ARISTOTLE.

The power of philosophy in fixing an impression of itself on the world, appears, when attentively viewed, no less than that evidenced in successful exertions of civil or military talents. But there is a striking difference in the comparative interest excited by the philosopher himself, and the distinguished statesman or general. The personal fortunes of the philosopher are not connected with the effects of his philosophy. He has passed away from the eyes of men, when his powerful agency begins to be perceived; whereas the statesman and the commander of armies are implicated in the very effects which they produce on the world, and the history which tells of their policy or their conquests assumes almost the character of their biographies.

This contrast is strongly displayed in the instance of the particular philosopher whose life we would now retrace. At this day, alter the lapse of twenty-one centuries from its first appearance, we are experiencing the power of Aristotle’s philosophy, in. its effects on language and literature, and even on theology; and yet little satisfactory information can be obtained from antiquity respecting tĥe philosopher himself. No account of him appears to have been given until his celebrity had attracted envy as well as admiration; so that we are compelled to receive with suspicion every thing beyond the simple detail of a few facts.

Stageirus,^[1. It is also written Stageira and Stageiri. We have the authority of Herodotus and Thucydides for Stageirus. ] a city of the Thracian Chersonese, a Greek colony originally from the island of Andros, and afterwards from Chalcis, was the birth-place of Aristotle. His father was Nicoachus, physician to Amyntas, king of Macedonia; his mother Phaestis; both being of Chalcidian descent. His family referred its origin to Machaon, son of Esculapius; probably from the hereditary profession of medicine by which it was distinguished.^[2. Diog. Laert. in Aristot.; Dionys. Halicar. De Demosth. et Aristot.; Ammon, in Aristot. ] The date of his birth is b. c. 384.

Being left an orphan in early youth, Aristotle quitted Stageirus for Atarneus in Mysia, the residence of Proxenus, the friend to whose guardianship he was committed. Here he continued until his seventeenth year, when he repaired to the great university of the world at that time —the school of Plato at Athens. Different accounts are given of the commencement of his application to philosophy. By one it is ascribed to a direction of the Pythian oracle.^[3. Ammon, m Arìstot ] Others state that philosophy was a last resource with him, when other schemes of life had failed; that, having exhausted a' large patrimony, he became a military adventurer, and after that a seller of drugs; until at length, on accidentally entering the school of Plato, he received a sudden impulse to the studies of his future life. These last statements, however, are not reconcilable with the period of youth at which his discipleship to Plato began; nor are they quite consistent with the alleged fact, that his mind had been from the first trained to philosophical pursuits by his father Nicoachus.^[4. His rather Aicomachus has the reputation of being the author of some philosophical works. ]

We can readily suppose that the extraordinary talent for science, and laborious devotion to it, which his mature age developed, would give some indications of themselves in his earlier years. Hence the expressions attributed to Plato, complimenting him as “the intellect of the school,” and “the reader,” and comparing his ardour and forwardness to the spirit of a restive colt.^[5. Brog. Laert. in Arìstot.; Ammon, in Aristot. ; Aelian. Vari Hist. iv. 9. ]

He remained at Athens, a hearer of Plato, twenty years; leaving it only on the death of that philosopher, B. c. 348, and then returning to Atarneus. Disappointment at not succeeding to the chair of Plato in the academy, has been assigned as the reason of his departure.
[7:3:491]

All that appears, however, is,' that he left Athens in com-pliance with an invitation from Hermeias,^[6. Commonly called Hermeias the eunuch. ] who, having been his fellow-disciple in the school of Plato, had established himself at that time in independence against the king of Persia, as tyrant of Atarneus and its neighbourhood. Here he spent the following three years of his life,'when the unhappy end of his friend Hermeias, who fell a sacrifice to his ambition, and was executed as a rebel against Persia, compelled him to seek a refuge for himself by flight to Mitylene. Nor did he in this extremity forget the ties of friendship which had connected him with the unfortunate tyrant of Atarneus. To support the fallen family, he married Pythias, the adopted daughter, but variously described both as the sister and as the niece,^[7. Aristippus, according to Laertius, says it was the mistress of Hermeias that Aristotle married. ] of Hermeias.

From Mitylene he proceeded into Macedonia to the court of Philip, and entered on a new scene of exertion, as the preceptor of the future sovereign of the mightiest kingdom of the world—Alexander the Great, at that time a youth of fourteen years of age. The call to such an office argues the high reputation already attained by Aristotle for philosophy, though it is not improbable that his first introduction to the Macedonian court was through the interest and favour enjoyed there by his father Nicoachus. At what time, indeed, his care of the youthful prince commenced, it is not possible exactly to determine. A letter is extant, addressed by Philip to Aristotle, which would imply that the charge of the prince’s education had been committed to the philosopher from the birth of Alexander. This is also far more probable than that the charge should have been postponed until the prince had reached his fourteenth year, the period at which the actual residence of Aristotle at Pella is dated. Philip states in that letter that “a son is born to him; that he is grateful to the gods, but not so much for the birth of the boy, as that he was born in the time of Aristotle; trusting that, being nurtured and trained up by the philosopher, he would be a worthy successor to his father’s glory and the conduct of affairs.”^[8. Aulus Gellius, Noct. Att. ix. 3. The genuineness of the letter has been doubted, Dut without sufficient reason, if the only ground of doubting it is, that it could not have been received by Aristotle at Mitylene. ] It is certainly very possible that a plan of education proposed by Aristotle may have been carried on by others, until the more especial care of the intellectual powers demanded his personal instructions. The reception of the philosopher by the royal family was most friendly and honourable to him. The high estimation in which he was held was shown in the influence he possessed at the Macedonian court. Philip, it is said, gave him liberal supplies of money to enable him to pursue his philosophical labours.^[9. Aelian. Vαr. Hist. iv. 19. The statement of Hermippus (Diog. Laert. in Aristot.), that Aristotle served in the capacity of ambassador from the Athenians to Philip, beems inconsistent with other established facts of his life. ] He was most happy in the admiration and affection of his pupil. Alexander valued his instructions as those of a second parent, observing that “he was no less indebted to Aristotle than to his father, since it was through his father indeed that he lived, but through Aristotle that he lived well.”^[10. Plutarch in Alex. Diog. Laertius in Aristot. attributes to Aristotle himself a general expression to the same effect. > ]

It would be interesting to know what particular method was pursued by Aristotle in the education of Alexander; but we have no exact information on this point. It appears certain, however, that he made the cultivation of a taste for literature the great principle of his instructions; and this would be in conformity with the plan of education proposed in his treatise of politics. He is known, indeed, to have made a new collection of the Iliad expressly for the use of Alexander, and to have composed for him a treatise On a Kingdom, not extant among his works. And how deeply the youthful king had imbibed the Homeric spirit in the discipline of his early years, was evidenced in his after-life, by the heroism with which his actions were conceived, and the poetry, if we may so express it, which mingled with the realities of his eventful history. The circumstances alone, that the Iliad was constantly at the pillow of Alexander during his expeditions, and was treasured by him with extraordinary care in the precious casket of the spoils of Darius,^[11. Plutarch in Alex, whence it obtained the name of “the Iliad,” «» <r>υ vafiw>ι, “of the casket.” ] are characteristic of the tone of mind which his preceptor’s instructions had; if not formed, at least strengthened and improved. Nor is it inconsistent with this ultimate effect, that Aristotle should have communicated to his royal pupil the abstruse doctrines of his philosophy. And that he did so, we have evidence in Alexander’s complaint, in a letter to Aristotle, of the publication of the secret wisdom in which he had himself been disciplined; and in the reply from Aristotle, “that the books alluded to were as if they had not been published, since without his oral instruction they would be unintelligible.”^[12. Plutarch in Alex. Aulus Gellius, Noct. Att. xx. 5. This literary jealousy on the part of Alexander appears also from a passage of Aristotle, where, writing to Alexander (Rhet. ad Alex. 1), he says, “you have charged me in your letter that no other person should receive this book.” ] Plutarch, indeed, attributes to Aristotle’s instructions the fondness for medical study and practice remarkable in Alexander.^[13. Plutarch in Alex. ]

A life of such premature exertion as that of Alexander left comparatively little time for the mere business of philosophical instruction. Succeeding to the throne of his father at the age of 20, he was from that time immersed in affairs of policy and war; and even previously, he had been forwardly engaged in the services of the field, as also for a short interval in the conduct of the government. Still the society of Aristotle appears to have been cherished by him, so that the philosopher continued a resident at the court for two years after the accession of Alexander; leaving Macedonia only on the occasion of Alexander’s setting out on his Asiatic campaigns, b. c. 334⅛^[14. Ammonius, in his Life of Aristotle, asserts that Aristotle accompanied Alexander into Asia, and conferred with the Brahmans, where he composed “the two hundred and fiftv Polities.” How much credit may be attached to this author, appears from his making Aristotle a disciple of Socrates for three years, whereas Socrates had been dead sixteen years before the birth of Aristotle. ] It is probable that Aristotle was indisposed to the hurry and restlessness of military expeditions, and longed for a repose more congenial to his taste in the philosophic bowers of the suburbs of Athens; and circumstances had prepared the way for the separation. For though Alexander, it seems, never entirely lost his respect for his preceptor, the cordiality of their intercourse had in some measure abated. A commencement of alienation in the feelings of Alexander had been evidenced.^[15. Plutarch in Alex. ] Aristotle, ac-, cordingly, embraced the opportunity then offered of returning to Athens; and Callisthenes of Olynthus, his relative and pupil, supplied his place among the party of philosophers by whom the king was accompanied in the Asiatic expedition.

, It^was fortunate for science that the intercourse between[7:3:492] the king and the philosopher was not broken off by their separation. The conquests of Alexander presented singular opportunities for a collection of observations on natural history. Under the superintendence, accordingly, of Aristotle, some thousands of persons, it is said, were employed in making inquiries on the subject throughout Asia and in Greece: and we have still valuable fruits of these inquiries, in a History of Animals, in ten books, extant among the works of Aristotle; though this history must be but a small part of the fifty volumes to which Pliny says it extended.^[16. Plin. viii. 16. ]

In the absence, however, of Aristotle, an event occurred which had the effect of exciting most unjust surmises against him, and involving him in unmerited disgrace with Alexander. A conspiracy was formed against the life of the king by some noble youths who attended on his person. The conspirators were detected and punished; but the chief blame of the whole affair rested on Callisthenes, to whom the education of the young men had been especially committed, and under whose sanction, accordingly, they were conceived to have acted in their traitorous designs. The imputation was the more credible,' as Callisthenes had distinguished himself for his opposition to the adulation of the courtiers, and the rude freedom with which, in spite of the admonitions of Aristotle,^[17. Aristotle is said expressly to have cautioned Callisthenes in the words of Thetis to Achilles (Iliad, xviii. 95): And generally to have admonished him to converse, either very seldom, or else most complaisantly, with the king. Valer. Maxim· vu. 2. Diog. Laert. in Αristot. ] he asserted his democratic principles. How far he was really guilty may admit a doubt. A pretext at least was afforded for the removal of an obnoxious individual; and Callisthenes was imprisoned, and died a violent death. His connection with Aristotle gave a plea for extending the charge to Aristotle himself; who, it is represented, became so fearful of the result to himself, after the death of Callisthencs, as to have been actually instrumental to the murder of the king. He is stated to have sent a very subtle poison, called Stygian water, in a mule’s hoof, the only material impregnable to it, to Antipater, and thus to have occasioned the death of the king.^[18. Arrian. Exp. Alex. yii. 2Ţ.; Plin. xxx. 16; Xiphilin. in Caracalla; Qu. Curtius, viii. 6; Brucker, Hist. Crit, Philos, in Aristot. ] The account itself is sufficiently refuted by the real state of the case, which shows that Alexander fell a sacrifice to his intense exertions in an unhealthy climate. It was probably propagated by the rival sophists who surrounded the person of Alexander; and to the same source may be ascribed the first estrangement of the king, and his increased aversion to the philosopher in consequence of the affair of Callisthenes. Alexander pointedly showed his increased dislike, by sending a present of money to Xenocrates; thus placing that philosopher, as well as Anaximenes, whom he also now more particularly noticed, in triumphant contrast with Aristotle, as the objects of his patronage.^[19. ļJiog. Laert∙ m Aristot. ; Brucker, Hist, Crit. Philos, in Xenocrat. vol. i∙ p. 734. - * ]

In the mean time Aristotle was pursuing his proper path of exertion at Athens as a lecturer in philosophy, in his own school of the Lyceum. There is no good reason for supposing that he was actuated in forming a separate school, as some have asserted, by contemptuous opposition to Xenocrates, or jealousy of the rhetorical fame of Isocrates.^[20. ιog. Laerţ. in Aristot. ; Cicero, Tuse. Qu. i. 4; Orator, iii. 35; Quinctil. Inst. Orat. iii. 1. ] His own fame already stood sufficiently high. Numbers resorted to him for instruction. In the morning and evening of each day he was thronged with hearers; the morning class consisting of his more intimate and peculiar disciples, the evening class of hearers of a more general description. The distinction of these two classes corresponds with the difference between his “acroamatic” and his “exoteric” philosophy. The application of these terms to the writings of Aristotle has been much controverted. The most simple account of their difference appears to be, that the acroamatic or esoteric were more of text-books, notices of various points of philosophy to be filled up by the previous knowledge of the learner and the explanations of the philosopher, as lectures addressed to his own proper class; the exoteric were more elaborate and popular disquisitions, more expanded in the reasonings, more diffuse in the matter.^[21. Aulus Gellius, Noct. Att. xx. 5; Plutarch in Alex. ] His disciples obtained the appellation of Peripatetics; but the reason of this is also controverted. Perhaps, like some other party-names, it was originally given in contempt.^[22. P ractlce of teaching in walking was not peculiar to Aristotle (Aelian. Var. Hist. i. 19; I)iog. Laert. iii. Il; Brucker, Hist. Cnt.. hi o soph. vol. ı. p. /88). Indeed the term ηριτατον was applied to “discussion” before the time of Aristotle. Aristophanes uses it humorously .in Han. 940, 951, in this sense. The custom appears to have been for the hearers to sit at the lectures of the phi-osop ers-Cleon, in Thue. iii. 38, compares the assembly to “persons sitting spectators of sophists.” ]

The reputation of Aristotle at length rose to a dangerous popularity. The intolerant spirit of paganism viewed with suspicion the spread of philosophical doctrines, as tending to unsettle the existing government through their effect on the vulgar superstition. This had been strikingly shown at Athens not long before the birth of Aristotle in the fate of Socrates.^[23. B.C. 400. ] In the case of Aristotle there were enemies watching to apply the policy of the state to the cruel purposes which their envy had suggested. For twelve years, it seems, no opportunity of attack presented itself; since he continued his philosophical labours at Athens for that time. Probably the name of Alexander had been itself a shelter to him against their malice. But the alienation of the royal favour gave an opening to their designs; and, on the death of Alexander, b. c. 323, he became the marked object of persecution. Through the agency of the hierophant Eurymedon, with whom was associated a powerful citizen, by name Demophilus, a direct accusation of impiety was brought against him before the court of Areopagus. He was charged with introducing doctrines adverse to the religion of Greece.^[24. ⅛ e θri g en ∙ e<w∙ Cels. i. p. 52, ii. p. 68. ] It was alleged that he had paid divine honours both to Hermeias and Pythias; to the former by a hymn in praise of his virtue, to the latter by celebrating her memory (for she was now dead) with the Eleusinian rites,^[25. The profanation of the mysteries was not an unknown occurrence at Athens. See Thue. vi. 28, 61. ] and to both by statues of them erected at Delphi. He saw that he had no chance of a favourable hearing against so formidable a conspiracy, and that his death was fully determined by his enemies, knowing too well the malignant sycophancy^[26. Welldescribed by him in a line from Homer, θγ%w ι√ βγ^vn ynpaβ∙*n, β∙v×av 5’ cs-i <w¢«, comparing it, with allusion to the etymology of the word, to the perpetual fruitage of the gardens of Alcinous. ] which domineered at Athens. Instead, therefore, of confronting the charge, he made his escape to Chalcis, alleging to his friends, in allusion to the death cl [7:3:493]Socrates,“that he was unwilling to involve the Athenians in a second crime against philosophy.”^[27. Diog. Laert. in Arùtot. ; Ammon, in Aristot. ; Origen, con. Cels. i. p. 51. edit. Cantab.; Aelian. Vαr. Hist. iii. 3G; Athenaeus, xv. 1G. ]

He did not long survive his retreat to Chalcis—little more, probably, than a year. He was then advanced in life, and broken with bodily infirmities as well as with dejection of spirit. On the approach of death, he declared his wish, it is said, with regard to his successor at the Lyceum. Theophrastus of Lesbos and Menedemus of Rhodes were the most conspicuous candidates for that honour; but the dying philosopher, avoiding a pointed rejection of either, delicately intimated his preference of Theophrastus by calling for cups of Lesbian and Rhodian wine, and, when he had tasted them, simply observing, r l 0ιwv ο Aiδζ ∣ ος, the Lesbian is the sweeter? ^[28. Aulus Gellius, Noct. Att. xiü. 5. ] The expression was the more appropriate, as sweetness was the characteristic of the eloquence of Theophrastus.

The mode of his death is variously related. One account is, that he died from vexation at not being able to explain the current of the Euripus.^[29. Justin Martyr, Coll, ad Grace. ; Greg. Nagianz. Oral- iii∙ p∙ 79 î Bayl *, Diet. art. Arùtot. note z. ] Another story, less incredible than this, asserts that he drank aconite, in anticipation of the judgment of the Areopagus.^[30. Hesych. in Arìstot. ; Suidas, Fabric. Bibl. Gr. vol. ii. p. 109; Diog. Laert. in Arìstot. ] The only probable account is, that he died from a natural decay of the powers of the stomach, his constitution being worn out by excessive watching and study. How exhaustless his application of mind was, may be judged from the anecdote related of him, that in composing himself to rest, he used to hold a brass ball in his hand in such a way, that the noise of its falling into a basin underneath it might awaken him from his slumbers?^[31. Diog. Laert. in Aristot. ] Another anecdote to the same effect is, that on some occasion of sickness, he observed to the physician prescribing for him, “Treat me not as you would a driver of oxen or a digger, but tell me the cause, and you will find me obedient.”^[32. Aelian. Var. Hist. ix. 23. ]

His fellow-citizens showed great respect to his memory. They conveyed his body to Stageirus, and erected a shrine and altar over his tomb. In gratitude also for the restoration of their city, effected through his interest with the Macedonian court, and the new code of laws which he had been permitted to frame for them, they instituted a festival called Aristoteleia, and gave the name of Sta-geirite to the month in which the festival was held. Plutarch says that even in his time they showed the stone seats and shaded walks of the philosopher·^[33. Plutarch in Alex. ] The grant of a gymnasium had been among the advantages which he had obtained for his native city.

Aristotle was twice married. After the death of Pythias, by whom he had a daughter of the same name, he married Herpyllis, a fellow-citizen. By Herpyllis he had a son, Nicoachus, who became a disciple of Theophrastus, but died in battle at an early age?^[34. Aristocles apud Euseb. Proep. Ev. xv. 2. ] He adopted also as a son, Nicanor, the son of Proxenus, the friend of his youth, and by the directions of his will gave his daughter Pythias to him in marriage. Pythias, by hér third husband Metrodorus, had a son named after the philosopher.

In his extant will we have a pleasing evidence of his amiable concern for his surviving family. It contains affectionate provisions, not only for his wife and children, but even for his slaves; expressly enjoining that no one of those who had served him should be sold, but that each should be freed on attaining manhood, according to his deserts.^[35. Diog. Laert. in Arutot. ]

The fondness of the Greeks for apophthegm has handed down some reputed sayings of the philosopher, the genuineness of which, however, is extremely questionable, from their want either of spirit or of originality. The following, if true, would throw some light on his character. On being reproached for giving alms to a worthless person, his answer is said to have been, “It was not the disposition, but the man, that I pitied;” on hearing that he had been reviled by some one, “When I am absent, he may even scourge me ;” to a talkative person, asking him whether he had not exhausted him with trifling, “No, indeed, for I have not been attending to you.”^[36. Diog. Laert. in Arìstot. The same author mentions an instance of Aristotle’s foiling the cynic Diogenes in some premeditated witticism, and gives some expressions by which Aristotle characterized certain philosophers, such as calling Socrates a shortlived tyranny.” The point of these passages, at any rate, escapes the modern reader. ]

In body, Aristotle, if we may believe the accounts of his person, was deficient in the requisite symmetry. He is described as having slender legs and little eyes. To these defects were added a feeble voice and hesitating utterance.^[37. Diog. Laert. τζαυλος την ͂фωνην. ] Unlike philosophers in general of that age, he attended to the ornament of his person. His hair was shorn; he wore several rings; and was elegant throughout in his dress.^[38. Diog. Laert.; Aelian Var. Hist. iii. 19. ] His health was infirm; but he sustained it by habits of temperance, and by that medical skill which he possessed in an eminent degree, so as to protract his life to the 63d year, b. c. 322.

Of his moral qualities, the zeal of philosophical rivalry has transmitted the most discordant accounts. Some have been as extravagant in their praises as others have been in their censures. By some, his patriotism, his affection for his friends, and reverence for his preceptor Plato^[39. Ammonius says he dedicated an altar to Plato, inscribing it to him as “aman whom for the bad even to praise would be profane." ] —his moderation, and modesty, and love of truth—have been held up to admiration. By others, again, no crime has been thought too bad to be imputed to him. He has been stigmatized as a parasite, as gluttonous, effeminate, sordid,^[40. Hence the story of his selling the oil which he had used medicinally about his person. (Diog. Laert. in Aristot. ) ] ungrateful, impious. Among his faults, too, have been mentioned a sneering cast of countenance, and an impertinent loquacity. In particular, he has been accused of assailing Plato with captious questions, and forcing the old man, then in his 80th year, to retire to the privacy of his garden.^[41. Aelian. Var. Hist. iii. 19. ] Whilst, however, the circumstances in which he lived, exalted as he was by the favour of kings, and by eminence in philosophy, afford a strong presumption that the,dark side of the picture has at least been overcharged,^[42. See Aristocles apud Euseb. Proep. Ev. xv. 2. ] we have a more decisive evidence to the truth of the favourable representations of his character in the temper and spirit of his extant writings. Throughout these, there is a candour, and manliness, and love of truth, strikingly discernible; not professedly set forth, but interwoven with the texture of his discussions, and rather betrayed unconsciously than demanding to be recognized. His ethical writings, especially, breathe a pure morality, such as we find in no antecedent philosopher; a morality also avowedly practical, and by which he would have stood self-condemned had his own conduct been at variance with it.
[7:3:494]