Introduction: Paths of Inquiry

INTRODUCTION: PATHS OF INQUIRY [T]here came to be established a form of philosophy that, though it had two designations, was one and concordant, that of the Academics and the Peripatetics, who, though agreeing regarding things, differed in name . [A]nd those with Aristotle were called the Peripatetics, because they used to debate while walking in the Lyceum, while the others, since they carried on Plato’s custom of getting together and holding conversation in the Academy, which is another gymnasium, got their designa- tion from the name of the place. But both drew a great deal from Plato’s abundance. Indeed, at first this was one philosophy with two names, as I said, for there was no difference between the Peripatetics and the old Academy of that time. Aristotle, as it seems to me, brought to it a certain copiousness of intellect, but both shared the same source and likewise distinguished things into desirable and repellent. Cicero, Academica I.iv.17 When Aristotle came back to Athens in Gryllus or On Rhetoric (polemically engag- 335/334, he was about 50, widely known, and ing the art of rhetoric as systematized by highly regarded. Yet, it seems likely that his Gorgias and Isocrates), Eudemus or On fame rested then on texts that are now for the the Soul (in antiquity, and even by later most part lost. With this return to the place neo-Platonists, held to be the equal of Plato’s where, still a teenager, he had come to study Phaedo), Protrepticus (extensively cited by with Plato, begins the most fecund period of Iamblichus of Apamea), On Ideas (ideally sit- his life. The majority of the works composing uated in the context of the debates on Plato’s the Aristotelian corpus as we know it probably thought, within Plato’s Academy itself), On date back to the years 335/334–323, when, the Good (engaging Plato’s teaching on having founded his own school in Athens (the principles and reconfiguring the question of Peripatos), Aristotle devoted himself to sys- the ideas), and On Philosophy (anticipating tematic teaching and concomitant writing. various aspects of Aristotle’s later treatises Aristotle had written copiously in the on first philosophy, from his characteristic past when he studied at Plato’s Academy philosophy of history and critical analy- (367/366–348/347 ca): writings such as sis of past and present discussions, to the www.bloomsbury.com/the-bloomsbury-companion-to-aristotle-9781441108739 © Claudia Baracchi and Contributors (2014) The Bloomsbury Companion to Aristotle London: Bloomsbury INTRODUCTION: PATHS OF INQUIRY interrogation of principles in their multiplic- Yet, what for about two millennia has ity and unity) enjoyed wide circulation and been transmitted as the corpus aristoteli- remarkable appreciation. With the necessary cum includes almost exclusively writings caution, due to the lack of a reliable chro- from Aristotle’s years at the Peripatetic nology, other texts are frequently attributed school. This body of work, closely associ- to the period following Aristotle’s departure ated with the teaching activity, though not from the Academy and from Athens—when necessarily reducible to the status of lecture he traveled to Asia Minor, visiting Hermias notes, has survived in the systematization of Atarneus (347–345/344), and then to by Andronicus of Rhodes (first-century bc). Mytilene (345/344–343/342), subsequently This proved to be a momentous crystalliza- to become the teacher of Alexander, son of tion indeed, securing the transit of the corpus the Macedonian king Philip II (343/342– across centuries in an unvaried order and 340). Suffice it to mention, here, the treatise still providing the blueprint for Immanuel On the Cosmos (almost unanimously held Bekker’s edition (Berlin, 1831–70). With the to be spurious, yet most influential through- arrival of Aristotle’s original manuscripts in out the Middle Ages and Renaissance, and Rome3 and the edition by Andronicus, the available in numerous Latin translations)1 as esoteric texts pertaining to the Peripatetic well as On Kingship and Alexander or On courses, that is, Aristotle’s opera as we know Colonies, which may be ascribed to the years it, became more broadly available than ever at the Macedonian court. before. In the wake of this fateful event, a Prior to Aristotle’s return to Athens and new perception of Aristotle began to take the founding of the Peripatos, then, numer- shape and, simultaneously, the exoteric writ- ous published texts had made him a con- ings earlier enjoying vast circulation began to spicuous figure, prominently discussed in sink into oblivion. Clearly the esoteric texts, in philosophical circles and in the public space their difficulty and depth, imposed themselves alike. The exoteric writings were admired as at once as Aristotle’s outstanding contribution, well for their polished diction and artful com- eclipsing the public writings by virtue of their position, so much so that in later antiquity sheer stature. The material loss of the exoteric Aristotle was still remembered for the trans- texts is probably, at least to some extent, the porting force of his eloquence, celebrated counterpart of this cultural/epochal shift. as a “golden stream” (Cicero, Academica But a brief consideration is in order, con- II.xxxviii.119) of distinctive suavitas (Quin- cerning the nature of Andronicus’ catalogue tilian, Institutionum Oratoriarum X.i.83). and the implications of its ordering—even Indeed, we also have evidence of Aristotle’s aside from the various collations and tex- practice in lyric composition, most notably tual interventions attributed to him. There two poems dedicated to Hermias, the friend is almost universal concordance on the arbi- from the times of the Academia—an epigram trary and anachronistic character of this on his death and a commemorative song. operation.4 It has been said that Andronicus Perhaps tellingly, the latter begins with an forced Aristotle into a Hellenistic philo- invocation of virtue, said to require much sophical framework and, above all, that the labor (ἀρετὰ πολύμοχθε), and ends with the systematic stringency driving Andronicus’ evocation of Zeus the preserver of strangers, project was quite foreign to Aristotle’s own and the gift of steadfast friendship.2 way of proceeding. Now, it may in fact be www.bloomsbury.com/the-bloomsbury-companion-to-aristotle-9781441108739 © Claudia Baracchi and Contributors (2014) The Bloomsbury Companion to Aristotle London: Bloomsbury INTRODUCTION: PATHS OF INQUIRY dubious that Andronicus was the eleventh edition, harbored in a millenary tradition scholarch of the Peripatos and, consequently, and reaching us via Bekker—is this at all it may be ill-advised simply to presume that systematic, in the sense of a closed and his editorial decisions might faithfully reflect self-enclosed doctrinal construct? In other the organization of studies at the Peripatetic words, are the preoccupations regarding the school. Furthermore, if Andronicus was con- extraneousness of the ancient editorial deci- vinced that one should read the Aristotelian sions perceptive enough and to the point? It texts starting from the logical treatises, he seems to me that the contrary is rather the had his first critic in his student, Boethus of case. Let us consider, albeit very succinctly, Sidon, who thought instead that one should the prog ression fixed by Andronicus, from access the corpus through the Physics. the focus on logical/“instrumental” discur- And yet. Yet, however cautiously, it may per- sivity, to the discourses on physical matters, haps be fruitful to consider the matter in a less to the psycho-biological discussions, to the prejudiced fashion. Perhaps, indeed, the matter question of principles and origins, to the is not this straightforward. In the first place, study of human, ethical and political issues, systematicity may be said in many ways. As has and finally to discursivity, again, but in light consistently been acknowledged, certainly we of beauty, creativity, and the disclosiveness do find in Aristotle a systematic vocation—if thereof. Reading, thinking with, or encoun- by this we mean the constant effort at drawing tering Aristotle will have involved this tran- connections and magnifying webs of relations, sition: from logos to phusis to praxis. at seizing the organic articulation of problems that only appear extraneous to each other, *** and at pursuing the interpenetration of ques- Thus, one must start with the logical trea- tions of unity and multiplicity, singularity and tises. Or perhaps not quite: Aristotle does the whole, finitude and immensity. Aristotle’s not speak of “logic” (this will be a Stoic thinking is distinctively architectonic and innovation), but addresses the manifold phe- always driven to situate the individual holis- nomenon of legein, of logos—how speak- tically. Every student or scholar of Aristotle ing is possible and how it articulates itself may grant this. Thus, when scholars consider in predication/attribution (Categories); how Andronicus’ initiative problematic, saying it speaking pertains to that which is and is not, would force Aristotle’s texts into a system- let alone that which may be and is not yet atic unity alien to it, they must have in mind (On Interpretation); how logos as sullogis- another sense of the word “system”: system mos can be demonstrative, show an unas- in the modern, or even late-modern, Hegelian sailable truth, through what figures and sense. This would indeed be genuinely alien modes (Prior Analytics); how demonstra- to Aristotle. Systematizing Aristotle’s work tion is possi ble, that is, how premises and in this manner would mean turning the open definitions (the starting points) are obtained systematicity that envisions interconnections (Posterior Analytics); how argumentation as into the self-enclosed system that claims to dialectical exchange can be artfully sustained have resolved multiplicity into totality—with (Topics, Sophistical Refutations). The gather- no residue.

Load more