death, he was brought up under Proxenes, a citizen of Mysia, in Asia
Minor, who had settled in Stagira. Aristotle testified his gratitude to
Proxenes and his wife, by directing, in his will, that statues of them
should be executed at his expense and set up as his parents. He also
educated their son Nicanor, to whom he gave his daughter Pythias in
marriage.
In his eighteenth year, Aristotle left Stagira and went to Athens,
the centre of letters and learning in Greece—doubtless attracted
thither by the fame of the philosopher, Plato. It appears, however,
that during the three first years of his residence there, Plato was
absent on a visit to Sicily. There can be no doubt that Aristotle paid
particular attention to anatomy and medicine, as appears both from his
circumstances in youth, and what we know of his best writings. It is
also probable, as is indicated by some statements of ancient writers,
that for a space he practised, like Locke, the healing art; he must,
however, from an early age, have devoted his whole time to the study
of philosophy and the investigation of nature, and have abandoned all
thoughts of an exclusively professional career.
His eagerness for the acquisition of knowledge, and his extraordinary
acuteness and sagacity, doubtless attracted Plato’s attention at
an early period; thus we are told that his master called him “the
Intellect of the school,” and his house, the “House of the reader;”
that he said Aristotle required the curb, while Zenocrates, a
fellow-disciple, required the spur; some of which traditions are
probably true. We are likewise informed that when reading he used to
hold a brazen ball in his hand over a basin, in order that, if he
fell asleep, he might be awaked by the noise which it would make in
falling. Although Aristotle did not during Plato’s life, set up any
school in opposition to him, as some writers have stated, he taught
publicly in the art of rhetoric, and by this means became the rival of
the celebrated Isocrates, whom he appears, notwithstanding his very
advanced age, to have attacked with considerable violence, and to have
treated with much contempt.
Aristotle remained at Athens till Plato’s death, 347 B. C., having at
that time reached his thirty-seventh year. Many stories are preserved
by the ancient compilers of anecdotes, respecting the enmity between
Plato and Aristotle, caused by the ingratitude of the disciple, as well
as by certain peculiarities of his character which were displeasing to
the master. But these rumors appear to have no other foundation than
the known variance between the opinions and the mental habits of the
two philosophers; and particularly the opposition which Aristotle made
to Plato’s characteristic doctrine of ideas; whence it was inferred
that there must have been an interruption of their friendly relations.
The probability, however, is, that Aristotle, at whatever time he may
have formed his philosophical opinions, had not published them in an
authoritative shape, or entered into any public controversy, before
his master’s death. In his Nicomachean Ethics, moreover, which was
probably one of his latest works, he says “that it is painful to him to
refute the doctrine of ideas, as it had been introduced by persons who
were his friends: nevertheless, that it is his duty to disregard such
private feelings; for both philosophers and truth being dear to him, it
is right to give the preference to truth.” He is, likewise, stated to
have erected an altar to his master inscribing on it that he was a man
“whom the wicked ought not even to praise.”
After the death of Plato, Aristotle left Athens and went to live at the
court of Hermeias, prince of Atarneus. He had resided here but three
years, when Hermeias, falling into the hands of the Persians, was put
to death. Aristotle took refuge in Mytilene, the chief city of Lesbos.
Here he married Pythias, sister of Hermeias, and who, being exposed to
persecution from the Persians, now coming into power there, he saved by
a rapid flight. For the patriotic and philosophical prince Hermeias,
Aristotle entertained a fervent and deep affection, and he dedicated
to his memory a beautiful poem, which is still extant. On account of
the admiration he expresses of his friend, he was afterwards absurdly
charged with impiety in deifying a mortal.
In the year 356 B. C., Philip of Macedon wrote a famous letter to
Aristotle, as follows: “King Philip of Macedon, to Aristotle, greeting.
Know that a son has been born to me. I thank the gods, not so much that
they have given him to me, as that they have permitted him to be born
in the time of Aristotle. I hope that thou wilt form him to be a king
worthy to succeed me, and to rule the Macedonians.”
In the year 342 B. C., Aristotle was invited by Philip to take charge
of the education of his son, Alexander, then fourteen years old.
This charge was accepted, and Alexander was under his care three or
four years. The particulars of his method of instruction are not
known to us; but when we see the greatness of mind that Alexander
displayed in the first years of his reign,—his command of his passions
till flattery had corrupted him, and his regard for the arts and
sciences,—we cannot but think that his education was judiciously
conducted. It may be objected that Aristotle neglected to guard his
pupil against ambition and the love of conquest; but it must be
recollected that he was a Greek, and of course a natural enemy to the
Persian kings; his hatred had been deepened by the fate of his friend
Hermeias; and, finally, the conquest of Persia had, for a long time,
been the wish of all Greece. It was, therefore, natural that Aristotle
should exert all his talents to form his pupil with the disposition and
qualifications necessary for the accomplishment of this object.
Both father and son sought to show their gratitude for the services of
such a teacher. Philip rebuilt Stagira, and established a school there
for Aristotle. The Stagirites, in gratitude for this service, appointed
a yearly festival, called _Aristotelia_. The philosopher continued at
Alexander’s court a year after his accession to the throne, and is
said to have then repaired to Athens. Ammonius, the Eclectic, says
that he followed his pupil in a part of his campaigns; and this seems
very probable; for it is hardly possible that so many animals as the
philosopher describes could have been sent to Athens, or that he could
have given so accurate a description of them without having personally
dissected and examined them. We may conjecture that he accompanied
Alexander as far as Egypt, and returned to Athens about 331 B. C.,
provided with the materials for his excellent History of Animals.
Aristotle, after parting with Alexander, returned to Athens, where he
resolved to open a school, and chose a house, which, from its vicinity
to the temple of Apollo Lyceus, was called the _Lyceum_. Attached to
this building was a garden, with walks, in Greek _peripatoi_, where
Aristotle used to deliver his instructions to his disciples; whence his
school obtained the name of _peripatetic_. It appears that his habit
was to give one lecture in the early part of the day on the abstruser
parts of his philosophy, to his more advanced scholars, which was
called the _morning walk_, and lasted till the hour when people dressed
and anointed themselves; and another lecture, called the _evening
walk_, on more popular subjects, to a less select class.
It was probably during the thirteen years of his second residence at
Athens, that Aristotle composed or completed the greater part of his
works which have descended to our days. The foundation of most of
them was, doubtless, laid at an early period of his life; but they
appear to have been gradually formed, and to have received continual
additions and corrections. Among the works which especially belong to
this period of his life, are his treatises on Natural History; which,
as has been correctly observed by a late writer on this subject, are
not to be considered as the result of his own observations only, but
as a collection of all that had been observed by others, as well as by
himself.
It is stated by Pliny, that “Alexander the Great, being smitten with
the desire of knowing the natures of animals, ordered several thousand
persons, over the whole of Asia and Greece, who lived by hunting,
bird-catching and fishing, or who had the care of parks, herds,
hives, seines, and aviaries, to furnish Aristotle with materials for
a work on animals.” We are likewise informed that Aristotle received
from Alexander the enormous sum of eight hundred talents,—nearly a
million of dollars, to prosecute his researches in natural history,—a
circumstance which did not escape the malice of his traducers, who
censured him for receiving gifts from princes. Seneca, who states that
Philip furnished Aristotle with large sums of money for his history of
animals, had, doubtless, confounded the father and son.
Callisthenes, a relation of Aristotle, by his recommendation,
attended Alexander in his expedition to Asia, and sent from Babylon
to the philosopher, in compliance with his previous injunctions, the
astronomical observations which were preserved in that ancient city,
and which, according to the statement of Porphyrius, reached back as
far as 1903 years before the time of Alexander the Great; that is, 2234
years before the Christian era.
Aristotle had, at this time, reached the most prosperous period of his
life. The founder and leader of the principal school of Greece, and
the undisputed head of Grecian philosophy, surrounded by his numerous
disciples and admirers, protected by the conqueror of Asia, and by him
furnished with the means of following his favorite pursuits, and of
gratifying his universal spirit of inquiry, he had, probably, little
to desire in order to fill up the measure of a philosopher’s ambition.
But he did not continue to enjoy the favor of Alexander till the end.
Callisthenes, by his free-spoken censures and uncourtly habits, had
offended his master, and had been executed, on a charge of having
conspired with some Macedonians to take away his life; and the king’s
wrath appears to have extended to his kinsman, Aristotle, as being the
person who had originally recommended him. It is not, however, probable
that this circumstance caused any active enmity between the royal pupil
and his master; even if we did not know that Alexander died a natural
death, there would be no reason for listening to the absurd calumny
that Aristotle was concerned in poisoning him. Aristotle indeed appears
to have been considered, to the last, as a partisan of Alexander, and
an opponent of the democratic interest.
When the anti-Macedonian party obtained the superiority at Athens in
consequence of Alexander’s death, an accusation against Aristotle was
immediately prepared, and the pretext selected, was, as in the case of
Socrates, _impiety_, or _blasphemy_. He was charged by Eurymedon, the
priest, and a man named Demophilus, probably a leader of the popular
party, with paying divine honors to Hermeias, and perhaps with teaching
certain irreligious doctrines. In order to escape this danger, and
to prevent the Athenians, as he said, in allusion to the death of
Socrates, from “sinning twice against philosophy,” he quitted Athens
in the beginning of the year 322 B. C., and took refuge at Chalcis,
in Euboea, an island then under the Macedonian influence—leaving
Theophrastus his successor in the Lyceum. There he died, of a
disease of the stomach, in the autumn of the same year, being in the
sixty-third year of his age. His frame is said to have been slender and
weakly, and his health had given way in the latter part of his life,
having probably been impaired by his unwearied studies and the intense
application of his mind. The story of his having drowned himself in the
Euripus of Euboea, is fabulous.
The characteristic of Aristotle’s philosophy, as compared with
that of Plato, is, that while the latter gave free scope to his
imagination, and, by his doctrine that we have ideas independent of
the objects which they represent, opened a wide door to the dreams of
mysticism—the latter was a close and strict observer of both mental
and physical phenomena, avoiding all the seductions of the fancy,
and following a severe, methodical, and strictly scientific course
of inquiry, founded on data ascertained by experience. The truly
philosophical character of his mind, and his calm and singularly
dispassionate manner of writing, are not more remarkable than the
vast extent both of his reading and of his original researches. His
writings appear to have embraced nearly the whole circle of the
theoretical and practical knowledge of his time, comprising treatises
on logical, metaphysical, rhetorical, poetical, ethical, political,
economical, physical, mechanical, and medical science. He likewise
wrote on some parts of the mathematics; and, besides a collection of
the constitutions of all the states known in his age, both Grecian and
barbarian he made chronological compilations relating to the political
and dramatic history of Greece.
His works, however, though embracing so large an extent of subjects,
were not a mere encyclopædia, or digest of existing knowledge; some
of the sciences which he treated of were created by himself, and
the others were enriched by fresh inquiries, and methodized by his
systematic diligence. To the former belong his works on analytics and
dialectics, or, as it is now called, logic; to the invention of which
science he distinctly lays claim, stating that “before his time nothing
whatever had been done in it.” Nearly the same remark applies to his
metaphysical treatise. “But of all the sciences,” says Cuvier, “there
is none which owes more to Aristotle, than the natural history of
animals. Not only was he acquainted with a great number of species, but
he has studied and described them on a luminous and comprehensive plan,
to which, perhaps, none of his successors has approached; classing the
facts not according to the species, but according to the organs and
functions, the only method of establishing comparative results. Thus it
may be said that he is not only the most ancient author of comparative
anatomy, whose works have come down to us, but that he is one of those
who have treated this branch of natural history with the most genius,
and that he best deserves to be taken for a model. The principal
divisions which naturalists still follow in the animal kingdom,
are due to Aristotle; and he had already pointed out several which
have recently been again adopted, after having once been improperly
abandoned. If the foundations of these great labors are examined,
it will be seen that they all rest on the same method. Everywhere
Aristotle observes the facts with attention; he compares them with
sagacity, and endeavors to rise to the qualities which they have in
common.”
Among the sciences which he found partly cultivated, but which he
greatly advanced, the most prominent are those of rhetoric, ethics, and
politics. Of rhetoric he defined the province, and analyzed all the
parts with admirable skill and sagacity. His treatise on the passions,
in this short but comprehensive work, has never been surpassed, if it
has ever been equalled, by writers on what may be termed descriptive
moral philosophy. His ethical writings contain an excellent practical
code of morality, chiefly founded on the maxim that virtues are in
the middle, between two opposite vices; as courage between cowardice
and fool-hardiness, liberality between niggardliness and prodigality,
&c. His remarks on friendship are also deserving of special notice; a
subject much discussed by the ancients, but which has less occupied the
attention of philosophers, since love has played a more prominent part,
in consequence of the influence of the Germans, and the introduction
of the manners of chivalry in western Europe. His treatise on politics
is not, like Plato’s Republic, and the works of many later speculators
on government, a mere inquiry after a perfect state, but contains an
account of the nature of government, of the various forms of which it
is susceptible, and the institutions best adapted to the societies in
which these forms are established; with an essay, though unhappily an
imperfect one, on education. This treatise is valuable, not only for
its theoretical results, but also for the large amount of information
which it contains, on the governments of Greece and other neighboring
countries. Throughout these last-mentioned works, the knowledge of the
world and of human nature displayed by Aristotle, is very observable;
and, although his mind appears to have preferred the investigations
of physical and metaphysical science, yet he holds a very high place
in the highest rank of moral and political philosophers. Aristotle,
it will be remembered, did not lead the life of a recluse; but, as
the friend of Hermeias, the teacher of Alexander, and the head of a
philosophical school, he was brought into contact with a great variety
of persons, and learned by practice to know life under many different
forms, and in many different relations.
Of all the philosophers of antiquity, Aristotle has produced the most
lasting and extensive effect on mankind. His philosophical works, many
centuries after his death, obtained a prodigious influence, not only in
Europe, but even in Asia; they were translated into Arabic, and from
thence an abstract of his logical system passed into the language of
Persia. In Europe they acquired an immense ascendency in the middle
ages, and were considered as an authority without appeal, and only
second to that of Scripture; we are even informed that in a part of
Germany his ethics were read in the churches on Sunday, in the place
of the Gospels. Parts of his philosophy, which are the most worthless,
as his Physics, were much cultivated; and his logical writings were,
in many cases, abused so as to lead to vain subtleties, and captious
contests about words. The connection between some of his tenets and the
Roman Catholic theology, tended much to uphold his authority, which
the Reformation lowered in a corresponding degree. His doctrines were
in general strongly opposed by the early reformers. In 1518 Luther
sustained a thesis at Heidelberg, affirming that “he who wishes to
philosophize in Aristotle, must be first stultified in Christ.” Luther,
however, gave way afterwards, and did not oppose Aristotle, as to human
learning. Melanchthon, who was one of the mildest of the reformers, was
a great supporter of Aristotle. Many of his doctrines were in the same
century zealously attacked by the French philosopher, Pierre Ramus.
Bacon, afterwards, with others of his followers, added the weight of
their arguments and authority against him. Aristotle’s philosophy
accordingly fell into undeserved neglect during the latter part of the
seventeenth, and the whole of the eighteenth century. Of late, however,
the true worth of his writings has been more fully appreciated, and the
study of his best treatises has much revived.
The most valuable of Aristotle’s lost works, and indeed the most
valuable of all the lost works of Greek prose, is his collection of One
Hundred and Fifty-eight Constitutions, both of Grecian and Barbarian
States, the Democratic, Oligarchical, Aristocratical, and Tyrannical,
being treated separately, containing an account of the manners,
customs, and institutions of each country. The loss of his works on
Colonies, on Nobility, and on Royal Government; of his Chronological
Collections, and of his Epistles to Philip, Alexander, Antipater, and
others, is also much to be regretted. He likewise revised a copy of
the Iliad, which Alexander carried with him during his campaigns, in a
precious casket; hence this recension, called the _casket copy_, passed
into the Alexandrine library, and was used by the Alexandrine critics.
His entire works, according to Diogenes Laertius, occupied in the Greek
manuscripts 445,270 lines.
[Illustration]
[Illustration]
DEMOSTHENES.
This celebrated Grecian orator was born about 384 or 385 years B.
C., at a period when Athens had reached the zenith of her literary,
and had passed that of her political, glory. Juvenal has represented
him slightingly, as the son of a blacksmith—the fact being that the
elder Demosthenes was engaged in various branches of trade, and, among
others, was owner of a sword manufactory. His maternal grandmother was
a Thracian woman—a circumstance noticeable because it enabled his
enemies, in the spirit of ill-will, to taunt him as a barbarian and
hereditary enemy of his country; for the Greeks, in general, regarded
the admixture of other than Greek blood, with the same sort of contempt
and dislike that the whites of America do the taint of African descent.
Being left an orphan when seven years old, Demosthenes fell into the
hands of dishonest guardians, who embezzled a large portion of the
property which his father had bequeathed to him. His constitution
appears to have been delicate, and it may have been on this account
that he did not attend the gymnastic exercises, which formed a large
portion of the education of the youths in Greece; exercises really
important where neither birth nor wealth set aside the obligation to
military service common to all citizens; and where, therefore, skill
in the use of arms, strength, and the power to endure fatigue and
hardship, were essential to the rich as well as to the poor. It may
have been on this account that a nickname expressive of effeminacy
was bestowed on him, which was afterwards interpreted into a proof of
unmanly luxury and vicious habits; indeed, the reproach of wanting
physical strength clung to him through life; and apparently this was
not undeserved. Another nickname that he obtained was that of “Viper.”
In short, the anecdotes which have come down to us, tend pretty
uniformly to show that his private character was harsh and unamiable.
His ambition to excel as an orator is said to have been kindled by
hearing a masterly and much admired speech of Callistratus. For
instruction, he resorted to Isæus, and, as some say, to Isocrates, both
eminent teachers of the art of rhetoric. He had a stimulus to exertion
in the resolution to prosecute his guardians for abuse of their trust;
and having gained the cause, B. C. 364, in the conduct of which he
himself took an active part, recovered, it would seem, a large part of
his property. The orations against Aphobus and Onetor, which appear
among his works, profess to have been delivered in the course of the
suit; but it has been doubted, on internal evidence, whether they were
really composed by him so early in life.
Be this as it may, his success emboldened him to come forward as a
speaker in the assemblies of the people; on what occasion, and at what
time, does not appear. His reception was discouraging. He probably
had underrated, till taught by experience, the degree of training and
mechanical preparation requisite at all times to excellence, and most
essential in addressing an audience so acute, sensitive and fastidious
as the Athenians. He labored also under physical defects, which almost
amounted to disqualifications. His voice was weak, his breath short,
his articulation defective; in addition to all this, his style was
throughout strained, harsh and involved.