Listed 21 sub titles with search on: Biographies for wider area of: "OLYMPIADA Village HALKIDIKI" .
Aristoteles. A great philosopher, the son of Nicomachus, court
physician to Philip II. of Macedon, and born in B.C. 384 at Stagira, a small town
in the Thracian Chalcidice. He received from his father a training in the natural
science of the day; but his philosophical education was obtained in Athens, where
he was a pupil and companion of Plato during the last twenty years of the latter's
life (367-347). His mind was, however, of too exact and unimaginative a type to
accept the mystical idealism of Plato's later years, and we find him gradually
developing a system of philosophy of his own, distinct from, and often antagonistic
to, that of his teacher, whose doctrines he nevertheless always treated with pious
respect, even when controverting them. In the later years of his association with
Plato and the Academy he began to lecture on his own account, treating especially
the subject of rhetoric. At the death of Plato the pre-eminent ability of Aristotle
would seem to have designated him to succeed to the leadership of the Academy,
but his divergence from his master's teaching was too great to make this possible.
At the invitation of his friend Hermeas, ruler of Atarneus and Assos in Mysia,
he repaired to his court, where he spent several years, and married his niece
and adopted daughter Pythias. His son Nicomachus, however, was the offspring of
a later union with Herpyllis, said to have been a slave, but to whom he testifies
the warmest gratitude in his will. From 344 to 342 he was again in Athens, but
in the latter year he accepted an invitation from King Philip to undertake the
oversight of the education of his son Alexander. It is not too fanciful to trace,
in the lofty views of the future conqueror, and his passionate love for the Homeric
poems, the influence of his three years' association with the great philosopher.
Aristotle did not forget, in this influential position, the town of his birth,
but obtained from Alexander that Stagira, which had been destroyed by Philip,
should be rebuilt. On Alexander's accession to the throne of Macedon in 335, Aristotle
removed to Athens, and established his school in the gymnasium known as the Lyceum,
from whose shady walks (peripatoi) his pupils became known as Peripatetics. He
is said to have given two classes of lectures: the more abstruse discussions (akroamatika)
in the morning for an inner circle of advanced pupils, and the popular discourses
(exoterika) in the evening for the general body of lovers of knowledge. At the
death of Alexander, in 323, the anti-Macedonian party in Athens recovered a temporary
ascendency, and Aristotle was involved in an accusation for impiety, to escape
which he fled to Chalcis in Euboea, in order, as he said, "that the Athenians
might not for a second time commit a sin against philosophy." Here he died
soon after, in 322, of a stomach complaint. A grave recently (1891) excavated
at Chalcis, by the explorers of the American School at Athens, is identified with
considerable probability as that of Aristotle. His will, perhaps genuine, is preserved
to us in Diogenes Laertius, v. 1. A statuette in the Mattei Palace and a life-size
statue in the Villa Spada at Rome reproduce the keen features of the profound
thinker. His character, if we may judge from the tone of his writings and from
the provisions of his will, was mild and generous; and the slanderous reports
found in such writers as Athenaeus may be dismissed as utterly without foundation.
The many-sided activity of Aristotle's mind and his prodigious
industry are shown in the extent and variety of his writings, which embraced,
according to Diogenes Laertius, 146 works in 400 books. Another list, which seems
to rest on the authority of the Peripatetic Andronicus, who in the time of Cicero
published a new edition of Aristotle's works, gives the number of books as 1000.
The history of his writings, if a widely accepted tradition
be true, is a romantic one. After the death of Theophrastus, who had succeeded
to the leadership of the Peripatetic School, his library, including the works
of Aristotle, is said to have passed into the hands of his pupil Neleus of Scepsis
in the Troad. The heirs of Neleus, to protect the books from the literary greed
of the Attalids of Pergamus, concealed them in a vault, where they were injured
by dampness and the ravages of moths and worms. In this hiding-place they were
discovered about the year B.C. 100 by Apellicon, a rich book-lover, and conveyed
to Athens, whence they were taken to Rome after the capture of Athens by Sulla
in B.C. 86. In Rome they soon attracted the attention of scholars, and the new
edition then prepared by Andronicus gave a fresh impetus to the study of Aristotle
and of philosophy in general. Strangely enough, the list of works in Diogenes
Laertius, mentioned above, does not seem to contain any of the forty treatises
in our Aristotle, and it is not impossible that the whole catalogue is a list
of forgeries, compiled at a time when the real works were lost to sight. The greater
part of what has come down to us under the name of Aristotle is undoubtedly genuine.
The works of Aristotle fall naturally under three heads: I.
Dialogues and other works of a popular character. II. Collections of facts and
material for scientific treatment. III. Systematic works. Among his writings of
a popular character the only one which we possess of any consequence is the interesting
tract On the Polity of the Athenians, recently discovered in some Egyptian papyri,
and edited by Kenyon under the auspices of the British Museum (London, 1891).
It is written in a clear and easy style, and sheds a flood of new light on Athenian
political history, and especially on the Constitution in Aristotle's own time.
Of the works of the second class nothing worthy of mention has been preserved.
The systematic treatises are marked by a severe plainness of style, with none
of the golden flow of language which the ancients praised in Aristotle. This may
be due to the fact that these works were not, in most cases, published by Aristotle
himself or during his lifetime, but were edited after his death, from unfinished
MSS., by Eudemus, Nicomachus, or Theophrastus.
Aristotle's systematic treatises may be grouped in several
divisions, in accordance with the subjects discussed, as follows: I. Logic. II.
Natural Science. III. Psychology and Metaphysics. IV. Ethics. V. Politics. VI.
Rhetoric.
I. The writings on the general subject of Logic were included
by the later Peripatetics under the name of Organon, or Instrument, as having
to do with reasoning, the chief instrument of dialectic and scientific investigation.
They embrace (1) the Categories (Kategoriai), treating of the ten fundamental
forms of predicating existence (probably not by Aristotle himself, but by one
of his pupils). (2) On Interpretation (Peri Hermeneias), dealing with the forms
and parts of the sentence. (3) Prior and Posterior Analytics (Analutika Protera
and Hustera), containing (a) the doctrine of scientific proof and (b) of cognition
or knowledge in general. (4) The Topics (Topika), on the art of dialectic. (5)
The Sophistical Refutations (Sophistikoi Elenchoi), an examination of the fallacies
of the Sophists, then in such vogue. All of the most important of Aristotle's
works in the domain of Logic have come down to us, and they include the most enduring
contribution which the great aualyst has made to human thought. The science of
deductive reasoning has made no essential progress since his day. II. The works
in the department of Natural Science are (1) the Physics (Phusike Akroasis). This
is not a treatise on physics in the modern sense of the term, but is happily styled
by Hegel the “metaphysics of physics.” It treats of the principles of existence,
of matter and form, explaining the fundamental conceptions in accordance with
which we look at the phenomena of nature. (2) On the Heavens (Peri Ouranou). (3)
On Generation and Decay (Peri Geneseos kai Phthoras), discussing the pairs of
opposites, hot and cold, and wet and dry, and how their different combinations
produce the four elements of fire, air, earth, and water. (4) Meteorology (Meteorologika).
(5) Researches about Animals (Hai peri ta Zoia Historiai). (6) On the Parts of
Animals (Peri Zoion Morion). (7) On the Generation of Animals (Peri Zoion Geneseos).
(8) On Locomotion of Animals (Peri Poreias Zoion). (9) A number of shorter works
are usually classed together under the head of Parva Naturalia. They treat of
sense and sensation, youth and age, and other phenomena of life. The treatises
On Plants, On the Universe, On Motion, On Respiration, On Colour, On Physiognomy,
On Strange Statements, and the collection of various scientific Problems, are
all of doubtful authenticity. The above-mentioned works exhibit an astonishing
breadth of observation in natural history. The Researches about Animals shows
an acquaintance with almost five hundred different species, and the observations
on the purpose and adaptation of the organs of various creatures are characterized
by remarkable insight. III. Psychology and Metaphysics. (1) On the Soul (Peri
tes Psuches). This treatise might fairly be classed with the works on natural
science, as it does not deal with psychology in the modern sense, but with the
physiology of the vital principle in animals generally. (2) The Metaphysics (Metaphusika),
as the name indicates, forms the highest step in Aristotle's system, and deals
with the first principles of all existence. Here he grapples with the deepest
questions of philosophy, but with less clear and satisfactory results than he
reaches in many of his discussions. His doctrine of mind (nous), or the godhead,
as the power that moves the starry heavens, is not sufficient to account for the
structure of the universe or the origin of existing things. IV. Ethics. The ethical
works of Aristotle embrace (1) the Nicomachean Ethics (Ethika Nikomacheia); (2)
the Eudemean Ethics (Ethika Eudemeia); (3) the so-called Magna Moralia (Ethika
Megala). The foundation principles of the Aristotelian system of morals appear
alike in all of these works, but it is probable that the first alone is the work
of the philosopher himself. He teaches that happiness is the highest good, and
that this is found in an activity of the soul in accordance with virtue. Virtue
is a permanent state of the soul, and consists in the mean between the too much
(huperbole) and the too little (elleipsis). The Nicomachean Ethics is one of the
most interesting of Aristotle's works, and his descriptions of some of the virtuous
characters (see bk. iv.) are exceedingly impressive. V. Politics. Closely connected
with the Ethics is the Politics (Politika). The best ordering of the State was,
to Aristotle's mind, the worthiest problem for the philosopher; and though his
treatment of the subject was not brought to a logical conclusion, yet the work
contains much valuable information and abounds in interesting remarks. The Economics
(Oikonomika) is probably the work of some later writer of the Peripatetic School.
VI. Rhetoric. The rhetorical works include (1) the Poetics (Peri Poietikes), and
(2) the Art of Rhetoric (Techne Rhetorike). The first of these, though insignificant
in length, has received more consideration in recent years than almost any other
work of the author. The famous definition of tragedy in chap. vi., the discussion
of the parts of tragedy in chap. xii., and the distinction between epic and tragic
poetry in chap. xxvi. are passages of the greatest interest and value. The celebrated
doctrine of the katharsis effected by tragedy (vi. 2) has given rise to much discussion,
but has not yet been satisfactorily explained. The doctrine of the three "unities"
of tragedy, upon which so much stress has been laid by the French critics, was
first promulgated by Aristotle in this work. The Rhetoric treats of oratorical
proof, and its leading elements, together with an interesting discussion of style--all
marked by the author's usual clear and exhaustive treatment.
In reviewing the works of Aristotle we are at a loss whether
to admire most his vast and accurate observation of nature, his profound acquaintance
with the literature of his day, or his deep and penetrating insight, his keen
analysis, and his unfailing good sense. In his love for research and his critical
tendency he may be regarded as the forerunner of the Alexandrian Age which was
soon to open. His style, though so concise as sometimes to be obscure, is often
a model of condensed energy, and his occasional illustrations are marvellously
appropriate. His influence on the course of human thought since his day has been
almost boundless. In antiquity he was the most honoured philosopher, while the
early Christian writers compared Plato and Aristotle to Moses and Christ. He was
the ora cle of the Middle Ages, when his writings, through his followers, the
schoolmen, were almost all that saved Europe from utter barbarism. The Arabians,
in the reign of the calif Al Mamun (A.D. 813), began to translate his works, which
became the foundation of Saracenic culture, and were brought by them to the knowledge
of Western Europe through the medium of Latin versions from the Arabic. In Arabic
tradition Aristotle is the "wisest man," just as his pupil Ishkander
(Alexander) is the hero of warlike fable. The Roman Catholic Church almost canonized
him, and his philosophical system, as modified by the great Dominicans Albertus
Magnus and Thomas Aquinas, lies at the basis of Catholic theology to-day. But
when the Renaissance gave back to Europe the knowledge of Plato, the popularity
of Aristotle declined. Plato's perfection of form, and the fact that he wrote
for the enlightened public generally, rather than for an inner circle of special
students, no doubt contributed to this result. The Reformers, who regarded Aristotle
as the bulwark of the Papacy, attacked him bitterly, and by the middle of the
eighteenth century he had been almost set aside. It was reserved for the nineteenth
century, through the labours of Schleiermacher, Spengel, Brandis, and others,
to find the key to the true historical appreciation of the value of Aristotle.
The influence of Aristotle on the vocabulary of modern philosophy
is worthy of especial notice. A large number of terms which are in constant use
to-day are derived from him, either directly or through the medium of Latin equivalents.
Some of these are: principle (arche), subject (hupokeimenon), matter (materies=hule),
form, end, final cause, faculty (dunamis), energy, category, predicament, habit,
mean, extreme, quintessence, metaphysics, etc.
This text is from: Harry Thurston Peck, Harpers Dictionary of Classical Antiquities. Cited Nov 2002 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Aristotle's biography.
Aristotle was born at Stageira, a sea-port town of some little importance in the
district of Chalcidice, in the first year of the 99th Olympiad (B. C. 384). His
father, Nicomachus, an Asclepiad, was physician in ordinary to Amyntas II., king
of Macedonia, and the author of several treatises on subjects connected with natural
science (Suidas, s.v. Aristoteles). His mother, Phaestis (or Phaestias), was descended
from a Chalcidian family (Dionys. de Demosth. et Arist. 5); and we find mention
of his brother Arimnestus, and his sister Arimneste (Diog. Laert. v. 15; Suid.
l.c.). His father, who was a man of scientific culture, soon introduced his son
at the court of the king of Macedonia in Pella, where at an early age he became
acquainted with the son of Amyntas II., afterwards the celebrated Philip of Macedonia,
who was only three years younger than Aristotle himself. The studies and occupation
of his father account for the early inclination manifested by Aristotle for the
investigation of nature, an inclination which is perceived throughout his whole
life. He lost his father before he had attained his seventeenth year (his mother
appears to have died earlier), and he was entrusted to the guardianship of one
Proxenus of Atarneus in Mysia, who, however, without doubt, was settled in Stageira.
This friend of his father provided conscientiously for the education of the young
orphan, and secured for himself a lasting remembrance in the heart of his grateful
pupil. Afterwards, when his foster-parents died, leaving a son, Nicanor, Aristotle
adopted him, and gave him his only daughter, Pythias, in marriage.
After the completion of his seventeenth year, his ardent yearning
after knowledge led him to Athens, the mother-city of Hellenic culture (B. C.
367). Various calumnious reports respecting Aristotle's youthful days, which the
hatred and envy of the schools invented, and gossiping anecdote-mongers spread
abroad (Athen. viii.; Aelian. V. H. v. 9; Euseb. Praep. Evangel. xv. 2; comp.
Appuleius, Apol.) to the effect that he squandered his hereditary property in
a course of dissipation, and was compelled to seek a subsistence first as a soldier,
then as a drug-seller (pharmakopoles), have been already amply refuted by the
ancients themselves. (When Aristotle arrived at Athens, Plato had just set out
upon his Sicilian journey, from which he did not return for three years. This
intervening time was employed by Aristotle in preparing himself to be a worthy
disciple of the great teacher. His hereditary fortune, which, according to all
appearance, was considerable, not merely relieved him from anxiety about the means
of subsistence, but enabled him also to support the expense which the purchase
of books at that time rendered necessary. He studied the works of the earlier
as well as of the contemporary philosophers with indefatigable zeal, and at the
same time sought for information and instruction in intercourse with such followers
of Socrates and Plato as were living at Athens, among whom we may mention Heracleides
Ponticus.
So aspiring a mind could not long remain concealed from the observation
of Plato, who soon distinguished him above all his other disciples. He named him,
on account of his restless industry and his untiring investigations after truth
and knowledge, the "intellect of his school"; his house, the house of the "reader"
(anagnostes, Ammon. l. c.; Caelius Rhodigin. xvii. 17), who needed a curb, whereas
Xenocrates needed the spur (Diog. Laert. iv. 6). And while he recommended the
latter "to sacrifice to the Graces", he appears rather to have warned Aristotle
against the "too much". Aristotle lived at Athens for twenty years, till B. C.
347. During the whole of this period the good understanding which subsisted between
teacher and scholar continued, with some trifling exceptions, undisturbed. For
the stories of the disrespect and ingratitude of the latter towards the former
are nothing but calumnies invented by his enemies, of whom, according to the expression
of Themistius (Orat. iv.), Aristotle had raised a whole host (Ael. V. H. iii.
19, iv. 9; Euseb. Praep. Ev. xv. 2; Diog. Laert. ii. 109, v. 2; Ammon. Vit. Arist.).
Nevertheless, we can easily believe, that between two men who were engaged in
the same pursuits, and were at the same time in some respects of opposite characters,
collisions might now and then occur, and that the youthful Aristotle, possessed
as he was of a vigorous and aspiring mind, and having possibly a presentiment
that he was called to be the founder of a new epoch in thought and knowledge,
may have appeared to many to have sometimes entered the lists against his grey-headed
teacher with too much impetuosity. But with all that, the position in which they
stood to each other was, and continued to be, worthy of both. This is not only
proved by the character of each, which we know from other sources, but is also
confirmed by the truly amiable manner and affectionate reverence with which Aristotle
conducts his controversies with his teacher. In particular, we may notice a passage
in the Nicomachean Ethics (i. 6), with which others (as Ethic. Nic. ix. 7, Polit.
ii. 3.3) may be compared. According to a notice by Olympiodorus (in his commentary
on Plato's Gorgias), Aristotle even wrote a biographical logos elkomiastikos on
his teacher.
During the last ten years of his first residence at Athens, Aristotle
himself had already assembled around him a circle of scholars, among whom we may
notice his friend Hermias, the dynast of the cities of Atarneus and Assos in Mysia
(Strabo, xiii.). The subjects of his lectures were not so much of a philosophical
as of a rhetorical and perhaps also of a political kind (Quintil. xi. 2.25). At
least it is proved that Aristotle entered the lists of controversy against Isocrates,
at that time the most distinguished teacher of rhetoric. Indeed, he appears to
have opposed most decidedly all the earlier and contemporary theories of rhetoric
(Arist. Rhet. i. 1, 2). His opposition to Isocrates, however, led to most important
consequences, as it accounts for the bitter hatred which was afterwards manifested
towards Aristotle and his school by all the followers of Isocrates. It was the
conflict of profound philosophical investigation with the superficiality of stylistic
and rhetorical accomplishment; of systematic observation with shallow empiricism
and prosaic insipidity; of which Isocrates might be looked upon as the principal
representative, since he not only despised poetry, but held physics and mathematics
to be illiberal studies, cared not to know anything about philosophy, and looked
upon the accomplished man of the world and the clever rhetorician as the true
philosophers. On this occasion Aristotle published his first rhetorical writings.
That during this time he continued to maintain his connexion with the Macedonian
court, is intimated by his going on an embassy to Philip of Macedonia on some
business of the Athenians (Diog. Laert. v. 2). Moreover, we have still the letter
in which his royal friend announces to him the birth of his son Alexander (B.
C. 356; Gell. ix. 3; Dion Chrysost. Orat. xix.).
After the death of Plato, which occurred during the above-mentioned
embassy of Aristotle (B. C. 347), the latter left Athens, though we do not exactly
know for what reason. Perhaps he was offended by Plato's having appointed Speusippus
as his successor in the Academy (Diog. Laert. v. 2, iv. 1). At the same time,
it is more probable that, after the notions of the ancient philosophers, he esteemed
travels in foreign parts as a necessary completion of his education. Since the
death of Plato, there had been no longer any ties to detain him at Athens. Besides,
the political horizon there had assumed a very different aspect. The undertakings
of Philip against Olynthus and most of the Greek cities of Chalcidice filled the
Athenians with hatred and anxiety. The native city of Aristotle met with the fate
of many others, and was destroyed by Philip at the very time that Aristotle received
an invitation from his former pupil, Hermias, who from being the confidential
friend of a Bithynian dynast, Eubulus (comp. Pollux, ix. 6; Arist. Polit. ii.
4.9, 10), had, as already stated, raised himself to be the ruler of the cities
of Atarneus and Assos. On his journey thither he was accompanied by his friend
Xenocrates, the disciple of Plato. Hermias, like his predecessor Eubulus, had
taken part in the attempts made at that time by the Greeks in Asia to free themselves
from the Persian dominion. Perhaps, therefore, the journey of Aristotle had even
a political object, as it appears not unlikely that Hermias wished to avail himself
not merely of his counsel, but of his good offices with Philip, in order to further
his plans. A few years, however, after the arrival of Aristotle, Hermias, through
the treachery of Mentor, a Grecian general in the Persian service, fell into the
hands of the Persians, and, like his predecessor, lost his life. Aristotle himself
escaped to Mytilene, whither his wife, Pythias, the adoptive daughter of the assassinated
prince, accompanied him. A poem on his unfortunate friend, which is still preserved,
testifies the warm affection which he had felt for him. He afterwards caused a
statue to be erected to his memory at Delphi (Diog. Laert. v. 6, 7). He transferred
to his adoptive daughter, Pythias, the almost enthusiastic attachment which he
had entertained for his friend; and long after her death he directed in his will
that her ashes should be placed beside his own (Diog. v. 16).
Two years after his flight from Atarneus (B. C. 342) we find the philosopher
accepting an invitation from Philip of Macedonia, who summoned him to his court
to undertake the instruction and education of his son Alexander, then thirteen
years of age (Plut. Alex. 5; Quintil. i. 1). Here Aristotle was treated with the
most marked respect. His native city, Stageira, was rebuilt at his request, and
Philip caused a gymnasium (called Nymphaeum) to be built there in a pleasant grove
expressly for Aristotle and his pupils. In the time of Plutarch, the shady walks
(peripatoi) and stone seats of Aristotle were still shewn to the traveller. Here,
in quiet retirement from the intrigues of the court at Pella, the future conqueror
of the world ripened into manhood. Plutarch informs us that several other noble
youths enjoyed the instruction of Aristotle with him. Among this number we may
mention Cassander, the son of Antipater (Plut. Alex. 74), Marsyas of Pella (brother
of Antigonus, afterwards king), who subsequently wrote a work on the education
of Alexander; Callisthenes, a relation of Aristotle, and afterwards the historian
of Alexander, and Theophrastus of Eresus (in Lesbos). Nearchus, Ptolemy, and Harpalus
also, the three most intimate friends of Alexander's youth, were probably his
fellow pupils (Plut. Alex. 10). Alexander attached himself with such ardent affection
to the philosopher, that the youth, whom no one yet had been able to manage, soon
valued his instructor above his own father. Aristotle spent seven years in Macedonia;
but Alexander enjoyed his instruction without interruption for only four. But
with such a pupil even this short period was sufficient for a teacher like Aristotle
to fulfil the highest purposes of education, to aid the development of his pupil's
faculties in every direction, to awaken susceptibility and lively inclination
for every art and science, and to create in him that sense of the noble and great,
which distinguishes Alexander from all those conquerors who have only swept like
a hurricane through the world. According to the usual mode of Grecian education,
a knowledge of the poets, eloquence, and philosophy, were the principal subiects
into which Aristotle initiated his royal pupil. Thus we are even informed that
he prepared a new recension of the Iliad for him (he ek tou narthekos), that he
instructed him in ethics and politics (Plut. Alex. 7), and disclosed to him the
abstrusities of his own speculations, of the publication of which by his writings
Alexander afterwards complained (Gell. xx. 5). Alexander's love of the science
of medicine and every branch of physics, as well as the lively interest which
he took in literature and philosophy generally (Plut. Alex. 8), were awakened
and fostered by this instruction. Nor can the views communicated by Aristotle
to his pupil on politics have failed to exercise the most important influence
on his subsequent plans; although the aim of Alexander, to unite all the nations
under his sway into one kingdom, without due regard to their individual peculiarities
(Plut. de Virt. Alex. i. 6), was not founded on the advice of Aristotle, but,
on the contrary, was opposed to the views of the philosopher, as Plutarch expressly
remarks, and as a closer consideration of the politics of Aristotle is of itself
sufficient to prove (Comp. Polit. iii. 9, vii. 6, i. 1). On the other hand, this
connexion had likewise important consequences as regards Aristotle himself. Living
in what was then the centre and source of political activity, his survey of the
relations of life and of states, as well as his knowledge of men, was extended.
The position in which he stood to Alexander occasioned and favoured several studies
and literary works. In his extended researches into natural science, and particularly
in his zoological investigations, he received not only from Philip, but in still
larger measure from Alexander, the most liberal support, a support which stands
unrivalled in the history of civilisation (Aelian, V. H. v. 19; Athen. ix.; Plin.
H. N. viii. 17).
In the year B. C. 340, Alexander, then scarcely seventeen years of
age, was appointed regent by his father, who was about to make an expedition against
Byzantium. From that time Aristotle's instruction of the young prince was chiefly
restricted to advice and suggestion, which may very possibly have been carried
on by means of epistolary correspondence.
In the year B. C. 335, soon after Alexander ascended the throne, Aristotle
quitted Macedonia for ever, and returned to Athens, after an absence of twelve
years, whither, as it appears, he had already been invited. Here he found his
friend Xenocrates president of the Academy. He himself had the Lyceum, a gymnasium
in the neighbourhood of the temple of Apollo Lykeios, assigned to him by the state.
He soon assembled round him a large number of distinguished scholars out of all
the Hellenic cities of Europe and Asia, to whom, in the shady walks (peripatoi)
which surrounded the Lyceum, while walking up and down, he delivered lectures
on philosophy. From one or other of these circumstances the name Peripatetic is
derived, which was afterwards given to his school. It appears, however, most correct
to derive the name from the place where Aristotle taught, which was called at
Athens par excellence, ho peripatos, as is proved also by the wills of Theophrastus
and Lycon. His lectures, which, according to an old account preserved by Gellius
(xx. 5), he delivered in the morning (heothinos peripatos) to a narrower circle
of chosen and confidential (esoteric) hearers, and which were called acroamatic
or acroaiic, embraced subjects connected with the more abstruse philosophy (theology),
physics, and dialectics. Those which he delivered in the afternoon (deilinos peripatos)
and intended for a more promiscuous circle (which accordingly he called esoteric),
extended to rhetoric, sophistics., and politics. Such a separation of his more
intimate disciples and more profound lectures, from the main body of his other
hearers and the popular discourses intended for then, is also found among other
Greek philosophers. As regards the external form of delivery, he appears to have
taught not so much in the way of conversation, as in regular lectures. Some notices
have been preserved to us of certain external regulations of his school, e. g.,
that, after the example of Xenocrates, he created an archon every ten days among
his scholars, and laid down certain laws of good breeding for their social meetings
(nomoi sumpotikoi, Diog. Laert. ii. 130; Athen. v.). Neither of the two schools
of philosophy which flourished at the same time in Athens approached, in extent
and celebrity, that of Aristotle, from which proceeded a large number of distinguished
philosophers, historians, statesmen, and orators. We mention here, beside Callisthenes
of Olynthus, who has been already spoken of, only the names of Theophrastus, and
his countryman Phanias, of Eresus, the former of whom succeeded Aristotle in the
Lyceum as president of the school; Aristoxenus the Tarentine, surnamed mousikos;
the brothers Eudemus and Pasicrates of Rhodes; Eudemus of Cyprus; Clearchus of
Soli ; Theodectes of Phaselis; the historians Dicaearchus and Satyrus; the celebrated
statesman, orator, and writer, Demetrius Phalereus; the philosopher Ariston of
Cos; Philon; Neleus of Scepsis, and many others, of whom an account was given
by the Alexandrine grammarian Nicander in his lost work, Peri ton Aristotelous
matheton.
During the thirteen years which Aristotle spent at Athens in active
exertions amongst such a circle of disciples, he was at the same time occupied
with the composition of the greater part of his works. In these labours, as has
already been observed, he was assisted by the truly kingly liberality of his former
pupil, who not only presented him with 800 talents, an immense sum even for our
times, but also, through his vicegerents in the conquered provinces, caused large
collections of natural curiosities to be made for him, to which posterity is indebted
for one of his most excellent works, the "History of Animals" (Plin. H. N. viii.
17).
Meanwhile various causes contributed to throw a cloud over the latter
years of the philosopher's life. In the first place, he felt deeply the death
of his wife Pythias, who left behind her a daughter of the same name: he lived
subsequently with a friend of his wife's, the slave Herpyllis, who bore him a
son, Nicomachus, and of whose faithfulness and attachment he makes a grateful
and substantial acknowledgement in his will (Diog. Laert. v. 1; v. 13). But a
source of still greater grief was an interruption of the friendly relation in
which he had hitherto stood to his royal pupil. The occasion of this originated
in the opposition raised by the philosopher Callisthenes against the changes in
the conduct and policy of Alexander. Aristotle, who had in vain advised Callisthenes
not to lose sight of prudence in his behaviour towards the king, disapproved of
his conduct altogether, and foresaw its unhappy issue. Still Alexander refrained
from any expression of hostility towards his former instructor (a story of this
kind in Diog. Laert. v. 10, has been corrected by Stahr, Aristotelia, p. 133);
and although, as Plutarch expressly informs us, their former cordial connexion
no longer subsisted undisturbed, yet, as is proved by a remarkable expression,
Aristotle never lost his trust in his royal friend. The story, that Aristotle,
irritated by the above-mentioned occurrence, took part in poisoning the king,
is altogether unfounded. Alexander, according to all historical testimony, died
a natural death, and no writer mentions the name of Aristotle in connexion with
the rumour of the poisoning except Pliny (H. N. xxx. 53). Nay, even the passage
of Pliny has been wrongly understood by the biographers of Aristotle; for, far
from regarding Aristotle as guilty of such a crime, the Roman naturalist, who
everywhere shews that he cherished the deepest respect for Aristotle, says, on
the contrary, just the reverse -that the rumour had been "mnagna cum infamia Aristotelis
excogitatum".
The movements which commenced in Grecce against Macedonia after Alexander's
death, B. C. 323, endangered also the peace and security of Aristotle, who was
regarded as a friend of Macedonia. To bring a political accusation against him
was not easy, for Aristotle was so spotless in this respect, that not even his
name is mentioned by Demosthenes, or any other contemporary orator, as implicated
in those relations. He was accordingly accused of impiety (asebeias) by the hierophant
Eurymedon, whose accusation was supported by an Athenian of some note, named Demophilus.
Such accusations, as the rabulist Euthyphron in Plato remarks, seldom missed their
object with the multitude. The charge was grounded on his having addressed a hymn
to his friend Hermias as to a god, and paid him divine honours in other respects
(Diog. Laert. v. 5). Certain dogmas of the philosopher were also used for the
same object. Aristotle, however, knew his danger sufficiently well to withdraw
from Athens before his trial. He escaped in the beginning of B. C. 322 to Chalcis
in Euboea, where he had relations on his mother's side, and where the Macedonian
influence, which was there predominant, afforded him protection and security.
In his will also mention is made of some property which he had in Chalcis. (Diog.
Laert. v. 1). Certain accounts (Strabo, x. p. 448; Diog. Laert. x. 1) even render
it exceedingly probable that Aristotle had left Athens and removed to Chalcis
before the death of Alexander. A fragment of a letter written by the philosopher
to his friend Antipater has been preserved to us, in which he states his reasons
for the above-mentioned change of residence, and at the same time, with reference
to the unjust execution of Socrates, adds, that he wished to deprive the Athenians
of the opportunity of sinning a second time against philosophy. From Chalcis he
may have sent forth a defence against the accusation of his enemies. At least
antiquity possessed a defence of that kind under his name, the authenticity of
which, however, was already doubted by Athenaeus. However, on his refusing to
answer the summons of the Areiopagus, he was deprived of all the rights and honours
which had been previously bestowed upon him (Aelian, V. H. xiv. 1), and condemned
to death in his absence. Meantime the philosopher continued his studies and lectures
in Chalcis for some time longer without molestation. He died in the beginning
of August, in the year B. C. 322, a short time before Demosthenes (who died in
October of the same year), in the 63rd year of his age, from the effects, not
of poison, but of a chronic disorder of the stomach. The accounts of his having
committed suicide belong to the region of fables and tales. One story (found in
several of the Christian fathers) was, that he threw himself into the Euripus,
from vexation at being unable to discover the causes of the currents in it. On
the other hand, we have the account, that his mortal remains were transported
to his native city Stageira, and that his memory was honoured there, like that
of a hero, by yearly festivals of remembrance. Before his death, in compliance
with the wish of his school, he had intimated in a symbolical manner that of his
two most distinguished scholars, Menedemus of Rhodes and Theophrastus of Eresus
(in Lesbos), he intended the latter to be his successor in the Lyceum (Gellius,
xiii. 5). He also bequeathed to Theophrastus his well-stored library and the originals
of his own writings. From his will (in Diog. Laert. v. 21; Hermipp. ap. Athen.
xiii.), which attests the flourishing state of his worldly circumstances not less
than his judicious and sympathetic care for his family and servants, we gather,
that his adoptive son Nicanor, his daughter Pythias, the offspring of his first
marriage, as well as Herpyllis and the son he had by her, survived him. He named
his friend Antipater as the executor of his will.
If we cast a glance at the character of Aristotle, we see a man of
the highest intellectual powers, gifted with a piercing understanding, a comprehensive
and deep mind, practical and extensive views of the various relations of actual
life, and the noblest moral sentiments. Such he appears in his life as well as
in his writings. Such other information as we possess respecting his character
accords most completely with this view, if we estimate at their real value the
manifest ill-will and exaggerations of the literary anecdotes which have come
down to us. At Athens the fact of his being a foreigner was of itself a sufficient
reason for his taking no part in politics. For the rest, he at any rate did not
belong to the party of democratical patriots, of whom Demosthenes may be regarded
as the representative, but probably coincided rather with the conciliatory politics
of Phocion. A declared opponent of absolutism (Polit. ii. 7.6), he everywhere
insists on conformity to the law, for the law is "the only safe, rational standard
to be guided by, while the will of the individual man cannot be depended on".
He wished to form the beau ideal of a ruler in Alexander (Polit. iii. 8, extr.),
and it is quite in accordance with the oriental mode of viewing things, when the
Arabian philosophers, as Avicenna and Abu-l-faraj, sometimes call Aristotle, Alexander's
vizier.
The whole demeanour of Aristotle was marked by a certain briskness and vivacity.
His powers of eloquence were considerable, and of a kind adapted to produce conviction
in his hearers, a gilt which Antipater praises highly in a letter written after
Aristotle's death (Plut. Cat. Maj., Coriol.). He exhibited remarkable attention
to external appearance, and bestowed much care on his dress and person (Timotheus,
ap. Diog. L. v. 1; Aelian, V. H. iii. 19). He is described as having been of weak
health, which, considering the astonishing extent of his studies, shews all the
more the energy of his mind. He was short and of slender make, with small eyes
and a lisp in his pronunciation, using L for R (traulos, Diog. L. v. 1), and with
a sort of sarcastic expression in his countenance (mokia, Aelian, iii. 19), all
which characteristics are introduced in a maliciously caricatured description
of him in an ancient epigram. (Anth. 552, vol. iii. p. 176, ed. Jacobs).
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Oct 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Aristotle, Classic Technique, and Greek Drama
It is to the Greeks that we owe not only the first great plays, but
also the first principles of criticism and of dramatic construction.
Not every Athenian was a good critic, as some would have us think;
but we know that the comic poets took it upon themselves to deliver judgments,
to compare one writer with another, and in some measure, to lay down the laws
of drama. It fell, however, to Aristotle, a philosopher and teacher born in the
first quarter of the fourth century, to become not only the most important mouthpiece
of Greek dramatic criticism, but also one of the most important influences in
all the history of literature. He analyzed the plays of the fifth century as well
as those of his own time, classified the kinds of drama, and laid down rules for
the construction of tragedy. Aristotle had the very human characteristic of harking
back to the good old days, and thinking them much better than the days in which
he lived.
Taking scant account of Aeschylus, he regarded Sophocles and Euripides
as models in tragedy. His chief complaints were that the poets of his own time
spoiled their work by rhetorical display; that the actor was often of more importance
than the play; and that the poets tampered with the plot in order to give a favorite
actor an opportunity of displaying his special talent. He said that the poets
were deficient in the power of portraying character, and that it was not even
fair to compare them with the giants of the former era; that the drama was greatly
in need of fresh topics, new treatment, and original ideas; that it was polished
in diction, but lacking in force and vitality. The playwrights too frequently
made use of the god-from-the-machine for the purpose of extricating characters
from their troubles. Such was the tenor of Aristotle's “reviews” and
criticisms.
THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF ARISTOTLE
The greatest tragedy, in the opinion of Aristotle, was Oedipus
the King by Sophocles. The reasons for its supremacy lay in the excellent management
of plot and chorus, in the beauty of the language, in the irony of the situations,
and in the general nobility of conception. Aristotle cited also the Helena of
Euripides as a model of its kind, and lauded the author for the skill with which
he had set forth the complicated plot. Euripides was to him the most tragic of
the poets. At the same time, he found much in Euripides to censure. Only in Sophocles,
the perfect writer, were united ideal beauty, clearness of construction and religious
inspiration--the three qualities which alone make tragedy great.
The subjects of tragic drama, Aristotle said, were rightly drawn from
ancient mythology, because coming from that source they must be true. If man had
invented such strange incidents, they would have appeared impossible. The chief
characters of a tragic action should be persons of consequence, of exalted station.
The leading personage should not be a man characterized by great virtue or great
vice, but of a mixed nature, partly good and partly bad. His errors and weaknesses
lead him into misfortune. Such a mixture of good and evil makes him seem like
ourselves, thus more quickly arousing our sympathy. The course of the tragic action
should be such as to saturate the spectator with feelings of compassion, drive
out his petty personal emotions, and so "purge" the soul through pity and terror
(Catharsis). The crimes suitable for tragic treatment may be committed either
in ignorance, or intentionally, and are commonly against friends or relatives.
Crimes committed intentionally are generally the more dramatic and impressive.
(This in spite of the fact that the central crime in Oedipus the King was committed
in ignorance.) As to style, a certain archaic quality of diction is needful to
the dignity of tragedy.
THE THREE UNITIES
The most famous of the Aristotelian rules were those relating
to the so-called unities--of time, place, and action. The unity of time limits
the supposed action to the duration, roughly, of a single day; unity of place
limits it to one general locality; and the unity of action limits it to a single
set of incidents which are related as cause and effect, “having a beginning,
a middle, and an end”. Concerning the unity of time, Aristotle noted that
all the plays since Aeschylus, except two, did illustrate such unity, but he did
not lay down such a precept as obligatory. Perhaps tacitly he assumed that the
observance of the unity of place would be the practice of good playwrights, since
the chorus was present during the whole performance, and it would indeed be awkward
always to devise an excuse for moving fifteen persons about from place to place.
The third unity, that of action, is bound up with the nature not only of Greek
but of all drama.
GREEK DRAMA MORE CONCERNED WITH PLOT THAN WITH CHARACTER
Aristotle conceived the action, or plot, of a play as of
far greater importance than the characters. This conception he gained from the
plays of the fifth century, which, in general, centered around a personified passion
rather than around a character. The action was “the vital principle and
very soul of drama”. Again he says, “Tragedy is an imitation, not
of men, but of actions”. Second in importance was characterization; and
third were the sentiments aroused by the action.
He insisted very clearly that in tragedy the plot does not rise out
of the characters, but on the contrary the plot tests the characters through the
working-out of destiny -- “blind fate”. The main duty of the dramatist
was to organize first the action, then display the moral character of his people
under the blows of fate. “The incidents of the action, and the structural
ordering of these incidents, constitute the end and purpose of tragedy”.
Finally, and perhaps most important of all, was Aristotle's belief
that although tragedy should purge the emotions through pity and terror, yet all
drama was meant to entertain: tragedy through the sympathies, comedy through mirth.
PERVERSION OF ARISTOTLE'S PRINCIPLES
In this manner begun the formulated technique of the drama.
The principles enunciated by Aristotle were deduced from a study of the plays
which were effective in his time, and under the conditions of the Athenian stage;
but as time went on, critics and playwrights often studied Aristotle instead of
plays, and left out of consideration differing circumstances and conditions.
In this way, rules, created for the open-air Athenian production,
were applied indiscriminately to all sorts of stages, whether indoors or out.
Many writers failed to recognize the new life in their own art, and missed seeing
the truth that a first-hand observation of life is always of more value than rules
of any sort. Therefore an immemorial war has been waged between the sticklers
for old laws, on the one side, and, on the other, the genuinely creative writers.
In no art has this war been more apparent than in the drama; and in no art have
rigid rules been more oppressive. There have been long periods when the dominance
of technical rules, wholly or partially outgrown, has sterilized and all but killed
the theater.
Martha Fletcher Bellinger, ed.
This text is cited Sept 2003 from the TheatreHistory URL below.
The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
1. Aristotle, Overview
2. Aristotle, Ethics
3. Aristotle, Metaphysics
4. Aristotle, Motion and its Place in Nature
5. Aristotle, Poetics
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
1. Aristotle's Logic
2. Aristotle's Ethics
3. Aristotle's Metaphysics
4. Aristotle's Psychology
5. Aristotle's Political Theory
6. Aristotle's Rhetoric
Perseus Project - Thomas R. Martin, An Overview of Classical Greek History from Homer to Alexander
1. Aristotle on Human Happiness
2. Aristotle on Just Behavior
3. Aristotle on Slaves and Women
4. Aristotle on the City-state
5. Aristotle, Scientist and Philosopher
Greek Science course taught at Tufts University by Prof. Gregory Crane:
1. Herodotus-Thucydides through the lens of Aristotle, by Ben Zarit
2. Aristotle's Astronomy, by Thomas Fowler
3. The Atomists into Aristotle, by Marc Wohnsigl
Editor's Information
The e-texts of the works by Aristotle are found in Greece (ancient country) under the category Ancient Greek Writings.
Callinus, disciple and friend of Theophrastus (of Eresus), who left him in his will a piece of land at Stageira and 3000 drachmae. Callinus was also appointed by the testator one of the executors of the will. (Diog. Laert. v. 52, 55, 56.)
Hipparchus. Of Stageira, a relation and disciple of Aristotle, who mentions him
in his will. (Diog. Laert. v. 12.) Suidas (s. v.) mentions his works ti appen
kai Delu para tois Deois and tis ho gamos. Probably he is the same as the Hipparchus
mentioned in the will of Theophrastus, and the father of Hegesias. (Diog. Laert.
v. 51, 56, 57.)
Receive our daily Newsletter with all the latest updates on the Greek Travel industry.
Subscribe now!
