B. Lukács

President of the Matter Evolution Subcommittee of the Geonomy Scientific Committee of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences

Co-president of the Geonomy Scientific Committee of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences

Member of the Astronomical Committee of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences

RMKI KFKI (CRIP), H-1525 Bp. 114. Pf. 49., Budapest, Hungary

lukacs@rmki.kfki.hu

As it is well known, our picture about Aristotle is not clear, in spite of an interest and research continuous for more than 2300 years. We know not enough from the beginning and end of his life, there is a five-year lacuna between 340 and 335, and even there are contradictions among the data we seem to know. Quite recently Fomenko and coworkers suggested a new paradigm in history, called New Chronology. Although I am afraid that the new paradigm will cause more problem than solved in it, at least the contradictions about Aristotle may be eliminated. So, in order to help the choice between Old and New Chronologies, I discuss the anomalies of Old Chronology about Aristotle. Also, I discuss briefly the unicity of New Chronology from the viewpoint of social evolution.

Academician and Chair (differential geometry) A. T. Fomenko of Russia suggests a "Copernican revolution" in history; for this see Refs. [1], [2], [3], [4] which will not be cited praeter necessitatem henceforth. When "the paradigm itself changes", i.e. suggested changes are not small, perturbative ones, one cannot compare the old and new theories from the same viewpoint. Rather the new theory must be completed first, and then the experimental facts confronted with the new theory. If it explains them better than the old one, then it is the better theory; if not, not. Of course, the "experimental facts" should be representative in some sense.

There are anomalies in our Aristotle picture and understanding. Even from 2350 year distance his main features should be clear because he never was forgotten, the chain of his followers was continuous, and he always interested the researchers, in some ages even the laymen. Plus in our dominant history paradigm he was chief advisor of great kings, successful organiser of a great institute. Not a misunderstood genius.

And still. He comes almost from nowhere; his birthplace vanishes (but this is changing recently, see later) and the only other tangible connection is to a small fortress city where some very important thing almost happens 43 years later but finally will not. For a few years he is near to world politics; then never. Then comes the scientific excellence: 13 years on the top and then he vanishes to nowhere. He has a son but the son does not seem to appear for his great legacy. In the next centuries legion of scientists refer him but 3/4 of his writings becomes lost. And then a part of his works goes out of fashion for a time; and when comes back, Europe gets the texts of the greatest scientist of ancient Europe from Arabia, while the corpus was originally edited in Rome.

I think this is a possibility for the followers of New Chronology. I formulate the anomalies and then lean back and wait for a coherent picture.

For me, being a physicist, the main strength of Fomenko's New Chronology is its conformity with the present equations of motion of the Sun-Earth-Moon system [5]. Celestial mechanics is the best understood and best working scientific discipline; and this feature of it has been being persistent. On the other hand, we do not understand quite well the machinery behind social processes and we are not always sure about facts of history. Therefore in a dilemma when choosing between two theories, the first convenient from history's viewpoint but not too good from celestial mechanics' one, the second oppositely, a physicist would choose without hesitation the second.

I would demonstrate this point on Nostradamus, whose predictions were first published in 1555 (I do not cite the original volume). One of his predictions, quite surprisingly, gives a date for an event: July, 1999. The four lines go as [6]:

L'an mil neuf cens nonante neuf sept mois

Du ciel viendra un grand Roi deffraieur

Reseusciter le grand Roi d'Anglomois

Avant que Mars regner par bonheur

The first line is the date, Year 1999, seventh month. The second line is clearly: comes the King of Terror (or something similar) from the sky. The third is clear too: the great King of Anglomois will be revived (reborn? reinstated into kingdom?), even if we do not know who is the King of Anglomois; Anglomois is a historical region of France. And then Mars will rule (with luck?). Now, we are over that time by 2 years; no King of Anglomois appeared in the French Republic and no particularly big war broke out.

One explanation is that this particular prediction was a failure, independently of the question if other predictions were correct and Nostradamus were a true seer of not. (This question would touch the fundaments of Relativity such as the light cone structure and even with a "correct" lightcone structure the existence of closed timelike paths; the questions are nontrivial [7] and will be somewhat discussed in Appendix A.) However the failure of this prediction is a too easy "explanation". Namely, this prediction, contrary to the overwhelming majority, is dated, so Nostradamus must have been particularly sure about it.

In 1997, so 2 years before the predicted date a Hungarian astrologer [6] offered an explanation. Somebody has calculated the horoscope of the incoming total solar eclipse in Aug. 11, 1999, noontime in Central Europe, and it turned out that astrology is unable to handle properly the event because the "true" and "virtual" "planets" (that is, planets, Sun, Moon and the two knots) will form four groups, in quadrants with each other. If astrology is/were true then the effects be/would be unstable. So if the predicted event is (was; will be) the solar eclipse then via astrology hard times can be predicted just afterwards and even then we do not know how hard and what like. And "the great Terror from the sky" is the switch-off of brilliant, noon Sun (or as Arthur Koestler formulated something else, the "Darkness at noon" [8]). Note that in Hungary the 1999 total solar eclipse was almost at the highest position of Sun, the contrast was maximal, and I, as eyewitness, indeed experienced some minutes of accomodation problems just after the end of totality. Note also that "Plutarch's eclipse" [9] which is a point of debate of Old and New Chronologies, was very similar [10].

Assume that indeed the total eclipse was Nostradamus' 1999 event, because that, at least, did happen. Still, the month is incorrect. However, between Nostradamus and us a calendar reform happened; in Italy in 1572, in Hungary in 1588. The reform put the "pointers" forward by 10 days, and caused 3 more days in 1700, 1800 and 1900 by cancelling the leap days. Aug. 11 is the Gregorian date; the Julian date is/would be July 29.

Then, by any chance, Nostradamus was not a seer but a very good astronomer. He calculated some future total solar eclipses, and also the horoscopes of the eclipses. He found one in the remote future almost at noon and with a very unique horoscope. Then he put it into his book. But he did not "see" the event. If he had been in direct contact with future, he must have known about the Gregorian calendar reform. And he did not know about the tidal friction and slowdown of terrestrial rotation (by any chance his world was Ptolemaic, with no terrestrial rotation at all). Yes; but 1) the totality strip was almost of West-East orientation, so in first approximation the tidal friction influenced only the time of eclipse; and 2) the Delta-T between us and 1555 is less than 3 minutes [11], so a darkness at noon remains the same. At Plutarch's eclipse it is rather 2 hours [9], [11].

Now let us draw the conclusions. As a physicist, I have the tendency to choose the calculating ability of Nostradamus as an explanation of the success of the particular prediction if the alternative is time travel (see Appendix A); anyway, we could do better now the first than Nostradamus while could not do the second at all. In the same time in celestial mechanics it is the same if we calculate forward or backward. So he would have been practically as successful with reconstructed eclipses as anybody else until 1879, the discovery of the phenomenon tidal friction [12], or rather, to the beginning of XXth century when the phenomenon became accepted.

Therefore records of ancient eclipses in texts do not prove that the text is genuine. Either the text can be a later artefact or the eclipse can be an interpolation from Rinascimento $1 upwards, if the eclipse is timed/located without tidal slowdown. Then the originality of the manuscript must be proven by other ways; it is told that scholars have some methods.

3. ABOUT MATHEMATICAL LOGICS, FACTS, EXISTENCE &C.

When Copernicus shifted the center of the Universe from the center of Gravity (automatically the center of Earth $2) to the center of Sun, all astronomical observations except Lunar ones had to be reinterpreted. The new theory was hopelessly wrong from physical viewpoint (heavy Earth and the center of Gravity orbiting around nongravitating Sun!), but explained one curious fact. In the Ptolemaic development of Aristotelian astronomy planets orbit Earth on superpositions of circles. So they have one main cycle around Earth each, and a diminishing sequence of epicycles. (Strictly speaking, already any epicycle was physically obscure, but possible.) Now, the first epicycles of all planets were moving with the same angular velocity, one rotation per one year, and the position vectors were parallel. This did not contradict anything; but would have needed some explanation.

Now, in Copernican cosmology these first epicycles ceased to exist; they were mirror images of Earth's motion. So the problem of parallel first epicyclic motions of Ptolemaic cosmology ceased to exist too. Copernican cosmology was also wrong, but eliminated at least this problem (while it was wrong in the only physics having existed then). But if we believe that Earth orbits Sun and not backwards, then we must not speak about the mystery of parallel motions on first epicycles. Then that motion does not exist at all.

I must formulate the statement in this way. Namely, we (I mean, people in General Relativity) know that the statement who orbits whom is a matter of chosen reference systems. (You can find a very short recapitulation of the world picture of General Relativity in Appendix B.) For us "who orbits whom" is not a scientific question at all, but something belonging to scholars of social studies, History of Enlightment and so.

Now, let us try to follow the science of Mathematical Logics for a while. In the Introduction of Ref. [13] Quine states that statements about physical objects cannot be verified by direct comparison to experience. While this statement seems strong, it is logically true. If we state that the grass is green, the statement implies a lot of assumptions, e.g. about light reflection, light propagation &c. In Ref. [13] Quine formulates a principle that we choose that revision which causes minimal changes (in some sense). Now: what is minimal? To modify Earth's rotation (or Moon's revolution; or both) minimally (but arbitrarily; and they are large bodies indeed) and assume that almost all written texts are genuine; or to keep the present equations of lunar motion in the present form forever, but regard most historical texts as falsifications, misinterpretations &c. (and we know that historical texts were indeed falsified in many cases)?

This Chapter has been written to call the attention to the nontriviality of the "truth" of a statement. In Chap. 35 of Ref. [13] Quine deals with the problem of identity. He chooses 4 examples. Mount Everest is the same as Gaurizankar, the Morning Star is the same as the Evening Star, the 25th President of the USA is (was) the same as the first such president of the USA who started the office in the age of 42 and the mean temperature of Tuxtla is the same as 93° F. Now, are these statements (namely the identities; that they are the same) true or not? Quine tells that the answer "yes" depends on non-linguistical facts.

Indeed. Schrödinger [14] tells that Mt. Everest and Mt. Gaurizankar are (is) the same peak(s) but seen from different valleys. If two communities speaking different languages or not speaking with each other name the same peak, they will choose different names. But Everest is not Gaurizankar from another valley: it is the English name of the peak which is or is not Gaurizankar on some autochtonous Eastern/Satem Indo-German language. Let us see European analogons. Europe's highest peak is Mont Blanc/Jungfrau, the two names are not translations. The first is White Mountain in French, the second is Maiden in German/Switscherdütsch. The capitol of Slovakia has a multiplicity of names. Its Magyar name is Pozsony, from the name of the first military commander just after the Magyar Conquest, when the castle was an important border castle against Bavarians/Austrians/Germans/Eastern Franks, with a great defensive battle in 907 AD. The Latin name comes from Magyar: Posonium. The German Pressburg can be understood even in English, and has nothing to do with Count Pozsony. The traditional Slovak name Presporok comes from the German name. The present Slovakian name Bratislava is artificial, rather Bohemian, definitely pan-Slavic and implies two meanings in the same time. It reminds the user to "honor of brother" or "brotherly honor" (Brat's slava) and also it is based on a historical hypothesis that in the IXth century there was located the castle of a Moravian (?) subject of either Great Moravia or of Eastern Frankony or of both, whose name was either Braslav or Bratislav (Bratislawspruch=Bratislav's Burg). This is a hypothesis; although it is generally accepted that there was such a fortress somewhere, Hungarian scholars rather put Braslaw to 200 km South. We can be sure that Bratislava is at 48° N, 17°E, and not 46°N, 17°E. We cannot be sure if Bratislava is or is not the same as Bratislawspruch, which may have been the other location. And a Hungarian lexicon from 1961 tells that Everest and Gaurizankar are two neighbouring peaks; while that lexicon is full with dubious statements (mostly political) this statement is not obviously false.

Let us go to the second example of Quine. Our astronomy tells us that the Morning and Evening Stars are the same: the planet Venus (0.72 A.U. solar distance, 12100 km diameter &c.). This is a statement of our astronomical theory, but still we are much more sure about it than about the historical location of the castle of Count Braslaw (or even about the office of Count Pozsony) because we can repeat the observations night to night, while we would need time travel (not solved) to observe Braslaw's Burg. We may find some ruins, but the identification of ruins with Braslaw's Castle would need a lot of hypotheses. The main argument for the identity of the two Stars is that one or the other were observed on a million evenings or mornings but if we see one of them, we never see the other.

The third example is again not so trivial as it may seem. According to James Truslow Adams the 25th President of the USA was William MacKinley, Republican, from Ohio, between 1897 and 1901. So if he started the office in the age of 42, and earlier ones not, then the statement is true, otherwise not.

Of course, you first must believe in the list. Maybe the first Presidents are not genuine, but clones made by historians. Namely Fomenkology believes that a lot of famous kings from XIIIth century are not genuine; or that there was 4 rulers behind the Ivan of Terrible of Romanovs' official history in the second half of XVIth century; or that Russia had two concurrent rulers during most of XVIIth century. Of course we have much more documents from the end of XVIIIth century in USA, but the difference is only qualitative. However let us accept the list; anyway, the family of J. T. Adams gave two Presidents, so he may have had family traditions too. But even then: what does it mean: 25th? Some presidents presided more than a single term, and some even did not preside a complete one, died &c. and the Vice-President continued. We can calculate the terms. The 25th term was presided by Grover Cleveland, New York, and started on March 4, 1885. But if we count each presidental oaths distinctly, so continuing Presidents twice (next term) and also Vice-Presidents (same term), then the 25th President was Ulysses S. Grant, Illinois, 2nd Presidency, from 1873.

Now, one may count Vice-Presidents distinctly (different persons) but second &c. term Presidents as continuous (same persons, no new presidents), and then MacKinley is 25th. But even this is not sure. Namely, Gover Cleveland was President 2 times, but not continuously. It would be strange to tell that Benjamin Harrison, Indiana, was the 23rd President, followed by the 22nd Grover Cleveland, second term, but it is not impossible; we do this with Kings. If we choose this counting, the 25th President was Theodore Roosevelt, New York, in the second term of the killed MacKinley.

I did not check the ages of the Presidents because first I would need an unequivocal definition: in what sense was the person the 25th President of USA. Until the person of the 25th President is a matter of dispute, it is pointless to speak about identity.

Finally, it is possible that the mean temperature of Tuxtla is 93° F; however it is possible that it was that 40 years ago and now it is not (global warming...). Physics would not like time-dependent temperature scales and I would find disturbing to call one temperature Tuxtla, another London, Nairobi or Oslo) and the relation is so remote and difficult to check that I would protest against any identity here albeit the statement may be correct in Mathematical Logic.

Now, Fomenkology claims that Khan Baty = Yaroslav Vsevolodovich of Suzdal-Vladimir. It may be true or may not; if it is true, it means serious constraint in history, for example the two rulers could not have been at two places simultaneously (similarly to Planet Venus). For me this is a purely historical matter. However, note that in principle we cannot verify or falsify statements about physical bodies via direct and pure experience [13] but always some theories/assumptions (maybe silent ones) are used; now if this is true, it is much more true about historical past. If we meet "problems", we rearrange some theories, until harmony is achieved. The problem is that harmony is not the same for all of us.

In Ref. [11] I showed that if Old Chronology history is more or less convincing to somebody (plus, I must tell, expansions of supernova remnants [15]), then he must explain at least two anomalies in the Sun-Earth-Moon system in historical times; in Ref. [16] I called the attention to the fact that Hungarian national history contains Kings whose existences were never doubted, whose physical remnants are at hand sometimes and which do not seem to be clones of later Kings in any sense. I accept that only the final version of New Chronology World History will have to be comparable with Old Chronology World History; I admit that I do not want to work on it. I also admit that there are problems within Old Chronology History. They are considered minor, they seem indeed minor, but the mystery of parallel epicycles were minor enough in Ptolemaic astronomy, still, when solved, the better Copernican scheme emerged. True, that rarely happens.

Henceforth I list some anomalies from the history of Aristotle.

In the Old Chronology History Aristotle of Stageira is the greatest scientist/philosopher of antiquity. In contrast to many philosophers, he had serious impact even on political leaders. He organised a university/research institute which survived him for a long time; and one and half millenia later the Western Church accepted his thinking scheme, most of his results as a fundament of science. (St. Thomas Aquinas was a commentator and follower of Aristotle, as well as Theophrastos of Eressos, Alexandros of Aphrodisias or Simplicius of Cilicia). For this later Enlightment was angry, but this fact only changed the signs, not the importance.

Philosophy/History of Science very much discussed Aristotle's life, and therefore for now the piece is polished; many details are known, of which, no doubts, some are inventions, but very old ones, e.g. from the book of Diogenes Laertius [17], which is not too much reliable, but very detailed. For simplicity, I give here, besides the Laertius book, Internet sites; the readers would find almost the same in any other work, being the Aristotle literature mostly synoptic, represented here mainly by Refs. [18]-[23]. Since the Greek calendar did not start in January, sometimes Greek data are translated with two BC years; this I ignore here.

He was born 384 BC; the traditional place is Stageira in Chalcidice. I will return to the location of Stageira later. However, being his father the court physician of Amyntas, King of Macedon, he may have been born in Macedon, or carried there as an infant. His father was Nicomachus, his mother Phaestis, with close family ties to Chalcis, Euboia, he had a brother, Arimnestos, and a sister Arimneste [18], $3. He was cca. 10 year old when his father died. From 10 to 17 an uncle or family friend, Proxenos was his guardian. However in his works Aristotle used many medical references/similes, so he kept physicians' connections (was Proxenos one?). When 17, he went to Athens and joined Platon's Academy. Then not too much is known about him until the last year of Platon. Surely he became a teacher, and we know the names of at least two Academy friends; one is Xenocrates who also became a teacher, later head of the Academy, the other Hermeias, follower of Eubulos of Bithynia, banker and tyrant of the city Assos; later Hermeias went home and became the tyrant of Assos and Lord of Atarneus.

In 348 Platon retired and named his nephew Speusippos as next head of the Academy. Then Aristotle and Xenocrates left the Academy, and they went to Assos, to Hermeias. It is worthwhile to note that Hermeias' chronology is confuse. Diodoros Siculus uses Olympiac dating and it seems that at some places they are wrong with 1 or 2 Olympiads; there occurred some discrepancies in the story of Hermeias already at Archbishop Ussher [24] but he was not interested in Hermeias, so he ignored it. I tell the story according to newest Old Chronology.

He spent 3-4 years in Assos. His friend Hermeias nominated him to the head of a local "Academy"; the first high education/research body he led. There he married Pythias. Now, there are different traditions. According to one, Pythias was Hermeias' daughter; this was the opinion of Hegel, and this is the opinion of Daniels [25].

Strabon represents another tradition [26], in which Hermeias in an eunuch. The Suda Lexicon tells similarly [18]. Then maybe Pythias was his niece and adopted daughter; among our references this view is represented by O'Connor and Robertson [21] and by Copleston [23]. However the Suda [18] writes that yes, Hermeias was an eunuch and still he was the true biological father $4. I consider this contradiction minor, and maybe originating from political propaganda. Martinás suggested an interesting explanation [27]: in Asia Minor a family with many children was the aim and honour (see Mentor's opinion about the 21 children of Artabazos) and the environment was proper for big families, contrary to Balkan Greece. Then, if Hermeias had only one daughter and no son at all, his political opponents might call him an eunuch with slight exaggeration.

For family ties, Pythias had a single daughter called also Pythias (this second Pythias marrying thrice [18]) and died relatively young, after some 10 years. (I have the reason to think that her wisdom teeth never emerged but I do not want to disturb the due course of argumentation.) Later Aristotle did not marry, had concubines, from one called Herpyllis he had a son Nicomachus. As for unofficial relations, some sources regard Aristotle as bisexual (which held for most European Greek males) and Suda mentions Hermeias as partner, some others the dramatist Theodectes. Hermeias was his elder by almost a generation; Theodectes maybe slightly, or of the same age. (The first would mean that in the asymmetric erastes-eromenos scheme Aristotle was the young, beardless partner; but prythee, Aristotle was 17 when joining Academy while castrated Hermeias [18] must have been beardless... The second is a practice not believed by recent scholars between well-educated people.)

After some time Aristotle went to Mytilene, and thence, in 343, to Macedon, where he became the tutor of the heir apparent, Alexander. About this time see Ref. [28] and citations therein. Jaeger believes that the tutorship was a trick, and in fact in Pella Aristotle was the secret ambassador of Atarneus. This is quite possible; and note that some sources call the guardian of young Aristotle as Proxenos of Atarneus, e. g. [20], [21]. Now this may mean that Proxenos, uncle (or what?) of Aristotle was born in Atarneus (which may be an improbable accident, being Atarneus far and small), but perhaps can be read in such a way that his guardian was the proxenos of Atarneus in Stageira; the same office as his in Pella. Anyway, something is hidden or lost behind Aristotle's good connections to Hermeias.

Obviously Philip of Macedon and Hermeias of Atarneus had a complot, most probably about liberation of Western Asia Minor, the end of Persian problems. However this attempt failed when Mentor of Rhodes arrested Hermeias, tricked his officers, and occupied the State of Atarneus, the northern and eastern sides of the Bay of Adramyttion (Edremit). Hermeias was crucified; some details can be read in [17] and [23]. Aristotle remained in Macedon until 340, when his tutorship ended.

The next 5 years are unclear, except that at the 338 Corynthian Congress, where Philip is elected as Commander-in-Chief of all Greece (except Sparta) Aristotle is High Advisor. The tradition rather seems a fairy tale. Namely, in 340 the home city Stageira of Aristotle is empty, in ruins: Philip took the population as slaves in a campaign. Then Plutarch's story [29] goes as: for the teaching of his son Philip paid a fee, worthy to him. He earlier had destroyed Stageira; now he (Philip) repopulated it, resettled the citizens exiled or sold to slavery. Then some authors think that Aristotle spent the next 5 years in Stageira. Others tell that Stageira was restored later by Alexander (see e.g. [30], $5), maybe for the good memory of his teacher. Nice but if it was made by Alexander then 1) where lived Aristotle between 340 and 335; and 2) what can we do with the scholarly consensus that during the Persian campaign Alexander became angry for Aristotle because of his kin Callisthenes who was in a complot against Alexander or wanted to kill him or such; and so made him executed?

In 335 he goes to Athens, and starts the institute Lykeion (Lyceum). The bigger part of the genuine Aristotelian works is from the period 335-323. (Some were written in Assos.) In 323 Alexander dies, and in Athens the strong anti-Macedon faction wins. The Areios Pagos starts an asebeia (cca. atheism) process, more or less the same as against Socrates, for a poem 18 year old (!, $6) in which he declared Hermeias demigod. Then Aristotle goes to Chalcis, where he has a small estate from his mother.

And with this Aristotle vanishes from history. Now historians assume that he soon died; well, he was 62, he may have died. Earlier times some historians told other stories, all hearsays. Early New Age historians sometimes contemplated if he got into contact with Divine Truth, e.g. prozelitized. Sir Thomas Browne mentions this [31], but also two traditions about Aristotle's suicide, by poison and by drowning, because he was unable to solve a scientific problem, maybe that of tides. Because tides are rather weak in the Mediterranean, and in the extant and certainly genuine works even the problem is not mentioned, this is improbable. (As a decent compromise we may think that he died soon in an undefined gut trouble and the symptoms gave the idea of poison to a friend; but we do not know anything.) Only the negatives imply immediate death. Namely, in a few months Athens was defeated, the Macedon army occupied key points in Athens, and the successor, Theophrastos of Eressos had close connections with Macedonian leaders, so Aristotle may have returned, or may have occupied positions in Macedon; but he did not. (Or did he return to Stageira? For what?)

Aristotle's school survives long. We do not know exactly, how long. It would be no idle curiosity to ask this, because the Aristotelian corpus indicates a teaching course whence medieval universities might have developed. At the beginning the list of scolarchs (as University, rectors, as Institute directors, but the titles are far in the future; the first university will be in Bologna, AD 1088) is clear enough. I do not give here references; up to a point where I will mention it all sources agree more or less.

Aristotle nominates Theophrastos of Eressos, BC 323

Theophrastos d. in 287; Straton of Lampsacos until cca. 269

Lycon (or Glycon) of Troas, to cca. 225

He either nominates a leading body, or

Ariston of Keos

Critolaos the Lycian, c. 155 BC

Diodoros of Tyre

?

(Poseidonios of Apamea in the first half of Ist c. BC would fill the gap, but he surely did not stay in Athens. Sulla's sack of Athens brought Aristotelian writing to Rome in 83 BC (note the name of Apellicon of Teos, 140-87 BC; it will appear in due course soon). Then

Andronicus of Rhodes? BC 60

No doubts, Andronicus was the editor of the Aristotelian corpus, so he may have been the scholarch. Sometimes the name of the school changed from Lyceum to Peripathos, and Cicero, when in Athens, reports on this name.

From this time not even a tentative list seems to exist. Two great names (not necessarily scolarchs) are Ammonios the Peripatetic and Ammonios Sacas. Then a revival:

Alexander of Artemisias, end of IIth c. AD

Henceforth it is hard to tell if the mother school still exists in Athens. The building exists, Marcus Aurelius nominates some teachers thither [32], $7.

Ref. [33] gives 425 AD as the end of Lyceum, but in another context and without any argument. We know that the Academy still existed in 529 in Athens because then Justinian closed it. Now, we read that he closed all other pagan schools too, but it is not clear if any Peripatetic institute was among them; maybe did not exist anymore but maybe was not pagan anymore. However in that time appears Simplicius of Cilicia, an Aristotle-commentator of almost Alexander's quality. And the Peripatetic school or a descendant is strong in logic at least. The question is only its central place and scholarch.

Thenceforth "Philosophy in general declines", the East Roman Empire becomes the Byzantine Empire. The scholastics keep a lot of Aristotelian thought. The Corpus is introduced to Arabia by the Syrian school in the VIIth century.

This picture about the history of Lykeion is not clear, but not self-contradictory either. Maybe nobody is too interested to collect information about Late Peripatetics.

Surprisingly enough, we do not know the gender and conjugational class of the home city of Aristotle (and of the interesting Proxenos of Atarneus?). It may be Stageira, but Stageiros as well.

Now let us take first a position back to 1994. (This is not truely a reconstruction of mental states. Many of us can still remember mindstates 7 years ago.) Strabon's gigantic work is almost completely extant; but just the text about Chalcidike is partly missing. Stageira is reconstructed to the palm of Chalcidike, above Athos. Some fragments are extant in citations and thence it is clear that Strabon mentioned it as the city of Aristotle. Aristotle however did not mention it. Also it is impossible to know the original ethnos; if anybody is interested at all, the guess is Ionic, but that is only a guess.

What is troublesome, is a fragment (Epitome Vaticana) telling that Stageira is destroyed. (The present tense meaning Strabo's time or something such.) I must confess that at this point I used the Hungarian Strabo edition [34] and did not check the fragment further; but it seems to be in a Strabonian style indeed. It is the text starting with Mnt. Athos similar to woman's breast. Later the fragment tells that in the Strymon Bay the first city is the port of the Akanthians; then comes the destroyed Stageira, city of Aristotle, founded by Chalcidiceans.

Now according to the story above, Philip II of Macedon destroyed Stageira and sold the population to slavery sometimes not too much before 343; then for Aristotle's sake he (or slightly later Alexander III) restored the city and population and Aristotle went home. However only for 5 years (or 1); then he founded the Lyceum in Athens. Who did destroy Stageira second time? This was the reason that I called the story of gratefully restored city a fairy tale.

Maybe Stageira was not restored in 340. Maybe Aristotle asked for something else. A lot of reasons are possible why the fairy tale was told; remember that Aristotle was involved in foreign policy. I only note that the alleged home city of Aristotle was totally destroyed in the life of Aristotle, the corresponding part is missing from Strabon, and the extant part of Aristotle's work does not contain a sentence about his home city.

However now there is 2001; and Greek archeology has found Stageira. Even now there is a modern Stageira [35]-[38] because a nearby village took the name Stageira as half of name (Stageira-Akanthos). Now everything must be clearer. The walls seem Hellenistic; maybe Alexander gave the order to restore the city; maybe he sent some Persian gold to do it; he had a lot.

However still I do not understand a lot. Where was Aristotle between 340 and 335? If Alexander ordered the restoration, Aristotle cannot have been in Stageira during Philip. We do not know about 5 years of the most famous ancient scientist, just at his acme of politics and just before the founding of Lyceum. OK, we did not know anything about these years even before; but then there was an explanation that he lived retired in far, freshly restored Stageira. And now?

And: if Alexander magnanimously financed Stageira's restoration, then why the city is the destroyed Stageira in Strabo as the Vatican Epitome tells?

On the other hand, the "early Classical fortification of the city" has been found "preserved in very good condition" [35], the "buildings of the Archaic and Classical city are especially well preserved" [38]. Silver coins have also been found: two Stageiran ones from pre-Philip times, then of Philip, Alexander and Cassander [38].

Was the city (either Stageira or not) destroyed by Philip II at all? Or again we believed the Athenian propaganda? But again, Strabo seems to write that Stageira is destroyed in Ist century BC.

For more than 10 years in the 70's and 80's the biggest city of Transylvania, in Kolozsvár-Clausenburg-Claudiopolis-Cluj $8 was officially renamed by the Roumanian authorities as Cluj-Napoca, where Napoca is the old Latin name of the substantial city of Provincia Dacia from 106 AD. The official compound name was for emphasizing the continuity with Napoca. Still that continuity did not exist; ancient Napoca did not overlap with the medieval city whose Roumanian name was Cluj. An official order is independent of facts of history.

In 1930 Tombaugh discovered Planet Pluto, according to Percival Lowell's predictions from the perturbations of Uranus and Neptune [39]. The observatory was Lowell’s foundation.

More or less. When found, the planet was 6 degrees from the predicted position. The mean solar distance 39.5 A.U. was almost the predicted 43. The brightness was much less, indicating smaller planet or some strangeness. For the observed perturbations some 5 terrestrial masses were necessary. Pluto is cca. 0.002 terrestrial mass so it cannot have caused the observed perturbations. Our Pluto is not the Planet X of Lowell! In recent years a tendency is growing to consider Pluto the biggest asteroid not the smallest major planet; but maybe this is a matter of definition.

The important thing is that either Lowell's calculations were correct and then his Planet X is there out, still undiscovered; or his calculations were incorrect and then it was an accident that something was in the neighbourhood. I do not continue this sceptic line.

As told, wo do not know the "nationality" of Aristotle. The Greek, or Hellene, population classified into 4-6 very different groups. Differences appeared in language, habits, calendar, &c. As late as in the second half of the Vth century BC the differences were organising factors of political and military alliances. Of the two warring alliances of the Peloponnesian War, the Delian League was led by Ionians, although some other communities participated too, according to Athenian politicians freely, but according to the Athenian Thukydides [40] forced. And the Peloponnesian League was dominantly Doric. Achaia on the middle of the Peloponnesos was mostly neutral.

It is enough here to distinguish 5 big groups: Ionian, Doric, Achaiean, Northwestern and Aiolic. Achaieans seem the declined descendants of Bronze Age Peloponnesos [41], $9, while the traditions of the Bronze Age Middle and North Greece was held by Boioty and Thessaly where Aiolic dialects remained but with a Northwestern superstratum of conquerors. Self-detemining Aiolic communities remained only in emigration; mainly in Nortern part of the Asian shore and Northeastern islands of Aegean. According to a 2 line fragment of Hesiod's Women Catalogue, extant in Constantine Porphyrogenetos some even guess an old kinship between Macedons and Aiolians, which would be geographically possible, but I would rather not force this question [42]. If not, Macedonian is the sixth big group if it is still Greek at all.

One might think that a philosopher was independent of ethnicity; then read the letter of Speusippos of Athens to Philip II. On the other hand, until Alexander the whole IVth century was continuous warfare in Greece. We know that just after Alexander's death the Lyceum is in danger, Aristotle flees, and after a few years indeed a law passes which would prohibit the foreign societies as the Lyceum, while the Academy is not molested. (Demetrios of Phaleron, dictator of Athens and ex-student of the Lyceum, invalidates the law.) So for the history of Science we should rather know to which big ethnic group Aristotle belonged. And we know that important things, for example the position of women in society, strongly differed in Ionian, Doric or Aiolic cities.

Now, we know from tradition that Aristotle's father, Nicodemos, lived in Stageira (Stageiros? Stageirios?), Chalcidike. According to both tradition and the name, Chalcis (the place of origin of Aristotle's mother) was influential in the colonisation of Chalcidike, Chalcis is on Euboia, and Euboia is generally regarded as Ionic. But ancient authors report Aiols also on Euboia, see e.g. Strabo [26]. Also, note that there were old contacts between Chalcis, Eretria &c. in Euboia and Aiolis (mainly Kyme) $10. While it seems that we can rule out Doric, Achaian or Northwestern traditions behind Aristotle, Ionic and Aiolic remain, and also, Athenians rather regarded him as a Macedonian.

His extant works show a "pan-Hellene" viewpoint, and his Athenian opponents (surely centered on the Academy) saw correctly that he was not a patriotic Athenian; but he does not seem even Pan-Ionic. OK, real science is above such differences. But his Aiolic connections are obvious from the Aiolic informations and examples on his texts. And if not his own traditions areseen here then weshouldthink about Pythias’ influence? Cherchez la femme?

Aiolians were not popular or in fashion in Athens, or anywhere in European Greece. At some places they fought on the Persian side during the war in 480. Later they were not too fanatic to die for either the Athenian or the Spartan cause of Greece. Then, when European Greece weakened in the internecine war and accepted Persian rule on the Asian mainland, they did not revolt for Greece. In addition, a Platonic text [43] gives the impression that Athenian intellectuals considered the Aiols too heterosexual. No surprise if generally the European Greeks were sorry for them being oppressed, but did not consider them e.g. strong in sciences and philosophy.

And then look at the list of scholarchs of the Lyceum.

Theophrastos of Eressos, Aiolian from Lesbos;

Straton of Lampsacos, Troas. A mixed region, but Aiolis;

Lycon of Troas

Ariston of Keos; island Ionia

Critolaos the Lycian, Southeast Aegean shore;

Diodoros of Tyre

Poseidonios of Apameia (?)

Andronicus of Rhodes (?), island Doric near to Asia Minor;

...

This list is overwhelmingly Asian. There is not an Athenian among them, and only one Ionian, who is also the only European. The first three inheritors of Aristotle are from Aiolis, the first is certainly Aiolic for person and the other two may be. Let me add Anaximenes of Lampsacos, not a leader but a Pseudo-Aristotle as author of Rhetoric to Alexander, part of the Aristotelian corpus (!).

The Hellenic Ministry of Culture now says that Stageira was founded by Andrians [35]; Andros is Ionian, near to Euboia. So, then, no Aiolic tradition in Stageira? Do we see the impact of the wife Pythias? (Or of the father-in-law Hermeias?)

Aristotle must have been born somewhere, in some traditions. He is silent about these points, we do not know why; and what we hear about him is inconsistent except that his father was a doctor. Why this silence?

Aristotle was the original founder of the Peripatetic School, descendant of Lyceum. The great majority of his extant books seem "university textbooks". Our general feeling is that they were written by pupils or younger teachers, but generally with the supervision of Aristotle. I will not go into arguments here.

No doubt; a lot of books may have been lost in the Dark Ages. For example we know that there existed Aristotelian works called Eudemus (or On the Soul), Gryllus and On Ideas. However the corpus edited first by Andronicus of Rhodes remained; some 1500 double sided pages. Since one page carries lines between 35 and 40, this is cca. 110,000 lines. Since Diogenes Laertios writes about a 445,270 line long Aristotelian collection, we have now a quarter of the original text. No doubt, some of the Aristotelian corpus may not be the work of Aristotle; however this is also true for the collection Diogenes Laertios saw half a milleneum after Aristotle, and the extra ones may have been written by disciples under his influence, as e.g. Anaximenes of Lampsacos. There are also pseudo-Aristotelian works, forged letters about his travel in India and such; but this fact has trivial explanations. There is even a genuine Aristotelian book which is not a part of the Andronicus edition: the Athenian Constitution found in the Egyptian sand in modern times.

In the same time there is a grand guignol story, preserved in Strabon, Book XIII, Chap. 1 about Aristotelian books hidden and rotten in a cellar. Hegel repeats the story, but one may judge Hegel's distinctive ability from the fact that he tried to prove that no minor planet exists around 2.8 A.U. in the same time when von Zach, Piazzi and some 2 dozen astronomers were looking for them. They found 1 Ceres, 2 Juno, 3 Pallas and 4 Vesta in rapid sequence; in the meantime Hegel made his docental application, his lecture and he even published the text in print that the search is pointless. Compare Refs. [44] and [45].

The story goes as follows. There were 2 Scepsian philosophers, Erastos and Coriscos $11. We know their names from Platon; he wrote a letter to them and Hermeias of Atarneus. The son of Coriscos, Neleus, was a disciple of Aristotle and then of Theophrastos. Theophrastos inherited Aristotle's books, and his library finally went to Neleus. (Again: some Aiolian favouritism in an Athenian institute?) But Neleus' heirs hid them from the Attalid Kings of Pergamon, in a damp cellar for a long time; according to Hegel, for 130 years, Then the worm-eaten and rotten rolls were sold to Apellicos of Teos.

In some sense the chronology is good. Neleus inherited the texts in 287; he died, say, in 240; the relatives kept the texts in the cellar until 110 and then sold them to Apellicos. Only: what did they hide into the cellar and why? The story goes that the Attalids wanted to build the concurrent of the famous Alexandria Library; for this somebody had to invent the pergamen; finally they were successful. I am sure they did not want to confiscate the books but would have paid for it. Maybe not enough? The inheritors of Neleus obtained nothing when they put them into the cellar and were not interested at all for 130 years. And: in 240 the library did not yet exist. Probably this story was invented for the sake of the sale to Apellicos of Teos.

Let us tell the story in the logical way. Aristotle, rector of the Lyceum, leaves his library to Theophrastos. When? In Chalcis? Probably the story goes otherwise. There is the library of the Lyceum. The books are used for education. When he appoints Theophrastos rector in 323, Theophrastos gets the library with the Lyceum. It is impossible to lead the Lyceum without the library of the Lyceum! When he appoints Straton in 287, again the library goes with the Lyceum; but the story explicitly tells that he gives books to his friend Neleus too.

Now, the Lyceum is a big, working institution. It is impossible to believe that all manuscripts existed in single copies. Maybe Neleus got a selection of books. We know (or believe to know) from Diogenes Laertius that Theophrastos sold "Aristotle's books" to the Alexandria Library and there was 445,270 lines of Aristotelian texts there. Good; he sold one copy of each book; maybe the originals, and there remained other copies in Athens, otherwise the Lyceum could not have worked. So there was a complete body of books in Alexandria. And note that according to Aristeas and according to Diogenes Laertios the Library of Alexandria was organised, as a commission from Ptolemy I Soter, by Demetrios of Phaleron, the exiled dictator of Athens, Peripatetic student of Aristotle and Theophrastos [46]. He was years ago the savior of the Lyceum. According to Diogenes Laertios first Ptolemy would have got for director and tutor of the heir apparent Theophrastos himself, but he did not want to leave the Lyceum, so he suggested his pupil, good organiser &c. (Note that the next scholarch, Straton of Lampsacos was tutor of Ptolemy II [47]; maybe before 287.)

Then it is not surprising that the Alexandrian Library buys a lot of books from Theophrastos. But it is impossible to believe that the Lyceum, remaining in Athens, works without the textbooks. So there were some copies but at least 1 of each in Alexandria; there were several copies but at least 1 of each book in Athens; and there were some books at Neleus' inheritors. These latter ones became rotten in 110 and sold to Apellicon of Teos. Athens has been sacked by Sulla in 86, the books of Apellicon sent to Rome in 83. Later Andronicus of Rhodes corrected them and edited the corpus. But in the meantime the complete opus was in Alexandria!

I hope my points are clear. 1) What happened with the textbooks of the Lyceum? Did they burn in the campaign of Sulla? All copies of teachers and pupils? 2) If they did, why nobody was interested in the Alexandria copies? Later they might have been destroyed in one of the burnings of the Alexandria library, from the time of Julius Caesar to the Arab conquest. But not in 60 BC. The Alexandria collection is still complete, the Peripatetics is a living scientific organisation. (Andronicus of Rhodes!) Either they are interested; or not because they have their own copies. But no; they seem to use the incomplete Andronicus edition. Why? Or maybe the Andronicus edition is not incomplete at all? Maybe it contains all the works needed for education? Then what is the Athenian Constitution?

I think somebody should try to answer.

It is an ancient tradition that the teaching of Aristotle divided into 3 parts. There were popular writings, scientific writings and "secret" writings. It seems that the Andronicus edition contains mainly the educational ones; but there is at least one popular work in it too, the De Mundo (Bekker numbers 391a-401b). It is a brilliant extract of Meteorologica, but appended from other books too. It seems as if it were written for interested laymen, say, for kings and such.

The book is long time in doubt that it is not Aristotle's work. It is quite possible; however what if it is the collective work of the body of the Lyceum for any specific occasion? Aristotle is not in Athens, or does not have time, or is already dead, but a rich layman asks for the description of World.

However the thing is not so trivial. There are very slight anomalies in the book. But let us look first the Preface of an English translation [48].

The Preface's first sentence tells that: "This interesting little treatise has no claim to be regarded as a genuine work of Aristotle". Then it is told that Capelle [49] traced back most doctrines of the work until Poseidonios (130-51). Anybody who is interested can consult Ref. [49]; anyway, Poseidonios was Peripatetic, perhaps even Scholarch. He was well known in Rome, so he or one of his followers may have given the text to Andronicus of Rhodes, editor of the Aristotelian corpus. Now let us continue. The first sentence, 391a1, starts as: "Many a time, Alexander, has Philosophy seemed to me a thing truly divine and supernatural...". Then Forster asks: who is this Alexander? The obvious choice would be Alexander III of Macedon, the Great. Forster does not accept this, but his choice is slightly surprising. He suggests that the specific Alexander, the "noblest of rulers" (hêgemonôn aristos), is Tiberius Claudius Alexander, first Procurator of Iudaea, then in 67 AD, Prefect of Egypt; nephew of the famous Philon of Alexandria. Capelle puts the work even into second century AD.

Now, a lot of questions arise. If Alexander is Tiberius Claudius Alexander, then the work could not be in the original corpus edited by Andronicus of Rhodes; still it behaves as one of the Corpus. Another question is whether Tiberius Claudius Alexander could be called a hegemon. Maybe in Iudea, but definitely not in Egypt, which was the private property of the Imperator from 31 BC. Now, an intellectual may call Alexander the Great "noblest of rulers" for the hope of ample reward, or Roman Emperors as Nero, Caligula &c. However an intellectual of mental class of the author of De Mundo will not call a Procurator the "noblest of rulers" for material gains. One of the predecessors of Tiberius Claudius Alexander, Pontius Pilatus, controlled approximately the same founds as he and still I do not know philosophical texts calling him the noblest of rulers. The alternative possibility is that Tiberius Claudius Alexander was indeed a very noble-minded man; I do not know the age sufficiently to decide this.

However from the Preface of [48] one can accept that many scholars have doubts about the authorship of Aristotle, that the addressed Alexander may be Alexander the Great but even then it may have been written after the death of this Alexander, in which case the first sentence was written for some hidden purpose, and that the treatise is Aristotelian for spirit.

Forster in footnotes observes parallels with Seneca (e.g. in 392b4). Seneca's time agrees with being Tib. Claudius Alexander the addressee; but I do not believe that Seneca, tutor of Nero, would call a mere Procurator "noblest of rulers". Rather Nero. Also, Forster notes one (1) place where the author uses terms foreign to Aristotle himself, 392a4. Then the text calls the celestial poles Arctic and Antarctic, while Aristotle in Meteorologica 362a32-33, 363a34, 363b4 & 31, where he might use the terms, does not. This does not mean that he could not use it in De Mundo; even in his time the northern celestial pole was in the region of the Bears, but let me tell another example.

Physica, De Caelo and Meteorologica agree that bodies composed of mainly earthly components can only transiently be far from Earth. However in the previous century a stone fell at Aigospotamoi, preserved at least until Strabon [26]. For the phenomenon see [50]. Theophrastos and Straton were born near to Aigospotamoi, may even have seen the interesting stone. Now, in Meteorologica 344b32 he tells as explanation that the stone was carried up earlier by the wind. From Meteorologica it is clear that in his system meteors are composed of Air and Fire, and meteorites do not exist (i.e. meteors have no Earth component). The last opinion was surviving till early XIXth century; the last up-to-date scientists expressing it were the French Academy and President Jefferson of USA.

Now, De Mundo formulates differently. In 395a24 we read that if a flashing body "be only half of fire but violent also and massive, it is called a meteor". So in De Mundo meteors are not simply fire or fire+air; they are "massive". Now in Aristotelian language "massive" has nothing about "heavy", and nothing definite about inertia, rather "voluminous" or "numerous"; maybe a cluster of something. I admit that the formulation is obscure. However the scheme of De Mundo fits better to the Aigospotamoi meteorite.

So, either De Mundo is the latest extant work of Aristotle, well after Meteorologica, or the work of somebody else living in intense Aristotelian tradition. In a forthcoming work [51] we argue for a compromise that De Mundo was written by the institute of Lyceum during the time when Aristotle was under the danger of asebeia process, himself in Chalcis, and the school is disturbed by the accusation; but this question does not have to be decided here. It is enough to tell that De Mundo is an example that not all of the Aristotelian corpus is the work of Aristotle, that some part of the corpus may have been written by later teachers of the Lyceum (another well known example is Oeconomica) and that there is some mystification about some parts of the Corpus. (Note than in itself the address to Alexander the Great is not absurd. Alexander is just fighting and organizing at far places of Oikumene, so he needs a handy small book to digest Meteorologica, Physica and De Caelo for him; but if many modern scholars doubt the authorship, they may have good reasons.)

We are at cca. 50 BC. Aristotle's opus must exist at:

1) Alexandria. After 3 more centuries Diogenes Laertios still knows about 445,270 lines or 106 great rolls.

2) Pergamon. The Attalids were fanatic in the 2nd century BC to collect books. The Lyceum had strong roots in Western Asia Minor; in some sense Pergamon is inheritor of the State of Atarneus, premature attempt of Hermeias, Lord of Atarneus, father-in-law of Aristotle [28]. I would be surprised if they did not buy Lyceum books for good price. Also, they are competitors of the Alexandria Library.

3) The Lyceum in Athens. According to [33] the institution still works so must have a library. OK, the Sulla-Mithridates war may have caused damages; but the Lyceum never was a fanatic Athenian institute. Also: Sulla surely did not sack the Lyceum's Library. If he had did, he would not have sent Apellicos of Teos' Aristotelian books to Rome.

4) Private teachers, rich students, etc.

And the Andronicus collection may belong to 3) or 4). The Alexandria collection is the most complete; maybe the Lyceum has only the books necessary for teaching, and nobody can guess the extension of private collections. From [33] one can roughly guess that an extra complete copy of the Andronicus corpus would cost 5-10 talents (or cheaper; this estimation is made from prices in time of Aristotle). That is cca. 30-60,000 drachmas, or in Roman money cca. 200,000 sestertii $12.

There are problems to convert this to modern money. However I can express the equivalents in 3 ways. In gold it may have been cca. 20 kg, so for order of magnitude 200,000 $. In silver it would have been 250 kg (note the big change of gold/silver parity afterwards), cca. 25,000 $. Finally we can take the purchasing power of Ist century BC 200,000 sestertii from Pompeii as 400 mules, 300 metric ton wheat, 40,000 gallon plain wine or the very poor living of a hundred families for a year.

I do not know about the financial position of the Peripatetic community in the IInd and Ist centuries BC. I only know that the community could put together the texts and then could order a standard corpus for 400 mules; the Alexandria collection would have been four times so expensive. Since the price is not impossible for a scientific institute, I think either the leadership of the Lyceum/Peripatos was extremely poor, or they already had the books.

Immediately after 50 BC things happen with the 2 big libraries. In 47 a part of the Alexandria Library burns in the internecine war of Cleopatra VII/Iulius Caesar vs. Ptolemy XIII, but I think there is no consensus how many books are damaged. Then Mark Anthony tries to recompense Cleopatra VII by sacking the concurrent Pergamon Library; it would be good to know details. In later times Alexandria revolts/is sacked many times. I mention only one: according to some historians Caracalla damaged the Library because Aristotle poisoned Alexander the Great. However the Library exists in 391 AD. Then the pagan shrines are closed (?) in the city, and the Museum is sacred to the Muses. Still around 415, according to the Hypatia case there is scientific activity there. The last event is the Arab conquest of Alexandria in 641. According to some, much later, Arab texts the conquering general Amr Ibn Al-Ass sent the books as fuel into the public baths where they burnt for months. However Ref. [52] tells that "Aristotle's books were the only ones spared.".

Now, in this 700 years Aristotelian texts may have been burnt or vanished by other ways many times. (Ref. [53] gives a bird's eye view of these 7 centuries.) Surely they indeed did. However a big library in a tumultuous city makes copies of the important material. One may ask different things for which it seems answers are not firm. For example: what was victorious Christianity's relation to the Aristotelian texts? I doubt if Aristotelianism was identified with paganism. Platonism/Neoplatonism might be, but Aristotle generally behaves as a scientist and excepting De Mundo the Corpus is not fanatic to make religious statements. Aristotle's god is the First Mover on the periphery of the Universe ("in the farthest Heavens"). Maybe slightly a Gnostic viewpoint but that would not have made angry the turbulent monks of Bishop Cyril. And it seems that the Peripatetic community was continuously transformed into early Middle Age scholastics which was already Christian.

Now, for Canfora's statement: I do not know why just Aristotle's scrolls would have been spared by Amr Ibn Al-Ass, if all others were fuelled in the baths. The Syrians, either Nestorians or Monophysites, started the extensive Aristotelian studies in the VIth century; and surely the Gundishahpur school was very important in Aristotle's Arab reception but we can count its influence only from the Arab conquest. Now, the conquest of Alexandria is 641 and the conquest of Persia is gradual between 635 and 653. So when Amr ibn Al-Ass arrived at the Library, possibly nobody in his staff knew who had been Aristotle.

However it seems that later the Arabs were well furnished with Aristotelian texts, either from Alexandria or from Syria. And the European West in the XII-XIII centuries translated some important Aristotelian texts through Arabic. This seems to be strange.

With some simplification: it seems that the Andronicus corpus remained Greek. There was no reason until the fall of the Western Empire to translate scientific terms from Greek. Later the Greek knowledge declined. However always were some bilingual scientists. In any time in Western Europe (except Hispania) much more people knew Greek than Arabic, and the difference between Greek and Latin is much smaller than between Arabic and Latin. Then why from Arabic?

OK; assume that all the manuscripts of the Aristotelian Corpus were lost in Western Europe, while it was possible to get them in Arabic. However: there was always contact with Greece/Byzance.

According to commonplaces, Greece was superior to the West in sciences. Michael III (mid-IXth century) founded a "university" in Constantinople, which taught astronomy, geometry, grammatics and philosophy, and was led by Photios and Leo Mathematikos. This "university" was improved during Constantine Porphyrogenetos, but then the institution declined. However in 1045 another institution was organised, with two departments: a philosophical, led by Michael Psellos as Hypatos of Philosophy, and a iurisdictional, led by Ioannes Xipilinos as Guard of Law. We hear that in that time the educated Byzantians read Homer, Aristophanes, Lukianos, Platon and Aristotle. In that time a complete Euclid was only slightly more expensive than an ass, so an Aristotelian corpus must have been much cheaper than our estimation of 400 mules 1100 years before.

OK, maybe the problem was the Fourth Crusade in 1204, when Constantinople was burnt and sacked. Maybe the library of the "university" became destroyed and when the Western priests arrived there was already no Aristotle to carry home and translate it to Latin.

But do not forget the Comneni. That dynasty had the most friendly connections to the West (even if it was not too much) in Byzance; no surprise: they started as countryside, almost feudal landlords. Alexios I invited the First Crusade. John II in 1141 writes to the Pope about the theory of "two swords": he is the military leader of the world and the Pope (and not the Patriarch) is the spiritual one. Manuel I has strong Hungarian and Crusader French family connections. For a moment it seems as if the Great Schism could be healed. Venice, vassal of Byzance, governs some parts of the city. In this time, if Latin priests/philosophers needed some Aristotelian texts, the palace scribes would have copied it for the price of some asses or mules, and then a Ph.D. could translate it in Bologna, Oxford or Paris. But this does not happen.

From 1185 it is impossible. A city revolt against the countryside Comneni and the Venetians severed the ties to the West and for years it was better for a Latin priest not to go into the Imperial Palace. But what hindered the Aristotle translations from Greek in the century of the Comneni?

Maybe the answer is complicated and boring; but to my knowledge nobody took the efforts to make an understandable answer. Fomenko and his coworkers have a simple and automatic answer if we accept New Chronology. So this Chapter will be New Chronology; in the next Chapter I will switch back to Old Chronology.

In New Chronology Alexander the Great is a phantom; the Ptolemaic dynasty starts about 700 AD in Alexandria. We still do not know what happened previously. In the first 150-200 years there is still hieroglyphic writing ("Hebrew"), then a transition to alphabet ("Greek"). Greeks are autochtonous there, and Aristotle works in Alexandria.

I think in New Chronology we should put him to the IXth century. My points are: Fomenko and coworkers date Ptolemy the Astronomer to Xth century, and Ptolemy uses Aristotle. On the other hand only alphabetic texts of Aristotle are known so we cannot push him too back. It is interesting that in this picture Aristotle is synchronous to Álmos $13, Prince of the Magyar tribal alliance, moving from the Don elbow to West, but one cannot expect in that time too much contact between Alexandria and Khazaria.

Then the Aristotelian Corpus is ready, say, to 900. Either Diogenes Laertius is genuine and in 900 the Corpus is bigger than now, or he is not genuine; but even then Athenian Constitution had been lost and were found in 1891 in the Egyptian sand.

In cca. 1050 the Ptolemaic dynasty ends somehow. Imperial administration leaves Alexandria (Old Rome) and organises a new capitol Constantinople (New Rome) under the Alexios I Comnenos. In the abandoned old capitol disturbances may cause damages, and they may be responsible for not to find the Library later; or it was hieroglyphic, or NewChronology can find a reason. Anyway, it is quite possible that the Aristotelian Corpus simply was not transferred to New Rome. Then sometime later both Alexandria and both sides of the Straight of Gibraltar became controlled by Arabs/Moslims. So the Western reception of Aristotle goes necessarily through Arabic.

So in New Chronology the birthplace of Aristotle is not Chalcidike (and his father was not the court physician of Macedon, since Alexander III, Philip II &c. are phantoms). We are looking at wrong places. Therefore contradictions vanish. True, they are replaced by ignorance; but that is not surprising at the beginning of a new theory. New Chronology often emphasizes that it knows very little about the history of the Ptolemaic centuries.

Now, back to Old Chronology. I think, the new one produces more problems than solve; if one is interested in my arguments, see Refs. [11] and [16]. However Fomenkology has its right to manufacture its own paradigm; and it indeed explains the anomalies of the reception of Aristotle in the Old One.

To get rid off the anomalies still in the Old Chronology would need explanations at some points. E.g.

Even if Stageira has been found, a clear answer would be welcome whether Philip destroyed it and then restored; or he destroyed and Alexander restored; or maybe nobody destroyed at all.

It would be good to find out details of Aristotle's activity between 340 and 335.

It would be worthwhile to draw a self-consistent picture about the evolution of Lyceum/Peripathos; maybe not only the building at the periphery of Athens but the community too. In some texts we read that Lycon willed the scholarchship to the community; in some texts we read about individual leaders. Maybe the structure of the Peripatetic community was nontrivial and maybe it changed from time to time. Also the role of the center seems to oscillate/be divided between Alexandria and Athens since Straton.

We should know if in 529 the Peripatetic community was still Pagan (as the Academy was, so closed by the Emperor, and as Simplicius was (?), who would be an ideal Peripatetic scholarch, maybe considers himself so and goes also to Persia with the Academy), or already was Christian, so continuing its work without problem.

And, what may be the key point but maybe the most boring. Natural sciences are declining; some tell that only in the Roman Empire. However look. Theophrastos, although works in psychology too, is mainly a chemist and botanist. Straton is the Physicist. We do not know too much about research work of Lycon, but from Apuleius Apology 36 it seems that he continued the zoologic work of Aristotle, at least [54]. But the next scholar, Ariston of Keos seems not to do anything in natural philosophy except a treatise on the good influence of the water of a Kean fountain on mind [54]; otherwise he seems to have worked in psychology [55], and with aphorisms &c., although it is not easy to distinguish his fragments from those of Ariston of Chios [56], [57]. True, Critolaus the Lycian again makes some cosmology [54], and anything was the will of Lycon 70 years ago, he is the leader of Lyceum when in Rome in an embassy on behalf of Athens [58]. But in later times (still BC) even the Lyceum, home of Aristotle, Theophrastos and Straton, is mainly uninterested in physics, chemistry, astronomy &c. Why? $14 Later natural sciences are almost nonexistent on the West. Also on the Christian East. Hypatia's murder is a serious sin and symptom, but natural sciences did not decline because of this spectacular lynching; oppositely, it was possible because natural sciences lost their respect. Now, not too much later they had respect in the Arabic world, but after some centuries they declined there, while fron 1200 they came into fashion in the West without greater religious changes. Such processes (which are not explained, nor even formulated in a consequent way) may be behind the fact that the Aristotelian corpus was inaccessible for the West in Byzance when the West became interested. Also, such processes may be behind the loss of the 3/4 of the volume of the most worthy collection of classical antiquity.

If the loss was indeed 75%. We do not know the lost material (except for Athenian Constitution found after 1500 years). Maybe some of the missing 330,000 lines were not independent material. (Anyway Nicodemian and Eudemian Ethics have serious overlaps too.) Maybe Natural Selection selected out the superfluous text by not copying it. I do not know and my skill is not optimal to know it.

If the anomalies remain, I still can accept Old Chronology; but it is hard to understand why they appear. However the present Aristotle picture is not self-consistent and should be after 2 millenia of research. Except if he did not exist as an individual, but he is the antique analogon of the polykephal Nicholas Bourbaki.

Rinascimenti, i.e. historic revivals of past lifestyles, cultures &c., or, as Toynbee formulates [63] "contacts between civilisations in time" are rather frequent in our usual ("Old Chronology") history. (Of course, as far as Global Causality holds, see Appendix, this is a one-way connection.) The period 1300-1500 AD generally called "Renaissance" was only one of them, maybe the most spectacular in our civilisation. But there was another, the Karoling one, about 800 AD. Rinascimenti are possible since writing exists, so cca. from 3500 BC, and seem to happen when the past civilisation looks superior in some aspect. Writing, libraries &c. yields a forgotten but preserved information, and real or imaginary superiority yields the driving force to learn the mass of forgotten information. Rinascimenti are not at all confined to our own civilisation. For example, Neo-Babylonian civilisation after the final victory over Assyria at the end of VIIth c. BC reaches back to proto-Babylonian titles, formulae and even linguistic style of the time of Hamurabbi, a millenium earlier. Egyptian Late Age documents and art try to return to the standards of the pyramid builder dynasties 1500 years earlier. Sometimes they "forge" documents. Our scholars often detect the "copying", because evolutionary thinking was not strong in the past, so anachronisms appear in the documents in the details of "secondary importance". But in most cases there is no attempt to "forge" an old document; simply new documents use the style of old ones.

Let us see 2 old examples. Nabuapalusur, the leader of Babylonian revolt against Assyria, then king of the Babylonian Empire (626-605 BC), when gets some time (in his whole reign he fought with Assyria and Egypt for independence), starts the restoration of the "Babylonian tower", the zikkurat of his capitol city. In the corresponding inscription he calls himself in the way: "I am Nabuapalusur, shakkanakku of Babili, King of Sumer and Akkad." The shakkanakku is cca. governor. In the old times Lower and Middle Mesopotamia were organised into to "countries": Sumer (the South, populated mainly by Sumerians of obscure origin) and Akkad (the North, populated mainly by Semitic Akkadians). Sumer originally consisted of smaller units, but from the time of Sargon generally there was a single ruler for "Sumer and Akkad", but generally taking two titles. 1700 years later Nabuapalusur in Babylon takes both titles again, plus a less lofty one for the city of Babylon. Hamurabbi, a millenium earlier, was more detailed; however in the introduction of his Law Stele he was Shamash (Sun) of Babili, the carrier of light to Sumer and Akkad. Nabuapalusur's titles are quite old when he starts a new state. He considers himself the inheritor of an old state, many centuries ago. The idea is the same as the humanists', when they regard themselves the inheritors of Latins from the great days of old Rome.

The Egyptian example is the story of the Bekhten Stele. For the text see [64] if you are fanatic. The story seems to happen in the time of Ramses II, so cca. 1200 BC, about a miraculous healing in the country Bekhten via a statue of the god Khonsu. The stele is judged from the Ptolemaic age, so later by a millenium. The text might be a copy, then, but linguistic experts tell that there are "linguistic characterics" pointing also to the Ptolemaic age. So maybe a priest forged a Ramessian document in order to get higher reputation for the healig statue, fooled his contemporaries but not us, moderns, who are better linguists.

Now, New Chronology seems to be accompanied by a historical "paradigm" which is "simplest" in some sense, and so satisfies Quine's demand [13]. In it there do not seem to exist Rinascimenti at all. The Ptolemaic dynasty rules in Alexandria from 700 AD to 1050, so if the Bekhten Stele is Ptolemaic, it is one millenium old. Ramesses II may be another name of a Byzantine Emperor from the XIIIth century AD, and the pyramids were built at the end of XIVth century AD. So the Bekhten Stele may carry a contemporary story. I omit here any discussion of Old and New Babylonian texts because in New Chronology "Babylon" seems as much a "collective name" for great capitols as Rome. (I do not go into Akkadian linguistics and such. If Fomenko and coworkers want to list arguments that Akkadic cuneiform texts are from our Middle Ages, they may do it in details.) The Caroling Rinascimento is a clone of some more modern history (as Charlemagne himself is in New Chronology), and the "Great Rinascimento" from 1300 AD, while not a clone, is not a real revival of existing Past, but a movement forging or imagining an "alternative" Past.

In some sense, then, New Chronology is a minimal theory, not only for the theory of the Sun-Earth-Moon system, but also for sociology. Social evolution is simple, and completely unidirectional even in details. Society does not forget anything important, not even temporarily. Also, great changes happen in minimal numbers of steps. In Old Chronology Old Testament Religion is organised by Moses and New Testament Religion starts with Jesus Christ, separated by some 1200 years; in New Chronology theology they are suggested to be almost contemporary, maybe close kins (for which I cite here a magazine interview with A. T. Fomenko [65]). New Chronology observes the fact that the names of the elder sister of Moses and mother of Jesus are the same; also those of Joshua, successor of Moses, and Jesus (the differences are those of style; Old Chronology theologians would tell linguistic evolution of 1200 years, but they are the same names). Ockham's Razor demands indeed that "entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem". $15 The question is, how large is the necessitas.

Best science is the possible simplest (and nicest) science. Old Chronology History evolved into its present state during 700 years. It is detailed, has answers for many questions; but in some points it is unfinished and in some points clumsily complicated. New Chronology History is new. After some evolution either it will be reduced to absurdity or it will explain things easier. One point when the Old One is surprisingly clumsy is the story of Aristotle.

Maybe we need New Chronology to understand the story of Aristotle. But maybe we can look for the good answers in Old Chronology. Only we should forget ideas that a good scholar of XXIst century works for the lost and unviable cause of Demosthenes, the Athenian, or that a good scholar of XXIst century must identify himself with Vth century BC Athenian cause against Sparta, or with European Greek cause against Asian Greeks.

Many scholars repeat for many centuries an accusation that Philip II of Macedon betrayed Hermeias of Atarneus (e.g. in [66]) $16. On the same time many historians echo Strabo, Hegel and the Suda telling that Hermeias (the poor betrayed freedom fighter) was an eunuch slave of a banker, a sly fox and a tyrant. Of course, for an ancient Athenian a Macedonian was somebody betraying anybody, the enemy of Athens even together with the betrayed; because Macedonians were political enemies of Athens, which is true enough. If Athens make a pact with Persia, as it was done by Admiral Konon just after the Peloponnesian War, practically pushing back the Asian poleis "under Persian yoke", that has good reasons for saving as much from the Greek cause as possible without Athenian disadvantages, what is first principle. (Well, Athens is Hellados Hellas.) When Mentor of Rhodes tricks Hermeias, some scholars simply tell that Philip did not defend his ally, or even betrayed him. I wonder how Philip, without navy and with his land forces still in Thrace, could have defended the State of Atarneus in the Bay of Adramyttion. One year later he tried to go to Asia through Byzantium, but Athens helped Byzantium, and for the glory of the Greek Cause, Philip was repelled. Demosthenes has a speech in which, without naming him, he is glad that Hermeias was catched and will be sent to Susa [67]; Demosthenes is the good guy. Philip is the bad guy not to free Hermeias in some magical ways.

I am not a scholar and most definitely, not a Greek. It is not my task to decide who was the good Greek, the bad Greek and the pseudo-Greek (Macedons get this last judgement frequently, and indeed Old Macedonian may or may not be Greek dialect, for our knowledge $17). However if we believe all, which was told in Athens during the reigns of Philip II and Alexander III, then the understanding of the life of Aristotle is hindered, as the quite new informations about his supposed home city demonstrate.

Thucydides tells that during the Peloponnesian War Athens tried to force the Doric Melos to the Athenian (Ionic) side; they refused, therefore after a long siege the small island was taken, all Melian men killed, all women and children sold to slavery. Interestingly, Xenophon tells [68] that there were survivors who were restored by glorious Spartan Lysander after Aigospotamoi. Even more interesting is that both authors, in contradiction, are Athenian émigrés. We do not know the Spartan version; they did not write too much, therefore libraries preserved rather the Athenian views (and dialect) and now even Doric speech is dying out in Tzakonia. OK, then from 348 BC or thereabouts we hear (from Athens) that the barbarous Philip defeated the good city Stageira, destroyed it, and the population was all killed or sold to slavery. Then after 2343 years excavators see roughly continuous existence in the Philip-Alexander era ([35], [38]). One explanation would be that it is not Stageira; but the Stageiran coins suggest otherwise. Another explanation is that Philip did not depopulate the city. I am sure that he demolished at least parts of the city walls. I am also sure that he killed some leaders or sold them into slavery and exiled some others; also it is possible that at the end of the siege a lot of the population was killed or carried away even without asking Philip. But the city as a unit may lived through the siege. Maybe Aristotle, childhood friend of Philip, intervened too. Does the fact that Stageira remained alters our gross opinion about Philip, anything that opinion be?

Do we know anything sure about the fate of Callisthenes, kin of Aristotle, in the middle of the camp of Alexander? We know stories told by people having certain interests in the biggest conquest of any time or told by people uninterested because younger by centuries. We may guess that if Callisthenes was arrested for treason, either rightly or not, that was deteriorating the good connection of Aristotle and Alexander. However we do not know, in what extent; so until there is nothing to be explained, it is not too advantageous to draw heavy conclusions from that affair. And so on.

I would like better to understand the carrier of Aristotle than those of Philip, Demosthenes and Alexander even together. Demosthenes' cause was lost in 322 BC. Sure, he and his cause had merits; however it was not continued, so maybe it was not viable anymore. But the same happened with Philip's cause in 305, when his family lost forever. Alexander's work lived longer. We may tell that until 31 BC when the last Greek Hellenistic state Egypt was eaten up by Rome (and the Indian Greek states by the autochtons, or yuechis, or anybody else). Aristotle's science lived still more one and half millenia.

Nobody is right compared to far future. But useful or successful actors are right in their near future, the more successful for more time. Aristotle was successful. It would be a waste to hinder the understanding of his carrier by repeating myths and age-old propaganda which had purposes in 338 BC (right or wrong) but is pointless for us and was pointless as far back as 146 BC.

Only: I am afraid that my scepticism in itself will not show me the coherent picture. Will Dr. Fomenko do it?

I would like to thank K. Martinás to demonstrate me some facets of the Aristotle picture. I would have liked to write an Aristotle study with her from physicists' viewpoint, but for some reasons this seems just now impossible. I thank A. Shanenko to have given me an introduction to the paradigm of New Chronology. All responsibilities for errors are mine. I was schooled in Old Chronology and I think that paradigm is not in danger; however I am not offended by New Chronology and my loyality is for Science herself.

We (observers) are in Point 0 at t=0 (such a recoordination is always possible). The historical event, in which we are interested, happened at point P, in time t. We must observe either the event or some consequence; otherwise we would not know anything about it. According to Quine [13] the distinction is not very sharp. By observation we get also some consequences of the original event. However Quine's construction would deserve a whole study.

Until 1905 the physical background of History was Newtonian Classical Mechanics (if any). Here Absolute Time is clicking uniformly in each point of Absolute Space. Appended the theory by some Conservation Laws and discussing the theory of second order differential equations + some paradoxes we get in addition that all motions happen forward in time. Take, for example, a body B turning back in time at the moment t. Then before t B is doubly present and after t not at all, which seems to contradict some conservation laws.

This "principle" sometimes was called the "moving Finger", which "writes and having writ". But sometimes it was called "Time's Arrow".

Only "Time's Arrow" meant something else too. While classical Newtonian Mechanics is totally reversible and processes can go backward as well, Thermodynamics is irreversible. For simplicity, take a closed system. If it was in a non-equilibrium initial condition, its state will go closer and closer to equilibrium, while its entropy is growing (or at least, never decreasing). So then Entropy is Time's Arrow, which shows from Past to Future. The situation is not so simple in open systems, but for simple ones the existence of an extremum principle analogous to the increase of entropy is proven, for more realistic ones it is suspected [69], [70]. Also, in systems with the ability of self-organisation (as living systems) sometimes small initial differences do not decrease but increase. Still, Time's Arrow, Entropy, or anything continuously erases the historical information which we are looking for.

Now, from 1905, Classical Newtonian Mechanics must have replaced by Relativistic Mechanics in the background. While its impact in history was not great, in principle everything changed. The Theory of Special Relativity is now proven by a big string of experiments of which some will be at least mentioned; and the theory was forced by the Michelson interferometry experiment; see any relativity textbook, e.g. [71].

The Michelson experiment tried to measure the velocity of Earth in Absolute Space. Besides other important purposes, this would have been the absolute ultimate check of "Copernican" world picture against Ptolemaic. The apparatus was precise enough to show a velocity cca. 3 km/s, while Earth's orbital velocity around Sun is required to be 30 km/s according to Newtonian Mechanics. The experiment was fundamentally a comparison of the time needed for light to run to and fro in different directions. It is easy to see that a velocity v of the apparatus will appear in a change of the running time proportional with (v/c)², where c is the velocity of light 3*10⁵ km/s. So a measurement of more precise than 10^-8 was needed.

However when performed, it turned out that no velocity of Earth was seen in any direction at a limit of 3 km/s. The result was strange. At first an improbable solution would have been that Sun's motion just compensated Earth's one; but Earth changes the direction of her velocity in half a year while Sun in 120 million years. Repeated experiments also did not show velocity. After some 20 years of trials and errors Einstein arrived at the (Special) Theory of Relativity. In this theory there are no independent and absolute space and time, only one, four-dimensional, entity, space-time. Its "points" are events: an event is defined its coordinates (x,y,z,t). So Event E in the old language is: in point P at time t. Two events may have been at different distances and time-differences from each other, according to the motion of the observer; however there is a four-distance between them independent of any observer. The quantity is (the square of the) time shown by the clock travelling with constant velocity in a straight line between the two events. So in the example I started the Appendix

(1) s² = x²+y²+z²-c²t²

In Special Relativity one is confronted with the phenomenon that light velocity is a limiting velocity. Starting from below, accelerating the body its inertia (mass) is increasing and infinite energy would be needed to reach c. The phenomenon was checked innumerable times in particle accelerators and the qualitative as well as the quantitative predictions of the theory were conform with the measurements. Similarly, since only the above s² is invariant, the motion of the clock influences the run of the clock. At velocities ~1 km/s the predicted changes were checked on atomic clock on jet planes (+ Earth's rotation) and there was both qualitative and quantitative agreement; for velocities "near to" c unstable particles were used (both from cosmic radiation and from accelerators) and their lifetime became prolonged according to theory. So 3-space and time do not exist independently, space-time seems to be the real entity and it seems that the formulae of Relativity are valid. Light propagation has indeed a limiting property.

Still, this does not rule out "superluminal" propagation. Namely, if there exist faster-than-light particles ("tachyons"), then they always remain above c, but they may interact with the familiar ones and so superluminal propagation of information has a possibility. Now, this leads to paradoxes. But first let us assume that tachyons do not exist at all.

Between Event E and us three relations are possible, according to the sign in eq. (1). If s² is negative, then a travel is possible between E and our place just now (Event 0) with uniform velocity &c. Since natural laws cannot distinguish among "inertial" motions (otherwise Earth's absolute velocity could be measured), such a travelling observer does not observe the motion at all, for him $18 the two events happen at the same place but in different time; and the time passed between them is simply

(2) T = {-s²}^1/2

In the coordinate system of that specific observer E is earlier than 0 if t<0, and this relation remains invariant for each observer with v<c. Since tachyons do not exist (by assumption), other observers are impossible. So the chronology of Cause and Effect is invariant.

If s² is 0, then the two events are on light-cone for each other. We cannot prepare a travel, but Light is travelling between E and 0 on light cone and time is not passing for light. Therefore even Time's Arrow does not deteriorate the signal; of course dispersion weakens it, so the signal/noise ratio is decreasing. However the possibility of astronomy back to 12 billion years/lightyears demonstrates the exceptional possibilities on light-cone observations. On light-cone Causality is not a trivial question, because Relativity is a pseudo-Riemannian geometry, so 0 distance does not imply that the 2 points are "near" to each other; I will not discuss this.

If s² in (1) is positive, then no signal can reach 0 from E or backwards. the two events are totally (in the jargon, spatially) separated. They do not influence each other, and no further discussion is needed.

Now, the existence of tachyons would change this picture drastically. Not only to connect any pair of events; a great number of Gedankenexperimente exist with constructions in which tachyon detectors and sources are moving with v<c relative velocities. In such constructions circular propagation of signals is possible so that the relayed signal gets back to the original sender before the original message went out. This possibility leads to serious paradoxes about the existence of Present.

However the paradoxes vanish if i) tachyons do not exist and ii) if the spacetime geometry is Minkowskian everywhere both for local geometry and for topology.

All experiments trying to observe tachyons were unsuccessful up to now. This establishes an upper bound for their flux; or we may believe that Laws of Nature forbid them and be satisfied. I will return to Cond. ii), but is is true at least in good approximation locally, so for a moment I postulate it.

Then there remains a Principle of Local Causality: all possible motions are either inside light-cone or on it. Then hence it is straightforward to prove that motions forward in time never can turn back because first they should leave the light-cone.

But then we cannot go back to Past to observe directly historic events, indeed. All historic events are within (past) light-cone to us, so our best possibility is to go to the specific place, and then the historic event is for some time T in the past. Signals are more or less erased during T by Time's Arrow, because in Thermodynamics processes are driven by differences of intensive variables, oppositely with the differences. Of course, special environments may slow down the process or noble metals last further in terrestrial atmosphere because their standard potentials are more negative, but this problem is amply treated by archaeologic literature. There remains the question (it seems, there is no consensus between supporters of Old and New Chronologies): how direct is the information coming from an excavation. For Old Chronology repeated excavations in Greece yield ample evidence for the proto stages of Greek civilisation there; for New Chronologists the evidences are not direct enough and then they prefer the original Greek civilisation in Egypt and transplantation of it to the general neighbourhood of Byzance maybe not earlier than the second half of XIth century AD by a great founder Alexios I Comnenos whose name is preserved in various cultures as the heroes Constantine the Great of Joshua son of Nun. In such archaeological details Physics is uninterested.

However now let us return to Cond. ii), that space-time is of Minkowski geometry, both for locally and for topology. The first half of this condition is certainly not true.

General Relativity, established in 1916 drops Cond. ii) and instead gives the Einstein Equation determining everywhere the local geometry of the spacetime continuum. The right hand side of the equation contains some characteristics of the local matter distribution. Every expert is sure that it is only an approximation; however so far no flaw was found. The spacetime can be Minkowskian only if it is empty (and is not necessarily Minkowskian even then), but we can calculate the geometry. In our neighbourhood it is Minkowskian for many decimal digits.

Then we arrive at the problem: is Causality guaranteed if all motions happen within or on light-cone (Local Causality Principle) and spacetime geometry is as prescribed by the Gravity/Einstein Equation? The answer is No!

With some simplification I give the details in two parts. First, a lot of space-times were found (on paper, of course) satisfying the Einstein Equations and with closed timelike curves. A timelike curve is the path of a motion not leaving the local lightcone anywhere (not superluminal anywhere) and still returning to the same event whence it started. This means that in some spacetimes permitted by everything we know about Gravity one can return to earlier stages of his own life. Think about the paradoxes appearing then; the Oedipus story is nothing compared. I myself got maybe a half dozen such spacetimes [73].

Some such spacetimes are produced by very unfamiliar kinds of matter. Extensive work is going to see what kinds of matter would lead to these problems; then maybe we can postulate the nonexistence of such matter and maybe we shall be right; one can get a start from Ref. [7], but the literature is enormous. However as it is well known, one can have such spacetimes even without matter at all; the famous Kerr black hole solution (for which even unicity theorems exist!) does contain acausal regions where the free falling observer meets himself [74]. The problem can be eliminated but only by multiplying the whole spacetime infinitely many times [74] and maybe that is worse than even temporal paradoxes.

The second part of the answer is that "strange" topologies do permit acausal paths, and for topology no well-founded contraint exists even in General Relativity up to now. Maybe this problem will be solved in the future, but now we do not have the answer. As an example, consider a simple Minkowskian space-time whose events, however, at t=T are identical with the events at t=0, in the same way as a paper cylinder turns back and glues to itself somewhere. Then the path that the observer simply sits somewhere is a closed timelike path if longer than T. In such a world, satisfying the Gravity Equation and being conform to local experiments known, serious causal problems may happen if we are patient enough. This is the world of the Great Year of Plato.

Of course, we may tell that observations give a lower bound for T, T>13 billion years. The problem is that more trickier topologies are not so easy to throw aside; and according to present astronomical consensus there is a big, rotating black hole at the center of our Milky Way Galaxy, not farther than 30,000 light years.

So, just now General Relativity cannot state that time travel is impossible, although work is going. On the other hand all suggested ways seem impossible up to now, some still only technically, but later they may turn out to be unphysical too. Or not. We do not know.

As told in Appendix A, the present top of our ideas about the structure of space-time is General Relativity, maybe in more than 3+1 dimensions. Now, in General Relativity any system of reference is permitted for description and the form of the equations is independent of the system of reference. So any observer may choose his own coordinate system in whose center he sits [71].

But first let us go to Newton. In his physics both Sun and Earth perform accelerating motion in the Absolute Space. Independently of the global motion of the Solar System (he still did not know the structure of Milky Way Galaxy) in a world containing only Sun, Earth and observers, Earth and Sun both would orbit around the common center of mass. So Copernicus was closer to the mark than Ptolemy but the difference is only gradual.

In General Relativity there is no "natural motion". Since external forces on them are negligible (Gravity is not a force), both Sun and Earth are moving on straight(est) lines in the space-time, and these straightest lines, because of Gravity, are orbiting each other.

Of course, between Newton and Einstein a Copernican viewpoint was much closer to physical reality than a Ptolemaic one.

Without time travel we can continue the argumentation about "how direct" is our evidence about a historic point. Let us see an example.

The oldest Sumerian king (ensi) verified personally up to now is (En)mebaragesi, from the First Dynasty of Kish. An alabaster vase was found at the excavation of a Nippur shrine. That shrine got royal gifts. On the vase it is written [75]: mebaragsi lugal kisi, i.e. Mebarag(e)si, King (Big Man) of Kish. Since "en" is simply another royal title, there is few doubts among Old Chronology historians that Mebaragsi=Enmebaragesi. Maybe the decipherment is not absolutely good, but in cuneiform "en" is one sign, so the remaining can be compared.

Now we have a very old King List [76]. Old Chronology historians detect an anomaly: for very old times when we would expect parallel dynasties in Kish, Uruk and Ur at least, the list gives one dynasty for all Sumer. Their explanation is that the proto-List was compiled from different city archives after the victorious revolt against Gutis (about 2120 BC). Then there was a unified Sumer already for two centuries so the compilers believed that this was normal even before. Then the List was extended with later rulers and our copy is from cca. 1700 BC, still old.

On the List there are rulers before the Flood and after it. Let us neglect the pre-Flood ones and let us not to discuss what may have been the Flood except that it was a catastrophe. The first post-Flood dynasty is Kish I, and since Kish was a northern city at somewhat higher ground, it is indeed possible that normalcy returned first in Kish. Kish I is 23 kings; the problem is that with some 241,000 years total. Enmebaragesi is the last but one king with 900 years rule; the dynasty ends with his son Agga, 625 years. So far the List seems a fairy tale, except that it contains Enmebaragesi.

A quite old and relatively short epic work remained about Gilgamesh King of Uruk and Agga King of Kish warring against each other. (I do not give here the big literature of the poem.) In the story Agga besieges Uruk, but Gilgamesh wins, captures Agga, but sets free for exchange of some (still unknown) earlier friendly act of Agga. The very first line calls Agga the son of Enmebaragesi. Maybe the epic is late and pure fiction, but maybe the epic is old and preserved real tradition. The available copy is late, cca. 1900 BC, but the text seems old. The event may have been real if Kish I and Uruk I were parallel.

We can count back from Sargon, who was the first (or second?) king of all Sumer and Akkad. Backward the 13th separate Uruk king is Gilgamesh, the 12th separate Kish king Agga, in spite of the 625 years of Agga and only 126 of Gilgamesh. Maybe the proto-List was genuine but the numbers were read or written in different ways in different regions, specially old ones. We had a hypothesis for this, reinterpreted the numbers according to some fairly strict rules [77], and then we got the dates

Gilgamesh 2637-2616 BC +/- 25

Agga 2657-2647 BC +/- 40

The two kings are synchronous within 1 s. We performed similar check to all possible synchronisms before 2450 BC and they were OK.

No individual Sumerian king is C14 dated. However Gilgamesh is generally guessed to 28th or 27th century BC (when accepted historical), and for the early royal layers of Uruk there are C14 data. Note that the Sumerian King List in its extant copy speaks against the Gilgamesh-Agga synchronism: because of the erroneous historical assumption applied during the compilation of the proto-List in 2120 there are 4 kings of 2044 years total between Agga and Gilgamesh. So the old tradition of the Gilgamesh-Agga war and the old tradition of the List were independent. The synchronism is possible only when we read the list in a way we think it corrected. The statistical analysis of the corrected numbers show that for ruling years the averages of Kish I differ from the synchronous part of Uruk I at 2s level; and surely one is not cloned from the other because for the uncorrected numbers the average of Kish I is slightly above 1000 years, while for Uruk I slightly below 200.

But then: did Enmebaragesi exist? His name is carved on the Nippur vase. So much is sure. But who carved it and when? Even in Old Chronology history one cannot rule out the possibility that some priest of the shrine later wanted to make the impression (for any reason) that the shrine got gifts from great Enmebaragesi, 22nd King of Kish.

Alabaster survives 4600 years; even alabaster vase if nobody steps on it. (Thermodynamic constraint.) But in 4600 years, not always seen, a lot of forgeries may happen. So without time travel how to get a direct proof that the vase was continuously undisturbed between 2660 BC and 1890 AD? And if we do not have a direct proof for this, how to get a direct proof for that it was earlier the vase of Enmebaragersi, Lugal of Kish?

Two Stageira drachmas at a Chalcidice site are some indications that the neighbouring walls are ruins of Stageira. This is, of course, not a proof. Stageira coins, in smaller quantity than in Stageira, may appear in the neighbour cities too. There is no single proof. And if drachmas of Philip II and Alexander III both occur, still the city may have been empty, say, for 8 years. What is important is the whole web of finds, linguistics &c. Now the traditional story is not exactly convincing for great Aristotle. Will Aristotle's story be more convincing in New Chronology when worked out in details?

$1 Called generally Renaissance. However it is anachronism to use the French form. In Old Chronology history it was originally and mainly an Italian movement; Italians surrounded by Antique buildings, artifacts and manuscripts wanted to bring back the Ancient Times. (In New Chronology Rinascimento is misinterpretation; a virtual/alternative history.) The French Renaissance was a mechanical copy of the Italian movement.

$2 If Universe is spherical and stationary, so has an SO(3)*U(1) symmetry, and if Earthly matter is heavy so has the tendency to go down (both axioms inherent in Aristotle's cosmology), then the heavy matter forms a sphere around the center. So Earth is formed from Earthly matter without further assumptions, will not move except maybe a rotation, and will be spherical.

$3 The Suda (or Suida, or Suidas) Lexicon is Byzantine, not very reliable, and very detailed; some 1000 years old. One may believe that the collectors still had some texts not extant now; surely they had tradition too and some parts of it are in contradiction. So when only Suda knows about something, one must use common sense. But what else can we do? For example, Aristotle's brother and sister have names as identical as possible for a boy and a girl. Then maybe the names are artificial, made by somebody knowing about a son and a daughter, but not their names. But also: they may have been twins. Who knows?

$4 For us it is impossible. For ancients it was not impossible but very rare indeed. (A miracle? A rare example of extraordinary lifepower or maleness? A very strong thymos?) Aristotle mentions a male animal which just after castration inseminated the female. This is not impossible even to us. Also, one can (not) decide the reliability of Suda: it seems to confuse Hermeias Lord of Atarneus and Hermias, the later Alexandrian philosopher when tells that the eunuch wrote On the Soul. Now, sure, Hermias of Alexandria wrote an On the Soul. But there is a tradition that young Aristotle also wrote an On the Soul [59], now lost; and that young Aristotle was a friend of Hermeias at the Academy. One may even imagine that the lost On the Soul was the common work of Hermeias and Aristotle. (One can assume anything about a lost work.)

$5 Ref. [30] tells that Alexander ascends the trone in 336/5, and then Aristotle returns to Stageira rebuilt by Alexander. Since in a year Aristotle goes to Athens, the Macedons would have been rather fast to building, also in finding the citizens sold to slavery some 10 years earlier.

$6 I am not really surprised. The trial was political and the poem was a mock reason. Among mock political trials this was not the most absurd.

$7 Archaeologically we know a lot about Lyceum [32]. Its Western fringe seems to have been just W. of modern Amalias Bd., the Eastern fringes were at or after the modern National Gardens. The Southern boundary was at the creeks Olympieion & Ilissos, and maybe the Northern boundary in the modern Kolonaki plateia. In 1996 excavations along modern Rigillis St. found a palaistra of Lyceum. And so on.

$8 In Magyar Kolozsvár, again from one of the earliest Lord Lieutenant in the Xth century, Kolozs. Cluj in Roumanian, with regular linguistic evolution in Roumanian from the same name. In German Klausenburg. In Latin Claudiopolis, an artificial name.

$9 History is not simple. The last remnants of the Dorians, the Tzakons, live rather in old Arcady, which must have been Achaian, than in Laconia, although not far.

$10 To the strange (?) collaboration between Aiolis and Euboia in colonisation see Strabon's story about the Chalcis-Kyme joint foundation of the Italian Kyme [34], V 4, 4; the details are, of course, impossible. Observe that there is an Elaia in Aiolis and an Elea in Italy. (And: there is an Eretria in Euboia and an Erythrai in Ionia, Asia Minor.) There is a belief that there was a Kyme in Euboia (surely there is one now); this belief goes back at least to Stephanos of Byzance, VIth c. AD, see the discussion in Ref. [60]. For further possible Euboian-Aiolian "interactions" see the argumentation in Electronic Antiquity, Refs. [61] & [62]: Powell believes that Homer worked on Euboia, specially at Lefkadi and Lenz seriously opposes it. What is interesting for us: although the language of Iliad and Odyssey is mainly Ionic, "his dialect includes many troubling Aeolic forms" [61]. We do not have to decide this problem. I only think that at the present state of art Aiolian traditions in Chalcis, either as substrate or via close contacts cannot be ruled out. The mother of Aristotle was Chalcean, he had there an estate and Chalcidice was colonised originally from Chalcis.

$11 Not Sceptic but from Scepsis, Troas.

$12 I think, copy prices went down when Rome got a lot of literate Greek slaves. But also, copying was an industry in the Alexandria Library.

$13 Cca. *819, +895 in Hungarian Old Chronology; New Chronology is still silent. See Ref. [16].

$14 Sure: the Lycean teachers are still philosophers, so friends of knowledge, not specialised scientists or scholars. But within philosophy science seems to decline.

$15 To be sure, in [1]-[4] Jesus and Joshua (son of Nun) are not the same person, but contemporaries. Joshua is Constantine I, who is again the clone of the real Alexios I Comnenos.

$16 Tertullianus may have heard a betrayal story but did not understand and thought that Aristotle himself was the traitor. Ussher [24] defends Aristotle. But I must admit that Aristotle formulated the epigram on the pedestal of the statue of Hermeias perhaps too elegantly. The "detested treason" of a friend is not the most proper term for the trick of Mentor of Rhodes. As far as we know Mentor was not a real friend of Hermeias and, secretly, they were at opposite sides. Mentor of Rhodes was a firm and reliable general of the Persian Great King. Maybe that was treason against the Greek Cause or against Doric traditions (as we may see, Mentor of Rhodes now fought on the same side as Demosthenes of Athens).

$17 On the scarcity of our present knowledge I do not mean the scarcity of data about Macedonian words or grammar, but the lack of common opinion about what is a language or rather what are two languages. We know tens of thousands of Bohemian and Slovakian words. Still, in the First Republic of Czechoslovakia it was written into the constitution that the official language of Czechoslovakia was the Czechoslovak (which existed in two literary norms) and it was told that it was right to have an unitary Czechoslovakia because of the common language. Then in the Second Republic, from 1945, it was told that Bohemian and Slovakian languages were different, still that it was proper to have a unitary Republic of Czechoslovakia. Then in 1969 the Republic ceased to be unitary, and ceased to exist at the night of 31st December, 1992. Were politicians right in the linguistic question in 1920 and 1945; and does a common language imply common nationality, or different different? Ref. 42 tells us that "sky" is "aither" in Greek but "ade" in Macedonian; and "head" is kephale vs. keble. It seems that some aspiranted stops diverged in Attic vs. Macedonian. This is a difference. Is this difference bigger than a lot of differences between Ionic and Aeolian? And if it is bigger, is that the difference of two very far dialects or two nearby languages? And: was Philip leading the anti-Persian front without asking the permission of Athens to help her because he was Greek or un-Greek for his first (?) language? Lot of Hungarians do not understand any Slavic language. But if they learn one, they can interpret many others too. From so far they seem the same; but we are told they are not really.

$18 According to some scholars/scientists of Anglo-Saxon background I should write him/her or backwards. In contrast I seriously suggest to drop the he/she opposition from Scientific English. Hungarians live without this opposition; all Finno-Ugric and Altaic languages can exist without genders; ask a Japanese colleague. Even within Indo-European, Anatolian languages (Hittite & close relatives) seem to have lived without masculine/feminine opposition. And if the observer is a clock, then it is an It.

[1] G. V. Nosovskiy & A. T. Fomenko: Rus’ i Rim. Pravil’no li my ponimaem istoriyu Evropy i Azii? Izd. AST, Moscow, 2000

[2] G. V. Nosovskiy & A. T. Fomenko: Imperiya. Faktorial, Moscow, 1995.

[3] A. T. Fomenko & G. V. Nosovskij: New chronology and new concept of english history. British empire as direct successor of byzantine-roman empire. http://kulichki-lat.rambler.ru/moshkow/FOMENKOAT/engltr.txt

[4] G. V. Nosovskij & A. T. Fomenko: Novaya hronologiya i koncepciya drevney istorii Rusi, Anglii i Rima. Fakti. Statistika. Gipotezy. http://moshkow.perm.ru/lat/FOMENKOAT/rus_ar.txt

[5] A. T. Fomenko: The Jump of the Second Derivative of the Moon’s Elongation. Celestial Mechanics 25, 33 (1981)

[6] Szendrey Jutka: A világvége elmarad!!! Harmadik Szem 72, 8 (1997)

[7] S. Hawking & G. F. R. Ellis: The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1973

[8] Lukács B.: Sötétség délben. Harmadik Szem 99, 18 (1999)

[9] F. R. Stephenson & L. J. Fatoohi: The Total Solar Eclipse Descibed by Plutarch. http://www.dur.ac.uk/Classics/histos/1998/stephenson.html

[10] E. Kelevedziev & J. Tabov: Remark. http://www.math.bas.bg/chronology/remsf.html

[11] B.Lukács: Comments on Fomenkology: My Comments No. 1. http://www.rmki.kfki.hu/~lukacs/FOMENKO1.htm

[12] G. H. Darwin: On the precession of a viscous spheroid and on the remote history of Earth. Philos. Transact. Roy. Soc. London, Part 2, 170, 447 (1879)

[13] W. V. O. Quine: Methods of Logic. Holt, Rinehart & Wilson, New York, 1963

[14] E. Schrödinger: What is Life? MacMillan, New York, 1944

[15] V. S. Imshennik: Supernova explosions and historical chronology. Physics-Uspekhy 43, 509 (2000)

[16] B.Lukács: Comments on Fomenkology: My Comments No. 2. http://www.rmki.kfki.hu/~lukacs/FOMENKO2.htm

[17] Diogenes Laertius: Lives of Eminent Philosophers. Harvard University Press, Cambridge Mass., 1925

[18] ***:Suda On-Line. http://www.stoa.org, entries Aristotle and Hermias.

[19] ***: Aristotle's Life. Life, Academies, Death. http://www-adm.pdx.edu/user/sinq/greekciv2/philosophy/aristotle/life.htm

[20] ***: Aristotle. http://www.cesa10.k12.wi.us/clustera/multimedia/fallcreek/mlsna/7/aristotle4.htm

[21] J. J. O'Connor & E. F. Robertson: Aristotle. http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Aristotle.html

[22] ***: Aristóteles. http://members.es.tripod.de/cholas/teles.htm

[23] F. Copleston: Felsefe Tarihi. Aristoteles. wysiwyg://15/http://www.idea-tr.com/yayinlar/car/car_birinci_bolum.htm

[24] J. Ussher: The Annals of the World. http://www.revelationwebsite.co.uk/index1/ussher/ussher11.htm

[25] V. Daniels: Psychology in Greek Philosophy. Lecture held at Western Psychological Association Conf., Seattle, April 26, 1997; http://www.sonoma.edu/people/daniels/Greeks.html

[26] Strabo: Geography. Loeb Classical Library. Harvard University Press, Cambridge. (The Perseus Project does not contain Books 1-5, so Italy.)

[27] K. Martinás: private communication

[28] B. Lukács: Rise and Fall of Atarneus. http://www.rmki.kfki.hu/~lukacs/atarn.htm

[29] Plutarchos: Vitae parallellae. Alexander, Chap. 7. Teubner, Leipzig, 1892

[30] ***: Aristotle. http://hoocher.com/Philosophy/aristotle.htm

[31] Sir Thomas Browne: Vulgar Errors, Chap. XIII. http://penelope.uchicago.edu/pseudo713.html

[32] W. Morison: The Lyceum. http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/l/lyceum.htm

[33] K. S. Staikos & L. Kontompnas: Libraries. http://www.libraries.gr/en_hellenic.htm

[34] Strabón: Geógraphika. (Transl. Földy J.) Gondolat, Budapest, 1977.

[35] Hellenic Ministry of Culture: Ancient Stageira. http://alexander.macedonia.culture.gr/2/21/211/2116/e211pa07.html

[36] Polyxeni Adam Veleni: Macedonian Heritage. Archaeological Work in Macedonia and Thrace. http://www.macedonian-heritage.gr/Contributions/Veleni.html

[37] Kerstin Fuchs: Makedonien - Neuentdeckung Nordgriechenlands. http://www.dorfzeitung.com/dz/2000/056/makedonia.htm

[38] Carol Zerner: News from the Hellenes. http://www.uni-heidelberg.de/subject/hd/fak7/hist/o1/logs/sophia/log.started950301/mail-2.html

[39] C. W. Tombaugh & P. Moore: Out of the Darkness: The Planet Pluto. Stackpoole, Harrisburg, 1980

[40] Thucydides: The Peloponnesian War. Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1972

[41] P. Bekyros: Leonidio. http://arcadia.ceid.upatras.gr/arkadia/engversion/places/leonidio.htm

[42] ***: Who Are the Macedonians? wysiwyg://626/http://www.geocities.com/the_maco_god/who_are_the_macedonians.html

[43] Plato: Symposium182b-d. In Perseus Project: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Plat.+Sym.+182b

[44] F. X. von Zach: Über einen zwischen Mars und Jupiter längst vermutheten nur warscheinlich entdecken neuen Hauptplaneten unseres Sonnen-Systems. Monatliche Correspondenz zur Befõrderung der Erd Und Himmels Kunde 3, 592 (1801)

[45] G. W. F. Hegel: Dissertatio philosophica de Orbitis Planetarum. Pro licentia docendi, Jenae, 1801

[46] Ellen N. Brundige: Alexandrian Library. wysiwyg://76/http://www.alexandrialibrary.com/

[47] T. E. Rihll: Strato. http://www.swan.ac.uk/classics/staff/ter/grst/People/Strato.htm

[48] De Mundo, translated by E. S. Forster. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1914

[49] W. Capelle: Neue Jahrbücher XV, 529 (1905)

[50] Plutarchos: Vitae parallellae. Lysander, Chap. 7. Teubner, Leipzig, 1892

[51] Sz. Bérczi, Ágnes Holba, B. Lukács & K. Martinás: Chrestomathia Atarneana, to appear

[52] L. Canfora: The Vanished Library: A Wonder of the Ancient World. University of California Press, Berkeley, 1989

[53] Ellen Brundige: The Decline of the Library and Museum of Alexandria. http://www.digital-brilliance.com/kab/alex.htm

[54] R. Sharples: Peripatetic Physics berween Strato and Critolaus. Lecture at "The Early Hellenistic Lyceum", at University of Texas at Austin, March 29-31, 2001, http://www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/philisophy/faculty/sosa/ClassPhiloProg.html

[55] Voula Tsouna: Aristo on Blends of Arrogance. Lecture at "The Early Hellenistic Lyceum", at University of Texas at Austin, March 29-31, 2001, http://www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/philisophy/faculty/sosa/ClassPhiloProg.html

[56] D. M. Searby: The Sayings of Aristo. Lecture at "The Early Hellenistic Lyceum", at University of Texas at Austin, March 29-31, 2001, http://www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/philisophy/faculty/sosa/ClassPhiloProg.html

[57] D. Hahm: Who was Aristo of Ceos? Lecture at "The Early Hellenistic Lyceum", at University of Texas at Austin, March 29-31, 2001, http://www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/philisophy/faculty/sosa/ClassPhiloProg.html

[58] D. A. Bowman: Pausanias 7.11.1-2 and the Identity of ho Gallos. AHB 6, 95 (1992)

[59] A. P. Bos: Cosmic and Meta-Cosmic Theology in Aristotle's Lost Dialogues. E. J. Brill, Leiden, 1989

[60] K. Brodersen: The "Urban Myth" of Euboian Cyme: A Study in Lexicographical Tradition. AHB Electronic Preview, http://www.trentu.ca/ahb/ahbpreviews/ahb-pev-kb.html

[61] B. P. Powell: Did Homer Sing at Lefkandi? Electronic Antiquity Vol. 1, Number 2, July 1993. wywsiwyg://296/http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/ElAnt/V1N2/powell.html

[62] J. R. Lenz: Was Homer Euboean? A Reply. Electronic Antiquity Vol. 1, Number 3, Aug. 1993. wywsiwyg://296/http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/ElAnt/V1N3/lenz.html

[63] A. Toynbee: A Study of History. Weathervane, New York, 1979

[64] O. von Lemm: Aegyptische Lesestücke, Leipzig, 1883

[65] D. Jovanovic & L. Stavric: Anatolij Timofejevic Fomenko. NIN 13 June 1997 (No 2424)

[66] ***: A Note on the Life and Work of Aristotle. http://www.mala.bc.ca/~johnstoi/introser/aristbio.htm

[67] Demosthenes: Fourth Philippic. Demosthenes Speeches 10.31-32 in Perseus Project, http://perseus.csad.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Dem.+10+31

[68] Xenophon: Hellenika. Perseus Project Book 2, Chap. 2; http://perseus.csad.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Xen.+Hell.+2.2.1

[69] P. Glansdorf & I. Prigogine: Thermodynamic Theory of Structure, Stability and Fluctuations. Wiley-Interscience, London, 1971

[70] K. Martinás: Irreversible Thermodynamic Theory of Transport Processes and Its Application to Superconductors. C.Sc. Theses, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, April 2, 1982. Published in Hungarian in Magyar Fizikai Folyóirat 33, 181 (1985)

[71] C. Misner, K. S. Thorne & J. A. Wheeler: Gravitation. Freeman & Co., San Francisco, 1973

[72] P. T. Landsberg: Thermodynamics. J. Wiley, New York, 1961

[73] E.g.: B. Lukács, E. T. Newman, G. Sparling & J. Winicour: A NUT-like Solution with Fluid Matter. Gen. Rel. Grav. 15, 567 (1983)

[74] R. Gautreau: A Kruskal-like Extension of the Kerr Metric Along the Symmetry Axis. Il Nuovo Cimento 50, 120 (1967)

[75] A. Poebel: Historical and Grammatical Texts. Philadelphia, 1914, No. 6-7 (PBS 5)

[76] Th. Jacobsen: The Sumerian King List. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1939

[77] B. Lukács & L. Végsô: The Chronology of the "Sumerian King List". Altorientalische Forschungen 2, 25 (1975)

My HomePage, with some other studies, if you are curious.