Periodic Reporting for period 1 - PolArist (The Fragmentary Constitutions of Aristotle)
Reporting period: 2019-09-01 to 2021-08-31
What is the best form of government? Many would agree today that it is some form of democracy. However, Aristotle, one of the greatest minds of antiquity, certainly did not hold this opinion. He even considered democracy one of the degenerated forms of government, comparable to tyranny. He criticized it particularly because demagogues were given the freedom to mislead the people and manipulate them into voting pernicious resolutions. This sounds very modern in the current climate of fake news, alternative facts and Euroscepticism. But where does Aristotle’s opinion come from? His inquiry into the best form of government is no armchair philosophizing but is based on his research into the existing political systems and their history. This research was collected in his now fragmentarily preserved Constitutions. Therefore, in order to understand Aristotle’s political philosophy, it is necessary to study him also as a historian, an approach which is rarely taken. This requires a comprehensive and detailed analysis of the individual fragments and a synthesis which attempts to reconstruct the work and explores Aristotle’s method, sources and impact on later generations.
The overall objectives of the project were the following:
1. To collect all the fragments of the Constitutions
2. To provide a textual reconstruction of the work
3. To define the content and structure of the Constitutions
4. To explore the relation to other writers and Aristotle's reception
5. To study the link with the Politics and Aristotle’s political philosophy
6. To identify the sources, method, historical value and authorship of the work
The overall objectives of the project were the following:
1. To collect all the fragments of the Constitutions
2. To provide a textual reconstruction of the work
3. To define the content and structure of the Constitutions
4. To explore the relation to other writers and Aristotle's reception
5. To study the link with the Politics and Aristotle’s political philosophy
6. To identify the sources, method, historical value and authorship of the work
For the collection of the fragments, the point of departure were the editions of Rose 1886 and Gigon 1987. These collections were expanded with several new fragments. For the textual constitution, it quickly became evident that, for a number of key texts, it was necessary to inspect the original manuscripts, particularly for papyri, collections of proverbs and scholia. Apart from the creation of a critical edition, the main editorial activity was separating the fragments from the context in which they were quoted. The fragments are usually taken out of context and inserted into a new argument that is often entirely different from the original one. In particular, the Fellow compared the citations of the Athenian Constitution with the original to assess the reliability of the intermediate authors. A special case was Plutarch. The modern edition of Gigon often prints large sections of Plutarch as fragments of Aristotle, but this study showed that Plutarch usually cites Aristotle only for one detail, which he mixes in with information drawn from other sources. Aristotle is never Plutarch’s unique source for long sections. A similar study was conducted for the epitome of Heraclides Lembus, one of the most important sources for the fragmentary Constitutions. The Fellow further assessed the relationship with other writers of Constitutions. Special attention was devoted to the various Spartan Constitutions from antiquity. The most famous work is that of Xenophon. In his description of the Spartan political system, Aristotle discusses similar topics as Xenophon does in his own Spartan Constitution. Unlike Xenophon, however, Aristotle offers a historical investigation into the genesis of this constitution. While Xenophon simply projects the Spartan constitution as it existed in his day onto Lycurgus, the famous Spartan lawgiver, Aristotle does not simply attribute everything to Lycurgus but attempts to distinguish separate phases and key politicians. The other important figure Aristotle often replies to is the historian Ephorus. He often treats similar stories as Ephorus but deviates in important details. Especially in chronological matters, he often seems to disagree with him. The Fellow further studied the link with the Politics (particularly the references to individual cities in the Politics) and found that these can almost always be assigned to the Constitutions. Only in rare cases were there any substantial deviations between the two works. Thus, the Politics offers a further window into the lost Constitutions. Finally, Aristotle is seen to have drawn on local historiography, just as he does in the Athenian Constitution. An important aspect of his approach as a historian is his "archaeological" method. He often refers to objects surviving in certain cities, which he uses to reconstruct the history of the city in question. What also sets some of the other Constitutions apart from Aristotle’s Athenian Constitution is that they devote more attention to ethnographic aspects and the general "way of life" of a certain city, a topic which is completely absent in the Athenian Constitution.
The most important innovative aspect of this proposal is that it studied Aristotle as a historian. This sheds an entirely new light on Aristotle as a thinker, since most scholars focus only on Aristotle's philosophy. Yet, his whole life, Aristotle was an avid researcher, fascinated by history and engaged in politics. Studying him as a historian therefore complements the modern primarily philosophical portrayal of him and provides further insight into his influence on later generations. Indeed, Aristotle's works are an important part of our common European cultural heritage and thus remain highly relevant today, especially at a time when Eurosceptic populists question the validity of our European identity. In particular, this project focuses on a part of the heritage that has suffered more in the course of the transmission and is therefore less known.
Another key innovative feature is that the project devoted substantial attention to the working method and general reliability of the authors quoting Aristotle, the purpose of the quotation, the exact boundaries of the fragment. Past scholars tended to consider ancient writers mere compilers, faithfully summarizing their sources. However, the textual reconstruction is much more problematic. Almost all of the fragments of the Constitutions have been taken out of their original context or argument. Indeed, in order to make any inferences about Aristotle’s method, sources, influence, etc., it is necessary to know what the fragment is actually saying. The reliability of a fragment is thus heavily dependent on the function in the context in which it is embedded and strongly varies from one author to the other.
Another original point is that this projects bridged the gap between philology, philosophy and ancient history. The philological-editorial component was the basis for the philosophical and historical analysis. With regard to philosophy, the project assessed how the material collected in the Constitutions served the philosophical conclusions drawn in the Politics and how it related to the historical examples discussed in the Politics. With respect to ancient history, the study of the content contributed to a better understanding of the ancient Greek political system, for which our knowledge otherwise depends largely on inscriptions.
Finally, for the textual constitution, the most spectacular progress concerns the fragments preserved in collections of proverbs, especially Zenobius, which are notoriously poorly edited. Inspection of the original manuscripts (about 45 in total) brought to light countless new readings and several new fragments of Aristotle. Similar progress was made in particular for lexica and scholia.
Another key innovative feature is that the project devoted substantial attention to the working method and general reliability of the authors quoting Aristotle, the purpose of the quotation, the exact boundaries of the fragment. Past scholars tended to consider ancient writers mere compilers, faithfully summarizing their sources. However, the textual reconstruction is much more problematic. Almost all of the fragments of the Constitutions have been taken out of their original context or argument. Indeed, in order to make any inferences about Aristotle’s method, sources, influence, etc., it is necessary to know what the fragment is actually saying. The reliability of a fragment is thus heavily dependent on the function in the context in which it is embedded and strongly varies from one author to the other.
Another original point is that this projects bridged the gap between philology, philosophy and ancient history. The philological-editorial component was the basis for the philosophical and historical analysis. With regard to philosophy, the project assessed how the material collected in the Constitutions served the philosophical conclusions drawn in the Politics and how it related to the historical examples discussed in the Politics. With respect to ancient history, the study of the content contributed to a better understanding of the ancient Greek political system, for which our knowledge otherwise depends largely on inscriptions.
Finally, for the textual constitution, the most spectacular progress concerns the fragments preserved in collections of proverbs, especially Zenobius, which are notoriously poorly edited. Inspection of the original manuscripts (about 45 in total) brought to light countless new readings and several new fragments of Aristotle. Similar progress was made in particular for lexica and scholia.