ARISTOTLE AND THE EARLIER PERIPATETICS vol.I by Eduard Zeller, B.F.C.Costelloe 1897

;
THE LIFE OF ARLjiTOTLE
rightly rejected even by Aristocles. 1 Greater weight
attaches to the
story of the breach between Plato and
his scholar which is said to have occurred sometime before
the former died. So early a writer as Bubulides the
ainhv, scil. els rbv Tepiirarof) : of.
the same passage quoted in
similar words, wpud Athen. viii.
354, apud DlOG. x. 8, and less
closely apud .Elian. V. H. v. 9.
1
In the first place, it is without
any reliable authority. Even
in antiquity no other testimony
than Epicurus and Timseus is
known, and except these two,
none, as Athenseus expressly remarks,
even of Aristotle's bitterest
opponents mentioned these
stories. Timseus's reckless slanderousness,
however, is well
known, and he was embittered
against Aristotle by his statements
(historically correct as
they were) as to the low origin
of the Locrians (cf . Poltb. xii. 7,
10 ; Pltjt. Bio. 36, Mc. i ;
Diodor. v. 1). So also of Epicurus
we know that there was
hardly one of his philosophic
predecessors or contemporaries
(not excepting Democritus and
Nausiphanes, to whom he. was
under large obligations) whom
he did not attack with calumnies
and depreciatory criticism (cf.
Diog. x. 8, 13 ; Sext. Math. i.
3 sq. ; ClC. JST. B. 1, 33, 93, 26, 73 ;
Zeller, Ph. d. Gr. I. p. 946, n).
Statements by such men, betraying
as they do a tone of hatred,
must be taken with great distrust
; and their agreement is no
guarantee, for it is possible that
Timseus copied Epicurus, or (as
credible writers who say that
Aristotle devoted himself from
his eighteenth year to his studies
at Athens, but the other story is
in itself most improbable. If
Aristotle were no more than the
we may better think) that Epicurus
copied him. Not only, however,
have we against them the
consensus of many far more
ffotpiffr^s Bpaabs eu^ep^s irpoirerfys
that Timaeus calls him, he might
perhaps have been oi^i/iaflfc also.
But when we know that apart
from philosophical greatness, he
was the foremost man of learning
of his time, and was also
famous as a writer for his graces
of style, we must think it unparalleled
and incredible that his
thirst for learning should have
first arisen at thirty after a wasted
youth, and that he could then
have achieved attainments hardly
credible as the work of a long
lifetime. All we know of Aristotle
from his writings or otherwise
impresses us with a sense of personal
superiority incompatible
with these tales of his youth
not to speak of the argument
that if he had squandered his
property he could hardly have
found means to live at Athens.
Grote (cf. p. 6, n. 3, supra) does
too much honour to Epicurus and
Timseus when he treats their testimony
as balancing the other.
They are probably naked and
baseless lies, and therefore we
ought not even to infer from
them with Stahr (p. 38 sq.) and
Bernays (Aoh. d. Brest. Hist.-
phil. GeseMschaft, i. 193), that
Aristotle probably practised
medicine in Athens while he was
studying natural philosophy.
10 ARISTOTLE
dialectician accused Aristotle of ingratitude to his
master. 1
Others accuse him of annoying Plato by his
showy dress, his overbearing manner, and his jeering.
Others relate that even in Plato's lifetime he attacked
his doctrines and set up a school of his own in opposition
to the Platonic, 3 and even that on one occasion
he took advantage of the absence of Xeuocrates to drive
the aged master from his accustomed place of resort m
the Academia. 4 Many, even among the ancients, re-
Neither Aristocles nor any of the
trustworthy witnesses mention
medical practice, and the two
who do, refer to it in such a way
as only to raise suspicion ; while
Aristotle apparently reckons himself
among the 'laymen,' i^
Texrirai, in medicine (Divin. 1,
463, a. 6).
1
Aeistocl. op. Ens. Pr. Mi.
\ajs ev t