Alexander had been regarded in Greece much as Napoleon
was regarded in Europe a century ago. He had insulted the
free Greek cities. He had even sacked the city of Thebes.
The whole of Greece lived in perpetual terror of invasion.
Now that this fear was removed by his death, there was
a general outburst of feeling against Macedonia. An anti-
Macedonian party came into power. Now Aristotle had al-
ways been regarded as a representative and protege of the
Macedonian court, although, as a matter of fact, he had re-
cently fallen out of favour with the autocratic Alexander. A
charge of impiety was trumped up against him. To escape
prosecution he fled to Chalcis in Euboea, in order that, as
he said, “the Athenians might not have another opportu-
nity of sinning against philosophy as they had already done
in the person of Socrates.” He perhaps intended to return
to Athens as soon as the storm had blown over. But in the
first year of his residence at Chalcis he was overtaken by a
sudden illness, and died at the age of sixty-three, in B.C.
322.
{253}
Aristotle is said to have composed some four hundred
books. Our astonishment at this productivity diminishes
somewhat when we remember that what is here called a
“book” is much the same as what we should call a chapter in
a modern treatise. More than three-quarters of these writ-
ings have been lost. But, by good fortune, what remains to
us is undoubtedly by far the most important part, and we
have preserved in it a fairly complete account of the whole
Aristotelian system in all its departments. Nearly all the
writings, however, have come down to us in a mutilated
state. This is especially the case with the “Metaphysics.”
This treatise is unfinished, and it was probably left un-
finished by its author at his death. But apart from this,
several of the books of the “Metaphysics” are undoubtedly
spurious. Others apparently come in the wrong order. We
end one book in the middle of a discussion, and when we
begin the next we find ourselves in the middle of an en-
tirely different subject. There are frequent repetitions, and
parts of it read as if they were mere lecture notes. There are
many interpolations. The same characteristics are to be ob-
served in Aristotle’s other writings, though in a less degree.
It seems probable that they were not intended, in their
present state, for publication. Final revision and finishing
touches are lacking. In spite of these defects, the writings
are voluminous and clear enough to enable us to trace out
the whole of the main positions of Aristotle’s thought.We saw, in the case of Plato, that, as his literary activity
lasted over a period of half a century, during which his phi-
losophy was in constant development, it became important
to trace this development in the {254} order of his Dia-
logues. The same thing is not true in the case of Aristotle.
The whole of his writings, or rather those that have come
down to us, seem to have been written during his last thir-
teen years, while he was at Athens, that is to say, after he
had passed his fiftieth year. His system was then complete,
mature, and fully developed. The question of the order in
which they were written has no great importance. The re-
sult of critical investigations, however, is to show that he
probably began with the various works upon logic, com-
posed next the treatises upon physical science, next the