Description

The fate of the library of Aristotle holds a privileged place among the unresolved questions on the circulation of books in the Hellenistic and early imperial age. In addition to writing a huge amount of works (so-called exoteric works for dissemination, and esoteric works, treatises in note form, for use inside the Lyceum), during his lifetime Aristotle bought many book rolls and even entire libraries, which he used as the basis for his research: we know, for example, that he bought the library of Platonic philosopher Speusippus (Gell. 3, 7, 13; Diog. Laert. 4, 5, which attributes the information to Favorinus).^[1]

Strabo and Athenaeus: The Scepsis Way, the Alexandrian Way and a “Middle Way”

After the death of Aristotle, this immense book collection must have been passed on to Theophrastus of Eresus – his successor as scholarch of the Lyceum, the teacher (and according to some sources, lover) of his son Nicomachus, and friend of Demetrius of Phaleron – thanks to whom he had a property in Athens, even though he was a metic (Diog. Laert. 5, 38-39).^[2] As documented by his will, Theophrastus, who certainly added to the library, left all the books to Neleus (Diog. Laert. 5, 52). This information has led to the supposition that Theophrastus wanted Neleus to become scholarch of the Lyceum – with Neleus therefore taking offence at the appointment of Strato of Lampsacus – but this theory is anything but a given: Neleus may only have been chosen as custodian of the library or, in the words of Gottschalk, “literary executor” who prepared the works in the library for publication (as Callinus did with Lyco according to Diog. Laert. 5, 73).^[3]

At this point, our ancient sources go different ways. According to the version told by Strabo and Plutarch (Str. 13, 1, 54; Plu. Sull. 26, 1-3), Neleus took Aristotle and Theophrastus’ books with him to Scepsis, his birthplace,^[4] and left them there for his descendants. They did not hand the books over to the Attalids and kept them there for decades in a sort of “cellar”. They were retrieved towards the end of the second or the start of the first century BCE by adventurer and would-be philosopher Apellicon of Teos, at this point in a bad state of repair. Apellicon took the books to Athens (where, again according to Str. 13, 1, 54, only a few, mainly exoteric works were available), from where, looted by Sulla, they made their way to Italy (see BIBSILL-LET).^[5] Here they were copied by poorly skilled copyists and published by booksellers. One of those who turned his hand to these texts was Tyrannion, teacher of Strabo (Str. 12, 3, 16) and probable source of this story. Tyrannion’s work on the corpus that had arrived from Athens was taken up and completed by the famed Andronicus of Rhodes, who could draw up a pinax of the works of Aristotle and Theophrastus. While very similar, the two sources of this version differ. Plutarch is much briefer; Strabo (oddly) fails to mention Andronicus’ work – all the more odd as later on he mentions Andronicus as the illustrious Peripatetic from Rhodes (Str. 14, 2, 13)^[6] – and also adopts a highly polemical tone,^[7] criticizing the Peripatos in the Hellenistic age and pointing to the teacher’s lack of books as the reason for the school’s decline. As he has it, it was only with Tyrannion that the rebirth of Aristotelism began. May I immediately point out that Plutarch, one of our most ancient sources on Andronicus, does not speak of him as a publisher of Aristotle’s works but as he who somehow made them public (εἰς μέσον θεῖναι) and catalogued them (ἀναγράψαι πίνακας).

On the contrary, according to a competing version deriving from the sources of Athenaeus of Naucratis, Ptolemy II Philadelphus bought from Neleus and acquired the books of Aristotle’s library from Athens and Rhodes, taking them all to Alexandria (Ath. 1, 3a-b): it is a particularly short passage, being found in the part of the work of Athenaeus that has come down to us in epitome; it is not clear, for example, if Ptolemy acquires the books of Aristotle and Theophrastus – Theophrastus’ name is added by conjecture^[8] – while Neleus was in Athens or once he had gone back to Scepsis. However, in Book 5 of his work, while quoting Posidonius, again Athenaeus speaks (disparagingly) of Apellicon as he who, interested in Peripatetic philosophy, was to have bought Aristotle’s library (Posid. fr. 253 Edelstein-Kidd, in Ath. 5, 214d-e): since this fits Strabo and Plutarch’s accounts, recent contributions often continue to pay little attention to the Alexandrian version.^[9]

A “middle way” between the two versions, explored above all by Luciano Canfora, deems that the works of Aristotle and Theophrastus’ library (their erudite sources, the books they bought, even the exoteric works) actually did end up in Alexandria, whereas the esoteric works took the way to Scepsis and would remain unknown for a large part of the Hellenistic age.^[10] It is certainly an interesting hypothesis, but it is set to remain “a fantastic myth”:^[11] we have proof of the circulation of Aristotle’s esoteric works during the Hellenistic age (see infra); furthermore, while effectively ambiguous as to what they mean by βιβλιοθήκη and βιβλία (set of books possessed by Aristotle and Theophrastus? manuscripts of the works of Aristotle and Theophrastus?), our sources do not speak of a distinction between the esoteric works and the other works in Aristotle and Theophrastus’ library.

Nevertheless, it must be underlined that Strabo (Str. 13, 1, 54) also notes a connection between Aristotle’s library and Egypt, in writing that Aristotle taught the Ptolemies how to organize a library. Of course, Aristotle was already dead when the library was established in Alexandria, but a crucial role was played in the conception of the museum and library of Alexandria by Demetrius of Phaleron, Theophrastus’ friend as well as governor of Athens and counsel to Ptolemy I, and the same Theophrastus and Strato of Lampsacus, scholarch of the Lyceum and tutor of Ptolemy II. More generally, a strong Aristotelian thrust can be felt in the Alexandrian philologists’ method of working, including in their grammatical studies on Homer’s text, as scholars have now ascertained.^[12]

A General Overview of the Ancient Lists of Aristotle’s Works

A further problem that arises when dealing with these materials derives from the ancient lists of Aristotle’s works.^[13] As far as Theophrastus is concerned, the list of his works attested in Diogenes Laertius (5, 42-50) probably has Alexandrian origins (the proposed author is Hermippus),^[14] hence the immense number of works mentioned there must have been available in Alexandria. On the contrary, the origins of the list of Aristotle’s works in Diogenes Laertius (5, 22-27) and the similar list contained in the Vita Hesychii^[15] are unknown. The order and titles definitely predate Andronicus (hence they are different to what we are familiar with now). They include works that have not come down to us, while a lot of other fundamental books are missing, especially on physics, biology and metaphysics. What is more, despite the overriding favour found among scholars for the purported Alexandrian origins of the list,^[16] there are various reasons that make this problematical. First and foremost, its author is supposed to be the same Hermippus who compiled at least one of the lists of Theophrastus’ works. However, he must have followed quite different cataloguing criteria. Hence, as Paul Moraux proposed, it cannot be ruled out that Diogenes’ list hails from Athens and reflects which of Aristotle’s works were available in the Lyceum in the second century BCE.^[17]

Lastly, there is a third list of Aristotle’s works, of Greek origin, but it has come down to us in Arabic: for modern readers it seems a lot more familiar than the others because, alongside numerous lost works, there are also Aristotelian treatises that are known to us. The author of this list, a somewhat vaguely specified Ptolemy (in some Arabic manuscripts called al-Gharīb, that is “unknown” or “foreigner”), was familiar with Andronicus’ catalogue. Nonetheless, according to the recent theories of Marwan Rashed, it could essentially be a reproduction of the pre-Andronicus Alexandrian catalogue of Aristotle’s works. In addition to the prefatory letter, in which the author declares that he did not have Andronicus’ catalogue to hand as he wrote his little book (Ptol. al-Gharīb 3 Rashed), there are some elements, above all concerning Aristotle’s works of ethics and metaphysics, which point to the list predating Andronicus.^[18] This would imply that even before Andronicus, almost all the esoteric works were known in Alexandria in the Hellenistic age.^[19] And so it becomes clear quite how complex the question of the circulation of Aristotle’s works and the fate of his library is.

The Polycentric Circulation of Aristotle in the Hellenistic Age

If we are to believe Strabo’s account, having ended up in Scepsis together with the rest of the Lyceum library, Aristotle’s esoteric works – unpublished and therefore impossible to find elsewhere – were lost until Apellicon retrieved them. It may be worthwhile wondering if, beyond the contradictory ancient sources and the catalogues, there exists any proof of the circulation of these works in the Hellenistic age up to the start of the first century BCE.^[20]

Up to the times of Eduard Zeller, the answer was generally yes:^[21] in actual fact some centres where at least some of Aristotle’s esoteric works circulated can be identified.

The first of these places is Rhodes. After his teacher’s death, Aristotle’s disciple and collaborator, Eudemus of Rhodes, possessed a copy of his Physics, as spoken of in a letter to Theophrastus (Eudem. fr. 6 Wehrli = Simpl. Comm. Phys., in CAG 10, p. 923, 7-11 Diels). Aristotle is thought to have sent a not-yet-final copy of the Metaphysics to Eudemus and the idea even came about that Eudemus’ nephew wrote the book ἄλφα μεῖζον (Eudem. frr. 3-4 Wehrli passim = Ascl. Comm. Metaph., in CAG 6,2, p. 4, 8-22 Hayduck).^[22] Traces of the circulation of Aristotle’s esoteric writings in Rhodes are therefore quite substantial and, as has recently been argued, go right up to Posidonius.^[23]

If we consider Athens, it is highly unlikely that after Neleus the Lyceum had no books, all the more so because it was still quite active in the second century BCE, albeit on partially different themes to the ones that would become popular in the late first century BCE. Should we think that a Peripatetic like Critolaus, who according to Cic. fin. 5, 14 did not want to imitate the ancient teachers, discussed physics or ethics knowing only popular works and not Aristotle’s teaching on these topics?^[24] Then, Diogenes Laertius makes no mention of Neleus’ presumed disappearance of the books: quite the opposite, there is talk of books in the bequests of the Lyceum scholarchs in connection with Strato of Lampsacus, Theophrastus’ successor (Diog. Laert. 5, 62, which, what is more, mentions books not written by Strato),^[25] and Lyco (Diog. Laert. 5, 73). Moreover, an exchange of letters (considered spurious) between Aristotle and Alexander the Great, published by Andronicus of Rhodes (see infra), implies that the esoteric works were somehow known outside the Lyceum too (Plu. Alex. 7, 6-9; Gell. 20, 5, 6-10), raising the (fake, if the letters are spurious) concern of the Macedonian sovereign. Finally, from a letter relayed by Philodemus in the work Adversus eos qui se libros nosse profitentur, we know that Epicurus himself knew Aristotle’s Analytics and one or more of the works On Nature (Epicur. fr. 127 Arrighetti = P.Herc. 1005, fr. 111, 6-12 Angeli).^[26] Also coming to mind in the search for traces of Aristotle’s esoteric works in Athens is the Atthidographer, Philochorus, who seems to cite Book 4 of the Meteorology. However, the quote, problematic in itself with regard to Aristotle’s text, cannot be attributed to Philochorus with any certainty, so much so it is not included among his fragments in the FGrHist edition (Ath. 14, 656a-b).

But it is in Alexandria that, besides the ancient catalogues and Athenaeus, we have evidence of a certain circulation of Aristotle’s esoteric writings.^[27] Myrto Hatzimichali deals at length with Aristotle’s works on biology and underlines how Alexandrian philologists, in particular (but not only) the figure of Aristophanes of Byzantium, was very familiar with Aristotle the zoologist: evidently, the treatises on animals (or the “ancestors” of these treatises) must have been available in the library.^[28] Other scholars underline that from Zenodotus on, the Alexandrian philologists, whose methodology was so influenced by the Peripatos (see above), seem to have been aware of at least Aristotle’s chronological works, as well as the political, rhetorical and poetic works, possibly including the renowned Poetics.^[29] There were no lack of works on logics in Alexandria: according to commentators of Aristotle, Ptolemy II’s desire to acquire as many Aristotelian books as possible led to the blossoming of fakes. So the Alexandria library possessed 40 books of the Analytics and two Categories (Philop. Comm. Categ., in CAG 13,1, p. 7, 22-28 Busse). As far as Aristotle’s works on physics, metaphysics and meteorology are concerned, the Alexandrians’ silence – including such learned scientists and geographers as Callimachus and Eratosthenes – can make one think either that these treatises were not actually available in Alexandria or that, as Rashed has it, they did not garner interest as they were not very technical and too “philosophical”.

Now it is worth dwelling awhile on some quite mysterious but significant authors to respond to the question that we asked at the beginning.

The first of these is Ocellus Lucanus, a Pythagorean philosopher attributed a treatise On the Nature of the Universe, in which he draws heavily on Aristotle’s On Generation and Corruption (in contrast, as Simplicius has it, Aristotle was the one inspired by Ocellus and Timaeus: see Ocell. test. 6 Harder = Syrian. Comm. Metaph., in CAG 6,1, p. 175, 5-11 Kroll). If it is true that this treatise is located chronologically in the second century BCE and that it is based on direct knowledge of Aristotle’s treatise, we are looking at a testimony of the early circulation of some of Aristotle’s esoteric works in Pythagorean circles and in southern Italy.^[30]

Second, a treatise titled On Style has come down from us from the second-first century BCE under the name of Demetrius, perhaps identifiable with Cicero’s teacher, Demetrius Syrus (Cic. Brut. 315). Not only might this treatise have been influenced by Book 3 of Aristotle’s Rhetoric, it also mentions a collection of Aristotle’s letters put together by Artemon (Demetr. eloc. 223). This same collection figures among the works listed by Ptolemy al-Gharīb in connection with the library of Apellicon (Ptol. al-Gharīb 97-99 Rashed). So, before Apellicon made his appearance, Artemon must have compiled the letter collection, which then ended up in the hands of Apellicon and Demetrius: Aristotle’s letters must have been in circulation before the first century BCE – perhaps in second-century-BCE Pergamum, if the Artemon named by Demetrius (probably Artemon of Cassandreia) is the same Artemon of Pergamum attested to in the scholia to Pindar (e.g. Schol. ad Pind. Ol. 2, 16). Lastly, one of the librarians of Pergamum, then brought to Rome by Cato the Younger and who had presumably died before the latter’s suicide in 46 BCE (Str. 14, 5, 14; Plu. Cat. Mi. 10 and Plu. Cat. Mi. 16, 1; Diog. Laert. 7, 34), is a certain Athenodorus, known as Cordylion, possible author of an exegesis of the Categories usually attributed to the better-known Athenodorus the Bald:^[31] this would be a further clue to the dissemination of Aristotle’s works in Pergamum.^[32]

Testimonies of the circulation of the esoteric works of Aristotle in the Hellenistic age make one think that there are some grounds to Athenaeus’ reference to the fact that Ptolemy had bought all the books and taken them to Alexandria, and that Strabo’s account of the conservation of the whole esoteric corpus in a cellar in Scepsis is at least in part tendentious. Does this mean that all of Strabo’s account is to be rejected? Some critics, such as Hans Gottschalk, think that it should and suppose that the source of the lie could be Apellicon, who invented the story of the cellar in Scepsis to disguise the books’ theft.^[33] And yet, the mention of Apellicon in the catalogue of Ptolemy al-Gharīb (Ptol. al-Gharīb, 97-99 Rashed) inspires greater caution: maybe there really was a book collection in Scepsis that was bought by Apellicon and came to Italy thanks to Sulla, and was in part responsible for the rebirth of Aristotelianism in the first century BCE; however, it may not have been the only collection containing the works of Aristotle (and Theophrastus).^[34] As (many of) Theophrastus’ works could probably be consulted in various places, including the library of Alexandria,^[35] Aristotle’s exoteric and esoteric works may also have had a wide circulation. Of course, some esoteric works must not have been easy to come by (some may only have been found in the Scepsis cellar), but this does not prevent us from thinking that Aristotle’s writings may have circulated in various centres (Rhodes, Alexandria, Athens, perhaps southern Italy and Pergamum): this conclusion can hold both if one agrees with the thesis of (Athenaeus and) Rashed, according to which more or less the whole of the Aristotelian corpus was present in Alexandria, and if one accepts that there was a less complete collection in Alexandria.^[36]

Aristotle in First-Century-BCE Italy: Cicero, Tyrannion and (?)Andronicus of Rhodes

If we are to concentrate on Italy at this point, a place can be found for the evidence traced in Cicero’s works.^[37] From what we can read in his works, Cicero knew and admired Aristotle’s exoteric works (first and foremost, the Protrepticus at the basis of his Hortensius and the Τεχνῶν συναγωγή probably already cited in the second proem of De inventione: Cic. inv. 2, 6-7). And at times they also mention some esoteric works. In De oratore (set in 91 but written in 55 BCE), Antonius not only speaks of the Τεχνῶν συναγωγή but probably also of Aristotle’s Rhetoric (Cic. de orat. 2, 160); Aristotle’s Topics seem to have been found in Cicero’s library, even though it is not on these Topics that Cicero based the composition of his treatise of the same name (Cic. top. 1-5 passim; see BIBCIC-LET);^[38] Cicero had read or at least heard of the Nicomachean Ethics, which he believed to be by Aristotle’s son Nicomachus (Cic. fin. 5, 12-13) and could have been one of the recently rediscovered works from Scepsis.^[39] It may also have been influenced by the esoteric works on animals in De natura deorum.^[40] Cicero speaks explicitly of esoteric works in Cic. fin. 5, 12 (where he calls them books left in commentariis and contrasts them with the exoteric works) and again in Book 3 of De finibus: he had the possibility of reading Aristotle’s esoteric works in the library of Lucullus (Cic. fin. 3, 10; see BIBLUC-LET).^[41]

Given that the circulation of Aristotle’s exoteric works does not pose any problems, the first question that we can ask ourselves is whether the esoteric works read – or at least known – by Cicero came (directly or via copies) from the collection of Apellicon, which arrived in Italy via Sulla. Cicero is not explicit about this, but the hypothesis cannot be ruled out. Lucullus was the tutor of Faustus Sulla, the dictator’s son (Plu. Luc. 4, 5), as well as the person who, along with Murena, brought Tyrannion to Italy (Plu. Luc. 19, 8-9): it is therefore highly likely that there was a contact between the libraries of Lucullus and Sulla (see BIBLUC-LET and BIBSILL-LET). Furthermore, Cicero knew Faustus Sulla and his library personally: on the basis of Cic. Att. 4, 10, 1 it has even been thought that Cicero bought Sulla’s library in an auction (see also Plu. Cic. 27, 6 and BIBCIC-LET), but, more likely, the reference in the letter to Atticus is to visits to the collection that had come into Faustus’ hands.^[42] Then again, because of the various places where Aristotle’s works circulated in the Hellenistic age, other hypotheses cannot be ignored either: for example, that Lucullus acquired these works, along with countless other ones, during his raids in Asia Minor in the Mithridatic War (see BIBLUC-LET) or that Atticus himself possessed Aristotle’s esoteric works (of which he had the imago: see again Cic. Att. 4, 10, 1 and BIBATT-LET).

A further question is whether Cicero read Aristotle’s works after the revision of the text – as Strabo and Plutarch have it – made by Tyrannion,^[43] and/or following the cataloguing work of Andronicus of Rhodes.

Cicero, who had known Tyrannion since 59 BCE (Cic. Att. 2, 6, 1) and who so respected him that he allowed him to give lessons in his home (Cic. ad Q. fr. 2, 4, 2), hired him to order his library (Cic. Att. 4, 4a, 1; see BIBCIC-LET):^[44] so satisfied was he with the work (Cic. Att. 4, 8, 2) that he recommended Tyrannion to his brother Quintus, who had a similar requirement. This new job, however, did not materialize (Cic. ad Q. fr. 3, 4, 5; Cic. ad Q. fr. 3, 5, 6). Cicero spoke of Tyrannion again in the following years (see Cic. Att. 12, 2, 2; Cic. Att. 12, 6, 2), but never mentioned his work on Aristotle’s library^[45] or named Andronicus: this silence, in light of Cicero’s attention towards Aristotle’s commentarii, his personal acquaintance with Lucullus and Faustus Sulla, and his esteem of Tyrannion’s ordering and restoration of libraries, is suspicious in the least and considered very much as evidence by many critics: Tyrannion probably only worked on Aristotle’s library, which had come into the hands of Sulla, after the death of Cicero.^[46]

This would lead us to think, contrary to those who support an early dating of Andronicus of Rhodes, that his activity on Aristotle’s works began as of the end of the 40s BCE.^[47]

On one hand, this is compatible with the chronology of Strabo, who lived between the first century BCE and the first century CE, and “did philosophy with” Boethus of Sidon, exegete of the Categories and in turn pupil (and perhaps successor: see infra, n. 52) of Andronicus (Str. 16, 2, 24; Philop. Comm. Categ., in CAG 13,1, p. 5, 16-20 Busse). On the other hand, this tallies with an Arabic source which, albeit known for many years, has only recently been brought to the attention of scholars of Aristotle: it is a passage by al-Fārābī cited by Arab biographer-bibliographer Ibn Abī ʿUṣaibiʾa (Ibn Abī ʿUṣaibiʾa, ʿUyūn al-anbā’, pp. 447-448 Perkams 2019).^[48] According to this source, definitely based on a Greek original, Andronicus was the scholarch of the Lyceum in Alexandria, where Aristotelian philosophy had gained a foothold since the teacher’s death,^[49] at the time of Cleopatra. While inspecting the library of Alexandria upon Cleopatra’s death,^[50] Augustus found ancient copies of Aristotle’s books:^[51] he told Andronicus to put them in order and in turn prepare copies to take to Rome and copies to leave in Alexandria; in the end, Andronicus followed Augustus to Rome, but left behind a philosophy teacher in Alexandria too, so that there was teaching in both cities. The testimony of al-Fārābī supports the data reported by Aristotle’s commentators, who have often been considered untrustworthy on this point. This would make Andronicus the eleventh scholarch of the Lyceum (Ammon. Comm. Interpr., in CAG 4,5, p. 5, 24-29 Busse; Elias (olim David) Comm. Categ., in CAG 18,1, p. 117, 20-25 Busse).^[52] Above all, it corroborates a late date for Andronicus of Rhodes and enables it to be established that he was active in both Alexandria (the location of a great many works by Aristotle, as testified by Athenaeus) and Rome (where the collection from Scepsis arrived, as recounted by Strabo and Plutarch, and where Tyrannion worked): originating from Rhodes, another privileged place for Aristotle’s writings, Andronicus had the whole corpus of Aristotle’s works of his time at his disposal. In all likelihood, the fruit of his work was not an edition of the works of Aristotle and Theophrastus, as it has often been thought in the past, but a sort of “catalogue by arguments”. In this pinax of at least five books (Ptol. al-Gharīb 100 Rashed) he divided the treatises of Aristotle and Theophrastus by topic, giving them what he deemed to be the correct titles and discussing their authenticity, division into books and briefly their content (a clue in this sense is provided by Porph. Plot. 24; see also, e.g. Ammon. Comm. Interpr., in CAG 4,5, p. 5, 24-29 Busse).^[53]

After Andronicus (up to the End of the Second Century CE)

After the cataloguing by Andronicus, as of the end of the first century BCE, the whole body of Aristotle’s works were disseminated in numerous cities of the Roman Empire: as testimony of their circulation, suffice it to think of Lucian. Vit. Auct. 26, which illustrates and ironizes over the full extent of Aristotle’s exoteric and esoteric works.^[54] Hereafter, I will briefly take into consideration Rome, Alexandria and Athens, for which there are more abundant and certain testimonies, but in the second century CE there may have been a certain tradition of Aristotelian philosophical studies in smaller cities too, for example Aphrodisias in Caria.^[55]

Papyri start to be of help as of the first century CE:^[56] as anticipated, the first- and second-century-CE papyri containing the Constitution of the Athenians and extracts from the Politics (quoted above, n. 20) testify to the circulation of these works in the Egyptian area. Furthermore, papyri from the second century CE have emerged from the sands of Egypt, with fragments or quotations from exoteric works such as the Protrepticus (P.Oxy. IV 666, LDAB 396) and De poetis (P.Oxy. XLV 3219, LDAB 3795); more significantly, papyri have been found containing esoteric works such as the Topics (P.Ryl. III 510r + P.Giss.Univ. IV 40r, LDAB 394), Nicomachean Ethics (P.Oxy. XXIV 2402, LDAB 395) and Historia animalium (P.Rein. II 80, LDAB 397).^[57] Nor should it be forgotten that several works, above all the Historia animalium and the Constitutions, appear in glossaries and commentaries on authors such as Homer, the lyric poets and Callimachus. To stick to the clearest testimonies, the Historia animalium, used as an auctoritas in P.Lond.Lit. 181 (LDAB 462) from the first or early second century CE, containing scholia on Callimachus’ Aetia, is quoted in a second-century-CE papyrus commentary on the Odyssey (P. Yale II 128, LDAB 1732) and appears, perhaps alongside the Homeric Aporiai, in a coeval commentary on the Iliad (P.Oxy. II 221, LDAB 1631).^[58] As far as the Constitutions are concerned, a glossary of words starting with alpha from the second century CE (P.Oxy. XVII 2087, LDAB 4806) uses material from the Constitution of the Athenians;^[59] P.Oxy. XXIV 2389 (LDAB 180), a commentary on Alcman from the first century CE, seems to preserve traces of the Constitution of the Spartans; the Constitution of the Parians is cited in PSI XI 1219 (LDAB 498), a papyrus commentary on Callimachus’ Aetia from the second century CE.^[60] In this context, it is worthwhile mentioning the papyrus of the so-called “Anonymus Londiniensis” (P.Br.Libr. inv. 137), datable to the first-second century CE, which quotes De somno, part of the so-called Parva naturalia, and a doxography on a medical subject that the anonymous author deems to be by Aristotle but would later be traced back to Meno.^[61]

In Rome, where Andronicus was probably working in a later stage of his life and Peripatetic philosophers (suffice it to think of Alexander of Aegae, who was one of Nero’s tutors) and Stoic philosophers attentive to Aristotelianism (first and foremost Annaeus Cornutus, from the Neronian age) continued to work in the years of the early empire,^[62] it is highly likely that copies of the manuscripts found in Alexandria and (copies of) manuscripts from the Scepsis collection ended up in the public libraries that the emperor was gradually having built. For example, according to the testimonies of Galen. Indol. 16-17 Manetti and Galen. Indol. 17 Boudon-Millot – Jouanna, it is very much possible that there were rare manuscripts of Aristotle and Theophrastus in the Palatine libraries right up to the great fire of 192 CE (see BIBPAL-LET).^[63] Besides, Galen again (Galen. Indol. 14-15 Boudon-Millot – Jouanna) states that the works of Aristotle, Theophrastus and the early Peripatetic school were also found in his private library in Rome, which went up in smoke in 192 CE:^[64] various other private libraries in the capital of the Empire must have contained Aristotle’s writings too.

In Alexandria, the tradition of studying Aristotle’s works continued: precious testimony of this is given by a passage of Cassius Dio, according to whom Caracalla threw the Peripatetic philosophers out of Alexandria (D. C. 78, 7, 3). Yet it is precisely the Alexandrian milieu between the second and third centuries CE that, according to Rashed, produced the catalogue of Aristotle’s works that only came down to us through Arab mediation.^[65]

And then, in Athens,^[66] Marcus Aurelius established teaching posts in philosophy, including Aristotelian philosophy (D. C. 72, 31, 3; Philostr. VS 2, 2, pp. 566-567 Olearius). In the Severan era, Alexander of Aphrodisias (Alex. Aphr. Fat., in CAG suppl., 2,2, p. 164, 3-15 Bruns; Inscr. Aphr. 4, p. 388 Chaniotis 2004b),^[67] prolific exegete of Aristotle’s treatises and first of the great late antique Neoplatonic commentators on Aristotle’s texts, taught and worked in the city.

Select Bibliography: Düring 1976, pp. 43-54; Gottschalk 1987, pp. 1083-1097; Barnes 1997; Moraux 2000, pp. 13-101. More recently, see Dix 2004; Sharples 2010; Tutrone 2013; Dietze-Mager 2015a; Staikos 2016 (generalist text); numerous essays brought together in Falcon 2016 (above all, Hatzimichali 2016); Falcon 2017, pp. 1-77; the summary by Corradi 2018; the critical edition of Ptolemy al-Gharīb by Rashed 2021, with its wide-ranging introduction; Hatzimichali 2023.

1. For a recent attempt, using his biography and citations from his works, to rebuild the contents of Aristotle’s “virtual” library beyond his own writings (from Homer’s poems to Plato’s dialogues to manuals of rhetoric), see Staikos 2016, pp. 244-257. ↑

2. On the passage of the library from Aristotle to Theophrastus, see Dix 2004, p. 61 (with bibliography to date); a recent work underlining Nicomachus as the intermediate link is Rashed 2021, pp. ccli-cclii. ↑

3. For a summary on Neleus, see Dix 2004, pp. 61-62, and above all Corradi 2018. The view that Neleus was the intended scholarch is the most common among the scholars. Competing explanations can be traced back to Gottschalk 1972, pp. 336-337, and Drossaart Lulofs 1999. See also the following note. ↑

4. Strabo and Plutarch do not specify the reasons: the critics have essentially pointed to resentment over not being appointed scholarch of the Peripatos or the desire to found a school in Scepsis; it has also been written (and taken up again in recent studies, such as Tanner 2000 and Canfora 2022) that Theophrastus entrusted the books to Neleus because he wanted them to be taken away from Athens, either to keep them out of Ptolemy II’s reach or owing to the political goings-on in the city. ↑

5. Lucian Adv. indoct. 4 also gives us information on Sulla’s looting of books. Lucian takes aim at an uneducated person who hoped to disguise his crassness by getting his hands on lots of books: but even if he did possess all of Demosthenes’ works, Demosthenes’ manuscript of Thucydides’ works and all the books from Athens that Sulla had carried off to Italy, it would be of no use to him. Even if the allusion were to Apellicon’s library (already indemonstrable in itself), despite the view of Canfora 2022, this does not authorize us to think that the cited works of Demosthenes or Thucydides were contained in that collection, seeing as Lucian is making three distinct examples in a crescendo of paradoxicality. ↑

6. A whole host of hypotheses have been made, from a lacuna in Strabo’s text (e.g. Barnes 1997, pp. 19-20, and Tutrone 2013, p. 162), to a lack of interest in the end of the story, to an intentional omission (see, for example, Chroust 1962, pp. 62-67). ↑

7. On Strabo’s exaltation of Tyrannion, see above all Schubert 2002. ↑

8. Olson 2007 does not accept the integration of Theophrastus’ name. This would mean that Neleus bought the books of Aristotle and of those named before him, first of all Euripides. Hence account would somehow have to be given of the relationship between Neleus and the tragedian’s library. Nevertheless, in light of Theophrastus’ will (Diog. Laert. 5, 52) and the passages of Strabo and Plutarch considered just now – clearly showing that Neleus inherited Theophrastus’ library, which also contained Aristotle’s library – the conjectured integration of Theophrastus’ name seems to be necessary and fitting: the disappearance of καὶ Θεόφραστον could be explained simply by a saut du même au même owing to the previous τὸν φιλόσοφον. In defence of this conjecture, which also does not appear in the text in the Olson 2024 edition, see Dietze-Mager 2015a, pp. 99-100 n. 9. ↑

9. See, for example, McAdon 2006, p. 102 n. 7, and the more popular Casson 2001, p. 152, and Staikos 2016, pp. 264-265. ↑

10. The same Düring 1976, p. 47, and Irigoin 1994, pp. 52-53, put forward this hypothesis, but see above all Canfora 1986 (pp. 39-43 and 201-211), and 1999; more recently, see also Jacob 2013, pp. 66-76 and 78-81, Montana 2012, pp. 74-76, and 2014, pp. 167-170; for further bibliographical references on this point, please see Corradi 2018. ↑

11. Already in the words of Chroust 1962, p. 56. ↑

12. On the importance of the Peripatos’ drive to set up the museum and library of Alexandria (also acknowledged in the generalist text Casson 2001, pp. 28-29), see the earlier text by Fraser 1972, pp. 312-316 and 320, and Richardson 1994; see now Montana 2015, pp. 76-78 et passim, with broad bibliography to date (see the incisive comment in Nagy 1998, p. 190: “It is the prestige of the classics that drives the continuum from, say, the Lyceum to the Museum”). Earlier studies cast doubt on Demetrius of Phaleron’s role as mediator between Aristotelianism and Alexandrianism: see Pfeiffer 1968, pp. 95-104. However, not even Pfeiffer can wholly deny the Peripatos’ role as base of the Alexandrian cultural institutions. On the importance of Demetrius of Phaleron, see especially Montanari 2000; Tracy 2000; Montanari 2012. ↑

13. The go-to critical editions for the three ancient lists of Aristotle are, respectively: for Diogenes’ list, Dorandi 2013, pp. 357-362; for the list in the Vita Hesychii, Dorandi 2006; and for the list in Arabic translation, Rashed 2021. Please see these editions for the texts of the lists. Owing to their length and complexity, they will not be made available on this portal but will simply be mentioned in brief. ↑

14. See Sollenberger 1984, pp. 25-35, with a collection of the sources and bibliography to date. ↑

15. Please note that the list in the Vita Hesychii (known as the Vita Menagiana after its editor) is followed by an appendix and has nothing to do with Diogenes’ list. ↑

16. As of Düring 1956; more recently, e.g. Pajón Leyra 2013 and Hatzimichali 2021 base their studies on this theory. ↑

17. See Keaney 1963, pp. 58-63, who defends the theories of Moraux 1951. The Athenian hypothesis supported by Lynch 1972 and Dix 2004 has recently been put forward again by Rashed 2021, pp. cccxxiii-cccxxxi. It has also been proposed that Diogenes’ list is the list of the works that Neleus took to Scepsis (Lord 1986), but the hypothesis that such pinakographic work was carried out in Scepsis is in itself not very likely and has barely found any support. Other purely conjectural hypotheses which have not been given any follow-up (for example, that the list reflects which of Aristotle’s works remained in Athens when he fled to Chalcis or the catalogue of the library of Pergamum), will not be taken into consideration. ↑

18. First of all, the Nicomachean Ethics is missing from Aristotle’s works on ethics; the ethical works are instead divided into the categories of “Big”, corresponding to the Magna Moralia, and “Small”, corresponding, according to what Ptolemy himself writes, to the Eudemian Ethics. It is a binary opposition that does not account for a third ethical work which, as Rashed has it, was found in Scepsis at the time when this catalogue was drawn up. Once it came to light, it was called the Nicomachean Ethics after Nicomachus, Aristotle’s son, the owner of Aristotle’s work prior to Theophrastus (on Cicero’s mention of the work, see infra, n. 39). The second surprise is the mention of a 13-book Metaphysics: by cross-referencing this piece of information with the information from other catalogues, it can be thought that this work actually did exist in the Alexandrian age (hailing from Rhodes and then ending up in Alexandria) and that a 10-book Metaphysics was instead put away in Scepsis; once it came to light, the familiar 14-book Metaphysics would be produced, which famously contains two editions of the first book (A/α). The other elements identified by Rashed concern the works on logics – for example, how can it be that Ptolemy has no problem mentioning De interpretatione if Andronicus considered it fake (Ammon. Comm. Interpr., in CAG 4,5, p. 5, 24-29 Busse)? – and De caelo. For a complete discussion, see Rashed 2021, pp. ccxlvi-ccxcviii; doubts on Ptolemy al-Gharīb’s dependence on Andronicus were already raised in Dietze-Mager 2015a, pp. 151-158. ↑

19. See again Rashed 2021, pp. ccxxxv-cccii; Falcon 2021 also deemed the theory convincing. ↑

20. Unfortunately, the papyri are of little use in the case of Aristotle. There have also been attempts to trace Aristotle’s works or quotations from Aristotle’s work in papyri dating from the third century BCE (see P.Hamb. II 128, LDAB 4022; P.Lond.Lit 112 = P.Petr. I 9, LDAB 403; P.Hib. II 172, LDAB 3535). Recently, Auffret 2019 reproposed the theory that P.Ai Khanum (LDAB 7026), again datable to the third century BCE, whose contents have luckily remained imprinted on some clay fragments found in Ay Khānom (Afghanistan) in 1977 and today given up for lost, contained the second book of Aristotle’s dialogue On Philosophy. This hypothesis is, however, not accepted in the Corpus dei Papiri Filosofici Greci e Latini (CPF) II.1* 2019, pp. 3-13. The most ancient papyri found to date that to the highest degree of probability contain Aristotle’s works are the famous P.Lond.Lit 108 from the first-second century CE (LDAB 391) with the – almost certainly by Aristotle – Constitution of the Athenians and the contemporary P.Brux. inv. E 8073 + P.Mich. inv. 6643 (LDAB 393), with extracts from the Politics. In recent times it has been said (Privitera 2012, pp. 135-136) that a first-century-BCE papyrus may contain part of the Rhetoric, but it is yet to be published. For a concise overall picture of the Aristotelian papyri, see Privitera 2012. ↑

21. References in this connection are Düring 1976, pp. 43-47; Barnes 1997, pp. 12-16 (in general, Barnes 1997 provides the basis for Sharples 2010, 24-30); Frede 1999, pp. 772-776; Moraux 2000, pp. 25-27; Falcon 2017, pp. 3-25. ↑

22. See Dorandi 2002, in particular p. 47. ↑

23. See Pajón Leyra 2013. ↑

24. On Critolaus and the fundamentally anti-philological nature of the Peripatos in the second century BCE, see above all Hahm 2007 and Chiaradonna 2012, pp. 85-86; the review by Lefebvre 2016 is useful. ↑

25. Incidentally, we are aware that Strato of Lampsacus knew the Topics (Alex. Aphr. In Top., in CAG 2,2, p. 340, 3-4 Wallies). ↑

26. On the value of Philodemus’ testimony, see the contributions of Verde 2016 (in particular, pp. 36-40) and Erbì 2020, pp. 247-249. See them for a general reflection on Aristotle’s influence on Epicurus and Epicureanism. Even the early Stoics could have had access to Aristotle’s school works and been influenced by them, even though there are no explicit testimonies of this: after the healthy scepticism expressed on this by Sandbach 1985 (who analyses all the salient passages and sifts through the bibliography to date), an all-encompassing picture is found more recently in Bénatouïl 2016 and Falcon 2017, pp. 9-14. ↑

27. See already Blum 1991, pp. 52-64, who places a great deal of value on the testimony of Ath. 1, 3a-b and is probably right to assume (see infra) that Andronicus of Rhodes himself was active in Alexandria. ↑

28. Hatzimichali 2021, who nevertheless deems that Diogenes Laertius’ catalogue is of Alexandrian origin. Part of Aristophanes’ epitome of Aristotle’s zoological works is also found in P.Lond.Lit. 164 (LDAB 390), second/third-century papyrus. ↑

29. See above all Richardson 1994; in the same volume, a different opinion is expressed by Irigoin 1994. See also the abovementioned bibliography, n. 12. ↑

30. For the dating, see Cens. 4, 3, with the recent notes by Freyburger 2019, pp. xxxi-xxxiv and 64; Ulacco 2016, pp. 210-215, proposes a later date. As for Ocellus’ direct knowledge of Aristotle, Sandbach 1985, pp. 63-64, appears somewhat sceptical and believes there were intermediary sources. On the dissemination of Aristotle in the pseudo-Pythagorean treatises by authors such as Ocellus and the even more elusive ps.-Archita (who mentions the Categories), see Ulacco 2016 and Falcon 2017, pp. 62-66. ↑

31. Falcon 2017, pp. 76-77, who takes up a theory of Michael Griffin (please see for a bibliography to date). ↑

32. On the circulation of Aristotle’s works in Pergamum, see already Grayeff 1974, pp. 69-85, and more recently, Nagy 1998, pp. 215-216, and Kosmetatou 2003: nevertheless, behoove it to underline that definite textual data connecting Aristotle’s works with Pergamum are lacking; an exception is the information from Strabo that the kings of Pergamum did not succeed in taking possession of Aristotle’s writings (for example, Cordylion could have read and commented the Categories in Rome). ↑

33. See Gottschalk 1972, pp. 338-342 (and 1987, pp. 1084-1086); on the falsification or the nevertheless highly tendentious nature of Strabo, see more recently e.g. Lindsay 1997, Drossaart Lulofs 1999 and Schubert 2002. ↑

34. Tutrone 2013, p. 161 very clearly states: “It is fruitless to concentrate all our attention on the ups and downs of this particular library [sc. Scepsis’ library], as if it were the only source of the Aristotelian textual tradition. Instead we should perhaps consider the vicissitudes of this precious book collection critically, seeing it as just one of several sources which played a role in the diffusion of Peripatetic writings through the ancient world”. ↑

35. To give one example, let us remember that Philodemus of Gadara knew and quoted the Oeconomicus, of questioned authorship but attributed by the Epicurean philosopher with certainty to Theophrastus. Besides, there were already papyri in the early Hellenistic age bearing witness to the circulation of Theophrastus’ works. ↑

36. Primavesi 2007, in particular, takes the numbering of the books of Aristotle’s writings as the basis to demonstrate that some works were effectively in circulation in the Hellenistic age, especially in the Alexandrian milieu, while others were not. On the multiple locations of Aristotle’s writings, see, already in the nineteenth century, Shute 1888, pp. 43-45; a general picture of the decentralization of the schools of philosophy in the second and principally first century BCE can be found in Sedley 2003. ↑

37. Here I will dwell on the main testimonies: for more detailed comprehensive studies, see Barnes 1997, pp. 44-59 (also useful Wisse 1989, pp. 152-158); Dillon 2016; Hatzimichali 2023, pp. 493-496. ↑

38. On this text and the complex issue concerning which Topics Cicero had in his library and as a model, see Reinhardt 2003, pp. 177-180. On Aristotle’s Topics and Cicero’s philosophical-rhetorical thought, see also Long 1995, pp. 52-58, who is nevertheless not sure whether Cicero read the Topics (or Rhetoric) first hand. ↑

39. According to the recent study of Sloan 2010, Aristotle’s works were already known by Cicero when he wrote De inventione. Aside from this, Cicero’s explicit mention of the Nicomachean Ethics is very important because the title of this work does not appear in any ancient catalogue of Aristotle’s writings, except in the appendix of the Vita Hesychii; besides, we know that the work would be used at the end of the first century BCE by philosophers Boethus of Sidon and Xenarchus of Seleucia (Falcon 2017, p. 39) and by Didymus, perhaps identifiable with Arius of Alexandria, author of an epitome of Aristotelian ethics (Tsouni 2016, p. 130; see also infra, n. 53). According to the hypothesis of Marwan Rashed (see above, n. 18), the Nicomachean Ethics is indeed one of the (few) Aristotelian works that disappeared completely during the Hellenistic age and reappeared when the Scepsis collection was discovered in the first century BCE (Rashed 2021, pp. ccxlvi-cclviii). ↑

40. On Aristotle’s zoology and Cicero’s De natura deorum, see also Tutrone 2013, pp. 154-155. ↑

41. It must be said that like Cicero, other authors of the time, such as the abovementioned Philodemus, and Lucretius, may have had direct access to Aristotle’s esoteric works (see Tutrone 2013, pp. 152-156 and Hatzimichali 2023, p. 494): however, in the absence of hard proof, the suspicion may remain that all these authors knew Aristotle’s thought via indirect sources. A few decades later, a similar problem would concern Horace, especially with regard to the Ars poetica. This, moreover, seems strongly influenced by the poetic treatises of Philodemus (see BIBERC-LET and the bibliography cited therein on the sources of the Ars). ↑

42. See Shackleton Bailey 1965 for the idea that Cicero acquired Sulla’s library; against it, see, e.g. Dix 2004, pp. 68-69 and, even more firmly, Tutrone 2013, pp. 164-165, and Dix 2013, pp. 215-216. ↑

43. A treatise by Tyrannion on accents has been used in the past as proof of the fact that Tyrannion was not familiar with Aristotle’s Rhetoric. However, this idea has been disproved (see already Wisse 1989, pp. 154-155). ↑

44. Cicero asked Atticus for two librarii to work alongside Tyrannion as glutinatores (probably to repair damaged book rolls) and to make parchment “labels” illustrating the rolls’ contents. On the relations between Cicero and Tyrannion, see Johnson 2012. ↑

45. Unless we are to believe, with Johnson 2012, pp. 472-477, that the term mens in Cic. Att. 4, 8, 2 (postea vero quam Tyrannio mihi libros disposuit, mens addita videtur meis aedibus) alludes to the role that Tyrannion already had in arranging the library of Aristotle, himself called Νοῦς by Plato. But even if mens refers to Tyrannion or Aristotle and not to a simple (and plausible) rational principle of arrangement, it seems unlikely that Cicero would only make such indeterminate hints if “his” Tyrannion had really worked intensely on Aristotle’s library. ↑

46. See above all Barnes 1997, pp. 17-18. ↑

47. To quote two of the keenest latter-half-of-the-twentieth-century critics of the Aristotelian tradition: Paul Moraux as regards the early dating of Andronicus (first half of the first century BCE) (see e.g. Moraux 2000, p. 66) and Ingemar Düring for the late dating (second half of the first century BCE) (see e.g. Düring 1976, p. 52). ↑

48. See Strohmaier 1987 and, in particular, Perkams 2019. In recent years, Rashed 2021 put great trust in al-Fārābī, while Falcon 2021 remains more sceptical. ↑

49. In al-Fārābī there is no mention of philosophy “moving” from Athens to Alexandria: nevertheless, a contemporary of his, the to-all-appearances independent al-Masʿū dı̄, speaks of the translatio of Peripatetic philosophy from Athens to Alexandria, without, however, mentioning Andronicus (al-Masʿūdī, Kitāb at-tanbīh wa-l ʾišrāf, p. 451 Perkams 2019). As Perkams 2019, pp. 450-452 claims, it is quite probable that the two drew material from the same source, selecting what interested them most. ↑

50. On the misunderstanding making Augustus the killer of Cleopatra, please see again Perkams 2019, p. 453. ↑

51. Evidently, even if did affect the actual library (this – quite delicate – matter is outside our competence here), the fire of Alexandria in 48 BCE must not have damaged the collection of Aristotle’s works. ↑

52. It is true that the same information is given for Boethus of Sidon too (Ammon. Comm. Anal. Prior., in CAG 4,6, p. 31, 11-15 Wallies): in reality, this inconsistency can easily be explained if we are to accept that in one case Ammonius counted Aristotle and in the other he did not (which would make Boetus Andronicus’ successor). ↑

53. See above all Hatzimichali 2013, pp. 11-27, and 2016 (summary in Hatzimichali 2023, pp. 492-493) for Andronicus’ role, not as publisher, but as cataloguer; see also Dietze-Mager 2015a, pp. 145-157 and Dietze-Mager 2015b. Obviously, it can be questioned whether Andronicus had already read most of Aristotle’s works in Alexandria (and Rhodes) or if many treatises instead only became known to him in Rome, once he came into contact with the Scepsis collection through Tyrannion. Another question, linked to the first one, is if he was really the one responsible for ordering the works of Aristotle that have come down to us; he may simply have added something to a catalogue whose outline already existed in Alexandria, which has come down to us in the list by Ptolemy al-Gharīb. In any case, beyond and more or less independently from Andronicus, other first-century-BCE philosophers whose chronology is subject to discussion could have acted on the works of Aristotle: for example, the Platonic Eudorus, exegete of the Categories and reader of the Metaphysics, Ariston of Alexandria, pupil of Antiochus of Ascalon, who passed over to Aristotelianism, and Didymus, author of the extract On Ethics (see above, n. 39), who could perhaps be identified with Arius of Alexandria. These are clearly complex issues, recently rediscussed in Falcon 2017, Rashed 2021 and, in brief, Falcon 2021. ↑

54. As Chiaradonna 2012 underlines, this does not mean that a philological approach to Aristotle’s texts immediately became widespread: indeed, up to the second century CE, there are Aristotelian philosophers who seem to continue the “dialectic” tradition of the Hellenistic Peripatos, and various examples of philosophers, such as Plutarch himself, who favour the exoteric works and seem to use (above all though not exclusively) compendia for the esoteric ones. ↑

55. Adrastus of Aphrodisias (first half of the second century CE), among other things the author of a treatise on the ordering of Aristotle’s writings, is one of the most visible Peripatetic scholars of his time. Then, further to the famous Alexander of Aphrodisias (see infra), one could also mention his father (see Sharples 2005, pp. 53-56). ↑

56. For a rapid glance over the papyri mentioned in these notes and over other, more doubtful or post-second-century-CE ones, please see again Privitera 2012; for a detailed analysis, see the Corpus dei Papiri Filosofici Greci e Latini (CPF) I.1*, pp. 251-395, and Commentaria et Lexica Graeca in Papyris reperta (CLGP) I 1.4, pp. 243-272, put together by teams of scholars. ↑

57. It must be pointed out that first- and second-century-CE papyri have been found with traces of commentaries on/paraphrases of the Topics (P.Fay. 3 = P.Lond.Lit. 180, LDAB 392; PSI IX 1095, LDAB 5252); in contrast, it is not very plausible that P.Oxy. XLVII 3320 (LDAB 4814) is a commentary on the Analytics. Other papyri can also be traced to the passage from the second to the third century CE, such as P.Syrac. inv. 31 (De caelo; LDAB 9951) and P.Harr. I 2 (Categories; LDAB 4988). ↑

58. For other citations of the work in papyrus commentaries on second-century--CE poetic texts, see BKT III, pp. 27-29 = P.Berol. inv. 8439 (LDAB 4589); see also, alongside the mention of the presumed Aristotelian Problems, P.Oxy. XXXV 2744 (LDAB 4824). ↑

59. There is debate over what the other Aristotelian work cited in the papyrus is, whether it is the Historia animalium or the lost dialogue On Justice (as proposed by Esposito 2005). Another glossary from shortly afterwards (P.Oxy. XV 1802 + LXXI 4812, LDAB 5091) perhaps uses, together with the Historia animalium, the Constitution of the People of Soli and the Constitution of the Thessalians. ↑

60. There is doubt over the mention of the Constitution of the People of Aegina or the Constitution of the People of Aenus in P.Oxy. XXX 2527 (LDAB 4817), second-century-CE commentary on a work of poetry; perhaps see also P.Oxy. X 1241 (LDAB 4636), again from the second century CE, with possible reference to the Constitution of Pellene; other citations (e.g. in P.Oxy. LIV 3722 or XXIX 2506) are even more uncertain. Of course, the Historia animalium and Constitutions are not the only works by Aristotle to be attested to on papyrus between the first and second centuries CE: for example, the second-century-CE anonymous commentary on Plato’s Theaetetus conserved in P.Berol. inv. 9782 (BKT II, pp. 3-51; LDAB 3764), cites the Topics, and the Commentary on Demosthenes by Didymus Chalcenterus (the famous Alexandrian grammarian who died in the Augustan age) conserved in P.Berol. inv. 9780r (BKT I, pp. 4-73, LDAB 769), datable to the second/third century CE, cites an epigram by Aristotle, the so-called “Song for Hermias” and Customs of the Barbarians. ↑

61. Manetti 1999 focuses specifically on the Aristotelian doxography in the London papyrus. ↑

62. On Aristotelianism of the Neronian age, now see Hatzimichali 2023, pp. 497-499, with useful notes on Seneca himself. ↑

63. See above all Rashed 2011 and Manetti 2012, pp. 16-20; for a discussion on paragraphs 16-17 of Galen’s De indolentia, reproduced following the text published in Manetti 2012, and further bibliography, see BIBPAL-LET. Furthermore, it may be that Aristotle’s work On Plants, unknown to an attentive commentator such as Alexander of Aphrodisias, was instead known to Nicolaus of Damascus, working in Rome in the Augustan era, further attesting to the dissemination of Aristotle’s esoteric works in imperial-age Rome (Rashed 2011, pp. 63-64 and 76). ↑

64. Lastly, Galen himself writes numerous commentaries on Aristotle’s works of logics, which we must imagine were in his library (Galen. Libr. Propr., vol. 19, pp. 41, 16 – 42, 7 Kühn) and generally often deals with Aristotle’s texts, to the point of writing that his treatise De usu partium is a reworking of Aristotle’s De partibus animalium (Galen. Libr. Propr., vol. 19, pp. 20, 17 – 21, 2 Kühn). On the reception of Aristotle in Galen, see, recently, Chiaradonna 2012, pp. 107-108 and the summary in Hankinson 2016. ↑

65. See Rashed 2021, pp. ccxcviii-cccii. We are sure that Ptolemy’s work was known to the Aristotelian commentators of the sixth century CE (Elias (olim David) Comm. Categ., in CAG 18,1, p. 107, 11-14 Busse). ↑

66. It is only mentioned in passing that Apuleius, Platonic author with a keen interest in Aristotelianism, gained his philosophical education in Athens (suffice it to cite the translation of De mundo). Again set in Athens is Noctes Atticae by Aulus Gellius, who often mentions Aristotle and sometimes cites extracts of his works word for word: usually from the Problems, but at times he alludes to works such as the Historia animalium (e.g. Gell. 10, 2, 1). There is an interesting testimony that Aristotle’s books could be found and easily borrowed from the library of Tivoli (Gell. 19, 5, 4). On Apuleius, Gellius and their Aristotelian readings, see Hatzimichali 2023, pp. 499-501. See above on Gellius’ testimonies on the library of Speusippus bought by Aristotle (Gell. 3, 7, 13) and on the alleged exchange of letters between Aristotle and Alexander the Great (Gell. 20, 5, 6-10). ↑

67. On the inscription and on its implications on the biography of Alexander of Aphrodisias, see Chaniotis 2004a (revised in Chaniotis 2004b, pp. 388-389) and Sharples 2005. ↑

Bibliography

Auffret, T. (2019), Un «nouveau» fragment du Περὶ φιλοσοφίας: le papyrus d’Aï Khanoum, «Elenchos» 40, pp. 25-66.

Barnes, J. (1997), Roman Aristotle, in Barnes, J. – Griffin, M. (eds.), Philosophia Togata II. Plato and Aristotle at Rome, Oxford, pp. 1-69. Ora in Barnes, J. (ed.), Mantissa. Essays in Ancient Philosophy, vol. IV, Oxford 2015, pp. 407-478.

Bénatouïl, T. (2016), Aristotle and the Stoa, in Falcon 2016, pp. 56-75.

Blum, R. (1991), Kallimachos. The Alexandrian Library and the Origins of Bibliography, Madison (WI). Ed. orig.: Kallimachos und die Literaturverzeichnung bei den Griechen. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Bibliographie, Frankfurt am Main 1977.

Canfora, L. (1986), La biblioteca scomparsa, Palermo

Canfora, L. (1999), Aristotele “fondatore” della biblioteca di Alessandria, «QS» 50, pp. 11-21.

Canfora, L. (2022), The Fate of Aristotle’s Library, «Antigone» 6, online (https://antigonejournal.com/2022/06/aristotle-library-alexandria/).

Casson, L. (2001), Libraries in the Ancient World, New Haven (CT)-London.

Chaniotis, A. (2004a), Epigraphic Evidence for the Philosopher Alexander of Aphrodisias, «BICS» 47, pp.79-81.

Chaniotis, A. (2004b), New Inscriptions from Aphrodisias (1995-2001), «AJA» 108, pp. 377-416.

Chiaradonna, R. (2012), Interpretazione filosofica e ricezione del corpus. Il caso di Aristotele (100 a.C. - 250 d.C.), «Quaestio» 11, pp. 83-114.

Chroust, A.-H. (1962), The Miraculous Disappearance and Rediscovery of the Corpus Aristotelicum, «C&M» 23, pp. 50-67.

Corradi, M. (2018), Neleus, in «Lexicon of Greek Grammarians of Antiquity».

Dietze-Mager, G. (2015a), Aristoteles-Viten und Schriftenkataloge. Die Aristoteles-Schrift des Ptolemaios im Licht der Überlieferung, «SCO» 61, pp. 97-166.

Dietze-Mager, G. (2015b), Die Pinakes des Andronikos im Licht der Vorrede in der Aristotelesschrift des Ptolemaios, «Aevum» 89, pp. 93-123.

Dillon, J. (2016), The Reception of Aristotle in Antiochus and Cicero, in Falcon 2016, pp. 183-201.

Dix, T.K. (2004), Aristotle’s ‘Peripatetic’ Library, in Raven, J. (ed.), Lost Libraries. The Destruction of Great Book Collections since Antiquity, Basingstoke-New York, pp. 58-74.

Dix, T.K. (2013), “Beware of promising your library to anyone”. Assembling a private library at Rome, in König – Oikonomopoulou – Woolf 2013, pp. 209-234.

Dorandi, T. (2002), Qualche Aspetto Controverso della Biografia di Eudemo da Rodi, in Bodnár, I. – Fortenbaugh, W.W. (eds.), Eudemus of Rhodes. Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities. Vol. XI, New Brunswick (NJ)-London, pp. 39-57.

Dorandi, T. (2006), La vita Hesychii d’Aristote, «SCO» 52, pp. 87-106.

Dorandi, T. (2013), Diogenes Laertius. Lives of Eminent Philosophers, Cambridge.

Drossaart Lulofs, H.J. (1999), Neleus of Scepsis and the Fate of the Library of the Peripatos, in Beyers, R. et al. (eds.), Tradition et traduction. Les textes philosophiques et scientifiques grecs au Moyen Age latin. Hommage à Fernand Bossier, Leuven, pp. 9-24.

Düring, I. (1956), Ariston or Hermippus? A Note on the Catalogue of Aristotle’s Writings, «C&M» 17, pp. 11-21.

Düring, I. (1976), Aristotele, Milano. Ed. orig.: Aristoteles – Darstellung und Interpretation seines Denkens, Heidelberg 1966.

Erbì, M. (2020), Epicuro. Lettere. Frammenti e testimonianze, Pisa-Roma.

Esposito, E. (2005), P. Oxy. XVII 2087 e una citazione dal Περὶ δικαιοσύνης di Aristotele, «ZPE» 154, pp. 79-85.

Falcon, A. (2016, ed.), Brill’s Companion to the Reception of Aristotle in Antiquity, Leiden.

Falcon, A. (2017), Aristotelismo, Torino.

Falcon, A. (2021²), Commentators on Aristotle. Supplement on Andronicus of Rhodes, in «Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy».

Fraser, P.M. (1972), Ptolemaic Alexandria. Vol. I: Text, Oxford.

Frede, M. (1999), Epilogue, in Algra, K. et al. (eds.), The Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy, Cambridge, pp. 771-797.

Freyburger, G. (2019), Censorinus. Le jour anniversaire de la naissance, Paris.

Gottschalk, H.B. (1972), Notes on the Wills of the Peripatetic Scholarchs, «Hermes» 100, pp. 314-342.

Gottschalk, H.B. (1987), Aristotelian Philosophy in the Roman World from the Time of Cicero to the End of the Second Century AD, «ANRW» 2.36.2, pp. 1079-1174.

Grayeff, F. (1974), Aristotle and his school. An inquiry into the history of the Peripatos, with a commentary on Metaphysics Ζ, Η, Λ and Θ, London.

Hahm, D.E. (2007), Critolaus and Late Hellenistic Peripatetic Philosophy, in Ioppolo, A.M. – Sedley, D.N. (eds.), Pyrrhonists, patricians, Platonizers: Hellenistic philosophy in the period 155-86 BC, Napoli 2007, pp. 47-101.

Hankinson, R.J. (2016), Galen’s Reception of Aristotle, in Falcon 2016, pp. 238-257.

Hatzimichali, M. (2013), The texts of Plato and Aristotle in the first century bc, in Schofield, M. (ed.), Aristotle, Plato and Pythagoreanism in the First Century BC. New Directions for Philosophy, Cambridge, pp. 1-27.

Hatzimichali, M. (2016), Andronicus of Rhodes and the Construction of the Aristotelian Corpus, in Falcon 2016, pp. 81-100.

Hatzimichali, M. (2021), The Early Reception of Aristotle’s Biology, in Connell, S.M. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Aristotle’s Biology, Cambridge, pp. 228-245.

Hatzimichali, M. (2023), Reading Aristotle at Rome, in Garani, M. – Konstan, D. – Reydams-Schils, G. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Roman Philosophy, Oxford, pp. 491-505.

Irigoin, J. (1994), Les éditions de textes, in Montanari, F. (ed.), La philologie grecque à l’époque héllenistique et romaine. Entretiens sur l’antiquité classique, vol. 40, Vandœuvres-Genève, pp. 39-82.

Jacob, C. (2013), Fragments of a history of ancient libraries, in König – Oikonomopoulou – Woolf 2013, pp. 57-81.

Johnson, W.A. (2012), Cicero and Tyrannio: mens addita videtur meis aedibus (ad Atticum 4.8.2), «CW» 105, pp. 471-477.

Keaney, J.J. (1963), Two Notes on the Tradition of Aristotle’s Writings, «AJPh» 84, pp. 52-63.

König, J. – Oikonomopoulou, A. – Woolf, G. (eds., 2013), Ancient Libraries, Cambridge.

Kosmetatou, E. (2003), The Attalids in the Troad. An Addendum: An Episode of the Perils of the Aristotelian Corpus, «AncSoc» 33, pp. 53-60.

Lefebvre, D. (2016), Aristotle and the Hellenistic Peripatos: From Theophrastus to Critolaus, in Falcon 2016, pp. 13-34.

Lindsay, H. (1997), Strabo on Apellicon’s Library, «RhM» 140, pp. 290-298.

Long, A.A. (1995), Cicero’s Plato and Aristotle, in Powell, J.G.F. (ed.), Cicero the Philosopher. Twelve Papers, Oxford, pp. 37-61.

Lord, C. (1986), On the Early History of the Aristotelian Corpus, «AJPh» 107, pp. 137-161.

Lynch, J.P. (1972), Aristotle’s School, Berkeley (CA).

Manetti, D. (1999), ‘Aristotle’ and the role of doxography in the Anonymus Londiniensis (PBrLibr Inv. 137), in Van der Eijk, P.J. (ed.), Ancient Histories of Medicine. Essays in Medical Doxography and Historiography in Classical Antiquity, Leiden-Boston-Köln.

Manetti, D. (2012), Galeno Περὶ ἀλυπίας o il difficile equilibrismo dei filologi, in Manetti, D. (ed.), Studi sul De indolentia di Galeno, Pisa-Roma, pp. 9-22.

McAdon, B. (2006) Strabo, Plutarch, Porphyry and the Transmission and Composition of Aristotle’s Rhetoric – a Hunch, «Rhetoric Society Quarterly» 36, pp. 77-105.

Montana, F. (2012), La filologia ellenistica. Lineamenti di una storia culturale, Pavia.

Montana, F. (2014), Hellenistic Scholarship, in Montanari, F. – Matthaios, S. – Rengakos, A. (eds.), Brill’s Companion to Ancient Greek Scholarship, Leiden-Boston, pp. 60-183.

Montanari, F. (2000), Demetrius of Phalerum on Literature, in Fortenbaugh, W.W. – Schütrumpf, E. (eds.), Demetrius of Phalerum. Text, Translation and Discussion, London-New York, pp. 331-345. Trad. in: Gli studi omerici di Demetrio Falereo, «SemRom» 4 (2001), pp. 143-157.

Montanari, F. (2012), The Peripatos on Literature. Interpretation, Use and Abuse, in Martano, A. – Matelli, E. – Mirhady, D. (eds), Praxiphanes of Mytilene and Chamaeleon of Heraclea: Text, Translation, and Discussion, London-New York, pp. 339-358.

Moraux, P. (1951), Les listes anciennes des ouvrages d’Aristote, Louvain.

Moraux, P. (2000), L’Aristotelismo presso i Greci. Vol. I. La rinascita dell’Aristotelismo nel I secolo a.C., Milano. Ed. orig.: P. Moraux, Der Aristotelismus bei den Griechen. Vol. I, Die Renaissance des Aristotelismus im 1. Jh. v. Chr., Berlin-New York 1973.

Nagy, G. (1998), The Library of Pergamon as a Classical Model, in Koester, H. (ed.) Pergamon: Citadel of the Gods. Archaelogical Record, Literary Description, and Religious Development, Harrisburg (PA), pp. 185-232.

Olson, S.D. (2007), Athenaeus. The Learned Banqueters. Vol. I: Books 1-3.106e, Cambridge (MA)-London.

Olson, S.D. (2024), Athenaeus Naucratites. Deipnosophistae. Vol. I: Libri i-iii.73 (Epitome), Berlin-New York

Pajón Leyra, I. (2013), The “Aristotelian Corpus” and the Rhodian Tradition: New Light from Posidonius on the Transmission of Aristotle’s Works, «CQ» 63, pp. 723-733.

Perkams, M. (2019), The Date and Place of Andronicus’ Edition of Aristotle’s Works According to a Neglected Arabic Source, «AGPh» 101, pp. 445-468.

Pfeiffer, R. (1968), History of Classical Scholarship. From the Beginnings to the End of the Hellenistic Age, Oxford.

Primavesi, O. (2007), Ein Blick in den Stollen von Scepsis: vier Kapitel zur frühen Überlieferung des Corpus Aristotelicum, «Philologus» 151, pp. 51-77.

Privitera, I. (2011), Aristotle and the Papyri: the Direct Tradition, «Quaestio» 11, pp. 115-140

Rashed, M. (2011), Aristote à Rome au IIe siècle: Galien, De indolentia, §§ 15-18, «Elenchos» 32, pp. 55-78.

Rashed, M. (2021), Ptolémée «al-Gharīb». épître à Gallus sue la vie, le testament et les écrits d’Aristote, Paris.

Reinhardt, T. (2003), Cicero’s Topica, Oxford.

Richardson, N.J. (1994), Aristotle and Hellenistic Scholarship, in Montanari, F. (ed.), La philologie grecque à l’époque héllenistique et romaine. Entretiens sur l’antiquité classique, vol. 40, Vandœuvres-Genève, pp. 7-28.

Sandbach, F.H. (1985), Arisotle and the Stoics, Cambridge.

Schubert, P. (2002), Strabon et le sort de la bibliothèque d’Aristote, «LEC» 70, pp. 225-237.

Sedley, D.N. (2003), Philodemus and the Decentralisation of Philosophy, «CErc» 33, pp. 31-41.

Shackleton Bailey, D.R. (1965) Cicero’s Letters to Atticus. Vol. II. 58-54 B.C. 46-93 (Books III and IV), Cambridge.

Sharples, R.W. (2005), Implications of the new Alexander of Aphrodisias inscription, «BICS» 48, pp. 47-56.

Sharples, R.W. (2010), Peripatetic Philosophy 200 BC to 200 AD. An Introduction and Collection of Sources in Translation, Cambridge.

Shute, R. (1888) On the History of the Process by which the Aristotelian Writings Arrived at Their Present Form, Oxford.

Sloan, M.C. (2010), Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics as the Original Locus for the Septem Circumstantiae, «CQ» 105, pp. 236-251.

Sollenberger, M.G. (1984), Diogenes Laertius’ Life of Theophrastus: A Critica Edition of the Greek Text with a Translation and Commentary, PhD Diss., New Brunswick (NJ).

Staikos, K.S. (2016), The Library of Aristotle. The Most Important Collection of Books Ever Formed, New Castle (DE).

Strohmaier, G. (1987), „Von Alexandrien nach Baghdad“ – eine Fiktive Schultradition, in Wiesner, J. (ed.), Aristoteles. Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet. Vol. II: Kommentierung, Überlieferung, Nachleben, Berlin-New York, pp. 380-389.

Tanner, R.G. (2000), Aristotle’s Works: The Possible Origins of the Alexandria Collection, in MacLeod, R. (ed.), The Library of Alexandria: Centre of Learning in the Ancient World, London-New York, 2000, pp. 79-91.

Tracy, S.V. (2000), Demetrius of Phalerum: who was He and who was He not?, in Fortenbaugh, W.W. – Schütrumpf, E. (eds.), Demetrius of Phalerum. Text, Translation and Discussion, London-New York, pp. 331-345.

Tsouni, G. (2016), Peripatetic Ethics in the First Century BC: The Summary of Didymus, in Falcon 2016, pp. 120-137.

Tutrone, F. (2013), Libraries and intellectual debate in the late Republic: the case of the Aristotelian corpus, in König – Oikonomopoulou – Woolf 2013, pp. 152-166.

Ulacco, A. (2016), The Appropriation of Aristotle in Ps.-Pythagorean Treatises, in Falcon 2016, pp. 202-217.

Verde, F. (2016), Aristotle and the Garden, in Falcon 2016, pp. 35-55.

Wisse, J. (1989), Ethos and Pathos. From Aristotle to Cicero, Amsterdam.

Sources

About the author

Francesco Cannizzaro -
Università degli studi di Firenze