection with Aristotle’s second companion, Herpyllis, thus demonstrating that he had read this document, or was at least familiar with it in general terms. The comments of Hermippus are cited in Athenaeus 13, 589c (Hermippus fr. 26 Bollansée = fr. 46 Wehrli = Aristotletestimonium 12c; see Plezia 1977, p. 35).

Page 9, note 7. Diogenes Laertius 5.1, derived from Hermippus (fr. 32 Bollansée = fr. 44 Wehrli). In the Suda (s.v. “Nicomachus”), there is actually a suggestion that the works that Aristotle’s father had written could be listed (six books on medicine and one on natural science). “Nicomachus, a doctor, also from Stagira, son of the Asclepiad Machaon, from whom was descended Nicomachus the father of the philosopher Aristotle, also a doctor. He wrote six books of medicine and one of natural science” (Aristotle testimonium 9b).

Page 9, note 8. This report is not quite as hostile as it seems at first, and some of the information appears accurate; see Sedley 1976, p. 127. Epicurus provides some important information about Aristotle’s character and his philosophical importance; he was “not without talent, and gradually got out of that and into the theoretical [disposition].” According to Philodemus, Against the Sophists(fr. 1 Sbordone), Epicurus mentions Aristotle’s Analytics and perhaps Physics as among the works that e[ … ]omen (fr. 127 Arrighetti). Usener reads this as “we have selected” (en[krin]omen), while Sbordone and Arrighetti’s reading is “we prefer” (e[kleg]omen), Vogliano and Diano’s is “we canfind” (e[pheur]omen), and Crönert and Bignone’s is “we have listed” (e[graph]omen). In any case, on the basis of any of these various supplementations and interpretations, this fragment demonstrates Epicurus’s philosophical interest in Aristotle.

Page 11, note 9. Aristotle speaks of placing her statue in the temple of Demeter at Nemea or elsewhere; “our mother’s statue is to be placed in the temple of Demeter at Nemea or wherever seems more appropriate” (Diogenes Laertius 5.16). According to the reading of the manuscripts, accepted only by Plezia and Mulvany, Aristotle wanted to place at Nemea or elsewhere a statue of his mother dressed as Demeter. Pliny states that the painter Protogenes made a portrait of Aristotle’s mother (Natural History 35.106). In Aristotle’s will, however, reference is made to a statue; therefore the two images cannot be identified.

Page 11, note 10. And not Macedonian, as reported by Epiphanius, a bishop of Cyprus in the fourth century CE, in his Panarion (excerpt 31 of Diels, Doxographi Graeci). “Aristotle, son of Nicomachus, was said by some to be a Macedonian from Stagira, but according to some others his family was Thracian” (Aristotle testimonium 9f). Some modern authors have believed the former story.

Page 11, note 11. Arimneste, a double of Arimnestus, has been added to the family in the Neoplatonic Lives (Vita Marciana 2, Vita Latina 2). Some scholars (Mulvany, Düring, Chroust) have given a bit of substance to this phantom figure and made her out to be the mother of Nicanor and the wife of Proxenus, to whom (Proxenus) Aristotle wished to dedicate a statue (Diogenes Laertius 5.15). Others do not believe that this Arimneste existed; see Gigon 1962 (p. 26) and Gottschalk 1972 (p. 322).

Page 11, note 12. According to the Neoplatonists, Proxenus came from Atarneus; but, according to Sextus Empiricus (Against the Professors 1.258), Nicanor was from Stagira, and therefore so was his father Proxenus.

Page 11, note 13. Vita Marciana 3; see Vita Latina 3, Vita Vulgata 2 = Plezia 1977, p. 36.

Page 12, note 14. “Antipater is to be executor in all matters” (Diogenes Laertius 5.11, 5.13). See below, p. 60.

Page 12, note 15. Note the proviso at Diogenes Laertius 5.12, “until Nicanor shall arrive.” In this period, according to Berve (1926, 2:276–277), Nicanor was with Alexander in Asia, and therefore the return here mentioned would have been the return from the expedition to Asia. This implies that Nicanor, after having read at Olympia the decree of Alexander, in 324, must have gone back to Asia, or else that Aristotle’s will had been written before 324, and therefore long before the philosopher’s death.

Page 12, note 16. However, others disagree with this identification, such as Mulvany 1926, Düring 1957 (p. 271), and Gottschalk 1972 (p. 322); some think it would be difficult for Aristotle to have had contact with Alexander following the death of Callisthenes. The reasoning seems fairly weak.

Page 13, note 17. See the report of Carystius of Pergamum from the third book of his Memorabilia (cited in Athenaeus 12, 542e) that “his brother Himeraius had been killed by Antipater and he [Demetrius] spent his time with Nicanor, and was accused of celebrating the epiphaneia of his brother” (Demetrius fr. 43a SOD). This passage is not collected in Düring 1957.

Page 13, note 18. Santoni 1988.

Page 13, note 19. According to Plutarch (Life of Titus Flamininus 12) and ps.-Plutarch (The Ten Orators 842b), it was, in fact, the democratic and anti-Macedonian orator Lycurgus, and not the pro-Macedonian Demetrius, who helped Xenocrates in this way. See Isnardi Parente 1981 (p. 144) and 1982.

Page 14, note 20. See the survey of opinions in Gottschalk 1972, p. 324; a contrary opinion is found in Düring 1957, pp. 62 and 239. This, according to some, raises the problem of Nicomachus, who would appear to be a male child, but not suited to be Aristotle’s universal heir.

Page 15, note 21. A Pythia with three husbands, with the same professions as the husbands of the Pythia we are discussing here, is mentioned in a comedy by Phoenicides, of which fr. 4 is quoted by Stobaeus, in his Anthology 3.6.13. It is not known whether this is the same person.

Page 15, note 22. A Demaratus is mentioned in the will of Theophrastus (Diogenes Laertius 5.53). “Let the [Peripatetic] community consist of Hipparchus, Neleus, Strato, Callinus, Demotimus, Demaratus, Callisthenes, Melanthes, Pancreon, and Nicippus.”

Page 15, note 23. In the will of Theophrastus (Diogenes Laertius 5.53), there is a particularly fond mention of “Aristotle, son of Meidia and Pythia,” expressing the wish that he be admitted into the Peripatetic community, once he is old enough, and if he wishes to study.

Page 15, note 24. As Cicero says at De Finibus 5.12 (Aristotle testimonium 76b).

Page 15, note 25. As Aristocles reports in his On Philosophy (fr. 2 Chiesara) about Nicomachus, “it is said that Theophrastus brought him up when he was orphaned, and that he died in battle when he was still a young lad” (excerpted in Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica 15.2.15 = Aristotle testimonium 58m).

Page 16, note 26. Excerpted in Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica 15.2.15 (Aristotle testimonium 58m).

Page 16, note 27. See Gauthier 1959 (introduction, p. 42), Taylor 1932, Düring 1957 (pp. 264 and 270), and Gottschalk 1972 (p. 327). For instance, Mulvany says that it would have been highly unseemly for Aristotle to lodge one of his former lovers in the home of his father (1926, p. 158). Nowadays we, like the ancient Greeks, would tend to view such matters in a more tolerant light.

Page 17, note 28. At Protagoras 315a, Plato mentions Antimoerus of Mende, who followed Protagoras in order to learn from him the technē and “to become a sophist.”

Page 17, note 29. Some scholars have thought about the dynastic struggles that troubled the court of Macedonia at the time, but this would not have perturbed a citizen of the Greek polis of Stagira; unless, of course, his adoptive father, Proxenus of Atarneus, had taken him to live in Macedonia, as some say, including Berti 1962 (p. 133) and Chroust 1973 (pp. 135–136).

Page 18, note 30. See Berti 1962 (pp. 135–136) and Düring 1966 (pp. 9–10). Concerning the protreptic function of these dialogues, see also the anecdotes in Themistius (Oration 18, 356 = Aristotle, Nerinthus, fr. 1 Ross = testimonium 1 Laurenti). “Axiothea, after having read something of the books which Plato had written on the Republic, left Arcadia behind and went to Athens, where she was a student of Plato’s, hiding it a long time that she was a woman [ … ] The Corinthian farmer, when he became conversant with the Gorgias—not Gorgias himself, but the book that Plato wrote to refute the sophist—immediately abandoned his farm and his vines, mortgaged his soul to Plato, and was seeded and planted by his views.” In Neoplatonic times an effort was made to render the story more interesting, and someone thought of a Delphic oracle that supposedly showed Aristotle the way to the Academy (see section 1.3 of chapter 4). On these legends, see Gigon 1946.

Page 18, note 31. For example, the Megarian, Eleatic, and Eretrian schools were fixed in a single place. Euclides taught at Megara, even though he did not establish a stable school like the Academy. Eubulides and Alexinus also had their own personal schools. Menedemus studied at Athens, Megara, and Elis, and taught in his own homeland of Eretria. About Menedemus it is said that he did not organize his lessons well, that he did not arrange the benches well, and that he did not have a precise schedule; according to von Arnim, this criticism can be understood only if we start out from the perspective of a stable school.

Page 18, note 32. As the Neoplatonic Lives claim instead (Vita Marciana 5, Vita Vulgata 4, and Vita Latina 5). They speak of a period of three years, in which Aristotle was supposedly a pupil of Socrates, but for chronological reasons this is impossible, since Socrates died in 399 BCE, before Aristotle’s birth. Other interpretations of the text, according to which we should read “Isocrates” or “Socrates the Younger” instead of “Socrates,” have not met with success; see Wilamowitz 1893 (1:320–325), Kapp 1924, Vollenhoven 1950 (1:482–486), and Chroust 1973 (pp. 97–101).

Page 19, note 33. These dates come from Apollodorus (FGrHist 244F38 = testimonium 1e) and Philochorus (FGrHist 328F223 = testimonium 1f), cited at the beginning of the paragraph. Concerning the date of Aristotle’s entry in the Academy, there has been lengthy discussion; see, among others, Moraux 1955 (pp. 126+), Düring 1957 (pp. 249–262), Berti 1962 (pp. 131–143), and Chroust 1965b. Certain hostile sources, such as the Epicureans, attempted to prove that Aristotle had begun the pursuit of philosophy late in life, and for this reason, according to Düring, right from the early period of the Peripatos efforts were made to establish a precise chronology for this event. Neoplatonic biographies are very precise on this point.

Page 19, note 34. This is an interesting story that bears retelling. At Vita Marciana 11, the narration based on Philochorus concludes that “it is therefore untrue what these slanderers say, that Aristotle followed Plato at the age of forty, epi Eudoxou.” This expression is similar to ones found in preceding lines, such as epi Philokleous, which make use of the names of the eponymous archons to indicate a certain Athenian year. But there is no archon named Eudoxus in the lists of eponymous archons concerning the period when Aristotle entered the Academy, and Wilamowitz said that he did not understand the expression epi Eudoxou (1893, 1:333–334). In later years, many scholars (including Jacoby 1902 (p. 324), Düring 1957 (p. 160), Merlan 1960 (pp. 98–104), and Berti 1962, pp. 138–143) have thought that this expression meant that Plato had left Eudoxus in charge of the school, and later the Neoplatonic biographers had abbreviated and misunderstood the report, making Eudoxus an archon. Gigon accepts this hypothesis as possible, along with two others: that our list of archons is incomplete, or that Eudoxus is a mistake or a variant of a name that we know in another form; often the ancients muddled the names of people, even in official documents, he claims, and he offers various instances (1962, commentary on lines 49–50). There are also chronological problems; the report is credible only if we place the akmē of Eudoxus around 369–367, as some scholars do, and not around 391–390, as do most ancient sources; see Lasserre 1966, pp. 137–138. [Postscript 2012: The solution to these puzzles was published in Waschkies 1977, pp. 34–58; he reasoned that the year to which Philochorus was pointing as not being the year that Aristotle entered the Academy was 345/344 BCE; then he scanned the list of eponymous Athenian archons, which is well established in the fourth century BCE (not incomplete or indeterminate), and found the archon name Euboulus. When this irresistible conjecture is made, the sentence resolves into a true and unproblematic report, that “it is therefore untrue what these slanderers say, that Aristotle followed Plato at the age of forty, epi Euboulou [in 345/344 BCE].” On the basis of an easily explicable scribal mistake scholars temporarily erected a scaffolding of fragile hypotheses about the imagined temporary leadership by Eudoxus of Plato’s Academy. It is time for this scaffolding to be taken down.]

Page 19, note 35. See Diogenes Laertius 8.87 (Eudoxus testimonium 7 Lasserre 1966; see pp. 137–141). This seems excessive; there must have been relationships on the theoretical level between Eudoxus and the Academy, and the way in which the theories of Eudoxus are quoted by Aristotle in the Metaphysics (I.9, 991a17; XII(L).8, 1073b17+; XIII(M).5, 1079b21) and in the NicomacheanEthics (I.12, 1101b28; X.2, 1172b9+) presupposes that he had been one of the participants in the Academic discussions, but it is not certain that those ideas were the content of the teaching of Eudoxus in his position as prostatēs of the Academy, as von Fritz 1927 claims.

Page 19, note 36. See Austin-Vidal Naquet 1972 (pp. 115–118), Whitehead 1975, and Mossé 1975.

Page 20, note 37. A recent attempt to find in the works of Aristotle reflections of his political condition appears in Romeyer-Dherbey 1986.

Page 20, note 38. At Vita Marciana 6 and 7 and in the Vita Latina 6, the following remarks are attributed to Plato: “Let’s go to the house of the reader,” and “The mind is absent, the audience is deaf,” which were supposedly said when Aristotle preferred to stay home to read books. Aristotle is said to have been given the same nickname as Anaxagoras, ho nous (the mind). There is disagreement concerning the authenticity of these accounts; against authenticity is Maas (1958, 83n1), who doubts it, because the vocabulary is of the imperial age; in favor are Kranz (1958, pp. 81–83) and Friedländer (1960, p. 317), according to whom the vocabulary dates from the age of Plato or only slightly later. In the Topics, Aristotle makes various recommendations that suggest a particular focus on written sources of information, including to “select from written sources [ … ] and also to make a note of the opinions in each of them, for example, that Empedocles said there are four elements in bodies, for one might write down the comment of some reputable person” (I.14, 105b12–18 = Aristotle testimonium 56b). See chapter 3, section 1, p. 97.

Page 21, note 39. The same tone is found in a passage from Politics (II.6, 1265a10–12), in which Plato’s dialogues are praised mostly for their ingenuity, originality, and productivity for research. “All the logoi of Socrates [the Platonic dialogues of which Socrates was usually protagonist] have the qualities of being striking, ingenious, innovative, and investigative; but that everything is right is perhaps hardly to be expected.” Concerning this passage, see Ross 1923 (p. 3), Düring 1957 (p. 366), and Chroust 1973 (p. 245).

Page 24, note 40. The personal observations of Aristotle continued for a long time; even in a late work like Meteorology, he claimed that he had personally observed (hepheōrakamen) that some fixed stars have a tail like a comet, and he says that this confirms the observations of the Babylonians and the Egyptians (I.6, 343b9–12). “Some of the fixed stars too have a tail. For this reason we must not just listen to the Egyptians since they also affirm it, but we have ourselves observed it.”

Page 25, note 41. This gives evidence against the well-known hypotheses of Jaeger (that Aristotle studied nature only during his second stay in Athens) and Thompson and Lee (that Aristotle studied nature only after his stay in Assos). See Jaeger 1923 (pp. 440–465), Thompson 1910 (p. vii), and Lee 1948.

Page 25, note 42. “They were making distinctions about nature, giving separate definitions for the life of animals and the nature of trees and the kinds of vegetables. And while doing this they scrutinized what type [of vegetable] a squash was” (Epicrates, unknown comic play, cited in Athenaeus 2, 59d–f = fr. 10 PCG).

Page 25, note 43. A plant that had only recently been imported into Greece and was therefore still relatively unknown; see Hehn 1902³, p. 271.

Page 25, note 44. Concerning Cephisodorus, see Gerth 1921; Blass 1868–1874 (2:419–421) and Düring 1957 (pp. 389–391). According to Düring (1957, p. 389), the text by Cephisodorus must date back to about 360 BCE, when Aristotle had already been in the Academy for years.

Page 26, note 45. Weighing against these positions is the extremely well-known polemic of Harold Cherniss: for “the German philologists of the last century, Plato was the first organizer of scientific research, and his Academy was a type of German university, with a regular program of lectures and seminars, where the best students were assigned portions of scientific fields to cultivate under the vigilant eye of the teacher” (1935, p. 72).

Page 27, note 46. The passage dia tinas [ … ] aitias refers to what goes before eti [ … ] endeēs; in this way, Philodemus takes up once again the traditional Epicurean accusations against Aristotle of having led a debauched and free-spending youth.

Page 28, note 47. For earlier and less developed editions of this important passage, see Aristotle testimonium 31 Düring 1957 = fr. 132 Gigon 1987, pp. 394a–398a. There are other translations, based on these earlier editions, in Düring 1957 (pp. 303–310), Natali 1981 (pp. 160–163), and Laurenti 1987 (pp. 420–423). This translation is based on the one published in Blank 2007, pp. 44–47.

Page 28, note 48. See also Quintilian 3.1.14 (Aristotle testimonium 32d), Strabo 14.1.48 (testimonium 32e), and Syrianus, In Hermogenem commentaria, 4.297–298 Walz = 2.95, 21 Rabe (testimonium 33).

Page 29, note 49. Philodemus, Rhetoric (col. 198: P.Herc.1015, 53.7–19); see Bignone 1936 (2:90+), Düring 1957 (pp. 299–311), and Laurenti 1987 (p. 423).

Page 29, note 50. If the witticism “it’s a shame to be silent and allow X to speak” really was directed against Isocrates, then the episode certainly occurred during Aristotle’s first stay in Athens; but that “X” is actually Isocrates seems questionable (see next note). The first observation was suggested to me by E. Berti.

Page 29, note 51. A change is noted by Diogenes Laertius (5.3) as well, but it is of a quite different nature. In this case, the “X” is Xenocrates, and the change consists not in teaching rhetoric but in abandoning the Sophistic and Platonic custom of giving lessons while walking; when he had a satisfactory number of disciples, Aristotle sat down (on a chair?) and said, “it’s a shame to be silent and let Xenocrates speak.” It is difficult in all this to say where the truth is and where it is hidden.

Page 29, note 52. See Philodemus, Rhetoric VIII (above), Cicero, On the Orator (3.141), and Diogenes Laertius (5.3).

Page 29, note 53. Quintilian himself had evidently not read the dialogue he discusses (2.17.14 = fr. 2 Rose 1886, Ross 1955, Laurenti 1987). “Aristotle, for the sake of discussion as usual, worked out arguments of characteristic subtlety in his Gryllus; but the same Aristotle also wrote three books on the art of rhetoric, in the first of which he not only admits that rhetoric is an art, but also assigns it to be a part of politics and dialectic.” The ancient sources state that Isocrates also wrote an encomium to Gryllus (Diogenes Laertius 2.55), and on this foundation modern scholars have ventured to suppose that Aristotle wished to engage in a polemic with Isocrates. A work For Gryllus is, however, attributed to Speusippus (Diogenes Laertius 2.4); why should we not think that, when Aristotle says “there are thousands who wrote encomiums and epitaphs for Gryllus, partly to win the favor of his father as well” (Diogenes Laertius 2.55 = fr. 1 Ross), he might be alluding rather to Speusippus? Or to Isocrates and Speusippus together?

Page 31, note 54. “Aristotle, in his Sophist, says that Empedocles was the first to invent rhetoric, and Zeno was the first to invent dialectic” (Diogenes Laertius, 8.57 = fr. 1 Rose 1886, Ross 1955, Laurenti 1987).

Page 31, note 55. Some scholars read “since he was the son of Potone,” hat’ōn [Pot]ōn[ēs huios], of which the last two words are written supra lineam. Potone was Plato’s sister, and many authors believe that these words indicate the reason why Speusippus received the school from Plato, that is, by hereditary right. This interlinear addition is absent from the text given as fragment 1 of Speusippus in Isnardi Parente 1980; see also Tarán 1981 (p. 203), who doubts that these words, largely the product of reconstruction, are truly part of the text, or in any case that the information provided by them is true. Buecheler instead reads it as par’autou [Pl]atōn[os lab]ōn, “he succeeded him as head of the school, taking it over from Plato.” <Postscript 2012: Gaiser’s more recent reconstruction is accepted in Dorandi’s 1991 edition; the words written supra lineam are to be read as [Pl]atōn[os no]sōn, “he succeeded him, Plato, as head of the school, when he (sc. Speusippus) was sick.” But none of this is solid enough to work with.>

Page 31, note 56. Philochorus (FGrHist 328F224) is named as his source for this account by Philodemus, in his Index of Academic Philosophers, col. 6.28–38 (p. 136 Dorandi = p. 37 Mekler = Aristotle testimonium 3). Isnardi Parente 1986 notes that here the term “museum” refers to the school and not to a sanctuary, and draws support from that fact to defend the hypothesis that Plato’s Academy was organized in institutional terms as a thiasos of the Muses. For this discussion, see section 2 of chapter 2, pp. 78–80.

Page 31, note 57. See also Ross 1923 (p. 4) and Gauthier 1959 (p. 13). Jaeger claims that by this time only Aristotle’s personal friendship with Plato kept him in the Academy; upon the death of the master, Aristotle felt free to advertise his own departure from Platonism, and went elsewhere to found a school of his own. According to Jaeger this was a full-fledged secession, that is, an explicit affirmation of a position of personal independence, which Aristotle had progressively won on a theoretical level. Jaeger also accepts the possibility of influence from the political events of the time, but he decisively subordinates those influences to the factors involved in Aristotle’s philosophical evolution. Probably, Jaeger adds, neither Aristotle nor Xenocrates (who, according to Jaeger, accompanied Aristotle to Assos) found that Speusippus was a successor capable of keeping alive the spirit of Platonic philosophy.

Page 32, note 58. See Düring 1957 (pp. 276 and 388), Düring 1966 (p. 17), Düring 1968 (col. 177), Chroust 1973 (pp. 117–124 and 137), Chroust 1978 (pp. 338–341), and Grayeff 1974 (pp. 26–27). Berti wonders whether his staying away from Athens was not a product of the hostility of the Athenians toward Hermias of Atarneus, friend of Aristotle (1977, p. 28).

Page 33, note 59. See Wilamowitz 1893 (1:316), Brinkmann 1911 (p. 229), Gauthier 1959 (p. 11), Gigon 1962 (p. 31), Düring 1966 (p. 18), and Chroust 1973 (p. 119).

Page 33, note 60. Diogenes Laertius (4.3) says that Xenocrates was away from Athens toward the end of Speusippus’s life, but does not say where he was, and for that matter the report is questionable, because it conflicts with what Philodemus of Gadara says in the Index of Academic Philosophers, cols. 6.41–8.17 = Speusippus testimonium 2 in Tarán 1981 = Xenocrates fr. 1 (Isnardi Parente 1980); see the comments on this in the two fragment collections.

Page 33, note 61. A brief description of the life of Hermias, hostile in approach, appears in Strabo 13.1.57. “Hermias was a eunuch, the slave of some banker, and when he was in Athens he attended the lectures of Plato as well as Aristotle. When he went back to his city he was joint tyrant together with his master, having first attacked the districts around Assos and Atarneus, and then Hermias succeeded him and sent for both Aristotle and Xenocrates and took care of them; and he actually gave his brother’s daughter in marriage to Aristotle. Memnon [= Mentor] of Rhodes, who was then serving the Persians as a general, made a pretence of friendship for Hermias and sent for him to come, out of hospitality and also for the sake of some pretended business; then he captured him and sent him to the king, where he was killed by hanging, and the philosophers escaped by fleeing the countryside, which was in the possession of the Persians.”

Page 33, note 62. The passage, published by Diels-Schubart 1904, was republished by Pearson-Stephens 1978 (with bibliography). In this updated English version, I have used the text of the most recent edition, that of Phillip Harding (2006), which offers translation and commentary as well. Concerning the parts about Hermias, see especially Foucart 1909, Macher 1914, Wormell 1935, Düring 1957 (pp. 272–283), and the Corpus dei Papiri filosofici e latini 1989. Given the difficulty and unreliability of the text, I provide here only a tentative translation of it.

Page 34, note 63. This passage is extremely lacunose, and in the Corpus dei Papiri filosofici greci e latini 1989 (pp. 383–385), the efforts to provide a complete reconstruction of it have been abandoned. Here I have again followed the edition in Harding 2006. There have been other versions, generally more ambitiously reconstructed, not only the ones published by Pearson and Stephens and previous editors of the papyrus; see, for an example, Gaiser 1985, pp. 12–13.

Page 35, note 64. Didymus (6.18–20) states that the poem was written out of the kēdeia of Hermias toward Aristotle; this term may indicate “veneration,” but it makes no sense to read it as “the veneration of Hermias toward Aristotle,” and therefore the text is generally interpreted the other way around, as if what had been cited was “Aristotle’s veneration toward Hermias,” since the poem was written by the philosopher for the tyrant. On the other hand, the Greek term could also be understood as “connection through marriage” (see Politics II.3, 1262a11), and thus Didymus would be telling us that this poem attests to the family ties established between Aristotle and Hermias. I owe this suggestion to F. Decleva Caizzi.

Page 36, note 65. Concerning the tradition and the sources of these poems, see section 1.1C of chapter 4, pp. 121–122.

Page 37, note 66. Mulvany (1926) suggests there may have been confusion with a certain Hermotimus of Pedasa, without however having established any grounds. He refers the reader to Herodotus 8.104–106; in that passage the story is told of a certain Panionius of Chios, who earned a livelihood by castrating boys and then selling them into slavery, and who suffered the revenge of one of his victims, who was in fact named Hermotimus. This Hermotimus, having become powerful in the court of the Great King of Persia, subjected him and all his sons to the same treatment. The story seems entirely different from that of Hermias, the only point of similarity being that the bloodthirsty revenge of Hermotimus upon Panionius took place at Atarneus, where Panionius lived.

Page 37, note 67. Concerning these dates, see Körte 1905 (pp. 391–395), von der Mühl 1918 (cols. 1126–1130), Jaeger 1912 (p. 34), Jaeger 1923 (p. 153), Sordi 1959, and Bengtson 1962 (p. 299).

Page 37, note 68. Aristotle and his school, for that matter, were no strangers to the practice of fiercely defending individuals who were discredited but close to Plato or his school. Evidence for this is the use of Critias as an example in his Rhetoric; “if you wish to praise Critias, you must narrate his deeds, for not many know them” (III.16, 1416b28–29).

Page 37, note 69. Andrewes (1952) maintained that the moderate politician who is praised in Politics IV.11 (1296a38–40) is Hermias, but the matter is very doubtful; A. Wörle (1981, pp. 133–134) and Gaiser (1985, p. 23) are opposed to it.

Page 38, note 70. Hesychius (paragraph 2) somehow maintains both together: that Pythia was sired by Hermias, and that Hermias was a eunuch.

Page 38, note 71. According to Eubulides, however, Hermias was still alive when Aristotle married Pythia, and he claims that Aristotle made this marriage “out of adulation” (Aristotle testimonium 58f); see Gigon 1958, p. 174.

Page 39, note 72. In the nineteenth century many considered this letter to be spurious and accepted Strabo’s report; see Boeckh 1853, Zeller 1897 (1:20n1), and Wilamowitz 1893 (1:334). Later it was claimed, however, that the information contained in the letter was authentic and that it was Strabo’s report that was spurious; this was the position ofvarious scholars, including von der Mühl 1918 (cols. 1126–1130), Brinkmann 1911 (pp. 226–230), Jaeger 1923 (pp. 146–147), Pasquali 1938 (pp. 233–237), and Bidez 1943 (p. 16). Following this, Stark 1954 and Düring 1957 (p. 279) attempted to find a compromise; perhaps Hermias had attended the Academy when Plato was absent, and therefore without ever having met him in person. But Düring abandoned this theory and called into question the authenticity of the Sixth Letter (1966, p. 18); still later, Düring said that the letter is not authentic, but that the information it contains is substantially accurate (1968, col. 177). In favor of the authenticity of the Sixth Letter or at least of the information it contains, the following are to be numbered: Gauthier 1959 (pp. 31–32), Weil 1960 (pp. 15–16), and Isnardi Parente 1979 (pp. 287 and 293). Against the authenticity of the Sixth Letter, and of the Platonic Letters in general, are Maddalena 1948 (pp. 394+), Edelstein 1966 (pp. 122–127), and Gaiser 1985 (p. 17).

Page 39, note 73. Hermippus is generally thought to be the author of the passage contained in Didymus Chalcenterus, On Demosthenes 5.51–63 = Aristotle testimonium 15d = Xenocrates fr. 18 in Isnardi Parente 1982 (and see p. 288) = Erastus and Coriscus, testimonium 10T7 in Lasserre 1987 (and see p. 541); see Pearson-Stephens 1978 (p. 17) and Harding 2006 (pp. 24–25 and 144).

Page 39, note 74. As is correctly maintained in Isnardi Parente (1979, pp. 293–294); the hetairoi are a typical institution of the Hellenistic tyrannies and monarchies (see Liddell-Scott 1843, s.v. hetairoi). Purely hypothetical as well is the theory put forth by Chroust 1972 and Grayeff 1974 (p. 28), according to which, after leaving Athens, Aristotle would have gone to Macedonia, whence he was sent as a political emissary to Hermias, in order to prepare for war against Persia; and he would have moved stealthily, as a secret agent, trying to ward off suspicion.

Page 40, note 75. It seems doubtful that Aristotle could have been the head of this school in the presence of Xenocrates, twelve years older than him, or, if Xenocrates did not accompany him, in the presence of Erastus and Coriscus, who had moved to Assos some time earlier, unless the other philosophers had found an incommensurable theoretical superiority in their younger friend. It is true, however, that according to Didymus, Hermias appreciated above all the teachings of Aristotle.

Page 40, note 76. Athenaeus 11, 508f–509a, which also cites the other speech that Demochares made against the philosophers in 306 BCE. A balanced judgment on the passage can be found in Isnardi Parente 1979, pp. 289+; see also A. Wörle 1981 and Lasserre 1987, pp. 439–440.

Page 41, note 77. Only Düring doubts its existence; he admits only that there may have been philosophical discussions (1966, p. 19). But a group of friends dedicated to regular discussion of theories such as those found in the Metaphysics of Aristotle would, in fact, constitute a “philosophical school.” There is no need to imagine anything more highly organized, as does Jaeger 1923, p. 115.

Page 41, note 78. According to Mekler (in his commentary on this passage) this passage was derived from Dicaearchus; for the contrary opinion, see Wormell 1935 (p. 82) and Wehrli 1944 (1:50). Gaiser 1988 argued that Philochorus is the source, and the most recent editor of the text considers that Gaiser’s suggestion has been proved by cogent considerations (Dorandi 1991, p. 88).

Page 41, note 79, The phase is polin edoken oikein “allowed them to li[ve in] a city.” See Isnardi Parente (1979, p. 287), who believes that the reference here is to Erastus and Coriscus; according to Mekler’s commentary on this passage and Lasserre (1987, p. 541), the reference is instead to Aristotle and Xenocrates; but the text mentions no names, and the supplements of Mekler are not certain (see Düring 1957, p. 278). In the passage of Didymus, according to the Pearson-Stephens edition, it is said only that first Coriscus and Erastus went to Hermias, followed by Aristotle, then by others; according to the P. Harding edition, even less is legible. For Lasserre, polin edoken oikein should be translated rather as “gave them a city to administer,” but this does not seem necessary; see also Thucydides 2.27.2 and Gaiser 1985, p. 16.

Page 41, note 80. Index of Academic Philosophers col. V.2–13 (p. 129, ed. Dorandi = pp. 22–23, ed. Mekler = Aristotle testimonium 16). [Postscript 2012: The order of columns of this papyrus is confusing, and different editors have placed columns Z–M, which had been written on the back of the roll, in different sequences relative to columns 1–36, which had been written on the front. The explanation is given in Dorandi 1991, pp. 109–115.]

Page 42, note 81. Gaiser maintains that in On Fire 46, when Theophrastus speaks of the stone known as sarcophagus, we should follow the text of the manuscripts: ho de (en) kuklōi lithos, and translate it as “the stone that is found in the surrounding area,” and given that the stone known as sarcophagus was typical of Assos, he further claims that Theophrastus was actually at Assos when he wrote those lines. The other editors (Gercke, Coutant, Eichholz) instead correct it to ho de Lukios (or: en Lukiai) lithos since a stone with similar properties to the one described by Theophrastus is also found in Lycia. No ancient text mentions Theophrastus spending time in Assos. See also note 63.

Page 42, note 82. The hypothesis is accepted by Gauthier (1959, p. 34); others reject it, such as Lee (1948, p. 64) and Regenbogen (1940, col. 1358). Bignone argued that Epicurus found in Mytilene the remains of the school of Aristotle, a school in which special care was supposedly lavished on the teaching of rhetoric; and this can be deduced, according to Bignone, from the fact that over the centuries that followed, teachers of Aristotelian rhetoric and furious enemies of rhetoric both came from Mytilene; but these arguments are rather weak.

Page 43, note 83. Düring maintains that he undertook his monumental analysis of the entire biographical tradition about Aristotle with an investigation on the passages in which Plutarch speaks of Aristotle, in order to separate the wheat from the chaff; and he considers all this information to be very unreliable. Nonetheless, the fact that Aristotle was effectively the preceptor of Alexander is not denied by Düring (1957, pp. 5 and 468; 1966, p. 10; 1968, col. 179). Some later scholars, however, have actually called into question whether Aristotle ever really knew Alexander personally, e.g., Gigon 1962 (pp. 20 and 52–55), Chroust 1966, and Grayeff 1974 (p. 3).

Page 43, note 84. Such as for instance two historians of the fourth century BCE: Onesicritus (FGrHist 134F1+), a Cynic philosopher who attributed to Alexander the philosophy of Antisthenes, and Marsyas of Pella (FGrHist 135T1), a Macedonian nobleman. Plutarch himself, who is one of the chief sources for this event, and who recounts many reports on the relationship between Aristotle and Alexander, at a certain point (Life of Alexander 5) provides differing reports: the chief of Alexander’s preceptors was Leonidas, a Macedonian nobleman, and, in second rank, was a certain Lysimachus of Acharnania. A rich collection of anecdotes on Alexander and Diogenes the Cynic is in Book 6 of Diogenes Laertius, at 32, 38, 44, 45, 60, 66, and 68. Concerning the scant worth of those anecdotes, see Giannantoni 1988 and 1990, 4:443–451.

Page 43, note 85. This Nicagoras was a tyrant of Zelea who liked to claim that he was the incarnation of the god Hermes; see FGrHist 143F4 and 268F2.

Page 44, note 86. That is Plutarch’s opinion; among the moderns, it is defended only by Waddington 1893 and Radet 1931.

Page 44, note 87. This opinion is based on a report from Plutarch, according to which Aristotle made for Alexander an edition of the Iliad, known as “the Iliad of the Casket” because it was portable (Life of Alexander 8), a report adopted by Onesicritus (FGrHist 134F38) and by the Neoplatonic biographers (see Vita Marciana 4). This is the most common version among the moderns, and it is supported, among scholars of the life of Aristotle, by Wilamowitz, Moraux, Gauthier, Weil, and others, and, among scholars of Alexander the Great, by Berve 1926 (2:70–71), Kaerst 1927 (pp. 314+), Tarn 1948 (1:2 and 2:339–449), and many others. Doubts are voiced on this whole story by Wehrli 1957, 9:75–76.

Page 44, note 88. See Jaeger against its authenticity (1923, p. 311). In favor of authenticity are Mathieu and Brémond 1929 (4:177), Merlan 1954, Schachermeyer 1973 (pp. 82+), and Eucken 1983 (p. 10).

Page 45, note 89. As E. Berti has pointed out to me (personal communication).

Page 47, note 90. Of the same opinion was Isocrates (Philip 32 and 107), according to whom, however, the Macedonian royal family was of Greek, specifically Argive, descent.

Page 47, note 91. The legend is in Pliny (8.16.44), Aelian (14.19), and Athenaeus (9, 398e); see testimonia 26 a–c. Zeller had doubts about this information long ago (1897, 1:5n6); in contrast, Jaeger considered it credible (1923, p. 448).

Page 47, note 92. Bretzel claimed that Alexander had brought back to Theophrastus samples of plants for his botanical studies; but Regenbogen (1940, cols. 1462+) doubts this very much.

Page 48, note 93. There is discord concerning the dating of the text; some believe that it was written around 280 BCE (Walbank, Wehrli), but Santoni (1988), with Müller and Lorenz, proposes to move it back to circa 318 BCE, with good arguments; in fact, in 368 BCE, that is, “fifty years ago,” no one could have foreseen the Macedonian success, which however was already evidently confirmed in 330 BCE. This then would be a text written in his youth.

Page 51, note 94. Sudhaus claims that Aristotle wished to provide opposition to Isocrates, who notoriously supported the unity of the Greeks against Persia under Macedonian leadership (1893, p. 559); see also Mathieu 1925, Hampl 1938 (p. 96), Zucher 1954 (pp. 226+), and Levi 1959 (pp. 117–118). However, these are fragile hypotheses built on an uncertain papyrus text; the most recent edition by Blank (2007, p. 46) reveals quite a different text, which he translates as follows: “and (third), because he virtually commended monarchy [to his students], although Philip and the Persian were then dominant” (col. 201: P.Herc. 1015, 56.15–20).

Page 51, note 95. Fragment 20 Isnardi Parente 1982; and see her commentary ad loc. The story seems favorable to Aristotle and hostile to Xenocrates. Perhaps it is an invention, but Philodemus, in his Index of Academic Philosophers (cols. 6.41–7.14) also speaks of a sojourn of Aristotle in Macedonia, at the time of Xenocrates’ election as head of the school, that is, in 339/338 BCE (fr. 1, Isnardi Parente 1982).

Page 51, note 96. Weil has made a great deal of this fragment (1960, pp. 18+), claiming that it demonstrates that Aristotle returned to Athens before 335/334 BCE. But this report would run counter to the chronology of Apollodorus, according to which Aristotle remained away from Athens throughout the period of 348/347 to 335/334. See also Gigon 1958, p. 185.

Page 52, note 97. C. Bearzot has greatly helped me to clarify my ideas on this point, encouraging me to see the mountain of facts as a whole, which I had tended to consider separately.

Page 52, note 98. For the life of Callisthenes of Olynthus, see Jacoby 1901 and his commentary on FGrHist 124, Chroust 1973 (pp. 83–91), and Prandi 1985.

Page 52, note 99. According to Plutarch (Alexander 55.4), he was the son of Hero, a female cousin of Aristotle’s.

Page 53, note 100. It is implicit in the episode narrated in Diogenes Laertius 5.39 that Theophrastus and Callisthenes had together been disciples of Aristotle; this account, however, has very questionable historic value (see Natali 1985). Other arguments in support of the hypothesis set forth here can be found in Prandi 1985, pp. 13+.

Page 53, note 101. According to Diels (1901, p. 75), Callisthenes collaborated with Aristotle also on the preparation of a catalog of the winners of the Olympic games, mentioned in the list of works by Aristotle, but of which there are no surviving fragments; Jacoby (commentary on 124F55) and Weil (1960, p. 133) question this hypothesis.

Page 53, note 102. Jacoby claims that in the library of the Peripatos there were also works by Callisthenes (1901, col. 1705); Weil finds that there are numerous similarities between the writings of Aristotle and those of Callisthenes (1960, p. 312).

Page 53, note 103. An inscription from Tauromenium, from the second century BCE, calls Callisthenes the epistolographos of Alexander, something similar to a “secretary”; see Prandi 1985, pp. 21–22. It is difficult to say whether the information is historically accurate.

Page 54, note 104. Anaxarchus of Abdera was a follower of Democritus, and we have very different pictures of him, depending on the source. The accounts of the death of Callisthenes present him as a perfect flatterer, while other sources emphasize his philosophical rationalism, his dignified way of life, and his heroism at the time of his death; see Diogenes Laertius 9.58–60, Diodorus Siculus 17.112.4–5, and Berve 1926, 2:33–35. The fragments and the testimonia are partially gathered in Diels-Kranz no. 72. The only fragment of his writing that survives (72B1) speaks of the damage that great learning can cause in those who possess it without a sense of opportunity. This seems a suitable comment on the story of Callisthenes.

Page 54, note 105. In the later biographical tradition, there remain various accounts of Aristotle’s concerns over the character of Callisthenes; most probably these were invented on the basis of the disagreement we discuss here (see testimonia 28a–h).

Page 55, note 106. See Tarn 1948, 2:131. Often cited as proof of this are Theophrastus’s work Callisthenes or On Bereavement (Diogenes Laertius 5.44), and the criticisms on the part of Dicaearchus (fr. 83 Mirhady = fr. 23 Wehrli) of Alexander’s homosexuality, in his work On the Sacrifice at Ilium (cited in Athenaeus 13, 603a–b). But as I have noted above (see p. 54), we know very little about the text by Theophrastus, while Dicaearchus apparently felt no inhibition about stating positions contrary to those of Aristotle, and he may have been counted among a horde of enemies of Aristotle (on this issue, see note 22 to chapter 4). On the entire problem, see Badian 1958 and Bosworth 1970, pp. 407+.

Page 55, note 107. Alexander supposedly made gifts to Xenocrates and Anaximenes in order to enrage Aristotle (Diogenes Laertius 5.10–11; see also 4.18). This presupposes that Aristotle was an enemy of Xenocrates. But was he really?

Page 56, note 108. According to Gigon (1962, p. 64), Hermippus was the first to emphasize the definite contrast between the Academy and the Lyceum; this tradition later recurs in Diogenes Laertius (5.2), who clearly says that the school of Aristotle was founded as a contrast to the school of Xenocrates.

Page 58, note 109. As Zeller believed instead (1897, 1:39).

Page 59, note 110. As we shall see more clearly below, Drerup (1898) showed, by means of a comparison with similar decrees preserved in the inscriptions, that the Arabic text must have derived from a very ancient Greek source, capable of reproducing with great exactitude the forms of expression typical of the actual decrees of Athens, and all later scholars agree on this point. See also Chroust 1973a.

Page 59, note 111. The text of Usaibia, to tell the truth, uses the name “Antinoous,” but this name is taken to be a corruption of “Antipater.”

Page 59, note 112. This Himeraios seems to be identical with Himeraius, the brother of Demetrius of Phalerum; see above, note 17. This Himeraios, a democrat and anti-Macedonian, together with Hyperides and Aristonicus of Marathon, was killed by Antipater, after Antipater defeated the coalition led by the Athenians at the Battle of Crannon (322 BCE). According to Plutarch (Life of Demosthenes 28), a certain Archias, the so-called “Exile Hunter,” who may have been either a stage actor or a pupil of rhetoric of Lacritus or Anaximenes, captured the three at the sanctuary of Aeacus in Aegina, where they were hiding, and sent them to Antipater, at Cleon, where they were put to death; see Lucian, In Praise of Demosthenes (58.38), Arrian, Events after Alexander (section 13 of fr. 9, cited in Photius, Codex 92), and the Suda (s.v. “Antipatros” = fr. 176 of Arrian, Events after Alexander). So it is historically true that Himeraius was killed by Antipater, and, although this may not have been due to the destruction of the inscription in Aristotle’s favor, the story has a good source, well informed about the affairs of Athenian politics at the end of the fourth century BCE.

Page 60, note 113. The inscription is very fragmented, and the text has been partly reconstructed. In this place, various supplements have been proposed: by Witowski and Düring 1957 [t]ōn am[photera nen]ikēkotōn ta Puthia “of the winners of both the Pythian games”; by Pomtow and Gigon 1987 (p. 547a) tōn ap[o Gulida (?) nen]ikēkotōn ta Puthia “of those who, starting from Gulis, have won the Pythian games.”

Page 60, note 114. Dittenberger 1915, no. 252, in the commentaria; but Pfeiffer disagrees (1973, p. 149). In the catalog of the works of Aristotle in the Vita Hesychii, it is said that in this work Aristotle “defeated Menaechmus” (no.123, p. 86 in Düring 1957), and therefore some think that there had been a public competition to win this research project, and that Aristotle came in first; see Moraux 1951 (p. 126) and Weil 1960 (pp. 133+). Others, instead, are skeptical about this hypothesis; see Gigon 1987, ad loc.

Page 60, note 115. See Wilamowitz 1898; later authors have many anecdotes to relate concerning the friendship between Aristotle and Antipater. We have fragments of letters from the philosopher to the general (frs. 663–666 Rose 1886 = frs. 8–12 Plezia 1961 = Plezia 1977, pp. 18–21) and, as we have seen, Plutarch actually says that, according to a certain Agnotemis, Aristotle conspired with Antipater to poison Alexander (Life of Alexander 77.2).

Page 60, note 116. The accounts of ancient authors concerning the later years of Aristotle’s life are collected in Düring 1957, pp. 241–348 = testimonia 46a–48d; see also Gigon 1958 (pp. 177–181), Gigon 1962 (pp. 34 and 75–76), and Chroust 1973 (pp. 145–154 and 176–179).

Page 61, note 117. Some do not mention this event at all, or, rather, any observations they may have made on it have not reached us; for instance, Demochares does not mention it, in the parts that survive of his oration against all philosophers (mentioned on pp. 91–92). And Lyco, a contemporary of Aristotle, claims that Aristotle left Athens for Chalcis, with baggage and slaves, and therefore without concealment; see Diogenes Laertius 5.16 and Aristocles, On Philosophy (fr. 2 Chiesara), cited in Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica 15.2.8–9 (= testimonia 58i, and see 64c). A certain Eumelus, on the other hand, claimed that Aristotle drank hemlock, as Socrates did, and Diogenes Laertius adopts this invention in the epigram he dedicates to Aristotle (5.6 and 5.8); see Düring 1957 (p. 345) and Chroust 1973 (pp. 176–177). The story of Eumelus was also accepted by Hesychius and by the Suda (s.v. “Aristoteles”); see Düring 1957, pp. 82 and 345. Aristotle, on the other hand, would never have accepted dying like Socrates, as we shall see below.

Page 61, note 118. Concerning the latter, see Diogenes Laertius 2.101 = Demetrius of Phalerum fr. 48 SOD = fr. 43 Wehrli.

Page 61, note 119. That Aristotle was put on trial for his philosophy is a very late opinion; see Origen (Against Celsus 1.380 = Aristotle testimonium 45c), and Usaibia 10, tr. Düring.

Page 61, note 120. Athenaeus cites as his source (15, 696f) the first book of Hermippus’s Aristotle (fr. 30 Bollansée = fr. 48 Wehrli).

Page 62, note 121. He was a member of the family of the Eumolpides, according to Kirchner (Prosopographia Attica no. 5872).

Page 62, note 122. Derenne rejects the hypothesis, put forth by Grote and Grant, that this Demophilus was the disciple of Isocrates of the same name; Davies believes that the Demophilus in question was also one of the accusers of Phocion in 348 BCE, was a member of the council, and was himself a priest (hieropios) of Eleusis (1971, p. 498); two of his decrees survive. This Demophilus was a politician who was always hostile to Macedonia, and was later killed by Phocion’s son; see Plutarch, Life of Phocion 38.2, 759b.

Page 63, note 123. Düring does not believe in the existence of a school in Chalcis and therefore rejects these accounts of the ancient authors (1957, pp. 345–346), whereas Wehrli accepts the historical validity of the succession story (1955, 8:78).

Page 63, note 124. There are other examples of decrees that have first been voted on and then withdrawn, such as the one for Euphorion of Sicyon (C.I.A. IV.2, 231b).

Page 63, note 125. Vita Marciana 42, Vita Vulgata 20, Vita Latina 44, Usaibia 7 (tr. Düring), Diogenes Laertius 5.9, Aelian, Varia Historia 3.36 (testimonium 44a), Elias, Commentary on Aristotle’s “Categories” (ed. Busse) 123.15+ (testimonium 44c), Eustathius, Commentary on the Odyssey VII.120 (testimonia 44d). For opposing views on the authenticity of this, see Düring 1957 (p. 114) and Plezia 1961 (pp. 113–116), who collects the evidence as fragment 11.

Page 63, note 126. Vita Latina 43, Vita Vulgata 19, Vita Marciana 41, Elias, Commentary on Aristotle’s “Categories” 123.15+ (Aristotle testimonium 44c), Seneca, On Leisure 8.1 (testimonium 44e), Origen, Against Celsus 1.380 (testimonium 45c). This story is accepted not only by Düring (1957, p. 342) but also by Plezia (1961, pp. 113–116), who collects the evidence as fragment 11.

Page 64, note 127. Diogenes Laertius 5.10 (= Apollodorus FGrHist 244F38), Diogenes Laertius 5.16, Censorinus, De die natali 14 (testimonium 50c), Aelian, Varia Historia 9.23 (testimonium 67b), Aulus Gellius 13.5 (testimonium 47), Valerius Maximus 5.6, ext. 5 (testimonium 27b). We have already seen that Eumelus claims that Aristotle drank hemlock, and the Vita Syriaca II (7) and the Arabic biography of Mubashir (22–23) report that Aristotle died while studying the natural phenomenon of the tidal race in the Gulf of Euripus; concerning this issue, see Gigon 1962, pp. 76–77.

Page 64, note 128. See Diogenes Laertius 6.102, and Suda s.v. phaios; on this see Giannantoni 1990, 4:581–582.

Page 64, note 129. Isocrates insists on informing us, in fact, at Panathenaicus 7, that he is sufficiently well off to live comfortably even without the money of his pupils.

Page 64, note 130. Plato recalls with a certain aristocratic scorn the naïve boasting of Hippias on his public successes in the Greek cities (Hippias Major 282d–e). And even Isocrates, in Antidosis 93–94 and 224, says that a great many disciples come to him, from as far afield as Sicily and the Black Sea, and that many citizens (decorated with official honors of the polis) had been his students, such as Eunomus, Lysitheides, Callippus, Onetor, Anticles, Philonides, Philomelus, Charmantides, who were crowned with gold, as well as orators, historians, tragic poets, and men of state, such as the celebrated Timotheus son of Conon. In Aristotle, we find nothing of the sort and, although he had relations with Alexander and with the kings of Macedonia, in his works he never mentions this.

Page 65, note 131. The cost of the education offered by Aristippus is not mentioned by Xenophon at Memoirs 1.2.60; according to Plutarch (On the Education of Children 4f), it cost 1,000 drachmas; according to Diogenes Laertius (2.72), 500 drachmas; according to Alexis in his comedy Galateia (cited in Athenaeus 12, 544e), his course cost 1 talent (these reports are collected as Aristippus frs. 4.A.3, 5, 7, and 9 Giannantoni; see also Giannantoni 1990, 4:143–145). According to von Arnim (1898, pp. 25+), Protagoras asked 100 minai for his lessons, and Isocrates asked 1,000 drachmas for a course of three to four years; Isocrates himself, in his Against the Sophists, says there were those who asked only 3–4 minai for an introduction to sophia in general. Perhaps the reference is to Antisthenes.

Page 65, note 132. Aeschines 1.30 and 1.42; more ample documentation is available in Natali 1988a, pp. 24–29 and 211–212.

Page 66, note 133. Let us recall the witticism, mentioned above (p. 63), that Aristotle is supposed to have made upon leaving Athens at the time of his trial for impiety: “I will not let the Athenians sin a second time against philosophy.”

Page 66, note 134. Plato’s landholdings are listed in his will, as found in Diogenes Laertius 3.41–43. In Aristotle’s will, reported in Diogenes Laertius 5.12–16, it is not stated with precision how much Aristotle’s estate amounted to, but the bequests are clearly those of a very well-to-do person: to Herpyllis he leaves a silver talent and three female slaves, as well as the one male and one female slave she already has; when Aristotle’s daughter is married, the female slave Ambracis is to be given not only her freedom but also 500 drachmas and one female slave whom “she now has”; to a certain Thale is left 1,000 drachmas and a maidservant as well as the maidservant “whom she already has, the one who was purchased”; to a certain Simon is given a servant, or the money to buy one, as well as the money already paid to him for “another servant.” Arrangements are made to free four slaves upon the marriage of Aristotle’s daughter, and mention is made, in general terms, of “other slaves,” aside from the twelve already mentioned (considering Thale and Simo to be slaves). Mention is also made of a house in Chalcis with a garden, and Aristotle’s father’s house in Stagira. The wealth of the Peripatetics became, after all, proverbial.

Page 67, note 135. Consider Aristotle’s appreciation of Eudoxus, whose “arguments (logoi) were convincing because of his virtuous character rather than by themselves, for he was thought to be exceptionally self-controlled” (Nicomachean Ethics X.2, 1172b15–16); the arguments concerning pleasure offered by this philosopher were of little value, but he persuaded others through the moral force of his personality. This, for Aristotle, was certainly not sufficient.

Page 68, note 136. Rose linked this fragment to fr. 1 (Ross) of the dialogue On Pleasure, in which Athenaeus (1, 6d) cites Aristotle’s deprecation of certain time-wasters who spend their time at the harbor, among sailors who come from distant lands, jugglers and such like, and “have not read anything but the Banquet by Philoxenus, and not even all of it.” But nothing suggests that this polemic against the emptiness of certain ordinary people has anything to do with the judgment of Aristotle concerning the Athenian people, and, as Laurenti rightly says, “it would be wise to refrain from making worthless conjectures” (1987, p. 855).

Page 68, note 137. A very clear illustration of this point is found in the Aristotelian dialogue On Noble Birth, (fr. 3 Laurenti 1987 = fr. 4 Ross = fr. 94 Rose 1886).

Page 69, note 138. There is a polemical silence on this point on the part of Xenophon, who mentions, out of the whole family, only Plato’s brother Glaucon, describing him as an ambitious and incompetent individual (Memoirs of Socrates 3.6).

Page 70, note 139. See also Laurenti 1987, p. 768.

Page 71, note 140. Concerning these differences, see also section 2 of chapter 3.

Page 71, note 141. Vegetti 1979 (pp. 84–96 and 142–147) and Cambiano 1983 (pp. 15–19). The contributions of Vegetti and Cambiano are of decisive importance, inasmuch as they allow us to go beyond the level of pure encomiastic description of a personality (as in Düring 1954, Düring 1957 (pp. 349–352 and 366–372), Plezia 1961b, and Weil 1965), and to see the problem in proper terms, viz. terms that see the invention of a new type of intellectual in this phase of Greek cultural history. But in my view their interpretation of Aristotle has some limits in the somewhat negative judgment offered of the model of intellectual that Aristotle embodied, a model of intellectual that is partly interpreted as a type of mutilated personality.

NOTES TO CHAPTER TWO

INSTITUTIONAL ASPECTS OF THE SCHOOL OF ARISTOTLE

Page 72, note 1. On this topic, see Gauthier 1959 (2:848–866), Düring 1966 (pp. 529–534), Hardie 1968 (p. 349), and Eriksen 1976 (pp. 81–92).

Page 72, note 2. See Nicomachean Ethics I.8 1098b26 and 1099a32; and see Dirlmeier 1962 (p. 498), Monan 1968 (pp. 126+), and von Fragstein 1974 (pp. 380–381).

Page 72, note 3. See Dirlmeier 1962 (p. 501) and von Fragstein 1974 (p. 389). Concerning the right middle with respect to wealth, a measure is also advisable in order to have a well-organized city; see Politics IV.11.

Page 73, note 4. In other words, what needs to be determined has to do with the meson pros hēmas (Nicomachean Ethics II.2, 1109a30–32); the bibliography on this subject is quite vast and of widely varying worth; for my position on the subject, see Natali 1988 and 1989.

Page 73, note 5. See Eriksen 1976, p. 100.

Page 73, note 6. The work to which I refer is Tracy 1969, pp. 277–283, and, in general, all of ch. 4. The Aristotelian sage reveals the same quality of being well ordered (kosmios) as the philosopher in Plato’s Republic; see VI 500c9.

Page 74, note 7. See Herodotus 1.30–32.

Page 74, note 8. See Adkins 1960 (pp. 414+ and 486+), Solmsen 1964, Dover 1974 (pp. 233–234), Adkins 1978, and Humphreys 1978 (pp. 562–563).

Page 75, note 9. See Metaphysics XII.7, 1072b14–26, 1073a11.

Page 75, note 10. Metaphysics I.1, 981b23–25.

Page 75, note 11. Sophistical Refutations 18, 177a 7–8; compare 7, 169a 36–b 2. Concerning this theme in general, see Mikkola 1958.

Page 75, note 12. See Politics VII.2, 1324a15–17 and 28; Eudemian Ethics I.4, 1215b6–14 and 1216a11–14.

Page 75, note 13. See Adkins 1978, p. 305.

Page 76, note 14. See Eriksen 1976, p. 104.

Page 76, note 15. See Gauthier 1959, ad loc.

Page 76, note 16. 1178b25; see Dirlmeier 1956, p. 358.

Page 77, note 17. See Dirlmeier 1956 (p. 561), with Isocrates, Areopagiticus 45 and Panathenaicus 27.

Page 77, note 18. Nicomachean Ethics VIII.1, 1155a26–28, also IX.1, 1164a8+, specifically 29–30; see also Dirlmeier 1956, p. 590.

Page 77, note 19. Eriksen 1976, pp. 81–89; for more in general, see Gomperz 1906 (4:441), Adkins 1960 (p. 488), and Hutchinson and Johnson, forthcoming.

Page 77, note 20. As is claimed in Gauthier 1959, 2:860–866. For a broader discussion of the problem, see Natali 1989, ch. 6.

Page 77, note 21. Isocrates expresses a widely held opinion when he criticizes the Platonic conception of the good life; see Isocrates Antidosis 285, and also the comment of Demochares in his speech Against Philo that Socrates was made of poor material, incapable of being fashioned into a general (Athenaeus 5, 215c and 187d = Demochares (LXII) fr. 3 Sauppe).

Page 78, note 22. See Wilamowitz 1881, pp. 181+ and 263+. Wilamowitz took into consideration all four of the major philosophical schools; here I shall consider only the school of Aristotle. For the school of Plato, the matter is different and more complex; see Boyancé 1937, Cherniss 1945, and Isnardi Parente 1980 and 1986.

Page 78, note 23. Wilamowitz relied upon Foucart 1863 and the university lectures of Bernays later published in Bernays 1881 (Wilamowitz 1881, pp. 182 and 263). The idea underlying the entire reconstruction had, however, already been put forth by Lumbroso 1873, p. 268. It was then taken up again by Dareste 1882 and 1906, 3:117–134; in 1887 Diels attempted, unsuccessfully, to extend Wilamowitz’s reconstruction to the groups that had gathered around the more prominent Presocratic philosophers. Usener 1884, on the other hand, was a very successful contribution; see Usener 1907, pp. 69–102, where his article was republished. For the subsequent discussion, see Isnardi Parente 1974 and Lynch 1972, p. 109.

Page 79, note 24. Boyancé focuses especially on the organization of Plato’s school and devotes a large portion to it in his work (1937, pp. 249–297), properly basing his interpretation also on the fact that in the philosophy of Plato there are themes that might lead to a “heroification” of the figure of the philosopher. Less persuasive is his position concerning the school of Aristotle (treated far more briefly than the Academy, on pp. 310–322); for the reasons set forth in the preceding paragraph, it is difficult to find in Peripatetic ethics a theoretical basis for the exaltation of the figure of the philosopher similar to what could have been given to Plato. As for the Lyceum, Boyancé basically offers two arguments: the mention of a mouseion in the will of Theophrastus, and the title of epimelētēs tōn Mousōn that is said to have been attributed to the third scholarch, Lyco, by Antigonus of Carystus (in Athenaeus 12, 547f). We shall discuss these two points in sections 3 and 4 of this chapter.

Page 79, note 25. See Haskins 1957, p. 33.

Page 79, note 26. See Gottschalk 1972, pp. 320 and 329.

Page 79, note 27. See Lynch 1972, pp. 105–134.

Page 80, note 28. Concerning this matter, see also Poland 1909, pp. 206–207; there were sanctuaries of the Muses also in an Athenian school for preparation for the ephēbia of young men, as well as in the foundation of Epiketas of Thera.

Page 80, note 29. The same view was expressed previously in Laum 1914.

Page 80, note 30. By Philochorus (FGrHist 328F224) it is said that Speusippus “was then in control of the Museion” (cited in Philodemus, Index of Academic Philosophers, col. 6.28+ = Aristotle testimonium 3). Isnardi Parente notes that here the term Museion refers to the school and not to a sanctuary (1988, p. 112), and she uses this to argue in favor of Wilamowitz’s hypothesis. This contrasts, however, with the idea that the school had become a thiasos only during the time of Xenocrates; moreover, according to Liddell-Scott 1940⁹, the term mouseion at that time had already taken on the more general meaning of “home of music or poetry.” See also Aristotle, Rhetoric III.3, 1406a25.

Page 81, note 31. Lynch 1972, p. 100; the opposing view is held by Wehrli 1976, p. 132.

Page 83, note 32. The matter was cleared up in the best way by von Arnim (1898, pp. 64–65): educating the young people who are interested in a bit of philosophy before devoting themselves to practical life is the purpose of the Academy and of the Peripatos only by chance, even though, in their own opinion, Aristotle and Plato were capable of performing this task better than anyone else. According to von Arnim (1898, pp. 84–85), the interest in the education of young people would have been prevalent in these two schools only much later, with Lyco, when the school was devoting much of its focus to rhetoric.

Page 83, note 33. We are referring to Ziebarth 1902 (cols. 39–42), Ziebarth 1909, Laum 1914 (the broadest study on the question), Bruck 1926, which examines the question of the “foundations in perpetuity” from the point of view of the development in Greek culture of the concept of “juristic person” (a concept that Laum, in contrast, believes is extraneous to that culture), and to Ziebarth 1940 (cols. 1236–1240), which contributed various corrections and added interesting considerations to the picture already sketched out by Laum. On the cult of the dead, linked to these questions, see also Nilsson 1960, 2:107–113; concerning several important inscriptions and the title of “perpetual gymnasiarch,” which we shall discuss below, see Robert 1960 and 1967. For a more recent general overview, see Veyne 1976 (pp. 241–244), in the section L’evergetisme funéraire. For our discussion, obviously the main sources are the wills of the Peripatetic scholarchs preserved by Diogenes Laertius (5.11–16, 51–57, 61–64, and 69–74), on which there exists a vast bibliography, including Bruns 1880, Hug 1887, and Chroust 1967, republished in Chroust 1973, pp. 183–220.

Page 84, note 34. Laum 1914, 1:221–222.

Page 85, note 35. See Robert 1960 and 1967.

Page 85, note 36. See Life of Lyco in Diogenes Laertius 5.71, and Laum 1914, 1:88–89. This is a custom typical of Asia Minor, more than of Greece; apparently, in fact, Lyco, who makes a bequest of this sort, is a native of the Troad.

Page 85, note 37. See Laum 1914 (1:41–42) and Ziebarth 1909 (pp. 2–9).

Page 85, note 38. These institutions have been studied in particular by Ziebarth (1909, pp. 65–66, 81, 91–94, 100).

Page 85, note 39. Concerning the relationship between these foundations and family ties, see Laum 1914 (1:41–43), Bruck 1926 (pp. 175–266), Nilsson 1960 (2:109–111), and Veyne 1976 (p. 244).

Page 85, note 40. See, for example, Wycherley 1978 (p. 227) and Gottschalk 1972 (p. 335). The presence of such a peripatos was an exceedingly common matter, and was not a typical characteristic of the school of Aristotle; see Poland 1909, p. 469, and section 4 of chapter 3.

Page 86, note 41. This confirms the point I made previously, concerning the relationships, sometimes personal, that were established between the master, his family, and the pupils.

Page 86, note 42. What Gottschalk observes is not sufficient to negate the distinction between the two bequests (1976, p. 71); he notes that in the section of his will transmitted by Diogenes Laertius (5.54), Theophrastus says that a certain Pompylus, who lives in the garden, should take care that Theophrastus’s dispositions are implemented regarding the temple, the monument, the garden, and the promenade (peripatos). The fact that a single person should implement more than one disposition does not mean that the dispositions are not different from one another, and do not concern distinct objects.

Page 87, note 43. A descendant of the great Praxiteles; see Davies 1971, ad loc.

Page 87, note 44. According to Wehrli, as mentioned above, the expression hōs hieron rules it out that the property that is discussed here is identical to the hieron about which Theophrastus spoke above.

Page 87, note 45. See Laum 1914, 1:139, 141, and 143; for the opposing view, see Bruck 1926, pp. 256+.

Page 87, note 46. The term used is suscholazein, which does not seem to me to be able to indicate, in the strict sense, the act of studying together (Gigante) or studying literature (Hicks), but only the act of being together (Apelt). Concerning this question, there was a discussion among Gigante, Cambiano (1977), and Capasso (1980), a student of Gigante writing in defense of his translation.

Page 87, note 47. The term symphilosophein reappears later in the will of Epicurus (Diogenes Laertius 10.16) in the following sense: Epicurus bequeaths his garden to the Athenians Amynomachus and Timocrates with the provision that they make it available to Hermarchus of Mytilene and to all those who wished to engage in philosophy along with him, as well as those whom Hermarchus should designate as his successors. Epicurus establishes a preeminence of Hermarchus over the others, which makes him the scholarch, the “head” of the school, and entrusts him with the selection of his successors (diadochoi). Moreover, an express provision of the bequest is to follow the doctrines of Epicurus; the garden is bequeathed “to those who follow our philosophical ideas” (apo hemōn philosophountes). These characteristics suggest a stronger dogmatism of the Epicurean school, as well as a more rigid structure, compared with the more liberal Peripatetic school.

Page 88, note 48. This can be compared with similar cases described in Veyne 1976, pp. 233+.

Page 88, note 49. See Biscardi 1955, pp. 105–143.

Page 89, note 50. See Bruck 1926, p. 266.

Page 89, note 51. Against von Arnim (1928, pp. 101–107), who thought instead that with this act Theophrastus had implicitly decided to name Neleus scholarch of the Peripatetic school. Gottschalk disagrees (1972, p. 336); and, in fact, both in the will of Theophrastus and in the will of Strato (Diogenes Laertius 5.62) we can clearly see that the library and the school are the subjects of two different bequests, clearly distinguished in the text: kataleipō … tēn diatribēn … kataleipō … ta biblia.

Page 89, note 52. See Wilamowitz (1881, p. 265) and Bruck (1926, p. 258).

Page 90, note 53. The first opinion is held by Usener (1884, p. 76), the second by Nilsson (1960, 2:109).

Page 90, note 54. See Laum 1914 (1:88–89), Biscardi 1955 (pp. 108–110), and Veyne 1976 (pp. 243–244).

Page 90, note 55. See Bruns 1880, pp. 36–41.

Page 90, note 56. Diogenes Laertius (5.37) recalls also an accusation of impiety that was supposedly brought by the democrat Agnonides against Theophrastus, a charge from which Theophrastus is said to have easily defended himself. Not much is known about this; see Derenne 1930 (pp. 198+) and Boyancé 1937 (pp. 310+).

Page 91, note 57. Nephew, in fact.

Page 92, note 58. Plato greatly insists on the valor of Socrates, which must have been the subject of whisperings and gossip among the Athenians, in his Apology 29e, Charmides 153b, and Symposium 220e.

Page 92, note 59. Athenaeus 5, 215c–216a (see also 187d) = fr. 3 Baiter-Sauppe = testimonium 1.C.39 Giannantoni 1990, in which the issue of the prowess of Socrates is discussed at length.

Page 92, note 60. According to the hypothesis of Meineke and Edmonds, the words in the passage by Alexis must have been spoken by an old man, angry with the philosophers who had corrupted his son by making him disobedient.

Page 92, note 61. The array of opinions is collected in Gottschalk 1972, pp. 30–33. A variability in the procedures for the election of the chief is not entirely strange; jurists have compared this characteristic to what took place in the monasteries of the sixth and tenth centuries CE, where the head of the monastic community could be named by the preceding abbot, or else elected by a vote; see Steinweter 1931, pp. 405–407.

Page 93, note 62. For the opinion that the schools closed in the first century BCE, see Lynch 1972, pp. 154+ and 192–207; for a reconsideration of this opinion, see Natali 1996 (English translation 2000, pp. 206–207 = English translation 2003, pp. 55–56).

Page 94, note 63. tōn Mousōn epimelētēn genesthai, according to the text of Wilamowitz 1881, pp. 194+. The expression does not refer to Lyco in person, as Lynch and Isnardi Parente maintain, but rather to the holder of the monthly liturgy described here, as Wilamowitz and Gottschalk understand it.

Page 95, note 64. We do not find a precise distinction between presbuteroi and neaniskoi (this latter term is used by Wilamowitz, but it does not appear in the texts), even in the part of the will of Theophrastus in which he establishes the foundation dedicated to the philosophers (Diogenes Laertius 5.52–53); in that passage it says only that the grandson of Aristotle (his namesake) can be part of the community, and that the older members should take affectionate care of him. In my view, this is a provision for that individual, and not the establishment of two fixed categories of disciples, distinguished by their levels of advancement in knowledge.

NOTES TO CHAPTER THREE

INTERNAL ORGANIZATION OF THE SCHOOL OF ARISTOTLE

Page 100, note 1. This passage seems to entail a silent reading, like that which we do today, while it is often said that the ancients always read aloud.

Page 101, note 2. Aristophanes was already making fun of him for his bibliophilia; see Frogs 943.

Page 101, note 3. See the will of Theophrastus (Diogenes Laertius 5.52), concerning which see section 3 of chapter 2. The Peripatetics took great care of the fate of their libraries; Strato left his library to Lyco (Diogenes Laertius 5.62), and Lyco left his own published works to his slave Chares and his unpublished works to the philosopher Callinus, “for an accurate edition” (Diogenes Laertius 5.73).

Page 101, note 4. Concerning Demetrius of Phalerum and the Library of Alexandria, see frs. 38–40 SOD (= frs. 63–65 Wehrli). [Postscript 2012: That the Alexandrian Library possessed the manuscripts of Aristotle is attested also by a quotation from Al-Farabi’s On the Appearance of Philosophy, cited by Usaibia. “The Roman Emperor Augustus defeated her [Cleopatra], put her to death, and took over the rule. When he had secured it, he inspected the libraries and the (dates of) production of books, and found there manuscripts of Aristotle’s works, written in his lifetime and in that of Theophrastus” (= Theophrastus fr. 41 FHSG).]

Page 102, note 5. For the problem of the relationship between Aristotle and the Stoics, there is an extensive discussion in Sandbach 1985; on the diffusion of Aristotle’s biological works in the Hellenistic age, see Düring 1950, which claims that the citations of Aristotle’s biological works in Athenaeus reflect the state of these works in the Hellenistic age, before the edition of Andronicus of Rhodes.

Page 105, note 6. For a balanced evaluation of the discussion, and a detached judgment of Plato’s value as a scientist, see Lloyd 1968 and Lloyd 1970, pp. 65–78.

Page 106, note 7. On this point, there is the classic essay by G.E.L. Owen (1961, reprinted in 1986, pp. 83–103; see also Berti 1966 (pp. 61–88), Berti 1972 (pp. 109–133), and Nussbaum 1986 (pp. 240–258, with additional bibliography).

Page 107, note 8. Its manuscripts ascribe Weather Signs to Aristotle, but no modern scholar accepts this attribution, and questions have arisen about its status; in its present form, it cannot be attributed to Theophrastus, but its content is Theophrastean (see book title no. 17 (p. 282) and fr. 194 FHSG, and see Regenbogen 1940, cols. 1412–1413). The latest view on the issue holds it to be an abridgment of the Weather Signs that Theophrastus is known to have written (which is lost in its original complete version), a shorter version that preserves the data but strips the work of its discussions of the underlying causes (Sider and Brunschön 2007, pp. 40–43).

Page 108, note 9. See Krämer 1968, Lanza and Vegetti 1971 (pp. 88+ and 102+), and P. Pellegrin 1982. The most recent scholars, on the basis of the criticisms directed against Aristotelian classification by nineteenth-century biologists, such as G. Pouchet (1884–1885), have underlined that this work is not a simple repository of information but that the use of such Platonic dialectical techniques, such as the diairesis, makes the text a full-fledged scientific study, in which the facts are already steeped in theorization, an integral part of the research on causes. Some present a contrast between this study and the biological works that followed; for example, “the Research on Animals is perfectly autonomous and its scientific structure by itself does not require any completion” (Lanza and Vegetti 1971, p. 86). But others consider this work in a line of continuity with the works Parts of Animals and Generation of Animals, such as Pellegrin (1982, p. 172), who sees “a division of labor between the three great biological treatises.” I shall not venture into this debate, even if it seems to me that Aristotle’s explicit statements give greater support to Pellegrin (see, for instance, Parts of Animals II.1, 646a8). My position is the following: the historiai of Aristotle and Theophrastus are the writings that bring us closest to the phase of the collection of data and the research activity of the Peripatos. In my opinion, it is useless to think that these facts were grouped in an even simpler manner, for instance, in some type of index, and then were organized in a more theoretical manner, according to the form of diairesis, and were then studied, in an even more theoretical manner, in the writings devoted to the research on causes. It is simpler to imagine that the facts, taken from personal observation, from the accounts of experts and reliable persons, and from the reading of Homer and the poets, were inserted directly into these historiai, with a view to a subsequent reworking.

Page 108, note 10. Concerning the similarity of composition of the two works, see Wörle 1985, pp. 3+.

Page 108, note 11. Putting into practice Aristotle’s advice in Politics I.11, 1259a3–5 that “we must collect (sullegein) the scattered things said about how some people were fortunate at making money.”

Page 108, note 12. A typical example of this interpretation is Oncken 1870, pp. 4–12; for Oncken, Aristotle was the son of an Asclepian physician, and as such he must have learned anatomy and the scientific method from his family, and he was the first to apply the scientific method to the entire body of Greek knowledge. He was the father of the inductive method and of empirical observation, and, for that reason, he had neither masters nor pupils. His position therefore would be opposed to the pure contemplation of ideas practiced in the Academy.

Page 111, note 13. Concerning the interpretation of the letter, see Gigante 1962 (pp. 515–516) and Sollenberger 1985 (pp. 12 and 45–46). [Postscript 2012: According to the Greek text printed in the recent Teubner edition, Theophrastus is speaking about tou deiktēriou, a rare word (transmitted by some but not all manuscripts) meaning “the proof stage” or perhaps “the showroom.” Other editions of Diogenes Laertius, such as the Loeb and the OCT, print the other reading presented by the manuscripts dikastēriou or “jury room,” without however even reporting in the apparatus the alternative transmitted reading deiktēriou. Also worth considering perhaps is a conjectural emendation such as Apelt’s suggestion didaktēriou or “teaching room.”]

Page 112, note 14. Concerning the interpretation of Parts of Animals I.5, see Kullmann 1974, pp. 79–85.

Page 113, note 15. On the range of senses that Aristotle gives to the term diagōgē, see Bonitz 1870, s.v.; the passages cited focus on the value of intellectual pastimes.

NOTES TO CHAPTER FOUR

STUDIES OF ARISTOTLE’S BIOGRAPHY FROM ZELLER TO THE PRESENT DAY

Page 120, note 1. A comparable case is that of the relations between Isocrates and Nicocles of Cyprus. Scholars of Isocrates such as Mathieu and Brémond claim that Nicocles came to Athens and was a disciple of Isocrates (1942a, 2:92), a claim taken up again by Eucken (1983, p. 212); from his works it is clear that Isocrates received lavish gifts from Nicocles (Antidosis 40). In the case of Themison and Aristotle, however, we have no report comparable to this.

Page 121, note 2. Düring (1957) offers a comparison of the various texts in English translation.

Page 121, note 3. Plezia (1961) reports the Greek version, with the principal variants of the Arab texts translated into Latin, in the critical apparatus.

Page 121, note 4. Chroust gives a complete translation of both texts, arranging them in parallel columns (1973, pp. 185–189).

Page 121, note 5. The testimonia basically amount to the sum of the passages that in the ancient biographies of Aristotle introduce the text of the will, plus Athenaeus 13, 589c (Hermippus fr. 26 Bollansée = fr. 46 Wehrli).

Page 121, note 6. Diels-Schubart edition 1904; Pearson-Stephens edition 1983; latest edition P. Harding 2006.

Page 121, note 7. Plezia 1977 also publishes the related testimonia on pp. 1–3.

Page 121, note 8. Diehl-Beutler edition, 1925 and 1949³.

Page 123, note 9. He states that the picture of Aristotle that we can draw from the letters has little to do with the picture of Aristotle that we can draw from the authentic fragments and the surviving treatises; he claims, furthermore, that it is only beginning with Epicurus that we are certainly dealing with an authentic private correspondence, whose preservation can be explained both on the basis of the importance that friendship has in Epicurus’s system, and by the fact that Epicurus entrusted to his friends the publication of the correspondence.

Page 125, note 10. There is an Italian translation in Natali 1981, pp. 69–96, of a relevant part of Wehrli 1959, his Ruckblick: Der Peripatos in Vorchristlicher Zeit.

Page 126, note 11. In this way, Wehrli takes up the traditional opinion represented by many scholars; see, e.g., Gercke 1896, Moraux 1951 (p. 244, with bibliography), Moraux 1955, Düring 1956 (p. 13), Düring 1957 (pp. 346 and 464), and Gigon 1958 (p. 149, no. 5 with some doubts). The hypothesis, however, has been subjected to criticism in Plezia 1951a (p. 272), Plezia 1961a (pp. 246–247), Gauthier 1959 (introduction, p. 6), and Düring 1968 (col. 163).

Page 126, note 12. Hermippus quotes Aristotle’s will, which he may have taken from the collection of documents on the Peripatetic scholarchs assembled by Ariston; see Aristotle testimonium 12c.

Page 126, note 13. Some think instead that in his love for anecdotes Hermippus also gathered reports and inventions that were hostile to Aristotle; see Foucart 1909 and Wormell 1935.

Page 126, note 14. Plezia 1951a seems willing to lend Hermippus a certain credence, and makes him the main source for Diogenes Laertius, Didymus, and Athenaeus.

Page 126, note 15. Even if it is true, as some say, that Diogenes Laertius relies more on Ariston than on Hermippus, in either case these are sources from the late Peripatos, as is rightly observed in Berti 1962, pp. 125–126. [Postscript 2012: For Hermippus, see also Plezia 1951a, Düring 1957 (pp. 57–61, 263, 269, 278–279, 313, 346, 352, 406, and 464–467), and Chroust 1964. The fragments of Hermippus are now collected in Bollansée 1999, with ample commentary.]

Page 130, note 16. The concluding chapter of this can be found, in a partial Italian translation, in Natali 1981, pp. 97–105.

Page 130, note 17. About Aristocles of Messene, see Heiland 1925, Moraux 1967, and Moraux 1984, pp. 399–401. The authors cited, eight in total (Epicurus, Timaeus of Tauromenium, Aristoxenus, Alexinus, Eubulides, Cephisodorus, Lyco, Theocritus of Chios), are all contemporaries of Aristotle, except for Epicurus, who was only slightly later. There is an Italian translation in Natali 1981, pp. 157–160.

Page 130, note 18. In Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica 15.2.9.

Page 131, note 19. See Radermacher 1951, pp. 197–199. Apparently the work comprised four books (Athenaeus 2, 60d = fr. 3 Radermacher), in which Cephisodorus engaged in a polemic against Aristotle, attacking the Platonic doctrine of ideas, according to Numenius (excerpted in Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica 14.6.9 = fr. 2). The passage was used extensively by Jaeger (1923, pp. 37–38) and by all those who had theorized an initial adherence on Aristotle’s part to the Platonic doctrine of ideas; see the review in Berti 1962, pp. 184+. But this may be a generic polemic against the Academics, since it is unlikely that an orator would make subtle distinctions between philosophical theories and positions that from the outside might well appear quite similar. For that matter, even for the comedians the doctrine of ideas is that part of Plato’s philosophy that was easiest to ridicule. Cephisodorus also admitted that Isocrates had written judicial speeches, which the master denied, but, added Cephisodorus, he wrote only a few (fr. 4 = Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Isocrates 18). Lastly, he repeated the usual personal accusations: lover of pleasure, glutton, and things of that sort (fr. 5 = Aristocles, On Philosophy (fr. 2 Chiesara), excerpted in Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica 15.2.7).

Page 131, note 20. This testimony about the Life of Plato by Aristoxenus (fr. 64 Wehrli) comes from Aristocles, On Philosophy (fr. 2 Chiesara), excerpted in Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica 15.2.3 (= Aristotle testimonium 58d). To judge from the evidence preserved in Vita Marciana 9, Philochorus interprets the testimony about the book of Aristoxenus precisely in the way that Aristocles of Messene says that it should not be interpreted. “Aristotle did not erect the Lyceum to oppose Plato, as Aristoxenus was the first to accuse him of doing” (FGrHist 328F223–224, Aristoxenus fr. 66 Wehrli). In his Against the Four (249.10), Aelius Aristides says that during the third trip to Sicily some disciples of Plato rebelled, but he names no names, while a scholion ad loc. applies the report to Aristotle (testimonium 61a). In the Suda (s.v. “Aristoxenus” = fr. 1 Wehrli), Aristoxenus is called “a student of his father and of Lamprus of Eretria, then of Xenophilus the Pythagorean, and lastly of Aristotle; he insulted him on his deathbed, because he left Theophrastus as successor in the school, who had greater fame than he did among the students of Aristotle” (testimonium 61b Düring; see Wehrli 1945, 3:48). The story is very doubtful, because it presupposes the existence of a fully organized philosophical school at the time of Aristotle’s death.

Page 131, note 21. Döring claims to be able to date the book of Eubulides to between 340 and 335 BCE (1972, pp. 102–104), that is, after the presumed date of Aristotle’s marriage to Pythia (which is certain) and prior to the date of Philip’s death (but this is more questionable).

Page 131, note 22. The most important passage is from Aristocles, On Philosophy (fr. 2 Chiesara), excerpted in Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica 15.2.5. “And Eubulides too, in his book against him [Aristotle], is clearly lying, first because he proffers as though they were by Aristotle some frigid poems written by others, concerning his marriage and the familiarity he had developed with Hermias, next by saying that he offended Philip, and that he didn’t visit Plato when he was dying, and he destroyed his books.” The mention of the poems to Hermias is not slander, but is historically correct. As for the other fragments, including Athenaeus 8 (354b–c), see section 3 of chapter 1. Diogenes Laertius 2.109 recalls only the controversy between Aristotle and Eubulides. Finally, in Oration 23 (285a–c), Themistius cites the “whole horde” of those who wrote against Aristotle, “the Cephisidoruses, the Eubulideses, the Timaeuses, the Dicaearchuses,” whose writings have come down to his time, “displaying their animosity and their competitiveness” (= Aristotle testimonium 63e). [Postscript 2012: The presence of the name of Dicaearchus in this list has occasioned surprise; Luzac proposed emending the text so as to refer to Demochares, a known enemy of Aristotle; Düring accepted the emendation (1957, p. 388), as did P. Huby (2001, 312n2), the effect of which is to remove this report from the Dicaearchus evidence base, where it has been collected as fr. 6 Mirhady = fr. 26 Wehrli.]

Page 132, note 23. See also testimonia 64a–c in Düring 1957, and pp. 65 and 391. [Postscript 2012: What was alleged is the discovery of a ridiculous quantity of lopadia, a cooking utensil corresponding to the modern Italian pentolino or saucepan; the lopadion is distinct from the larger chutra or stockpot and the wider tēganon or frying pan. To have one’s batterie de cuisine not earthenware but bronze is a sign of considerable wealth (Aristophanes, Wealth 812).]

Page 132, note 24. There are Italian translations in Natali 1981 (pp. 160–162) and in Laurenti 1987 (pp. 420–423).

Page 133, note 25. An attempt in the opposite direction in Cardona 1966 has not met with success.

Page 133, note 26. Chronology according to Düring 1957 (pp. 235–236 and 467) and Düring 1968 (col. 164), while Plezia 1961 thinks that this Artemon was a contemporary of Theophrastus, and therefore places great value on the fragments of the surviving letters of Aristotle that are presumed to have come from this collection.

Page 134, note 27. It is quoted, for instance, by Jaeger 1923 (p. 11), who opens his account with this letter, by Moraux 1951 (p. 134), and by Plezia 1961 (pp. 100–101). They believe that Aristotle meant to argue with Theopompus and Isocrates, and to show his credentials as a philosopher to Philip, in order to earn the position of tutor, much as a modern professor might present his own curriculum in an application for a permanent position in a university or in a research institute.

Page 134, note 28. About this, see Heiland 1925 and Moraux 1967.

Page 135, note 29. He translates or describes the biographies of Johannes Valensis, of Walter Burleigh, of an anonymous master of Cornelius Agrippa, and of Leonardo Bruni, Giambattista Guarini, J. J. Beurer, P. J. Nuñez, and A. Schottus. See also the observations of Mansion 1958.

Page 135, note 30. See De Cesare 1956, with bibliography.

Page 136, note 31. See the summary in Philips 1970.

Page 138, note 32. There is an Italian translation of the relevant parts of Wilamowitz 1881 in Natali 1981, pp. 29–46.

Page 138, note 33. Published by H. Diels and W. Schubart (Berlin 1904, editio minor Leipzig 1904). See Foucart 1909. For the most recent edition, see Dorandi 1991.

Page 138, note 34. Case referred to this idea in Case 1910 and defended its primacy in Case 1925, against the dismissive judgment of Taylor 1924.

Page 138, note 35. This title has been recently reprinted; see Kafka 1922.

Page 138, note 36. See the reviews of Berti 1962 (pp. 9–122), and of Lanza and Vegetti 1971.

Page 139, note 37. This theme is even more heavily emphasized in Jaeger 1938, pp. 220–236; the philosophy of Aristotle is said to have greatly encouraged the development of medical studies.

Page 140, note 38. Such as wondering whether Aristotle was Greek or half barbarian, or whether the fact that he was the son of a physician had decisively influenced his thinking; see Gomperz 1906, 4:81+.

Page 140, note 39. Bignone’s only original idea with respect to Jaeger, an idea for that matter already present in Wilamowitz 1893 (p. 334), was that Aristotle had supposedly already opened a philosophical school in Mytilene prior to his second stay in Athens. This hypothesis is not now very widely accepted among scholars.

Page 140, note 40. Bidez has some peculiar ideas; apparently he applies to Alexander the Führerprinzip, and sees the Alexander educated by Aristotle as a commander who, when “facing the menace of chaotic revolutionary politics,” imposed his will on Greece, establishing “a new world order” in place of the old political institutions (see pp. 20–21). The desire to be up-to-date sometimes leads to very risky claims.

Page 140, note 41. Now all assembled in Merlan 1976 (pp. 127–143, 144–152, and 167–188).

Page 141, note 42. Considered spurious by Jaeger 1938, p. 280.

Page 143, note 43. Justified criticism of Maddoli by Isnardi Parente 1974, p. 874.

Page 143, note 44. Aside from the ones already mentioned, I make note of Chroust 1971, 1972, 1972a, and various chapters in Chroust 1973.