Books on Aristotle form biggest single group sent to Phronesis for review. Carlo Natali considers context of Aristotle's philosophy in his life and in activity of his school.' He warns us against assimilating Aristotle and Plato to modern scholars, or indeed to fifth-century sophists, with reputations to establish and careers to advance (cf. also N.'s 'Aristotele professore?' in this journal, 36 (1992) 61-73). For Aristotle and Plato, N. argues, philosophy was a way best way, indeed of occupying aristocratic leisure. He cites (136) Isocrates Panathenaicus 200 in support of idea that teachers regularly worked on revision of their texts with their pupils. This may, as he shows, provide a context for Theophrastus' remark to Phanias (Diogenes Laertius 5.37) that public readings produce corrections, but present generation does not tolerate postponing everything and not attending to it. At risk of introducing another anachronism in place of one N. has expelled, is Theophrastus (of all people!) complaining about ancient equivalent of the pressure to publish? Many have stressed political significance in fourth-century Athens of links between Aristotle and Macedonia; N. notes lack of evidence for these in Aristotle's actual writings by contrast with Theophrastus' use of botanical reports from Alexander's campaign. The relation between philosophy and politics is a theme, in a different way, in Richard Bodeus' collection of nine papers, three new and six revisions,2 including two concerned with place of political science in Aristotle's taxonomy of knowledge and relation between philosophy and political action. B.'s account of deliberation (pp.39-40) is strange. He presents it as confirming hypotheses: if our goal is wealth, we first suppose that conquering a neighbouring state is a means to this end, and then confirm that it is indeed so by observing that conquering this state will give us control of its mines, say. But