Как называется корпус логических сочинений аристотеля

The Corpus Aristotelicum is the collection of Aristotle’s works that have survived from antiquity through medieval manuscript transmission. These texts, as opposed to Aristotle’s works that were lost or intentionally destroyed, are technical philosophical treatises from within Aristotle’s school. Reference to them is made according to the organization of Immanuel Bekker’s nineteenth-century edition, which in turn is based on ancient classifications of these works.

Overview of the extant works[edit]

The extant works of Aristotle are broken down according to the five categories in the Corpus Aristotelicum. Not all of these works are considered genuine, but differ with respect to their connection to Aristotle, his associates and his views. Some are regarded by most scholars as products of Aristotle’s «school» and compiled under his direction or supervision. (The Constitution of the Athenians, the only major modern addition to the Corpus Aristotelicum, has also been so regarded.) Other works, such as On Colors, may have been products of Aristotle’s successors at the Lyceum, e.g., Theophrastus and Strato of Lampsacus. Still others acquired Aristotle’s name through similarities in doctrine or content, such as the De Plantis, possibly by Nicolaus of Damascus. A final category, omitted here, includes medieval palmistries, astrological and magical texts whose connection to Aristotle is purely fanciful and self-promotional.

In several of the treatises, there are references to other works in the corpus. Based on such references, some scholars have suggested a possible chronological order for a number of Aristotle’s writings. W.D. Ross, for instance, suggested the following broad chronology (which of course leaves out much): Categories, Topics, Sophistici Elenchi, Analytics, Metaphysics Δ, the physical works, the Ethics, and the rest of the Metaphysics.^[1] Many modern scholars however, based simply on lack of evidence, are skeptical of such attempts to determine the chronological order of Aristotle’s writings.^[2]

Exoteric and esoteric[edit]

According to a distinction that originates with Aristotle himself, his writings are divisible into two groups: the «exoteric» and the «esoteric».^[3] Most scholars have understood this as a distinction between works Aristotle intended for the public (exoteric), and the more technical works intended for use within the Lyceum course / school (esoteric).^[4] Modern scholars commonly assume these latter to be Aristotle’s own (unpolished) lecture notes (or in some cases possible notes by his students).^[5] However, one classic scholar offers an alternative interpretation. The 5th century neoplatonist Ammonius Hermiae writes that Aristotle’s writing style is deliberately obscurantist so that «good people may for that reason stretch their mind even more, whereas empty minds that are lost through carelessness will be put to flight by the obscurity when they encounter sentences like these.»^[6]

Diogenes Laërtius’ list[edit]

Diogenes Laërtius lists in his Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers the works of Aristotle comprising 156 titles divided into approximately 400 books, which he reports as totaling 445,270 lines of writing.^[7]

The list is as follows:^[7]

Bekker numbers[edit]

Bekker numbers, the standard form of reference to works in the Corpus Aristotelicum, are based on the page numbers used in the Prussian Academy of Sciences edition of the complete works of Aristotle (Aristotelis Opera edidit Academia Regia Borussica, Berlin, 1831–1870). They take their name from the editor of that edition, the classical philologist August Immanuel Bekker (1785–1871).

Aristotle’s works by Bekker numbers[edit]

The following list gives the Bekker numbers that are used to give references to Aristotle’s works; all of Aristotle’s works are listed — except for the Constitution of the Athenians, which was discovered after Bekker’s edition was published — and the fragments.

The titles are given in accordance with the standard set by the Revised Oxford Translation.^[8] Latin titles, still often used by scholars, are also given.

Aristotelian works lacking Bekker numbers[edit]

Constitution of the Athenians[edit]

The Constitution of the Athenians (Greek, Athenaiōn Politeia; Latin, Atheniensium Respublica) was not included in Bekker’s edition because it was first edited in 1891 from papyrus rolls acquired in 1890 by the British Museum. The standard reference to it is by section (and subsection) numbers.

Fragments[edit]

Surviving fragments of the many lost works of Aristotle were included in the fifth volume of Bekker’s edition, edited by Valentin Rose. These are not cited by Bekker numbers, however, but according to fragment numbers. Rose’s first edition of the fragments of Aristotle was Aristoteles Pseudepigraphus (1863). As the title suggests, Rose considered these all to be spurious. The numeration of the fragments in a revised edition by Rose, published in the Teubner series, Aristotelis qui ferebantur librorum fragmenta, Leipzig, 1886, is still commonly used (indicated by R³), although there is a more current edition with a different numeration by Olof Gigon (published in 1987 as a new vol. 3 in Walter de Gruyter’s reprint of the Bekker edition), and a new de Gruyter edition by Eckart Schütrumpf is in preparation.^[9]

For a selection of the fragments in English translation, see W. D. Ross, Select Fragments (Oxford 1952), and Jonathan Barnes (ed.), The Complete Works of Aristotle: The Revised Oxford Translation, vol. 2, Princeton 1984, pp. 2384–2465. A new translation exists of the fragments of Aristotle’s Protrepticus, by Hutchinson and Johnson (2015).^[10]

The works surviving only in fragments include the dialogues On Philosophy (or On the Good), Eudemus (or On the Soul), On Justice, and On Good Birth. The possibly spurious work, On Ideas survives in quotations by Alexander of Aphrodisias in his commentary on Aristotle’s Metaphysics. For the dialogues, see also the editions of Richard Rudolf Walzer, Aristotelis Dialogorum fragmenta, in usum scholarum (Florence 1934), and Renato Laurenti, Aristotele: I frammenti dei dialoghi (2 vols.), Naples: Luigi Loffredo, 1987.

[edit]

According to Diogenes Laertius, the library of the Lyceum at its peak under Aristotle comprised many types of books: works authored by the elders under their names, works authored by elders and young men, signatures uncertain, copies of works written by other authors on research topics, and research results of unspecified form. This same library continues under Theophrastus, acquiring more works of the same type, except that Aristotle is no longer a contributor. On the death of Theophrastus, we are led to believe, the library disappears for 200 years, having been safely abscinded by Neleus. Just as suddenly it reappears, having been rescued, cared for by three editors and a powerful aristocrat, to be published in a new recension by Andronicus, and to descend to us this very day as Bekker pages. The paradox is that the recension that descends bears little resemblance to the library at Athens. It contains only books specifically authored by Aristotle with the inclusions of works later shown to be spurious. There are no works of Theophrastus or anyone else and no explanation of what happened to all the other books. The library that was rescued cannot possibly be the one that needed rescuing.^{[topic note 1]}

Research at the Lyceum[edit]

Recent archaeological discoveries at Athens have verified that there was a school in the park called Lyceum and that one of the foundations fits the shape of a rectangular library.^[11] The site, in fact, had still been a park (or garden), and will remain one, according to the Greek government. Study of the ancient sources reveals that, regardless of its legal status, whether owned, rented, or just occupied, an organization did reside there, which called itself «the friends» (philoi) and the establishment «the school (diatribe) of the friends.».^[12] This was its own name, or endonym. It meant that the relationship of belonging to the school was «completely informal.» The name peripatetikoi, those who inhabited the walkways, or peripatoi, of the gymnasion in the park, is an exonym.^[13]

The friends lived in a «cooperative» (koinonia).^[14] They dined together and together had responsibility for the facilities, including the library and the museum. They paid no one and received no pay from anyone. The expenses for the establishment were assumed by wealthy patrons, one of whom was Aristotle; however, during the time that Alexander the Great was a friend, there were no financial worries. For all these informalities, they were nevertheless considered to be either «young men» (neaniskoi) or «elders» (presbuteroi).^[15] Aristotle, moreover, did have some power, beginning with his position, described by English scholars as scholiarch, «ruler of the school.»^{[topic note 2]} This rule did not include the day-to-day operation of the school, as he instituted the equivalent of a maritime «watch» to take care of that; i.e., every 10 days he appointed an archon, «master,» from the friends.

The business of the friends was not merely education in existing knowledge. As is expressed in the first few paragraphs of Physics, they were interested in discovering the principles, or elements of the knowledge, which was an entirely new goal in Greek education. This research was divided into specific «fields» (methodoi). First they collected written works representing the existing knowledge. Subsequently, they collected field data through interviews and specimen-hunting. Aristotle is the first known scientist to have sent out field workers, and to have sent them with military expeditions. Alexander’s ethnic and political intelligence gathering as a friend of the school was certainly of greatest value in his ultimate goal, to create a new, multi-cultural world empire. His was the first known army to feature a military historian unit. He was said to have assigned thousands of men to the task of collecting specimens, presumably in addition to their military duties.^[16]

The final step in a research project was analysis of all the information to ascertain «scientific knowledge» (episteme) of the «elements» (stoicheia), the «causes» (aitia), and the «first principles» (archai) of the topic. These were written in a new type of document, which has survived in the corpus.^[17]: 3 Beginning with a brief survey of the previous views, it launched into the definitions and conclusions in a style similar to a geometric presentation. The papers were then stored in the library. Their authors, analysts, contributors, whether or not they were emended, or corrected, and by whom, remain unknown for certain. Diogenes Laertius called these «notebooks» (hypomnemata) and said that Aristotle wrote «an unusual number.»

The question of the library[edit]

Transition from cooperative to private school[edit]

According to Strabo,^[18] Neleus, son of Coriscus, a friend at the Lyceum, «inherited the library (bibliotheke) of Theophrastus, which included that of Aristotle.»^[19] Theophrastus received Aristotle’s library by being bequeathed it along with the school. Theophrastus was the first book collector, as far as Strabo knew. Apparently, the elders owned their own libraries and could dispose of them as they pleased.

The main problems with this view are, first of all, that Aristotle’s Will survives credibly in
Diogenes Laertius’ (D.L.’s) Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers under Aristotle. There is not one word about a library. Moreover, Aristotle, a metic, or foreign resident of Athens, was not allowed to own property or bequeath it, so he could not have either owned the school with its library or have left it to anyone by legal process.^[20] Even if he were not a metic, he could not have disposed of the land and buildings, which were municipal property.^{[topic note 3]} None of the other friends could either. According to the laws in effect on the day Aristotle died, no one could own or bequeath the school to anyone. The city owned it. As to whether Aristotle and Theophrastus had additional personal libraries of their own, first, private ownership was not in the spirit of the school, and second, the fate of the school after Theophrastus suggests that the library was in fact the school library.

After the death of Alexander, Athens staged a brief revolt against the Macedonians. Turning their attention to the school, they went after Aristotle, who went into exile to escape the death penalty. He died in exile. Within a few years Athens was again under Macedon ruled by Cassander. Theophrastus returned in triumph to the school under the authority of the new vice-regent of Athens, Demetrius of Phalerum, a friend of the school and former student of Theophrastus. The school became even greater than before, but Demetrius made some changes to the administration. D.L. says only that Theophrastus «is said to have become the owner of a garden of his own after Aristotle’s death, through the intervention of his friend, Demetrius of Phalerum.» Apparently D.L. does not quite understand his source. The meaning was not «his friend.» This was not a personal favor. A «friend» is an associate of the school. There were not two gardens; Theophrastus was not a poor man in need of some property of his own. His extensive will details the disposition of the assets of the school as his own property, including the garden. He names the friends and wants to make sure that they understand the ownership is to be treated as joint. Demetrius had simply instituted the legal convention prevalent at other schools of having the master own the school and its assets.

The very disposition of the property in Theophrastus’ will is an attempt to restore the koinonia established by Aristotle.^[21] The garden, the walks, and the buildings around the garden are to go to ten named friends,^{[topic note 4]} to be held in common, provided they use the property for the study of literature and philosophy. This is provisional ownership. If the provisions are not met, the property must revert to someone by law, probably the proprietor, or owner, of the school. The total property of Theophrastus as proprietor was much larger. The family estate at Eresus and the Aristotelian property at Stagira went to individual friends. He also owned funds in trust managed by Hipparchus. The latter was enjoined to use them to rebuild the museum and other buildings. He also had slaves in his possession (as had Aristotle). They were either set free or given to friends. He had one freedman client, whom he rewarded richly for four more years of maintaining the buildings.

Abscondence of the library by Neleus[edit]

The will contains one more bequest that is rather peculiar. It has a bearing on the nature of the Corpus, whether it is Aristotle’s, Aristotle’s and Theophrastus’, or of all the friends. There is as yet no solution to the problem of authorship, or rather lack of it. Ancient sources on the topic are inconsistent. There is no general scholarly consensus and no agreed preponderance of evidence.

The will relates in translation «The whole of my library I give to Neleus.» The heart of the school was its library, containing all the research results and analytical papers (the notebooks). Without it the friends could not produce current or meaningful lectures about the topics for which the school was known (physics, rhetoric, etc.) All the other school property was being redistributed to the friends in common (except that the foreign estates were given individual owners, probably for their management, while the slaves and the minor received individual guardians), but the heart of the school, without which it could not pump knowledge, was not to be common property, an anomalous approach for the circumstances. No explanation at all is to be found in ancient sources. The moderns almost universally retrieve one explanation, that Neleus was the intended heir of the archonship, although that, strangely, is nowhere suggested. The law still required an archon with property rights over the school.^[22]

Whatever the implied expectation, Neleus did not become the scholiarch; instead, Strato of Lampsacus did. Again, there are no details of how or why he acquired the position or any statement of Neleus’s feelings about it, inviting speculation.^{[topic note 5]} Strabo then relates what is universally considered an act of perfidy against the school. He was given the library with the understanding that it would be shared as common property. Instead «Neleus took it to Skepsis and bequeathed it to his heirs, ordinary people, who kept the books locked up ….» The result, according to Strabo, was that the school «… had no books at all, with the exception of only a few, … and were therefore able … only to talk bombast about commonplace propositions ….» No details or motives are given. Speculations are rife.^{[topic note 6]} Every author has something to say, some judgement to render.^{[topic note 7]} All are conscious of the fact that, were it not for this perfidy, there would be no corpus as it is known today.

Strabo’s anecdote is not the sole ancient authority on Neleus’ disposition of the books. Athenaeus of Naucratis, in his work Deipnosophistae, «Dinner Sophists,» an imaginary portrayal of a series of banquets at which the guests are famous literary figures of the past (over 700), so that the reader is served up menus and snippets of sophistry together, has his main character, the host, Laurentius («Lawrence») possessing

such a library of ancient Greek books, as to exceed in that respect all those who are remarkable for such collections; such as … Aristotle the philosopher, and Nelius his librarian; from whom they say that our countryman Ptolemæus, surnamed Philadelphus, bought them all, and transported them with all those which he had collected at Athens and at Rhodes to his own beautiful Alexandria.^[23]

By the rules of logic (Aristotle’s very rules) both accounts may not be received as «the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,» as the American legal principle for courtroom testimony requires. The easiest solution would be to drop one in favor of the other, and many authors take it. The remaining solution is to accept both as partially true, creating a window of opportunity for speculatory explanation of differences between the Alexandrian and Skepsian traditions.

The dual tradition of texts[edit]

The ambiguous name, Corpus Aristotelicum[edit]

The tradition best known to moderns is the Corpus Aristotelicum, New Latin for «Aristotelic body,» a term not used by Bekker. The Prussian Academy published his 1831 edition under the name Aristoteles Graece, «Aristotle in Greek,» where Aristoteles is the nominative case. In most Latin and New Latin book titles the author is in the genitive case, such as Aristotelis Opera, «the works of Aristotle.» Individual works are so named by Bekker, but none of this is any sort of corpus.

In the late 19th century the corpus phrase began to appear in the notes of the German historians of philosophy, such as Zeller and Windelband.^[24]: 40 By implication they meant Bekker, but even as they wrote a new manuscript was being excavated from the trash-heaps of Egypt about which Bekker knew nothing at all, or anyone else for at least a few thousand years: the Constitution of the Athenians (Aristotle).^{[topic note 8]} It was identified as being one of 158 political studies written by Aristotle and his students no earlier than 330 BC. It is in the «notebook» format. The content differs in that it is not an abstract treatise but is a history stating periods and dates. Not being able to fit it into an idea of the corpus based on Bekker, many rejected it. The date being quite ancient, the majority view is to accept it as of Alexandrian provenience, the only instance of an Aristotelicum from the library and school there.^{[topic note 9]}

The acceptance of the Constitution of the Athenians with the same credibility as the Bekkerian corpus lends a certain ambiguity to the meaning of corpus. If it is to be only the works in Bekker, then such misleading phrases as «the original corpus» are possible, as though the works in Bekker are more authentic than any works out of it. Not even the works in Bekker are authentic beyond any doubt.

The next logical step is to attempt to modify the definition of the term so that it is not to be the Latin word corpus but some special use of it:

The Corpus Aristotelicum is the collection of Aristotle’s works that have survived from antiquity through Medieval manuscript transmission. … Reference to them is made according to Immanuel Bekker’s nineteenth-century Royal Prussian Academy edition … which in turn is based on ancient classifications of these works.^[25]

The phrase has such authority that it may not be used without meaning Bekker’s collection, but it may be used to mean additional Aristotelica. It is often translated as «the works of Aristotle.» In that English sense it ought to mean every work ever attributed to Aristotle as well as every fragment. George Grote had said

Very different is the case when we attempt to frame an Aristotelian Canon, comprising all the works of Aristotle and none others. We find the problem far more complicated, and the matters of evidence at once more defective, more uncertain, and more contradictory.^[26]: 27

By «canon» Grote meant «the Berlin edition of Aristotle.» He is totally innocent of any Aristotelian corpora. Even if «canon» had survived instead of corpus, such a meaning now would fail to distinguish Bekker. One translational solution is just to name Bekker, as in «Bekker pages.» Such an elevation of Bekker as the authority raises the question of the source of this aura of conviction surrounding the name. It seems likely that it was inherent in the sources.

The paper trail before Bekker[edit]

Having determined to print all of Aristotle’s authentic works, as far as could be ascertained, Bekker found himself looking back over a voluminous paper trail.^{[topic note 10]} He chose to use the texts found in 102 manuscripts (MSS), routinely identified by library name and access number. For use in the book, he gave each MS a letter code. These appear in the footnotes. The front material of the edition includes a list of MSS. His libraries are relatively few, including the Vatican Library at Rome, the Biblioteca Marciana at Venice, the Bibliothèque Nationale de France (formerly the Royal Library of Paris), and the Austrian National Library at Vienna. Typically the Aristotelica are included in famous MSS publishing a number of works.^[27]

Bekker did not seek out all possible MSS. The number of MSS still extant remains unknown. Before the invention of the printing press ca. 1440 by Johannes Gutenberg, who combined moveable type with a screw press, book reproduction was performed by copyists. It went on everywhere in institutions that could afford to undertake it.

In the 15th century copying slowed as the MSS were replaced by books. Due to cultural lag, some MSS production continued as late as the 17th century in the form of written books. For the most part the MSS were left where they were. Since Bekker, many previously unconsidered MSS have turned up. Their publication is ongoing.^{[topic note 11]} Based on them, works considered spurious are now believed genuine, and vice versa. The jury is always out, so to speak.

The date of a copy is to be distinguished from the date of its recension. Most Aristotle MSS were copied during centuries 13–15 at various scriptoria in Europe. The sequence of text is the recension, which might be instanced by many copies at diverse locations. The recension is not just the text, but is all the idiosyncrasies, such as a specific set of errors (miscopies, misspellings or variant texts), associated with it. The similarities or differences make possible the reconstruction of a tree of descent by the comparative method defining families of MSS, each designated by a capital letter. A family also is a recension. Its first member is its original. Typically originals are not available now but their existence and date can be predicated from different types of historical and textual evidence.

Excluding anomalous archaeological finds, all the MSS copied most lately date to after 1000. Historical and internal clues point to originals in the last 3 centuries before 1000 and a provenience of the domain of the Byzantine Empire; that is, the Greek-speaking world as it was under the eastern Roman Empire.

Hand-written MSS of Aristotle are missing from the 1st half of the 1st millennium. The ongoing sites of Oxyrhynchus and the Villa of the Papyri offer hope of the discovery of fragments outside the corpus tradition. Meanwhile, the commentaries, or explanations of the content of the corpus, supply quotations and paraphrases filling in the gap. These lemmata, or excerpts, are so close to the corpus that they can be assigned Bekker numbers, which is good evidence that corpus has been accepted as the work of Aristotle since the beginning of the Roman Empire. The corpus is universally attributed to a single recension, that of Andronicus of Rhodes, dated to mid-1st-century BC, in the late Roman Republic. The diagnostic of Andronicus’ work is the division of the text into treatises, the names of some of the treatises, and the order and grouping of the treatises. Any work that does not conform to that diagnostic is immediately suspected of being «spurious» or non-authentic; that is, not of the corpus and not of Aristotle (rightly or wrongly).

Recension of Apellicon[edit]

In the story by Strabo, after Neleus has removed the books to Skepsis — many thousands in broad daylight on a caravan of wagons and in a fleet of ships, without objection or notice of any officials at Athens or Skepsis — history knows no more of him, even though he must have had plans for the books. Evidently the plans did not materialize. To take the passage literally, he must have died shortly thereafter, as the relatives received disposition of the property willed to them (the books).

The books arrived at Skepsis and were stored in a large outbuilding at what must have been a country estate, as the space requirements would not have changed any since Athens. The few small rooms of an ordinary dwelling in town would not have been suitable. Perhaps the relatives were not so poor and uneducated as depicted. As one man could not possibly have moved an entire library by himself, Neleus must have had a retinue of servants.

Hearing that Eumenes II, the Attalid king of Pergamon, was hunting books, the Corascid family «hid their books underground in a kind of trench.» The king must not even have suspected the presence of a huge underground cache at Skepsis, as kings have methods of investigation and confiscation not available to ordinary citizens. Apparently the king’s system of «eyes and ears,» so well developed under Alexander, failed totally, that an entire building full of books could have been received and buried without him being informed. Moreover, the event remained a family secret for the next 200 years.

Ordinary people do not keep property and family memory for so long, but the story is the story, and apart from the alternative by Athenaeus, is the only one available. Speculative answers are always possible.^{[topic note 12]} The general view is that Neleus only brought, and his family only hid, a small part of a library that had already otherwise been sold.

For the next event in the creation of the corpus the historical clock must be advanced from the accession of Strato as scholiarch (instead of Neleus) at 286 BC^{[topic note 13]} to the confiscation of the first recension of the re-discovered corpus from the home of the deceased re-discoverer, Apellicon of Teos,^{[topic note 14]} by general Sulla on his return to Athens after his conquest of Anatolia in 84 BC. For that approximately 200 years, Strabo would have us believe, the scholars of the Lyceum were a simple folk, unable to understand, repeat, or reconstruct the work of Aristotle, nor could they add to any of the previous investigations without his guidance. Moreover, when they finally did obtain a glimpse into what they believed were the words of the master, the only scholarly activities of which they were capable were trying to puzzle out what they mean. Whatever this condition might have been, it certainly was not science. Considering the activities of some of the graduates, there has been some grounds for thinking the Lyceum was gone, and the property was being held by greedy charlatans utilizing the name of peripatetic as a mask. Athenaeus tells the story of «Athenion the Peripatetic philosopher» (a contemporary of Apellicon),

in order that we may come to a thorough understanding and appreciation of those men who profess to be philosophers, and that we may not be taken in by their ragged cloaks and unshaven chins.

The men to whom he refers did not wear ragged cloaks; they were among the richest in Athens, but they were so because they were charlatans, or, as would be said today, «crooks.» The school and the society in which it had been placed were different now. The diadochi were gone, or nearly so, including the Attalids. The eastern Mediterranean was divided into provinces of the Roman Republic, except that Mithridates VI of Pontus was successfully contesting Roman rule in Anatolia. The citizenship laws at Athens had changed somewhat. Athenion’s mother had been an Egyptian slave owned by his father, and yet based on his father’s citizenship he was enrolled as a citizen and inherited his father’s estate. Apellicon (not an Athenian name), an immigrant from Teos in Asia Minor, was enrolled as a citizen after his adoption into the family of Aristotle, son of Apolexis.

The fact that the family included two members named Aristotle leads to the suggestion that the adoptive family had connections to the Lyceum and that Apellicon learned of the books through it.^[28] Moreover, references in the sources to Apellicon and Athenion as «peripatetics» may well be interpreted as meaning that they both went to the Lyceum, which would explain why they were later comrades-in-arms. The peripatetics never had a predictable philosophy. Both men were skilled orators, which was a specialty of the school at that time. Athenion went on to found a chain of schools for boys, on which account he is called a «sophist» (a teacher of conventional wisdom). Apellicon turned his love for books into something conceded to have been illegal for the times:

For at one time he was a philosopher, and collected all the treatises of the Peripatetics, and the whole library of Aristotle, and many others; for he was a very rich man; and he had also stolen a great many autograph decrees of the ancients out of the temple of the Mighty Mother, and whatever else there was ancient and taken care of in other cities; and being detected in these practices at Athens he would have been in great danger if he had not made his escape.

As there is no indication that the Apolexidis family were fabulously wealthy or that, being numerous, they had much to leave to their adopted son, Apellicon very likely made his money from the resale of rare documents he acquired for nothing except the cost of stealing them. These were the originals of the decrees, first written on paper and signed before they were carved in stone for public benefit. In describing the ideal library of «Lawrence,» Athenaeus points out that even then historians were expected to verify their claims against public documents. In one source Apellicon himself had written a book on Aristotle. Initially he might have yielded to the temptation to walk away with the source rather than return it to display in the temple. Becoming rich through the sale of stolen documents he decided to redeem the old cache, which was said to have been hidden not far from his home town.

Examining the books, and finding that moths and mold had removed portions of the text, Apellicon created another recension, supplying the missing information himself. There is no indication of how much was missing or of what source Apellicon used, if any, or whether the supplied material was grammatical, orthographic, or epigraphic, or included philosophy as well. Subsequent editors judged his recension to have been full of errors, but no ancient source has said what sort of errors, or how they were judged to be errors. These editors made corrections, but the sources of information used for correction remain unknown. In short, the only thing known from ancient sources is that Apellicon made a recension that was later criticised for being erroneous. The contradiction of such a statement is that if they knew enough to correct Apellicon, why would the rediscovery of the books have added anything different to the obviously already known corpus?^{[topic note 15]}

The passage from Athenaeus also provides a rough time table for the recension of Apellicon. It was created toward the end of his years as a successful thief, presumably at his home in Athens. What happened to the damaged originals remains a total mystery. Perhaps they were repasted and sold. How many copies were made if any, and who got them, also is not known. Apellicon probably left town in such a hurry that the books remained in Athens under the care of friends or servants. There is no record that the city moved against his property. Thus in a short time when he returned under the protection of Athenion he took up residence in the same home housing the same library, which was found there by Sulla after Apellicon’s death.

Sulla’s victory over the peripatetics[edit]

In the pages of Athenaeus, evil men come to a bad end, and the peripatetics are not good men. These were shortly to be tested in the First Mithridatic War with disastrous results.^{[topic note 16]} Bithynia and Pontus were independent kingdoms descending from Persian satrapies on the southern coast of the Black Sea never taken by Alexander. The descendants of the satraps remained as the Nicomedid and Mithridatid dynasties respectively.^{[topic note 17]} Walking a fine diplomatic balance they managed to coexist with the reigning diadochi (Attalids, Seleucids, etc.), but they made war on each other. When the diadochi were replaced by Roman provincial governors, Mithridates VI of Pontus attacked Nicomedes IV of Bithynia, claiming tort at the hands of Nicomedes supported by Rome, and further developing an Anatolian alliance defeated all the Roman commanders, massacring as well the helpless Roman citizens. Rome could not ignore these events.

Revolution at Athens[edit]

The rise of Mithridates offered some hope of independence to the cities of Greece. The Athenian people made Athenion the ambassador to Mithridates on the basis of his skill at oratory and experience of the east. Mithridates had other ideas. Winning the ambassador by banquets and promises he sent him back to Athens, where he set up headquarters in front of the Stoa of Attalus. The Roman officers were accustomed to address the people at that location. After a running harangue, voting to declare independence, the Athenians elected Athenion as commander-in-chief of their armed forces. The historians refer to him as a tyrant.

The wealthy made it clear that the vote had not been theirs by attempting to escape the city. Posting a guard on the gates and dispatching cavalry to hunt the escapees Athenion held a sequence of drum-head trials for treason of which the result was always the same: death and confiscation of property. Athenaeus’ account of other peripatetic tyrants at this time makes it clear that the issue was ideologic, the redistribution of wealth. Athenaeus, however, portrays it as thievery due to greed. He says that Athenion «collected such a quantity of money as to fill several wells.» Furthermore, he was lavish in his expenditures. Whether the motives were ideologic or personal is a difficult question to answer either then or now, but Athenion went to extremes. He took to torture to extort money. A curfew was set. The economy declined from want. Rationing was instituted.

Athenion replaced all the magistrates with his own men. Choosing this moment to return to Athens, Apellicon was welcomed as an old comrade. Athenion sent him to Delos in command of a force with instructions to recapture the Athenian national treasury there and bring the money to Athens. It is peculiar that the force he was given is more of a mob than a detachment of soldiers, and that Apellicon evidences total ignorance of military matters. Landing on the shore at night they encamp without a palisade, fail to set a proper watch, and proceed to drink into the small hours. The commander of the Roman guard, Orobius, leads his soldiers into the camp, slaughters 600 men, takes another 400 captive, and hunts the escapees through the countryside, burning them up in their hiding places. Better at running than fighting, Apellicon manages to escape to Athens, where he disappears from politics, at least in the sources, until the brief notice of his death, apparently not of interest to Sulla until then.

On either side, victory depended on intervention. The Pontians moved first. Accompanying his fleet commander, Archelaus, as admiral Mithridates sails to Rhodes with his entire fleet. Lucius Cassius, Proconsul of Asia, had escaped to the fortified harbor in the city of the same name there with whatever refugees he could locate. All the Italians had been struck on a day pre-arranged by Mithridates. Their property was seized by forfeit under pretext of being for the public good, a motive that Appian, like Athenaeus, tears to shreds. The friends of Mithridates revelled in riches. Their cause was amply funded. Commanding from a state quinquereme, Mithridates throws all his naval resources at Rhodes. Failing to take the place, he retreats to his headquarters at Pergamon, instructing Archelaus to complete the conquest of the Cyclades. Archelaus overwhelms Delos, sending the treasury back to Athens with one Aristion under guard of 2000 men. He then anchors at Piraeus, fortifies Munichia, and uses the place as a headquarters, sending out forays to subdue new islands and new coastal cities. During this time Aristion is tyrant of Athens, and no more is heard of Athenion.

The sources on these two men are again contradictory. They are both tyrants of Athens. Athenaeus uses «Athenion,» as did his source, Posidonius, without mention of «Aristion.» Pausanias, Appian, and Plutarch refer to «Aristion» without mentioning «Athenion.» The main difference is that Athenion is a peripatetic, while Aristion is an epicurean. The scholar, Isaac Casaubon, proposed without further evidence that they were the same man, that, enrolling as a citizen, Athenion changed his name to Aristion (there was one other instance of the practice).^[29] The difference continued to be troubling, as the two philosophies were at opposite poles: the Epicureans were atomists following Democritus, while the peripatetics were hylomorphs, following Plato. The sources would have known the difference, even just to be men of letters.

In 1935 fragments of a monument were excavated from the Ancient Agora of Athens, which when joined formed part of a decree (I 2351) establishing a new government at Athens. According to Woodhead,

… officials have been chosen by lot or direct election, and a Constitution is being ratified by the demos.^[30]

A first analysis dated the Constitution to 84/83 BC, the time of Sulla’s visit after reaching an agreement with Mithridates. On subsequent revision of the text J.H. Oliver noticed that two of the provisions were so close to recommendations in Aristotle’s Politics that Bekker numbers could be assigned.^{[topic note 18]} As a peripatetic constitution would not be being restored in 84 BC after the final overthrow of the peripatetics. Oliver redates it to 87/86 BC suggesting that the author was a peripatetic; that is, Athenion with his friends. Furthermore, I 2351 is strong evidence that the recension of Apellicon was in fact close to the corpus Aristotelicum.^[31] Antela-Bernardez suggests that after the Delian debacle Mithridates sacked all the peripatetics and elevated his own man, Aristion, to tyrant.

Civil war at Rome[edit]

On the Roman side, the Asiatic Vespers (the massacre) resulted in an immediate declaration of war.^{[topic note 19]} Elections were due for the year 88 BC, which began January first. Sulla and Rufus (“red”) stood for consules and won (see List of Roman consuls). Rufus’ son, an officer under Sulla, had asked for Cornelia’s (Sulla’s eldest daughter’s) hand in marriage and won, a marriage which ended tragically. Sulla himself made a marriage with the daughter of the Chief Priest (Pontfex Maximus). The two consules cast lots for the major obligations, as required by law. Sulla won prosecution of the Mithridatic War.

These electoral victories represent a break-away from the political machine of which Gaius Marius was boss. He headed the Populares party; Sulla and Rufus were of the Optimates. Marius had nevertheless until now sponsored the career of Sulla. Born to the aristocratic Cornelii, Sulla was said to have had a way with women. His step-mother left him her fortune. He married into more wealth. His personal name, Sulla, was actually a food dish of white cheese sprinkled over a red sauce (pizza?) giving the same appearance as his face. He had joined a troupe of comedians who sang and danced making a mockery of famous people, leaving that to enter government service under Marius’ sponsorship. His taking for himself a position Marius had hoped to control was an unforgivable betrayal.

The animosity between them had begun previously when the ambitious Sulla ran for Praetor, lost, ran again, bought some votes and won, to be ridiculed for it by Julius Caesar. Sent to Asia without troops he brought about peace using the troops of his allies there. On his return the Populares impeached him for extorting an ally but the case was dropped. At the outbreak of the Social War (91–88 BC) both parties put their differences aside until victory was achieved and the Italians were restored to Roman rule. Sulla, leading troops recruited at Rome itself, had acquired “the name of a great commander,” but the aging Marius accomplished nothing of note.

Wasting no time, Marius subverted one of the Tribuni plebis, “Tribunes of the People,” Publius Sulpicius Rufus, a feared politician with a private army of 3000 men, to pass an ordinance giving conduct of the war to Marius. Sulpicius had changed allegiance from the optimates to the populares to qualify for the magistracy. As blandishment, Marius promised the relief of Sulpicius’ ruinous debt. Declaring a preventative cessation of business, the two consuls were attacked by Sulpicius’ men in assembly. Rufus escaped somehow. His son was killed. Marius offered shelter to Sulla for old time’s sake and in exchange for withdrawal of the cessation.

The tribunes sent to take command of the army at Nola (near Naples) were stoned to death by it. Sulla had gotten there first. Marius began to murder Sulla’s partisans and confiscate their property. Sulla marched on Rome with six legions. He was met by emissaries from the Senate, who would, they assured him, make things right. Sulla agreed but lied, following the emissaries back to Rome to capture the gate. Halted there by a mob, he set fire to Rome.^{[topic note 20]}

Marius fled for his life. Sulla passed a death sentence in absentia (later rescinded). Sulpicius was executed. The elections for 87 were upon them. Rufus had been killed in a mutiny. Knowing he could not win, Sulla did not run. He did control who did win, making it possible for them to perform their duties or preventing them. His choices were Gnaeus Octavius (consul 87 BC), an optimate (although he disliked Sulla) and Lucius Cornelius Cinna, a popular. The price for Sulla’s support was that they swear a personal oath to leave Sulla in his command, now as Proconsul. Cinna broke it immediately, suborning a low-level tribune to trump up an accusation (not known what) on the basis of which he began impeachment proceedings against Sulla.

The paradox of the ships[edit]

Over a year had passed since the hapless Romans in Asia had sent urgent appeals for assistance. Mithridates had established sovereignty over nearly all of Greece. The Roman government seemed paralyzed by incidents of partisan contention. Meanwhile, Bruttius Sura, a Legate of one Gaius Sentius, Praetor of Macedonia, was conducting small-unit operations quasi-autonomously against the Pontians in Boeotia with minimal success. Boeotia though anti-Pontian was being compelled to submit. In the autumn of 88 BC Sulla’s Quaestor (chief supply officer), one Lucullus (undoubtedly the same as Lucius Licinius Lucullus, written about by Plutarch), arrived to order Sura back to Macedonia and to make supply arrangements with Boeotia and the states of central Greece. In the spring of 87, Sulla abandoned the suite of impeachment and the Civil War to strike suddenly across the Adriatic into central Greece with 5 legions and some cavalry, in very round numbers, about 30,000 men, mainly veterans of the Social War, many no doubt from his prior command.

Implied by the sudden strike story is the paradox of the ships. During the siege of Athens, lacking ships to conduct an amphibious assault on Piraeus, Sulla sends Lucullus to Egypt by night in disguised vessels to beg ships from Ptolemy IX Lathyros. Denied and redirected to Cyprus, Lucullus avoids an ambush there and collects a motley fleet from the islands. Meanwhile, Sulla has no ships, it is said. When history last saw Sulla’s five legions they had been sent back to the camp at Nola. Either Sulla acquired ships there and sailed around the south of Italy or they marched overland to Brindisi, the preferred port of embarcation for voyages to Greece. The sources give no clue.

The troops next appear at Athens without ships. How did they cross the Adriatic Sea? Mommsen says:^[32]

…in the spring of 87 B.C. he landed in Epirus—but with only thirty thousand men: he was without a single ship and his treasury was empty.

He could not have landed in Epirus without a single ship except by extraordinary means not explained by Mommsen. Similarly, the contemporaneous Long says:^[33]

Sulla left Italy in b.c. 87 with five legions and some auxiliary cohorts and cavalry. He would sail from Brundisium and land somewhere on the opposite coast of the continent. It was a long and difficult march to Athens.

The ships have appeared in this scenario (one cannot sail without them) but the march is unnecessarily laborious. There is no need to disembark at all: one enters the Gulf of Corinth, which is 81 miles long, and no more than a few days later arrives off the shores of Attica and Boeotia. If the ships are allowed, there is no necessity to have any “landing” or any “march” at all.

The current solution implied or expressed by the scholars is that by “ships” the sources mean warships capable of defeating Archelaus’ warships, which would otherwise ram and sink any troop transports. Sulla’s quaestorial organization would have acquired sufficient transports for the crossing in Italy. They did not sail to Athens with them as the seas were ruled by Archelaus. The only other route is through the Gulf of Corinth. It requires that either the ships be dragged across the Isthmus of Corinth on an overland route through enemy territory or be left behind in the Gulf.

What the army did do depended on the disposition of the states on the east side of the Gulf and the moot question of supply. Mommsen and Long (and many others) speculate that the troops arrived in Epirus with empty larders, so to speak. On the contrary, as the master of Rome, Sulla would have had no trouble commandeering whatever initial supplies and ships he needed. His was not a poverty-stricken army. Armies on the move, however, require supply lines, which is what the Civil War would deny Sulla. As soon as he had departed his enemies assumed power, and they had no intention of supplying his army. He was on his own.

Appian gives the most detail:^[34]

Sulla … now for the first time passed over to Greece with five legions and a few cohorts and troops of horse and straightway called for money, reënforcements and provisions from Ætolia and Thessaly.

There is no mention of any land campaign. Aetolia was on the north shore of the Gulf. Thessaly was far to the north on the east coast of central Greece. This distance is the basis for Mommsen’s land campaign, as though Thessaly required one. Thessaly, however, was still pro-Roman.^[35] One does not devastate the country of an ally to acquire supplies. Apparently, Sulla landed in Aetolia to receive the assistance promised by both states to Lucullus the previous year.

The quaestor’s road auction[edit]

Supplied and augmented by Aetolians Sulla’s force marched through the adjoining country of Boeotia. As a symbol of Roman presence it was immensely successful. Every city of Boeotia, including the recalcitrant Thebes, rallied to the Roman cause. His flank now covered, Sulla entered Megaris, which had thrown in its lot with Boeotia. It was an important land link between Attica and the Gulf of Corinth. It had a fortified port, Aigosthena, on the Alkyonides Gulf. Arriving in the vicinity of Athens, Sulla constructed a larger castra (base) at Eleusis to support siege operations, supply operations,^{[topic note 21]} and winter quarters for the men should that become necessary (it did).

After constructing their castra — a Roman legion was prepared to throw up one of those in a single late afternoon, although a permanent camp may have taken longer — the Romans moved to the siege of Athens on the north side. If Sulla had faced the full weight of the Athenian army as it had been, he would perhaps simply have been cleared out of Attica. As it was, Aristion and his Mithridatic ally, Archelaus, were to demonstrate an astounding incompetence (the sources were astounded) against Roman veteran troops; nevertheless, they put up a strong resistance, Archelaus most of all.

The Athenians had created two fortified defensive communities: the city itself with the Acropolis and the Marketplace (agora), and the port, Piraeus, with a defensible elevation. The path between them was protected by two parallel “Long Walls.” Thinking them unimportant, the defenders allowed these walls to be taken and demolished, thus splitting their forces in two. Archelaus defending Piraeus could be resupplied and reinforced by sea. Aristion in Athens itself could not. Sulla threw the entire weight of his attack against Aristion.

The defenders did have a defense strategy, plotted between Mithridates and Archelaus, who were in relatively rapid communication by swift vessel. Mithridates dispatched a strike force of 120,000 men under his son, Arcathias (or Ariathes). He took Macedonia and Thessaly but the force was delayed by the natural death of the son. Had he succeeded in reaching Attica in a timely manner Sulla would have been pinned between three forces. This remedy offers some explanation for Aristion’s strange behavior: he sang and danced on the walls of Athens, mocking Sulla by recalling his early career as an entertainer. One source proposes that he was just a fool who liked to entertain the men of his command. Another informs us that he was trying to anger Sulla to keep him on the attack, which also would be a strange thing to do if he did not expect a relieving force. He succeeded all too well, but the timing went wrong.

Sulla sent for some siege engines from Thebes. It was at this time that he crossed paths unknowingly with Aristotle and also made the originally honest decisions that would lead to the plundering of Greek objets d’art. A mere agreement with the allies to provide supplies in kind was grossly insufficient. Cash was needed to pay the men and to buy the goods and services needed for the siege, such as thousands of working mules, drivers and wagons. Just after he was assigned the Mithridatic War, the Senate voted to:^[36]

sell the treasures that King Numa Pompilius had set apart for his sacrifices to the gods.

That money was gone and Sulla was cut off from Rome, but there were plenty of temples in Greece, each of which served as a repository of wealth. He and Lucullus made the decision to tax these temples for their valuable objects. Letters of appropriation were sent forthwith, delivered by revenue agents in wagons and ships.

The sources concentrate on the three most famous temples: the Temple of Apollo at Delphi, the Asclepeion at Epidaurus, and the Temple of Zeus, Olympia, which latter yielded “a vast fortune” according to Diodorus Siculus^[37] These were not the only temples taxed; there is evidence that the tax might have been on all temples. Pausanias mentions the removal of the statue of Athena from a temple in Haliartus, Boeotia.^[38] At this time Sulla was still arguing national security as a motive. After the war he compensated at least some of the temples by giving them confiscated farmland for a yearly income.

Sulla was primarily interested in currency. He could obtain it either by resale of the art objects or by melting them and issuing coin. We are told he founded a mint in the Peloponnesus and that he issued gold and silver coins of greater than standard weight for “purchasing the services of their soldiers with lavish sums.”^[39] This money was subsequently called “Lucullian,” according to Plutarch.^[40] The coin discoveries from the region are consistent with this view, although not conclusive. A gold aureus and a silver denarius believed from the times are overweight and bear an image of Venus, Sulla’s patron goddess, on one side with a double cornucopia and the letter Q for Quaestor on the other.^[41] Minting was not the only disposition of the antiques; Sulla was aware of the high resale value of such objects. He took many objects not of precious metal, such as the antique shields of the Greeks who had stopped Brennus (3rd century BC) at Thermopylae. These must have been sold to the highest bidder.

See also[edit]

• William of Moerbeke
• Toledo School of Translators

Notes[edit]

References[edit]

Citations[edit]

Sources[edit]

Works cited

External links[edit]

• The Ancient Catalogues of Aristotle’s Writings. A Survey of Current Research
• The Rediscovery of the Corpus Aristotelicum with an annotated bibliography
• Bekker’s Prussian Academy of Sciences edition of the complete works of Aristotle at Archive.org

  • vol. 1
  • vol. 2
  • vol. 3
  • vol. 4
  • vol. 5

• Lazaris, S. «L’image paradigmatique: des ‘Schémas anatomiques’ d’Aristote au ‘De materia medica’ de Dioscoride», Pallas, 93 (2013), p. 131-164 ext. link
• Oxford Translation of The Works of Aristotle at Archive.org (contents by volume)

  • vol. 1
  • vol. 2
  • vol. 3
  • vol. 4
  • vol. 5
  • vol. 6
  • vol. 7
  • vol. 8
  • vol. 9
  • vol. 10
  • vol. 11
  • vol. 12

The Corpus Aristotelicum is the collection of Aristotle’s works that have survived from antiquity through medieval manuscript transmission. These texts, as opposed to Aristotle’s works that were lost or intentionally destroyed, are technical philosophical treatises from within Aristotle’s school. Reference to them is made according to the organization of Immanuel Bekker’s nineteenth-century edition, which in turn is based on ancient classifications of these works.

Overview of the extant works[edit]

The extant works of Aristotle are broken down according to the five categories in the Corpus Aristotelicum. Not all of these works are considered genuine, but differ with respect to their connection to Aristotle, his associates and his views. Some are regarded by most scholars as products of Aristotle’s «school» and compiled under his direction or supervision. (The Constitution of the Athenians, the only major modern addition to the Corpus Aristotelicum, has also been so regarded.) Other works, such as On Colors, may have been products of Aristotle’s successors at the Lyceum, e.g., Theophrastus and Strato of Lampsacus. Still others acquired Aristotle’s name through similarities in doctrine or content, such as the De Plantis, possibly by Nicolaus of Damascus. A final category, omitted here, includes medieval palmistries, astrological and magical texts whose connection to Aristotle is purely fanciful and self-promotional.

In several of the treatises, there are references to other works in the corpus. Based on such references, some scholars have suggested a possible chronological order for a number of Aristotle’s writings. W.D. Ross, for instance, suggested the following broad chronology (which of course leaves out much): Categories, Topics, Sophistici Elenchi, Analytics, Metaphysics Δ, the physical works, the Ethics, and the rest of the Metaphysics.^[1] Many modern scholars however, based simply on lack of evidence, are skeptical of such attempts to determine the chronological order of Aristotle’s writings.^[2]

Exoteric and esoteric[edit]

According to a distinction that originates with Aristotle himself, his writings are divisible into two groups: the «exoteric» and the «esoteric».^[3] Most scholars have understood this as a distinction between works Aristotle intended for the public (exoteric), and the more technical works intended for use within the Lyceum course / school (esoteric).^[4] Modern scholars commonly assume these latter to be Aristotle’s own (unpolished) lecture notes (or in some cases possible notes by his students).^[5] However, one classic scholar offers an alternative interpretation. The 5th century neoplatonist Ammonius Hermiae writes that Aristotle’s writing style is deliberately obscurantist so that «good people may for that reason stretch their mind even more, whereas empty minds that are lost through carelessness will be put to flight by the obscurity when they encounter sentences like these.»^[6]

Diogenes Laërtius’ list[edit]

Diogenes Laërtius lists in his Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers the works of Aristotle comprising 156 titles divided into approximately 400 books, which he reports as totaling 445,270 lines of writing.^[7]

The list is as follows:^[7]

Bekker numbers[edit]

Bekker numbers, the standard form of reference to works in the Corpus Aristotelicum, are based on the page numbers used in the Prussian Academy of Sciences edition of the complete works of Aristotle (Aristotelis Opera edidit Academia Regia Borussica, Berlin, 1831–1870). They take their name from the editor of that edition, the classical philologist August Immanuel Bekker (1785–1871).

Aristotle’s works by Bekker numbers[edit]

The following list gives the Bekker numbers that are used to give references to Aristotle’s works; all of Aristotle’s works are listed — except for the Constitution of the Athenians, which was discovered after Bekker’s edition was published — and the fragments.

The titles are given in accordance with the standard set by the Revised Oxford Translation.^[8] Latin titles, still often used by scholars, are also given.

Aristotelian works lacking Bekker numbers[edit]

Constitution of the Athenians[edit]

The Constitution of the Athenians (Greek, Athenaiōn Politeia; Latin, Atheniensium Respublica) was not included in Bekker’s edition because it was first edited in 1891 from papyrus rolls acquired in 1890 by the British Museum. The standard reference to it is by section (and subsection) numbers.

Fragments[edit]

Surviving fragments of the many lost works of Aristotle were included in the fifth volume of Bekker’s edition, edited by Valentin Rose. These are not cited by Bekker numbers, however, but according to fragment numbers. Rose’s first edition of the fragments of Aristotle was Aristoteles Pseudepigraphus (1863). As the title suggests, Rose considered these all to be spurious. The numeration of the fragments in a revised edition by Rose, published in the Teubner series, Aristotelis qui ferebantur librorum fragmenta, Leipzig, 1886, is still commonly used (indicated by R³), although there is a more current edition with a different numeration by Olof Gigon (published in 1987 as a new vol. 3 in Walter de Gruyter’s reprint of the Bekker edition), and a new de Gruyter edition by Eckart Schütrumpf is in preparation.^[9]

For a selection of the fragments in English translation, see W. D. Ross, Select Fragments (Oxford 1952), and Jonathan Barnes (ed.), The Complete Works of Aristotle: The Revised Oxford Translation, vol. 2, Princeton 1984, pp. 2384–2465. A new translation exists of the fragments of Aristotle’s Protrepticus, by Hutchinson and Johnson (2015).^[10]

The works surviving only in fragments include the dialogues On Philosophy (or On the Good), Eudemus (or On the Soul), On Justice, and On Good Birth. The possibly spurious work, On Ideas survives in quotations by Alexander of Aphrodisias in his commentary on Aristotle’s Metaphysics. For the dialogues, see also the editions of Richard Rudolf Walzer, Aristotelis Dialogorum fragmenta, in usum scholarum (Florence 1934), and Renato Laurenti, Aristotele: I frammenti dei dialoghi (2 vols.), Naples: Luigi Loffredo, 1987.

[edit]

According to Diogenes Laertius, the library of the Lyceum at its peak under Aristotle comprised many types of books: works authored by the elders under their names, works authored by elders and young men, signatures uncertain, copies of works written by other authors on research topics, and research results of unspecified form. This same library continues under Theophrastus, acquiring more works of the same type, except that Aristotle is no longer a contributor. On the death of Theophrastus, we are led to believe, the library disappears for 200 years, having been safely abscinded by Neleus. Just as suddenly it reappears, having been rescued, cared for by three editors and a powerful aristocrat, to be published in a new recension by Andronicus, and to descend to us this very day as Bekker pages. The paradox is that the recension that descends bears little resemblance to the library at Athens. It contains only books specifically authored by Aristotle with the inclusions of works later shown to be spurious. There are no works of Theophrastus or anyone else and no explanation of what happened to all the other books. The library that was rescued cannot possibly be the one that needed rescuing.^{[topic note 1]}

Research at the Lyceum[edit]

Recent archaeological discoveries at Athens have verified that there was a school in the park called Lyceum and that one of the foundations fits the shape of a rectangular library.^[11] The site, in fact, had still been a park (or garden), and will remain one, according to the Greek government. Study of the ancient sources reveals that, regardless of its legal status, whether owned, rented, or just occupied, an organization did reside there, which called itself «the friends» (philoi) and the establishment «the school (diatribe) of the friends.».^[12] This was its own name, or endonym. It meant that the relationship of belonging to the school was «completely informal.» The name peripatetikoi, those who inhabited the walkways, or peripatoi, of the gymnasion in the park, is an exonym.^[13]

The friends lived in a «cooperative» (koinonia).^[14] They dined together and together had responsibility for the facilities, including the library and the museum. They paid no one and received no pay from anyone. The expenses for the establishment were assumed by wealthy patrons, one of whom was Aristotle; however, during the time that Alexander the Great was a friend, there were no financial worries. For all these informalities, they were nevertheless considered to be either «young men» (neaniskoi) or «elders» (presbuteroi).^[15] Aristotle, moreover, did have some power, beginning with his position, described by English scholars as scholiarch, «ruler of the school.»^{[topic note 2]} This rule did not include the day-to-day operation of the school, as he instituted the equivalent of a maritime «watch» to take care of that; i.e., every 10 days he appointed an archon, «master,» from the friends.

The business of the friends was not merely education in existing knowledge. As is expressed in the first few paragraphs of Physics, they were interested in discovering the principles, or elements of the knowledge, which was an entirely new goal in Greek education. This research was divided into specific «fields» (methodoi). First they collected written works representing the existing knowledge. Subsequently, they collected field data through interviews and specimen-hunting. Aristotle is the first known scientist to have sent out field workers, and to have sent them with military expeditions. Alexander’s ethnic and political intelligence gathering as a friend of the school was certainly of greatest value in his ultimate goal, to create a new, multi-cultural world empire. His was the first known army to feature a military historian unit. He was said to have assigned thousands of men to the task of collecting specimens, presumably in addition to their military duties.^[16]

The final step in a research project was analysis of all the information to ascertain «scientific knowledge» (episteme) of the «elements» (stoicheia), the «causes» (aitia), and the «first principles» (archai) of the topic. These were written in a new type of document, which has survived in the corpus.^[17]: 3 Beginning with a brief survey of the previous views, it launched into the definitions and conclusions in a style similar to a geometric presentation. The papers were then stored in the library. Their authors, analysts, contributors, whether or not they were emended, or corrected, and by whom, remain unknown for certain. Diogenes Laertius called these «notebooks» (hypomnemata) and said that Aristotle wrote «an unusual number.»

The question of the library[edit]

Transition from cooperative to private school[edit]

According to Strabo,^[18] Neleus, son of Coriscus, a friend at the Lyceum, «inherited the library (bibliotheke) of Theophrastus, which included that of Aristotle.»^[19] Theophrastus received Aristotle’s library by being bequeathed it along with the school. Theophrastus was the first book collector, as far as Strabo knew. Apparently, the elders owned their own libraries and could dispose of them as they pleased.

The main problems with this view are, first of all, that Aristotle’s Will survives credibly in
Diogenes Laertius’ (D.L.’s) Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers under Aristotle. There is not one word about a library. Moreover, Aristotle, a metic, or foreign resident of Athens, was not allowed to own property or bequeath it, so he could not have either owned the school with its library or have left it to anyone by legal process.^[20] Even if he were not a metic, he could not have disposed of the land and buildings, which were municipal property.^{[topic note 3]} None of the other friends could either. According to the laws in effect on the day Aristotle died, no one could own or bequeath the school to anyone. The city owned it. As to whether Aristotle and Theophrastus had additional personal libraries of their own, first, private ownership was not in the spirit of the school, and second, the fate of the school after Theophrastus suggests that the library was in fact the school library.

After the death of Alexander, Athens staged a brief revolt against the Macedonians. Turning their attention to the school, they went after Aristotle, who went into exile to escape the death penalty. He died in exile. Within a few years Athens was again under Macedon ruled by Cassander. Theophrastus returned in triumph to the school under the authority of the new vice-regent of Athens, Demetrius of Phalerum, a friend of the school and former student of Theophrastus. The school became even greater than before, but Demetrius made some changes to the administration. D.L. says only that Theophrastus «is said to have become the owner of a garden of his own after Aristotle’s death, through the intervention of his friend, Demetrius of Phalerum.» Apparently D.L. does not quite understand his source. The meaning was not «his friend.» This was not a personal favor. A «friend» is an associate of the school. There were not two gardens; Theophrastus was not a poor man in need of some property of his own. His extensive will details the disposition of the assets of the school as his own property, including the garden. He names the friends and wants to make sure that they understand the ownership is to be treated as joint. Demetrius had simply instituted the legal convention prevalent at other schools of having the master own the school and its assets.

The very disposition of the property in Theophrastus’ will is an attempt to restore the koinonia established by Aristotle.^[21] The garden, the walks, and the buildings around the garden are to go to ten named friends,^{[topic note 4]} to be held in common, provided they use the property for the study of literature and philosophy. This is provisional ownership. If the provisions are not met, the property must revert to someone by law, probably the proprietor, or owner, of the school. The total property of Theophrastus as proprietor was much larger. The family estate at Eresus and the Aristotelian property at Stagira went to individual friends. He also owned funds in trust managed by Hipparchus. The latter was enjoined to use them to rebuild the museum and other buildings. He also had slaves in his possession (as had Aristotle). They were either set free or given to friends. He had one freedman client, whom he rewarded richly for four more years of maintaining the buildings.

Abscondence of the library by Neleus[edit]

The will contains one more bequest that is rather peculiar. It has a bearing on the nature of the Corpus, whether it is Aristotle’s, Aristotle’s and Theophrastus’, or of all the friends. There is as yet no solution to the problem of authorship, or rather lack of it. Ancient sources on the topic are inconsistent. There is no general scholarly consensus and no agreed preponderance of evidence.

The will relates in translation «The whole of my library I give to Neleus.» The heart of the school was its library, containing all the research results and analytical papers (the notebooks). Without it the friends could not produce current or meaningful lectures about the topics for which the school was known (physics, rhetoric, etc.) All the other school property was being redistributed to the friends in common (except that the foreign estates were given individual owners, probably for their management, while the slaves and the minor received individual guardians), but the heart of the school, without which it could not pump knowledge, was not to be common property, an anomalous approach for the circumstances. No explanation at all is to be found in ancient sources. The moderns almost universally retrieve one explanation, that Neleus was the intended heir of the archonship, although that, strangely, is nowhere suggested. The law still required an archon with property rights over the school.^[22]

Whatever the implied expectation, Neleus did not become the scholiarch; instead, Strato of Lampsacus did. Again, there are no details of how or why he acquired the position or any statement of Neleus’s feelings about it, inviting speculation.^{[topic note 5]} Strabo then relates what is universally considered an act of perfidy against the school. He was given the library with the understanding that it would be shared as common property. Instead «Neleus took it to Skepsis and bequeathed it to his heirs, ordinary people, who kept the books locked up ….» The result, according to Strabo, was that the school «… had no books at all, with the exception of only a few, … and were therefore able … only to talk bombast about commonplace propositions ….» No details or motives are given. Speculations are rife.^{[topic note 6]} Every author has something to say, some judgement to render.^{[topic note 7]} All are conscious of the fact that, were it not for this perfidy, there would be no corpus as it is known today.

Strabo’s anecdote is not the sole ancient authority on Neleus’ disposition of the books. Athenaeus of Naucratis, in his work Deipnosophistae, «Dinner Sophists,» an imaginary portrayal of a series of banquets at which the guests are famous literary figures of the past (over 700), so that the reader is served up menus and snippets of sophistry together, has his main character, the host, Laurentius («Lawrence») possessing

such a library of ancient Greek books, as to exceed in that respect all those who are remarkable for such collections; such as … Aristotle the philosopher, and Nelius his librarian; from whom they say that our countryman Ptolemæus, surnamed Philadelphus, bought them all, and transported them with all those which he had collected at Athens and at Rhodes to his own beautiful Alexandria.^[23]

By the rules of logic (Aristotle’s very rules) both accounts may not be received as «the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,» as the American legal principle for courtroom testimony requires. The easiest solution would be to drop one in favor of the other, and many authors take it. The remaining solution is to accept both as partially true, creating a window of opportunity for speculatory explanation of differences between the Alexandrian and Skepsian traditions.

The dual tradition of texts[edit]

The ambiguous name, Corpus Aristotelicum[edit]

The tradition best known to moderns is the Corpus Aristotelicum, New Latin for «Aristotelic body,» a term not used by Bekker. The Prussian Academy published his 1831 edition under the name Aristoteles Graece, «Aristotle in Greek,» where Aristoteles is the nominative case. In most Latin and New Latin book titles the author is in the genitive case, such as Aristotelis Opera, «the works of Aristotle.» Individual works are so named by Bekker, but none of this is any sort of corpus.

In the late 19th century the corpus phrase began to appear in the notes of the German historians of philosophy, such as Zeller and Windelband.^[24]: 40 By implication they meant Bekker, but even as they wrote a new manuscript was being excavated from the trash-heaps of Egypt about which Bekker knew nothing at all, or anyone else for at least a few thousand years: the Constitution of the Athenians (Aristotle).^{[topic note 8]} It was identified as being one of 158 political studies written by Aristotle and his students no earlier than 330 BC. It is in the «notebook» format. The content differs in that it is not an abstract treatise but is a history stating periods and dates. Not being able to fit it into an idea of the corpus based on Bekker, many rejected it. The date being quite ancient, the majority view is to accept it as of Alexandrian provenience, the only instance of an Aristotelicum from the library and school there.^{[topic note 9]}

The acceptance of the Constitution of the Athenians with the same credibility as the Bekkerian corpus lends a certain ambiguity to the meaning of corpus. If it is to be only the works in Bekker, then such misleading phrases as «the original corpus» are possible, as though the works in Bekker are more authentic than any works out of it. Not even the works in Bekker are authentic beyond any doubt.

The next logical step is to attempt to modify the definition of the term so that it is not to be the Latin word corpus but some special use of it:

The Corpus Aristotelicum is the collection of Aristotle’s works that have survived from antiquity through Medieval manuscript transmission. … Reference to them is made according to Immanuel Bekker’s nineteenth-century Royal Prussian Academy edition … which in turn is based on ancient classifications of these works.^[25]

The phrase has such authority that it may not be used without meaning Bekker’s collection, but it may be used to mean additional Aristotelica. It is often translated as «the works of Aristotle.» In that English sense it ought to mean every work ever attributed to Aristotle as well as every fragment. George Grote had said

Very different is the case when we attempt to frame an Aristotelian Canon, comprising all the works of Aristotle and none others. We find the problem far more complicated, and the matters of evidence at once more defective, more uncertain, and more contradictory.^[26]: 27

By «canon» Grote meant «the Berlin edition of Aristotle.» He is totally innocent of any Aristotelian corpora. Even if «canon» had survived instead of corpus, such a meaning now would fail to distinguish Bekker. One translational solution is just to name Bekker, as in «Bekker pages.» Such an elevation of Bekker as the authority raises the question of the source of this aura of conviction surrounding the name. It seems likely that it was inherent in the sources.

The paper trail before Bekker[edit]

Having determined to print all of Aristotle’s authentic works, as far as could be ascertained, Bekker found himself looking back over a voluminous paper trail.^{[topic note 10]} He chose to use the texts found in 102 manuscripts (MSS), routinely identified by library name and access number. For use in the book, he gave each MS a letter code. These appear in the footnotes. The front material of the edition includes a list of MSS. His libraries are relatively few, including the Vatican Library at Rome, the Biblioteca Marciana at Venice, the Bibliothèque Nationale de France (formerly the Royal Library of Paris), and the Austrian National Library at Vienna. Typically the Aristotelica are included in famous MSS publishing a number of works.^[27]

Bekker did not seek out all possible MSS. The number of MSS still extant remains unknown. Before the invention of the printing press ca. 1440 by Johannes Gutenberg, who combined moveable type with a screw press, book reproduction was performed by copyists. It went on everywhere in institutions that could afford to undertake it.

In the 15th century copying slowed as the MSS were replaced by books. Due to cultural lag, some MSS production continued as late as the 17th century in the form of written books. For the most part the MSS were left where they were. Since Bekker, many previously unconsidered MSS have turned up. Their publication is ongoing.^{[topic note 11]} Based on them, works considered spurious are now believed genuine, and vice versa. The jury is always out, so to speak.

The date of a copy is to be distinguished from the date of its recension. Most Aristotle MSS were copied during centuries 13–15 at various scriptoria in Europe. The sequence of text is the recension, which might be instanced by many copies at diverse locations. The recension is not just the text, but is all the idiosyncrasies, such as a specific set of errors (miscopies, misspellings or variant texts), associated with it. The similarities or differences make possible the reconstruction of a tree of descent by the comparative method defining families of MSS, each designated by a capital letter. A family also is a recension. Its first member is its original. Typically originals are not available now but their existence and date can be predicated from different types of historical and textual evidence.

Excluding anomalous archaeological finds, all the MSS copied most lately date to after 1000. Historical and internal clues point to originals in the last 3 centuries before 1000 and a provenience of the domain of the Byzantine Empire; that is, the Greek-speaking world as it was under the eastern Roman Empire.

Hand-written MSS of Aristotle are missing from the 1st half of the 1st millennium. The ongoing sites of Oxyrhynchus and the Villa of the Papyri offer hope of the discovery of fragments outside the corpus tradition. Meanwhile, the commentaries, or explanations of the content of the corpus, supply quotations and paraphrases filling in the gap. These lemmata, or excerpts, are so close to the corpus that they can be assigned Bekker numbers, which is good evidence that corpus has been accepted as the work of Aristotle since the beginning of the Roman Empire. The corpus is universally attributed to a single recension, that of Andronicus of Rhodes, dated to mid-1st-century BC, in the late Roman Republic. The diagnostic of Andronicus’ work is the division of the text into treatises, the names of some of the treatises, and the order and grouping of the treatises. Any work that does not conform to that diagnostic is immediately suspected of being «spurious» or non-authentic; that is, not of the corpus and not of Aristotle (rightly or wrongly).

Recension of Apellicon[edit]

In the story by Strabo, after Neleus has removed the books to Skepsis — many thousands in broad daylight on a caravan of wagons and in a fleet of ships, without objection or notice of any officials at Athens or Skepsis — history knows no more of him, even though he must have had plans for the books. Evidently the plans did not materialize. To take the passage literally, he must have died shortly thereafter, as the relatives received disposition of the property willed to them (the books).

The books arrived at Skepsis and were stored in a large outbuilding at what must have been a country estate, as the space requirements would not have changed any since Athens. The few small rooms of an ordinary dwelling in town would not have been suitable. Perhaps the relatives were not so poor and uneducated as depicted. As one man could not possibly have moved an entire library by himself, Neleus must have had a retinue of servants.

Hearing that Eumenes II, the Attalid king of Pergamon, was hunting books, the Corascid family «hid their books underground in a kind of trench.» The king must not even have suspected the presence of a huge underground cache at Skepsis, as kings have methods of investigation and confiscation not available to ordinary citizens. Apparently the king’s system of «eyes and ears,» so well developed under Alexander, failed totally, that an entire building full of books could have been received and buried without him being informed. Moreover, the event remained a family secret for the next 200 years.

Ordinary people do not keep property and family memory for so long, but the story is the story, and apart from the alternative by Athenaeus, is the only one available. Speculative answers are always possible.^{[topic note 12]} The general view is that Neleus only brought, and his family only hid, a small part of a library that had already otherwise been sold.

For the next event in the creation of the corpus the historical clock must be advanced from the accession of Strato as scholiarch (instead of Neleus) at 286 BC^{[topic note 13]} to the confiscation of the first recension of the re-discovered corpus from the home of the deceased re-discoverer, Apellicon of Teos,^{[topic note 14]} by general Sulla on his return to Athens after his conquest of Anatolia in 84 BC. For that approximately 200 years, Strabo would have us believe, the scholars of the Lyceum were a simple folk, unable to understand, repeat, or reconstruct the work of Aristotle, nor could they add to any of the previous investigations without his guidance. Moreover, when they finally did obtain a glimpse into what they believed were the words of the master, the only scholarly activities of which they were capable were trying to puzzle out what they mean. Whatever this condition might have been, it certainly was not science. Considering the activities of some of the graduates, there has been some grounds for thinking the Lyceum was gone, and the property was being held by greedy charlatans utilizing the name of peripatetic as a mask. Athenaeus tells the story of «Athenion the Peripatetic philosopher» (a contemporary of Apellicon),

in order that we may come to a thorough understanding and appreciation of those men who profess to be philosophers, and that we may not be taken in by their ragged cloaks and unshaven chins.

The men to whom he refers did not wear ragged cloaks; they were among the richest in Athens, but they were so because they were charlatans, or, as would be said today, «crooks.» The school and the society in which it had been placed were different now. The diadochi were gone, or nearly so, including the Attalids. The eastern Mediterranean was divided into provinces of the Roman Republic, except that Mithridates VI of Pontus was successfully contesting Roman rule in Anatolia. The citizenship laws at Athens had changed somewhat. Athenion’s mother had been an Egyptian slave owned by his father, and yet based on his father’s citizenship he was enrolled as a citizen and inherited his father’s estate. Apellicon (not an Athenian name), an immigrant from Teos in Asia Minor, was enrolled as a citizen after his adoption into the family of Aristotle, son of Apolexis.

The fact that the family included two members named Aristotle leads to the suggestion that the adoptive family had connections to the Lyceum and that Apellicon learned of the books through it.^[28] Moreover, references in the sources to Apellicon and Athenion as «peripatetics» may well be interpreted as meaning that they both went to the Lyceum, which would explain why they were later comrades-in-arms. The peripatetics never had a predictable philosophy. Both men were skilled orators, which was a specialty of the school at that time. Athenion went on to found a chain of schools for boys, on which account he is called a «sophist» (a teacher of conventional wisdom). Apellicon turned his love for books into something conceded to have been illegal for the times:

For at one time he was a philosopher, and collected all the treatises of the Peripatetics, and the whole library of Aristotle, and many others; for he was a very rich man; and he had also stolen a great many autograph decrees of the ancients out of the temple of the Mighty Mother, and whatever else there was ancient and taken care of in other cities; and being detected in these practices at Athens he would have been in great danger if he had not made his escape.

As there is no indication that the Apolexidis family were fabulously wealthy or that, being numerous, they had much to leave to their adopted son, Apellicon very likely made his money from the resale of rare documents he acquired for nothing except the cost of stealing them. These were the originals of the decrees, first written on paper and signed before they were carved in stone for public benefit. In describing the ideal library of «Lawrence,» Athenaeus points out that even then historians were expected to verify their claims against public documents. In one source Apellicon himself had written a book on Aristotle. Initially he might have yielded to the temptation to walk away with the source rather than return it to display in the temple. Becoming rich through the sale of stolen documents he decided to redeem the old cache, which was said to have been hidden not far from his home town.

Examining the books, and finding that moths and mold had removed portions of the text, Apellicon created another recension, supplying the missing information himself. There is no indication of how much was missing or of what source Apellicon used, if any, or whether the supplied material was grammatical, orthographic, or epigraphic, or included philosophy as well. Subsequent editors judged his recension to have been full of errors, but no ancient source has said what sort of errors, or how they were judged to be errors. These editors made corrections, but the sources of information used for correction remain unknown. In short, the only thing known from ancient sources is that Apellicon made a recension that was later criticised for being erroneous. The contradiction of such a statement is that if they knew enough to correct Apellicon, why would the rediscovery of the books have added anything different to the obviously already known corpus?^{[topic note 15]}

The passage from Athenaeus also provides a rough time table for the recension of Apellicon. It was created toward the end of his years as a successful thief, presumably at his home in Athens. What happened to the damaged originals remains a total mystery. Perhaps they were repasted and sold. How many copies were made if any, and who got them, also is not known. Apellicon probably left town in such a hurry that the books remained in Athens under the care of friends or servants. There is no record that the city moved against his property. Thus in a short time when he returned under the protection of Athenion he took up residence in the same home housing the same library, which was found there by Sulla after Apellicon’s death.

Sulla’s victory over the peripatetics[edit]

In the pages of Athenaeus, evil men come to a bad end, and the peripatetics are not good men. These were shortly to be tested in the First Mithridatic War with disastrous results.^{[topic note 16]} Bithynia and Pontus were independent kingdoms descending from Persian satrapies on the southern coast of the Black Sea never taken by Alexander. The descendants of the satraps remained as the Nicomedid and Mithridatid dynasties respectively.^{[topic note 17]} Walking a fine diplomatic balance they managed to coexist with the reigning diadochi (Attalids, Seleucids, etc.), but they made war on each other. When the diadochi were replaced by Roman provincial governors, Mithridates VI of Pontus attacked Nicomedes IV of Bithynia, claiming tort at the hands of Nicomedes supported by Rome, and further developing an Anatolian alliance defeated all the Roman commanders, massacring as well the helpless Roman citizens. Rome could not ignore these events.

Revolution at Athens[edit]

The rise of Mithridates offered some hope of independence to the cities of Greece. The Athenian people made Athenion the ambassador to Mithridates on the basis of his skill at oratory and experience of the east. Mithridates had other ideas. Winning the ambassador by banquets and promises he sent him back to Athens, where he set up headquarters in front of the Stoa of Attalus. The Roman officers were accustomed to address the people at that location. After a running harangue, voting to declare independence, the Athenians elected Athenion as commander-in-chief of their armed forces. The historians refer to him as a tyrant.

The wealthy made it clear that the vote had not been theirs by attempting to escape the city. Posting a guard on the gates and dispatching cavalry to hunt the escapees Athenion held a sequence of drum-head trials for treason of which the result was always the same: death and confiscation of property. Athenaeus’ account of other peripatetic tyrants at this time makes it clear that the issue was ideologic, the redistribution of wealth. Athenaeus, however, portrays it as thievery due to greed. He says that Athenion «collected such a quantity of money as to fill several wells.» Furthermore, he was lavish in his expenditures. Whether the motives were ideologic or personal is a difficult question to answer either then or now, but Athenion went to extremes. He took to torture to extort money. A curfew was set. The economy declined from want. Rationing was instituted.

Athenion replaced all the magistrates with his own men. Choosing this moment to return to Athens, Apellicon was welcomed as an old comrade. Athenion sent him to Delos in command of a force with instructions to recapture the Athenian national treasury there and bring the money to Athens. It is peculiar that the force he was given is more of a mob than a detachment of soldiers, and that Apellicon evidences total ignorance of military matters. Landing on the shore at night they encamp without a palisade, fail to set a proper watch, and proceed to drink into the small hours. The commander of the Roman guard, Orobius, leads his soldiers into the camp, slaughters 600 men, takes another 400 captive, and hunts the escapees through the countryside, burning them up in their hiding places. Better at running than fighting, Apellicon manages to escape to Athens, where he disappears from politics, at least in the sources, until the brief notice of his death, apparently not of interest to Sulla until then.

On either side, victory depended on intervention. The Pontians moved first. Accompanying his fleet commander, Archelaus, as admiral Mithridates sails to Rhodes with his entire fleet. Lucius Cassius, Proconsul of Asia, had escaped to the fortified harbor in the city of the same name there with whatever refugees he could locate. All the Italians had been struck on a day pre-arranged by Mithridates. Their property was seized by forfeit under pretext of being for the public good, a motive that Appian, like Athenaeus, tears to shreds. The friends of Mithridates revelled in riches. Their cause was amply funded. Commanding from a state quinquereme, Mithridates throws all his naval resources at Rhodes. Failing to take the place, he retreats to his headquarters at Pergamon, instructing Archelaus to complete the conquest of the Cyclades. Archelaus overwhelms Delos, sending the treasury back to Athens with one Aristion under guard of 2000 men. He then anchors at Piraeus, fortifies Munichia, and uses the place as a headquarters, sending out forays to subdue new islands and new coastal cities. During this time Aristion is tyrant of Athens, and no more is heard of Athenion.

The sources on these two men are again contradictory. They are both tyrants of Athens. Athenaeus uses «Athenion,» as did his source, Posidonius, without mention of «Aristion.» Pausanias, Appian, and Plutarch refer to «Aristion» without mentioning «Athenion.» The main difference is that Athenion is a peripatetic, while Aristion is an epicurean. The scholar, Isaac Casaubon, proposed without further evidence that they were the same man, that, enrolling as a citizen, Athenion changed his name to Aristion (there was one other instance of the practice).^[29] The difference continued to be troubling, as the two philosophies were at opposite poles: the Epicureans were atomists following Democritus, while the peripatetics were hylomorphs, following Plato. The sources would have known the difference, even just to be men of letters.

In 1935 fragments of a monument were excavated from the Ancient Agora of Athens, which when joined formed part of a decree (I 2351) establishing a new government at Athens. According to Woodhead,

… officials have been chosen by lot or direct election, and a Constitution is being ratified by the demos.^[30]

A first analysis dated the Constitution to 84/83 BC, the time of Sulla’s visit after reaching an agreement with Mithridates. On subsequent revision of the text J.H. Oliver noticed that two of the provisions were so close to recommendations in Aristotle’s Politics that Bekker numbers could be assigned.^{[topic note 18]} As a peripatetic constitution would not be being restored in 84 BC after the final overthrow of the peripatetics. Oliver redates it to 87/86 BC suggesting that the author was a peripatetic; that is, Athenion with his friends. Furthermore, I 2351 is strong evidence that the recension of Apellicon was in fact close to the corpus Aristotelicum.^[31] Antela-Bernardez suggests that after the Delian debacle Mithridates sacked all the peripatetics and elevated his own man, Aristion, to tyrant.

Civil war at Rome[edit]

On the Roman side, the Asiatic Vespers (the massacre) resulted in an immediate declaration of war.^{[topic note 19]} Elections were due for the year 88 BC, which began January first. Sulla and Rufus (“red”) stood for consules and won (see List of Roman consuls). Rufus’ son, an officer under Sulla, had asked for Cornelia’s (Sulla’s eldest daughter’s) hand in marriage and won, a marriage which ended tragically. Sulla himself made a marriage with the daughter of the Chief Priest (Pontfex Maximus). The two consules cast lots for the major obligations, as required by law. Sulla won prosecution of the Mithridatic War.

These electoral victories represent a break-away from the political machine of which Gaius Marius was boss. He headed the Populares party; Sulla and Rufus were of the Optimates. Marius had nevertheless until now sponsored the career of Sulla. Born to the aristocratic Cornelii, Sulla was said to have had a way with women. His step-mother left him her fortune. He married into more wealth. His personal name, Sulla, was actually a food dish of white cheese sprinkled over a red sauce (pizza?) giving the same appearance as his face. He had joined a troupe of comedians who sang and danced making a mockery of famous people, leaving that to enter government service under Marius’ sponsorship. His taking for himself a position Marius had hoped to control was an unforgivable betrayal.

The animosity between them had begun previously when the ambitious Sulla ran for Praetor, lost, ran again, bought some votes and won, to be ridiculed for it by Julius Caesar. Sent to Asia without troops he brought about peace using the troops of his allies there. On his return the Populares impeached him for extorting an ally but the case was dropped. At the outbreak of the Social War (91–88 BC) both parties put their differences aside until victory was achieved and the Italians were restored to Roman rule. Sulla, leading troops recruited at Rome itself, had acquired “the name of a great commander,” but the aging Marius accomplished nothing of note.

Wasting no time, Marius subverted one of the Tribuni plebis, “Tribunes of the People,” Publius Sulpicius Rufus, a feared politician with a private army of 3000 men, to pass an ordinance giving conduct of the war to Marius. Sulpicius had changed allegiance from the optimates to the populares to qualify for the magistracy. As blandishment, Marius promised the relief of Sulpicius’ ruinous debt. Declaring a preventative cessation of business, the two consuls were attacked by Sulpicius’ men in assembly. Rufus escaped somehow. His son was killed. Marius offered shelter to Sulla for old time’s sake and in exchange for withdrawal of the cessation.

The tribunes sent to take command of the army at Nola (near Naples) were stoned to death by it. Sulla had gotten there first. Marius began to murder Sulla’s partisans and confiscate their property. Sulla marched on Rome with six legions. He was met by emissaries from the Senate, who would, they assured him, make things right. Sulla agreed but lied, following the emissaries back to Rome to capture the gate. Halted there by a mob, he set fire to Rome.^{[topic note 20]}

Marius fled for his life. Sulla passed a death sentence in absentia (later rescinded). Sulpicius was executed. The elections for 87 were upon them. Rufus had been killed in a mutiny. Knowing he could not win, Sulla did not run. He did control who did win, making it possible for them to perform their duties or preventing them. His choices were Gnaeus Octavius (consul 87 BC), an optimate (although he disliked Sulla) and Lucius Cornelius Cinna, a popular. The price for Sulla’s support was that they swear a personal oath to leave Sulla in his command, now as Proconsul. Cinna broke it immediately, suborning a low-level tribune to trump up an accusation (not known what) on the basis of which he began impeachment proceedings against Sulla.

The paradox of the ships[edit]

Over a year had passed since the hapless Romans in Asia had sent urgent appeals for assistance. Mithridates had established sovereignty over nearly all of Greece. The Roman government seemed paralyzed by incidents of partisan contention. Meanwhile, Bruttius Sura, a Legate of one Gaius Sentius, Praetor of Macedonia, was conducting small-unit operations quasi-autonomously against the Pontians in Boeotia with minimal success. Boeotia though anti-Pontian was being compelled to submit. In the autumn of 88 BC Sulla’s Quaestor (chief supply officer), one Lucullus (undoubtedly the same as Lucius Licinius Lucullus, written about by Plutarch), arrived to order Sura back to Macedonia and to make supply arrangements with Boeotia and the states of central Greece. In the spring of 87, Sulla abandoned the suite of impeachment and the Civil War to strike suddenly across the Adriatic into central Greece with 5 legions and some cavalry, in very round numbers, about 30,000 men, mainly veterans of the Social War, many no doubt from his prior command.

Implied by the sudden strike story is the paradox of the ships. During the siege of Athens, lacking ships to conduct an amphibious assault on Piraeus, Sulla sends Lucullus to Egypt by night in disguised vessels to beg ships from Ptolemy IX Lathyros. Denied and redirected to Cyprus, Lucullus avoids an ambush there and collects a motley fleet from the islands. Meanwhile, Sulla has no ships, it is said. When history last saw Sulla’s five legions they had been sent back to the camp at Nola. Either Sulla acquired ships there and sailed around the south of Italy or they marched overland to Brindisi, the preferred port of embarcation for voyages to Greece. The sources give no clue.

The troops next appear at Athens without ships. How did they cross the Adriatic Sea? Mommsen says:^[32]

…in the spring of 87 B.C. he landed in Epirus—but with only thirty thousand men: he was without a single ship and his treasury was empty.

He could not have landed in Epirus without a single ship except by extraordinary means not explained by Mommsen. Similarly, the contemporaneous Long says:^[33]

Sulla left Italy in b.c. 87 with five legions and some auxiliary cohorts and cavalry. He would sail from Brundisium and land somewhere on the opposite coast of the continent. It was a long and difficult march to Athens.

The ships have appeared in this scenario (one cannot sail without them) but the march is unnecessarily laborious. There is no need to disembark at all: one enters the Gulf of Corinth, which is 81 miles long, and no more than a few days later arrives off the shores of Attica and Boeotia. If the ships are allowed, there is no necessity to have any “landing” or any “march” at all.

The current solution implied or expressed by the scholars is that by “ships” the sources mean warships capable of defeating Archelaus’ warships, which would otherwise ram and sink any troop transports. Sulla’s quaestorial organization would have acquired sufficient transports for the crossing in Italy. They did not sail to Athens with them as the seas were ruled by Archelaus. The only other route is through the Gulf of Corinth. It requires that either the ships be dragged across the Isthmus of Corinth on an overland route through enemy territory or be left behind in the Gulf.

What the army did do depended on the disposition of the states on the east side of the Gulf and the moot question of supply. Mommsen and Long (and many others) speculate that the troops arrived in Epirus with empty larders, so to speak. On the contrary, as the master of Rome, Sulla would have had no trouble commandeering whatever initial supplies and ships he needed. His was not a poverty-stricken army. Armies on the move, however, require supply lines, which is what the Civil War would deny Sulla. As soon as he had departed his enemies assumed power, and they had no intention of supplying his army. He was on his own.

Appian gives the most detail:^[34]

Sulla … now for the first time passed over to Greece with five legions and a few cohorts and troops of horse and straightway called for money, reënforcements and provisions from Ætolia and Thessaly.

There is no mention of any land campaign. Aetolia was on the north shore of the Gulf. Thessaly was far to the north on the east coast of central Greece. This distance is the basis for Mommsen’s land campaign, as though Thessaly required one. Thessaly, however, was still pro-Roman.^[35] One does not devastate the country of an ally to acquire supplies. Apparently, Sulla landed in Aetolia to receive the assistance promised by both states to Lucullus the previous year.

The quaestor’s road auction[edit]

Supplied and augmented by Aetolians Sulla’s force marched through the adjoining country of Boeotia. As a symbol of Roman presence it was immensely successful. Every city of Boeotia, including the recalcitrant Thebes, rallied to the Roman cause. His flank now covered, Sulla entered Megaris, which had thrown in its lot with Boeotia. It was an important land link between Attica and the Gulf of Corinth. It had a fortified port, Aigosthena, on the Alkyonides Gulf. Arriving in the vicinity of Athens, Sulla constructed a larger castra (base) at Eleusis to support siege operations, supply operations,^{[topic note 21]} and winter quarters for the men should that become necessary (it did).

After constructing their castra — a Roman legion was prepared to throw up one of those in a single late afternoon, although a permanent camp may have taken longer — the Romans moved to the siege of Athens on the north side. If Sulla had faced the full weight of the Athenian army as it had been, he would perhaps simply have been cleared out of Attica. As it was, Aristion and his Mithridatic ally, Archelaus, were to demonstrate an astounding incompetence (the sources were astounded) against Roman veteran troops; nevertheless, they put up a strong resistance, Archelaus most of all.

The Athenians had created two fortified defensive communities: the city itself with the Acropolis and the Marketplace (agora), and the port, Piraeus, with a defensible elevation. The path between them was protected by two parallel “Long Walls.” Thinking them unimportant, the defenders allowed these walls to be taken and demolished, thus splitting their forces in two. Archelaus defending Piraeus could be resupplied and reinforced by sea. Aristion in Athens itself could not. Sulla threw the entire weight of his attack against Aristion.

The defenders did have a defense strategy, plotted between Mithridates and Archelaus, who were in relatively rapid communication by swift vessel. Mithridates dispatched a strike force of 120,000 men under his son, Arcathias (or Ariathes). He took Macedonia and Thessaly but the force was delayed by the natural death of the son. Had he succeeded in reaching Attica in a timely manner Sulla would have been pinned between three forces. This remedy offers some explanation for Aristion’s strange behavior: he sang and danced on the walls of Athens, mocking Sulla by recalling his early career as an entertainer. One source proposes that he was just a fool who liked to entertain the men of his command. Another informs us that he was trying to anger Sulla to keep him on the attack, which also would be a strange thing to do if he did not expect a relieving force. He succeeded all too well, but the timing went wrong.

Sulla sent for some siege engines from Thebes. It was at this time that he crossed paths unknowingly with Aristotle and also made the originally honest decisions that would lead to the plundering of Greek objets d’art. A mere agreement with the allies to provide supplies in kind was grossly insufficient. Cash was needed to pay the men and to buy the goods and services needed for the siege, such as thousands of working mules, drivers and wagons. Just after he was assigned the Mithridatic War, the Senate voted to:^[36]

sell the treasures that King Numa Pompilius had set apart for his sacrifices to the gods.

That money was gone and Sulla was cut off from Rome, but there were plenty of temples in Greece, each of which served as a repository of wealth. He and Lucullus made the decision to tax these temples for their valuable objects. Letters of appropriation were sent forthwith, delivered by revenue agents in wagons and ships.

The sources concentrate on the three most famous temples: the Temple of Apollo at Delphi, the Asclepeion at Epidaurus, and the Temple of Zeus, Olympia, which latter yielded “a vast fortune” according to Diodorus Siculus^[37] These were not the only temples taxed; there is evidence that the tax might have been on all temples. Pausanias mentions the removal of the statue of Athena from a temple in Haliartus, Boeotia.^[38] At this time Sulla was still arguing national security as a motive. After the war he compensated at least some of the temples by giving them confiscated farmland for a yearly income.

Sulla was primarily interested in currency. He could obtain it either by resale of the art objects or by melting them and issuing coin. We are told he founded a mint in the Peloponnesus and that he issued gold and silver coins of greater than standard weight for “purchasing the services of their soldiers with lavish sums.”^[39] This money was subsequently called “Lucullian,” according to Plutarch.^[40] The coin discoveries from the region are consistent with this view, although not conclusive. A gold aureus and a silver denarius believed from the times are overweight and bear an image of Venus, Sulla’s patron goddess, on one side with a double cornucopia and the letter Q for Quaestor on the other.^[41] Minting was not the only disposition of the antiques; Sulla was aware of the high resale value of such objects. He took many objects not of precious metal, such as the antique shields of the Greeks who had stopped Brennus (3rd century BC) at Thermopylae. These must have been sold to the highest bidder.

See also[edit]

• William of Moerbeke
• Toledo School of Translators

Notes[edit]

References[edit]

Citations[edit]

Sources[edit]

Works cited

External links[edit]

• The Ancient Catalogues of Aristotle’s Writings. A Survey of Current Research
• The Rediscovery of the Corpus Aristotelicum with an annotated bibliography
• Bekker’s Prussian Academy of Sciences edition of the complete works of Aristotle at Archive.org

  • vol. 1
  • vol. 2
  • vol. 3
  • vol. 4
  • vol. 5

• Lazaris, S. «L’image paradigmatique: des ‘Schémas anatomiques’ d’Aristote au ‘De materia medica’ de Dioscoride», Pallas, 93 (2013), p. 131-164 ext. link
• Oxford Translation of The Works of Aristotle at Archive.org (contents by volume)

  • vol. 1
  • vol. 2
  • vol. 3
  • vol. 4
  • vol. 5
  • vol. 6
  • vol. 7
  • vol. 8
  • vol. 9
  • vol. 10
  • vol. 11
  • vol. 12

Логика,
по Аристотелю,
служит для разработки философского
диалога, в котором стороны стремятся к
установлению истинного знания об
обсуждаемом предмете. Целью такого
диалога или рассуждения о предмете
является не выигрыш спора, не убеждение
соперника, не услаждение слушателя
элегантной речью, а именно установление
и раскрытие истинной природы предмета.

Правильная
речь, по Аристотелю, развертывается как
эмоционально-логическое построение,
где эмоция сплетена с логикой, которые
взаимно возбуждают одна другую.

«ОРГАНОН»
(лат. organum – орудие, инструмент) – общее
название логических сочинений Аристотеля.
Принято считать, что поздняя античность
усвоила это название вслед за первым
издателем и комментатором Аристотеля
Андроником Родосским (1 в. до н.э.), который
поместил в своем издании логические
сочинения в начале корпуса и назвал их
«инструментальными книгами», опираясь
на то, что Аристотель подчеркивал
пропедевтическую функцию логики
относительно других.

Композиционным
принципом Андроника было
расположение трактатов соответственно
увеличивающейся сложности их содержания:
в «Категориях» Аристотель анализирует
отдельное слово, в «Герменевтике» –
простое предложение, в «Первой аналитике»
представлено учение о силлогистическом
выводе, во «Второй аналитике» – о научном
доказательстве, в «Топике» описывается
диалектический диспут,
а заключительные слова последней книги
относятся ко всему «Органону».

В
настоящее время считается установленным,
что (1) все трактаты «Органона» подлинны;
(2) все они – частично авторские записи
к лекциям, частично конспекты лекций,
составленные слушателями, но просмотренные,
исправленные и дополненные самим
Аристотелем; (3) все трактаты неоднократно
переделывались с учетом новых результатов,
полученных Аристотелем, т.е. содержат
разновременные хронологические пласты.

Существует
несколько различных схем относительной
хронологии сочинений «Органона». Однако
наиболее вероятным представляется, что
«Органон» был написан
в академический период жизни Аристотеля
в
последовательности: «Категории», «Об
истолковании», «Топика» и «Аналитики».
Возможно,
что работа над некоторыми главами разных
сочинений велась параллельно.

«КАТЕГОРИИ»
(Κατηγορίαι, от κατηγορέω – высказывать)
– первый
трактат в составе «Органона»
Аристотеля. Одно из самых ранних его
сочинений (работа над ними велась
параллельно с «Топикой», с которой они
связаны содержательно). Заглавие трактата
не принадлежит Аристотелю, в своих
сочинениях он ссылается на него как на
σχήματα τῆς κατηγορίας (формы
высказывания).

Текст
трактата представляет собой анализ
слов (в качестве определений понятий)
и семантической функции различных типов
слов.
Фон для «Категорий» составляет
платоновский анализ понятия «бытие» :
бытие как «существование» и бытие
каким-то образом или в каком-то качестве.

Противопоставление
бытия самого по себе и бытия относительного
играло значительную роль в философских
дискуссиях 370–350-х гг. «Бытием самим по
себе» для Платона были «идеи», для
Аристотеля им стала «сущность», а «бытие
в отношении» стало отправной точкой
для создания учения о различении значений
слов.

Выбор
слова «категория» в значении «высказывание»
показывает, что Аристотель сознательно
дистанцировался от онтологических
спекуляций своих старших товарищей по
Академии, подчеркивая, что речь идет о
языковом
семантическом анализе.

Аристотель
избегает также платоновского метода
диэрезы¹:
ни одна из категорий не может быть
выведена из другой. Метод Аристотеля
таков: он рассматривает отдельного
человека и спрашивает, какие осмысленные
высказывания можно сделать об этом
человеке? Так он выделяет 10 категорий:
1) он человек («сущность», τί ἐστι, οὐσία,
лат. essentia); 2) он такого-то роста
(«количество», πόσον, quantitas); 3) он образован
(«качество», ποῖον, qualitas); 4) он старше/младше
другого («отношение», προς τι, relatio); 5) в
Ликее («место», ποῦ, ubeitas); 6) сегодня
(«время», πότε, quandeitas); 7) сидит («положение»,
κεῖσθαι, situs); у него есть сандалии
(«обладание», ἔχειν, habitudo); 9) он говорит
(«действие», ποιεῖν, actio); 10) о нем говорят
(«претерпевание», πάσχειν, passio). T.о.,
категории представляют собой типы
предикатов, которые могут быть высказаны
о каком-либо предмете.

Содержательно
текст делится на 3 части. (1): главы 1–3.
Вводные терминологические замечания.
Здесь важно разделение сущности (οὐσία)
на первую (конкретная единичная вещь)
и вторую (вид и род). Напр., конкретный
человек и понятие «человек». Общее (род
и вид) обладает только логическим
существованием, объективным же
существованием обладают единичные
вещи. (2): главы 4–9. Анализ первых четырех
категорий. Все качества разделяются на
устойчивые и неустойчивые, т.е. такие,
при потере которых объект перестает
быть самим собой, и такие, которые легко
теряются без ущерба для объекта (в
«Топике» и «Метафизике» за ними закрепился
термин «привходящие» – συμβεβηκότα,
accidens). Учение о категориях получает
дальнейшее развитие в «Метафизике»,
кн. XII, где исследуется структура сущего.
Термины, имеющие в «Категориях»
исключительно логико-семантическое
значение, там приобретут онтологический
смысл (см., напр., Met. XII, 1, 1069а20). (3): главы
10–15 (в схоластике получили название
postpraedicamenta). Собрание статей, содержащих:
анализ четырех видов противолежания
(получает развитие в Top. II, 7–8; Met. V, 10),
различение пяти видов предшествования
(получает развитие в Met. V, 11), анализ
понятия «одновременно» (ᾅμα) (ср. Phys.
V), анализ видов движения (ср. Phys. III–VI) и
понятия «обладание» (ср. Met. V, 23).

1
ДИЭРЕЗА – один из технических методов
платоновской диалектики, позволяющий
отличать отдельные виды один от другого
(«Софист»), выделять вид и давать ему
определение путем дихотомического
членения рода («Политик»);

Органо́н, правильно О́рганон (греч. Όργανον инструмент, метод) — традиционное название философских сочинений Аристотеля, посвящённых логике. Название «Органон» принадлежит не самому Аристотелю: принято считать, что оно закрепилось благодаря комментатору и издателю трудов Аристотеля Андронику Родосскому^[1].

Краткая характеристика

В состав Органона входят:

• Категории (греч. Κατηγορίαι; лат. Categoriae, или Praedicamenta)
• Об истолковании (греч. Περὶ ἑρμηνείας; лат. De interpretatione)
• Первая аналитика (греч. Ἀναλυτικὰ πρότερα; лат. Analytica priora)
• Вторая аналитика (греч. Ἀναλυτικὰ ὕστερα; лат. Analytica posteriora)
• Топика (греч. Τοπικά; лат. Topica)
• Софистические опровержения (греч. Περὶ τῶν σοφιστικῶν ἐλέγχων, букв. О софистических опровержениях; лат. Sophistici elenchi, часто просто Elenchi)

Различение «Первой Аналитики» и «Второй Аналитики» Аристотелем не делалось (принадлежит, вероятно, Андронику Родосскому), а работа «О софистических опровержениях» является частью «Топики»^[1].

Известно большое количество греческих рукописей «Органона», а также арабские, латинские, сирийские и армянские переводы^[1]. В большинстве изданий Органона со времён античности в качестве введения ко всему корпусу публиковалось «Введение» (Isagoge) Порфирия.

Примечания

Издания

• Aristotelis Organon graece, ed. Theodor Waitz. 2 vol. Lipsiae, 1844, 1846; Nachdruck Aalen, 1965.
• «Перевод с примечаниями первой Аналитики Аристотеля» Н. Н. Ланге. СПб., 1894.

Литература

• Ахманов А. С. Логическое учение Аристотеля. М., 1960.
• Бобров Е. Логика Аристотеля (исторический и критический этюд). Варшава, 1906.
• Бочаров В. А. Аристотель и традиционная логика: Анализ силлогистических теорий. М.: Изд-во МГУ, 1984. — 133 с.
• Луканин Р. К. Диалектика аристотелевской «Топики» // Философские науки. 1971, № 6.
• Луканин Р. К. «Органон» Аристотеля. М.: Наука, 1984. — 303 с.
• Лукасевич, Ян. Аристотелевская силлогистика с точки зрения современной формальной логики. М., 1959.
• Brandis Chr. Über die Reihenfolge der Bücher des aristotelischen Organons. В., 1833.

Ссылки

• Статья об «Органоне» Аристотеля на сайте Института философии РАН

Числа Беккера, стандартная форма ссылок на работы в Corpus Aristotelicum, основаны на номерах страниц, используемых в издании Прусской академией наук полного собрания сочинений Аристотеля (издательство Aristotelis Opera Academia Regia Borussica, Берлин, 1831–1870). Они получили свое имя от редактора этого издания, классического филолога Августа Иммануила Беккера (1785–1871).

Работы Аристотеля по числам Беккера

В следующих списках числа Беккера, которые используются для ссылок на работы Аристотеля; Перечислены все работы Аристотеля, за исключением Конституции афинян, которая была обнаружена после публикации издания Беккера, и фрагментов.

Заголовки даны в соответствии со стандартом, установленным Пересмотренным Оксфордским переводом. Также даются латинские названия, которые до сих пор часто используются учеными.

Аристотелевские произведения без номеров Беккера

Конституция афинян

Конституция афинян (греч. Афинайон Политейя; Latin, Atheniensium Respublica) не был включен в издание Беккера, потому что он был впервые отредактирован в 1891 году на основе папирусов, приобретенных в 1890 году Британским музеем. Стандартные ссылки на него — номера разделов (и подразделов).

Фрагменты

Сохранившиеся фрагменты многих утерянных работ Аристотеля были включены в пятый том издания Беккера, отредактированный Валентином Роуз. Однако они приводятся не по номерам Беккера, а по номерам фрагментов. Первым изданием Роуза фрагментов Аристотеля был Аристотель Псевдоэпиграф (1863). Как следует из названия, Роуз считала все это подделкой. Нумерация фрагментов в переработанном издании Роуза, опубликованном в серии Teubner, Aristotelis qui ferebantur librorum fragmenta, Leipzig, 1886, все еще широко используется (обозначено R), хотя есть более актуальное издание с другим нумерацией, сделанное Олофом Гигоном (опубликовано в 1987 году как новый том 3 в переиздании Вальтера де Грюйтера издания Беккера), и новое издание де Грюйтера Эккарт Шютрампф находится в стадии подготовки.

Для выбора фрагментов в английском переводе см. В. Д. Росс, Select Fragments (Oxford 1952 ) и Джонатан Барнс (ред.), Полное собрание сочинений Аристотеля: Пересмотренный оксфордский перевод, т. 2, Princeton 1984, pp. 2384–2465. Существует новый перевод фрагментов книги Аристотеля Protrepticus Хатчинсона и Джонсона (2015).

К произведениям, сохранившимся лишь фрагментарно, конфликт диалоги «О философии (или о добре)», «Евдем» (или о душе), о справедливости и о добром рождении. Возможно, фальшивая работа Об идеях сохранилась в цитатах Александра Афродизиаса в его комментариях к «Метафизике» Аристотеля. По поводу диалогов см. Также издания Ричарда Рудольфа Вальцера, Aristotelis Dialogorum fragmenta, in usum scholarum (Флоренция, 1934), и Ренато Лаур, Аристотель: I frammenti dei dialoghi (2 тома), Неаполь: Луиджи Лоффредо, 1987.

Парадокс авторства

Согласно Диогену Лаэртскому, библиотека Лицея на пике своего развития при Аристотеле состояла из разных типов книг: сочинений, написанных старейшинами под их именами, сочинений Авторы пожилых людей и молодых людей, неопределенные подписи, копии работ других авторов по темам исследования и результаты исследований неопределенной формы. Та же самая библиотека продолжает работать при Теофрасте, приобретение больше работ того же типа, за исключением того, что Аристотель больше не участвует. Нас заставляют думать, что после смерти Теофраста библиотека исчезает на 200 лет, благополучно поглощенной Нелей. Так же внезапно он появляется снова, спасенный, за которым ухаживают три редактора и могущественный аристократ, чтобы опубликовать его в новой редакции Андроника и спуститься к нам в тот же день как страницы Беккера. Парадокс в том, что нынешняя рецензия мало похожа на библиотеку в Афинах. Он содержит только книги, специально написанные Аристотелем, с включением работ, которые позже были признаны ложными. Нет никаких объяснений Теософа или кого-либо еще, и нет объяснений того, что случилось со всеми другими книгами. Спасенная библиотека не может быть той, которую нужно было спасти.

Исследования в лицее

Недавние археологические открытия в Афинах подтвердили, что была в парке школа под названием Лицей, и что она Фунда соответствует форме прямоугольной библиотеки. На самом деле это место все еще было парком (или садом), и, по заявлению правительства Греции, так и останется. Изучение древних источников показывает, что независимо от ее юридического статуса, будь то владение, аренда или просто занятость, там действительно проживала организация, которая называла себя «» (philoi ), а учреждение «школа (диатриба ) друзей. Это было его собственное имя или эндоним. Это означало, что отношения к школе были «совершенно неформальными». Имя перипатикои, тех, кто населял дорожки, или перипатои, гимназии в парке, является экзонимом.

Друзья жили в «кооперативе». (койнония ). Они вместе обедали и вместе отвечали за все удобства, включая библиотеку и музей. Они никому не платили и ни от кого не получали зарплату. Расходы на создание брали на себя богатые покровители, одним из которых был Аристотель; однако, пока Александр Македонский был другом, не было никаких финансовых проблем. Несмотря на всю эту неформальность, они, тем не менее, считались либо «юношами» (неаниской), либо «старейшинами» (пресбутерои ). Более того, Аристотель действительно обладал некоторой властью, начиная со своего положения, описанного английскими учеными как ученый, «правитель школы». Это правило не включало повседневную работу школы, та к как он установил эквивалент морской «вахты», чтобы позаботиться об этом; то есть каждые 10 дней он назначал архонта, «мастера», из друзей.

Дело друзей было не просто обучением существующим знаниям. Как сказано в первых параграфах «Физики», они былипредложением в открытии принципов или элементов знаний, что было совершенно новой целью в греческом образовании. Это исследование было разделено на отдельные «области» (methoddoi ). Сначала они собрали письменные работы, представляющие полезные мысли. Впечатление они собрали полевые данные посредством интервью и охоты зацами. Аристотель — первый известный ученый, который послал полевых работников и отправил их с военными экспедициями. Сбор этнических школ и разведданных, собранных Александром в качестве друга, безусловно, имеет огромное значение для достижения его конечной цели — создания новой многокультурной мировой империи. Это была первая известная армия. Говорят, что он поручил тысячам мужчин собирать образцы, в дополнение к их военным обязанностям.

Последним шагом в исследовательском проекте был анализ всей информации для подтверждения «научных знаний» (эпистема ) «элементов» (stoicheia ), «причин» (aitia ) и «первые принципы» (archai ) по теме. Они были написаны в документе нового типа, который сохранился в корпусе. Начав с краткого обзора предыдущих взглядов, он перешел к определениям и выводам в стиле, похожем на геометрическое представление. Затем документы хранились в библиотеке. Их авторы, аналитики, соавторы независимо от того, остаются ли они исправлены или исправлены и кем, остаются неизвестными. Диоген Лаэртий назвал эти «записные книжки» (hypomnemata) и сказал, что Аристотель написал «необычное число».

Вопрос о библиотеке

Переход от кооперативной школы частной

Согласно Страбону, Нелей, сын Кориска, друг в лицее, «Унаследовал библиотеку (библиотека ) Теофраста, в том числе библиотеку Аристотеля». Теофраст получил библиотеку Аристотеля, завещав ее вместе со школой. Насколько Страбон знал, Теофраст был первым коллекционером книг. Судя по всему, у старейшин были собственные библиотеки, и они могли распоряжаться ими как угодно.

Основные проблемы с этой точкой зрения заключаются, во-первых, в том, что Воля Аристотеля достоверно сохранилась в (DL’s) Диогена Лаэртия Жизни и выдающихся философов при Аристотеле. О библиотеке нет ни слова. Более, Аристотель, метик, или иностранный житель Афин, не имел права владеть собственностью или передать его по наследству, поэтому он не мог ни владеть школой с ее библиотекой, ни передать ее кому-либо в судебном порядке.. Даже если бы он не был метиком, он не мог бы распоряжаться землей и зданиями, находящимися в муниципальной собственности. Никто из других друзей тоже не мог. Согласно законам, действовавшим на день смерти Аристотеля, никто не мог владеть школой или передаче ее по наследству. Он принадлежал городу. Что касается того, были ли у Аристотеля собственные дополнительные собственные библиотеки, во-первых, собственность не соответствовала духу школы, а во-вторых, судьба школы после Теофраста предполагает, что сама школьная библиотека на самом деле была школьной библиотекой.

После смерти Александра Афины устроили короткое восстание против македонцев. Обратив внимание в школу, они пошли за Аристотелем, который ушел в изгнание, чтобы избежать смертной казни. Умер в ссылке. Через несколько лет Афины снова оказались под Македонией, которой правил Кассандр. Теофраст с триумфом вернулся в начало под началом нового вице-регента Афин Деметрия Фалерского, друга и бывшего ученика Теофраста. Школа стала даже больше, чем раньше, но Деметриус внес некоторые изменения в администрацию. D.L. говорит только, что Теофраст «считается владельцем собственного сада после смерти Аристотеля благодаря вмешательству своего друга Деметрия Фалерского». Судя по всему Д.Л. не совсем понимает его источник. Значение было не «его друг». Это не было личной услуги. «Друг» — это сотрудник школы. Не было двух садов; Теофраст не был бедным человеком, нуждавшимся в собственном имуществе. В его обширном завещании подробно описывается распоряжение имуществом школы как его собственной собственностью, включая сад. Он называет друзей и хочет убедиться, что они должны рассматриваться как совместная собственность. Деметриус просто установил юридическую конвенцию, распространенную в других школах, о том, что школа и ее активы принадлежат мастеру.

Само распоряжение имуществом в завещании Теофраста попытка восстановить кинонию, установленную Аристотелем. Сад, дорожки и постройки вокруг сада должны достаться десяти названным друзьям, которые будут проводиться вместе, при условии, что они используют собственность для изучения литературы и философии. Это временное владение. Если положение не соблюдается, собственность должна быть возвращена кому-то по закону, возможно, собственнику или владельцу школы. Общая собственность Теофраста как собственника была намного больше. Семейное имение в Эресе и аристотелевское владение в Стагире перешло к своим друзьям. Он также владел фондами в доверительном управлении Гиппархом. Последнему было предписано использовать их для восстановления музея и других построек. У него также были рабы (как и у Аристотеля). Их либо отпускали на свободу, либо отдавали друзьям. У него был один клиент вольноотпущенник, которого он щедро вознаграждение за четыре года обслуживания зданий.

Отказ от библиотеки Нелеем

В завещании существует еще одно довольно своеобразное завещание. Это отношение имеет к природе Корпуса, будь то Корпус Аристотеля, Аристотеля и Теофраста, или всех его друзей. Пока нет решения проблемы авторства, а точнее его отсутствия. Древние источники по этой теме противоречивы. Нет общего научного консенсуса и согласованного перевеса доказательств.

В завещании переводится: «Всю свою библиотеку я отдаю Нелею». Сердцем школы была библиотека, содержащая все результаты исследований и аналитические статьи (тетради). Без этих друзей не было возможности проводить текущие занятия по темам, была известна школа (физика, риторика и т. Д.). Все остальное школьное имущество перераспределяется между общими учителями (за исключением случаев, когда иностранные владения имеют индивидуальные знания, вероятно, для их управления) не должно было быть общей собственностью, аномальный подход к обстоятельствам. В древних источниках нет никакого объяснения. Современники почти всегда находят одно объяснение, что Нелей был предполагаемым наследником архонства, хотя это, как ни странно, нигде не предлагается. Закон по-прежнему требовал архонта с правами на школу.

Какими бы ни были предполагаемые ожидания, Нелей не стал схолиархом; вместо этого Стратон из Лампсака сделал. Опять же, никаких подробностей о том, как и почему он приобрел позицию или какое-либо заявление о чувствах Нелея по этому поводу, что наводит на размышления. Затем Страбон рассказывает о том, что повсеместно считается вероломством против школы. Ему была передана библиотека с условием, что она будет общим достоянием. Вместо этого «Нелей отнес ее Скепсису и завещал своим наследникам простым людям, которые держат книги под замком…» В результате, по словам Страбона, в школе «… вообще не было книг, с исключением немногих,… Каждому автору есть что сказать, вынести какое-то суждение… «Никаких подробностей или мотивов. Спекуляции распространены. Каждому автору есть что сказать, вынести какое-то суждение.

Анекдот Страбона — не единственный древний авторитет в отношении расположения книг Нелеем. Афиней из Навкратиса, в своей работе Deipnosophistae, «Обеденные софисты», воображаемое изображение серии банкетов, на которых гости — известные литературные деятели (более 700), так что читателю под меню и отрывки софистики вместе, есть его главный герой, хозяин, Лаврентий («Лаврентий»), обладающий

«такой библиотекой дре внегреческих книг, что превосходит в этом отношении всех тех, примечательных такими коллекциями; такие как… философ Аристотель и его библиотекарь Нелий, от которых говорят, что наш соотечественник Птолемей по прозвищу Филадельфус купил их все и перевез вместе со всеми теми, которые он собрал в Афинах и в Родоса в свою прекрасную Александрию ».

По правилам логики (самим правилам Аристотеля) оба рассказа могут восприниматься как «истина, правда и ничего кроме правды», как американский правовой принцип для зала показания показания требуются. Самым решающим решением было бы принять от одного в пользу другого, и многие его авторы приняли. Оставшееся решение состоит в том, чтобы включить и то и другое как частично верные, создаваемое окно возможностей для спекулятивного объяснения различий между александрийской и скепсской традициями.

Двойная версия текстов

Двусмысленное название, Corpus Aristotelicum

Традиция, наиболее известная традиция современных людей, — Corpus Aristotelicum, новая латынь для «Аристотелическое тело» Прусская академия опубликовала его издание 1831 года под названием Aristoteles Graece, «Аристотель по-гречески», где Аристотель — имени именитый падеж. , например, «Опера Аристотеля», «сочинения Аристотеля». Беккер назвал так отдельные произведения, но ни одно из них не является корпусом.

В конце 19 века корпусная фраза стала появляться в заметках немецких историков философии, таких как Целлер и Виндельбанд. Подразумевается, что они писали в виду Беккера, но даже когда они писали новый манускрипт, раскапывался из свалок Египта, о котором Беккер вообще ничего не знал, или кто-либо еще по крайн ей мере несколько тысяч лет: Конституция Афиняне (Аристотель). Это было определено как одно из 158 политических исследований, написанных Аристотелем и его учениками не ранее 330 г. до н. Э. Это в формате «записной книжки». Содержание отличается тем, что это не абстрактный трактат, а история с указанием периодов и дат. Не сумев уместить его в идею корпуса, основанного на Беккере, многие отвергли его. Дата довольно древняя, и большинство считает ее александрийским происхождением, единственным экземпляром Aristotelicum из библиотеки и школы.

Принятие афинской конституции с той же достоверностью, что и беккерианский корпус придает определенную двусмысленность значению корпуса. Если это будут только произведения Беккера, то возможны такие вводящие в заблуждение фразы, как «оригинальный корпус», как будто произведения Беккера более аутентичны, чем любые произведения на его основе. Даже работы Беккера не являются подлинными, вне всякого сомнения.

Следующим логическим шагом будет попытка изменить определение термина так, чтобы это было не латинское слово corpus, а какое-то его специальное использование:

«Corpus Aristotelicum — это собрание Аристотелевских слов. произведения, которые сохранились с древних времен благодаря передаче средневековых рукописей… Ссылки на них сделаны в соответствии с изданием Королевской Прусской академии XIX века Иммануила Беккера… которое, в свою очередь, основано на древних классификациях этих произведений. «

Фраза имеет такой авторитет, что ее нельзя использовать без обозначения коллекции Беккера, но ее можно использовать для обозначения дополнительных Aristotelica. Его часто переводят как «труды Аристотеля». В этом английском смысле это должно означать все работы, когда-либо приписываемые Аристотелю, а также каждый фрагмент. Джордж Грот сказал

: «Совершенно иначе обстоит дело, когда мы пытаемся сформулировать аристотелевский канон, включающий все работы Аристотеля и никого другого. Мы находим проблему гораздо более сложной, а вопросы доказательств — еще более несовершенными, более неопределенным и более противоречивым ».

Под« каноном »Грот имел в виду« берлинское издание Аристотеля ». Он совершенно невиновен ни в каких аристотелевских телах. Даже если бы «канон» сохранился вместо корпуса, такое значение теперь не отличало бы Беккера. Одно из решений для перевода — просто назвать Беккер, как в «страницах Беккера». Такое возвышение Беккера как авторитета поднимает вопрос об источнике ауры убежденности, окружающей это имя. Кажется вероятным, что это было заложено в источниках.

Бумажный след до Беккера

Решив напечатать все аутентичные работы Аристотеля, насколько это можно было установить, Беккер обнаружил, что оглядывается на объемный бумажный след. Он решил использовать тексты из 102 рукописей (MSS), обычно идентифицируемые по названию библиотеки и номеру доступа. Для использования в книге он дал каждому MS буквенный код. Они указаны в сносках. Обложка издания включает список рукописей. Его библиотек относительно немного, в том числе Ватиканская библиотека в Риме, Biblioteca Marciana в Венеции, Bibliothèque Nationale de France (бывшая Королевская библиотека Парижа)., и Австрийская национальная библиотека в Вене. Обычно Aristotelica включены в известные MSS, публикующие ряд работ.

Беккер не искал все возможные MSS. Количество сохранившихся MSS остается неизвестным. До изобретения печатного станка ок. 1440 г., автор Иоганн Гутенберг, который объединил подвижный шрифт с винтовым прессом, репродукция книг производилась переписчиками. Это происходило повсюду в учреждениях, которые могли себе это позволить.

В 15 веке копирование замедлилось, поскольку рукописи были заменены книгами. Из-за культурного отставания производство некоторых рукописей продолжалось вплоть до 17 века в виде письменных книг. По большей части MSS остались на месте. После Беккера появилось много ранее не рассматриваемых MSS. Их публикация продолжается. На их основе работы, считающиеся поддельными, теперь считаются подлинными, и наоборот. Жюри всегда, так сказать, нет.

Дату копии следует отличать от даты ее переиздания. Большинство рукописей Аристотеля были скопированы в течение 13-15 веков в различных скрипториях в Европе. Последовательность текста — это рецензия, экземпляры которой могут быть созданы множеством копий в разных местах. Рецензия — это не только текст, но и все особенности текста, такие как набор ошибок (неправильные копии, орфографические ошибки или варианты), связанные с ним. Сходства или различия делают возможным реконструкцию спуска с помощью сравнительного метода определения семейств MSS, каждое из которых обозначается заглавной буквой. Семья — это тоже рецензия. Его первый член является его оригиналом. Обычно оригиналы сейчас недоступны, но об их существовании и дате судить по типам исторических и текстовых свидетельств.

За исключением аномальных археологических находок, все MSS, скопированные в последнее время, датируются периодом после 1000 лет. Исторические и внутренние подсказки указывают на оригиналы за последние 3 века до 1000 лет и на происхождение владений Византийской империи ; то есть грекоязычный мир, каким он был во времена Восточной Римской империи. крестоносцы сломили власть его столицы, Константинополя, оставив его беспомощным перед сарацинами, в данном случае носителями турецкого языка с равнин Центральной Азии, ставшая турками-османами. Вскоре они колонизировали Анатолию, заняв там городские центры и заменив говорящих на греческом языке, которые бежали в Грецию. Задача передачи их потомкам перешла в Европу. (Турецкий народ сегодня неизменно интересуется древностями). Арабоязычные сарацины на юге после первоначального рьяного уничтожения древностей, включая разжигание еще одного пожара в библиотеке Александрии, казалось, были наполнены той же магией Аристотеля и Александра, которая ранее захватила римских завоевателей Анатолии. Они начали переводить Аристотеля на арабский язык, который теперь является инструментом некоего Аристотелика.

Рукописные рукописи Аристотеля отсутствуют с 1-й половины 1-го тысячелетия. Продолжающиеся стоянки Оксиринха и Вилла папирусов вселяют надежду на обнаружение фрагментов, выходящих за рамки традиций корпуса. Между тем, комментарии или объяснения содержания корпуса содержат цитаты и пересказы, заполняющие пробел. Эти леммы, или отрывки, настолько близки к корпусу, что им можно присвоить числа Беккера, что является принятым как работа Аристотеля с самого начала Римской империи. Корпус повсеместно приписывается единственной редакции Андроника Родосского, датируемой серединой I века до н.э., в период поздней Римской республики. Диагностика работы Андроника — это разделение текста на трактаты, названия некоторых трактатов, а также порядок и группировка трактатов. Любая работа, которая не соответствует этой диагностике, немедленно подозревается в том, что она «поддельная» или не подлинная; то есть не корпуса и не Аристотеля (правильно или неправильно).

Нововведение Апелликона

В рассказе Страбона, после того, как Нелей перенес книги в Скепсис — многие тысячи бела дня в караване повозок и во флоте кораблей, без возражений или заявлений о каких-либо официальных лицах в Афинах или о Скепсисе — история больше не знает о нем, хотя у него, должно быть, планы относительно книг. Очевидно, планы не оправдались. Посредством этого устройства стали получать распоряжение в распоряжение завещанное им имущество (книги).

Книги прибыли в Скепсис и хранились в большом флигеле на территории, которая, должно быть, была загородным поместьем, поскольку требования к помещению не изменились со времени Афин. Немногочисленные комнатки обычного дома в городе не подошли бы. Возможно, родственники были не такими бедными и необразованными, как изображено. У Нелея, должно быть, было свита слуг.

Услышав, что Евмен II, Атталид царь Пергама, охотился за книгами, семья Корасцидов «спрятала свои книги под землей. Король, должно быть, даже не подозревал о наличии огромного подземного тайника в Скепсисе, поскольку у королей есть методы расследования и конфискации, недоступные обычным гражданам. Очевидно, хорошо развитая система «глаз и ушей», хорошо развита при Александре, полностью потерпела. Более того, событие оставалось семейной тайной в течение следующих 200 лет.

Обычные люди не хранятся собственность и семейная память надолго, но история есть По общему мнению, Нелей принесла, а его семья только спрятала небольшую часть библиотеки, которая уже была продана.

Для следующего события в создании исторические часы должны быть переведены с вступления Стратона в качестве схолиарха (вместо Нелея) в 286 г. до н.э. до конфискации первой редакции повторно обнаруженного корпу. са из дома умершего переоткрывателя, Апелликона из Теоса, генерала Суллы по его возвращению в Афины после завоевания Анатолии в 84 г. до н.э. Страбон хотел заставить нас поверить в то, что в течение этих примерно 200 летних компаний было воспроизведено, неспособно понять, воспроизвести или реконструировать работы Аристотеля, и они не могли дополнить какое-либо из предыдущих исследований без его руководства. Они, наконец, получили представление о том, что они, наконец, получили представление о том, что они, наконец, получили представление о том, что они, они, они использовали попытки разгадать единственную научную деятельность, на которые они были способны, были попытки разгадать. означают. Каким бы ни было это состояние, это определенно не наука. Принимая во внимание деятельность некоторых выпускников, есть некоторые основания, которые используются в качестве имуществом владели жадные шарлатаны, использующие имя странствующего в качестве маски. Афиней рассказывает историю «Афениона философа-перипатетика» (современника Апелликона),

«для того, чтобы мы могли полностью понять и оценить тех, которые заявляют, что они философы, чтобы нас не могли принять в рваных плащах и небритых подбородках ».

Мужчины, о которых он говорит, не носили рваных плащей; они были одними из самых богатых в афинах, но они были сегодня таковыми, потому что были шарлатанами или, как сказали бы, «мошенниками». Школа и общество, которое она была помещена, теперь стали другими. диадохи исчезли или почти исчезли, включая атталидов. Восточное Средиземноморье было разделено на провинцию Римской республики, за исключением того, что Митридат VI Понтийский успешно оспаривал римское правление в Анатолии. Законы о гражданстве в Афинах несколько изменились. Мать Афениона была египетской рабыней, принадлежавшей его отцу, но тем менее на основании гражданства он был зарегистрирован в качестве гражданина и унаследовал имущество своего отца. Апелликон (не афинское имя), иммигрант из Теоса в Азии Минор, был зачислен в качестве гражданина после его усыновления в семье Аристотеля, сына Аполексиса.

Тот факт, что в семье было двое членов по имени Аристотель, наводит на мысль, что эта приемная семья имеет связи с Лицей и что Апелликон узнал о книгах через него. Более того, упоминания в источнике Апелликона и Афениона как «перипатетиков» вполне могут быть истолкованы как означающие, что они оба учились в лицее, что объясняет, почему позже они стали соратниками. У перипатетиков никогда не было предсказуемой философии. Оба были искусственными ораторами, что в то время было специальностью школы. Афенион основал сеть школ для мальчиков, из-за чего его называют «софистом» (учителем общепринятых взглядов). Апелликон превратил свою любовь к книгам в незаконное в то время:

«Ибо когда-то он был философом и собрал все трактаты перипатиков, библиотеку Аристотеля и многие другие; поскольку он был очень богатым человеком, и он также украл очень много автографов древних из храма Могущественной Матери, а также всего, что было древним и о чем заботились в других городах; И он был обнаружен в этих делах в Афинах, он был бы в большой опасности, если бы не сбежал »

У нас нет никаких указаний на то, что семья Аполексидис был богатым или большим, будучи большим, им было что оставить своему приемному сыну., Апелликону очень Скорее всего, он заработал свои деньги на перепродаже редких документов, которые он приобрел даром, кроме затрат на их кражу. Это были оригиналы указов, сначала написанные на бумаге и подписанные до того, как они были высечены в камне для пользы. Описывая идеальную библиотеку «Лаврентия», Афиней указывает, что даже тогда историки должны были проверять свои утверждения на основании публичных документов. Согласно одному источнику, сам Апелликон написал книгу об Аристотеле. Вначале он мог поддаться искушению уйти с источником, а не вернуть его для демонстрации в храме. Разбогатев на продаже украденных документов, он решил выкупить старый тайник, который, как говорили, был спрятан недалеко от его родного города.

Изучив книги и обнаружив, что моль и плесень удалили части текста, Апелликон создал еще одну рецензию, предоставив недостающую информацию сам. Нет никаких указаний на то, сколько было пропущено или какой источник использовал Апелликон, если таковой был, или был предоставлен материал грамматическим, орфографическим или эпиграфическим, или также включил философию. Последующие редакторы сочли его редакцию полной ошибок, но ни один древний источник не сказал, какого рода ошибки или как они были расценены как ошибки. Эти редакторы внесли исправления, но источники информации, использованные для исправления, остаются неизвестными. Короче говоря, единственное, что известно из древних источников, — это то, что Апелликон сделал рецензию, которая позже подверглась критике за ошибочность. Противоречие такого утверждения состоит в том, что если бы они знали, чтобы исправить Апелликона, почему повторное открытие книг добавило бы что-то отличное к явно уже известному корпусу?

Отрывок из Афинея также приближительное расписание для редакции Апелликон. Он был создан в конце его успешной воровской карьеры, предположительно в его доме в Афинах. Что случилось с поврежденными оригиналами, остается загадкой. Возможно, их перепекли и продали. Сколько было сделано копий и кто их получил, также не известно. Апелликон, вероятно, покинул город в таком спешке, что книги остались в Афинах под присмотром друзей или слуг. Нет никаких данных о том, что город выступил против его собственности. Таким образом, через короткое время, когда он вернулся под защитой Афениона, он поселился в том же доме с той же библиотекой, которую нашел там Сулла после смерти Апелликона.

Победа Суллы над перипатетиками

На страницах Афинея злые люди приходят к плохому концу, а перипатетики — плохие люди. Вскоре они должны были пройти испытания в Первой Митридатической войне с катастрофическими результатами. Вифиния и Понт были независимыми царствами, происходящими от персидских сатрапий на южном побережье Черного моря Ни разу не забрал Александр. Потомки сатрапов остались династиями Никомедидов и Митридатидов соответственно. Поддерживая прекрасный дипломатический баланс, им удавалось сосуществовать своими правящими диадохами (Атталиды, Селевкиды и т. Д.), Но они вели войну друг с другом. Когда диадохи были заменены римскими губернаторами провинция, Митридат VI Понтийский напал на Никомеда IV из Вифинии, заявив о деликте от рук Никомеда, поддерживаемого Римом, и в развив анатолийского союза побежден все римские полководцы, убивая также беспомощных римских граждан. Рим не мог игнорировать эти события.

Революция в Афинах

Возвышение Митридата подарило городам Греции некоторую надежду на независимость. Афинский народ сделал Афиниона послом к ​​Митридату на основе его навыков ораторского искусства и опыта Востока. У Митридата были другие идеи. Выиграв послал банкетами и обещаниями, он отправил его обратно в Афины, где он устроил штаб перед Стоа Аттала. Римские офицеры имели обыкновение обращаться к людям в этом месте. После оживленной речи, проголосовав за провозглашение независимости, афиняне избрали Афениона главнокомандующим своими вооруженными силами. Историки называют его тираном.

Богатые дали понять, что голосование было не их, попытка сбежать из города. Поставив у ворот и отправив кавалерию на охоту на беглецов, Афенион провел серию судебных процессов по обвинению в измене, результат всегда был одинаков: смерть и конфискация имущества. Рассказ Афинея о других странствующих тиранах того времени ясно показывает, что проблема была идеологической — перераспределение богатства. Афиней, однако, изображает это как воровство из-за жадности. Он говорит, что Афенион «собрал столько денег, что наполнил несколько колодцев». Кроме того, он расточал свои расходы. Были ли мотивы идеологическими или личными, трудно ответить на вопрос ни тогда, ни сейчас, но Афенион пошел на крайности. Принял на пытки, чтобы вымогать деньги. Был установлен комендантский час. Экономика пришла в упадок от нужды. Введено нормирование.

Афенион заменил всех магистратов своими людьми. Выбрав этот момент, чтобы вернуться в Афины, Апелликон был встречен как старый товарищ. Афенион послал его в Делос в качестве командующих войсками с инструкциями вернуть там афинскую национальную казну и доставить деньги в Афины. Примечательно, что отряд, который ему дали, больше похож на толпу, чем на отряд солдат, и что Апелликон свидетельствует о полном незнании военных вопросов. Высаживаясь на берег ночью, они разбивают лагерь без частокола, не устанавливают надлежащую вахту и продолжают пить до рассвета. Командующий римской гвардией Оробий ведет своих солдат в лагерь, убивает 600 человек, берет еще 400 пленников и охотится на беглецов по сельской местности, сжигая их в укрытиях. Апелликону удается сбежать в Афины, где он исчезает из политики, по крайней мере, в источнике, до краткого сообщения о его смерти, очевидно, не представляет интереса для Суллы до тех пор.

Сих сторон победа зависела от вмешательства. Понтийцы двинулись первыми. Сопровождая своего командующего флотом, Архелай, адмирал Митридат плывет на Родос со всем своим флотом. Луций Кассий, проконсул Азии, бежал в укрепленную гавань в одноименном городе с теми беженцами, он смог найти. Все итальянцы были поражены в день, заранее назначенный Митридатом. Их собственность была конфискована конфискованной под предлогом того, что она служит общественному благу, мотив, который Аппиан, как и Афиней, разрывает в клочья. Друзья Митридата упивались богатством. Их дело было хорошо профинансировано. Командуя государства квинквиремой, Митридат бросает все свои военно-морские ресурсы на Родос. Не сумев занять место, он отступит в свою штаб-квартиру в Пергамоне, поручив Архелаю завершить завоевание Киклад. Архелай сокрушает Делос, отправляя казну обратно в Афины с одним Аристионом под охраной 2000 человек. Затем он встает на якорь в Пирее, укрепляет Мюнхен и использует это место в качестве штаб-квартиры, отправляя набеги на новые острова и новые прибрежные города. В это время Аристион — тиран Афин, и об Афенионе больше ничего не слышно.

Источники об этих двух мужчинах снова противоречат друг другу. Оба они тираны Афин. Афиней использует «Афенион», как и его источник, Посидоний, без упоминания «Аристиона». Павсаний, Аппиан и Плутарх Заявленные на «Аристион», не упоминая «Афенион». Главное отличие в том, что Афенион — странствующий человек, а Аристион — эпикуреец. Ученый, Исаак Казобон, без дополнительных доказательств одним предположением, что они были и тем же человеком, что Афенион, записавшись в качестве гражданина, изменил свое имя на Аристион (еще один пример практики такой). Разница продолжала вызывать беспокойство, поскольку эти философии находились на противоположных полюсах: эпикурейцы были атомистами, эти Демокриту, а перипатетики были гиломорфами, Платон. Источники знали бы разницу, даже если бы были литераторами.

В 1935 году на территории Древней Афинской агоры были раскопаны фрагменты памятника, которые, когда объединились, стали частью указа (I 2351) о создании правительства в Афинах. Согласно Вудхеду,

«… рекомендации лица были выбраны по жребию или прямым голосованием, и демос ратифицирует Конституцию».

Первый анализ датировал Конституцию 84/83 годом до нашей эры, временем Визит Суллы после достижения соглашения с Митридатом. При последующем редактировании текста J.H. Оливер заметил, что два положения настолько близки к рекомендациям в «Политике Аристотеля», что могут быть присвоены номера Беккера. Временная перипатическая конституция не будет восстановлена ​​в 84 г. до н.э. после окончательного свержения перипатетиков. Оливер относит его к 87/86 г. до н.э., предполагая, что автор был странствующим; то есть Афенион со своими друзьями. Более того, I 2351 является убедительным доказательством того, что рецензия Апелликона на самом деле была близка к корпусу Аристотеликум. Антела-Бернардес предполагает, что после разгрома Делиана Митридат уволил всех перипатетиков и возвысил своего человека, Аристиона, до тирана.

Гражданская война в Риме

На римской стороне Азиатская вечерня (резня) привела к немедленному объявлению войны. Выборы были назначены на 88 г. до н.э., которые начались 1 января. Сулла и Руф («красный») обозначали потребителей и победили (см. Список римских консулов ​​ ). Сын Руфуса, офицер Суллы, попросил руки Корнелии (старшей дочери Суллы) и выиграл брак, который закончился трагически. Сам Сулла женился на дочери первосвященника (Pontfex Maximus). Два потребителя бросили жребий по основным обязательствам, как того требует закон. Сулла выиграл Митридатическую войну.

Эти победы на выборах представляют собой отход от политической машины, которой был Гай Мариус. Он возглавлял партию Populares ; Сулла и Руфус были из Оптиматов. Тем не менее Мариус до сих пор спонсировал карьеру Суллы. Родившийся в семье аристократа Корнелия, Сулла, как говорили, имел хорошие отношения с женщинами. Его мачеха оставила ему свое состояние. Он женился на более богатых. Его личное имя, Сулла, на самом деле представляло собой блюдо из белого сыра, посыпанное красным соусом (пицца?), Придавая ему тот же вид, что и его лицо. Он присоединился к труппе комиков, которые пели и танцевали, издеваясь над известными людьми, оставив их, чтобы поступить на государственную службу под покровительством Мариуса. Его занятие позиции, которую Мариус надеялся контролировать, было непростительным предательством.

Вражда между ними началась ранее, когда амбициозный Сулла баллотировался на претора, проиграл, снова побежал, купил несколько голосов и выиграл, чтобы быть высмеянным за это Юлием Цезарем. Отправленный в Азию без войск, он установил мир, используя там войска своих союзников. По его возвращении народные жители объявили ему импичмент за вымогательство у союзника, но дело было закрыто. С началом Социальной войны (91–88 до н.э.) обе стороны отложили в сторону свои разногласия, пока не была достигнута победа и итальянцы не вернулись к римскому правлению. Сулла, возглавлявший войска, набранные в самом Риме, приобрел «имя великого полководца», но стареющий Марий не добился ничего примечательного.

Не теряя времени, Мариус разрушил одного из Tribuni plebis, «Народных трибунов», Публия Сульпиция Руфа, политика, которого боялись, с личной армией в 3000 человек. мужчин, чтобы издать указ о ведении войны Мариусу. Сульпиций сменил лояльность с оптиматов на народных, чтобы претендовать на звание магистра. В качестве уговора Мариус пообещал списание огромного долга Сульпиция. Объявив о превентивном прекращении своей деятельности, два консула подверглись нападению со стороны людей Сульпиция на собрании. Руфусу как-то удалось сбежать. Его сын был убит. Мариус предложил Сулле приют по старой памяти и в обмен на отмену прекращения.

Трибуны, посланные командовать армией в Нола (близ Неаполя), были забиты камнями до смерти. Сулла пришел первым. Мариус начал убивать партизан Суллы и конфисковывать их имущество. Сулла двинулся на Рим с шестью легионами. Его встретили эмиссары Сената, которые, как они уверяли его, все исправят. Сулла согласился, но солгал, следуя за эмиссарами обратно в Рим, чтобы захватить ворота. Остановленный там толпой, он поджег Рим.

Марий спасся бегством. Сулла заочно вынес смертный приговор (позже был отменен). Сульпиций был казнен. Впереди выборы для 87 человек. Руфус погиб во время мятежа. Зная, что он не может победить, Сулла не убежал. Он действительно контролировал, кто победил, давая им возможность выполнять свои обязанности или предотвращая их. Его избрали Гней Октавий (консул 87 г. до н.э.), оптимат (хотя он не любил Суллу) и Луций Корнелий Цинна, популярный. Платой за поддержку Суллы было то, что они принесли личную клятву оставить Суллу в его подчинении, теперь как проконсула. Цинна немедленно нарушил его, подкупив трибуна низкого уровня сфабриковать обвинение (неизвестно какое), на основании которого он начал процедуру импичмента против Суллы.

Парадокс кораблей

Прошло больше года с тех пор, как несчастные римляне в Азии прислали срочные призывы о помощи. Митридат установил суверенитет почти над всей Грецией. Римское правительство казалось парализованным инцидентами, связанными с раздорами между партизанами. Тем временем Бруттий Сура, легат некоего Гая Сентиуса, претора Македонского, проводил операции небольшого отряда против понтийцев в Беотии с минимальным успехом. Беотия, хотя и была вынуждена подчиниться антипонтийцам. Осенью 88 г. до н.э. квестор (начальник снабжения) Суллы, некий Лукулл (несомненно, тот же, что и Луций Лициний Лукулл, о котором писал Плутарх), прибыл приказать Суре вернуться в Македонию. и договориться о поставках с Беотией и государствами центральной Греции. Весной 87 г. Сулла отказался от процедуры импичмента и Гражданской войны, чтобы внезапно нанести удар через Адриатическое море в центральную Грецию с помощью 5 легионов и некоторой кавалерии в очень большом количестве, около 30 000 человек, в основном ветераны войны. Социальная война, многие, без сомнения, от его предыдущего командования.

История внезапного удара подразумевает парадокс кораблей. Во время осады Афин из-за нехватки кораблей для десантного нападения на Пирей, Сулла отправляет Лукулла ночью в Египет на замаскированных судах, чтобы просить корабли у Птолемея IX Латироса. Отвергнутый и перенаправленный на Кипр, Лукулл избегает там засады и собирает разношерстный флот с островов. Между тем, говорят, у Суллы нет кораблей. Когда история в последний раз видела пять легионов Суллы, их отправили обратно в лагерь в Ноле. Либо Сулла приобрел там корабли и обогнул юг Италии, либо они отправились по суше в Бриндизи, излюбленный порт, в котором плыли в Грецию. Источники ничего не понимают.

Затем войска без кораблей появляются в Афинах. Как они пересекли Адриатическое море ? Моммзен говорит:

… весной 87 г. до н. Э. он высадился в Эпире, но только с тридцатью тысячами человек: у него не было ни единого корабля, и его казна была пуста ».

Он не мог высадиться в Эпире без единого корабля, за исключением чрезвычайных обстоятельств. объяснил Моммзен. Точно так же современный Лонг говорит:

«Сулла покинул Италию в до н. Э. 87 с пятью легионами и несколькими вспомогательными когортами и кавалерией. Он отплывет из Брундизиума и приземлится где-нибудь на противоположном берегу континента. Это был долгий и трудный переход к Афинам ».

Корабли появились в этом сценарии (без них нельзя плыть), но переход излишне трудоемок. Совершенно не нужно выходить на берег: человек входит в Коринфский залив, длина которого составляет 81 милю, и не более чем через несколько дней прибывает к берегам Аттики и Беотии. Если корабли разрешены, то вообще нет необходимости в «высадке» или «марше».

Текущее решение, подразумеваемое или выраженное учеными, состоит в том, что под «кораблями» источники подразумевают военные корабли, способные нанести поражение военным кораблям Архелая, которые иначе протаранили бы и потопили любые транспортные средства войск. Квесториальная организация Суллы получила бы достаточно транспорта для перехода в Италию. Они не поплыли с ними в Афины, поскольку морями правил Архелай. Единственный другой маршрут — через Коринфский залив. Требуется, чтобы корабли были либо перетащены через Коринфский перешеек сухопутным путем через территорию противника, либо оставлены в заливе.

То, что армия действительно делали зависело от расположения государств на восточной стороне залива и спорный вопрос поставок. Моммзен и Лонг (и многие другие) предполагают, что войска прибыли в Эпир, так сказать, с пустыми кладовыми. Напротив, как господин Рима, Сулла без труда реквизировал все необходимые ему припасы и корабли. Его армия не была нищей. Однако движущимся армиям требуются линии снабжения, в чем Сулла отказала Гражданская война. Как толькоон ушел, его враги взяли на себя власть, и они не собирались снабжать его армию. Он был сам по себе.

Аппиан дает наиболее подробные сведения:

«Сулла… теперь впервые перешел в Грецию с пятью легионами, используя когортами и конными войсками, и тотчас же потребовал денег, подкрепления и провизии оттуда. Этолия и Фессалия ».

Ни о каком сухопутном походе не упоминается. Этолия находилась на северном берегу залива. Фессалия находилась далеко на севере, на восточном побережье центральной Греции. Это расстояние — основа земельной кампании Моммзена, как если бы она требовалась Фессалии. Однако Фессалия все еще оставалась проримской. Страну союзника не опустошают ради снабжения. Судя по всему, Сулла приземлился в Этолии, чтобы получить помощь, обещанную обоими государства Лукуллу в прошлом году.

Дорожный аукцион квестора

Снабженный и усиленный этолийцами отряд Суллы прошел через прилегающую страну Беотию. Как символ римского присутствия он огромный успех. Все города Беотии, включая непокорные Фивы, сплотились на стороне римлян. Теперь, когда его фланг был прикрыт, Сулла вошел в Мегариду, которая была связана с Беотией. Это была важная сухопутная связь между Аттикой и Коринфским заливом. У него был укрепленный порт Айгостена в заливе Алкионид. Прибыв в окрестностях Афин, Сулла построил большую кастру (базу) в Элевсине для поддержки осадных операций, операций снабжения и зимних квартир для людей, если в этом возникнет необходимость (это действительно так.).

После постройки кастры — римский легион был готов бросить одну из них за один вечер, хотя постоянный лагерь мог занять больше времени — римляне двинулись на осаду Афин на северной стороне. Если бы Сулла столкнулся с полной массой афинской армии, как это было раньше, его, возможно, просто выгнали бы из Аттики. Как бы то было поражение, Аристион и его союзник из Митридата, Архелай, должны были быть поражены поразительной некомпетентностью (источники были поражены) против римских ветеранских войск; тем не менее, они оказали сильное сопротивление, особенно Архелай.

Афиняне создали две укрепленные оборонительные общины: сам город с Акрополем и Рынком (агора ) и порт Пирей, с оправданным возвышением. Путь между ними был защищен двумя параллельными «Длинными стенами ». Считая их несущественными, защитникиили взять и снести эти стены, разделив тем самым свои силы на две части. Архелай, защищенный Пирей, мог получить пополнение запасов и подкрепление с моря. Само возникновение в Афинах не могло. Сулла бросил всю свою атаку на Аристиона.

У защитников действительно была стратегия защиты, составленная между Митридатом и Архелаем, которые быстро поддерживали связь на быстром корабле. Митридат направил ударный отряд из 120 000 человек под командованием своего сына Аркафия (или Ариатеса). Он взял Македонию и Фессалию, но силы были задержаны естественной смертью сына. Если бы ему удалось быстро добраться до Аттики, Сулла оказался бы зажат между тремя силами. Это лекарство предлагает объяснение странному поведению Аристиона: он пел и танцевал на стенах Афин, издеваясь над Суллой, вспоминая его раннюю карьеру артиста. Один источник предполагает, что он был просто дураком, который любил развлекать людей своей команды. Другой сообщает нам, что он пытался рассердить Суллу, чтобы удержать его в атаке, что также было бы странным, если бы он не ожидал помощи. Он преуспел слишком хорошо, но время пошло не так.

Сулла послал за осадными машинами из Фив. Именно в это время он по незнанию пересекся с Аристотелем, а также принял изначально честные решения, которые привели к разграблению греческих предметов искусства. Простого соглашения с союзниками о поставках натяжителей явно недостаточно. Деньги были необходимы, чтобы заплатить мужчинам и купить товары и услуги, необходимые для осады, такие как тысячи рабочих мулов, водителей и повозки. Сразу после того, как ему было поручено вести Митридатическую войну, Сенат проголосовал за:

«продать сокровища, которые царь Нума Помпилиус выделил для жертвоприношений богам».

Эти деньги пропали и Сулла был отрезан от Рима, но в Греции было множество храмов, каждый из которых служил хранилищем богатства. Он и Лукулл приняли решение обложить эти храмы налогом за их ценные предметы. Письма об ассигнованиях были отправлены немедленно и доставлены налоговыми агентами в вагонах и на кораблях.

Источники сосредоточены на трех самых известных храмах: Храме Аполлона в Дельфах, Асклепионе в Эпидавре и Храм Зевса в Олимпии, который, по словам Диодора Сицилийского, принес «огромное состояние», это были не единственные храмы, облагаемые налогом; есть свидетельства того, что налог мог взиматься со всех храмов. Павсаний упоминает об удалении статуи Афины из храма в Галиарте, Беотия. В то время Сулла все еще утверждал, что национальная безопасность является мотивом. После войны он компенсировал по крайней мере некоторым храмам, отдав им конфискованные сельхозугодья в качестве годового дохода.

Сулла в первую очередь интересовался валютой. Он мог получить его либо путем перепродажи предметов искусства, либо путем их плавления и выпуска монеты. Нам говорят, что он основал монетный двор на Пелопоннесе и выпустил золотые и серебряные монеты большего веса, чем стандартный, для «закупки услуг своих солдат на щедрые суммы». Эти деньги, по словам Плутарха, впоследствии были названы «лукуллианскими». Открытие монет в этом регионе согласуется с этой точкой зрения, хотя и не является окончательной. Золотой aureus и серебряный денарий, которые считались с тех пор тяжелыми, имеют изображение Венеры, богини-покровительницы Суллы, на одной стороне с двойным рогом изобилия и буква Q для Quaestor с другой. Чеканка была не единственным видом антиквариата; Сулла знал о высокой стоимости таких предметов при перепродаже. Он взял много предметов не из драгоценных металлов, таких как античные щиты греков, остановивших Бренн (3 век до н.э.) в Фермопилах. Они должны были быть проданы тому, кто предложил самую высокую цену.

Примечания

Ссылки

Цитируются работы

• Линч, Джон Патрик (1972). Школа Аристотеля: исследование греческого учебного заведения. University of California Press. CS1 maint: ref = harv (ссылка )
• Джонатан Барнс (1995). «Жизнь и работа». Cambridge Companion to Aristotle. CS1 maint: ref = harv (ссылка )
• Новак, Джозеф А. (2001). «Похищение и библиотека Аристотеля» (PDF). Стипендия в Увиндзоре. Для цитирования требуется | journal =()
• Уотсон, Уолтер (2012). Утраченная вторая книга поэтики Аристотеля. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 9780226875101.

Внешние ссылки

• Древние каталоги сочинений Аристотеля. Обзор современных исследований
• Повторное открытие Corpus Aristotelicum с аннотированной библиографией
• Прусский Беккера Издание Академии наук полного собрания сочинений Арист otle на Archive.org

  • vol. 1
  • т. 2
  • т. 3
  • т. 4
  • т. 5

• Lazaris, S. «L’image paradigmatique: des ‘Schémas anatomiques’ d’Aristote au ‘De materia medica’ de Dioscoride», Pallas, 93 (2013), p. 131-164 доб. ссылка
• Оксфордский перевод работ Аристотеля на Archive.org (содержание по томам )

  • т. 1
  • т. 2
  • т. 3
  • т. 4
  • т.. 5
  • том 6
  • том 7
  • том 8
  • том 9
  • том 10
  • том 11
  • том 12