Periodic Reporting for period 1 - FragArist (The Fragments of Aristotle: A Reconstruction of his Lost Works)
Reporting period: 2023-06-01 to 2025-11-30
Aristotle, one of the most influential minds of antiquity, was a very prolific writer. He is known to have written over 200 works, but only about 10% of these have survived. Those transmitted through medieval manuscripts go back to his college lectures and were written for his own circle of students. However, he also wrote many works for a wider audience, which were initially far more influential. These lost works survive only in so-called fragments, i.e. in citations in later authors, and in a number of epitomes. So what is preserved today is, paradoxically, not what Aristotle was known for throughout most of antiquity or even what he intended to be known for. The fragments of Aristotle’s lost works are thus essential to understand his philosophy and assess his impact on later generations. Yet the fragmentary works play only a marginal role in modern research on Aristotle. The result is that the Aristotle met in contemporary scholarship is really only the Aristotle of the preserved school writings. The lost works include philosophical dialogues, letters, speeches, poems, doxographical works (on Plato, the Pythagoreans and Democritus), works on logic, ethics, rhetoric, poetry (particularly his collection of Homeric Problems and the elusive second book of the Poetics, which treated comedy), physics, biology, medicine, historical collections (particularly the Constitutions), catalogues (e.g. lists of victors at the Olympic Games and the Pythian Games) and production notes on the dramatic competitions in Athens (the Didascaliae).
The project FragArist aims to develop the definitive critical edition of the fragments of Aristotle and reconstruct, analyze and interpret these lost works. This will be achieved by tackling the following objectives:
(1) To collect, edit, translate and contextualize all the fragments and assess their reliability.
(2) To reconstruct the lost works and trace their reception.
(3) To assess the authenticity of the individual fragments and of the lost works.
(4) To assess the relation of the lost to the esoteric works.
(5) To study and evaluate Aristotle’s philosophical and scholarly method in the lost works.
The project FragArist aims to develop the definitive critical edition of the fragments of Aristotle and reconstruct, analyze and interpret these lost works. This will be achieved by tackling the following objectives:
(1) To collect, edit, translate and contextualize all the fragments and assess their reliability.
(2) To reconstruct the lost works and trace their reception.
(3) To assess the authenticity of the individual fragments and of the lost works.
(4) To assess the relation of the lost to the esoteric works.
(5) To study and evaluate Aristotle’s philosophical and scholarly method in the lost works.
The most promising philosophical works that our team has worked on so far are On Ideas and On Philosophy. In On Ideas, Aristotle critiqued the famous Theory of Forms of his teacher Plato. On Philosophy contained a historical inquiry into the meanings of ‘wisdom’ and its various usages in pre-Platonic speculation, featured a criticism of Platonic and Academic theories of Form-numbers and expounded Aristotle’s theological and cosmological views. We have also re-editd the pseudo-Aristotelian Diaereses, which consists of a series of schematic classifications of philosophical concepts and seems to be a scholastic handbook meant as an aid for dialectical/rhetorical discussions in the Academy, incorporating both Platonic/Academic and Aristotelian doctrines.
The main work on poetics that we have studied so far is the Homeric Problems. This was a collection of ‘problems’ in Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey, i.e. passages that contained inconsistencies, impossibilities or morally reprehensible scenes or characterizations, which Aristotle aimed to counter by offering his own ‘solutions’.
For the scientific fragments, we have studied the Zoika, which may have been a notebook Aristotle drew on when writing his now extant biological works. It was concerned with descriptions of animal coloration, anatomy and behavior and probably included or involved the classification of animals according to animal kinds. Furthermore, we have worked on Aristotle’s lost Anatomies, which discussed not only general anatomy but also appears to have created divisions and further subdivisions of animals and tackled comparative anatomy between different subspecies. One team member has also been writing a commentary on the epitome of Aristotle’s biological works by Aristophanes of Byzantium, which draws not only on the surviving biological works of Aristotle but also appears to have incorporated material from Aristotle’s lost writings.
For the historical fragments, we have studied the fragments on proverbs and edited the fragments of various Constitutions, devoting special attention to the Spartan Constitution. The Constitutions was a massive collection discussing the history and political system of various Greek city-states and probably served as material input for Aristotle’s extant Politics. We have also studied the letters of Aristotle, which include both genuine and spurious texts.
Finally, a new edition and translation has been made of the main biographies of Aristotle. Special attention has been devoted to the doxographical section in Diogenes Laertius’ description of Aristotle’s life, which is based both on extant and on lost works of Aristotle. We have also been studying the sayings of Aristotle (extant not only in Greek but also in Syriac and Arabic).
The main work on poetics that we have studied so far is the Homeric Problems. This was a collection of ‘problems’ in Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey, i.e. passages that contained inconsistencies, impossibilities or morally reprehensible scenes or characterizations, which Aristotle aimed to counter by offering his own ‘solutions’.
For the scientific fragments, we have studied the Zoika, which may have been a notebook Aristotle drew on when writing his now extant biological works. It was concerned with descriptions of animal coloration, anatomy and behavior and probably included or involved the classification of animals according to animal kinds. Furthermore, we have worked on Aristotle’s lost Anatomies, which discussed not only general anatomy but also appears to have created divisions and further subdivisions of animals and tackled comparative anatomy between different subspecies. One team member has also been writing a commentary on the epitome of Aristotle’s biological works by Aristophanes of Byzantium, which draws not only on the surviving biological works of Aristotle but also appears to have incorporated material from Aristotle’s lost writings.
For the historical fragments, we have studied the fragments on proverbs and edited the fragments of various Constitutions, devoting special attention to the Spartan Constitution. The Constitutions was a massive collection discussing the history and political system of various Greek city-states and probably served as material input for Aristotle’s extant Politics. We have also studied the letters of Aristotle, which include both genuine and spurious texts.
Finally, a new edition and translation has been made of the main biographies of Aristotle. Special attention has been devoted to the doxographical section in Diogenes Laertius’ description of Aristotle’s life, which is based both on extant and on lost works of Aristotle. We have also been studying the sayings of Aristotle (extant not only in Greek but also in Syriac and Arabic).
First, we have found a series of new fragments of Aristotle. Whenever an ancient author cites Aristotle for information that is partly found in the extant works but with other or additional details, we also investigate whether the intermediate author is likely to have added or modified details or is more likely to be citing a lost work, in which Aristotle reprised certain topics also treated in other works.
We are also devoting substantial attention to the context in which each fragment is cited and the general reliability of the authors transmitting these fragments. Indeed, before we can say anything about a fragment, it is crucial to understand in what context it is cited and whether the citation is reliable at all.
Furthermore, we are including for the first time Syriac and Arabic texts. Important sources include collections of sayings, several letters of Aristotle that are only preserved in Arabic translation (such as the letter to Alexander on government) and Alexander of Aphrodisias’ work On Providence, which is preserved only in Arabic translation and contains a long discussion of Aristotle’s views on the eternity of the cosmos that might be derived from the lost work On Philosophy.
Moreover, we systematically study the authenticity of the fragments and the fragmentary works and also attempt to specify in what context the doubtful/spurious works originated. For the spuria are not one monolithic group: some were written by his pupils, while others were written many centuries later; some were merely misattributed works, while others were downright forgeries; and some works were written by Aristotle together with one of his students, while others were started by Aristotle but then continued or expanded by later Peripatetics. Our edition thus aims to be a collection of Aristotle and Aristotelica.
Finally, we evaluate how the lost works relate to the extant works. Some lost works appear to be hard to reconcile with the extant works, such as the Eudemus dialogue, which discussed the immortality of the soul and offered a Platonizing approach that is very different from what Aristotle writes in De anima. Other lost works often appear to clarify and complement the extant works. This is especially the case for the works On Ideas and On the Pythagoreans, which are echoed in the Metaphysics). Many of Aristotle’s lost works also served as scientific or material input for the extant works (e.g. the Politeiai and the Politics).
We are also devoting substantial attention to the context in which each fragment is cited and the general reliability of the authors transmitting these fragments. Indeed, before we can say anything about a fragment, it is crucial to understand in what context it is cited and whether the citation is reliable at all.
Furthermore, we are including for the first time Syriac and Arabic texts. Important sources include collections of sayings, several letters of Aristotle that are only preserved in Arabic translation (such as the letter to Alexander on government) and Alexander of Aphrodisias’ work On Providence, which is preserved only in Arabic translation and contains a long discussion of Aristotle’s views on the eternity of the cosmos that might be derived from the lost work On Philosophy.
Moreover, we systematically study the authenticity of the fragments and the fragmentary works and also attempt to specify in what context the doubtful/spurious works originated. For the spuria are not one monolithic group: some were written by his pupils, while others were written many centuries later; some were merely misattributed works, while others were downright forgeries; and some works were written by Aristotle together with one of his students, while others were started by Aristotle but then continued or expanded by later Peripatetics. Our edition thus aims to be a collection of Aristotle and Aristotelica.
Finally, we evaluate how the lost works relate to the extant works. Some lost works appear to be hard to reconcile with the extant works, such as the Eudemus dialogue, which discussed the immortality of the soul and offered a Platonizing approach that is very different from what Aristotle writes in De anima. Other lost works often appear to clarify and complement the extant works. This is especially the case for the works On Ideas and On the Pythagoreans, which are echoed in the Metaphysics). Many of Aristotle’s lost works also served as scientific or material input for the extant works (e.g. the Politeiai and the Politics).