25 On Aristotle NCR XI, 342–9
25 On Aristotle
NCR XI, 342–9
Oration on the life of Aristotle, given by Philip Melanchthon at the graduation of the Masters, 15371
Your attendance at this graduation ceremony is most delightful to me, and, while I am delighted by your observance, I also approve of your judgement that you indicate that you think well of this public custom. Although this ceremony contains some childish games, you know nevertheless that the degrees themselves are established by very weighty counsel, so that the order of studying be appointed and the young be attracted to a fixed order of studies. Certainly for us in this school it happens that those who strive for a degree dedicate themselves with greater diligence to the study of philosophy; for that reason we gladly preserve degrees. Furthermore it is proper for a mind which does not shrink from humanity to esteem and love the harmony of orders, which also brings the greatest benefits to the state. Finally, what is more beautiful than the multitude of the assemblies in which men of outstanding intellect, learning and virtue get together to hear in what studies the young are engaged and what progress they make, and the young are advised on many great things whose knowledge is most useful for life? If there were gladiatorial games, or exotic merchandise, or if wild beasts were displayed for show, what assemblies of men would there be in the whole town? And in truth there is no more beautiful sight than an assembly of good and learned men, for the state has no greater ornament. And since nothing is more admirable than virtue, it is a great pleasure for a worthy mind to see such men in which it shines forth illustriously. Therefore it is proper for you to disagree with the opinions of the Cynics who foolishly criticise these customs. Nothing is more fitting in an assembly of the learned than to have some discussion about good things.
Since accordingly the nature of public office requires me to speak in this function at this time, even if I realise how much I am lacking, by right, in what pertains to the success of eloquence, nevertheless, since it behoves me and others to preserve this custom, I did not wish my effort for the state to
1 Melanchthon, as Dean of the arts faculty, presided over the promotion of Masters in January 1537. A slightly different oration on Aristotle was delivered in 1544, also translated by R. Keen in A Melanchthon Reader (New York, 1988), pp. 78–87. For a comparison of the two versions, see further, R. Keen, ‘Melanchthon's Two Lives of Aristotle’, Wolfenbütteler Renaissance Mitteilungen 8 (1984), 4–11.
be lacking. In turn, it will be a token of your humanity to take my oration in good part, which I urgently beseech you to do. Since on this occasion one often speaks about the merit of the arts and the true virtues, I believe that history should be brought to mind, namely that of the life of Aristotle. Not only because greater enjoyment can be conceived from history – for the variety of matters and events delights the mind – but also because for many reasons it is beneficial for us to know the counsels, utterances and deeds of great men.
For the mind is roused to virtue by contemplating their example. Furthermore we are advised on many things. A general can imitate many of Scipio's or Caesar's decisions, and in the same way we, in our studies, can judge about many things more correctly when we consider the sagacity and reason of the most learned men in searching and teaching the arts. The comparison of the outstanding masters is of great profit for sharpening and shaping one's judgements. I shall therefore speak of Aristotle, not as it is done in eulogies, but I shall recount briefly what we know of his life. Then I shall add something about his kind of philosophy and his writings in order to advise the young that his kind of philosophy should be most esteemed and aspired to, and show how useful it is to be versed in Aristotelian reasoning and method. For indeed I consider that no one can become a master of method of any kind without it. Those who are ignorant of that path of teaching that Aristotle indicates cannot but mix together many things in a sophistic manner. Again, how many errors and upheavals does this sophistry give rise to in the Church and in the state? It is written in the stories that, when Ixion approached Juno, a cloud in Juno's shape was cast in his way, from which it is said that the Centaurs were born [Pindar, Pythian Odes, II.21–48]. In the same way the uneducated, by their false and sophistic beliefs, produce rifts that are pernicious for the Church. But these things will have to be discussed later, for first his life must be surveyed briefly.
Aristotle was born in Macedon, his father being the physician of King Amyntas. It is well known by the testimony of many that his family descended from Hippocrates; for the descendants of Hippocrates continued to live in Thessaly, and they kept hold of the art of medicine for a long time, since the parents passed on the art to their children in turn, from their hands, so to speak. So Aristotle, too, from his early years, was instructed, by family custom, in the best and purest teaching of Hippocrates, of which his writings are redolent in many places. Here and there he borrows not only ideas from Hippocrates, but also words. For I consider that Aristotle's entire teaching
is simpler and more methodical for the reason that he was made accustomed to the philosophy of Hippocrates when a boy. For at the time there were other physicists as well who followed Democritus as a founder, whose teaching was full of monstrous beliefs and obscure arguments. Had Aristotle imitated them, he would by no means have obtained that most elegant thread of method or propriety. What great concern and ingenuity the descendants of Hippocrates employed in that instruction within the family can be inferred from what Galen says, namely that at first anatomy was not written down, because it was known from instruction within the family – for the descendants of Hippocrates used to dissect the bodies of living beings and men at home, and set the individual limbs in front of their children for them to look at from the earliest age. And thus, since Aristotle was accustomed from earliest childhood not to empty and obscure disputations (logomachias), but to the recognition of things and to searching for causes, he obtained from this childhood habit two outstanding virtues particularly worthy of a learned man, namely diligence in searching for a method and love of truth; for studies turn into character [Ovid, Ep. Sapph., 83]. Therefore, diligence in unravelling obscure things in turn and properly brings forth a certain zeal and love for wisdom in all aspects of life.
When he was seventeen years old, he was sent to Athens to study with Plato, who flourished at the time with great success of both his acumen and teaching. Since it happened that Aristotle was by disposition talented in all subjects, it was a great good fortune that his intellect was first kindled and prepared by instruction at home, and that he was then taught by that most outstanding teacher, who would perfect his most fortunate disposition. As I judge it, God guided these things in such a way that we would have a perfect master of that part of philosophy in which Aristotle exerted himself.
He studied with Plato for twenty years then, that is, almost until his fortieth year. In the meantime he did not have disciples, but he trained himself in all subjects. He searched, read and examined all authors; so much so that, because of the variety of his reading and knowledge, he was called ‘the Reader’ by Plato. On this occasion it seems appropriate to admire the sagacity of Aristotle, who stayed so long with his teacher, and did not think that his teaching could immediately be exhausted. His seriousness is also worthy of praise, in that he began to teach very late; for during Plato's lifetime he did not have disciples. There are many testimonies by Plato honouring his talent. He called Aristotle the philosopher of truth, and,
comparing him with Xenocrates, said that Aristotle needed a curb and Xenocrates spurs [Diogenes Laertius, Lives IV.2.6]. If Aristotle, on the other hand, had not thought highly of his teacher, he would not have thought that he needed to study with him for so long. It is also said that he put up an altar for Plato and added an epigram, in which he honours Plato with the greatest praise. For even this one verse indicates how much he attributed to him, when he said: ‘no future centuries will bring such a man’. Indeed, it is a silly belief that inexperienced men think that some rivalry developed between them, because Aristotle sometimes disagrees with his teacher. For just as in speaking their opinion in the senate, great friends often disagree with each other without vexation of their minds, so good and learned men have differing opinions without harshness of their minds. But I shall speak of this difference of opinions a little later.
After Plato's death, when Aristotle's house was already frequented by the most noble men aflame with the desire to learn, Philip king of Macedon approached him and entrusted his son to him for teaching [Diogenes Laertius, Lives V.4]. Furthermore, had King Philip, who was able to judge people's intellect with the greatest acumen, not esteemed both Aristotle's2 teaching and his character, he would by no means have committed to his care his son who was of such promise and such excellent talents. Thus Philip's testimony on Aristotle is to be considered most weighty. Nor would the pupil himself, being of heroic and noble disposition, have loved his teacher so greatly if the latter had not combined his knowledge with integrity and pleasantness of manners. Alexander often proclaimed that he loved Aristotle just as much as his father. Aristotle remained with Alexander for about eight years, and during that time he taught him other parts of philosophy as well as the art of healing. In this matter I think that it is not so much Aristotle's good fortune that one needs to wonder at, because it was his lot to educate a king, who alone was by far the most intelligent of all, and whom destiny called to rule the world, but I consider that his sagacity is to be praised for teaching the youth those things that bent his violent disposition towards gentleness, and which he himself[Alexander] felt were of great use to him, and a great credit, in ruling. For Alexander said that he would rather excel in knowledge than in the size of his empire [Plutarch, Life of Alexander VI.7].
After Alexander had crossed over into Asia, Aristotle returned to Athens and began to have disciples. And when he saw that eloquence needed to be
2 Reading Aristotelis for Aristoteles.
combined with the knowledge of things, he devoted the morning studies – heōthina, as he himself called them – to philosophy, and the evening ones, or deilina, to rhetorical exercises. He alone saw most clearly the kinship among the arts. For he undertakes physics and begins with geometrical demonstrations. On that account he dealt with all the arts; he wrote on the nature of things, on morals, the immortality of the soul and on heavenly things. He wrote many works for Alexander, so that, being victorious, the latter would provide the states with laws, jurisdiction, judgements and discipline. In Athens he wrote those golden books on the history of animals. In that matter not only is Aristotle's diligence admirable, but Alexander's generosity must also be praised. For that, too, is regal – to embellish the state with arts and education. For when it was not possible to explore the nature of animate beings with his own funds, Alexander sent Aristotle 800 talents, that is, 480,000 crowns, for the purpose of assembling hunters and rearing animals, so that their nature could be examined.
Even though some splendid books of his have perished, I nevertheless reckon that those that are left – which at any rate are most fitting for schools – were preserved by divine providence in order that succeeding generations could be taught more correctly. For afterwards in Greece, as it happens, more recent philosophers, namely the Stoics, Epicureans and Academicians, began to be held in admiration, although they were certainly full of absurdities and sophistry; the old and more erudite teaching was neglected, Aristotle's writings were discarded from the hands of scholars, and his books in the libraries of a few men were consumed by age and dry rot. This great treasure would have perished utterly had not Sulla's foresight left behind for us those that we have. For, since the library had been divided,3 because there were many books by Aristotle there – for in the past generals most sought that kind of booty, in order to preserve good writings – and although it had been almost annihilated, Sulla took charge of searching for books by that author everywhere in Greece, and he published them with Andronicus' emendations [Plutarch, Sulla 26]. So, just as, when alive, Aristotle had the greatest king for a friend, so the greatest and most fortunate general called him back to light when he was almost annihilated. Nevertheless, there are still traces of that disaster in the books which remain, where it appears that sentences are mutilated. Again, after Aristotle had been renewed, gradually the more recent sects began to dry up, since those who prevailed in intelligence devoted themselves to the old teaching. But I shall return to the history of his life.
3 Reading partita for parta.
He taught in Athens for thirteen years, and he not only made the city more famous by the success of his teaching, but he also obtained great benefits for the citizens from Antipater, who ruled Macedon and esteemed Aristotle to an extraordinary degree as a teacher. However, when later the hostilities between the Athenians and Antipater increased, he himself was not safe in Athens. For when envious men hoped that they could easily crush him who was already hated because of his friendship with Antipater, they invented the crime of impiety, because he criticised the fantastic multitude of gods, and stated that an eternal and infinite mind was the cause of all things, quoting this verse by Homer: ‘It is not good to have many rulers; there should be one ruler’ [Iliad, II.204]. Therefore, fearing an unfair trial, he withdrew to Chalcis, which was faithful to Antipater.
Neither the calumny nor his flight obscure the philosopher's glory, but this kind of danger – which is common among all those who serve humankind well – adds even more to his praise. For first of all, the very proclamation of the truth is most honourable; but to retain this amidst dangers, and not to be deterred by any threats or torture, or turned away from the correct opinion, that is the dignity and steadfastness particularly worthy of the philosopher. It is therefore a matter of glory for Aristotle to be counted among the great men who are tormented or oppressed by slanderers because of their worthy beliefs and just counsel. And since in all ages the slanderers wage a war without truce (aspondion) against truth, let us uplift our minds by the example of these outstanding men, and let us not allow ourselves to be led astray from our duty by the injustices of men. In that exile he died a little while later, in his sixty-third year, a dangerous year, as they say. Although his character shines forth even in his own words, it can nevertheless be judged from the kindness of so many kings and princes towards him, which he could not have maintained if there had not been an extraordinary dignity in him. His will also makes clear how affectionate towards his family (philostorgos) he was, for he diligently entrusts his wife and children to Antipater [Diogenes Laertius, Lives, V. 13]. There are other things full of humanity in his will, too, which I omit so that I may not be too verbose. You can understand how outstanding is the image set before us of the philosopher, or of the man engaged in studies and relating them to public utility, if you contemplate all of history in your minds, and consider the power and impulse of natural disposition – first his training, the degrees of his studies, his infinite avidity for learning, his conscientiousness and skill in teaching, the toil of writing such outstanding works, the dignity and humanity of his
character and, finally, also the wrongs he suffered from the slanderers. Who is not delighted to see and contemplate in one man so many heroic virtues? For since he was to be the perfect master in that profession, it appears that he was sufficiently endowed with a heroic nature by divine providence.
Thus far I have been speaking about his life, much more briefly than the matter required; now I shall speak about his philosophy. This part of the oration would have been much longer if the lack of time had not prevented it. For the sects were to be compared, and something said about Plato as well, but I shall glance over these things briefly. Plato's eloquence is such that without doubt he surpasses all those whose writings are extant. Many very wise thoughts are also scattered in his works, but he did not hand on any art completely or in order. Furthermore, the greatest part of his works is ironical, a form which is more appropriate for mocking than for teaching. Athenaeus writes that one of Plato's disciples, Cheron, having become a tyrant in his city, imitated those absurd discussions about the common use of things and women; for he passed a law that masters and slaves were to have joint use of all possessions and wives [Athenaeus of Naucratis, The Deipnosophists, XI.509b]. Thus the misunderstood ironies of Plato made an utter fool of a silly man. Aristotle, on the other hand, wanted to be mindful of the benefit of those who study, and assist schools. Even in a philosopher this wish deserves great praise. He has explained in their entirety the arts of dialectic, physics and ethics, and employs two things that bring light to teaching, namely method and accuracy of speech. Therefore it is useful for the young to become accustomed to Aristotelian usage. Platonic licence in disputing produces uncertain and doubtful beliefs, just as painters as a pastime paint chimaeras and centaurs. But by how much Aristotle surpasses the other sects in the matters themselves can be understood from the fact that no other dialectic was seen worthy of reaching succeeding generations than that of Aristotle, because it most sagaciously deduces physics from the first principles of geometry. How beautiful it is that he alone saw that the nature of virtue is the moderation of emotions! By this advice he indicates most weightily that in everyone's life the mind must be accustomed to moderation. However, in Aristotle the opacity has been criticised, to which he is said to have aspired himself, when he said that his books were published and yet not published [Plutarch, Life of Alexander, VII. 5]. According to my judgement, this is said with a quite different intention: that most sagacious man saw that the reasoning of his method could not be grasped except by those who had been liberally instructed. Therefore he said that the books
were not published, that is, to the foolish who came in contact with them, unprepared by the other arts. The elegance and clarity of his speech in many books are great. Here and there, because of the conciseness of the things which he pursues for the sake of method, the discussion becomes more obscure; but once one has grasped the method, that darkness is dispelled. Callimachus asks the Graces to wash in his elegies their hands anointed with fragrant juices, so that they could be eternal because of their grace and beauty. The sweetness of the contents and the language is such in most of Aristotle's writings – such as in the book on the animals, the Politics, Ethics and the letters – that one can assume rightfully that the Graces have sprinkled some juice from their hands on them, to use Callimachus' words. What is it that his books can be for the libraries? For he quotes many things from old writings that have perished, and I believe that it is because of these ornaments that Aristotle is called a golden river by Cicero [Academics, II.XXXViii. 119]. How much of Plato's words he expounds, for example in the fifth book of the Ethics; although he took the comparison of proportions from Plato, he nevertheless adapts it more beautifully. But I shall leave off here, for to pursue all these things would take too long.
I reckoned that these things had to be said, not only so that you love Aristotle more, but also that you ponder why he is to be loved, and to be held in your hands. I certainly think that a great turmoil of doctrines would follow if Aristotle were neglected, who is the one and only master of method. And no one can become acquainted with the method by any other way than by getting some practice in that type of Aristotelian philosophy. Therefore I beseech you, not only for your own sake, but also because of all coming generations, diligently to cherish and preserve this kind of knowledge. Plato says that the spark brought from heaven by Prometheus is method [Philebus, 16c5–6]. If this spark were lost, men would again be transformed into beasts. For truly, without the true system of teaching men are not at all different from beasts. Therefore, in order to retain that spark, the kind of knowledge that Aristotle taught must be preserved with the greatest zeal. I have spoken.