ABSTRACT
The common thread in the foregoing chapters has been to clarify the dynamics between Aristotle and his heirs in the light of new scholarship that has been emerging in the past decades. In assessing this relationship, we have uncovered both rm doctrinal unity in many areas as well as disconcerting moments of dissent in others. I have tried to indicate on several occasions that to be a Peripatetic-whether self-declared or considered as such by others-clearly did not mean that one agreed with everything Aristotle had written. This chapter will revisit the debates within the Peripatos characterised by disagreement. It is my aim to clarify further the complex relationship between the avowed followers of Aristotle and their founder. Successive heads of school felt free to move away from, change, or replace certain doctrinal positions. We saw that in one case someone was called a Peripatetic on the basis of their study of Aristotle’s writings (Xenarchus), in another because the person was an enthusiast and in possession of Aristotle’s library (Apellicon, above p. 167). Clearly several dierent criteria applied to use or earn this label-mostly assigned by outsiders.
