Complete. From “The Historical and Critical Dictionary.”

ARISTOTLE, commonly called the “Prince of Philosophers,” or the Philosopher, by way of excellence, was the founder of a school which surpassed, and at length swallowed up, all the rest. Not but that it had its reverses of fortune, especially in this seventeenth century, in which it has been violently shaken, though the Catholic divines on the one side, and the Protestant on the other, have run (as to the quenching of a fire) to its relief, and fortified themselves so strongly, by the secular arm, against the new philosophy, that it is not like to lose its dominion for a long time. Mr. Moveri met with so many good materials in a work of Father Rapin that he has given a very large article of Aristotle, enough to dispense with my assistance. Accordingly, I design not to enlarge upon it as far as the subject might allow, but shall content myself with observing, in these remarks, some of the errors which I have collected concerning this philosopher. I think I have discovered some in Father Rapin’s account. It is not certain that Aristotle exercised pharmacy at Athens, while he was a disciple of Plato; nor is it more certain that he did not. Very little credit ought to be given to a current tradition that he learned several things of a Jew, and much less to the story of his pretended conversion to Judaism. They who pretend that he was born a Jew are much more grossly mistaken. The wrong pointing of a certain passage occasioned this mistake. They are deceived who say that he was a disciple of Socrates for three years successively; for Socrates died twelve or fifteen years before Aristotle was born. Aristotle’s behavior towards his master, Plato, is variously related. Some will have it that through prodigious vanity and ingratitude he set up altar against altar; that is, erected a school at Athens during Plato’s life, and in opposition to him; others say that he did not set up for a professor till after his master’s death. We are told some things concerning his amours which are not altogether to his advantage. It was pretended that his conjugal affection was idolatrous, and that, if he had not retired from Athens, the process for irreligion, which the priests had entered against him, would have been attended with the same consequences as that against Socrates. Though he deserved very great praise, yet it is certain that most of the errors concerning him are to be looked for in the extravagant commendations which have been heaped upon him; as for example: Is it not a downright falsehood to say that if Aristotle spoke, in his natural philosophy, like a man, he spoke, in his moral philosophy, like a God; and that it is a question whether, in his moral philosophy, he partakes more of the lawyer than of the priest; more of the priest than of the prophet; more of the prophet than of the God? I shall, in these remarks, touch upon some praises bestowed on him, which are still greater than these. Cardinal Pallavicini scruples not, in some measure, to confess that if it had not been for Aristotle the Church would have wanted some of its Articles of Faith. The Christians are not the only people who have authorized his philosophy; the Mohammedans are little less prejudiced in its favor; and we are told that, to this day, notwithstanding the ignorance which reigns among them, they have schools for this sect. It will be an everlasting subject of wonder to persons who know what philosophy is, to find that Aristotle’s authority was so much respected in the schools for several ages, that when a disputant quoted a passage from this philosopher, he who maintained the Thesis, durst not say “transeat,” but must either deny the passage, or explain it in his own way. It is in this manner we treat the Holy Scriptures in the divinity schools. The parliaments, which have proscribed all other philosophy but that of Aristotle, are more excusable than the doctors; for whether the members of parliament were really persuaded, as is very probable, that this philosophy was the best of any, or were not, the public good might induce them to prohibit new opinions, lest the academical divisions should extend their malignant influence to the tranquillity of the State. What is most astonishing to wise men is that the professors should be so strongly prejudiced in favor of Aristotle’s philosophy. Had this profession been confined to his “Poetry” and “Rhetoric,” it had been less wonderful; but they were fond of the weakest of his works—I mean his “Logic” and “Natural Philosophy.” This justice, however, must be done to the blindest of his followers, that they have deserted him where he clashes with Christianity, and this he did in points of the greatest consequence, since he maintained the eternity of the world, and did not believe that Providence extended itself to sublunary beings. As to the immortality of the soul, it is not certainly known whether he acknowledged it or not. We shall take notice in another place of the long disputes which have reigned in Italy on this subject. In the year 1647 the famous Capuchin, Valerian Magni, published a work concerning the atheism of Aristotle. About one hundred and thirty years before, Marc Anthony Venerius published a system of philosophy, in which he discovered several inconsistencies between Aristotle’s doctrine and the truths of religion. Campanella maintained the same in his book, “De Reductione ad Religionem,” which was approved at Rome in the year 1630. It was not long since maintained in Holland, in the prefaces to some books, that the doctrine of this philosopher differed but little from Spinozism. In the meantime, if some Peripatetics may be believed, he was not ignorant of the mystery of the Trinity. He made a very good end, and enjoys eternal happiness. He composed a very great number of books, a great part of which is come down to us. It is true, some critics raise a thousand scruples about them. He was extremely honored in his own city, and there were heretics who worshiped his image jointly with that of Jesus Christ. I nowhere find that the Antinomians bore greater respect to this wise pagan than to the “Uncreated Wisdom,” nor that the Aëtians were excommunicated for giving their disciples Aristotle’s “Categories” for a Catechism. But I have somewhere read that before the Reformation there were churches in Germany in which Aristotle’s “Ethics” were read every Sunday to the people, instead of the Gospel. There are but few instances of zeal for religion which have not been shown for the Peripatetic philosophy; Paul de Foix, famous for his embassies and his learning, would not see Francis Patricius at Terrara, because he was informed that that learned man taught a philosophy different from the Peripatetic. This was treating the enemies of Aristotle as zealots treat heretics. After all, it is no wonder that the Peripatetic philosophy, as it has been taught for several centuries, found so many protectors, or that the interests of it are believed to be inseparable from those of theology; for it accustoms the mind to acquiesce without evidence. This union of interests may be esteemed as a pledge to the Peripatetics of the immortality of their sect and an argument to abate the hopes of the new philosophers; considering, withal, that there are some doctrines of Aristotle which the Moderns have rejected, and which must, sooner or later, be adopted again. The Protestant divines have very much altered their conduct, if it be true, as we are told, that the first reformers clamored so loudly against the Peripatetic philosophy. The kind of death which, in some respects, does most honor to the memory of Aristotle is that which some have reported, viz., that his vexation at not being able to discover the cause of the flux and reflux of the Euripus occasioned the distemper of which he died. Some say that being retired into the island of Eubœa, to avoid a process against him for irreligion, he poisoned himself. But why should he quit Athens to free himself from persecution this way? Heyschius affirms not only that sentence of death was pronounced against him for a hymn which he made in honor of his father-in-law, but also that he swallowed aconite in execution of the sentence. If this were true, it would have been mentioned by more authors.

  The number of ancient and modern writers who have exercised their pens on Aristotle, either in commenting on, or translating him, is endless. A catalogue of them is to be met with in some of the editions of his works, but not a complete one. See also a treatise of Father Labbé, entitled “A Short View of the Greek Interpreters of Aristotle and Plato,” hitherto published; printed at Paris in the year 1657 in four volumes. Mr. Teiffer names four authors who have composed Lives of Aristotle: Ammonius, Guarini of Verona, John James Beurerus, and Leonard Aretin. He forgot Jerome Gemusams, physician and professor of philosophy at Basil, author of a book, “De Vita Aristotelis et Ejus Operum Censura” (The Life of Aristotle, and a Critique on His Works).