THE PHILOSOPHY of ARISTOTLE Richard Mckeon

THE PHILOSOPHY OF ARISTOTLE

Richard McKeon TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 The Influence of Aristotle 1

2 The Life and Times of Aristotle 7

3 The Works of Aristotle 13

4 Aristotle and His Predecessors 18

5 The Method of the Sciences 26

6 First Philosophy and the Organization of the Sciences 33

7 The Natural Sciences 42

8 Moral and Political Philosophy 60

9 Rhetoric and Poetic 77

10 The Interpretation of Aristotle 95 M{E PHTrcSOPHTOF ARISTOTLE by Rlchard McKeon

1. Ti{ii IIFLU${CE 0F AF:IST0TIE lvi:en Boetl:ius, in the sixth century A.D., filled in theleieure of a politlcal career luhich had carrieci i:ir:r to the hlghest offices of the i)rnan S.,rpire rrriilr plans to translate the works of Plato and Aristotle into lratin, he combineo practical with philosophic itrterests in a fashioil'familiar to the Romar:s. An erirperor and the sect:etary of an €mpeTor had rrritten philosophy, and senatorslliiCi translated Arisiotle, had furtl:er elaborated the iniricate art of rhetclic, anCicero turned his involuntary retire- ment f roru i:ublic life to the servLce of his countrymen by t Tying to express ther ideas of the Greek philosophers in intellig;ible Latin. Tne character of tiie task and tire rireaugfor carrying it out, hcurever, hacl changed irr the lnterin. Cicero sought io a*.:riipt Greek pnilosophy '0o Romar:needs and problerne, and rrotwithstanding ltis cor*plaints coneerning the ciiffi.culty of frnding' the worcls to ex-press philosophic id.eas, hG cr.rulcrassurfle some lpotvleclgerd Greek in the cultivated Roman 6entlemen r;uhospeak j-n his dialogues and tol.rhoni in turn his philosopiiic treatisee anci dialogues are addressed, a,s,;ue11as sone acquaintance r,rith the 11&rir€Eor even the doctrines of ihe Greek philosophers. Boethius, on the other hand, s.lught i:ot to interpret a culture lyhich still livecl after a fashion, brtt to preser?e soriie rer$nante of an irrtelLectual tra- dition rvhiclr rvas in danger of dying in the llest, for knonled6e of Greeli was ln his tirne beginning to be a rare acconplishment anci tire period Vrhich follcxred close on krls cieath wa,sat one tlne described blr historians as the trDatk A;es.tl Tirere is roor.,:for differer:ce of opinion ccncerning' the degrere of cultu:ral obscurity that descended on Europe no less than ccn- cerning; iire marrner and tirne of 1ts tcrsit',*tioij, r'rhethe'rin the Renaissance, when the nel','ligi:t cane in part ai least l'ron the reirelved sluriy of Grc,ek, ,Jr durinfi tiie liiddlei Aiies, when intel- lectual iirquiry r:uasstimulated by' tire renel'reclstud.y of ancieirt writers, pai:ticularly ATistotl"e. iThatever our moTe recent sources of illumination, inodern cullure has been built rnore or less con- ociously on founciations laLd in one'or the orher of those two peuiods, and. we have learneci fr<.rr"irthern a reflected &orrli.rati,Jn f ;r aii'Liquity. Yet by the crrteria of the cLorninantlnterrests o f either period, r,relive a..airi in an age of darkness, for Greek and Latin writers nculd scarcely'be rcad too.ay'if an atm-riof schoLats, takirlg up the tasli of i3clethius, had riot treinslated them into i'nodenl languagesl eind t}:e tecirnical competeince',rith details of the pliilclsophy of ATistotle, sucil ei,slirould fiave been essential io ecientif 1c or philosopiric iriquiry in ine Ii{iddle A;;cg, iB litt}e esteenred and le ss cultivated by' c;rutempoTary scientists and philoeophers, even in the rare instances wi:eu tiiey look to medieval philosophy for inspiration. The question of value - lrhetlier we are better ox norge off for the ciiari.ge- is not necessa'':ily'invr"llved in the recclgnition of sirnilarities in our sltuation iriih tha.t of other Dark Ages, for t,he his'r.Jriai: is quicker to recoi;nize tire temnants of a decaying culture ihair to remarlc the signs of a synchronous insurgent 1ife.. -6- ii'hat is involved indisputai:Ly is ai cleepenini; cultural breai',,l,,hich 1s maklng novelties of a fund of custona-ry tale and legend, re- tnovinS- the tradiiional rlr:g from faumiliar rvords and quotations, breaking a corninon background of history and ideas such aF rnen need for the expressioir. ot understanciing of common aspirations. A;cistotle in particular has fer,red bacily, and v're have fared badly to tire 6ame cregree in these ciranges wl:ich have all but rele6ated the study of Arlstotle to the college classrooni, for felr readers aTe led to iris works toclay in even a br.o.id. ciicle of casual reao.ing, and fer;u serious invesigators even in the sciences lrlricir he ir:itj.ated or acivanced find it necessary to uo back of the repeated truisms that pass f.lr jrrs doctrine to the study of his works. Iir general, tl:e rrritln;,s of ancient r.rxiters are no longet tead as a iaatter of course or as accustorned accid.ent in intellectual developrneirt and educarion, but i:eaders are attracteci t<.t the classics ciiiefly by e1:isodes retolci iir the long record of men lrliro harre profiteci by leesons leiarnecl froin thenr clr r,vhohave simply enjoyecL thrarn. Horner and tire Greell dleii:ratists, Plato and t he historians irave lef t thelr traces tirrrrugh tire a{ies in t}ie lvorks of tirose l,rit-t souirirt insig'l:t in"io ncl,ir10e11 have liveci ancl thclui;irt arrd spoken, a.ltctany of a vast nunber of echoin6'lilord.s, refurbished thouglttB or unforgotten ideals fir$t encounteired in ilore recent literaturer irriSi:'b leaci back to the rlraD or the F.Epudlrc. Eut AriStOtle, vtrirenlie ha,s been eeteene6l i:ios't, hag been tead aS a scientist, arid even tne recogr:ition that ire ori;inated nany of the basic terns and ciisiinctic.riis of our scientific voc&bu1ar;r is balaiiced b;i a loiq3-lngtained biaus concerning the infl-uence of his scientific doctrines. The readeu lriro has learned frorir irisior:ies of piiilosophy and of science tirat eristotle enslaveo menrs minds and delaiied the advanoe of science for a thousando r, in the ilore entl:usias'cic versions of the history, fi1'teen hundred o:,1even ttro tirouLsand ]/ears, is not likely to be inspireo to study the philOsophlr 6,116{science ."lf ti:e map 1rhclmD;lnte calleg.tlthe rnaster of tirose iltho know.ll The cirang'es in out c..rnceptiorrs of scihnce are not sufficient to acc';unt for wirat has haopened to tlie Teputation and infLuence of Aristotle, for if ii t,'ei-6 a questicn of'thoeries and inethocls of obsetv&tir;ri anci ueraonstration, tire discussion rirould probably have irad a closerr irelation to the',trOr}i$ <.rf Aristotle anci the dis- coveTl/, frequer.rtly irio,de, thar there is r,rucii in his scientif ic lroti:s wiricit is corni;lerida)le and su3i;estivcr ini;ht helve been made rnore l)erltane 'chr:ui;h tire abes to thc: proi.;ress of science and the state;oeirt ot' scieniif 1c problerns. Tire 1:henoineri&of Aristotle t s influence ancl or tlie xeaciion ai;ainsi; hii-ri eire inte1li5'ib1e only in lcroade r perspectiver. Dc.spite the adi,iiration r)xpxirssed by rrlany 5'rerat scientists wiro professe.d to irtllo.r iris nretirocl aricl.to uge ilis cciiclu.siitns, Aristotle lias i:eeir c::iticizea, since the F.enaissance, &s ai: unsound lnflirer:ce in science; derspite the ef'forts of sor,le li' ti:e 5greatest ti:eologians to na.lie ]ris doctrine an eie,hir.ir:tilf Chrls'r,ian il]rilosclyti:3, 1:e l,ri:rscenrjuTed, 'i;i:rrruoh a11 tirc ci n'cuties of earlie'r: Ci:ristian uhuui;ht f r':ln: ,lrpologists to lJartin Luther du.riii,; irrhicir relii;ir:ir supplieci a rotrchstone for in-ce}lectua1 cloctrincs, as er,s\)urce o1'a,11 or r.*ost of the ttreo- logical i:eresies I ai:d despiic trr€, te iiipt re cL praise of mr:n Like Cicero, ire was scarcely more foriunate iii i.oiil&ir trrnes, for the practical F,,oiaans- lvho were fcnci of uri,ini., the irnpor:tance of !)- - philosopiry at least to prepare the spirit for labors, to fortify it against terros, and to corisole it aEainst despairs, and wiro, to accoiuplish such ends, became Stoics anci trlpicureans in great numbers- thought of the Peripatetlcs as a meliiculous and learned sect, but one without tl:e spiritual scope or practical application of their favorite philosophiee. If ,Arlstotle enslaved nenrs minds, there- fore, it was fur a conparatively si:orc time. For long periods his doctrines lrtete all but unkitotvn, and his r..rorksall but unread, alwaye because ihe effort necessary to inaster his difficult ian- guag'e and his technicall"y elaborated thought was great, while the doctrinee thernselves i,rere popularly thou5lht to be sonetimes iilpractical, sometimes unorthodo:r, scrrietines unscientif ic. But f or at least oiie period of eorner'/hatmore than a. hiirici.red)rears extend- ing frorn tne iaicidle of the thirteenth century, his j.iifiuence was one of the cl:ief forces that v'ient lnto the making of a great civili- zation aad the founolng of sciences in ri-rhicirthe narli of iiis doc- trine has survivr:ti that age unrecobnizeql. Aristotle has been reiner,ibexed,sir:ce the idlddle Ages, chiefly in teri'ns borrowed from the Romans to express the mox'eviolent reaction of n:en of the Renaiseance against the impracticality, inele5;ance and tecirnical specif icity of the scholasticisr't mitir wliicit they lurirpecithe philosophy of Aristotle. From tiris oisrepute and op1:rcbriur,rhe has been rescueci during tire last fifty years by scholare r,,llrohave applieci a learnecr anC d.elicate sensi'uivity to tiie task of discern- 1ng staugesof developraent in his doctrine, but this neriv-found respecta-b1lity is oearly bought, for tire pirllosophy is distributed into periocts a"u tire cost of Bense o,nd pe:1f,inence erxcept as the expressious ln irririch ideas are statcd ha1:pen to bear, not on thoee ideas, but oir the newiy constitrrted historical and philological probl ens. That a doctrine should continue to be ein issue and a subject of epithet and opirrobriu:r fcr inore than tr;lrcthousand years suggests that the probleins relevant to any declsion concerning its influ- ence and efrects are not resolved, ho'.ueveTingenuous the assurance that no otlrer consicieratious are relevant, einrply by checking theories allei1ed to be part of the doctrine against canonical lists of practicai c$ilsequdnces, or oTthodox dogmas, or experin:ental facts. It is ciifficuit tcl read far ir:.rrri.stotlers works, and inpossible to talk much ab':ru-this cioctrines, r'rithout taking some part in a d.ispute which goes bar,cktu A:ristotle hirnself . Aristotle attacked sorrl€of tne most imporiant cioctrines of l:is mas'ter Platoi and critics, historians, and corumentators have laboured ever sir:ce to reccncile tire trvo oT ro Teprov€ oT, occasicnally, to justif;r the predurrtption of the pupil. The philosophy'of Aristotle has been read irtost frequentiy as ai1 expression of 'che sarnephilosophy that Plato hela and- tauililt in ti:e Acaderny'orhereAriBtotle riirasa stuclent, usuall)i as a flat; and erro-nercusriegradaticln of that philosophyi or, if his't,toTil is taken as it soiiletirnes is in contrasi and as supple- ment to Plators phllosophy, ail opposition 1s made of a world of changeless ii:lngs assignerl for lofty contenplat3on to Plato and a worlo. q;f cnan,,in; things assigned for erirl)iTical investigatlon to Aristotle . Soineform of this clistribu-iion of strheres of influence . has been coi;iinonfron Plotlnust jud.graentor the relation of AristotLe to Plato down to Ee6q;1ts approbation of Plotinu-s, and only rarely has the iradition been interrupted by philosophers 'iilho, like Thomas Aqulnas and..]rrill1am of 0ckharn, thougili tiie phiLosophy of rtristotle -4- to be in nered clf no aid ol cornpletron froi:i anotherrs uriscloroand the philosopiry of Plato io be itiepl, cx false. Boethius intencled, ifl the sixtir century., to cornpletc iiis ielsk by ciei'nonsttatinl, tirat the two philosophieS r;rere in essen;ial auccord. Br.rnaventura, irr tire thirteentii cer:trrry, thougirt they supplieci the coruplementElrY parts, Plato the lrisdom tc treat of eternal ti:ini;s, Aristotle the science to trrrat of temporal things, riirhicir preirared for the, forrnrrlatiun o f a Christian philosophy by Saint AriL"ustj.ne. Even the famclus staie- men'r of Col.etrid6e, io the, nincteentir ce-'ntuty, tirat everybody is borr: either a Pla'uonisi or ali Aristotelian, does not invoke an equal d.istribr-r,ciorr, f or althougir Arisiotle. is ttthe patent of science, properly so calle,d., the-' master of' criticisrn, and the foui:der oT editot of 1ogLc,rrand althouish he isrrthe sovcrerign lord of the understanding - the faculty or judE;ing b;r tire sense',srrf he is unalcle to tltaise irinrself into thai, highei- st&te-r t.,rnicii u,rasnaiural to Plato, and hei,sbrlen so to others, iil ruirich tirc- understandinS; is dll'tinctly coirtemplated, allcl, &s ii were, looked clor,rnupon fr:oni tii., throne of actual idcas, clr living, irrbor:ii, e:ssential trutire. tt(1) (f Specirnens of the table talk of Sar,ruel Ta1,lot Colerid6e July B, lmCJ Tire cornplete lvorks of Sanuel Taylor Cclleiridge (ed.r.G. T. Snecicl, Neiw Yor:k, 1884) VI , 336. ) In this age-lonij philosopilic debatei a perverse i'ate has deternined that the scholarly s'i;ud].'of Ar-ietutlers phiiosophy ehould o,1wa1rs, from antiquit;r 1,o the: prerscnt, be pursued i-nost energ€1tical}y and successfully by ,ien whose cot'rvi.cti,.ri:s aird- enthusiasns rteT€' Platonic, but only in tl:e last fet,r hundred yt'ars has the operation or that fact begun to dep'rivc Ar"istotle of his pretensions ro science and scie'ntific rne'r;iiocI,and crily r.ir recent past nas ii rerar,chectits final consequence by all but subiircrging' Aristoi:-e beneath tiie fi3;ure of plato. (A) (2 The apl:otisili of ',..Thitehea.d,ar.ccorciing to which the Suropean philosopbical trad:ii'.rn coi:sists of a seties of footn.ltes to Ftato (Fr:ocess aiird.re4i.ty, iirrr York, l-932, 63) takers the fori'ii, in application tc Aristotle , of tire 65entlr: dero;;altrou of tsurnet (Platoqism, Bcrkrrley, 1928, $, 3) tiratttin reality, A-ristotle has nevu:7:bee:.r r:i' thc i'irst inportancer in tire historlr of philo- sopir"rrexccpu a,s a scri cf appq?nda6erto Piato.rr Four possibilities are exempl.ifiect in nocle-rn judgne -.:is oi AristotLe: his philosophy and science at.'e Cistiirct f::oi'n tliose of Pla';o and iniportant in 'uhcy iilsisg;,f vs:g, rJl' are :iistrnct ancl uniinpoTtaitr, oT they are both P1aii;nic, o'r the pi:ilosopl:.y is Plarclnic er.irdthe science 4.^, ..r'i cLrl U I J-C;:l.rcl"i''.oi 16:p&Tturr,'. (1) Thomas casc is one of th* fc:r;r teceni soirolars',r/h.J find (cf iris excel]en'', ar:ticlrr, . ATi-stotle, ' in the elcvi:rtlt e:d.ition oi tire ,R:cycl,rpaeclia 3Ti'r,aiinica (TT, i910 , SCtl-b??) bo'ch i+ pi:ii.oscpi:y aiid. a scier:ce in Arlstotle . rrTurnin.; !r.Jl,rfrom the rilail to 'i;he pirilosopherr &ri:rif€ kriow him best in his extaiii; lrritiii.q;s...!rr, f irrd, ins'ucact of ther i;erneral clia- logues oi Plato, special- iid-actic t'rea'biseg, ancl a f rmdarnental d.iff'r'.rcilce of philosochy, so ijrcat as to i:avc' divideci. philosophers -f,ybod]/ into 'tpiJositt, ca,rilpg, &ird raade-,Cole:,:i

doctrine of Platorric ldeas because he was too 1ittle cf a matheilatician to be able tc uncterstand theie ful]y, and apart from bioloa'y, his scic,ntific conceptioils, not only ph)rsics and astronr:iay t)rri: in politics r'rere, af te r* the rifork of the Platonic 8-!oup, anachtronistic (Plptoriis.{n, |,!^62), and inde.,erd.,even in the years of iiis closeffiffiation rvitj: platc, he ecarcely came und.e.l hls influence: trBuit it so happened that, r,,rhennristotle cg,me-thert , Plaro had bcccme immersed in ihe affairs of sicily, which,;re shall have to c.r;nsider pr:esently, ancr it is even pro- bable tirat ire r,tas a*iay frorrr Athens lrliern *iistotle arriverci.- It is certain at least that her rrenr to Syracuse vrTJi sfiorili, d,f-b*r- vrards. In 361 B.C. pla'co Iras once more callcd alray to Sicily and he did noi return till the next year. trTesce thert, for the f irst ten,yca.rs of 4ristotle I s ruenbership i;f ti:er Acad,e:dry,the direet influence of Plato upon him can only hei,ve'bee n itr.termii- tent at berst. 3ut th€:re is no doubt at aLl tirat Axistotle',vas a voraciouii reader, anci, in particular he found tire Phae.cioin tire liirrary of the Acadeny, anct tiri"t it had a i;re.alt inlfuence on hin'r. It nould almosi bei true to say ttrat, ii: hie e,arIy years at the Acadermy, Aristotler was more clf a Socratic than a Platon- isttt (ibid. 58-59). (3) Taylo-r (Aristotle, Lc;nd.on, n.d., 27),at the other extrcine treats both 1t 6 gc'ie,,itc!eairci. ti:e i:Iiilosophy as a.de6radation of platonisni viiheneve,r it is not pure platonist. ni{e ( sc. Aristo'r;1e ) is everyrrri:errera Platonist rrmalt;'re }uirt , and it is just tiie Platonic elernent in i:is tiiought to r,rhich it o-vucs its }:o1d cver menrs i.nindg.trer again (iniO..33): il?he result ( sc. of Aristotle t s half-herarted e,:,:piricisi:r couplecl I,iiti: his equally half-hearted rrrjection of Plaionisin) is that Aristotle does little i'nore than repeat ttre Platonic vierir of the nature of science.tt 0r a;;ain (ibi*.85): ttln no departiaent of his thou;ht is he so elavishly

Therc is ai le'ast as Uood, and rnuch flore dlrcci, evidence in the lrorks of Aristotie thet i:er irie:cL r;iriih Tarer consis-bency and precision to differentierte l:is oiirn philosophic rnethod from tirat o f ear:]ier philosophers than therc is for tlie thesis thert his thought evolved slowly, irr the i,rorks still extairt, fr.Lr,r a star,ge in lvhich he follor,le his;aastc,r to a stage in l,rhich he contradicts itis own earlier docttine and theri of his naster, or for tire thesis that he is philosopirically effc-.'ctive only r,rrirernirer l6rpeer,ts wltat his mastcr had said. Thc iiistory,cf his influence, on th* clther hand, wotild suggest ti:.;.t of the, trro farnilies into lvhicir C."rleridgc aivides mankind, the Axistotelian clan is tirer less irutscxous, oT else only Platonists r,vritc a,bout Aristotle:. In any cas€) the issue: in the isf,srpretation of his r;i/o::kstcday is reduced squarcly to a question of philosoplric and scie,ntific ile,'chi.rd. A hallo:,irec[ traclitj.on of silly countersenses attxibur.ted to AriB'[otler and of commonly discarded errors obstinately re tained by hii:r, furtiter coilplicated by an e)ven longcr history' ,lf a1i'riost innuiaerTable inte,rpreitations attacire d to each of his rvorks staird on one side, of thr: issur,, anci on the otirer the evidence , disirlaye.,ri in the lrorlcs themsclves, of careful coraposition, precisc statement, and a strainiirg for 1o6ica} consiste ncy, Tei'lde-,red iilore poiirtciJ. by repeate d spe)clf icatiorrs, cautious, deter.ileiCt, and extended to a degree uncomrlon rjvrrn in b.rolcs c1'Lthilosopliy and 'bhc, scicrnce , of requirements for pr:ccisiuri, compcncicncV, anc; Bysteirn. If thc rnc,iiiod developed by Aristotler ie i;,-n,.rx€,d,thc countersenses and alleged errors arc ln his r;.iorlis, l:ut by the sanli toke,n Aristotle woulcl nc'r; ha,rre sdirdLid lloTth reading to ctrnturies of cautious and leatned seaTclie-'rs irftcir knowlcdge if iici $rerle unablc eve'n to riee above aimple-i'rrindcrcl confusiilns, and a Teradcr iirercfoi:e' is t;re11 advised to put tiff d.ete:rminini; ,,rhcther such difficultiers as he finds should be ascribed to AristotLels overrsii;ht or to bis orvn eTrors of interp:ce taticn, and so tc p{:TSevcxe in his study only. of r,lorks ii: whicir he is able to detect tlre ilrorliins of the rncthod. The'best introduction tcl Axistotl€i is found in the rrorks of Arlstotle, and if any othc:: is necded it is only to anticipatcr dif- f iculticrs and t'-.r fore stal1 poorly grounded interpretatione, a,!ainst wttich Aristo'rle Cid. not have ihe foresight or the intexe,Bt to pro- tect his stateine,nt of philosophy, bif it:dicatin";.' the principlee and the arijumunts by r,ihich the difficrilties iaay br: resolveci and inter- pretations juci.g'ed. Thc nrethcld ot' Ai:istotle has not passed r..rithout notice oT unde rstandinl|, for-' the histor;r of l-itexaturer aud thought is uicir 1n accounis of readers rrrli,.rhave gained insight and inspira- tion frcin the study of his rrorks beyond. any expr-.ctaticn thalt would be justifieo by trli: accclunts of his doctriners a.nd achiervernents in textbooks and sectndary sou-Tces. 3ut tJrt-.mctiiod has bci€rnbroken into bits as iirt: cioctrine na.s il1:.(:oapprove:d or disa,pJ:rovcd, ancr since the i5-rounds of approval havc seldon bcen thcse by I irich Aristotli tested sour:d philosoi:i:ic doctrine , thcr method has lost its distinctivc. charactcr.r,nci peculiaur eft-ectivcrness. It is n,oi so inucir tna'c Aris'loilc nereidsan intr.:cluctilln as th.,,t l,re irave reachtd a point a-i I'rliicii c-,v€:ti:i6 c..-lnsisicrrt uBC of a mcrtircctancl his T{:,it€:T- atcd attc,apts tcl cafl attc:ntion to tiier str,ps he has L,oo€, tirr.:urghr in thc use? of tna.t mc,ti:od, rai.;ht pass un]ro'ciced unlrrss unc[erl1necr and broq,ht to our att"cntion. Since thc effort irr this Intt...rcruc-iion r,vill lf,e:to tracc thc ruc:tilod.as ii is applicd. to the vari5liE--- branchurs of Aristotlef s philosopiric incluiri('s, tle,i:c r;ril} be ito [€cd. to p:cc:facc it lrith a rccital , sucii as frequentl"v' passee for -7- introduction to & ri&nts philosophy, of the ocid or prophetic, intr'T- e sting or true statcnents iaacieby Aristotle , or to suppleme,nt it t'iith a reaTTe'r,11$€rIr1€:,otaCcoTCIing tO C]rrOnOlOgiCaI Orcler Of develOPm€:nt oT accol'd.1ngto some noverl insi.r;ht into thcir sig;nif icance, of doctrlncs that he bclieved. or iiri6ght1ce inferred to have believc:d. Tlre only purpose for whicir a pitllosophe:r can bc read, comrnen- sura,te wiih tiic intrntions ulhicir led hirn to nriterr is i.nsi6'ht into philosopliic trnth, ar:d vrhartevcr tirer intcre,st of othcr modeBof inter- prctation - anct the,)i arer frequeirtl]r userful tcl ttrat end - ti:ey eithe t evcirtuatc in or build substitutes for a pirilosophy. To irrte rprct a 1:hiloeophy likt.' tirtit clf Aris'cotlc is necessarily to &sslrntu:the, Tcle of arbiter at lcasi to thr.,e)r'r;eritof attachlng a singlt, me,anini5to statenicnts tirat have,:had iaany intc,rprctaltions. Yet the coiisttuction of a,n uuainbiguous syste'iirwoulcr 1ic r,,lithin the rtaeon.rble irrteritions of a irhilosoplier, and to err,iphcr.sizehis method is to point out tric road tiiar.t riiust bu travellc:cl, ii'aristotl€ has been to 6i iig-'grr.e,6ucceseful..ln carrying out sucir in'i;rntions, to xL:cover his i:hilosophy in a faehion l;ri:icii lcaves the, Tcer.dcrrto dis- covcx r.ilil"utit is alnd, indeed, to judi;c l,rhether thc' r:oa,dwas right. It lroulti l;e a questiorir.rble scrvicc if air irrtrocluction did rnore, siirce the reil,der rnig-ht 'ciiete:by be: dt:privcd of thc: edifyinii task o f working his war,ythtot-tgii dr:cumerntswhrcir havc lnspired much that has bcen gre'at iit rirorc tiran 41000 ye&Ts of huinaunspcculaticln and. inquiry, witich bave left urunlstakabler rnar-'ksof infLue,ncc on the thou6tit cven of titc:rlI{h'J had not tead in thenr, and wiiicir havc Larg;t,1y-conttolled thc, intt.lle ctual fori,ieltion 'of thc, nany crltics wiro havc cie,voterd. strc,nuous effclt'ts to refutiii;; &rd d.iscrediting the doctrinr,s thr y exprcaE.

2. Ti{E IIFT AIID TIl,iUSOF Ar.ISTOTIN

Thci fel''t facts knolirnof th* life of Ariritotlc furnisir a con- gruous and plausible backgr:out:d to his r.rorks, but they afford liitle help in the problcras of interpre,tatir:rn ',rhj.cirthose lroTks have poseid. Until Tercentl"y the paucity of extt-'rnal aids to int*Tpr€,taticn tufag seldom subjcct for comirlaint, for: Aristotle ig unusually e)rplicit in stating iris ai:iticisns of ea:clic,r pirilosophic opinions and his conception of their inte:Trerlations, anci we h€ive.consiclcrable poTtions of ti:i., etudition wiin wiiicli tlie early Grc,eli coriuoentators supple:men-r,cdthilt inforr'oatl.on by pl::;"cins lrristotlets doctrine in the', ccntext Aristotle hirnself eupplit-d. i;ut tire i11d1rxpr:e,tationand explanation of a piriloeclphy may irr: trc,vcllutiona::ytt rati:e,r than Itgygfq-,rnfltic,rfin luhich cagu a tr,rnrror.'alOTdr,,T is s,-rugtttin the developrncitt of ther i:irilosopl:crts tir'lu6iris rnst',aci. of an order of prerniss and proof, and';,rhat he, eeurtiof €:&llir:r phllosophers is mad.e to gu$8-erBtstagcs of influ*rrce, -t&tiic,r than cJiitr:asted prerniBseB 01' nsttrodg or concluslor]8. Thcrmeaiscr clutlinrr of itristotlert s cart't:T has during thc last century bercn seizecl on as a cba'lLengc to philclogical in6crrruitlr t:nga.;co ili firicliii., stagcs in the d.oc- trincs expxosscd in Arigtotle I s rrriti-n;;e. Tlr* oni: iit(th.cd of rtintcr- ptcrtaticnrr iras irltoriously llTccolrciltidtt Aristotlc.. t s cLoctrinr:s by encasiilio tiicrn in syetr:;:raiic francs lli.iiicir hc, coula nrrt have sus- pC,C'bt-:tlititt, oi;iicr depcitds ..:n cletcctinl an abundallcc ..:f inconSis- tencic's, alililst belioiid. thr, vagarles Jf tlir, le,asi rcttritive menOry oT t]:c r.i.let itrc.-rnetant raind, ro mari- 'Nhc,pr.riod,s of iris d,ervelopment. Y.rtr iloll€rvc,Tcclmbitre.d witi: thc cvide:ncrr of irig '.ror:Iis, the blogra- -B- phical data se:rve for littler iror{, ther,n to ciivide his rdatur€: life into threc. pcriods: two lcn6'tLry visits to Athe,ns and an intr',xvo,l bctvreen spe,nt in travel alnd sirortcr xe sicience,s in Asia liinot, the island of lrrsbc;s, and ivlacecior:iel. Born in 384 B.C. in tire little torrn of Stagira (hencc is somc- tirncs knor;'rnas rrthc Stagiriterr) on tlir peninsula of Chalcidice, A rie- totle caille to Atire,rrs at thc &5r of seivi:ntL,en in SelB-? B.C. and rcmaine,d for turcirty years, until Plertols dc,&th in 348-7 3.C., io close associatiorr i;ritir tht-, Acer,donyof Pla'co. iviucir spcculation has bet:n expenctt'd cln such qucstions as Platrrls influencc on AriBtotlc, the. signif icancc of this loni; apprcrnticcsirip, if ii rjrits ihr"t, srid cve:rI thc, n:ltut:c of the activitie- s, ctudir,s, and rr-:scarches carricc on by lnt,rilbt-.rsof thc *cad.erny. In last rersor:t thl, influr,ncer of Plato on tirt, inature thoul5ht of Aristotlt-, rou$'cbe sou;,irt in his works, and tlrr chicf rcccnt additicln tc.r tirr, cvidcnce, coilcr-rllr.nL a ny of -ch(sc qucs'tions , dc,Tive'd f rclm sp,;cul&tion ..;n tht, fragnit nts of his lost carly riroi:i

for lccture s pxc:p&rcd fclr o. l ivr ry in the scirool , inte rspe rse:d f ronr tiine io tinei lrith ti:c notr.s of stude.:nts froi:r 1ectutcs ther,t had bee,n delive Tc,d. It luas probilbly during this stay in.iithens thi..t his i,iifc Pythias, itiecc and f oste:r-daug;htc r of ]ris f rir.nd iie rnrias, cii. d and Aristotle' t,lok ei mist:rcss, tir-Tplrllis, a nativr; of Stagir6L, w ho bore him a son, Nicomachus, after llrliom thc, Nicor,iacircan ethics r,'iasnamed. i'r'iren Alcxanclcr d.ic:d. ii:r Ber,bylon tn 3?,3 rn'"r i:rr'' ryTll.€nFliE3edonian 4LL*!1r- "';hi^1r!Urr4VJf had bcen b&rtly doTrrl&rlt in ltthens during Alexanderts caropaigns in tite East broke cut oltce morc, ai:d Aristotlc, as an alic,n anq. as oner trho had betrn closcly associeuted in nra,nyrila,ys i,rith the ifacc;dcnian cuutt lras a natural subjeci for agit.r.tion and suspi- cion. Ho';r inpoi:tant his 1:h1"1osophi.cactivi'Li.s wcrc in turning the' Atircnians ag'ainst hinr riray bci rnattcr fi:r ini;enious spcrculation. Hc had ai,tackt-,ct the, ptinclple,s cJ rhe,tilric tausiit in thei sChool o f Isocratcgr ;uiicthe irad. opposed sornc of tlie rnost charactc,ristic doc- trincrs of tlie, pirilosophy of Platol 'clirrse criticisrns iai;;ht have. been rc,nc,rnbcre,dernd r,rigilt i:ave, influcnccd thi": pupils and. followc:Ts of Isoctti,tes ai:ci Plato lvho l'/erTr,no'.r pTomincnt in thc city and i n the Lovernmcnt. The, spcrcific charg'. btought against rristotle , 1ilc. that on lvhicir $ocratcs uas conocrff]ed, was irnpicty. The evidencc alleriic,d for the crirac waa reutire:r labore,d in inttrpretaticn and rathe r distarrt in datr. 0n the cieatir of He,ri'tias. llho had be,en bctraycci and torturi:d to cieath at thr, instii;ation of the Persians in 3+3, Aristotle hald writtr,n ir irynn anci an cpitaph in which he atttibuted gitdlil

coincidc,d 1,?ith th.' Tr.i€in cf Ale xancte,r thr Gre.at. Tl'ie conqueror w ho put into .eTacticc nr.ltr coilcr.t)tions of poliuc;,1 oTl,ernization aind who tricrd to rcacijust thc, rc:lations .o:L'ttri race,g of iile'ii, tire, orator l,lhcl spcnN tlir bt.st e:ffor'uB of iris c&Tc;tT in opposition to tire conqucror, trying to rcstore thc, Atiicriiaun iocals and lif c of, an q,&x1i€,T &3c, and thc' piiilos,.rphr-r ',rho sliol,is littlc if &ny &r;rare,o€:BS of tit., icieas er.ndcarecrs of e:i.thr r statcsLtari or oxator, all threrer diccl. lritriin & pr,riod

3, THE lTORICSOF AP,ISTOTLE tf]rat i',reknoir of thc vorke of iristotlc rnay be fitted only looscly to thc pcriods into which his life ie divldcd for our sourccs of information arc fuI1 of inconsistcnciee rhich sc,t them at variancc one lrith anothcr and c&ch uith iteclf . Thc roost important singlc sourcc of such infornation is of course thc','lorkg theinsclves, but they hauvcfor a 1on6 time, becn part of a body of wrltings, the *ri1stgtclian Oortrus, r,lhich contalns in addition to undoubtc,d. .l.rorkE-ofTTffi1o,, ffit d.oubtful and spurious bookg. Some:of thcse scein to bc: the, r"rorliof Theophraetus, aristotlets succe,Bcor as hc,ad of the tyocura, oT of Stratoe fhe:ophrastusl suc- ceggoT, oT of one oT morc caTly Pcripatc,tlcs; sonicrto havc bccn irritten a century or t',ro bc,forcr or r-rcc,ntury aftcr thc bcginning of thc Christi&n era, and sone to bc colLections of Pcripatetic : bits from all agc,s, asscrnbled and cd.itcd ccnturi.is latcr, Fortu- naterly, the,rc is a coro of unqucstioncd autircntic irorks, but thcrc is always, neverthclcse, ir addition to a,11 otirer difficultlcs thett rnlght bc encountcred irt studying arlstotlcle doctrine, thc dangc,r that a givcn work, oT chaptc,r, ox gcrntcincernay be spurlous, ox corrupt, or latcr or carJ.ic,r than rir

THE ARIST0TEIIgN CORPUS 1. The Oxganon, coroprieing the logical uorks, coneists of slx tre:ati ees : a, Catelgories ( Categot,i.?e). b. ). C. -16- d. Po$tgrior inllytics (Analytica posterriora). c. T6ffi-(TcETd)T f . @ rcrfutn,ticns (Dc .sophisticis elenchls). Thc authcnticity of the last six chilptc,rs of the Catcp;oric,s uas qucstione'd. in antiquity by indronicus of Rhodcs *iffis-ffif} doubted by eone rnodctn echolarsi Andronicus likcrisc qucstione.d the.aritiisr- ship of 0n intcx'prelatlo*, but it has bcen dcfend.d cla'boratcrly by modern scholnrs. Thc reimaining four trcatiees fl,rc of undoubted authenticity. Thc Ca,te,goriee, @ intugprertation, and P.ost_e,rior g4$j!gg ar., rcproduced in tlrc te:xt rrithout omission; only tbc first of thc eight booke of thc lgglgg and sellectiong from the !r:!or analytics ::rnd0[ sophistica]. rcfl:[ffi3ns are includ.ed. Enough'- oT-Ee-thcory ffi is retained in the selections fron the Prior anaLytigs to servc as foundation for an und.eretandingof*rffieffiiTofscientificd.emonstration,and. enough of thc Topicg tnd Qn epplr_LsJicaf rcfutatione to ind.icate at least in ouffithc, alSr?fi,iiffis-iTffi,rativc, d ialec- tical, and scphlstical argumcntation. A bric,fcr (and somclrhat dif- fete,nt) trcatrncnt of thc subject mattc.rs of the oiaitted portions of thc, last ti;o treatlses is to f,ound in thc Rhctoric Book fI, Chapters ?3 and ?4.

2, The,naturetl Scir:ince'gaTc c,mbtaced in a grcup of books conccrning progrcssivc).y morc ccroplex functions and. opcrations and rcquiring the claboration and extenslon of principles, of conccpts involved in thc,ra, and of thcir application, and the forraulation progresslvely of more and. rootc highly articulated and d.cveloped principles. They may bc divided into the folLoiring scientiflc dlvisions lrhich flt the ancicnt ord.cr of the treatises. n Physical $cience (r) PhvsieqPhys_ics (rrry(plrysica), considcrcd undoubtedly ge'nuinc, and rcprod.uced coi',rp1etc in this edition (A) 0{l ttlc hcavcns- (De caclo), ccnsicle,rc,duncloubted.ly genuine; the' fiTst.fl-.hlrO, third. a,nd-Tourth.booksand fourth books are re,produced.xe,Droduced.complete but rnost of thc 6ccond.book (chapters 1-12) has been onittcd because of its concern nith technical d.iscussions of astrononical motions. ( 3) 0n gcneration and. corrupticln (De Eencrationc et corrup- tione), considcred undoubtc,dly gcnuine, and reproduccd coi:tplctc. (4) Mcteorologg (Ligteoroloriica), considc,rcid undoubtedly g€]n- uinc, irith the possiblc 6xseption of tsook IV, but omittcd in its cntirety frorn this cdition, iri spite, of the importance of the problems it trcats, beccLus€,,t;rithin thc limitations of spacc, ther character, as Itc1l as the important theoric,s, of thc .rr,ristotc'lian ssi6:rrcc is ade- quatrly prcscntcd in thc prcccding selcctions, (S) 9g thc. lrorLd. (Dc mundo), undoubtcdly spurious trcatise,r TFiffin-lET&bTF a5tu[" iOO *\.D. , anil a-esociaterd. with thc trcatise 0n _!berhcravcns durlng thc i.iddlc ;*"s under thc joint titlS Fqffi mundo. ornittcrd.. b. PsycholrJgy. (f ) Aa t[g s.gul (!g. a*Lrng), gcnuinc and reproduced. cornpletc. (a) Tl;"- (pag"a. naiuralial, rrhich arc ffi uffi iiffi ns-uffi trE-es: _L7_

(a) 0n Fgnse and 1ts g-p;!-egj,g(!g sensu et sensi_bi1i-) ; onitted " (b) 0_nsgg.ory, -iffiud'ili.---- a41l reniniscence. (D" *ggg et Leqi-nis- ."_e-tl"".p ; (c) 04"tr$) and waklns (De somno-e! vieil-ia) ; omitted. (a) m ffiaEd (e) F ffilSs*v{neE@gg (!s div-i.natigqe pgl g-gru); included. (r) 9n l-s4s.thsd leerrjs of fi.lg (ls Lo:re.r-!s{i.nesi, F""{@ GIee Ii (e) @ "mTtGal----(le. vrg s:-Ep-oqte); ornj-tted' (6) m @ r"sE-afrnsfftittea . (7) 0n bi6.at-nGffi:g),-jffiTfffi5totte, but j.t shows slgns of his influence and. nnayhave been vmitten by one of his early successors to the headship of the lyceum, lheophrastus or Strato; omitted. Blological Sci-ences (1) itl."-t-qr:f oq g111L#. (EiS-LgC 4!m?}-iltg), a collectlon of observations of biological phenomenal consldered genulne v,tlth the exceptlon of Book X, and possibly Books VII, YIIT, 2!-50, and IX; short selections thought to have somegeneral lnterest are reproduced in this edlti-on. (2) (Dg paEtlbu,s- 0n -!J1gg€.!S. € en*Sgle egimg].iln), authentic; represented by short sel-ections (including all of Book I in which Aristotle states h1s general views coneerning the biological sciences ). (1) 0n the move_ment-of g111!Ltl€ (De nqtu .?]1'rma-!!gg), early con- sidered spurious, but more recently defendec.,by scholars; omltted. (4) 9n the prosresFjon oJ _e41pg.Ie (le gp_eSSg egggliu4) , und,oubtedly genuine ; omitted. (5) 0n ths eeqelatlog of anijrglg (De- eenerqlione anlqg]_ium) , authentic ; selections . (6) A number of short r,,lorlcs, (9gr4scql_A),.on all spurlous, are grouped. after the biololidffiffii colbrs (De' cqlori- bus ) , attributed to T! eoplrrastus ana-Strffi;-pnlgFrgg heal:{ (De gr4_ib_ilibus ) , . attrlbuted to Strato;-The jDysi- oFrdmyognomy @),(.Pnysr-ognomon].ca), writtenwr]-tten probablyprobabl-y duringdurrng ffie an TEffice (le irtantis) , prouanty written by a Peripatetlc durlng the tlme of Augustine; 04 ua;1vrelordsthins$ Lqar{ (De qqgbi]i_bus. @- Tuslffip ilffi 6ffi i cri-tE?* ffiffiEfrEiffi are probably frorr: the biological v'rorks of Iheophrastus wh1le the most recent parts may have been composeil as late as the sixth century; the l,[ec]Urnical ploFleroq (lte:hgni9.g), wrltten by an early Peripatetic, possibly Strato. All these treatlses, since they are obvlously not from the hand. of AristotLe, have been omitted. Sinilar1y, the treatise (De 0n -t4$i3,i-gi-b,19 L1-+9. hneis insecabilibus) , which has been attributed to Theophrastus and to Strato, the treatlse on The situations and names of winds (Y_entonlg sitqg 69"s"*F-il; affrT6eE-to tEe@rastus and the treatlse Qn Mel_lssus, Xenophanes, and. 9orgias (De l{elissq, xenoiEqiE;@enffin-ffistory of philosophy probably based. on a work by Aristotle, have all been omitted. -18- d. Problems (problemata). Aristotellan in manner, though not ffiTotItffi compilation (ftftn or siitn century, A. D. ) and. of various peribd.g over a span of centuries in oom- position, the work is concerned vrith a broad &rr6,y of problems mathematical, optical , muslcal, physioloi,'ica1 , and medical. Since it is spurious, it has been omitted. 3. First Philosophy. lae.taphysics (tr$etaphyslca), a collection of treatises which seems to owe its name to Andronicus; the relation of lte parts to each other and the ord.er of their composition have been the subject of rnuch echolarly epeculation, but with the exception of Books II (a) arnd Xf-(K) thelr.authenticity has not been ques- tioned, and even those books have been judged spurious only to the extent of being thought student notes on Aristotlets staternents. The work is reproduced complete. 4. nPracticaltf Scienceg. a. Nichomachean ethice (gtlica nicomachea), genutne; reprod.uced @-. b. The Gxeat ethics (Magna mgralia), probably of the eecond or thirffitnffic.Tffitffithird centur , C. EudemianEud.emian ethethicg (Fttrica egdemia), consid,ered by moet scholars to be oe genulngenuine and--fo have-5een written earlier than the Nichomachean ethics, but thought by others (among' them Grant fi-'ile-?ifiEE'effid shorey in th6 twentieih century) to be the tluork of a pupi1, probably Eudemus. 0mitted. d. 0n virtues and vices (De virtutibus et vitlis). a reconcilia- ffiiAffi iEsffitETcffib6,bry or the first century B. C. or the flrst century A. D. Onitted. e. Politice (potitica), und.oubtedly genuinel included complete. f. , sometirrree-attributeO to Theophiastus; omitted. g'. The constitution of athbns (Athenlensiua res'publica), ffiuliffiEITTEE,Tn@ ofi:TsffiiEdf-ffis t, sinc e 1ts contribution to philosophic docttine is slight. h. Rhetolic (Rhet_orica). The authenticity of the third book has sometirnes been euspected, but it is probably completely autirentic. Books I and II are reproduced complete, and portions of Book III, particularly the chapters concerning etyle, have been omitted. i. The Rhetoric_ to Algxandeg (Rhetprica ad Alexandrum)_, formerly thor.frt-tne-',u6?xffime 6uaury a Peripatetio wcrk wrltten at the beginning of the third century 3. C. 0rnitted. j . PoetigEr ( De 'poetica) , genuine I includ.ed complete . 4. ARISTOTLE Al'iD HIS PRSDECESSORS Even lf plaXetg legendary reference t.t Aristotle as ilthe teadertt did not make the scholarly qualities of the phllosopher proroinent i n an ancient judgment of his method of r,vork, they would be called to attention by the frequency r;uith which Arlstotle mentions the d.oc- trines of previous philosophers, by the care with which he orders philosophere according to their doctrinee, speculatee on their influences on one'another, and seeks motives for the directions of their inquiries and theorles, and also by the expert precision he useg in long quotations, meticulous paraphrases, and speculative interpretations. These bits of lnformation have been ransacked f,rom Aristotlel s works by hlstorians of science and philosophy,