Aristotle was a phony

On the matter of Aristotle, I am in a minority of one. Or at least very few. I am one of that small minority of people who is prepared to ask the unthinkable: are the works of Aristotle forgeries? In one respect, it is a question that hardly matters. No one denies the depth and profundity of the works of Aristotle. But were they really by Aristotle and was this Aristotle who we suppose he was? I am a sceptic. I am inclined to question some of the basic features of what I call the Aristotle myth. In particular, I question the supposition - and it is a supposition - that this Aristotle was a student of Plato and a member of Plato's Academy. And I doubt, furthermore, the story that Aristotle was the teacher of Alexander the Great. I detect a mythology in these stories rather than historical fact. Regarding the works of Aristotle, the whole story of how they were preserved and how they were subsequently found and published is inherently fishy. I smell a forgery. There have been scholars throughout history - notably in the Renaissance - who have raised such questions. I think they are good questions.

It is my view, in any case, that the extant works of Aristotle are the product of the first century BC and not much earlier when they were supposedly "found" in Athens and taken back to Rome by Sulla. Regarding the character known as "Aristotle" - I regard it as a myth, the purpose of which was to connect Alexander the Great to the Divine Plato. The Aristotle myth, that is, grew along with the mythology of Alexander. There was, I believe, an early poet named Aristotle. This character has been engrandized during the myth-making surrounding Alexander. A large body of work - sort of a counter-Plato - was composed/collected and attached to this name in the first century BC. I therefore see the works of Aristotle as Roman productions.

Here are some points:

*According to the traditional account the works of Aristotle, student of Plato, were "lost" after his death and "preserved" in a cellar until the first century BC. This story explains why we have no notices of Aristotle before this time. Aristotle goes missing for two hundred years. Then his works turn up intact having been preserved in a cellar. Is this likely? It is an inherently dubious tale. I invite readers to check it out. It's a very fishy story.

*The man credited with "discovering" the works of Aristotle, Apellicon of Teos, was a complete rogue. He was a book collector. It is said that he purchased the manuscripts of Aristotle from a Neleus of Scepsis. It is said they were hidden in a cellar to keep them away from the princes of Pergamon. Then we are told that because Aristotle's manuscripts were in poor shape, Apellicon made his own copies and filled up the gaps himself. So, in fact, our Aristotle - we are to believe - is Apellicon's free-and-easy rendering of the concealed manuscripts of Neleus. This entire story is suspect, frankly.

*Next we are told that Apellicon's library was carried back to Rome by Sulla. This is in 84BC. This is actually the first time Aristotle's works ever appear anywhere in public. They are part of the spoils of Sulla. This was a major Roman acquisition of Greek heritage. I argue that large amounts of this heritage was fabricated for Roman purposes.

*The circle who did the fabricating is identifiable: along with the library of Apellicon, the Romans also acquired such Greek scholars as the accomplished scribe and grammarian Tyrannoin of Amisus. He was employed by the Romans, we are told, to organise Apellicon's library. He then worked in the circle of Cicero. This is a circle of people, I maintain, who were more than capable of forging the works of Aristotle. These were deeply learned men and men of great literary power. We underestimate the philosophical and literary genius of that period. Moreover, it is Cicero who provides us with the list of heads of the Academy down to the Roman period. Cicero crafts this myth.

*The literary form of the works of Aristotle is strange and un-Hellenic. We are told that what has survived are his "notebooks". They do not resemble other works of Platonic philosophy or any other production of the Academy. I argue that their form is more distinctly Roman than Platonic Greek. The best way to explain the peculiar literary features of Aristotle's works is to see them as late productions.

*There are many, many strange and unaccountable misrepresentations of Plato in the works of Aristotle. Did he really know Plato? How close was he to Plato? The extant Aristotle does not seem like a close companion of Plato. He misunderstands basic points and misrepresents Plato on fundamental matters. Countless scholars have tried to reconcile the two philosophers on the assumption that they were close companions. But perhaps they weren't. Perhaps there is a good reason why our Aristotle seems so askew about Plato. There are too many clangers in Aristotle. I am not convinced that the person who wrote the works of Aristotle was a personal student of Plato of Athens.

Again: this does not change the intrinsic value of the Aristotelean corpus.  I am not proposing that they are worthless forgeries. But I doubt the standard story about the origins of the works of Aristotle. I especially doubt the proposal that our Aristotle was a student of Plato. His works say otherwise. I suspect they are forgeries of the first century BC, a direct product of the Roman acquisition of Greek learning under Sulla. This would explain much. My explanation: "Aristotle" is a mythic production that accompanied the growth of the Alexander myths. The character of Aristotle was necessary to graft Alexander - the "philosopher king" - onto the Academy.

The important thing, in any case, is not to read Plato through Aristotle.








- Harper McAlpine Black

Plato as Grasshopper

Reading through Diogenes Laertius' Life of Plato I found the following epigram by Timon:

A man did lead them on, a strong stout man,
A honeyed speaker, sweet as melody 

Of tuneful grasshopper, who, seated high 

On Hecademus' tree, unwearied sings.

Hecademus, as Diogenes notes, is now called the Academy, so the image we are given here is of Plato as a grasshopper seated high in the olive trees of the Academy. 

In my studies of Plato, grasshopper (cicadas) are emblematic of autochthony. In ancient mythology, grasshoppers are born from the earth. Plato uses this reference several times. Note, in this context, the reference to the cicadas singing in the tree tops in the Phaedrus dialogue. Timon's image of Plato as the grasshopper in the tree tops alludes to it. 

The Canon of Plato (Thrasyllus' Attestation)

The canon of Plato's works has been supplied to us by a certain ancient authority named Thrasyllus, about whom we know very little. He is the source quoted by Diogenes Laertius in his life of Plato and this provides a list of thirty-six works grouped together into nine tetralogies as follows:

THE NINE TETRALOGIES

*Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Phædo
*Cratylus, Theætetus, Sophist, Statesman
*Parmenides, Philebus, Symposium, Phædrus
*Alcibiades, 2nd Alcibiades, Hipparchus, Rival Lovers
*Theages, Charmides, Laches, Lysis
*Euthydemus, Protagoras, Gorgias, Meno
*Hippias major, Hippias minor, Ion, Menexenus
*Clitophon, Republic, Timæus, Critias
*Minos, Laws, Epinomis, [Letters]

THE THIRTY-FIVE WORKS

Note that the final tetralogy includes the Letters, which is not a dialogue. So, in total, there are thirty-five dialogues or philosophical works ascribed to Plato by this ancient attestation, leaving the Letters aside. (Actually, some of the "dialogues" are not dialogues, but that is another matter. See below. Collectively, we call them "dialogues".) 

Modern scholarship questions the authenticity of some of these works, but usually on the basis of a preconceived idea of what is and is not Plato. This is always an open question. Take a work such as Rival Lovers. Modern scholars agree that in terms of literary style and its Greek it seems on a par with the other works in the canon; it is rejected because its content is deemed "unworthy of Plato's philosophical mind." That is, its' content conflicts with our idea of who Plato was and what he believed and what he taught. This, however, is highly debatable in itself; it is hardly a sure criterion by which to decide authenticity, all other things being equal.

We can be much less sure about this distinction than we can be sure of the fact that these works are all, at least, in the school of Plato. That is, among all the philosophical works of Greek antiquity, there is a set of thirty-five works which, ancient testimony attests, are definitely Platonic if not by the hand of Plato himself. For the ancients, that is a less important question. Regarding the works that modern scholars deem spurious: if they are not by Plato then they are by his immediate followers such as Philip of Opus. For the ancients, that was good enough. The subsequent Platonic tradition, in any case, accepted these thirty-five works and regarded Thrasyllus' list as canonical and was not too concerned with strict standards of authorship. 

On this matter I follow the ancient tradition. I'm not very interested in modern squabbles about what is and is not by Plato the man and I mistrust the process by which these matters are decided. I want to avoid debates about authenticity and I want to have a secure canon with which to work. Thrasyllus gives us a secure canon. He tells us what works the ancients, (within the next two hundred or so years after Plato) reckoned Platonic. This is the accepted ancient (and medieval) canon and so - by tradition, if for no other reason - these are all works by "Plato". The name "Plato" may, I admit, refer not only to Plato the man but also, in some cases, to his school. The Epinomis is a good example. Modern scholarship says it is by Philip of Opus. Maybe so, but for our purposes he is still called "Plato". For practical purposes here Plato is somewhat interchangeable with his school; when we say "Plato" we may mean, in fact, "Plato and his school". The canon, that is, may include faithful pseudepigrapha. I am less perturbed about this prospect than I am about imposing an inappropriate and debilitating historicism.

This, I think, is the only way to approach a canon. Otherwise, you get bogged down in disputes about what is authentic and what is spurious and the business of philosophy never begins. The best approach is to draw a line and embrace a canon and be done with it. In this case, I see no compelling reasons to draw the line anywhere other than where it was drawn by ancient attestation.

I therefore take and recommend the following stance:

Of these thirty-five works we say: whoever wrote them was Plato!

***

There is some basis for the general notion that the works were written in groups in Plato himself: in the Timaeus, for example, there is a projected scheme of three dialogues, a trilogy. So we know that Plato at least sometimes conceived of ensembles of dialogues - trilogies - rather than conceiving of the dialogues each as a stand alone work. 

The arrangement into groups of four imitates the known practice in Athenian drama: four plays (three tragedies and a comedy) form a single dramatic group. The assumption is that Plato conceived of his dialogues as philosophical dramas and wrote them in programmes of four in the same way as the dramatists. This doesn't conflict with the abode-mentioned trilogy structures because the dramatic tetralogy is three tragedies plus one comedy, a trilogy plus an addendum. 

Clearly, some extant dialogues belong together. But which dialogues belong with which? It is a very complex question. Is there, moreover, a single over-arching scheme uniting the tetralogies or whatever other groupings we discern in the canon?

Here are a few useful points about the thirty-five dialogues:

Performed dialogues = 26
Narrated dialogues = 9

Narrated dialogues narrated by Socrates = 6
Narrated dialogues narrated by other than Socrates = 3

Narrated to a named person = 2
Narrated to an unnamed person = 2
Narrated to an indeterminate audience = 5

***

Regarding the over-all organizing principle of the canon, it is my contention that the dialogues are grouped around various Athenian religious festivals and that the various dialogues are related to one or more deity. I am especially interested in the time signatures in the dialogues. I think that Plato wrote works for particular times in the Athenian calendar. Sometimes this is explicit but often it is just hinted at. For instance, in the Parmenides we are explicitly told that it is set on the Greater Panathenaea. In the Phaedrus, on the other hand, it is only the chirping of the cicadas in the trees that lets us know it is high summer.





- Harper 

Socrates and Aristophanes

The relationship between Socrates and the comic playwright Aristophanes is central to Leo Strauss' reading of Plato. His view that the "secret" or "esoteric" doctrine of Plato was nihilistic atheism is confirmed for him in Aristophanes' depiction of Socrates as a scientific god-denier in the play The Clouds. I am slowly reading my way into these particular strata of Platonic philosophy, but my interests and direction are very different to those of Mr Strauss. My work on Plato has involved exposing a quite different "secret tradition", but I am led, nevertheless, to the same passages and the same dialogues as is Mr Strauss. It's an intriguing thing, and it is a very tangled tale, but I hope to get to the bottom of it.

Here is an example:

The speech of Aristophanes in the Symposium describes how originally human beings were spherical creatures of three types corresponding to Sun, Moon and Earth. As a punishment, Zeus then slices these spheres in two and at length mankind is reduced to his current shape.

I read this famous speech cosmologically and I regard it as a key text in what I take to be the "secret tradition" of Plato, namely an esoteric exposition of the gods and cultus of Athens, and the cultus of the Acropolis in particular and the goddess Athena in particular. I take the Timaeus as the central Platonic text and see it as having a cultic background that concerns the great festival, the Panathenaea. Further, this "secret tradition" has a distinct mythology and symbolism that stretches back to Egypt and forwards through alchemical and related traditions. A key symbol of this esoteric Plato is the metal gold. The mythology concerns the (Athenian) doctrine of autochthony and the birth of the "golden race".

Strauss reads the speech of Aristophanes in a very different way. He regards it as paradoxical. For him, the passage presents a contrast between the cosmic gods and the Olympians. The cosmic gods are spherical - Earth, Moon, Sun. But the Olympian deities are anthropomorphic. It is paradoxical that when Zeus punishes mankind, he transforms them from the form of the cosmic gods into the form of the Olympian gods. In punishing mankind, Zeus makes mankind more like the Olympians. That is, he punishes man by making him more theomorphic.

At this point Mr Strauss directs our attention to the play called 'Peace' by Aristophanes. He believes that the speech in Plato alludes to a particular passage in 'Peace'. In this passage, the playwright makes exactly the distinction between cosmic and Olympian deities. Mr Strauss maintains that the Greeks commonly drew the contrast and maintained that the Olympian gods are superior because they are anthropomorphic. Herodotus draws the distinction. The Persians, he says, worship the Sun and Moon and cosmic spheres, but the Greeks worship gods who have human form - and the Greek gods are superior therefore.

Mr Strauss has a strong argument. It is difficult to suppose that Aristophanes' speech in Plato does not allude to the distinction the real Aristophanes makes in 'Peace'.

Here is the passage from that play:

* * * 

TRYGAEUS [To HERMES]

And I shall reveal to you a great and terrible plot that is being hatched against the gods.

HERMES

Hah! speak and perchance I shall let myself be softened.

TRYGAEUS

Know then, that the Moon and that infamous Sun are plotting against you, and want to deliver Greece into the hands of the barbarians.

HERMES

What for?

TRYGAEUS

Because it is to you that we sacrifice, whereas the barbarians worship them; hence they would like to see you destroyed, that they alonemight receive the offerings.

HERMES

Is it then for this reason that these untrustworthy charioteers have for so long been defrauding us, one of them robbing us of daylightand the other nibbling away at the other's disk?

TRYGAEUS

Yes, certainly. So therefore, Hermes, my friend, help us with your whole heart to find and deliver the captive and we will celebrate the great Panathenaea in your honour as well as all the festivals of the other gods; for Hermes shall be the Mysteries. the Dipolia, the Adonia; everywhere the towns, freed from their miseries, will sacrifice to Hermes the Liberator; you will be loaded with benefits of every kind, and to start with, I offer you this cup for libations as your first present.

HERMES

Ah! how golden cups do influence me! Come, friends. get to work. To the pit quickly, pick in hand, and drag away the stones.

* * *

Notice, then, that the barbarians (non-Greeks) worship the spherical cosmic gods and these gods, says Trygaeus, are plotting against the Greeks. Such gods are the gods of foreigners, non-Greeks, barbarians, and they threaten the Olympian gods.

For Mr Strauss, the speech of Aristophanes in the Symposium swings on this passage from 'Peace'. He uses this passage in 'Peace' to illuminate the strange symbolism of Aristophanes' account of the creation of (or fall of) man. He sees irony. It is ironic that, in punishing man, Zeus makes man more god-like.

The passage from the play is highly suggestive to me, though, and is very interesting in view of my exposition of the esoteric Plato. I make a couple of observations:

*Trygaeus specifically mentions the festival of the Panathenaea here.

*There is specific mention of the metal gold. the golden cup. Hermes says 'Ah, how golden cups do influence me.'

*There is a discrepancy: in Plato the spheres are three: Moon, Sun and Earth. It is essential to Aristophanes whole speech that there be three spheres, not two. In 'Peace' there is only the Sun and the Moon, but not the Earth. I regard this discrepancy as very significant here.

I think Mr Strauss is, yet again, drawing attention to the right passages and the right connections between texts, but he is drawing the wrong conclusions. For me, the passage in 'Peace' further confirms that the symbolism of Aristophanes' speech in the Symposium concerns an esoteric doctrine about the cultus of Athens that specifically concerns the festival of the Panathenaea.

Regarding The Clouds, I draw attention to references to changes in the Athenian calendar that forms the background to the play. (The theme of debt concerns this too, because debts were settled at particular phases of the lunar month.) There is a whole configuration of references running through Plato concerning the festivals of Athens and the Panathenaea in particular. The 'coulds' in the play concern Athena as goddess of clouds and air.