Phillip Horky
To my utter surprise, this view that Aristotle was in fact not just a good but a great writer, was not shared by the majority of scholars, and not even by the majority of Aristotle scholars. There was a pervasive assumption that his style was too minimalist, too fleet of thought, and generally unpleasant to read. The assumed point of contrast was, of course, Plato and his dialogues. But I was sceptical about the grounds for this comparison: we had, after all, lost all of Aristotle’s own dialogues (or the ‘exoteric’ works), and all that survived were the treatises (from the so-called ‘esoteric’ works). And those of us who read Aristotle in the group felt the constant pressure – indeed, the demand – to make sense of his views, search for the wider contexts that informed his ideas, raise objections to his thoughts, and grapple with what seemed beyond our abilities. This was a deeply inclusive and dialectical writer, someone who wanted to empower the reader to disagreement, in the endless task of discovering the truth. Aristotle was difficult and profound, not simplistic and quixotic (as I had assumed from my poorly informed reading of the Poetics). Aristotle was nothing less than the Mt Everest of ancient philosophy, and I’d be damned if I wasn’t going to give it a go.
A crucial discovery that arose out of those formative years was that, in order to understand Aristotle, one needs to read more Aristotle, and this is the best approach to solving the seemingly infinite number of puzzles raised by so exploratory and difficult a work as the Metaphysics. Indeed, after moving to Durham University in the UK (2011) and being exposed to the way historians of philosophy operate in Europe, I came to believe that this also means owning the reception of Aristotle as well – functionally, in antiquity, but ideally, throughout time and across history. Again, impossible and infinite tasks are generated out of that constant invitation to learn, demanded by Aristotle’s writing. The ‘Aristoteles Pezographos’ project provides me with the opportunity to be immersed more deeply in Aristotle’s writing and thought than I’ve ever done before. As Co-Investigator, it is chiefly my duty to maintain the weekly Durham Lyceum reading group, including advising on the arrangement and choice of texts; supporting Prof. Edith Hall (as PI) with developing and coordinating ‘Aristoteles Pezographos’ events; liaising with the Durham Centre for Ancient and Medieval Philosophy (DCAMP), where I am Co-Director; and making sure that the team never loses sight of the profound philosophical commitments that inform Aristotle’s style/s of composition.
Most of my previous published research into Aristotle and the Lyceum has focussed on his dialectic with other contemporary scholars and predecessors, especially the members of Plato’s Academy and the Pythagoreans. My work on the Academy is chiefly directed towards producing, along with Prof. Dr Irmgard Männlein-Robert (University of Tuebingen), a new set of texts, translations, and commentaries on the members of Plato’s Academy, to replace the Gigante editions, which are out of date and difficult to obtain. I have been working with Dr Edoardo Benati (Scuola Normale Superiore) on a new edition, translation, and commentary of the fragments and testimonies of Xenocrates of Chalcedon and Hermodorus of Syracuse, which will be submitted to a series I co-edit with Prof. Federico Petrucci (University of Turin) and Prof. Dr Männlein-Robert, called Cambridge Texts and Studies in Platonism (Cambridge University Press). Research into the Academy, and Aristotle and the Lyceum, is synergetic, as it is only possible to grasp the former if you understand the latter.
My Research Projects with ‘Aristoteles Pezographos’
I have two main research projects for ‘Aristoteles Pezographos’: first a series of articles on the reception of Aristotle’s prose style/s in later philosophical and scientific writings, including selected commentators of Aristotle or philosophers who imitated him (e.g., Theophrastus, Eudemus, Aspasius, Alexander of Aphrodisias, John Philoponus) and potentially other scientific writers who may have been influenced by his style (e.g., later Hippocratic texts, Galen). The second main project is a new student edition with commentary of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics I, with some additional passages that deal with the good from other works (e.g., Protrepticus, Eudemian Ethics).
