You are on page 1of 544

I^rc6cntc^ to

of tbe

Tllnlverait)? of ?Ioronto

Professor Frederick Tracy


Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2007 with funding from
IVIicrosoft Corporation




PRE-SOCRATIC SCHOOLS : a History of Greek

Philosophy from the Earliest Period to the time of Socrates.
Translated from the German by Sarah F. Alleynk. 2 vols.
Crown 8vo. dOs.


Translated from the German by 0. J. PiEICHEL, M.A.
Crown 8vo. 10s. 6d.


from the German by Sarah P. Alleyne and A. Goodwin.
Crown 8vo. 18s.


lated from the German by 0. J. Eeichel, M.A. Crown
8vo. 1 5s.


SOPHY. Translated from the German by Sarah F.
Alleyke. Crown 8vo. lO*. 6d.


|l / PHILOSOPHY. German by Sarah
Translated from the P.
Alleyne and Evelyn Abbott. Crown 8vo. 10.s. 6^'.


39 PaternosterRow, London
Kew York and Bombay







J. H. MUIEHEAD, M.A. 0/^1




All rights reserved





The following translation embraces Pai^t II. Div. II.

of the third edition of Dr. Eduard Zeller's work on

The Philosophy of the Greeks in its Historical Develop-

ment.' It is made with Dr. Zeller's sanction, and

completes the series of volumes issued from time to

time by Messrs. Longmans as translations of the

various sections of that exhaustive work. Mr. Costelloe

is chiefly responsible for the translation of text and

notes up to the middle of Chapter VII., and for

Chapter XIX. to the end ; Mr. Muirhead for the middle

portion. In most instances, however, both translators
have revised the sheets. In calling attention to the table
of Corrigenda, which is longer than might reasonably

be expected in a work of this kind, the editors desire

to explain that, owing to an accident for which the
translator was not responsible, the sheets of that portion

of the text in which the greater part of them occur


were passed through the press before he had seen them

in proof. In dealing with some parts of Zeller's notes

a cei-tain liberty has been taken with the German text

with a view to condensing the material where this could

be done without impairing its value. The treatise is

believed to be the only work accessible to English

readers which is a complete and accurate exposition of

the Aristotelian doctrine. The student will find ample

guidance as to Dr. Zeller's plan in the Table of Contents,
which is in fact an index of subject matters ; and the
arrangement adopted by Dr. Zeller is so logical and
clear that it has not been considered necessary to

burden the translation with an exhaustive verbal index.





Year of his birth, his family and youth, 2. Entrance into the
Platonic School, relatioh to Plato, development of his opinions,
6. Sojourn in Atarneus, 18. The Macedonian Court, 21,
Return to Athens, teaching and research, 25. Coolness of
Alexander, 31. Flight from Athens and death, 38. Cha-
racter, 39.


Aristotle's writings

A. Consideration of tJie ijarticular Worhs seriatitn

The Catalogues, 48.Letters and poems, 53. Dialogues and earlier
writings, 55. Works on Logic, 64. Rhetoric, 72. Metaphysics,
75. Natural Philosophy the Material Universe and Inorganic

Nature, 81. Organic Nature, 87. Ethics and Politics, 97.

Theory and History of Art, 102.

B. General Questions touching the Aristotelian Writings.

Different classes of Writings, 105. Exoteric, 106. Scientific, 123.

history and order of the works OF ARISTOTLE
Fate of Aristotle's Works, 137. Date and sequence of Works, 154.

Aristotle and Plato, 161. Their Agreement, 162.
Their Difference,
165. Aristotle's Method:
Dialectic, 171. Empiricism, 173.
Formalism, 177. Division of his Philosophy: Theoretic, Prac-
tical, Poietic, and their subdivisions, 180. Logic, Metaphysics,
Physics, Ethics, Theory of Fine Art, 188.


Scope of Logic, 191. Nature and Origin of Knowledge, 194. De-

velopment of Knowledge, 196. Problem of the Science of Know-
ledge, 211.
Universal elements of Thought the Concept, 212. Essence and

Accident, Genus, Differentia, Species, 213. Identity and Differ-

ence, kinds of Opposition, 223. The Judgment, 229. Affirmation
and Negation, 230. The Quantity of Judgments, 232. Modality,
233. Conversion, 236. The Syllogism, 236. The Figures, 238.
Rules and Fallacies of Syllogism, 241.
Proof: its problem and conditions, 243. Limits of Proof; Imme-
diate Knowledge, 245. Axioms and Postulates, 248. The Prin-
ciple of Contradiction and Excluded Middle, 251. Induction,
Dialectic or Probable Proof, 252. Defects of Aristotelian Induc-
tion, 255. Definition, 265. Classification, 270. Summa Geneva^


The Categories what they are and how they are deduced, 274.

The Categories in Detail, 281. Significance of the Theory of

the Categories, 288.
First Philosophy as the Science of Being its Problem, 290.
: Its
Possibility, 292.
Fundamental Questions of Metaphysics, and their treatment by
Earlier Philosophers the chief problem of Metaphysics in Ari-

stotle's time and his mode of presenting it, 295. Criticism of

previous attempts at its solution: the Pre-Socratics, 297. The
Sophists, Socrates, and the Minor Socratic Schools, 312. Plato,
313. The Ideas, 314. The Ideas as Numbers, 319. The Ulti-
mate Principles of Things, the One and the original Material,
321. The value of Aristotle's criticisms on Plato, 326.


The Main Inquiry of Metaphysics
The Individual and the Universal, 329. The Individual alone is
substantial, 331. Difficulties in this view, 334.

Form and Matter : the Actual and the Possible deduction of the

opposition of Matter and Form, 340. More accurate account of

the opposition the Actual and the Possible, 345. Significance

of this doctrine in Aristotle, 351. The Form in its three different

aspects as Cause, 355. The operation of the Material Cause
Passivity, Natural Necessity, Contingency, 358. Essential sig-
nificance of Matter, 365. Matter and Form in relation to the
principles of Individuality and Substantiality, 368. Relativity
of Matter and Form, 378.
Motion and the First Cause of Motion, 380. Mover and Moved, 383.
Eternity of Motion, 387. Necessity of a Primum Mobile, 389.
Its Nature, 393. The operation of God on the World, 402.

A. The Idea of Nature and the most General Conditions of
Natural Existence
Nature as the Cause of Motion, 417. Kinds of Motion, 422. Motion
in Space, 423. The Infinite, 427. Space and Time, 432. Further
discussion of Motion in Space, 437. Qualitative Change: Oppo-
sition to Mechanical Theory, 441. Qualitative Variety in Matter,
443. Qualitative Transformation, 450. Mixture of Materials,
456. Final Causes in Nature, 459. The Resistance of Matter
to Form, 465. Nature as a Progressive Series of Forms, 466.

PHYSICS continued
B. The Universe and the Elements
The Eternity of the World, 469. The Terrestrial and the Celestial
Universe the ^ther, 472. The Four Elements, 477. The Unity

of the World, 485. The Shape of the Universe, 487.

Structure of the Heavens: Theory of the Spheres, 489. The Number
of the Spheres, 499. Retrogressive Spheres, 501. The circle of
the Fixed Stars, 504. The Planetary Spheres, 505. Earth and
Heaven, 506.
Generation and Destruction in Terrestrial Elements, 508. Meteor-
ology, 512. Inorganic Nature, 516.
Addenda and C(yrrigenda.

Page 74, n. 2. adds in a later note that Diog. No. 78 gives the Rhetoric only
2 books, but this is not decisive.

129, 1. 22. Zeller adds in a later note, that many of these may be in great part
explained by the supposition that Aristotle did not always lei-ite, but
dictated his books.
178, n. 2, for Braniss read Brandis
188, n. 1, col. 1, 1. 12, for representation read opinion
203, u. 2, 1. 4, insert 199, n. 2
210, n. 2, col. 1, 1. 18, delete of
224, n. col. 1, 11. 11, 12, for a and an read the same
232,.233,/or individual [judgments] read singular
235, n. col. 2, 1. SO, for apodeictic read assertorial
249, n, 3, col. 2, 1. 5, for there read these
257, n. 1, add a further reference to Be Coelo, i. 10 init.
288, n. 1, col. 2, 11. 18, 21, for equality read identity

302, n. 3, col. 2, 1. 3,/or corresponds with read assimilates to itself

335, n. 1, 1. 4, for general read universal

346, n. col. 2, 1. 15 from bottom, after possibility insert comma

361, u. col. 1, 1. 16, omit semicolon

364, 1. 8. Zeller in a later note refers to the criticism of Torstrik {Hermes, ix.
1875, p. 425), and suggests that the word 'disturbance' might be replaced
by 'modification.'
390, n. 3, col. 1, 1. 17,/or Fr. 13 read Fr. 12
395, n. coL 1, 1. 9, after (the aiStov) add that it should be capable of ceasing to be
400, n. 1, col. 2, 1. 11, omit not
1. 33, afterword read is
404, 1. 23, /or object of thought read intelligible
405, n. 3, col. 1, 1. 12, for do read are
407, n. 2, col. 2, 1. 18, /or motion read moved
412, n. col 1, 1. add absolutely
5, after klvovv
415, 1. 16, for forcesread Form
417, 1. 9, for bodies and masses related to them read not only bodies and
. . .

magnitudes but everything which possesses them or is related to them

427, n. 3, col. 2, 1. 8, /or masses read magnitudes
428, 1. 28, /or after read behind
441, n. 2, col. 1, 1. 8, /or forcible read forced

454, 1. 11, /or extension read extrusion

459, n. 5, col. 1, 1. 17, for But read Again

479, n. 1, col. 1, 1. 1, after ought add in the converse case

1. 4, after does add not

481, n. 1, col. 2, 1. 24, /or oppositions read opposites.
497, n. 1, col. 2, 1. 3,/or one who stands
... in front of him read in front of the
propeller who stands in the line of the axis
604, 1. 1,/or One read The
510, 1. 2,/or has raised read surrounds




The lives and circumstances of the three great philo-

sophers of Athens show a certain analogy to the character
and scope of their work. As the Attic philosophy began
by searching the inner nature of man and went on from
this beginning to extend itself over the whole field of
existence, so we find that the life of its great masters
was at first confined in narrow limits, and gained, as
time went on, a wider range. Socrates is not only a
pure Athenian citizen, but a citizen who feels no desire
to pass beyond the borders of his city. Plato is also an
Athenian, but the love of knowledge takes him to
foreign lands and he is connected by many personal
interests with other cities. Aristotle owes to Athens
his scientific training and his sphere of work ; but he
belongs by birth and origin to another part of Greece,
he spends his youth and a considerable part of his man-
hood out of Athens, chiefly in the rising Macedonian
kingdom; and even when he is in Athens, it is as a
stranger, not bound up with the political life of the

city, and not hindered by an}^ personal ties from giving

to his philosophy that purely theoretic and impartial
character which became its distinctive praise.^

The birth of Aristotle falls, according to the most

probable reckoning, in the first year of the 99th Olympiad,^

''The old accounts of Ari- Aristotelia i. 1-188 ; Beandis,

stotle's life now extant are (1) Gr.-rom. Phil. ii. b, i. pp. 48-65 ;

Diogenes, v. 1-35 (far the most Grote's Arist. (1872), i. 1-87,

copious) (2) DiONYSius of Hali-
and Grant's Arist. (1877) pp.
carnassus, IJpist. ad Ammtsum, 1-29. Stahr discusses (p. 5 sqq.)
i. 5, p. 727 (3) "hpiffr. fiios
sq. ;
the lost works of ancient writers
Kal avTov, by the
ffvYYpdfJLfiara which treated of Aristotle's life.
Anonymus Metiagii; (4) another We cannot be sure, as to any of
sketch of his life, known to us in the sources mentioned, what their
three forms: (a) the Bios first basis or credibility may be.
printed in the Aldine ed. of Arist. Rose's view that they one and
0pp. 1496-98 (which is there all rest only on spurious texts
ascribed to Philoponus, elsewhere and fanciful combinations (p.
to Ammonius, but belongs to 115) is entirely unproved and
neither), here cited as the improbable. Their value, how-
Pseudo- Ammonius (^0TAm7n.); (b) ever, beyond doubt differs widely;
the Life published from the Codex we can only test each state-
Marcianusby Kobbe in 1861 cited , ment by its inherent probability.
as Wita Marciana (or V. Mare.) 2 According to Apollo dorus

(c) the Life cited as the Latin Am- apud DiOG. 9 ; no doubt on
nwnius, preserved in an ancient the basis of the statement
translation, which approaches DiONYS. and Ammon.)
(ibid. 10,
more closely to the Vita Marciana which may be accepted as the
than to the Pseudo- Ammonius safest fixed point as to the date
itself; (5) 'Yiffvxiov MtA.rjo-iou irepi of Aristotle's life, that he died
Tov 'ApiaroT^Xovs (6) SUIDAS, Sub
in the archonship of Philocles
voce 'ApicrroreXifis. All of these, (01. 114, 3), about sixty-three
except (ib), are to be found years old (erwj/ rpiwv vov koI
in BuHLE, Arist. Ojyp. i. 1-79. e^ilKovTa, or more exactly, as in
Westermann's appendix to Co- Dionys., rpla irphs rols k^i]KovTa
bet's Diogenes, and his Vitcs fiidlxTas errj). JDionysius agrees,
Script orum (at p. 897) also con- but erroneously talks of Demo-
tain (3) and (4a) Robbe, op. cit. ; sthenes as three years younger
"fives (4&) and (46'), Rose (Aiist. than Aristotle, whereas he was
Lib. Ord.2i:5), before the publica- born in the same j'^ear, or at most
tion of (4Z>), ascribed the arche- in the year before (in the begin-
type of (4) to the younger Olym- ning of 01. 99, 1, or end of 01. 98,

piodorus a guess which may be 4); vide Stahr i. 30. Gellius'
called possible but not proven. Of statement (iV.^.xvii. 21, 25) that
later commentaries, cf. Buhle, Aristotle was born in the seventh
Arist. 0pp. i. 80-104; Stahr, year after the freeing of Rome
B.C. 384.^ Stagira, the city of his birth, was situated
in that district of Thrace called Chalcidice,^ which was
at that date a thoroughly Hellenic country, with many
flourishing cities, whose people were no doubt in full

possession of all Greek culture.^ His father Nicomachus

from the Gauls also agrees, since in 38 i B.C., follows from the
that event is referred to the year accounts as to his death above,
364 A.U.C., or 390 B.C. So also the and would also follow from our
V. Marc. p. 3, and the Anwion. information as to his residence
Latin, p. 12, assert that he was at Athens, if the figures are to
bom under Diotrephes (01. 99, 1) be taken strictly (cf. p. 6, n. 3,
and died sixty-three years old infra). For if, at seventeen, he
under Philocles. An otherwise came to Athens and was with
unknown ^vrite^, Eumelus (ap. Plato for twenty years, he must
DiOG. 6), asserts, on the other have been thirty-seven years old
hand, that Aristotle lived to be at Plato's death; so that, if
seventy but there is little reason
; we put his exact age at 36^ and
to follow Rose (p. 116) in prefer- bring down Plato's death to the
ring this account, since his next middle of 347 B.C., his birth
words, iri^v okovitou ir\evTri<rv, would still fall in the latter half
suflficiently show his lack of trust- of 384 B.C. It is, however, also
worthiness. In fact, as the possible that his stay in Athens
manner of Socrates' death is here did not cover the full twenty years.
transferred to Aristotle, so is his 2 So called because most of

age also ; possibly by reason of its cities were colonies of Chalcis

the spurious Apologia ascribed in Eubcea. Stagira itself was
to Aristotle (v. p. 35, n. 3, originally colonised from Andros,
infra) and its parallelism with but perhaps (cf. Dionys. w^ supra)
the Platonic Apologia of Socrates. received a later contribution of
But apart from the probability second founders from Chalcis.
of this explanation, Eumelus is In 348 B.C., it was, with thirty-
completely displaced bj' the one other cities of that district,
agreement of all the other testi- sacked by Philip, but was after-
mony, including that of so careful wards on Aristotle's intercession
a chronologist as Apollodorus. restored (v. p. 24, infra). Vide
A reliable tradition as to the age Stahr, 23, who discusses also
of their founder must have existed the form of the name (Srciyetpos,
in the Peripatetic School. How or 'Srdyeipa as a neuter plural).
could all our witnesses, except We do not know whether Ari-
this one unknown and badly- stotle's family house (mentioned
informed writer, have come to in his will, ajj. DiOG. 14) was
agree upon a false statement of spared in the destruction of the
it when the truth could have been town or was subsequently rebuilt.
easily ascertained ^ Bernays (Dial. Arist. ii.
? 55,
That he was born in the 134) calls Aristotle a half '

first half of the Olympiad, or Greek,' but Grote (i. 8) and

B 2

was the body-surgeon and friend of the Macedonian

King Amyntas and it is natural to suppose that the
^ ;

father's profession
long hereditary in the family must
have influenced the mental character and education of the
son, and that this early connection with the Macedonian
Court prepared the way for the employment of Aristotle
in the same Court at a later time. On neither of these
points, however, have we any positive information. We
may also assume that Nicomachus took his family with

Grant (p. 2) rightly maintain whose surroundings and training

against him that a Greek family were so closely similar as those of
in a Greek colony in which only Schelling and Hegel, or of Baur
Greek was spoken, could keep and Strauss.
their nationality perfectly pure. ' Vide DiOG. i. (quoting Herm-
Aristotle was not an Athenian, ippus), DiONYS., Ps. Ainm., V.
and though Athens was his Marc, Amnion. Latin., and Sui-
philosophical home, traces can DAS. The family of Nicomachus,
yet be found in him of the fact according to these authorities,
that his political sense had its traced its descent, as did so many
training elsewhere ; but he was as medical families, to Asclepius.
truly a Hellene as Pythagoras, TzETZES, CMl. X. 727, xii. 688,
Xenophanes, Parmenides, Anax- gives no ground for doubting
agoras, Democritus, or the rest. this. The three recensions of the
The 'un-Greek' element which Pseudo-Ammonius repeat this
Bernays and W. von Hum- same statement as to the family
boldt (in his letter to Wolf, of Aristotle's mother,Phaistis, but
Werlis, V. 125) find in Aristotle is erroneously for Diogenes tells

doubtless to be connected not so us she was a Stagirite by birth,

much with the place of his birth and Dionysius says that she was
as with the characteristics of his a descendant of one of the
generation and his individual colonists from Chalcis. This
bent of mind. The full-born connection might account for the
Athenian Socrates exhibits traits mention of a country house and
far more singular and seemingly garden at Chalcis in the testa-
un-Greek as compared with his ment (DiOG. 14). The state-
own people and time than Ari- ment in Suidas, mi voce tiiKSixa-
stotle, and if the typical writings xos, that a person of that name
of Aristotle appear un-Greek in had written six books of 'larpiKa
comparison with Plato's, still, on and one book of ^vaiKu refers,
the one hand, this is not true of accoixling to our text, not to the
his Dialogues, and, on the other father of Aristotle (cf, Buhle, 83,
hand, equally great divergencies Stahr, .S4), but to an ancestor
are to be found between men of the same name; though no


him to reside near the king,* but we cannot tell how

old Aristotle then was, or how long this state of things
lasted, or what personal relations resulted from it.

Equally little knowledge have we as to the early develop-

ment of his mind, or the circumstances or method of his
education.^ The sole piece of information we have as
to this section of his life is the remark of the Pseudo-
Ammonius ^ that after the death of both his parents,'^ one
Proxenus of Atarneus ^ took over his education, so that
in later life the grateful pupil did the like service for
Proxenus' son Nicanor, of whom he took charge while
he was a child, and to whom he gave his own daughter
in marriage. Notwithstanding the untrustworthy cha-
racter of our informant,^ the story seems to be true ^

doubt the story did refer origin- etc., cf . BUHLE, 1 sq. (lege rpotprjs
ally to his father. The Anon. for <p-i]fnis)10 sq. ROBBE.
Menagii (with V. Marc. 1, and * In his will (DiOG. 16) Ari-
Amman. Latin. 1) mentions a stotlementions his mother and
brother and sister of Aristotle. orders amonument to be erected
For Diog. 1, following Her-
' to her. Pliny (^H. JS'at. xxxv.
mippus, says expressly ffwi^ia : 10, 106) mentions a picture of
[NiKOfiaxos] 'A/J-vvTa t^ MaKeSSvwv her which Aristotle had painted
^aciK^tiarpov KoX ip'iKov xp^'f'^- He by Protogenes. There may have
must therefore have taken up his been many reasons why his father
residence in Pella and cannot was not mentioned in the will.
have left his family in Stagira. * Apparently a relative Avho

Galen's statement (^Anatom.

had emigrated to Stagira, for his
Administr. ii. 1, vol. ii. 280 k) son Nicanor is called SrayetpiTTjs
that the Asclepiad famihes prac- and oUelos 'ApL<TroT\ovs (Sext.
tised their sons e/c iraibuv in read- Math. i. 258).
ing, writing, and avaTf/xueii/, does What trust is to be placed
not help us much, as (apart from in a writer who tells us, inter alia,
the question whether the infor- that Aristotle was for three years
mation is fully credible) we do a pupil of Socrates and that he
not know how old Ai'istotle was afterwards accompanied Alex-
at his father's death. It is ander to India ? (P. Amnion, p.
doubtful whether Galen meant 44, 50, 48, V. Ma/rc. 2, 5, Amman.
human or animal anatomy; cf. Lat. Uy 12, W).
^ Aristotle in his will(DlOG.
p. 89, n. 1 Ji7i. 12)
^ In aU three recensions, p. 43 directs that Nicanor is to marry

but it throws no further light on that which necessarily

interests us most, the history of Aristotle's intellectual
His entrance into the Platonic School ^ gives us our
earliest reliable data on the subject. In his eighteenth
year Aristotle came to Athens ^ and entered the circle of

his daughter when she is grown Nicanor's death (DiOG. 13). This
up he charges him to take care of
; Nicanor is probably the same
her and her brothers, is koX irarrip Nicanor of Stagira whom Alex-
i)v Koi aZ\<p6s he orders that the
; ander sent from Asia to Greece
portraits of Nicanor, Proxenus, to announce his consent to the
and Nicanor 's mother, which he return of the exiles at the Olym-
had projected, should be com- pian games of 324 b.c.(Dinaech.
pleted, and that if Nicanor Adv. Demosth. 81, 103, Diodor.
completed his journey success- xviii.8 cf the pseudo-Aristotelian
; .

fully (r. infra), a votive offer- ad Alex,

Rliet. i, 1421, a, 38, and

ing he had promised should be Grote, p. 14). And the vow in

set up in Stagira. These arrange- Aristotle's will probably relates
ments prove that Nicanor was to a journey to Alexander's head-
adopted by Aristotle, and that quarters where he had given an
Aristotle owed special gratitude account of his mission and been
to Nicanor's mother as well as to detained on service in Asia. It is
Proxenus, apparently similar to probably the same Nicanor who
that he owed his own mother, of was governor of Cappadocia under
whom a similar portrait is Antipater (Arrian ajnid Phot.
ordered. If we assume the truth Cod. 92, p. 72, a, 6) and who was
of the story in the Pseudo-Am- made away with, in B.C. 318, by
monius it will most naturally ex- Cassander, for whom he had done
plain the whole. Dionysius notes good service on sea and land
that Nicomachus was dead when (Diodor. xviii. 64 sq. 68, 72, 75).
Aristotle came to Plato. It The dates agree exactly with
might appear that, as Aristotle what we know of Pythias, as
died at sixty-three, the son of his to whom see p. 20, n. 3, infra.
foster-parents would be too old '
We knownothing of the
to marry a daughter not then age at which Aristotle came to
grown up ; but this does not Proxenus, nor of the manner or
follow. If Aristotle was a child place of his education, for it
at his father's death, and Proxe- was probably not at Atarneus
nus a young man, the latter see above, p. 5, n. 5.
might have left a son twenty or 2 A silly story in Ps. Amm. 44,
twenty-five years younger than V. Marc. 2, and Amnion. Latin. 11
Aristotle, and some ten years relates that he was sent by the
younger than Theophrastus (then Delphic Oracle.
at least forty -seven) whom Py- Apollodor. ap. DiOG. 9

thias was to maiTy in case of irapafiaK^lv 5e XWarwvi, koX Sia-

Plato's scholars,^ to which he continued to belong for

rpiy\/ai trap' avr^ fXKoaiv %ti], cttto not know, moreover, when Eume-
KOL SeKa ircov ffvaravTa. This lus lived, or from whom he got
testimony seems to be the basis his information. If, as is poissi-
of the statements of Dionysius ble, he be Eumelus the Peripa-
(p. 728) that he came to Athens tetic, whose riepl T7JS apxo.ia':
in his eighteenth year, of Diogenes Kwficpdias is quoted by a scholiast
6, that he came eTrTo/catSe/ceTTjs, to ^schines' Timarch. (ed. Bek-
and of the three recensions of ker, Abk. d. Berl. Almd. 1836,
the Ammonius Life that he came Hist.-pUl. Kl. 230, 39 cf Rose,
; .

eTTTO/coiSeKo iTcov yv6fji.vos. We Arist. Lihr. Ord. 113), he would

have also the chronology of belong to the Alexandrine, or
Dion} sius, who places his arrival possibly even the post-Alexan-
in the archonship of Polyzelos drine period. In no case, as
(366-7 B.C. 01. 103, 2), while the above shown, can he merit our
statement (F. Marc. 3, Ammon. confidence. As to Epicurus and
Latin. 12) that he came in the
Timasus I'ide p. 9, n. \, infra. The
archonship of Nausigenes (01. Vita Marciana finds it necessary
103, 1) takes us to the middle to refute the story that Aristotle
of his seventeenth year instead came to Plato in his fortieth year.
of the completion of it. Euse- The Latin Amvionins reproduces
bius in his Chronicle knows that this in a still more absurd form,
he arrived at seventeen, but to which he adapts other parts
places the event erroneously in of his story ; for he says that it
01. 104, 1. The statement of was thought by many that Ari-
Eumelus (aimd Diog. 6) that he stotle remained forty years with
was thirty years old when he met Plato. His translation ' xl annis
Plato is combined by Grote (p. immoratus est sub Platone pro- '

3 sq.) with the accounts of Epi- bably means that the text of the
curus and Timseus as to his dis- archetype was ^u' err; y^yovias ^v
solute youth (cf. infra), but virh IWdriavi, or /x' iroov &v eV5t-
without deciding between the erpifiev, Sec. If the latter be sup-
two accounts. We have already posed, the mistake might well
seen how little credit attaches to have arisen by the dropping out
Eumelus' account of Aristotle's of &v in the translator's MS.
age and manner of death (p. 2, Plato himself was probably

n. 2) but the two statements are

; at the moment absent on his
connected and fall together, for, second Sicilian journey (tnde
as Aristotle composed an elegy Zellee, Plato, p. 32). Stahr
and the Dialogue named Eudennis (p. 43) suggests that the above-
in memory of a fellow- student, mentioned statement that he was
Eudemus of Cyprus (p. 11, n. 4, three years with Socrates and
who went to
infra), Sicily with after his death followed Plato (Ps.
Dion in 357 B.C. and was killed Amvi. 44, 50, V. Marc. 2, Ammon.
there, it follows that Aristotle, if Lat. 11, 12, Olympiod. in Gorg.
he were thirty when he came to 42) arose from a misunderstanding
Athens, would have been bom of this circumstance. The arche-
several years before 384. We do type may have contained the

twenty years until the master died.^ It would have

been of the greatest value if we could have known
in detail something of this long period of preparation,
in which the foundations of his extraordinary learning
and of his distinctive philosophical system must have
been laid. Unhappily our informants pass over all the
important questions as to the movement and history of
his mental development in absolute silence, and enter-
tain us instead with all manner of evil tales as to his
life and character. One of these writers had heard that
he first earned his bread as a quack-doctor.^ Another
alleges that he first squandered his patrimony, then in
his distress went into military service, afterwards, being
unsuccessful, took to selling medicines, and finally took
refuge in Plato's school.^ This gossip, however, was

statement that Aristotle spent ' Of. p. 6, n. 3, and Dionysius,

three years in Athens without ut supra (rva-Tadcls
: UKaroivi
hearing Plato, in attending other Xp^yov elKOcraeri] 5iTpi\pe avv avr^.
Socratic teachers, for whom the or as in Amm., rovrq} avvdcmv
transcriber erroneously inserted
the name of 8ocrates himself. 2 Aeistocl. ajj. Eus. Prcsjj.
On a similar supposition, we JEv. XV. 2, 1 &v ris airoSd^airo
: irS)S
might guess that the archetype Tijxaiov rod Tavpo^iivirov \eyovTos
said that in Plato's absence, iv Tots la-Topiais, ado^ov dvpas
Aristotle was with Xenocrates : avrhv larpciov kuI ras rvxovaas
or with Isocrates, whose name is (hiatus') o^/e rrjs tiKikIus /cAetffai.
often confused with Socrates. The same is more fully cited from
It seems more probable, how- Timaeus by Polyb. xii. 7, and
ever, that the origin of the error SuiDAS, sub V. 'Api(rT0T\7]s.
lay in the remark in a letter to Aristocl. nt suj?ra
' nws yap :

Philip (whether genuine or spu- oT6u re, KaOaTrep <pr](rlv 'EirlKovpos iu

rious) mentioned in the Vita T7J irepl Tuv iTTirrjSevfidTwv eVt-
Marciana and the Latin Ammo- (xroXrj, v4ov fxhv ovra Karacpayelv
niwt, to the effect that Aristotle avrhv rrjv irarptfav ovcriav, eTretra
made Plato's acquaintance in his 5e iiri rh cTTparevcadai avveuadai,

twentieth year perhaps because
Plato then returned from Sicily,
KaKws Se irpdrTOvra iu rovrois ivl
rh (papfjLaKOirosXuv i\6eiv, eireiTa
perhaps because Aristotle had till avaireirrafiivov rov IlXdrccuos Trept-
then been of the school of ndrov Tra<n, irapaXa^iiv avrhv (lege,
Isocrates. according to Atben. irapafiaXiLv


rightly rejected even by Aristocles.^ Greater weight

attaches to the story of the breach between Plato and
which is said to have occurred sometime before
his scholar
the former died. So early a writer as Eubulides the
avrhv, scil. ^Is rhv irepiirarov') : cf. credible writers who say that
the passage quoted in
same Aristotle devoted himself from
similar words, apud Athen. viii. his eighteenth year to his studies
354, ajmd DiOG. x. 8, and less at Athens, but the other story is
closely aj)ud JElian. V. H. v. 9. in itself most improbable. If
1 In the first place, it is with- Aristotle were no more than the
out any reliable authority. Even <To<pi(n)is Opaavs euxep^s irpoirer^s
in antiquity no other testimony that Timseus calls him. he might
than Epicurus and Timseus is perhaps have been 6\l/ifjLa9^s also.
known, and except these two, But when we know that apart
none, as Athenaeus expressly re- from philosophical greatness, he
marks, even of Aristotle's bitter- was the foremost man of learn-
est opponents mentioned these ing of his time, and was also
stories. Timseus 's reckless slan- famous as a writer for his graces
derousness, however, is well, of style, we must think it un-
known, and he was embittered paralleled and incredible that his
against Aristotle by his state- thirst for learning should have
ments (historically correct as first arisen at thirty after a wasted
they were) as to the low origin youth, and that he could then
of the Locrians (cf. Polyb. xii. 7, have achieved attainments hardly
10 Plut. Bio. 36, Nic. J
credible as the work of a long
DiODOR. V. 1), So also of Epicu- lifetime. All we know of Aristotle
rus we know
that there was from his writings or otherwise
hardly one of his philosophic impresses us with a sense of per-
predecessors or contemporaries sonal superiority incompatible
(not excepting Democritus and with these tales of his youth
Nausiphanes, to whom he was not to speak of the argument
under large obligations) whom that if he had squandered his
he did not attack with calumnies property he could hardly have
and depreciatory criticism (cf. found means to live at Athens.
DiOG. X. 8, 13 Sext. Math. i.
; Grote (cf. p. 6, n. 3, supra) does
3 sq. CiC. N. D. 1, 33, 93, 26, 73
; too much honour to Epicurus and
Zeller, Ph. d. Gr. I. p. 946, n). Timaeus when he treats their tes-
Statements by such men, betray- timony as balancing the other.
ing as they do a tone of hatred, They are probably naked and
must be taken with great dis- baseless lies, and therefore we
trust and their agreement is no
; ought not even to infer from
guarantee, for it is possible that them with Stahr (p. 38 sq.) and
Timasus copied Epicurus, or (as Bemays (Abh. d. Bresl. Hist.-
we may better think) that Epicu- phil. Gesellschafty i. 193), that
rus copied him. Not only, how- Aristotle probably practised
ever, have we against them the medicine in Athens while he was
consensus of many far more studying natural philosophy.

dialectician accused Aristotle of ingratitude to his

master.^ Others accuse him of annoying Plato by his
showy dress, his overbearing manner, and his jeering.^
Others relate that even in Plato's lifetime he attacked
his doctrines and set up a school of his own in oppo-
sition to the Platonic,^ and even that on one occasion
he took advantage of the absence of Xenocrates to drive
the aged master from his accustomed place of resort in
the Academia.'' Many, even among the ancients, re-

Neither Aristocles nor any of the 2 tElian, F.^.iii. 19, describ-

trustworthy witnesses mention ing Aristotle's style of dress in
medical practice, and the two detail.
who do, refer to it in such a way ^ DiOG. 2 : airiffTt] Se TlXdrruvos
as only to raise suspicion while ; Ti vepiopTos' ware (pTfalv I'cavov
Aristotle apparently reckons him- elireTv 'ApKTrorehrjs T]fxas oireActK-
self among the 'laymen,' /at/ ri(TKaQa'irepe\ra.Tr(t}\dpiayevv7]Qevra
TexvtTot, in medicine (Divi7L 1, r))v fXTirepa
and so jEliAN, V. If.
463, a. 6). iv. 9, and Helladius aj}. Phot.
* Aetstocl. ap. Eus. Pr. Ev. Cod. 279, b. Similarly
p. 583,
XV. 2, 3 : Koi Evfiov\iSr]S 8e Trpod-fj- Theodoeet, Cur. Gr. Af. v. 46,
Aws iv rep kut' avrov fiifikicp \pev5e- p. 77, says Aristotle often at-
rai . . . (l>d(rKwv reKevrcoPTi
. . . tacked Plato while he was yet
IIAaTwi't fi^ irapayepeadai rd re alive Philop. Atial. Post. 54 a,

fii^Xia aiiTov SiacpdeTpai. Neither ScJiol. in AHst. 228, p. 16, that

of the charges is important. His he had especially opposed his
absence at the time of Plato's master's Ideal Theory ; and
death, if that is true, may have had Augustine, Civ. Dei. viii. 12,
an easy explanation Plato, in- ; that he had established even
deed, is said to have died quite then a numerous school.
unexpectedly (cf Zellee, Plato, .
* This occurrence is related
p. 35). The injury to Plato's by our sole authority (^lian,
books, if it means a falsification V. H. iii. 19, cf. iv. 9) in this
of the text, is an obvious and way that wlaen Plato was over

absurd calumny. If, as is pos- eighty, and his memory was fail-
sible, it refers to Aristotle's cri- ing, Aristotle on one occasion,
ticism of Plato, this; as we shall Xenocrates being absent and
see,though it is keen and not Speusippus ill, had gone with a
always just, is no indication of band of his own pupils and
any personal misunderstanding, started a debate with Plato, in
since to Aristotle it meant only which he drove the old man into
natural and impersonal polemics. a corner with such rude pertin-
Besides Aristocles, Diogenes (ii. acity that Plato withdrew him-
109) also rejects Eubulides' self from thehaUs of the Academy
charges as a calumny. into his own garden, and it was


ferred to Aristotle the statement of Aristoxenus that

during Plato's Sicilian journey a school was erected
in opposition to his own '
by strangers.' ^ All these
data, however, are very doubtful, and most of the
actual statements deserve no credence.^ If the asser-
tion of Aristoxenus were to be understood of Aristotle
it could not possibly be true, for chronological
reasons in the first place, ^ but also because we possess
undoubted proofs that Aristotle belonged to Plato's
school long after the second Sicilian journey, and held
his master in the highest honour.'* Probably, however.

only when Xenocrates returned, peats and extends. For Aristides

three months afterwards, that he the Latin Ammonius (11) sub-
reproached Speusippus for his stitutes Aristocles but the Greek

cowardice and forced Aristotle to Pseudo-Ammonius (p. 44 sq.)

restore to Plato the disputed limits itself to the remark ov :

territory. yap Tt ^wvros tov TiXdroivos

Abistocl. ajmd Eus. Pr. Ev. avr(fKo^6fX7]aev avrip rh AvKeiou 6
XV. 2, 2 ris 5' Uv Treicrdeir) ro7s
; 'Ap., ws Tipes imoKafx^dpovfTi.
VTT 'Api(TT0^4vov rod fjLOvcriKov \eyo- 2 Cf. Stahe, i. 46 sqq., not
fi4vois iv Tj5 fiicf) Tov IWdruivos refuted by Hermann, Plat.
iv yap TTj irXdvT] Kal ttj d7ro5i7/*ia Phil p. 81, 125.
(pTjfflvfTraviaraadai ku) avroiKodo- ^ When Plato returned from
fieTv avT(p Tivas irepiiraToy ^eyovs his last journey Aristotle was
ovras. oXovTai oZv evioi ravra irepl under 24 (cf. p. 2, n. 2, supra,
'ApKTToreKovs \eyeiv alrhv, Apicrro- and Zellee, Plato, p. 30 sq.) is ;

|eVou 5ia rravrhs ev(pr]/xovjn-os 'Apt- it (apart from other questions)

<TTOTe\rjv. Among the ^vioi was likely that he could so early
Aelian (iv. 9), who in refer- head a school against a master
ence no doubt to the words of who was then at the height of
Aristoxenus, says of Aristotle his fame ?
avTcpKodSfiTjareu avT<f [Plato] Sia- *The proofsof this are (a) :

rpifi-fjv. So also the Vita Mar- Aristotle published several Pla-

ciana, 3 ; ovk dpa at/rcfKoSo/jLTjaev tonic essays (cf. infra and Zel-
'Ap. (rxo\7}u . . . ws 'Apiaro^evos lee, Plato, p. 26). For many
irpSnos iavKO(pdvTT](Ti Kal 'Api- reasons (especially perhaps be-
(TtciStjs v(TTepov riKoKovOTjcrev ; re- cause of their notable departure
f erringto ABiSTiDES,i><3 quatuorv. from the method of teaching
ii. 324 sq. (Dind.), who, how- laid down by Plato, cf. Zell.
ever, does not refer to Aristotle Plato, p. 517 sq.) it is unlikely
by name any more than Ari- that these fall between the second
stoxenus, whose account he re- and third of Plato's Sicilian
: ;


that statement did not refer to Aristotle at all.^

Elian's story as to driving Plato out of the Academy

stands in contradiction with other and older ^ accounts
which show that Plato at that time had long removed
his school from the open spaces of the Gymnasium of the
Academia to his own gardens. But besides, it ascribes
to Aristotle a kind of behaviour which we could not be-
lieve of a man of otherwise noble character except on the
most conclusive proofs : whereas here we have nothing
but the testimony of a gossip-grubber, who is known to
repeat without discrimination things that are palpably
untrue. Against the suggestion that Aristotle had by

journeys. The Eudemus of

(&) their genuineness on grounds
Aristotle infra) was written
(cf. that are solved by our view of
on the lines of Plato's Plicedo, their application to the Ci/pria7i
and Aristotle was probably still Eudemus and Plato, instead of
in the Platonic School when he to the Rhodian Eudemus and
wrote it, which was long after Aristotle himself. In the cor-
the third journey, since it is in rupt last line, Bernays {Rh. 3fns.
memory of a friend who died JV. F. xxxiii. 232) reads fjLovvd^.
352 B.C. (<?) Olympiodorus {in He refers avSphs, &c., to Socrates
Gorg. 166, in Jahn's Jahrh. but this seems unlikely.
Su2)j)lementb. xiv. 395, and Aristocles (nt snj}ra) says
Bergk, Zyr. Gr., p. 504) has expressly that Aristoxenus always
preserved some verses of Ari- spoke well of Aristotle, against
stotle's Elegy on Eudemus, which which testimony, founded on a
thus describe his relation to Plato knowledge of his book, the hint
i\6(cv 5' t$ KKeiuhv Ke/cpoTrtTjs to the contrary in Suidas 'Apia-ro^.
SdireSov is of no weight. The word irepi-
6uo-ej8e'a>s aeiivris ^tAiTjs tSpvcraro TTUTos was used of other schools
fiwfidv besides Aristotle's cf Epicurus,
; .

avSphs, tv ouS' alveTv ro7(n icaKolcri cited p. 8, n. 3, suj)7'a,and the

e4fjLis- [Plato] Index Hercvlanensis, where
6, 5,
hs ix6vos ^ irpSoTos dvrjruv KareSei^eu it is used of Speusippus, and 7, 9,
ivapyus of Heraclides. The ripas of
olKelcf T6 ^icf> Koi fieddSoiari XSycav, Aristoxenus may have referred
ws aya06s re Kal evSaifJicov afia to Heraclides himself; cf. Zel-
yiveTui aviip. LER, Plato, p. 30, n. As to the
ov vvv S' eo-Tt \afie7v obSevl ravra Index Hercul. see iMd. p. 553.
trore. 2 In DiOG. iii. 5, 41 ; cf.
Buhle (Arist. Ojfjj. 1. 55) doubts Zeller, Plato, p. 25, n.

his general behaviour incurred Plato's disapproval and

had by him,' we could bring
so been kept at a distance
many statements which imply that the relation between
the two philosophers was of an entirely different kind.^
We may allow no weight, therefore, to these accounts,
which in any case are insufficiently attested, and we need
take no notice of sundry other stories, whose inaccuracy
is apparent.^ But we have beyond this decisive reasons
which negative, not only Elian's story and the other
similar tales, but the whole theory that there was before

Buhle, p. 87, sees a proof

' Aous) and by David (ibid. 20, b,
of this in the fact that Plato 16), that Aristotle was ashamed to
does not mention Aristotle, to mount the teacher's chair while
which circumstance even Stahr, Plato lived, and that this was
p. 58, attached some weight. the origin of the name Peri-

But how could he name Aristotle patetic' There is another theory

in Socratio dialogues ? And (Philopon. ut sujjra, 35, b, 2,
probably all Plato's works, ex- David, ibid. 24, a, 6, Ammon.
cept the Laws, were written be- ibid. 25, and the Pseudo-
fore Aristotle came to Athens at Avivwn. p. 47, V. Marc. 5, Ammon.
all. Latin. 14) that the name of Peri-
patetics belonged originally to
vi. 27 ['Ap,] vtrhYlXaTtavos TOffovrov
: the Platonic school; that when
T^s ayxivoias iiydcrdr], ws vovs r^s Aristotle and Xenocrates took
Siarpifiris inr' avTov trpoirayopeve- over that school after Plato's
aQai : and Ps. Ainvw7i. 44, says death, or rather that of Speu-
Plato called Aristotle's house oIkos sippus, Aristotle's followers were
ava-yvuxTTOv : cf . also Zeller, called Peripatetics of the Lyceum
Plato, p. 559, To the same and the others Peripatetics of the
tradition belong the very doubtful Academy and that, in the end,

story cited in Zellee, Plato, the one school were called Peri-
p. 26, n., and the account of the patetics only, and the other
altar dedicated with a laudatory Academics. The origin of
inscription by Aristotle to Plato this theory is doubtless Antiochus,
onhis death {Ainm. 46, Philopon. in whose name Varro in CiC.
i.q.v., ScJtol. in ArUt. 11, b, 29), Acad. i. 4, 17 tells an exactly
which arose, no doubt, out of a similar story which indicates

mistranslation of the Elegy to that the whole is only an inven-

Eudemus, p. 11, n. 4, iupra. tion of that Eclecticism,developed
" Such is the idea mentioned by Antiochus, which denied that
by Philoponus('M# svpra, 11, b, 23 there was any essential difference
sqq where in 1, 25, lege 'Apiarore-
, between Plato and Aristotle.


Plato's death any breach between him and his scholar.

Authorities which are beyond any comparison with
^lian and the rest in their antiquity and credibility,

assert that Aristotle remained with Plato twenty years/

which plainly could not be true if, although he lived for
that time in Athens, he had separated himself from
Plato before the end. Dionysius, indeed, expressly adds
that in all this time he founded no school of his own.^
So even in later years and in passages where he
is contesting the principles of the Platonic School,
Aristotle constantly reckons himself as belonging to it ;

and he uses language as to the founder of that school

and his own personal relation to him such as plainly
shows how little the sentiment of respect and affection
for his great master had failed in his mind,'* even where
their philosophic opposition was accentuated in the
sharpest way. So also we find that he was treated as a
Platonist by contemporary opponents ;^ for Cephisodorus

* Vide p. 6, n, 3, and p. 8, seems to point to charges which

n, 1, siqyra. his logical polemic against Plato
E]). ad Amm. i. 7, p. 733 had drawn down upon him,
avvrfv TiXaTuvi koX SUrpi^ev ecus Uth. JV. i. 4, mif. rh Se Kad-

ircov eirrh koL TpidKOvra, oijrc oAov fieXriov ^acas iirio-KexpaadaL koI
(rxo\rj5 T}yovfiuos out' iSiav ire- SiatropTicraL irm Xeycrai, KaLirep
TToirjKiis alpeaiv. irpoaavrov^ ttjs ToiavTqs (r^TTjcreus
Aristotle often brackets him-
' yivoixevns 5id rh (piXovs avSpas
self and the Platonists together elaayayelv ra eYSrj. So|et S' tiu
cf. KaO" oti TpOTiovs Set/cvu/uej/ on tcrws fieXriov eluai Kal Se?!/ iiri
(rri TO ('(St] KaTO, r)]v vir6\7}\piv acoTrjpia ye rrjs Kal ra
KaO^ V cTj/otras ideas, and
(pafiev olKe7a avaipe7v, 6,\\a}S re Kal <piXo-
the like, Metajjh.
9, 990, b, 8,i. ffdcpovs ovras- aficpolp yap ovtoiv
11, 16, 23, 992, a, 11, 25, c. 8, 989, ^lAotj/Uiov irporifiav ttJj/ akriOeiav.
b, 18; iii. 2, 997, b, 3, c. 6, 1002, Cf. Zeller, Plato, p. 512; cf.
b, 14 cf, Alex, and Asclep. on
; also Zeller, PJi. d. Gr.i. p. 971,
990, b, 8 and Alex, on 990, b,
; as to Aristotle's own view of his
16, 991, b, 3, 992, a, 10. duty to a teacher.
In a well-known passage
* * Numen. apud Eus. Pr. Ev.

of _the Ethics ^which ^tself xiv. 6, 8.


the Isocratean, in a book directed against Aristotle,

attacked the Platonic doctrine and particularly the
Ideas,' and Theocritus of Chios accused Aristotle of
exchanging the Academy for Macedonia.^ Again, it is

established that he stayed in Athens until Plato's death,

and immediately thereafter left the city for several
presumably for no other reason than that then
for the first time the tie that bound him to the city was
dissolved, because his relation to Plato was then for the
first time broken. Finally, we are told ^ that Xenocrates
journeyed with him to Atameus ; and it is probable
from the language in which Aristotle speaks of that
Academic's opinions ^ that they continued to be friends
in later times. But in view of the known loyalty of
Xenocrates and his unbounded reverence for Plato, it is

not to be supposed that he would maintain his relations

with Aristotle and keep him company on the visit to

Atarneus, if the latter had separated from his master in

a disrespectful way, or had, by any such rude conduct
as ^lian ascribes to him, insulted the aged teacher not
long before his death.
It is of course altogether probable that so inde-
pendent a mind as Aristotle's would not give up its

own judgment even in face of a Plato; that as time

1 In the epigram noticed at

p. he obviously alluding to him
20, n. 3, infra e'lKero vaieiv avr^
: (cf the cases cited, Zeller,

'AKaSrj/tetas Bopfiopov iv irpoxoais, Plato, p. 364, n. ; and notes on

B. being a river near Pella. p. 585, and later
By Strabo (xiii. 1, 57,
2 p. whereas Speusippus is named
610), whom we have no reason to in parallel cases. This pro-
disbelieve, bably indicates not ill-feeling,
^ Others have remarked that but rather a desire to avoid the
Aristotle almost never mentions appearance of personal conflict
Xenocrates, and that he avoids with one who was teaching
r name as if on purpose where beside him at Athens.
: .


went on he began to doubt the unconditional validity of

the Platonic system and to lay the foundations of his
own and that he perhaps even
: in these days laid bare
many of the weak points of his teacher with the same
uncompromising criticism which we find him using later
on.^ If a certain difference between the two men had
developed out of such relations, orif Plato had not been

more ready than many others since, to recognise in his

scholar the man who was destined to cany forward and
to correct his own work, it would be nothing wonderful.
Yet that any such difference actually arose cannot be
proved, and cannot even be shown to be very probable ^
while we have patent facts to disprove the idea that
Aristotle brought on any open breach by ingratitude or
intentional offence. The same facts make it very im-
probable that Aristotle opened any philosophic school of
his own during his first residence in Athens. If he had
done so, his friendly relations with Plato and the
Platonic circlecould hardly have gone on, and it
would be unintelligible that he should leave Athens
exactly at the moment when the death of his great rival
left the field free for himself.^

* Even in the books ' On a scholar as Aristotle. Besides,

Philosophy' {Ai'ist. Fragm. 10, not to mention Heraclides and
11. p. 1475), apparently written Eudoxus, Speusippus himself
before Plato's death, he had dropped the Ideal Theory,
openly combated the Ideal ^ The remark of the Pseudo-

Theory, and in the same treatise Ammonius that Chabrias and

{Fragm. 17, 18) had maintained Timotheus prevented Aristotle
the eternity of the world. from setting up a new school
2 We have no right to ascribe against Plato is absurd. Who
to Plato and his circle of friends could hinder him, if he chose ?
the later ideas of school-ortho- Chabrias, moreover, died in 358
doxy, in any such sense as to B.C. and Timotheus was banished

suppose that the master could not from Athens for life in the follow-
tolerate the independence of such ing year,being then a very old man

If, then, Aristotle was connected with Plato, as one of

his school, from his eighteenth to his thirty-seventh year,
it follows that we cannot well over-estimate the influence
of such a relation upon his course of thought. The effect
of that education on Aristotle's philosophic system dis-
closes itself at every point. The grateful scholar has
himself^ commemorated the moral greatness and lofty
principles of the man whom the
base have not even the
right to praise.' But the reverence for the master would
obviously not prevent Aristotle from turning his at-
tention at the same time to all other sources which might
carrry him onward and help to satisfy his insatiable
thirst for knowledge. We
safely assume that he may
did in fact employ his long years of preparation at
Athens in busy acquirement of his marvellous learning,
and also that he took a keen interest in researches
in natural philosophy, though Plato always treated
it as of secondary importance. It is also possible
that even while he was still a member of Plato's
circle he may himself have lectured,^ without thereby
breaking off his relations with Plato or setting himself
up against him as the leader of a competing school.
We hear, for instance, that Aristotle taught Ehetoric
in opposition to Isocrates ;
^ but we know that the great
* See the lines on
p. 12 supra. Cicero seems to be without exact
2 Steabo (xiii, 1, 57, p. 610) information] versumque quendaw
says of Hermias that he heard at Pldloctetce i)aullo secus dixit. lllc
Athens both Plato and Aristotle, enim turpe, sihi ait esse tacere,
3 Cic. De Orat. iii. 35, 141 : cuvi harbaros: hie aiiteiii, cum
Aristoteles, cum Jiarere Isocratem Isocratem pateretur dicere. Ita
nohilitate discipulorum videret, ornavit et illustravit doctrinam
. mutai'it repente totamforniam
. . illam omneni, rerumque cogni-
pTope disciplince suce [which tionem cum orationis exercitor-
sounds as if Aristotle had even tioneconjunxit. Neque vero hoc
then a school of his own, though fugit sapientissimuw, regent Phil-
VOL. l! G


orator's relations with Plato were no longer good and

that he attacked the philosophers.^ We have distinct
indications also which lead us to assign to this same
period the commencement of Aristotle's activity as a
writer ; and the fact that in the writings of this time
he imitated his master, both in matter and form,^ shows
clearly how completely he took on the impress of Plato's
spirit and made the Platonic methods his own. In time,
of course, and no doubt even before he left Athens, Ari-
stotle acquired as a writer a more independent position
and it is manifest that he had in reality outgrown the
position of one of Plato's pupils, long before that rela-
tion came visibly to an end by the death of the master.
lippum, qui hune Alexandra fMo makes a covert attack on Ari-
doctorcm accierit. Again, ibid. which confirms the story
stotle, :

19, 62, Arist. Isocratem ijjsum Panath. 17 can hardly refer to

laccssivit, and ibid. 51, 172, quis Aristotle, because of the dates ; cf
. . . acrior Arist. fuit ? quis Spengel, Abh. Bayer. AJtad.
porro Isocrati est adversatns im- vi. 470 sq. Cephisodorus, a pupil
pensius ? In Tusc. i. 4, 7, Cicero of Isocrates, wrote a defence of
assumes that Aristotle attacked his master against Aristotle, full
Isocrates in his lifetime, which of bitter abuse v. Dionys. Be

would be possible only in his first Isocr. c. 18, p. 577; Athen. ii,
residence at Athens, for when he 60, d, cf. iii. 122, b ; Aristocl.
returned in 335-4 B.C. Isocrates ap. Eus. Pr. JEk. xv. 24, Nu-
was many years dead. Cf QuiN- . MEN. ibid. xiv. 6, 8, Themist. Or.
TiL. iii. 1, 14 :Eoque \Isocratc'\ xxiii. 285, c. This friction did
jam seniore . ..pomeridianis not prevent Aristotle from doing
sclwLis Arist. j^'i'^^^W^rc artem justice to his opponents in the :

oratoriam cagjrit, noto qnidem illo, Rhetoric he quotes examples from

ut traditur, versu ex Philocteta no one so readily as Isocrates,
frequenter usus : alffxp^v aiuTrau and twice quotes Cephisodorus
'ItroKpdTTjv [S'] 65'\e76'. (JRhet. iii. 10, 1411, a, 5, 23). Cf.
with less probability, reads Hevo- as to the whole subject Stake,
/cpoTTjj/, so misplacing the story i. 68 sq., ii. 285 sq.

as of the time of the founding of Spengel, 'Isokr. und Pla-

the Lyceum. Cicero {Offic. i. 1, 4) ten,' Abh. d. Miinch. Aliad. vii.
speaks clearly of contests between 731, and Zbllee, Ph. d. Gr. i. 416,
Aristotle and Isocrates in his ii.459, n.
life (de Arist. et Isocrate . . .
2 See for proof iufra. Of the
quorum uterque sua studio delec- Aristotelian writings known to
tatus contemsit altervm), and Iso- us the greater part of the Dia-
crates himself, Up. v. ad Alex. 3, logues and some of the rhetorical

That event opens a new chapter of Aristotle's

life. So long as Plato led the Academy, Aristotle
would not leave it. When Speusippus took his place/
Aristotle had nothing to keep him in Athens since ;

he does not seem to have at first contemplated the

foundation of a philosophical school of his own, for
which Athens would naturally have been the fittest
place. Therefore he accepted, with Xenocrates, an in-
vitation from Hermias, the lord of Atarneus and Assos,^
who had himself at one time belonged to Plato's school.^
The prince was the intimate friend of both,'* and they
remained three years with him.^ Thereafter Aristotle
went to Mytilene.^ This, Strabo says, was for his own
safety, because Hermias had fallen into the power of
the Persians by treachery ; it is .probable, however, that
Aristotle had left before that event.'' After the death
texts perhaps the '^wayuyy^ DiONYS. Ep. ad Amm. i. 5, who
Texviuu seem to belong to the agree that Aristotle went to
first Athenian period. Hermias after Plato's death.
' This choice has caused sur- The opposite would not follow
prise,but wrongly. It is possible from the charge cited from Eu-
that Plato had a greater personal bulides on p. 10, n. 1, supra, even if
liking for Speusippus than for that were true. Strabo names
Aristotle, or expected from him Assosasthe place where Aristotle
a more orthodox continuation of lived during this period.
his teaching. Speusippus was * Cf . p. 1 7, n. 2, mpra. Ari-
a much older man, was Plato's enemies {apud DiOG, 3,
nephew, had been brought up Anon. Mexag., and Suidas,
by him, had followed him 'Ap.), suggest that this friendship
faithfully for a long period of was an immoral one, but this
years, and was also the legal is impossible ; Boeckh, %b%d.
heir of Plato's garden near the 187.
Academy. Besides, we do not Apollodorus, Strabo, Diony-

ioiow whether Plato did himself sius, etc., ut svpra.

bequeath the succession or not. 01. 108. 4 = 345-4 B.C., in
" BoECKH, Hermias,' ^^>A.
d. the archonship of Eubulus : see
Berl. AJiud. 1853, Hist. Phil. Kl. Apollod. and Dionys. ihid.
p. 133 sq. ' Boeckh, iUd. 142,
3 Strabo, xiii. 1, 57, p. 610, Strabo, has shown this to be
Apollodoe. o/a Diog. 9, and probable, though not certain.
c 2

of Hermias the philosopher married ^ Pythias, who was

either the sister or niece of his friend ;
^ and of his last-

ing affection for them both he left more than one


^ According to Aristocles Demetr. of Magnesia {apud

(geenext note) citing a Letter to DiOG. V. 3) daughter or niece.
Antipater r^Ovewros y&p 'Ep/xeiov
: Cf.BOECKH,'i&i<^. 140. Harpocra-
Sia t)]V irpbs iKclvov iivoiav eyrj/j-ep TiON, Suid. s. v. 'Epn'ias, Etym.
ain^u, &\\ws ^iv acixppova Kal M., and Phot. Lex., call her an
ayad^v arvxovcrav fievroi
oZffav, adopted daughter.
5to ras KaraKafiovaas <rvfjL(j)opas rhv ^ Diog.
(6) says he had a mon-
aZ(X<phv avrris. Strabo (ut supra) ument (whose inscription he
says Hermias married her to cites) erected to Hermias at
Aristotle in his lifetime, which Delphi. A contemporary lam-
is negatived by the Letter, if poon on this by Theocritus of
genuine. Aristocl. {ihid. 4, 8) Chios (a witty rhetorician of the
says that Aristotle was accused Isocratean school and local leader
in his lifetime of having flattered of anti-Macedonian politics) is
her brother to win Pythias, and noticed by Diog. 11, Aristocl.
also that Lyco, the Pythagorean, utsupTa,sind Plut. DeExil. 10, p.
told a foolish story of Aristotle 603 cf MuLLER, Hist. Or. ii. 86,
; .

sacrificing to her after her death and supra, Aristotle

p. 15, n. 1,
as Demeter. Diog. (v. 4) caps also dedicated to Hermias the
this by placing the sacrifice poem preserved in DiOG. 7, and
immediately after his marriage. Athen. xv. 695. As to Pythias,
Lucian (Eun. c. 9) talks of sacri- the will directs that, as she wished,
ficing to Hermias cf a like hint
; . her remains should be laid beside
in Athen. XV, 697 a. hisown as no other burial-place

The Anon. Menag., Suidas,

isnamed, she was probably first
s. v. 'Ap. 'Ep^uias, and Hesych. call buried at Athens, and died, there-
her his daughter, the untrust- but not very
fore, after 01. Ill, 2,
worthy Aristippus (apud DiOG. 3) long before Aristotle's death,
his concubine. Both are dis- since the Pythias who was then
proved by the fact that Hermias not marriageable was her daugh-
was a eunuch (for the state- ter (cf. Aristocl., Suidas and
ments of Suid. Hesych. and Anon. the Anon. Menag.). After her
Menag. as to this are irrecon- death Aristotle 'married' (%yr]nf)
cilable with Demetr. Be EIog. a certain Herpyllis of Stagira,
293). Aristocles ap. Eua. xv. 2, who bore him a son Nicomachus
8 sq. cites a letter of Aristotle to (Aristocl. cf Diog. 14) and
. ;

Antipater, and a book by Apelli- though their union was appa-

con of Teos relating to Hermias rently irregular (r. Timaeus ap.
and Aristotle, and says that Schol. in Hes.^'E. k. 'H. v. 375;
Pythias was the sister and Diog. v. 1. ajy. Muller, Fragm.
adopted daughter of Hermias. Hist. Gr. i. 211 ; Athen. xiii.
Strabo (xiii. 610) calls her niece, 589 c, citing Hermippus and call-

In the year 343 or 342 B.C. (Olymp. 109, 2),

Aristotle accepted a call to the Macedonian Court- ^ to

take charge of the education of the young Alexander,
then thirteen years old,^ which before that had not
been in the best hands.'* The invitation probably found
him in Mytilene.^ We have no reliable testimony as to
the special reasons which led Philip to think of Ari-
stotle.^ Most unfortunately, we are almost entirely

ing her a eraipa; SuiDAS and nt supra. The Schol. in Arist. 23

the Anon. Menag.), yet he must b, 47, says Aristotle was at Alex-
have treated her as his wife, and ander's Court at Plato's death, but
his will speaks of her with this is obviously wrong.
honour, provides for her, and 2 Cf. Geiee, Alexander und
begs his friends eVt^ueAeto-flat . . . Arist. (Halle, 1856).
lxpr}(r6evTas i/xov, Koi 'EpirvAXiSos, ^ Diog. says fifteen, which
'6ti (TirovSaia ircpl i/xk iyeviro, twv must be an oversight, for Apol-
T6 &\\(i}V Ko.] iav ^ov\r]Tai &vSpa lodorus cannot be wrong in such
Xajx^apeiv, oirws fii] ava^icf rj/xoiv a date (cf. Stahb, p. 85).
Sodfj (DiOG. 13).As to Ari- * Plut. Alex. c. V. QuiNTlL.

stotle's daughter we know from i. 1, 9.

Sext. Math. (i. 258), the Anon. Stahr (p. 84, 105, A. 2) is

Menag. and Suidas s. v. 'Ap., that not averse to the view that Ari-
after Nicanor she had two hus- stotle first went back from Myti-
bands, Procles of Sparta, and lene to Athens, but none of our
Metrodorus the physician; by biographers know anything of
the former she had two sons who it. On the contrary, Dionys., nt
were scholars under Theophras- mpra, expressly says he went
tus,by the latter a son, Aristo- from Mytilene to Philip. Ari-
who was commended (being
teles, stotle in a fragment of a letter
then probably young) by Theo- ap. Demetk. Be Eloc. 29, 154,
phrastus to his friends in his says e7ci> e/c \xkv ^Adrjvuu els Srct-

will. Nicomachus was brought yeipa ^\dov 5to rhv fiacriXia rhv
up by Theophrastus, but died in fieyav e/c 5e lirayeipwi/ els 'Adrjvas
youth (ixeipaKia-Kos) in battle (Ari- Sio rhv xeiyttwj'o rhv fxdyav, but
stocl. aj). Eus. XV. 2, 10 DiOG. ; this jocular expression, even if
V. 29 ; Suidas s. v. &e6(pp. and the letter is genuine, proves no-
Nt/c(J/Lt,, confirmed by the terms of thing, as it is clearly meant, not
Theophrastus' will, apnd DiOG. v. as an exact historical statement,
51). The six books of Ethics and but as a rhetorical antithesis
the work on his father's Physics, between the termini of his jour-
ascribed to him by Suidas, are neys, leaving out the interme-
therefore very doubtful. diate points.
This date is given by APOL- According to a well-known

LOD. ap. DiOG. 10, and Dionys. story, Philip had told Aristotle,

without information as to the kind of education he gave

the young and ambitious prince, and the influence he
had upon him.^ But we should be forced to assume that

before Alexander's birth, that he not certain that any are trust-
hoped he would make a great worthy. Plutarch (^Alex. c. 7
man of him(?;.the letter j^.Gell. sq.) praises Alexander's thirst
ix. 3), but the letter is certainly for knowledge, his delight in
spurious, for Philip could not books and learned conversation,
have written in these extrava- and his passion for the poets and
gant terms to a young man of historians of his people. He as-
27, who had had no chance sumes that he was instructed by
to distinguish himself; and, Aristotle, not only in ethics and
again, if he had destined him politics, but in the deeper secrets
to be his son's instructor from of his system, basing this on the
birth, he would have brought well-known letter {q. v. ap. Gell.
him to Macedonia before 01. XX. 5, quoting Andronicus, and ap.
109, 2. But the prince, who SiMPL. Phys. 2 b), in which
was deeply interested in science Alexander chides Aristotle for
and art, and no doubt well in- publishing his acroamatic doc-
formed of what was going on in trines, and Aristotle replies that
Athens, may have taken notice those who had not fieard them
of Aristotle after he had become would not understand them.
one of the most distinguished of Plutarch also connects Alexander's
Plato's school, though little fancy for medicine, which he
weight attaches to Cicero's state- sometimes tried personally on
ment to that effect (^De Orat. his friends, with Aristotle's
iii. 35, 141). It is also possible teaching. These are, however,
that through his father, Aristotle more or less probable guesses,
had relations with the Mace- and what appears most impor-
donian court, and he may him- tant isleast trustworthy, for the
self, as Stahr (p. 33) suggests, letters turn on the theory of an
have been acquainted in his acroamatic and esoteric teaching
youth with Philip, who was the confined to a few, as to the in-
youngest son of Amyntas and correctness of which v.-p. 112, i9if.
about his own age. We hear of two books which
There was a work, or per- Aristotle addressed to his pupil,
haps a section of a larger work, JJepl fiaa-iKeias, and Tirep 'AitoIkuv,
On the Education of Alexander,' d.q.v. p. 60, n. 1 inf. Plut. (Alex. 8)
by the Macedonian historian says Aristotle revised the text of
Marsyas (SuiD. s. v. Mapo-.; cf. the Iliad for Alexander. As fellow-
MiJLLER, ScHpt. Alex. M. 40, and pupils of Alexander are named
Geier, Alex. Hist. Script. 320 Marsyas (Sum. Mapcr.), Calli-
sq.). Onesicritus had treated of sthenes (Justin, xii. 6; cf. Plut.
it also in a chapter of his Me- Alex. 65 DiOG. v. 4 Arrian.
; ;

morahilia (Geiek, ihid. 77; DiOG. iv. 10 but vide Geier, Alex.

vi. 84)o Yet the accounts we have Script. 192 sq.), and perhaps
of it are very scanty, and it is Cassander (Plut. Alex. 74). At

that influence was important and beneficial, even if we

had less distinct testimony as to the respect of the great
pupil for his teacher, and as to the love of learning
which the philosopher imparted to the king.^ Alexander
was not only the invincible conqueror, but also a far-
seeing ruler, ripe beyond his years. He was ambitious
to establish the supremacy, not of Grecian arms only,
but also of the Hellenic culture. He withstood for
years the greatest temptations to overweening pride to
which any man could be exposed. In spite of his later
errors, he still stands far above all other world-con-
querors in nobility of spirit, in purity of morals, in love
of humanity, and in personal culture. And for all this
the world has in no small degree to thank the tutor who
formed his apt intelligence by and
scientific training

fortifiedby sound principles his natural instinct for all

that was great and noble.^ Aristotle himself appears to
have made a kindly use of the influence which his
position gave him, for we hear that he interceded with
the king for individuals and even for whole cities.^

the same time Alexander met iyivovro rcKfir^piov. 6 fievTot irphs

Theodectes (Plut. Alex. 17), (piKoaocpiav ifnre<pvK(i)s koX (tvvtc-
and probably also Theophrastus Opafifievos ott' apxvs avr^ C'n^o^
(d. q. vide ^LIAN. V. H. iv. 19). koX nodos ovk 4^ppvT] ttjs ^vxvs,
DiOG. V. 39, but cf. 52. The as his relation to Anaxarchus,
fabulous stories as to Alexander's Xenocrates, and the Indian phi-
youth, preserved by the pseudo- losophers Dandamis and Kalanus
Callisthenes, may be ignored. showed (notwithstanding The-
Plut. Alex. 8 : 'ApiffToreX-n mist. Or. viii. 106, d.).
Se davfid^cvv iv apxf] Koi ayaircov ovx That he did not act in prac-

^TTov, u)s ainhs eXeye, rov Trarphs, tice on Aristotelian principles

ws St' iKit/ov fiev (wu, dia rovrov 5e (PlUT. Virt. Alex. i. 6, p. 329 ;

KuKws (oou, varepov 8e viroirTdrepop cf. StaHE, p. 99, 2 ; DrOYSEN,

ecrxev [v. infra], ovx uxrre TroiTJffai Gesch. d. Hellen. i. b, 12 sq.)
Tt Kaicbv, aAX' at <pi\o<ppo<rvvai proves nothing to the contrary.
(r(po5phu iKuvo koI <mpKriKhv ovk ' Ps. Amm. 46, V. Marc. 4,
exovtrai irphs avrhv aK\orpi6Ttiros jIww. Za^. 13,.^LIAN, F.^.xii.54.


Of the latter we are told that Stagira (whose refounda-

tion he procured from Philip ^), Eresus,^ and Athens,^
had at different times to thank him for his advocacy.

When Alexander, at the age of sixteen, was appointed

Regent by his father,* Aristotle's teaching must naturally
have come to an end. It cannot afterwards have been
resumed in any regular way, for in the immediately
following years the precocious prince took a most active

1 So Plut. Alex.
c. 7, cf Adv. . that a monument was erected to
Col. 33, 1126, and Dio.
3, p. him in consequence on the Acro-
C HEYSOST. Or. 2 fin, Or. 47, 224 K. polis.The story may be suspected
On the other hand, DiOG. 4, Ps. of resting on a spurious letter;
Ammon. 47, V. Mare. 4, Ammon. yet DiOG. (6) also says fpy\(x\ Se

Latin. 13, Plin. IT. Nat. vii. 29, Koi "EpjutTTTTOs kv ToTs fiiois, '6ti Trpecr-

109, ^LiAN. V. H. iii. 17, xii. 54, fievovTos avTOv irphs ^iXnnrop virhp
Valer. Max. v, ascribe the re-
6, 'Adriualwv crxoAcipx'?^ iyevero ttjs
storation of Stagira to Alexander. ev 'A/caSrj/iia (rxo^TJs "E^voKpartis
Plutarch, however, seems on the i\Q6vTa 5^ avrhv Kal Qeaadjxivov
whole better informed, and is im' &\X(f r^v (TxoK^v eXccrdai -rrepi-
confirmed by the expressions of irarou rhv iv AvKelcp. This cannot
Aristotle and Theophrastus them- be true as stated, for at Speusippus'
selves cf p. 25, n. 2, infra. Plut.
; . death, 339 B.C., Aristotle had
{Adv. Col. 32, 9) and Diog. (4) say long been Alexander's tutor, and
that Aristotle also framed laws at that date there could be no
for the restored city, which is question of embassies to Mace-
hardly credible. Dion (^r. 47) re- donia. Stahr's theory (p. 67, 72)
lates that he had to contend with of an embassy in Aristotle's first
great difficulties in the restoration, residence at Athens is untenable.
of which he complains in a letter, The story may relate to the two
which may or may not be genuine. years between the battle of Chae-
His work did not last long, for ronea and Phillip's murder, when
Dion (ibid.) and Strabo (vii. f r. 35) Aristotle,already influential at
describe Stagira as uninhabited : the Macedonian Court, might by
that it succeeded for the time is his intercession have done some
clearfromp.25,n.2,&p.37,n.3&4. service to Athens which Hermip-
2 A doubtful story in Ps. Amm. pus could describe by some such
p. 47, and in V. Marc, and term as Trpea-fieveip. The favour
Ammon. Latin, represents Ari- Alexander showed to the Athe-
stotle as saving Eresus from de- nians may have been partly due to
struction by Alexander. Aristotle's influence (Plut. Alex.
" V. Marc. 4 and Ammon. c. 13, 16, 28, 60).
Jjitin. (13) refer to the service * 01. 110.
1, = 340 B.c.theyearof
that Aristotle did the Athenians Philip's campaign against Byzan-
in his letter to Philip, and add tium. (DiOD.xvi.77; Flvt. Alex. 9.)

part in his father's decisive campaigns: though that

circumstance does not exclude the possibility of some
continuance of their intellectual pursuits in the intervals
of leisure.' Aristotle seems at this time to have with-
drawn to the city of his birth.^ At an earlier period he
and his pupil had already left Pella.^ After Alexander
ascended the throne, Aristotle must have remained still

some time in the north. But with the beginning of

the great war with Persia, the reasons that had bound
him to Macedonia came to an end, and there was no
longer anything to keep him away from that city, which
offered at once the most congenial residence ^ and the
best field for his teaching work.^

During this period Aristotle

* seum, near Mieza. Stahr (104)
might or might not be called takes this to be near Stagira, but
Alexander's tutor; which accounts Geier {Alexander und Aristot.
probably for the different stories 33) shows it to be S.W. of
as to the length of his tutorship, Pella, in Emathia.
given by Dionys. as eight years * The fragment quoted p. 21,
(his whole residence in Mace- n. 5, says it was the Thracian
donia), and by Justin (xii. 7) as winter that drove him from Sta-
five years, which is itself too long. gira, but this could scarcely be
2 That the last period before the chief reason.
his return to Athens was spent in ^ The Ps. Amman. 47, says Aris-

Stagira, where his family house totle was, after Speusippus' death,
was (cf. p. 3, n. 2), is assumed called to Athens by the Athenians,
in the fragment quoted p. 21, or, according to V. Marc. 5, by
n. 5,the genuineness of which the Platonic school, the leadership
isnot beyond doubt. He must of which he took over in common
have treated Stagira as his home, with Xenocrates (cf. p. 13, n. 3).
since in his will (DiOG. 16) he The three recensions of this bio-
orders the votive offering for graphy, however, contain at this
Nicomachus to be erected there. point a chaos of fables. The
His second wife was of Stagira Ps. Amnion, says Aristotle taught
{v. p. 20, n. 3), and Theophrastus after this call in the Lyceum, had
owned land in the city (DiOG. v. afterwards to fly to Chalcis, went
52), with which he shows himself thence again to Macedonia, ac-
to be well acquainted. Cf Hut. . companied Alexander on his In-
Plant, iii. 11, 1 ; iv. 16, 3. dian expedition, collected in his
3 PLUT.(^Z^a;.c.7)saysheand travels his 255 forms of govern-
Alexander lived at the Nymph- ment, returned after Alexander's


He returned to Athens* in Olymp. 111.2 (b.c. 335-4)

thirteen years after Plato's death. The time thus left

for his work in that city was but twelve years,^ but

what he accomplished in that short interval borders on

the incredible. Even if we may assume that he had
already in great part completed the preparatory work
for his philosophy, and that the researches in natural
philosophy and the historical collections which supplied
the materials for his theoretic labours had perhaps been
brought to some kind of conclusion before his return to
Athens, it seems certain that almost all his systematic
treatises belong entirely to this last period of his life.

death to his native town, and restored after the destruction of

died there twenty-three years Thebes in the summer of 335,
after Plato. The Latin. Amnion. and that Alexander did not start
(14, 17) and the Vita Marciana on his march into Asia till the
(5, 8) send him with Alexander to spring of 334. For the other
Persia collecting his 255 polities, view the calculation of Dionys.
and returning home after the war, {see next nA)te') may be quoted,
and after all this they make him but it is probable that this is
start teaching in the Lyceum, merely his own deduction from
fly to Chalcis and die there, the years given by Apollod.
twenty-three years after Plato. 01. Ill, 2, for the arrival in
The collection of polities in Athens; 01. 114, 3, for his death;
Alexander's campaigns noticed
is therefore, 01. 114, 2, for the
also by Ammon. Categ. 5, b; flight to Chalcis.
David, Schol. in An. 24, a, 34 2 Dionys. ut supra ia-xoXa-

Ps.-PORPH. ibid. 9, b, 26 Anon. ; ^ev iv AvKdcf) xp^vov ircov SdScKa '

ad Porph. apud KosE, Ar. p^&ud. T(^ Se TpiaKaiSeKOLTCi), /xera t^v
393. To seek any grains of truth
in this confusion would be lost Scopov &pxovros, andpas els XaXKiSa
time. TeAeuT^. As Alexander died
Apollod. apud DiOG. 10, June 323, and Aristotle in autumn
andDiONYS.w^ sup.^ both agree in- 322 (cf. p. 37), this reckoning
naming 01. Ill, 2, but do not will be exact if Aristotle came
indicate whether Aristotle came to Athens in the autumn of 335
in the first or second half of the and left in the autumn of 323.
year, i.e. end of 335 or spring of It would also coincide if Aristotle
334. For the latter it may be went to Athens in spring 334 and
argued that the hostility of Athens to Chalcis in summer 322, which,
to Alexander was only terminated however, is otherwise unlikely,
and the Macedonian influence as is shown at p. 36, n. 1 , infra.
; ;,


Parallel with this comprehensive and strenuous labour

as a writer went on his work as a teacher, since he now
at last began to compete with his great master on a
footing of equality as the founder of a new school. The
open spaces of the Lyceum were the resort that he chose
for his hearers.^ He was wont to converse with his
scholars as he walked up and down in that gymnasium
between the rows of trees and from this custom his;

school derived the name of the Peripatetics.' ^ For a '

more numerous audience, however, he would naturally

have to adopt a different form of teaching.^ Therefore,

It was a gymnasium con-

so limited, and they were called
nected with a temple of Apollo 01 Ik (or ciTrb) tov irepiirdrov (or
Lykeios, and lay in one of the 01 e/c ra>u irepiirdTcav, StRABO, xiii.
suburbs (cf. Sum. Haepocra- 1,54), as the other schools were
TiON,and Schol. in Aristoph. Pac. called 01 airh rrjs 'A/coSrj/iios, or
V. 352. 01 airh rrjs ffroas (y. Sext. Pyrrh.
- Hermippus Diog. 2,
ap. iii. 181 ; Math. vii. 331, 369
etc. Cic. Acad. i. 4, 17 Gell.
; ; xi. 45, etc.).
N. A. XX. 5, 5; DiOG. i. 17; ^ Gell. nt siqyra, says that
Galen. H. j^Ml. c. 3 Philop. ; Aristotle gave two kinds of in-
in q. V. Schol. in Ar. ii. b, 23 (cf. struction the exoteric and the

in Categ. Schol. 35, a, 41 sq. ;

acroamatic. The former related
Ammon. in q. v. Porph. 25, 6 to Khetoric, and the latter to
David, in Categ. 23, b, 42 sq., ' Philosophia remotior
( = Meta-

and p.l3,n.3 supra^ with David,

; physics) with Physics and Dia-
Schol. in Ar. 20, b, 16; Simpl. lectic. The acroamatic instruc-
in Categ. 1 fin. That this deriva- tion, which was intended only
tion is correct rather than the for those who were tried and
opposite view of Suidas (s. v. well prepared, occupied the morn-
'Ap. and SwKparTjs) and Hesych., ing; the exoteric lectures, to
which derives the name from which the public was admitted
the IlepiiroTos of the Lyceum as the afternoon (cf. Quintil. iii. 1,
the meeting-place of the school 14, scholis Ar.
is proved, tirst, by the form of artem oratoriam ccepit).
the word, which can be derived The former was called the ew-
only from the verb, and also by 9ivos,the latter the ZeiXivhs irepl-
the fact that the word IleptTroTos iraros ntroque enim tempore am-

in the earliest times was not bulans disserehat. It is impos-

confined to the Aristotelians (v. sible, however, to address a large
p. 13, n. 3) ; though later it was audience walking ; therefore



as had already happened more or less with Plato, the

had to give place to that
Socratic fashion of the dialogue
of a continuous lecture, whenever he was dealing either
with a large number of scholars or with subjects in which
there was something essentially new in form and matter
to be explained or some inquiry to be carried through
with scientific accuracy of detail.^ On the other hand,
wherever these difficulties did not arise, he did no doubt
retain the habit of philosophic dialogue with his friends
as an alternative method.^ In addition to his philo-
sophical teaching he appears also to have revived his
earlier school of Rhetoric,^ in connection with which
there were exercises in oratory.'* It is this, and not

Diog. (3) is doubtless more cor- DiOG. iv. 10, speaking of Polemo :

rect, eTTetS^j Se irXeiovs iyevovTO aAAa /x^v ovSe Kadi^ccv e\y irphs
Tas Odcreis, (paal, irepiiraTuv Se 7r-
Such lectures must be meant
' X^i-p^i- The continuous lecture
when Aeistox. (Harm. elem. p. on a definite theme is expressed
30) says that Aristotle in his by irphs 0<nv \4yeiv a more cur- :

teaching indicated the objects sory treatment by ivixeipeiv (cf.

and method of his inquiry before following notes).
giving the development of indi- 3 Diog.
(3) is not a good
vidual points. It is, as will be witness, since what he appears
seen, probable as to many of the to state of Aristotle's later time
Aristotelian writings that they seems to be taken from a source
were either made up from notes relating to the earlier period of
of lectures, or intended as pre- contest with Isocrates (cf. p. 17,
paratory notes for lectures and ; n. 3). It is probable, how-
at the^end of the To^wica Aristotle ever, from Aristotle's Rlietoric
directly addresses his audience itself that in the oral philosophic
(Sojth. El. Si Jin.). teaching rhetoric was not for-
2 This appears partly from gotten, and Gell., ut supra,
the nature of the case, since speaks expressly of rhetorical
Aristotle had among his hearers teaching in the Lyceum,
ripe and notable men like Theo- * Diog. 3 : koI irphs decriv crvv-
phrastus; partly from the fact fyvfiva^e tovs fiaQfiTas oifxa Kal ^rjro-
that at least in earlier years he piKws ivaa-Kuv, the Ofcris being
used the form of dialogue even a general topic, not a particular
in his writings partly "from the
; question (cf. CiC. Toj). 21, 79,
fashion of peripatetic teaching, Ujj. ad Att. ix. 4 Quintil. iii.

which suDDOses conversation cf : 5. 5, X. 6. 11 and Frei, Qiuest.


any popular lectures addressed to large audiences, that

is referred to in the story that he received in the morn-

ing a small and select circle only and in the afternoon

everyone freely.^ At the same time we must also
think of the Aristotelian school as a society of friends
having on many sides a common life. For friendship its

founder, bred in the intimacy of Plato, always showed

by word and act a tender and beautiful enthusiasm ; and
we hear accordingly that, following the fashion of the
Academy, he was wont to gather his scholars about
him at common meals and that he introduced a plan of
definite regulations for these meetings and for the whole
of their common life.^

It is said that the aid and appliances which Aristotle

needed for his far-reaching labours were provided for
him by the favour of the two Macedonian rulers, and
especially by the princely generosity of Alexander.^

Prot. 150). Cic. Orat. 14, 46 : which may refer, however, to the
In hac Ar. adolescentes, non ad work mentioned p. 99, n. Iji^j/Va;
pMlosopUorum morem tenniter and Diog. (4) preserves a hint of
disserendi, sed ad cqpiam rheto- his arrangement for the internal
rum in utramque ijartem, ut government of the school by offi-
ornatins et nherins did posset, cers changing every ten days. Cf.
exercuit. Neither says whether Zeller, Ph. d. Gr. i. 839, n. 1.
^ According to jElian
the earlier or the later school of ( V. H.
rhetoric is meant: probably both; iv. 19), Philip gave him ample
cf. Gell. ihid. (^coTepiKa dice- means to piirsue his investiga-
ha7itur, qxL<B ad rJietoricas medi- tions, irXovrov dj/evSe?), especially
tationes facultatemque argutia- in Natural History ; Athen. (ix.
Tiim ciriliumque rerum notitiam 398) speaks of Alexander de-
conducehant illas vero exoteri-
. . . voting 800 talents to that work ;

cas auditiones exercitiumque di- and Plin. (H. Nat. viii. 16, 44)
says Alex, placed under his
Cf. p. 27, n. 3, and Gell. orders all the hunters, fishers,
ihid. and fowlers of the kingdom, and
2 Athen. (i. 3, v. 186 b, cf. all overseers of the royal forests,
186 e) says he wrote for their ponds, and live stock, numbering
common meals v6uoi a-vfjLiroriKol, many thousands. Pliuy'g story,

However exaggerated the stories of the ancient writers

on this subject may seem to be, and however wealthy

we may fairly suppose Aristotle himself to have been by
inheritance,^ it is yet clear that the vast scope of his
researches forces us to infer that he possessed advantages
which he probably could not have commanded but for
such kiDgly assistance. The deep and wide acquaintance
with the writings of his people which his own works ^
disclose to us could hardly be possible without the
possession of books ; and on this head we are expressly
told that he was the first who accumulated a great
library.^ Such works, again, as the Politeiai and the
collection of foreign laws could not be produced without
laborious and no doubt costly investigations. The books
on Natural History especially and the kindred treatises
presuppose researches such as no one could have brought
to completion unlesshe had at his disposal or could set
in action somethingmore than the resources of a private
individual. It was therefore a happy circumstance that
the man whose grasp of mind and rare powers of ob-

however, is disproved (v. Bran- studies, implies that he was not

Dis, p. 117 sq., and Humboldt, hampered by poverty. As to the
Xosm. ii. 191, 427) by the fact worthlessness of the tales of
that with a few exceptions, such Epicurus and Timseus, cf. p. 9,
as elephants, Aristotle shows no n. 1 and 3.
knowledge of things which would 2 Besides the extant works,
be discovered in Alexander's ex- we know of others concerning
pedition. Khetoric, Poetry, and the History
^ His will proves nothing as of Philosophy.
to his earlier years, but apart 3 Steabo, xiii.
1, 54, p. 608 :

from the calumnies of his oppo- irpuTOs u)v ^fffiev avva-yar/icv 0ifi\la
nents, as to his pride and love Koi SiSd^as Tovs iv Alyvirrtp fiaffi-
of display, all we know of his \fas fiifiXiod'fjKTjs avvTo^iv.
way of life, his choice of resi- ATHEN.i. 3,a. Gell. (iii. 17, 3)
dence, his marriage, and the says Aristotle paid three Attic ta-
means necessary for his extensive lents for the works of Speusippus.


servation marked him as the ablest founder of empirical

science and of systematic learning, should have been so
favoured by fortune that the needful equipment for his
great calling was not denied him.
In the last years of Aristotle's life the good relations
between him and his great pupil were disturbed.^ The
philosopher may well have taken offence at many of the
things which Alexander did in the intoxication of suc-
cess, at many measures which he found necessary for
the consolidation of his conquests, but which were re-
pugnant to the Hellenic traditions and to the self-respect
of independent Greeks, and at the harsh and passionate
excess into which the young conqueror was betrayed
when he was surrounded by flatterers, embittered by
personal opposition and made suspicious by treachery .^
There would be no lack of tale-bearers to carry gossip
true and false to the king, for the learned and philosophic
members of his Court were plotting in their personal
jealousies^ to oust each other, and even the courtiers and
generals doubtless sought to use the scientific proclivities
of the prince as points in the game of their ambitions.
As the king's relations with Antipater grew more un-
friendly, it seems he was prejudiced against Aristotle^
also, because of the close relations between the philo-
sopher and the general.^ But the severest blow to the

Cf. p. 23, n. 1, supra.

' The ^ For examples v. Plut. Alex,
exchange of letters which is c. 62, 63, Aeeian, iv. 9-11.
cited as a proof of their friend- * Cf. Plut. iUd. 74 (though
ship is unreliable, because we do that is after the death of Calli-
not know how much is genuine sthenes) as to Antipater, cf

Plutarch (cL p. 23, n. 2,

2 Plut. ^Z^a?. 39, 49; Arrian, vii.
supra) says Aristotle was dis- 12 Curt. x. 31 Diodor. xvii
; ;

satisfied with Alexander's whole 118.

political idea of the fusion of ^ This friendship is proved
the Greeks and Orientals, from the fact that Antipater 's
; ;;


king's attachment to his tutor came through the action

of Callisthenes.^ The stiff-necked opposition of that
philosopher to the new Oriental fashions of the Court
the bitter and reckless tone of his diatribes against
them ; way in which he vaunted his inde-
the pointed
pendence and drew upon himself the eyes of all the
malcontents of the army the importance he assumed to ;

himself as Alexander's historian, and the arrogant airs

he gave himself accordingly, had long caused the king
to look on him with anger and mistrust. This made it
the easier for his enemies to persuade the king of his
complicity in the conspiracy of the nobles which had
placed Alexander's life in the gravest danger, and
Callisthenes lost his life ^ with the conspirators, though
he was doubtless innocent of their treacherous design.
In the heat of his anger the king's suspicions turned
against Aristotle^ also, for he had brought up Calli-

son, Cassander, was a pupil of Qu. 23, 2

vi, and of modern

Aristotle (PLUT.^Z<?aj. 74), by the Stahr, Arist. i. 121 sq.

letters of Aristotle to Antipater Droysen, Gesch. Alex. ii. 88
(Aristocl. ajmd Eus. Pr. xv. M. sq. Grote, Hist, of Greece, xii.

2, 9 ; DiOG. 27 ; Demete. Moc. 290 sq., etc.

225 ; ^LIAN, V. H. xiv. 1), and 2 It is highly improbable he
especially by the fact that Anti- was an accomplice, though we
pater is named as chief executor cannot say how far he was to
in Aristotle's will, apud DiOG-. 11. blame for exciting by reckless
The false story of his complicity talk his younger friends.
in Alexander's death is based 3 Alex, writes to Antipater
on this circumstance {v. in- (Plut. Alex. 55) ol fiev TralSes

fra). virh rwv MaKeSouoov Kar^X^vard-qaav'

As to Callisthenes, see
^ rov Se (To(piarT^v [Callisth.] eyu
Plut. Alex. 53-55 Sto. rep. 20, ; KoAaau) Kal tuvs iifTrjn\j/avTas avrov
6. p. 1043, Qn. conv. i. 6. p. 628 Koi Tovs inroSexofievovs tous TroAecrt
Arbian, iv. 10-14 ; Curt. viii. Tovs i/xol iinfiovX^vovTas. Accord-
18 sq.Chares apud Athen. x.
; ing to Chares {ap. Plut. ibid.),
434 d; Theophrast. ap. Cic. he had at first intended to try
Tusc. iii. 10, 21 ; Seneca, Nat. Callisthenes in Aristotle's pres-

sthenes as a kinsman and had afterwards recommended

him to the King,^ though, warned the
no doubt, he also
reckless young man against imprudence.^ The suspicion
however led to nothing worse than a notable coolness
in his relations with Alexander.^ A story to the effect
that Aristotle was concerned with Antipater in the
alleged poisoning of Alexander was connected with the
death of Callisthenes,"* but the completely groundless
nature of the charge has long ago been proved.^ So far
indeed was Aristotle from having any cause to desire
his princely pupil's death that that event in reality
brought serious dangers upon himself.
ence. The statement of Dio. gonus I. Arrian (vii. 27) and
Chrys. {Or. 64, p. 338) that Alex- Pliny {H. Nat. xxx. 16) mention
ander meant to kill Aristotle and it, but, like Plutarch, treat it
Antipater is merely a rhetorical as an invention. Xiphilinus
exaggeration. (Ixxvii. 7, p. 1293) says the Em-
Plut. ibid. AiiRiAN, iv. 10,
; peror Caracalla deprived the
1 ;DiOG. 4 SuiD. KaXKiaQ. ; Peripatetics in Alexandria of
DiOG. ibid.] Valer. Max. their privileges on account of
vii. 2 ; Plut. Alex. 54. the alleged guilt of Aristotle.
Plutarch says this expressly
^ * The disproof of the charge (cf.

(cf. p. 23, n. 1, supQ'o), and the Stahr, Ar. i. 136 sq. and Droy-
story in Diog. 10, that Alexander, SEN, Gesck. d. Helltn. i. 705 sq,)
to mortify his teacher, took rests, apart from its moral im-
Anaximenes of Lampsacus and possibility, on these grounds :

Xenocrates into favour, would (fl.) Plut. ibid, shows expressly

not prove the contrary even if it that the suspicion of poisoning
were more credible but it is ; first arose six years after Alex-
unworthy of both Alexander and ander's death, when it afforded the
Aristotle, Plutarch, ibid., on the passionate Olympias a welcome
contrary, sees in the king's kind- pretext to slake her hatred
ness to Xenocrates, a consequence against Antipater's family, and
of Aristotle's teaching. Philop- to excite public opinion against
onus {a2)ud Arist. Meteorol. ed. Cassander who was said to have
Ideler, 142) cites a reputed
i. administered the poison; (&)
letter of Alexander to Aristotle equal suspicion attaches to the
from India, which proves nothing. testimony of Antigonus, which
earliest witness to this must belong to the time when he
story a certain Hagnothemis
is was at enmity with Cassander,
{apnd Plut. Alex. 11^ who is said though we do not know whether
to have heard it from King Anti- he made any charge against


For the unexpected news of tlie sudden death of

the dreaded conqueror called out in Athens a wild
excitement against the Macedonian rule, which, as
soon as the news was fully confirmed, broke into
open war. Athens put herself at the head of all who
were willing to fight for the freedom of Greece, and
before the Macedonian regent Antipater was fiilly pre-
pared, he found himself beset by superior forces, which
he only succeeded in mastering after a long and risky
struggle in the Lamian War.^ From the first this
movement threatened, as was to be expected, the pro-
minent members of the Macedonian party. Aristotle

Aristotle; (c) it is significant ander's service, and intrusted

that the bitterest opponents of vTithimportant missions (cf p. 5, .

Aristotle, to whom no calumny- n. 7, supra) Qi) finally, the


is amiss, such as Epicurus, Ti- rumour of Alexander's poisoning

mseus, Demochares, Lyco, etc., is refuted by the movement of
know nothing of the charge events afterwards. Alexander's
(d) almost all who speak of death was the signal for an out-
Alexander's poisoning preserve the break in Greece, which in the
story (which was clearly connected Lamian war brought Antipater
with the first publication of the himself to great straits. Any-
rumour and was well fitted to catch one acquainted with the politics
the popular fancy) that it was ac- of the day would clearly foresee
complished by water from the such a result. If Antipater were
Nonacrian spring i.e. the Styx not as much taken by surprise as
a proof that we are not dealing everyone else was by the king's
with history {e) the accounts
death, he would have made pre-
Arrian and Plutarch give us parations either to stem or to
from the court chronicles as to head the rising. If he had been
the course of Alexander's illness known as the author of that
do not in any way suggest poison which the Greeks acclaimed as
(/) if Aristotle's motive was the the beginning of freedom, they
fate of Callisthenes, that could would not have begun their revolt
hardly have caused in him a by attacking him and if any part

hatred that would lead six years in it had been attributed to

later to murder, nor could he, Aristotle, he would not have had
after so long a time, have had to fly from Athens.
any fear as to his own safety * For details, see Deoysen,
{g) it is probable that Aristotle's Gesch. d. Hellen. i. 69 sq.
own adopted son was in Alex-

may not have played a political role ;

^ but, in any case,
his relation as tutor to Alexander and his friendship
with Antipater were so well known, his own name was
so famous, and his personal enemies, no doubt, so many,
that he could not escape attack. The charge brought
against him of offences against the established religion
in itself baseless enough must have been simply
a pretext for wreaking political and personal ven-
geance.2 But Aristotle found it best to retire before
the rising storm.^ He escaped to Chalcis in Eu-
*According to Aritocl. ap. a blind, although perhaps the
Eus. Pr. Ev. XV. 2, 3, Demochares Hierophant may have hated
(doubtless Demosthenes' nephew, the philosopher's liberalism. An
de quo cf. Cic. Brut. 83, 286 Be : honest charge of atheism in the
Orat. ii. 23, 95 Senega, De Ira,
; Athens of that day was hardly
iii. 23, 2; Plut. Demosth. 30; possible, although the mass of
Vit. X Orat. viii. 53, p. 847, and the people could still be moved
SuiDAS) had alleged that letters by it. Grote (18 sq.) shows how
of Aristotle's had been found in this connection the Athenians
which were hostile to Athens; would be impressed by the story
that he had betrayed Stagira to that Aristotle had given heroic
the Macedonians, and that after honours to an eunuch who was
the destruction of Olynthus he first a slave and then a tyrant.
had betrayed to Philip the richest Grote also notices (p. 14) how
As the last
citizens of that city. mortifying the mission of Aris-
two are impossible, the first is totle's adopted son was for Hellenic
probably untrue, as Aristocles pride (v. p. 5, n. 7). The further
himself recognised. suggestion of Grote (p. 37. cf.
^ The charge was brought by Geant, p. 24) that the enmity of
Demophilus on the instigation the school of Isocrates had to do
of the Hierophant Eurymedon, with the prosecution of Aristotle
related to the deification of may be true, but the fact that
Hermias, and alleged as proofs Demophilus was a son of Ephorus,
the poem noticed (p. 20, n. 3), and that the latter, and perhaps
and the alleged sacrifice (p. 20, both, belonged to that school is
n. 1) cf. Athen. xv. 696 a, 697 a;
: not sufticient proof. We have
DioG. 5 Anon. Menag,, Suidas,
; still less ground to accuse the
and Hesych. Origen {c. Cels. Academic school of having any
i. 65) suggests, out of his own share in it.
fancy, nva BSyfiara rrjs <pi\o(TO(pias 3 His remarks that 'he would

avrov B, iv6fjLi(rau elvai aaefir] ol not give the Athenians a second

'AO-nvaioi. The weakness of the chance of sinning against philo-
charge proves that it was only sophy,' and that Athens was the

D 2

bcea,^ where lie had a country house, to which he had

sometimes retired before,^ and his enemies could only
inflict on him unimportant insults.^ To Theophrastus ^
he gave over his teaching work at the Lyceum, as a
substitute during his absence. But it was not given

place spoken of by Homer where what we find in Dionys. Ep.

oyxvn eV oyxvri yrjpda-Kei, avKov ad Amm. i. 5, that Aristotle
5' eVl (rvK(f, in allusion to the died in 01. 114, 3, having fled to
sycophants, are quoted by DiOG. 9 ; Chalcis. It is not possible to
^LIAN, iii.36; OniG^^, ut sujjr a-, assume (with Stahr, i. 147) an
EusTATH. in Odyss. H 120, earlier emigration of Aristotle to
p. 1573 ; Ammon. p. 48 ;V. Marc. Chalcis, on the authority of the
8; Ammon. Latin. 17, the last statement of Heraclides that
mentioned placing them in a Aristotle was
living in Chalcis
letter to Antipater. Favorinus, when Epicurus came to Athens,
apnd DiOG. 9, says the Homeric TeXcvT'fjaravTos ^AAe^dudpov
8' . . .

line occurred in a written Apologia, fjiT\d7v ['ETTtKOl/pOJ'] ds KoAo-

which is known also to the Anon. (puiva. For Aristotle's flight was
Menag. and to Athen. xv. 697 a, due only to the danger that
both of whom doubt its genuine- threatened him at Athens, which
ness. One does not see why arose only on Alexander's un-
Aristotle, once in safety, should expected death ; and he cannot
write a useless defence. It was no therefore have gone to Chalcis
doubt a rhetorical exercise in imi- before the news reached Athens,
tation of the'&oQiditic Apologia (ci. in the middle of 323. Either
the fragment given by Athenaeus Heraclides or Diogenes must be
with Plat. Ajntl. 26 d sq.). inexact. The Pseudo-Ammonius
* Apollodor. apud DiOG. 10 is (cf p. 25, n. 5 supra) and David

made to say that this was in (Schol. in Ar. 26 b. 26) assign im-
01. 114, 3, i.e. in the latter half possible dates.
of 322 B.C. This is improb- 2 Cf. Strabo, x. 1, 11, p.
able, for Strabo (x. 1, 11) and 448.
Heraclides ap. DiOG. x. 1 speak ' In a fragment of a letter to

as if he lived a considerable time Antipater probably of this time

in Chalcis ; and besides it is more {ap. ^LIAN, V. II. xiv. 1, cf. p.
likely that the attack on Aristotle 44, n. 4 infra) Aristotle makes
happened in the first uprising mention tj/ iv Af\(po7s }p7](piff-
against the Macedonian party Qivrwv fJLOi Kol Siy a(j)TJ pTjfxai vvv.
than that it was begun after What this was
whether a monu-
Antipater's decisive victories in ment, proedria, or other honorary
Thessaly, and that Aristotle fled privilege
we do not know. If it
in good time instead of waiting was given him by Athens, it may
through the whole of the Lamian be connected with the services
war. Probably, therefore, he left noticed p. 24, n. 3, supra.
Athens late in the summer of * DiOG. V. 36 and following
323, and Apollodorus only said lines, SuiD. s. v. &e6(f)p.

to Aristotle to enjoy his retirement long. In the

following year, that is, in the summer of 322 B.c.\ he
succumbed to a disease from which he had long suffered.^

So it chanced that of his two great contempora-

ries he survived Alexander by less than a year, and
predeceased Demosthenes only by a short interval. His
body is said to have been taken to Stagira.^ His last

will is preserved to us,"* and it is a monument of his

Apollod. ap. DiOG. 10, V.

1 12, V. 15 init., ix. 4, 1166 b, 11),
Marc. 3, Ammon. Latin. 12, and because it does not fit the
and Dion. Ej). ad Amm,. i. 5, give circumstances, for in Eubcea he
01. 114, 3 as the year. It was was in no danger. The tale (found
about the time of Demosthenes' only in JElias Cretensis, p.
death (Apollod. ibid.), but a 507 d) that he threw himself into
little earlier (GtELL. iV. A. xvii. the Euripus because he could not
21, 35). As -that date is
given discover the causes of his visions,
by Plut. (Bern. 30) as the IGth and the variant of the same in
of Pyanepsion 01. 114, 3 = Oct. 14, Justin, cohort. 36, Greg. Naz.
322, Aristotle must have died be- Or. iv. 112, or Procop. Be Bello
tween July and Sept. of that year. Goth. iv. 579, that his fruitless
2 That he died by illness is meditations on a vision wore him
stated by Apollod. and Dionys. out with worry and fatigue, need
ut supra; cf. Gell, xiii. 5, 1. no refutation, though Bayle (art.
Censorin. {Bi. Nat. 14, 16) adds : Aristotle, n.Z) thinks the latter a
Imtic ferunt naturaUm stomacJd fitting end ; cf Stahr, i. 155.

infirmitatem crehrasqne morhidi 3 Eelated only by V. Marc.

corporis offensiones adeo virtute 4 and Ammon. Latin. 13, and
animi din siistentasse, ut magis with the addition that an altar
mirum sit ad annos sexaginta tres was built on his grave and the
eum ritam 2)rotulisse, quam ultra council meetings held there and ;

non perttilisse. The statement that a festival {'kpiaroT^Mia) was

of Eumelus ap. DiOG. 6 (de quo instituted and a month named
V. p. 2, n. 2, p. 6, n. 3 supra) fol- after him. The evidence is not
lowed by the Anon. Menag. and good but as he was not only the

Suidas, that he poisoned himself most illustrious citizen but also

mth hemlock, or (as Hesych. has the re-founder of Stagira (cf Dio. .

it) that he was condemned to Or. 47, 224, who says that Aristotle
drink hemlock, is probably a con- alone had the fortune to be t^s
fusion with the death of Demo- irarpiSos olKiffrijs) the story is not
sthenes or of Socrates. It cannot wholly improbable.
be historic, because the best * Ajmd DiOG. 11 sq; pro-
evidence is against it, because it bably (cf V. 64) taken, like the

is contrary to Aristotle's own wills of Theophrastus, Strato,

principles (jKfA. iV. ii. 11, 1116 a, and Lyco, from Aristo, a noted


faithful attachment and careful provision for all who

were connected with him, including his slaves. Theo-

Peripatetic eirc. 200-250 (lege others quoted, a regular disposi-

'Apla-Tcov 6 Kelos), who will be tion of his whole property. Grant
mentioned in his place. Herm- thinks it unlikely that Pythias
ippus {circ. 200-220) cited the was not yet marriageable or that
same record (v. Athen. xiii. Nicomachus was a lad but this ;

589 c), which according to V. is not so. Why may not Ari-
Marc. 8, and Ammon. Latin. 17 stotle's wife Pythias, perhaps
was also quoted by Andronicus after the death of older children,
andPtolemaeusforthe catalogues have borne him a daughter ten
of Aristotle's writings, de q. infra. years after their marriage ? or
V. Ma/i'c. says Aristotle left a why might Aristotle not have by
Siad-f^KT] ..% (peperai irapd re 'Ay-
. a second wife, for whose remar-
5poviK(p.Kal nToXe/xaiip fierk [roiv] riage he provides, a son who
Trtj'a/c[ft)j'] Tojj/ avTOv ffvyypafxfxdrwv would be a lad when his father
{Ammon. Jjatin. 'cum volumi- was sixty-three ? Besides, we
nibus suorum tractatuum cf ; ' know from other sources that the
Heitz, Verl. Schr. d. Ar. 34). education of Nicomachus was
The external evidence for the taken over by Theophrastus. The
will is therefore good the more ; naming of Antipater arouses
because likely that the wills
it is in Grant a suspicion that the
of Aristotle and his followers forger inserted him as a historic
would be carefully preserved by name but it is clearly natural

the Peripatetic school (for which that Aristotle might appoint him
those of Theoph., Strato, and in order to place the carrying
Lyco were a kind of foundation out of his directions for the
charter), and because Aristo was benefit of those depending on
himself the immediate successor him under the protection of his
of Lyco. The document has also powerful friend. And this is all
all internal signs of genuineness, that is meant when he is named
and the objections which have first in the honorary position of
been urged against it (cf. Grant, iirlrpoTros irdvrwv, whereas the
26) prove little. It is objected carrying out of the business
that it mentions neither a house provisions of the will is left to
in Athens nor a library, both Theophrastus and the other 7rt-
of which Aristotle possessed. A HiK-t]Tai. Objection is taken to
forger, however, would never the provisions for four statues of
have omitted the latter, which animals which Aristotle is said
was the thing of chief interest to have vowed to Zeus Soter
for the school ; but it is very pos- and Athene the Preserver, for
sible that Aristotle had already Nicanor's safety (DiOG. 16), as
made arrangements about it, being an imitation of the Socratic
which did not require to be re- votive offering for Asclepios
peated in the extant will, that (Plat. Plued. 118, A). This,
being rather a set of directions however, is far-fetched and the
to friends than, like the three point is unimportant. Little as


phrastus he named as the chief of his school/ and to

him he left the best part of his inheritance, his books.^
We are but poorly informed as to the personal traits of
Aristotle's character. Excepting a few details as to his
personal appearance,^ almost the only statements we
possess are the attacks of his enemies. Most of these
charges have already been shown to be worthless such
as those concerning his relations with Plato, with
Hermias, with his two wives, and with Alexander, his
alleged misconduct in youth, and the political turpitude
of his later years.'^ What remains of the stories told
Aristotle believed in vows or in Menag., Suid., Plut. And. Poet.
the mythic personalities of Zeus 8, p. 26, 2M&Adulat. 9, p. 53) refers.
and Athene, yet it is quite Pausanias (vi. 4, 5) mentions a
natural that he should erect a statue said to be of Aristotle as to ;

monument of his love for his others, v. Stahr, i. 161 sq, and as
adopted son in their common to those extant, especially the life-
home, Stagira (to which the size sitting statue in the Palazzo
statues were to be sent), in a Spada at Eome, v. Schuster,
fashion which accorded with ErJialt. Portr. d. griech. Philos.
Greek custom. He himself in Leipz. 1876, p. 16, where they
Ethics iv. 5 reckons votive monu- are photographed. The sitting
ments and offerings among the statue has a lean face, earnest
forms in which the virtue of and thoughtful, showing the
IxfyaXoirpeireia shows itself. lines of severe mental labour,
The pretty story as to the and with a delicate, clear-cut
way in which he expressed his profile. It impresses us with its
choice is well known (Gell. life-like truth to nature, and the
JV. A. xiii. 5, where 'Eudemus' workmanship is so excellent that
must be substituted for Mene- '
it may well be an original work
demus '). It is quite credible, dating from the time of Aristotle
and not unlike Aristotle. or his immediate successor.
2 Strabo, xiii. 1, 54, p. 608 Directions are given in Theo-
Plut. Svlla, c. 26 Athen. i. 3, a,
; phrastus' will (DiOG. v. 51) that
with which cf DiOG-. v. 52.
. the Movffelov begun by him should
^ DiOG. 2 calls him iaxvo- be finished : eireira rijv 'Apiaro-
ffKeX^s and fiiKpSfifiaro^, and an t4\ovs cIkSvu rcdrjvai (Is rh Uphv
abusive epigram in the Anthology KoXrhKonrb. avaQ-i\fiara '6(ra irpSTcpov
(iii. 167, Jac), which deserves no inrnpx^v iu r^ iep^y which pro-
weight, (TfMiKphs, (poKaKphs, and bably is to be understood of a
irpoydffTwp. We hear of a lisp in statue already erected.
pronouncing E, to which the * Cf. p. 8 sq. 19, n. 4 ; 20,

word rpavXhs {ap. DiOG. 2, Anon. n. 1,2; 33, n. 4 ; 35, n. 1, 5,


by his many enemies ^ has for the most part little

probability.^ Nor do the accounts we have give us

any right to lay to Aristotle's charge either a self-

seeking sort of shrewdness, or a jealous and

little-minded greed for fame.^ The first of these
charges concerns chiefly his relations with the
Macedonian The second refers to the criti-

cisms he allows himself to make in writing of his

cotemporaries and his forerunners. But it cannot be
proved that he ever sought the favour of Philip and

mjjra. Another calumny is Ter- Macedonian Court and flattered

tullian's. Ar. familiarein suum Alexander, and that at his death
Hermiam turjnter loco excedere 75 (or even 300) dishes were
fecit (Apohget. 46), which in the found in his house or that

context can only mean he betrayed he was immoral in relation to

him, a tale so senseless and wicked Pythias and Herpyllis, and was
that it required a TertuUian to also enamoured of Theodectes of
invent it. The story of Philo of Phaselis and again that he was

Byblos ap. SuiD. na\ai(p., as to so effeminate that he bathed in

immoral relations with the his- warm oil (doubtless for medical
torian Palaephatus of Abydos is reasons, cf. DiOG, 16 and p. 37,
equally baseless. n. 2, supra), and so miserly that
> Themist. Orat. xxiii. 285 he sold the oil afterwards or :

talks of a a-Tparhs '6Kos of Ari- that in his youth he was too

stotle's calumniators. By him, fashionable for a philosopher
Aristocl. (aj). Eus. xv. 2) and (which, as he was rich and brought
Diogenes (11, 16) the following up at Court, is possible) and:

are named :Epicurus, Timaeus, that he was impudent and sneer-

Eubulides, Alexinus, Cephiso- ing. If there were any facts
dorus, Lyco, Theocritus of Chios, underlying these stories, we may
Demochares, and Dicasarchus, conclude from the character of
within a generation of Aristotle. the narrators that they were in
2 Such as the accusations to any case trivial and we can see

be found in Aeistocl. and DiOG., in the passages of Lucian and

nt supra] SuiD. 'Apiar. Atiien. ; Theodoret and his quotation from
viii. 342, xiii. 666 Plin. H. iV.
; Atticus how Aristotle's own state-
XXXV. 16, 2; ^.LlAN, V. H. iii. ments as to wealth and pleasure
19; Theodoret, Cur. Gr. Aff. were twisted to support these
xii 51, p. 173 LuciAN, Dial.
; suspicions,
Mort. 13, 5, and Pa/)'as. 36; 3 Even Stahr (i. 173 sq) pays
that Aristotle was a glutton, and too much attention to these
for that reason went to the charges.

Alexander by unworthy means, ^

and it was not to be
expected that he should applaud or imitate the follies

of a Oallisthenes. To impute it to him as an offence,

that he attached himself to the Macedonian party, is to
apply to him an erroneous and inapplicable standard.
By birth and training he was a Greek. But while all
his personal ties attached him to the royal house to
which he and his father owed so much, no one can say
that the consideration of the general position of politics
ought necessarily to have turned him against their
policy. So Satisfied was Plato of the untenable character
of the existing political relations, that he had advocated
sweeping changes. Plato's follower could the less evade
the same conviction, since he had a keener insight into
men and things, and had clearly detected the con-
ditions on which the vitality of States and forms of

government depends. With his practical acumen he

could not put his trust in the Platonic ideal of a State ;

he was forced to seek the materials for a political re-

construction from among the political relations as they
were and the powers already existing. At that day no

Stalir thinks it sounds like angry with inferiors, and that he
flattery when Aristotle writes to stood above all men, which was
Alexander {Arist. Fragm. No. surely true of the conqueror of
611, ap^^d ^LIAN, V. H. xii. the Persian Empire. We cannot
54) o Qvfihs Kot 7] 6py^ ov irphs tell whether the letter is genuine.
^(Tovs (1. with Kutgers,
^(To-ovs Keitz^Verlo?'. Sch?'. d. Arist.2S7)
Eose and Heitz) aWa irphs suggests that this fragment does
Tohs Kpehrovas yivcTai, crol 5e not agree with that in Plut.
ovdels ta-os, but if this is genuine {^Tranqu. An. 13, p. 472 Arist.

Aristotle said no more than the Fragm. 614, 1581, b) in which

truth, and he wrote, according to Aristotle is made to compare
iElian, in order to appease himself with Alexander, but the
Alexander's wrath against certain letter is much the more doubtful
persons, for which purpose he of the two.
tells him that one cannot be

new foundation could be found except in the Macedonian

kingdom, for the Greek States were no longer able at
once tomaintain their independence against the foreigner
and to reform their inner life. The whole course of
history so far had proved this so conclusively, that even
a Phocion was forced to say, in the Lamian War, that
unless the moral conditions of Greece were altered
there was nothing to be expected from an armed rising
against Macedon.^ Doubtless such a conviction would
come far less readily to an Athenian statesman than to
a friend of the Macedonian kings, who was a citizen
of a small city like Stagira, once destroyed by Philip,
and then reorganised as a Macedonian town.
we blame him if he accepted that view, and, with a

just appreciation of the political situation, attached

himself to that party which alone had a future, and
from which alone, if from any, Greece could still find
and decay within, and the
salvation from the dissension
loss of power to face the enemy without? Can we
condemn him if he felt that the old independence of
the Greek cities must come to an end, when its basis
in the civic virtue of their citizens was gone ? Can we
object if he believed that in his pupil Alexander was
fulfilled the condition under which he held that

monarchy was natural and just ^ where one man stands
out so clearly beyond all others in efficiency as to make
their equality with him impossible ? Can we complain
if he preferred to see the hegemony of Hellas rather in

the hands of such a man than in those of the '

king of Persia,
' for whose favour the Greek cities had
Plut. Phoc. 23. 2 PqIh^ iii^ 13 ^^^

been bidding against each other ever since the Pelo-

ponnesian War, and hoped that he would give the
Hellenes the only thing they lacked to become the
rulers of the world a political unity ?

As for the charge of jealousy of others' fame, it is

true that his philosophical polemics are often cutting and

sometimes unfair. But they never take on any personal
colour, and it would be impossible to prove that they ever
reston any other motive than the desire to make his point
as sharply, and establish it as completely as possible.
If he does sometimes give us the impression of insisting
on his own discoveries, we ought to set off against this

the conscientiousness with which he seeks out every

seed of truth, even the remotest, in the work of his
predecessors ; and remembering this, we shall find that

all that remains is but a very intelligible and very

pardonable self-appreciation.
Still less to pass over minor matters ^ need we
attach any importance to the allegation that Aristotle
hoped soon to see philosophy completed.^ If he did, it
would have been only the same self-deception of which
many other thinkers have been guilty, including some
who have not been, as he was, the teachers of mankind

1 PolU. vii. 7, 1327 b, 29, standing of the Rhet. ad Alex.

reckoning the merits of the c.I/tj. (cf. J?Ae^.iii. 9,1410 b, 2).
Greek race : hiStr^p i\veep6v re ^ CiC. Tusc. iii. 28, 69 Aristo-

5iare\7 /col fieXriffra iToXircv6iJL- teles reteres philosophos acciisans

vov KoX SwdfjLevov &px^tv iravroov qui existimavissent philosopMam
fjLias Tvyx^-vov TroMrelas. snis ingeniu esse ])erfectam, ait
2 Like the tale told by Valer. eos aut stultissimos aut ghriosissi-
Max. viii. as a proof of
14, 3, mos fuisse : sed se videre, quod
Aristotle's in capessenda
sitis ^mucis amiis ma{/na aecessio facta
laude, which is plainly an idle esset^ hrevi tempore philosophiam
invention based on a misunder- plane ahsolutamfore.

for tens of centuries. In fact, the remark seems to

have occurred in an early work of Aristotle's/ and to
have related not to his own system but to Plato's,
which professed to open out a prospect of an early com-
pletion of all science.^
So far as Aristotle's philosophical writings, the
scanty fragments of his letters, the provisions of his
will, and our incomplete accounts of his life afford
us any picture of his personality, we cannot but
honour him. Nobility of principles, a just moral
sense, a keen judgment, a susceptibility to all beauty,
a warm and lively feeling for family life and friendship,
gratitude towards benefactors, affection for relatives,
benevolence to slaves and those in need,^ a loyal love for
his wife, and a lofty conception of marriage far tran-

scending the traditional theories of Greece such are

the traits that we can see. They all carry us back to
that faculty of moral tact to which in his Ethics he
reduced all virtue, backed as it was in him by a wide

knowledge of men and by deep reflection. We are

bound to suppose that the principles he asserts in his
Ethics were the guides of his own life,* the recoil from
all manner of one-sidedness and excess, and the orderly

* In the dialogue Ilepi <pi\o- personally served him should be

<ro(f)ias, which it is rightly
to sold, and that several should be
referred by Rose (Ar. Fr. No. 1) freed and even started in life,
and Heitz (^Ar. Fr. p. 33). As to the latter, cf his saying,

2 As By water (Journ. of ap. DiOG. 17, oh rhv rpSirov, aWa

Philol. vii. 09) also says. In rhv &udpci3irov r]X4ncra.
Aristotle's extant works he often * Cf. his expressions in the
refers to the need of further Letter to Antipater, ajj. ^lian,
investigation. V. H. xiv. 1 and ap. DioG. 18.
' As to the former, cf his . In the former fragment he says
will, which provides inter alia as to the withdrawal of former
that none of those who had honours {de q. v. p. 36, n. 8,

appreciation of things which despises nothing that has

its roots in human nature, but attributes an absolute
value only to the spiritual and moral factors of life.

And if his character, so far as we know it, and in spite

of any little weaknesses which may have attached to
it, seems to us lofty and honourable, still more are
his powers and intellectual achievements altogether
astounding. Never have so great a wealth of know-
ledge, so careful powers of observation, and so untiring
a zeal for acquisition, been found in combination with
such keenness and power of scientific thinking, with a
philosophic insight so capable of piercing into the
essence of things, with a width of view so fully capable
of at once seeing the unity and coherence of all know-
ledge, and embracing and subordinating all its branches.
In poetic swing, in richness of fancy, in the insight of
genius, he cannot compete with Plato. His powers lay
wholly on the side of knowledge, not of art.^ That
fascinating witcheiy of speech with which Plato holds
us is hardly ever to be found in the extant works of the
Stagirite, though many of those that are lost are praised,
doubtless with justice, for their literary grace.^ But
he outstrips his master in all those qualities which
mark the full manhood of science in width and solidity

supra) ovTws e^w, a>s /i'>;Te /jlol 17 sq) and the fragments of
(r(p6Spa jxeKiiv virep avrSbv fi^re fioi letters DemetR. 29, 233)
fxriSh fj-eXeiv ; in the latter, as to give proof of it. That it went
one who had reviled him behind with a tendency to banter and
hishack: air6vTa ij. Koi fiaa-TiyovTO}. sauciness of speech (&Kaipos o-tcu-
The few poetic attempts we /xv\ia), as ^lian ( V. H. iii. 19)
have show no great gift. On the tells us of him in his youth, is
other hand his wit was noted possible, though not proved by
(Demetr. Be Eloc. 128), and the existing testimony,
the apophthegms (^. DiOG. * Be quo infra.

of research, in purity of scientific method, in ripeness

of judgment, in wary discrimination, in his compact
brevity and inimitable keenness of statement, and in
the definite use and comprehensive development of a
scientific terminology. He cannot inspire us, lay hold
of our hearts, scientific and the moral
weld in one the
energies, at all in the same way as Plato does. His
work is drier, more professional, more closely confined
to the field of cognition than Plato's had been. But
within these lines he has, so far as one man might,
achieved success. For thousands of years he showed
philosophy her way. For the Greeks he inaugurated
the age of learning. In every field of knowledge then
open to him he enriched the sciences by original in-
vestigations, and advanced them by new conceptions.
Even if we put at their highest possible measure the
help he derived from his forerunners, and the assistance
he obtained from scholars and friends, and perhaps also
from trained slaves,* the range of his achievements
still common standard, that we
runs so far beyond the
can scarcely understand how one man in a short life
could accomplish it all, especially since we know that
his restless soul had to wring from a weakly body the
needful vitality for this gigantic work.^ Aristotle has
fulfilled his historic vocation and solved the philosophic
task it set him, as scarce any other ever did. Of what
he was as a man we know unhappily too little,but we

* Callisthenes of Babylon is the story is suspicious because of

said to have sent him informa- the addition that these observa-
tion of astronomical observations tions went back 31,000 years,
there (Simpl. De Coelo, Schol. ^ cf
p 37^ ^ 2, and DiOG. v.
503, a, 26, following Porph.), but 16.

have no reason to believe the attacks of his foes, or

to refuse to accord to him that favourable judgment
which his own Ethics with many subsidiary indications
must demand.



Aristotle's writings

A. Consideration of the particular works seriatim

The literary activity of Aristotle startles us at the outset

both by its extent and its manysidedness. The works
which we have under his name extend over all

branches of and they exhibit a vast

wealth of wide observation and historical learning. Yet
to these extant works the ancient catalogues add a great
number of others, of which only the titles or slight frag-
ments now remain. Two of these catalogues we have :

thefirst in two recensions, that by Diogenes (V. 21 sqq.),

and that called the Anonymus Menagii'

the other ' :

in certain Arabic texts. ^ The first list contains, in

Diogenes, 146 titles, most ^ of which the '
Anonymus '

has preserved, leaving ouf a few ^ and adding seven or

eight new ones. An appendix adds forty-seven titles

many of which,^ however, are only repetitions or variants

of those already entered and ten Pseudepigrapha.

See both in the Arist. 48) he was Hesychius of Miletus,
7i>^m. of Rose and Heitz (^Ar. who lived about 500.
* As to the possible grounds
Oj)}). V. 1463, Berlin ed., iv. b,
1 sq., Paris ed.) of this omission cf. Hbitz,
According to the earlier Verlor. Schr. Arist. p. 15.
text 111, but as completed by ^ 14 by one text, 27 by the other.
RosefromanAmbrosianMS. 132. If our count is right there

3 According to Rose's pro- are 9, i.e. Nos. 147, 151, 154, 155,
bable conjecture (^Ar. Uhr. Ord. 167, 171, 172, 174, 182, repeating

Both the sources agi'ee in putting the total number of

books at nearly 400.* The author of the first catalogue
cannot be (as Rose imagines ^) identified with Andro-
nicus of Rhodes, the well-known editor and arranger of
Aristotle's works,^ though it is not to be doubted that
that Peripatetic did compile a catalogue of Aristotle's
writings.'* For even if we could set aside the fact that
Andronicus is said to have given the total number at
1,000 and the circumstance that the extant

index includes^ the lispl sp/iirjvs las, which he rejected,^

it remains clear that we should look to find in Andro-

nicus's edition those writings above all that are in-

cluded in our extant Corpus Aristotelicum. which is

derived, speaking broadly, from his own. This is far

from being true of the extant catalogues, for many

important parts of the extant Corpus are either alto-
gether absent or at least are not to be traced under

Nos. 106, 7, 111, 91, 98, 16, 18, which did not at all correspond
39 and 11 of the main list. with his own work, A similar
' DiOG. 34, and the Anon, catalogue of the writings of
Men AG. at the beginning of his Theophrastus is ascribed to him
list. The titles in Diog. (reckoning by the Scholia at the end of his
the Letters as one book for each Metaphysics and at the beginning
correspondent named and the of the seventh book of the Ilist. of
TloXiTeiai as a single book) give Plants.
375 books those in the Anon, as
; ^ David, Sckol. in Ar. 24, a,
completed by Rose, 391. 19.
Arist. Pseudejng. 8 sq. " This is the more remarkable

Cf. Zellee, Pit. d. Gr. Pt. because we gather from DiOG. 34
iii. a, 549, 3 (2nd edition). that the catalogue was to include
This is clear from the above- only works recognised as ge-
mentioned passage of Plut, nuine. Bernays (i>mZ.<^. ^.r, 134)
{Sulla, 26) from the V. Marc. 8 therefore supposes that the
supra) and David,
(cf. p. 37, n. 4, book was inserted in the cata-
Schol. in Ar. 24, a, 19.It is not logue of Andronicus by a later
credible that Andronicus merely hand.
adopted the catalogue of Her- ' Alex, in Anal. Pri.
mippus {v. Heitz, Ar. Fr. 12)

their later names and in their later form.^ The con-

verse theory was meant to
^ that the list in Diogenes
contain only those writings which were left out of
Andronicus's collection of the didactic works, is nega-
tived by the fact that the list contains many important
sections of the Corpus, and that it distinctly claims to
be a complete review of the philosopher's works, ^ For
similar reasons it is equally impossible that it can owe
its origin to Nicolaus of Damascus/ or any other to

1 Of the books contained in omits important parts of our

our Aristotelicum Dio-
Corpus Corpus. The Anon. Menag. adds
genes' list mentions only the the Topics under that name (his
following: Nos. 141, The Cate- No. 52) and the Metaphysies, to
gories] 142, n. cpfirjveias; 49, which he gives 20 books (if tlie
Uporepcov avaXvriKcav ; 50, 'AraA. text is right, de quo infra). The
ua-Tfpwu ; 102, 11. C4(^f> ^ books Fir^ Analytic is his 134, with
(meaning no doubt the History of 2 books, and the Ethics is 39,
Animals, he spurious tenth book
t 'HQiKa)v k' {lege a'-K). His appen-
of which is afterwards, No. 107, dix adds 148, ^vctik)) aKp6aais,

called 'TTTtp tov fir] yivvau) 123, ;

17)' (lege r( 149, 11. 7ei'fV6ws koX

MrjxaviKwu a 75, UoKitiktjs aKpod-

<\>Bopa.s ; loO, n. /x^T^dpcov, 5' 155, ;

(rews 8 books 23, OlKouofxiKhs a

; ;
n. hropias t'; 156, 11. Ccfjcov
78, Tex^vs ^rjToptK^v a /3' 119, ; KLvfja-ews (as 3 books) 157, n, ;

UonjTiKcov a and probably also

: Cv(^v fj-opiwv (onlj 3 books) 158, ;

the Topics, under two dilferent n. (c^cov yV(rU}s (also 3 books) ;

names, ef. Also Nos. 90,

infra. 174, n. T)6iKa>p NiKOfxaxduu.
y', and 45 (115), - Of Berna3^s, Dial. Ar.
n. (pvffecos a' j8' 133,
n. Ktvi]<T{iis o' (which are and Eose, ut supra: cf on the
probably parts of the Physics) ;
opposite side, Heitz, Verhr.
and No. 39, 11. (TTOLx^iuv a' $' y' Schr. p. 19.
(meaning probably the two ^ ' :S,vv4ypa\\i Se irdfiirXeiara
books n. yevea-ews with our book fii$\ia airep aKoXovdov 7iy7)<TdfxT}v

iii. I)e Casio, or book iv. viroypd\pai Sia r^v irepl irdvras
Meteor.) ; 70, eVets iirixf^ipwa- Koyovs ravSphs ap^rT)u,^ are the
TiKol Ke' (no doubt a recension ni introductory words in DiOG. v. 21,
the Problems) 36, 11, twv iroaa- ;
but that does not mean that he
xS>s \yo/x4va}v (doubtless the trea- would exclude the main philo-
tise. often cited by Ar. under that sophical treatises. The same is
name, which is now book v. of t he clear from 34, where Aristotle's
Metaphijsics) and 38, 'B.QikS)v
power of work is said to be proved
(only 5 books). Even assuming e/c tSov irpoyeypa/jLiiifvcav avyypafx-
that all the suggested correspon- ixdrtav, numbering nearly 400.
dences are correct, the list still * For his works on Aristotle


whom the edition of Andronicus was already known.

Its compiler must have been a scholar of the Alexan- ^

drine period, most probablyHermippus ^ and he must ;

either not have had the means or not have taken the
trouble to give us more than a list of the manuscripts
which were to be found ^ in a library accessible to him,
presumably that of Alexandria. Otherwise it would
be impossible for him to have omitted important works
which can, as we shall see, be clearly proved to have
been in use during the two centuries preceding the date
of Andronicus. "*
The first catalogue, therefore, only
shows us what writings appeared under Aristotle's name
in the Library of Alexandria.
Of far later date is the other catalogue of Aristotelian

writings, which two Arabic writers of the thirteenth

century^ copied from a certain Ptolemy' probably a

Peripatetic of the second century a.d., mentioned also
by Greek writers.^ His list seems to have reached the

cf. Zeller, Ph. d. Gr. Pt. iii. a. HErrz, ibid. 49, Ar. Fr. 11).
556, 2nd ed., and Heitz, Verlor. Through what channel it came
Schr. 38. to the knowledge of Diogenes,
So Heitz, 46 sq., followed
' we do not know,
by Geote, i. 48, Susemihl, Ar. ^Brandis {Gr.-r'6m. Phil. ii.
ii. d. Ar. Pol. xliii.,
DichtTi. 19, b, 1,81) has shown that this
Nietzsche, Rhein. Mus. xxiv. is probably true of both the
181 sq. catalogues of Aristotle and Theo-
' We are not expressly told that phrastus given by Diogenes,
this scholar and Peripatetic, who * Diogenes himself elsewhere

wrote about 200 B.C., catalogued cites works of Aristotle which are
the works of Aristotle but it is ; not in his list (Brandis, ibid.
hardly to be doubted, seeing that Heitz, 17), but this only proves
he wrote a biography of Aristotle that these references were taken
in at least two books which Dio- from other sources than those
genes used (cf. DiOG. V. 1, 2, and from which he got the Cata-
Athen. xiii. 589, xv. 696), and logue.
that his ^Avaypa<p^ ruv @o<ppd(rTov ^ De q. v. RoSE, Ar. 0pp.
)3ij8A.ti/ is mentioned in the Scholia p. 1469.
cited, p. 49, n. 4, snj)ra (cf. * One of these Arabic writers


Arabic copyists in an incomplete form. For while

Ptolemy put the total of Aristotle's works at 1,000
Books, their lists comprise only sotoe 100 treatises,
counting about 550 Books. ^ Of the component parts of
our extant Corpus only a few are wanting, and their
absence may be partly accidental.^ Some others are

(Ibn el Kifti, d. 1248, a^j. Rose, Strato(DiOG.v.58). The fact that

ibid.) says this Ptolemy was an the Ptolemy who compiled the
admirer of Aristotle, who wrote Catalogue came after Andronicus
a book, HisturifB Ar. et Mortis is clear from the mention of
ejuset Scriptoruni Ordo, addressed Andronicus at No. 90, and of
to Aa'^las (or A-'tlas) the other
: Apellicon at No. 8G. Of the
(Ibn Abi Oseibia, d. 1269, ibid.) writers of that name known to
also speaks of his Liber ad us, Rose (Ar. Llbr. Ord. 45) sug-
Galas de vita Ar. et eximia, pie- gests as the same the Neoplato-
tate testamenti ejus et indice nist Ptolemaeus, named by Jambl.
scrijytorwni ejus noturum. Both ap. Stob, Eel. i. 904, and by
copy from him biographical de- Proclus In Tim. 7. Another was
the Catalogue, but
tails as well as a contemporary of Longinus, but
seem to know no more of him he is said (by Poeph. V. Plot. 20)
than that he lived in provincia
* to have written no scientific
Rum (i.e. the Roman Empire),
works. The most probable iden-
and that he was a different per- tification would be with the Peri-
son from the author of the Al- patetic Ptolemy, whose attack
mageM. What they say, how- on a definition of grammar bj-
ever, corresponds exactly with Dionysius Thrax is quoted by
what David, Schol. in Ar. 22, a, Sext. Math. i. 60, and by the
10 (after Proclus, cf. 1. 23), says Schol. in Bekker's Anecd. ii. 730,
of a Ptolemy who reckoned the and whose date therefore must
total of Aristotle's books (as did lie somewhere between Dionysius
Andronicus, cf. p. 49, n. 5) at and Sextus (70-220 B.C.).
1,000, a.vaypa<p))V avToov Troi-qffaixevos ' An exact reckoning is not
KoX rhv fiiov avrov koI r^v Siddeaiv : possible without going into the
and with the remark in V.Ma7'C.S, variations of the numbering in
as to the same, that to his list of the different texts. If tlie \1\ Po-
Aristotle's works he added his lities were counted separately,
will. David takes this Ptolemy they would raise the total tu
to be Ptolemaeus Philadelphus, about 720.
but this merely proves the igno- 2 The most important omis-
rance of David, or the pupil who sions are the Ethies and the
recorded his lectures ; though we (Economics besides which there

know that Ptolemaeus Philadel- are the Rhetoric, ad Alex., the

phus himself was a collector of book upon Melissus, &;c.; and the
Aristotle's works (Athen. i. 3, tracts n. aKovcrHv, 11. avanvoTiSy
David, and Ammon. Schol. in Ar. n. ivVTTJ/icOV, n. fiaVTlKTis TTJS eV
28, a, 13, 43), and was a pupil of Tots vTTPOis, n. yecTTjTos Kol yfjpus,

named twice over. The fact that this Arabic catalogue

was taken from a Greek original is proved by the
Greek titles, often hopelessly miswritten, which are
set against most of the items.
It is obvious that catalogues of such a character
and origin offer no sufficient security either for the

completeness of their reckoning or for the authenticity

of the writings they include. Nothing but a full and
accurate inquiry into the merits of each case can enable
us to decide as to the claims of those texts or fragments
which are handed down to us under Aristotle's name.
Such an inquiry cannot here be fully carried out but ;

it will not be out of place to combine with a complete

review of all the writings ascribed to Aristotle a concise

appreciation of the points to be considered in passing
judgment on their authenticity.^
To begin at the point where the old catalogues end,
we may distinguish from the philosophical treatises
those writings which dealt with personal matters the
letters, poems, and occasional pieces. Their number is
relatively small and if we exclude those whose genuine-

n. v-Kvov Koi iyp-nySpaeas, and n. Ancforitate, 1854, and Ar. Pseud-

XpoofidTuVftheU. KdcrfxavjU. aperuv ejji^ra2)hns, 1863, rejected too
Kal KaKiSiv, U.. Oavfiaa-iav aKova-fxa- summarily all the lost and several
rwv, and the ivcnoyvwfiiKT]. But
of the extant books. The writings
as No. 40 includes the De Memoria named in the ancient Catalogues
et Somtw, so it may be that others will be cited in this chapter by
of the small scientific tracts Rose's numbers (p. 48, n, 1) ; of
are bracketed in the list under the Catalogues themselves, that of
one title and number. Diogenes will be cited as D.,that
^ As to theworks known only of the Anonymus Menagii as An.,
by titles or fragments, cf. the and the Ptolemy of the Arabic
thorough inquiry of Heitz( T'e7"Zw. texts as Pt. Ar. Fr. will be
SchHft. d. A?'., 1865), refuting used for the collection of the
Val. Rose, whose learned essays, fragments by Rose in Ar. Ojfj). v.
De Ar. Lihrorum Ordine et 1463 sq., Berlin ed.; and Fr. Hz.

ness is doubtful or which are certainly forged, there is

very little left. A few poems and poetic fragments,^

and perhaps some part of the matter said to be cited
from his Letters,^ may stand. The so-called Apologia
of Aristotle,^ and the Orations in praise of Plato and
Alexander,'^ must be rhetorical inventions of later date.

for that of Heitz in Ar. 0pp. iv. b, extant Fragments seem to come
1 sq. of the Didot edition. from the editions of Artemon and

For these, with the notices Andronicus. It is difficult to say if
relating to them, v. Bbeghk, Lyr. any are genuine, since some are
Gr. 504 sq.,R0SE, Ar. Pseud. 598 certainly not. Not only Rose (Ar.
sq.,Ar. Fr. 621 sq., p. 1583, and Ps. 585, Ar. Idbr. Ord. 113) but
Fr. Hz. 333 sq. The most im- also Heitz ( Verl. ScJir. 280, Fr.
portant are those above cited Hz. 321) considers all the letters
(p. 12, n. 4, p. 20, n. 3), whose forged. That the six now ex-
genuineness we have no reason tant {ap. Stake, Ar. ii. 169,
to doubt. D. 145 mentions Itttj and and Fr. Hz. 329) are so is
eAeyeTa, and An. 138 iyKdofiia fi
; clear, and Heitz holds that they
vfxvovs appear in An. App. 180. could not even have been in
The Letters of Aristotle,
2 Artemon's collection.
praised by Demete. Eloo. 230, ^ Cf.
p. 35, n. 3, supra; Ar.
SiMPL. Categ. 2 y, Schol. in Ar. Fr. 601, p. 1578 Fr. Hz. 320.

27, a, 43, and others (cf. Rose, ^ An 'EyKw/JLioi/ UKaTcavos is

Ar. Ps. 587, Heitz, Verl SoJir. quoted by Olympiod. m Gory.
285, and Ar. Fr. 604-620, p. 166 (v. Jahrb. /. Philol., Suppl.,
1579, Fr. Hz. 321 sq.) as the high- xiv. 395, and Ar. Fr. 603, Fr. Hz.
water mark of epistolary style, 319) ; but it is more than suspi-
were collected in eight books by cious, sinceno one used what
one Artemon, otherwise unknown would have been the best source
iv. Demetr. Eloc. 223, David, of Platonic biography. A Pane-
Sclwl. in Ar. 24, a, 26, and Pt. gyric on Alexander aj). Themist.
No. 87). Andronicus is said to Or. iii. 55 {Ar. Fr. 602, Fr. Hz.
have reckoned twenty books (Pt. 319) is condemned by the Fr.
No. 90, cf. Gell. XX. 5, 10), but ap. RuTiL. Lupus, Be Fig. Sent.
perhaps it was only twenty letters, i. 18, if that belongs to it, Ber-
which is the number in An. nays' theory of another Alexander
137. D. 144 names letters {JDial. Ar. 156) being very im-
to Philip, letters to the Sely- probable. An 'EyKX-nffia 'AAe|ay-
brians, four letters to Alexander Spov is named by An. (No. 193) as
(cf. Demetr.
Eloc. 234, Ps. spurious. Books n. 'A\e^dv5pov are
Amm. 47), nine to Antipater, and ascribed by Eustath. ap. Dionys.
seven to others. The letters of Per. V. 1140, and Ax. App. 176,
or to Diares ^de quo v. Simpl. to Aristotle through some con-
Phys. 120), mentioned by Philop. fusion between his name and
Be An. K. 2, are not in D. All Arrian's. Cf. Heitz, Verl. Schr.


A second section of the writings may include those

which dealt with scientific questions, but were yet
essentially distinct in form from all the extant treatises,
namely, the Dialogues. ^
We have repeated proofs ^

that Aristotle, in one class of his works, did make

use of the form of dialogue. It is said that his
Dialogues differed from those of Plato in the fact
that the individuality of the persons conversing was
not carried through,^ and that the author kept the
lead of the conversation in his own hands."* Of the
known works of this kind, the Eudemus^ ^ the three
books On Philosojpliy ^ and the four books On Jus-

291, and Muller, Scrlj?t. rer. Bernays, 21, 143

(^de q. V. etc.,
Alex. pref. v. and Rhe'm. Mus. xvi. 236 sq.,
1 Cf. Bernays, Dialoge d. Ar. EoSE, Ar. Ps. 52 sq., Ar. Fr. 32-
(1863), Heitz, Verl. Schr. 141- 43, p. 1479, Fr. Hz. 47) is called
221, EOSE, Ar. Pseud. 23 sq. E&Stj^os (Themist. De An. 197,
2 Cf. Cic. Ad Att. xiii. 19, 4, and cf. quotations in Ar. Fr.
Basil. ^>. 135 (167) /;. Rose, 41), or Hepl ^\ivxr)s (D. 13, An. 13,
Ar. Ps. 24, Plut. Adv. Col. 14, 4, Plut. Dio 22), or Ef^Sij^uos ^ tt.
Dio Chrys. Or. 53, p. 274, Alex. ^vxns (Plut. Cons, ad Ajjol. 27,
aj).David, Scliol. in Ar. 24, b, p. 115, and Simpl. ap. Ar. Fr.
33, David, ibid. 24, b, 10 sq., 26, 42). We learn from Plut. Dio
b, 35; Philop. ihid. 35, b, 41, 22, and Cic. Divin. 1, 25, 53,
and De An. E. 2 Procl. ap. ; that itwasdedicated to Aristotle's
Philop. ^Aern. M. 2, 2 (cf. friend, Eudemus, who died in
Ar. Fr. 10) and In Tim. 338 d Sicily 352 B.C. (cf.p. 11 n. 4 supra),
Ammon. Categ. 6, b {ajj. Stahr, and it was probably written soon
Ar. ii. 255) Simpl. Pliys. 2, b
; after (Krische, Forsch. i. 16).
Priscian, Sohd. Prooem. p. 553 b. Of the Fragments ascribed to it by
3 Basil.
Ei). 135 (167) ap. Eose, more probable places will be
EosE, Ar. Pseud. 24. Ar. Fr. 1474. indicated infra for Fr. 36, 38, and
Heitz, 146. 43. Aristotle himself seems, in Z>e
Cic. ut su2)ra.
* Ad Quint. An. i. 4, init. to refer to a discus-
Fr. 5 does not refer to Dia-
iii. sion in the Eudemus, cf. Ar. Fr. 41.
logues. Aristotelius mos,' in CiC.
' D. 3, An. 3 (who by
AdFam.i. 9, 23, has a wider sense; oversight gives four books),
and refers to the ivi utramque '
Bernays, 47, 95, Rose, Ar. Ps.
2)artem disjmtare,' cf De Orat. iii.
. 27, Ar. Fr. 1-21, p. 1474, Heitz,
21, 80 but see Heitz, 149.
; Verl. Schr. 179 sq., Fr. Hz. 30 sq.,
* This remarkable Dialogue Bywater, 'Aristotle's Dialogue

tice ^
seem to have been the most important. The first two
are of particular interest, because they stand in such close
relation, not only by their form but by their subjects,
to the work of Plato, that there is much to be said for
the conjecture that they were written in the period
when Aristotle still belonged to the circle of Plato's
scholars, and had not yet fully passed over to his later
independe// position.^ There are certain other works

on Philosophy,' Journ. of Philol. n-n, p. 1487, Bernays, 48,

vii. 64 sq. Priscian tells us the Rose, Ar. Ps. 87, Hettz, Verl.
work was a dialogue (Solnt. Schr. 169, Fr. Hz. 19. CiC. Bep.
Proonm. p. 553), and it is con- iii. 8, 12, mentions this as a
firmed by the statement (Plut. ' comprehensive work in four

Adv. Col. 14, 4, Procl. aj). Philop. books. According to Plut. Sio.
^t. M. 2, 2; V. Ar. Fr. 10) rep. 15, 6, it was attacked by
that Aristotle had in his Dia- Chrysippus ('Ap. Trepi ZiKa.ioavvi\s
logues attacked and renounced avTiypd^Q}!/) and the attacks of

the Ideal Theory of. Ar. Fr. ; Carneades mentioned by Lac-

11 from the second book n. TANT. Fpit. 55 (ap. CiC. Pep. iii.)
<pi\o<T. arguing against the Ideal seem to have been also specially
Numbers. These three books directed to this work. Demetb.
are referred to (besides D.) by Floe. 28 cites a passage from it.
PhILODEM. n, eva-e^eias, col. 22, We are not told that it was a
and following him, by CiC. JV. D. Dialogue, but that is inferred
1. 1 3, 33. The apparent reference from its position at the head of D.
in Aeist. PTiyH. ii. 2, 194, a, 35 which begins (Bernays, p. 132)
{Ziyws yap rd ov '4vKa elprirai 5'
with the Dialogues arranged ac-
iu rois irepl (l)iXo<ro(pias) is as Heitz cording to number of books. It
says Schr. 180) very sus-
( Verl. is, however, true that in the
picious, since Aristotle nowhere midst of the Dialogues (as No.
else cites his Dialogues but on ; 12) the Protrepticus comes in,
the other hand the reference will which probably was not a Dia-
not apply either to the Book on logue. Neither probably were
the Good (which could not be Nos. 17- Ii). It is a question,
called n. <j)i\oa:, cf. p. 61, n. 1, therefore, whether the Anon, has
infra), nor to MetapU. xii. 7, not here preserved the original
1072, b, 2, since as Aristotle left order : so that the Dialogues
that book unfinished he could really include only the first thir-
not quote it in the Physics^. teen numbers of An., together
Rose's rejection of the IT. (piMa. with the Sympotsion which was
is followed by Susemihl, Genet. misplaced in that list by reason
Unt. d. plat. Phil. ii. 534 but ; of the textual error (r. p. 58, n. 1).
the arguments are insufficient. * This is specially true of the

D. 1, An. 1, Pt. 3, Ar. Fr.

Eiidemus. All the fragments of


which are supposed to have been dialogues, mainly

by reason of the place assigned them in the catalogues
but some of them are only distantly connected with

this dialogue prove that it was tation of the theory that the soul
built on the lines of the PTuedo. was the harmony of its body,
They have in common not only here also Aristotle followed him
their subject, the Immortality of {Fr. 41). Exactly on Plato's
the Soul, but also the artistic lines is likewise Fr. 36, where the
and philosophic method in which misery of the soul tied to the body
it is treated. Like the Phcedo is imaged in a striking compari-
(60 e), the Eudevius was intro- son ; and even if By water {Jmirn.
duced {Fr. 32) by a revelation in of Phil. ii. 60) and Hirzel
a dream, the direct prototype of {Hermes, x. 94) are right in refer-
which is to be found in the other ring this Fr. to the Protrejdicus,
Dial, relating to the last days of still this also seems to have
Socrates {Crito, 44 A). As Plato been on the same lines as the
concludes his work (108 D sq.) EudemiLS (cf. p. 60, n. 1, infra).
with an imaginative myth, so the Aristotle took a more inde-
Eudemus had also its mythic pendent position against Plato in
ornament (cf. Ft. 40, where the books On Philosophy. It is
the words of Silenus, Saifiovos true that the Frs. in which he
iirnrovov, etc., remind us also of defends the belief in the gods,
Rejf. X. 617 D, and Fr. 37, which the unity of God, and the rational
must be taken in a mystical nature of the stars {Fr. 14, 13,
sense). As the Plicedo (69 c) 16, 19, 20, 21, and the Fr. ap.
refers to the doctrines of the Cic. N.B. ii. 49, 125, de q. v.
Mysteries, so Fr. 30 of the Brandis, ii. b, 1, 84; Heitz,
Eudemus recognises the validity 228, refuting Rose, Ar. Ps. 285),
of the customary honours to the read like Plato, and that Fr. 15
dead. But the most remarkable {de q. V. Bern AYS, 110, and Fr.
resemblance between the two Hz. 37) is evidently modelled on
Dialogues is in their philosophi- Rs2J. ii. 380 D. Nevertheless,
cal contents. Aristotle in the Aristotle decisively declared him-
Eudemus insisted not only on self in this work {Fr. 10, 11, cf.
Immortality, but also on Pre- p. 55, n. 6) against the theory of
existence and Transmigration, the Ideas and Ideal Numbers,
defending in his own way the declared the world to be not only,
theory that the soul in its as Plato said, unending, but also
entrance into this life forgot beginningless (v. Frs. 17, 18,
the Ideas {Fr. 34, 35). As the with which Bywater, 80, well
Plicedo based the decisive argu- compares Plut. Tranqu. An. 20,
ment for immortality on the p. 477) and gave in Book I. {v.

relation of the soul to the idea Bywater's reconstruction thereof

of life (105 C sq.), so the Eudemus from Philop. in Nicom. Isag ;

also called the soul ^6% n Cic. Tuse. iii. 28, 69 ; Procl. in
{Fr. 42). As Plato worked up to EUCL. p. 28 cf. Ar. Fr. 2-9) a

this argument by a detailed refu- general theorj^ of the develop-



the philosophic system,^ and others are of doubtful


ment of humanity to culture and (v. Blass, Rliein. Mus. xxx. 1875,
philosophy, which, although it p. 481). There must be, how-
connects with Plato by the re- ever, much variation, and Blass'
mark (a/i. Philop.) that the view that certain passages are
spiritual and divine principle, in taken verbally from the n. (piKoa.
spite of its own light, appears is improbable.
to us dark Sta rr}v iTriKeifxevTjv ^ To this class belong the
rod crcafiaros ax^vv, and by the 3 bks. n. iroiriTwv (D. 2, An. 2,
theory of periodic floods whereby Pt. 6; Beenays, 10 sq., 60, 139;
humanity was thrown back into KOSE, Ar. Ps. 77; Ar. Fr. 59-
savagery (cf Plato, Tim. 22 d.
. 69, p. 1485; Heitz, V.S. 174 sq. ;

Laws, iii. 677 A, 681 e), indicates Fr. Hz. 23). That this work was a
clearly an independent view of Dialogue is doubted by Muller,
history which goes beyond Plato Fr. Hist. ii. 185 but it is proved

not only in relation to the eternity not only by its place in the
of the world (Meteor, i. 14, 352 b, Catalogues, but also by an express
16; Polit. vii. 9, 1329 b, 25; statement in V. Marc. p. 2, and
MetapJi. xii. 8, 1074 a, 38; cf. by the form of Fr. 61. It was
Bern AYS, Theophr. u. d. From- probably used as a genuine work
migk. 42), but to the process of of Aristotle by. Eratosthenes
spiritual development {Meta2)h. i. and Apollodorus, but we cannot
I, 981 and 2, 982 b, 11 sq.).
b, 13, be sure that their references
Aristotle's interest in scholarly (Fr. 60 ap. DiOG. viii, 51) may
inquiries appears in the passages not point to another work, pos-
of this work on the Magi, on sibly the Politeiai. Aristotle,
Orpheus, on the Seven Wise Men, however, himself refers at the
and on the development of philo- end of Poet. 15 to a discussion
sophy from their time to his own in the iKdeSofifvoi \6yoi, which it
and his critical sense is shown in is most natural to apply to the
his discussion of the story of n. iroiTjTaiv, as in the Rhetoric
Orpheus in Ft. 9. Taking all (which Rose, Ar. Ps. 79, suggests)
this into consideration, the books there is no corresponding pas-
On Philosophy show, as compared sage. The few references we have,
with the Eudemus, a remark- which are mostly historical notes,
able advance in independence of show nothing that throws doubt
thought, leading to the suggestion on the genuineness of the work.
that they were written later, per- Fr. 66 contains statements as to
haps at the end of Plato's life. Homer, evidently from a tradition
Krische {Fmsch. i. 265) sought to current in los, which (notwith-
identify the 3 bks. IT. ^i\o<t. with standing NiTZSCH, Hist. Horn.
Metaph. i., xi., xii. ; but this is ii. 87, MiJLLER, ut sujjra, and
now untenable (cf. Heitz, 179, Rose, Ar. Ps. 79) do not prove
and infra, p. 76 sq.). It is more the spuriousness of the book,
probable that they were used for since they might well have been
various passages of Metaph. i., introduced in the Dial, with-
xii., and for the bk. n. oipauov out being believed by the author.

; ;;


With the Dialogues may be connected another

set of writings, which did not take that form, but were

For the title n. iroirjrcov we find also miswriting; Ar. Fr. 107 sq.
(Fr. 65, 66, 69 cf. Spengel,^&A. ; p. 1495; Ar. Ps. 119; Fr. Hz.
d. Miinchn. Altad. ii. 213 Kittee, ; 44; cf. Heitz, V.S. 192, who
Ar. Poet. X. Heitz, V. 8. 175) ; rightly questions the application
that of n. TTotTjTtK^s, which, unless of Plut. iV. P. Suav. V. 13, 4 to
it is a mere confusion, indicates this Dialogue) the n. it\ovtov

that the work was not purely (D. 11; An. 7; Ar. Fr. 86-89,
historical, but contained discus- p. 1491; Ar. Ps. 101; Heitz,
sions on the Art of Poetry as well V. S. 195, Fr. Hz. 45) probably
as information about the poets. attacked by the early Epicurean,
After the Dialogues, which made Metrodorus, if the proper reading
several books, there follows in in Philodem. Be Virt. et lit. ix.
the lists the YioXiTiKbs, which col. 22, be (as seems probable
consisted, according to D. 4, of cf. Spengel, Abh. d. Miinchn.
2 books, according to An. 4, of AMd. V. 449, and Heitz, Z.c.) not
one (^Fr. 70, p. 1487; KosE, Ar. n. iroAtretas, but IT. irKoxnov the
Ps. Bernays, 153; Heitz,
80; Dial, is nowhere quoted by name,
V.S. 189, Fr.; and there- and of the fragments reckoned
after the following, in one book as belonging to it Heitz rightly
each n. pVTopiKrjs fj TpvWos (D. 5,
; rejects Fr. 88 and the IT. ihxns

An. 5 addition of y' is

; the (D. 14; An. 9; Ar. Fr. 44-46,
obviously a false reading, though p. 1483 Ar. Ps. 67 Fr. Hz. 55
; ; ;

Pt. 2 b, ap. Ibn abi Oseibia Bernays, which we pos-

122), to
has De Arte Rituri iii.' Cf. Ar.
sess only one reference that can
Fr. 57 sq. p. 1485 Rose, Ar. ; be identified with certainty, i.e.
Ps. 76 Bernays, 62, 157 Heitz,
; ; Fr. 46, which is too closely re-
V.S. 189, Fr. Rz. 41); the lated to Plat. Rep. vi. 508 e
N-ffpivdos (D. 6, An. 6 Rose, Ar. ; to permit its rejection.
Fr. 53, p. 1484, Ar. Ps. 73; 2 If we could say absolutely

Bernays, 84; Heitz, V.S. 190, that the Dial. IT. euyevefos (D. 15
Fr. Hz. 42), doubtless the same AN. 11; Pt. 5; Ar. Fr. 82-85,
as the Stc^Aoyos KopivOios, of which p. 1490; Ar. Ps. 96; Bernays,
Themist. Or. 33, p. 356 speaks 140; Heitz, V. S.202; Fr. Hz.
the -Sotpiar^s (D. 7 An. 8 Pt. 2 ; ; 55), which was already ques-
Ar. Fr. 54-66, p. 1484 Ar. Ps. ; tioned by Plut. Arist. 27, is not
75 Fr. Hz. 42), of which nothing
; genuine, it would follow (as Heitz
remains except a few remarks on suggests) that the story that
Empedocles, Zeno, and Prota- Socrates was accused of bigamy
goras the Meu4^evos (D. 8, An.
; in it rests upon some mis-
10), of which there are no frag- understanding. This, however,
ments the 'EpcoriKhs (D. 9 An.
; ; seems hardly probable, because
12; Ar. Fr. 90-93, p. 1492; Ar. the story in question appears so
Ps. 105; Heitz, V.S. 191, Fr. frequently and so early in the
Iiz. 43); the Su/uirJo-toj/ (D. 10; Aristotelian School. As to the
An. 19, where a-vWoyiffiMwy is a genuineness of the Dialogues


yet distinguished, as it seems, from the strictly scientific

treatises by their popular style of treatment. These are
(at least in part) ascribable same period of
to the
Aristotle's work.^ To that period must also belong

named in the previous note, there a couple of conversational re-

are very few as to which we can marks, which may therefore as
form an approximate judgment properly be called irporpeirTiKhs
but there do not seem to be de- as Me'Tiexermsviithiis longer con-
cisive grounds for rejecting any versational preface could be
of them. called iiriTcicpios (Thras. ibid. ;

To the same period with the Ar. BJiet. 14, p. 1415, b, 30).

Eiidemns belongs also the Pro- If Cicero used it as a model for

trepticus (D. 12; An. 14; Pt. 1 his Jloi'tensivs {Script. Hist. A\(g.
where it is probably transposed V. Sal. Gallieni, c. 2), it may still
with the n, ^iko(T. and is there- be questioned whether the dia-
fore said to have three books. logue form was part of the imi-
Ar. Fr. 47-50, p. 1483 Ft. Hz. ; tation. As Usener, ut sxqyra,
46). According to Teles, circa shows, Cicero also used it for
250 B.C., it was addressed to the the Somnium Scipionis, Rep. vi.,
Cyprian prince Themiso, and was and, mediately or immediately,
known to Zeno and to his teacher Censorinus, i5. iVfl^. 18, 11. By-
Crates Qc. Stob. Floril. 95, 21). water, id mipra^ has also shown
R0SE,^r. P5.68(with s^fortasse^, (but cf. Hirzel) that Jamblicus
Bywater, Jour7i. of Phil. ii. 55, used it for his own Protreptictis.
and USENER, RJiein. Mus. xxviii. Of a kindred nature apparently
372, suppose it to have been a was the n. TraiSetas (D. 19 AN. ;

Dial., and Bernays, 116, gives 10; Pt. 4; Ar.Fo-. 51, p. 1484;
no opinion but Heitz, V. S. 196,
; Ar. Ps. 72; Heitz, V. S. 307,
and HiRZEL, Hermes^ x. 61, seem Fr. Hz. 61). As no fragments
to be right in saying that it was are preserved, we cannot tell
a continuous essay. The reasons whether the IT. tjSovtjs (D. 16, cf.
are (1) that Teles says 'Ap. 66; An. 15; Pt. 16; Heitz,
irporpcTtTiKhv hv ^ypa^pe irphs fil- F. S. 203; Fr. Hz. 69) was a
aoova : and although a Dial, like dialogue or not. The book
a drama may be
dedicated to a n. paffi\elas (D. 18; An. 16;
man, rivl Trpoaypicpnv, yet it can- Pt. 7 Ar. Fr. 78, 79, probably

not be written to anyone, 'iTp65 also 81, p. 1489; Fr. Hz. 59),
Tiva ypd(()eiv (2) that all other
: which was addressed to Alexan-
TTporpeTTTiKol that we know were der, and apparently referred to by
essays and not dialogues even ; Eratosthenes (o^;. Strabo, i. 4,
the pseudo- Platonic ClitojjJiO'n, 9, p. 66), was more probably an
which got an unsuitable second essay (v.Heitz, V. S. 204) than
title of IlporpeTrriKhs (Thrasyll. a dial. (Rose, Ar. Ps. 93,' and
op. DiOG. iii. 60), is no exception Bernays, 56). On the other
to this, for it is not a dialogue, hand, the title 'A\4^au5po5 fj vrrep
but a speech introduced only by (irepi) airoUuv [-/], if the text


the treatise On the Good} Itwas an account of the

substance of Plato's lectures,^ and what little is recorded
from or of it gives no reason to doubt its genuineness.^

be correct, rather suggests a dial. that he was not sure whether Ari-
(D. 17; At. Fr. 80 Bernays, 56; stotle's reference referred to the
Ft. Hz. 61. Heitz, V. S. 204, 207, n. ray. or to a special work. If
suggests irphs 'AAe|. inrtp airoiKcav so, this makes rather for than
Kal IT. ^affiXeias. A
preferable against Alexander's knowledge
conjecture would be, vir. airoiKcov a'. of the n. rayddov. SiMPL. I)e
IT. fia(n\ias a). Other fragments An. 6, b, Philop. He An. C. 2
which Rose places among the (cf. Ar. Fr. p. 1477 b, 35), SuiD.
Dials, will be referred to infra. 'AyaQ. p. 35, b, believe that the
The n. Ta-yaQov consisted, words iv To7s irept (piXoaocpias A.e-

according to D. 20, of three books yofiivois in Ar. De An. i. 2,404,

An. 20, one book; Pt. 8, five books b, 18, refer to this work, whereas
Alex, ad Metaph. iv. 2, 1003 they really refer to Platonic
b, 36, 1004 b, 34, 1005 a, 2 re- writings (cf. Zeller, II. a. 636, 4).
peatedly quotes Book II., and But this proves only that these
the regular form of citation is ej/ writers knew the IT. TayaQov at
Tois TT. Tay. Apart from the Cata- second hand. Rose's view that
logues, we never hear of this this work was a Dial, is re-
work except in the Aristotelian futed by Heitz, F. 2L7. -S'. We
Commentators, whose notices cannot tell whether Aristotle
are collected and discussed by published in his lifetime his
Brandis, 'Perd. Ar. Libr. de notes upon the lectures of Plato,
Ideis et de Bono,' Gr.-rom. Phil. ii. or whether they became public
b, 1, 84 Krische, For sell, i.263
; ;
after his death. If the iK\oy)] t.
Rose, Ar. Ps. 46, Ar. Fr. 22-26, ivavr., cited by himself, formed
p. 1477, and Heitz, V. S. 209, part of them, the former would
Fr. Hz. 79. Brandis (ibid.) has of course be true. It is clear
shown that none of them except that the book was in use before
Alexander possessed tlie work the end of the third century B.C.,
itself. Heitz, p. 203, doubts this and certainly before the time of
even as to Alex., because he in one Andronicus, because of the men-
place (p. 206, 19) distinguishes tion of it in Diog.'s list; of.
the e/cA.07^ Tcov iuavricDV noticed p. 48 sq. mipra.
Ar. Meta2)h. iv. 2, 1004 a, 2 {de q. 2 Referred to by Aristoxenus

infra) from the second book n. and others, cf. Zeller, Plato, 26.
ra-yaQov, and in another place SiMPL. {Phys. 32, b, 104, b, Schol.

(p. 218, 10, 14) identifies them. 334, b, 25, 362, a, 8) mentions,
These passages seem, however, besides Aristotle, Speusippus,
only to show that Alexander Xenocrates, Heraclides and Hes-
knew of no e/cA.. t. iv. as a sepa- tifeus as having published the
rate book, but saw in the second Platonic lectures.
book n. ray. a discussion to 3 This is proved, against Suse-

which, as far as the sense went, MIHL, Genet. Eritm. d. plat. PJdl.
Aristotle might be referring, so 2, 533, in Zeller's Plato, ad loo.


There more doubt about the date of the work On


the Ideas ^^ which Aristotle apparently refers to in the

Metaphysics,'^ and which Alexander possessed.^ The
Extracts from some of Plato's writings * and the mono-
graphs on earlier and cotemporary philosophers^
Tliis work is named in D.
' tov; D. 94 An. 85 SiMPL. Be
; ;

54, and An. 45 (which give it Coelo, Schol. 491, b, 37: ffivoxpivfi
one book only) n. t^s ideas or eViro/ii^j/ rod Ti/xaiov ypoi<piv ovk

n. iS4as. We have references, airTj^lwa-e) ; cf. Fr. Hz. 79.

however, by Alex, in il/(9^fl/7/i. 564, n. rwv llvOayopdccv, D. 101

b, 15 to the 1st book n. ISewu, in An. 88 no doubt the same as is


573, a, 12 to the 2nd, and in 566, named 'Zwaywyij twv Uvdayopelois

the 4th (but in the last case
b, 16 to apea-Kdvrwt/ by SiMPL. De Casio,
we may well read A for A, with Schol. 492, a, 26 and b, 41 sq.
Rose, Ar. Ps. 191, Ar. Fr. 1509, UvBayopiKb. {ibid. 505, a, 24, 35) ;

b,' 36). Syeian, Ifi Metaph. 901, UvOayopiKhsl-ov ?] (Theo. Arithm.

a, 19, 942, b, 21 speaks of a work 5) ; IT. ttjs livdayopiKoiv S6^r]s
n. rwu elSwv in two books. The (Alex. Metajjh. 660, b, 25), and
same is meant in Pt. 14 by the n. UvdayopiKris <pi\o(ro(plas
three hooks Be imagimlnis,utrum (Jambl. F. Py^A. 31). Probably
existant cm own but the Arabic
; the separate title Uphs rovs
title 'fari aid.uln^ indicates that Uvdayopciovs, D. 97, is only apart
their Greek text read not n. etSoSi/, of the same work, as D. gives
but n. ilbwXoiv cf Rose, Ar. Ps.
; . each of them one book only,
l%b; Ar. Fr. 180-184 p. 1508; while Alexander and Simpl.
Fr. Hz. 86 sq. quote from book 2. The refer-
- I. 990 b, 8 sq.; we have ence in DiOG. viii. 34, cf. 19,
not only Alexander's statement probably belongs to this treatise
that this passage refers to the (whether we there read iv t^ ncpl
work on Ideas, but it seems to be Kvajtiuv, or tt. kvu/xov only, cf
the natural inference from Ari- Cobet). Other notices of the
stotle's text itself that he is re- work are collected by Rose, Ar.
ferring to some more detailed Ps. 193, Ar. Fr. 185-200, p. 1510
discussion of the Ideal Theory Fr. Hz. 68.
We find also three

which is already known to his books n. t^s ^Apx^reiov [-tou?1

readers. <piAo(ro(pias in D. 92, An. 83, Pt.
3 Rose (Ar. Ps. 186) doubts 9 ; cf. Ar. Ps. 211, and Fr. Hz.
this, bat Alexander's own state- 77, and cf last note. . Also Uphs
ments (cited in Ar. Fr. 183 Jin., ra 'AXK/iaiuvos, D. 96, An. 87
lS4:Jin.) indicate as much. npofiKrjjsLaTa e/c twv At] fioKpirov, 7
Ta K TU3V v6jxu)V TlXaTwvos (D.

(? 2) books, D. 124, An. 116 (cf.
21, as 3 Bks., An. 23 as 2). Ta e/c Ar. Ps. 213, Ar. Fr. 202 p. 1514,
rrjs TToXiTeias a fi' (D. 22. PrOCL Fr. Hz. 11 ;) Uphs to. MeXlacrov, D.
in Remp. 350 Ar. Fr. 176,
; 95, An. 86 Up. ra Topyiov, I).

p. 1507). To e/c rod Tifxaiov Kol 98, AN. 89 Tip. ra s,evo(pdvovs,


rwv 'Apxvreiwv (alias : Kal 'Apxv- [-Kpdrovs in MSS.] D. 99 lip. rd ;


so far as these were genuine ^

must, however, have
been mostly compiled during Aristotle's first residence
in Athens, or at least before his return from Macedonia.
A collection of Platonic Divisions ascribed to him
was no doubt a forgery .^
Far above all these in historic importance stand the
works which set out the peculiar system of the Master in
strict philosophical form. Speaking broadly, it is these
alone which have survived the first century A.D., and have

Zilvwvos, D, 100 our treatise De

: view of the character of our
Melisso, &c., to which, besides the informants it is very possible
lost section as to Zeno, another that they presented as history
cited at second hand by Philop. what he had only stated as a
Phys. B. 9 as lip. t)]V Uap/xeviSov Pythagorean tradition. Similarly
So^ap seems to have belonged. the meanings of the Pythagorean
We know that this work was used symbols {Fr. 190 sq.) and the
by Simplicius (cf Zener,i.474 sq.).
. contents of Fr. 188, which Isidor.
There was also the ITepi ttjs STreuc- ap. Clement. Strom, vi. 641
lirirov Kal s.uoKpdTOvs\^((>i\o(ro<{>ias], falsely attributes to Aristotle
D. 93, An. 84. himself, are merely references to
We cannot judge as to the
Pythagorean theories. The rest
genuineness of several, of which of the passages cited from this
we have the titles only. It is book as to the Pythagorean
not impossible that Aristotle may system give no reason to reject
have left, among his papers, it. The apparent contradiction
extracts and criticisms on various between Fr. 200 {ap. Simpl. De
philosophic systems written Ccelo, Schol. 492, b, 39 sq.) and
down in the course of his studies, Ar. De Ccelo ii. 2, 285, b, 25 is
and that recensions of these were quite reconcileable, without fol-
published. It is also possible lowing Alexander in assuming a
that similar collections may have falsa lectio, ioT which, however,
passed themselves off under his Fr. 195, ap. Simpl. iUd. 492, a,

name. That the latter was the 18, gives some ground.
case with the tracts in our Corpus - This is named in the exist-

on the Eleatic School is proved ing lists only by Pt. 53, as Di-'

in Zbller, Ph. d. Gr. i. 465 sq. visifl Platonis' (formerly mis-

It is more difficult to decide as translated \jusjura7tdum' or ^tes-
to the authenticity of the work on tamentnm PI. '). It was, perhaps,
the Pythagoreans. If all the fables the same as the Aristotelian ^lai-
(see Zeller, Ph. d. Gr. i. 285) peffeis (jiK p. 75, n. 2, infra) else-
which appear in Fr. 186, were where mentioned. A similar
related as historic fact, the book work, obviously a later recension
could not be Aristotle's, but in of the Pseudo-Aristotelian text

thereby transmitted to mediaeval and modern times a

first-hand knowledge of the Aristotelian philosophy.
Their preservation itself is no doubt primarily due to
the fact that it was in them that that philosophy was
first expounded in the systematic maturity in which he
set it forth during the years of his teaching at Athens.
If we take what is now extant or otherwise known
to us of this class of works, that which first meets us
is the important set of treatises which laid the founda-
tion for all later logic : the Categories ^"^
the book on

used for the account given of think them the same. Andro-
Plato by DiOG. iii. 80, is printed nicus was probably right (ajj.
by Rose, Ar. Ps. 677-695 (and Simpl. ut supra, Schol. 81, a, 27)
aftef him by Fr. Ilz. 91), under in identifying the title of Ta
the title, Aiaip4ais 'ApiffroreXovs, irpb T. tSttwv with the spurious
deq. V. 'Z,El,h.,Ph.d. Gr. ii. a. 382. appendix of the so-called 'Post-
' The title of this work by prffidicamenta '
; and it may have
the common (and probably cor- been invented either, as he sup-
rect) account is KaTTjyopiai but ; poses, by the writer of that tract,
we find it also named as n. rwv : or by some later editor who found
KaTT]yopiwp, KaTTjyopiai SfKa, IT. the original name, KaTTjyopiai,
iwv 5e'/ca KaTrfyopiwv, U. rcov 5e/co too limited for the treatise as
y^voov, n. Toov yevS>v rod optos, enlarged by the spurious addi-
Karriyopiai ijroi tt. tS>u 5e/fa yevi- tion. Aristotle himself refers to
KcoTOLTcop y^vwv, 11. Tuv KaB6Kov his theory of the Caterrories (I)e
K6ya>v, Tlph twv tottlkmu (or roircav) ;
An. i. 1, 5, 402 a, 23, ^410 a, 14,
cf. Waitz, Ariitt. Org. i. 81, Anal. Pri. i. 37, cf. the quota-
SiMPL. in Cat. 4, i8, and David, tions, infra, p.189, n. 2, q. v.)
Sohol. in Ar. 30, a, 3. The title as knownto his readers, and he
Ta irph tmv tottojv was known to assumes this in other places
Andronicus according to Simpl. also, which seems to indicate
ibid. 95 C, Schol. 81, a, 27, and that he had dealt with it in a
to Boethius, In Prced. iv. p. 191 published work. There is a more
(who obviously got his knowledge definite reference in Eth. iV". ii.
from the same source as Simpl., 1 i/iit. to Categ. c. 8 (cf. Tren-
i.e. Porphyry). Herminus, circa DELENB. Htsi. Beitr. i. 174).
160 A.D., preferred it to the or- That in Mh. Eud. i. 8, 1217,
dinary name. David, however, b 27, may possibly refer not to
(^Scliol. 81, b, 25), D. 59, and the Categ. but to some work of
An. 57 name a book called Ta Eudemus, and those in Top. ix.,
vph tS)v tSttcov, besides the Kottj- {Soph. El.) 4. 22. 166, b, 14. 178, a,
yopiai, which is D. 141, An. 132, 5, no doubt refer to the passage
Pt. 25 b and do not appear to
; as to categories in Top. i. 9, init..


which, however, is itself so brief saying that its compiler might

and undeveloped that it presup- be found in any master of a

poses an early and better account. peripatetic school of the age

Simpl. {Categ. 4 C Sclwl. 30, b, following Chrysippus (p. 207). '

36) and David {Schol. 30, a, 24) Their critical positions, however,
say that Aristotle had also re- are not all tenable. Prantl
ferred to this work in another {ibid.) takes exception to the
place not now extant under number 10 but in the Top. i. ;

the title of KaT-t]yopiai or Ae/co 9, the same ten Categories are

KoT. We are told also that, fol- given, and we know from Dexipp.
lowing Aristotle's example, Eu- (In Categ. 40, Schol. 48, a, 46)
demus, Theophrastus, and Pha- and Simpl. {ibid. 47, b, 40) that
nias, wrote not only Analytica,'
Aristotle named these ten in
and works n. epfir^vdas,^ but
' other works also. It is true that
also Karriyoplai (Ammon. Sclwl. Aristotle generally uses a less
28, a, 40, and in q. v. Porph. lorn, number but that may only mean

David, Schol. 19, a, 84, 30, a, 5, either that he here adduces all
Anox. ibid. 32, b, 32, 94, b, 14 the ten because his object was
but Brandis in the Rhein. 3fus. i. logical completeness, or that he
1827, p. 270, rightly denies this as counted more Categories at an
to Theophrastus, and doubts it as earlier time than he did later.
to Eudemus). The references in He never assumed, as will be
Simpl. Cat. 106, a, 107, a, sq., shown later, a fixed number of
Schol. 89, a, 37, 90, a, 12 do not them. Again, it is objected that
prove that Strato referred to Ari- the KaTrj7. speaks of Sevrepai
stotle's Catcffojves. On the other ovaiai but we find as parallels to

hand, the ancient critics never this not only irpaTQii ovcriai (e.g.
doubted the genuineness of the Metaph. vii. 7, 13, 1032, b, 2,
extant book, although they re- 1038, b, 10), but also TptVat ovaiai
jected a second recension (v. (ibid. vii. 2, 1028, b, 20, 1043,
Simpl. Cateff. 4 (, Schol. 39, a, a, 18, 28). The words of Karny.
36 Anon. ibid. 33, b, 30 Philop.
; ; c. 5, 2, b, 29: cIkStus . . .

ibid. 39, a, 19, 142, b, 38 Ammon.

; fi6va . T^ eifSrj Kal to, y4j/r)
. .

Cat. 13, 17, and Boeth. In SevnpaL oixrtai Kcyovrai, are not
Prced. 113, all following Ad- to be translated * the term Sevr.
rastus, a noted critic circa 100 ovff. is used for genera and species
A. D.; cf. Fr. Hz. 114). The only and rightly so,' since it was not
doubts suggested are by Scliol. commonly so used before Ari-
33, a, 28 sq., and these appa- stotle, but rather, there is reason '

rently were not derived from to treat as a second class of sub-

Andronicus. The internal cha- stances only genera and species.'
racteristics of the book, how- Again, when it is remarked in
ever, are in many ways open KaT7j7. c. 7, 8, a, 31, 39, that,
to criticisms, which Spengel strictly speaking, Trp6s in- n
{Miinchn. Gel. Anz. 1845, 41 sq.), cludes those things only which
Rose (^Ar. Libr. Ord. 232 sq.), not merely stand in a definite
and Prantl {Gesch. d. Logih, i. relation to some other thing, but
90, 5, 204 sq. 243) have used to have their essence in such a re-
combat its genuineness, the latter lation ols rh iivai ravrSv eVri



the parts and kinds of propositions/ those on

r(f vp6s rl irws ^x*"'

there is no the body of the work it is pro-
need to suspect here any trace bable also that passages have
of Stoic influence, since the been left out and others added
irpds rl irws cx^"' appears also in this recension but much of ;

in Ar. Toj). vi. 142, a, 29,

c. 4, the inconsequence of exposition
c. 8, 164, b, 4 Phys. vii. 3, 247,
and language may as easily be
a, 2, b, 3, and Eth. N. i. 12, 1101, due simply to the fact that the
b, 13. It is true, however, that Categ. were the earliest of the
all the objections cannot easily logical writings, and were written
be set aside. Nevertheless, the probably many years earlier than
treatise bears in general a de- the Analytics.
cisively Aristotelian impress ; it is This book, n. ep/x-qvelas, was

closely related to the Topics in in ancient times rejected as not

tone and contents, and the ex- genuine by Andronicus (so Alex.
ternal evidence is heavily in its Anal. pri. 52 a, and Schol. i?i Ar.
favour. The best conclusion 161 b, 40 Ammon. Be Interpr.

seems to whole
be, not that the 6 a, and Scliol. 97 b, 13 ; Boeth.
is spurious, but that the seem- ihid. 97 a, 28 ; Anon. ihid. 94 a,
ingly un- Aristotelian elements are 21 ; Philop. De An. A 13, B 4),
to be explained by the assHmp- followed recently by Gumposch
tion that the genuine body of {Log. Schr. d. Ar., Leipz. 1839)
the work extends to c. 9, 11, b, and Rose {Ar. Ps. 232;. Brandis
7 only, but that what followed (AbJi. d. Berl. Akad. 263 sq., cf.
has dropped out of the recension David, Schol. in Ar. 24 b, 5)
we possess, and is replaced only takes it to be an incomplete
by the short note, c. 9, 11, b, sketch of the w^ork, to which c.
8-14, The so-called 'Postprse- 14 (rejected as early as Ammonius
dicamenta' (c. 10-15) were sus- and passed over by Porphyry ; cf
pected as early as Andronicus Ammon. Be 201 b Interpr. ;

(SiMPL. ut supra, Schol. 81, a, Schol. 135 b) has probably been

27; Ammon. iUd. 81, b, 37), added by a later hand. The ex-
and Brandis has now proved they ternal evidence for the work is
are added by another hand ('U. good enough. Not only do all
d. Reihenfolge d. Biicher d. Ar. three lists agree in naming it (D.
Org.,' Abli. d. Berl. Aliad. Hist. 152, An. 133, Pt. 2), but we are
pUl. Kl. 1833, 267, and Gr.-rom. told that Theophrastus referred
Phil. ii. b, 406). It is another to it in his essay n. Karafpaaews
question whether was compiled
i* Koi d7ro(pao-6s CDlOG. v. 44 ALEX. ;

from Aristotelian fragments, as he Anal. pri. 12i, Schol. 183 b, 1;

suggests. The concluding para- more explicitly, after Alexander,
graph, at c. 9, 11, b, 8-14, reads BOETH. iMd. 97, a, 38 Anon. ;

exactly as if it came in the place ScJiol. ifi Ar. 94, b, 13 cf. the ;

of further discussions which the Schol. ap. Waitz, Ar. Org. i. 40,
editor cut out, justifying himself who, on Be Interpr. 17, b, 16,
by the remark that there was remarks irphs tovto <pi](Tiv
: 6 0eo-
nothing in them which did not (ppaffTos, etc.; cf. Ammon. Be
appear in the earlier part. In Interpr. 73, a, 122, b). It seems


conclusions and scientific method in general,^ on the

also that Eudemus n. Ae|e&>s no relation to the corresponding

(Alex. Anal. jfri. 6, b, Top. 38, treatises of Aristotle. It should
Metajth. 63, 15; Anox. Schol. in be added that the work accords
At. 146, 24) may have been
a, throughout with Aristotle's line
an imitation of this book (not, of thought, but frequently en-
as Scliol. 84, b, 15, wrongly sug- larges in a didactic way on the
gests, of the Categories cf the ; . most elementary points in a
quotation from Ammon. in pre- fashion which one would suppose
ceding note). This last sugges- Aristotle would not have found
tion, however, is uncertain, and necessary at the date at which
the notices as to Theophrastns itmust have been written, if by
are not absolutely clear, for the him. The question, therefore, is
texts show that he did not oiame not only whether it is by Ari-
the n. kpixtiv. at all. Alexander stotle or by another, but whether
thought he saw, from the way in it may not, as Grant suggests
which Theophrastus dealt with (Jr. 57), have been written out
the subject (thema) in his own by one of his scholars from oi-al
book, reason to infer that he had lectures in which the difficulties
Aristotle in mind; but whether of beginners would naturally be
he was right in that inference or kept in view.
not, we cannot judge. The Schol. Syllogisms are dealt with

ap. Waitz has nothing to show by the 'AvaXvTiKo. irporepa in two

that the reference there quoted books, and scientific method by
from Theophrastus referred to a the'AvaK. vcTTcpa, also in two. The
passage in this book, and was not fact that D. 49 and An. 46
rather a general reference to the give nine books to the 'Aj/aA.
frequently recurring Aristotelian irpoT. (though An. 134 repeats
law of the excluded middle. the title with two only) points
On the other hand, it is sin- probably only to a different divi-
gular that while the n. epfi-nv. sion but it is also possible

is never cited or referred to that other tracts are included,

in any of Aristotle's books (cf for the Anon. Schol. in, Ar.
BONITZ, Ind. At. 102, a, 27), 33, b, 32 (cf. David, ibid. 30,
it cites not only the First b, 4, Philop. iMd. 39, a, 19,
A)ialytic (c. 10, 19, b, 31 : Anal. 142, b, 38, and Simpl. Cateff. 4
46, 51, 6, 36) and the Topics says that Adrastus knew of forty
(c. 11, 20, 6, 26:
Top. ix. 17, books of Analytics, of which only
175, b, 39), but also the 11. ^'^X^^ the four which are extant were
(c. 1, 16, a, 8), and that for a counted genuine.
That these
proposition which neither the are genuine is proved beyond
ancient opponents of Andronicus doubt, both by internal evidence,
nor modem scholars have been by Aristotle's own references,
able to find in it (cf. Bonitz, and by the fact that his earliest
Ind. Ar. 97, b, 49, whose sug- pupils wrote works modelled on
gestion, however, is not satis- them (cf p. 65, supra, and Bean-

factory). Its remarks on Rhetoric Dis, Rhein. Mm. Niebuhr and

and Poetry (c. 4, 17, a, 5) have Be. 1. 267). Thus we know

proof by probability/ and on fallacies and their dis-

of an Analytic by Eudemus (cf. other references ap. Bonitz,

(Alex. To2). 70), and we have Ind. AHst. 102, a, 30 sq). It is
references to book i. of the therefore the original title, and
TlpSrepa avaK. of Theophrastus has always remained in common
(Alex. Anal. pri. 39, b, 51, a, use, notwithstanding that Ari-
131, b, Schvl. 158, b, 8, 161, b, 9, stotle cites certain passages of
184, b, 36; Simpl. De 6'a?Z, Schol. the First Analytic with the word
609, a, 6). Alexander, in his ^v To7s irepl avWoyiaixov (^Anal.
commentary, quotes from both on post. i. 3, 11, 73, a, 14, 77, a, 33),
numerous points in which they or that Alexander (^Metaj}h. 437,
developed or improved Aristotle's 12, 488, 11, 718, 4) and Pt. 28
'KvaX. irpor. (cf. Tlteophr. Fr. call the Second Analytic airo-
[ed. Wimmer], p. 177 sq. 229; ^eiKTiKi), or that Galen (De Puis.
Eudem. Fr. [ed. Spengel], p. iv. Jin., vol. viii: 765 ; Be Libr.
144 sq.). For the Second Ana- Propr. vol. xix. 41) chooses to
lytic the references are less substitute, as he says, for the
copious but we know of passages
; common the names IT.
of Theophrastus through Alexan- and II. airodd^ews
(rvWoyia-fiov ;

der (Anon. Schol. in Ar. 240, b, nor have we any right to name
2, and aj?. Eustrat. ibid. 242, them on internal grounds (with
a, 17), through Themist. ibid. GuMPOSCH, Zoy. Ar. 115) n.
199, b, 46, and through Philop. avWoyi(r/j.ov and Bran-
ibid. 205, a, 46, and through an dis justly remarks (Ue. d. Ar.
Anon. Schol. ibid. 248, a, 24, of Org. 261 sq.; Gr.-r'6m. Phil. ii.
a remark of Eudemus, all of b, 1, 224, 275) that the First
which seem to refer to the Second Analytic is far more carefidly
Analytic. We know as to Theo- and evenly worked out than the
phrastus, not only from the form Second (which Aristotle can
of the title of the' KvaX. irpSrepa, hardly have considered as com-
but also from express testimony plete), and that the two books of
(r.DioG.v.42; Galen, Hipjyocr. the First Analytic do not appear
et PI. ii. 2, vol. v. 213, and to have been written together,
Alex. Qu. Nat. i. 26) that he did but with an interval.
write a Second Analytic, and it Aristotle dealt with this

is probable that in that, as in subject in several books, no

the text, he followed Aristotle. doubt in connection with his
Aristotle himself cites both rhetorical teaching. We still
Analytics under that name Top. : have the Topica in eight books,
viii. 11, 13, 162, a, 11, b, 32 ;
of which, hoM^ever, the last, and
Soph. El. 2, 165, b, 8 Rhet. i. ; perhaps the third and seventh
2, 1356, b, 9, 1357, a, 29, b, 24, also, seem to have been worked
ii. 25, 1403, a, 5, 12; Metaph. vii. out long after the others {v.
12 init. Eth. N. vi. 3, 1139, b,
Brandis, V^e. d. Ar. Org. 255 ;

26, 32; also Belnterpr. 10, 19, b, Gr.-rom. Phil. ii. b, 330). The
31 M. Mor. ii. 6, 1201, b, 25
; ;
genuineness of the work and of
Efk. End. i. 6, 1217, a, 17, ii. 6, its name is established by cita-
1222, b, 38, c. 10, 1227, a, 10; tions in Aristotle himself {De

proof. ^ Besides tliese, wliich are the component parts

of our Organon, we have also the names of a great

Interj}r.U, 20, b, 26; Afial jjr. Porphyry, appears to regard the

i. 11,24, b. 12; ii. 15, 17, 64, a, latter as belonging, and the
37, 65, b, 16 Rhet. i. 1, 1355, a,
; former as not belonging, to the
28, c. 2, 1356, b, 11, 1358, a, 29 ;
Hypomnematic writings. ' In
ii.22, 1396, b, 4, c. 23, 1398, a, D. 81 we even find a second
28, 1399, a, 6, c. 25, 1402, a, 36,
entry of MedoSiKou a'. The theory
c. 26, 1403, a, 32 ; iii. 18, 1419, a, of Spengel (Abh. d. 3Iiinchn.
24). For the art of proof by Aliad. vi. 497) that our text of
probabilities Aristotle uses the the Tojncs contains grave lacunce
term Dialectic' (^'f'/^- init., Rhet.
does not seem to be proved by
init., etc.), and he refers to the the passages he quotes (Rhet. i.
I'ojrics in a similar way as irpay- 2, 13.56, b, 10; ii. 25, 1402, a,
fiareia ir. tV StaAe/crt/c^i/ (^Anal. 34). As to the former, which
pri. i. It is pro-
30, 46, a, 30). refers to the Tojncs only for the
bable, therefore, that by fjnQoliKb. difference between orvWoyKr/xhs
{Rhet. i. 2, 1356, b, 19) he meant andiiraywyT] (cf. Beandis, 'Ue. d.
the Tojncs, which in the opening Rhet. Ar.' ap. Philolof/us, iv. 13),
words announce as their object, it is satisfied by Tojj. i. 1, 12.
fiedoSov evpeTv, etc., and in which As to the second, which does not
(i. 12, 105, a, 16 viii. 2 init.)
; apply to 7(9/. viii. 10, 161, a,
the relative passage is to be 9 sq., the words KaOdirep /col eV
found, rather than, as Heitz To7s TowiKo7s,etc., need not be
(p. 81 sq., rr. Hz. 117) sug- taken as referring to a particular
gests, a lost work: cf. Eose, passage, but may be taken as
kr. Lihr. Ord. 120; Vahlen, meaning of objections there are

Wien. ATtad. xxxviii. 99 Bonitz, ; in Rhetoric, as in Topics, many

Ztschr. Oesterr. Gymn. 1866, kinds,' i.e. in oratorical use as
11, 774. It seems, also, that opposed to disputation, a remark
in several MSS. the Topics were that might well be made even if
headed with the title MefloSiKo, these distinctions were not taken
so that an idea arose that in the earlier book. For similar
they were distinct works. This uses of SxTirep iv toTs tottikoTs,
idea has been attributed to Dionys. etc., cf.Bonitz, Ind. Ar. 101 b,
^Ep. I. ad Amm. 6, p. 729, on 44 52 sq., and Vahlen, wt
Rhet. i. 2), but he speaks only of supra, 140 (where the phrase in
avaXvTiKij Kol fx^OoSiK^ irpayfxaT^ia, Rhet. ii. 25 is explained as mean-
and does not specially include the ing Instances are here used in

Tojncs in the latter. But D. 52 the same way as in Tojncs^ and

inserts MedoSiKo. in eight books, those of four kinds,' etc.).
and An. 49, the like title in-
The n. (rocpia-TiKuv i\4yx(i>v,
cluding seven books, although or (as Alex. Schol. 296, a, 12,
both know the Tojncs as well. 21, 29, and Boeth. in his transla-
So Diog. (v. 29) distinguishes to tion have it) ^o^iar. eXeyxoi.
re ToniKo. kou fiedoSiKoi and Simpl. ; W&itz (Ar. Org. ii. 528), followed
(Cat. 16 a, Schol. 47, b, 40), after by Bonitz (Iiid. Ar, 102, a, 49),

number of kindred writings : treatises on Knowledge

and on Definition,^ on Classification by-
Genera and Species,^ on Opposition and Difference,"*
on Particular Kinds of Conceptions,^ on Expression
in Speecli,'^ on Affirmation and Negation,'^ on Syllog-

sliows that Aristotle in the Be titles in Pt.: i.e. No. 60, 'Opia-riKa,
Interpr. c. 11, 20, b, 26, and four books (cf DiOG. . for the
v. 50,
Anal. i)ri. ii. 17, 65, b, 16, refers same title in the list of Theophras-
to passages of this work {i.e. tus' works) ; 63, on the objects of
c. 17, 175, b, 39, c. 30, and c. 5, Definition, two books
63 b. Be ;

167, b, 21), under the name eV Contradiciione Befinitionum, 63 c. ;

Tots loiriKois that he reckons ;

Be Arte Befiniendi 64, Tlphs rovs ;

knowledge of fallacies as part of SpKTixovs, two books (cf the same .

'Dialectic {Soph. El. c. 9 fin.,

' from Theophr., DiOG. v. 45),
ch. 11 fin. of. Top. i. 1, 100, b,
translated Be Tabula Befiriiendl.
23) and that c. 34 is the epi-
; As to the collections of defini-
logue not only for these but for tions and divisions, cf. infra.
the whole science of Topics.' ' 3 n. i1Zu)V KxL ycviav^ D. 31 ; n.
Again, however, Aristotle seems etSw;/, An. 28, otherwise unknown.
(in c. 2, 165 b, 8 ; cf. Rhet. i. 3, * As the opposition of
1359, b, 11 cf. BeANDIS, Gr.- ; concepts there was a book n.
rom. Phil. ii. b, 148) to distin- tS>v avTiKei/xevav, doubtless the
guish the two, in a way, however, same as n. ivavriwv (D. 30, An,
which proves, not that the two 32). Simplicius, in his comment-
were not meant to form a whole, ary on the Categ. (v. Ar. Fr. 115-
but that the treatise on fallacies 121, p. 1497, sq. Fr. Hz. 119),;

was composed later than the gives us some further informa-

rest of the Topics. The lists of tion as to this book and its
D. and An. do not name the casuistical discussions. Rose {Ar.
^o(p. \. (for that reading in An. Ps. 130) refers it to the age
125 is, as Rose shows, wrong), of Theophrastus. Pt. 12 has n.
and yet give the MeSoStKa only four books.
eight books, whereas Pt. 29, ^ Be
Relate (IT. rov irpSs ri),
separates them from the Toj)ics six books (Pt. 84).
(26 b) possibly, however, in
* Be Signification, Pt. 78 ;

D. 27, n. ipia-TiKuiv two books, itsGreek title is given as Garam- '

and An. 27, n. epiffriKuv x6y(ov Imn^ i.e. TpafifiaTiKhv or -wv. As

two books, are the same as our to another
related title, n.
2o<|>. eA.. Ae'|6cos,cf infra. Pt. 54, Partitio

* n. D. 40
iiria-Tij/jL'qs, ; 11. im- Conditionum qucs staticuntur in
(TTrinoiu, D. 26, An. 25 n. 8J|7?s, ; voce et ponuntur, four books, may
An. App. 162. The genuineness also have been a grammatical
of the work is doubtful, because treatise.
it is nowhere else referred to. ^ Alex. Metaph. 286, 23, 680,
^ To this subject refer several a, 26, cites this simply as eV


isms,^ and on subjects belonging to the sphere of

Topics and Eristics.^ Probably, however, the most

Ty TT. KaTa(pa.(rU}s ;
probably, how- books of "OpoL irph rcov Tdiruv that
ever, it should be (like the corre- the text of D, is wrong. The
sponding, or possibly identical, An, gives instead two titles 51, :

work of Theophrastus, named by "Opwu fiifiXiov a'; 52, Tottj/cwj/ (\

DiOG. V. 44) n. Karacpda-etos Koi Here it is natural to refer the
airo<pd(Ta}S. "Opoi to book
1, the first half of
' 2v\\oyiarau>v (D. 56, An.
a' 0' which 1-11) consists in de-
54); ^vWoyiariKhv Kalopoi (D. 57 ; finitions and their explanation,
Ax. 55 -Kwv '6p(ov} ^vKXoyKTixol
: ; and the seven Topiea to books
a' (D. 48). 2-8, We conjecture, therefore, in
- To this category belong in view of the fact that both lists
the first place the treatises placed have the number seven, that in
next to the MeOooiKo, in the lists: D. also the "Opoi was originally
To. irpb rS)V roirwv (D. 59, An. 57); distinct from the Topiea, and that
"OpoL irph Twv TOTTiKuv, 7 books his text read "Opoi irph rwv to-

(D. 55) ToTTiKwv irphs rovs opovs

; TTiKcou a' ToTTLKwv a'-C' D. 65 and

a' fi' (D. 60, An. 59, Pt. 62 as An. 62 name also 'Eirix^iptiixdruv
three books named Tabula dejini- a! i8' (Pt. 55, 39, B, 83, 1, B) D. ;

tionum, (piae adhibentur in 33 ; An. 33, "tirofxvi)fxaTa i-Kix^ipt]-

Tojnca, i.e. Uphs 'dpovs roTtiKwv') ;
IxaTiKa, 3 B ; D. 70, AN. 65, eVets
Be Definiendo Topico (i.e. ' On iirix^ip-nfiaTiKot /ce'; cf, alsoTHEON,
Definition in Topics,' Pt. 61); Progymn. 165
(JThet. ed.
p. W,
n, ISiwv (D. .32) n. ipccT'tja^ws
; 8p. II, 69), who ascribes to Ari-
Kol airoKpia-ews (D. 44, An. 44), stotle and Theophrastus KoKkb.
Brandis, however, believes (iit fiifiXia Oeffecov iriypa^6fjLva, de-
supra) that these names indicate scribed by Alex, Top. 16, Sehol.
only particular parts of our 254, b, 10, as containing tV ets ri
Topiea. He takes Td irph rwv avTiKei/xva 5i' ivdS^oov eirtx^'P'?''^"'.
tSttoov (elsewhere used for the (Uphs decriv iirix^ipilv means 'to
Cateff. cf. p. 64, n. 1) to be the
; develop the pro and eon of.
first book, which in fact we know given proposition,' v. Ind. Ar.
to have been so called by some 282, b, 57, 283, a, 6: OeVets
(Anon. Schol. in Ar. 252, a, 46) ;
iirixeipv/xariKal are therefore
the "Opos tS>v rdircDu [as Br. reads themes for dialectic development
it] to be books 2-8 Tott. irphs ; or dialectical exercises with an
Tohs opovs, books 6-7 n. iSioov, ; introduction to the way of work-
book 5 and n. ipcar. k. airoKp.
; ing them out,) The'Eirtxetp^yuara
book 8, as to which we learn from are no doubt identical with the
Alex, Sclwl. 292, a, 14, that many AoyiKo, iirix^Lp. the second book
named it so, and others again, of which is quoted by Philop.
with a reference to its first words, Schol. 227, a, 46, and the 'Tttohu^/x.
n, To|ea)S K. airoKpicreus. These iirix^ip. with that which is cited
suggestions seem to commend simply as 'TTro^v^juarobyDEXlPP.
themselves except that it is
: Cat. 40, Sehol. 48, a, 4, andSiMPL.
easier to suppose as to the seven Sehol. 47, b, 39 following Por-


ancient of these tracts were in reality productions of

the Peripatetic school at dates subsequent to Aristotle's
Next to the Topics in order of subjects come the
Ehetorical Works. ^ Some of these were written
before the Topics in order of time ; others only after-
wards and at a long interval. Of the many books
of Aristotelian or alleged Aristotelian origin which
dealt with the theory of skilled speaking,^ or treated

phyry. Pt. gives three entries of ancients (cf. Ar. Ft. 11 3, p. 1496 ;
amusmata ' or ' if umsmata ' ( = EOSE, Ar. Ps. 128 Fr. Hz. 116).

virofivfifjiaTa), i.e. No. 69, 2 books ;

It dealt probably (cf Soph. El. 4)

82, 16 books ; and 82, b, 1 book. with the fallacies iropa tV A-ef"'.
The references in Athen. iv. 173, An. 196 names among the Pseud-
and xiv, 654 to 'Ap. i^ eScppacrros epigrapha a work Tlept ix^Q6Zov.
v To7s are not to a
virofjLvfjfiaffi Cf. Rhet. i, 1 init. c. 2,
defined book so named, but are 1356, a, 25 %^A. El. 34, 184, a, 8.

vague and not to be identi- 2 Besides the two extant

fied. What relation the UpoTdaeLs works, this class includes pri-
named in Pt. (No. 79 = 33[? 23] marily the Theodectean Rhetoric:
books, and No. 80 = 31 [? 7] i.e. D. 82 and An. 74, Texvris t^s

books) bear to the Qeaeis iirix- &eo5fKTOv (Twayooy^ [? etVoyw^)/]

we cannot but we also find
say, in one or three books. The ex-
two entries in U. (46 and 47), tant RJietorio alludes (iii. 9 fin.)
and one in An. (38) oiUpoToia-eis a'. to an enumeration iv rois @eo5eK~
The 'Eirix^ipviJ-ariKol x6yoi, cited relois, which must mean a work of
by Aristotle in the opening of Aristotle, and proves, even if
c. 2. n. /jLv-qiJ.. is not a separate Rhet. iii. be spurious, the exis-
work (cf. Them. 97, a, p. 241), but tence of this book in early times.
the first chapter of the work The compiler of the Rhet. ad
itself (449, b, 13 sq., 450, a, Alex. 1. 1421, b, 1 makes Aristo-
.30 sq., 450, b, 11 sq. ; cf. BONITZ, tle speak of raTs hit ifxov re'xi'ats
Ind. Ar. 99, a, 38). Under the 0eo5eKT7? ypacjxlaais ; and this re-
head of Topics fall also the 'Ej/- ference also must be at least
o-Tcio-ets, D. 35, An. 36, Pt. 55, b anterior to Andronicus. The
the npoTct(rets ipiariKal S', D. 47, words leave it doubtful whether
An. 44 Avaeis ^piariKoX 5', D. 28,
the writer meant a Rhetoric de-
An. 29 and Aiaipeaeis (rocpicrriKal,
; dicated to Theodectes, or one
S', D. 29, An. 31. As to the written by Aristotle but published
'EpicrriKol \6yoi, cf p. 68, n. . 1 Jin. by Theodectes in his own name.
A tract riopa tV ^f'l'i'. named by Later classical writers several
SiMPL. SaJiol. 47, b, 40, was times attribute to the name
doubted, as he says, even by the 'Rhetoric of Theodectes' the


of the history of rhetoric,* or set out rhetorical

the Texv7/[s] o' of D. 79, An. 73

probable (cf. probably meant the extant Rhet.
eoSe/crtKai rixvai.
Anon, in Ar. Fr. 125, p. 1499, ad Alex. In D. 80 the MSS.
Ft. Hz. 125 Quintilian, ii. vary between ^XXrj rexvv smd

15, 10, gives this explana- &\\7] rxvS>v avvayooyfi. If the

tion with an ^iit creditiim est': former is right it would mean a
Valer. Max. ^iii. 14, 3 gives it second recension of our RhetoHc :

more distinctly) or else they if the latter, a recension of the


name Theodectes directly as the T^X^'^v (Twayuyi] in neither case :

author (Cic. Orat. 51, 172, 57, would it imply separate works.
194 QuiNTIL.iv. 2, 63 and later Of the special tracts, the TpvWos

writers ap. ROSE, Ar. Ps. 141, has been mentioned p. 58, n. 1,
At. Fr. 123 Fr. Hz. 124 sq. com- suj}7'a probably An. Ajjp. 153,
; ; :

pare the similar treatment of n. p-qropiKris is merely a duplicate

the title Mcomachean Ethics by of it. In the title, n. Ae|ws o' ^'
Cicero and others, de quo p. 97 (D. 87, An. 79, n. Aef. Kadapas cf :

inf. ; or else they ascribe to Ari- on a similar book by Eudemus,

stotle and Theodectes the opin- p. 698, n. 3) Brandis in the
ions they find in this book Gr.-rom. Phil. ii. b, 1. 79 detects
(DiONYS. Comj). Verb. 2, p. 8, De book 3 of our Rhetoric, whose
Vi Beims. 48, p. 1101 Quintil. first twelve chapters deal with

i. 4. 18 Ar. Fr. 126). If it is that subject. This is the more


genuine, which the Fr. at least probable that D. 78 gives the

give no reason to doubt, we Rhetoric only two books, al-
should consider it certainly not though An. 72 has three books.
as a work written ty Theodectes The others, i.e. D. 85, An. 77,
and published by Aristotle after n. fieyeOovs a' (de rjno cf. Rhet. i.
his death, but as a work of Ari- 3, 1359, a, 16, ii. 18 sq. 1391, b,
stotle dedicated to Theodectes, in 31, 1393, a, S) D. 88, An. 80, ;

which view, since that orator did n. (TvfifiovXias [-^s] a (v. Ar. Fr.
not survive the date of Alex- 136, p. 1501, Ar. Ps. 148, Fr. Hz.
ander's Eastern expedition, and 126) An. Aj)j). 177, n. p-ftropos

had become known to Alexander ^ iroXiTiKov An. Aj)J}. 178, Te'xvrj


through Aristotle (Plut. Alex. were doubtless all

11 fin.), it would have been com- spurious, as was also the Mv-n/xo-
posed during the years of Ari- viKbv (D. 117, An. 109) which
stotle's residence in Macedonia. would be dealt with as an aid to
The name Texvai (in the Rhet. ad Rhetoric. Pt. 68, TlapayyiXfiara
Alex.; cf. Rose, Ar. Ps. 139) seems to be the same as the
seems to indicate that it had nopa77. priropiKTJs attributed to
more than one book, though the Theophrastus by DiOG. v. 47, but
plural 0oSe/cTm {Rhet. iii. 9) was in any case not by Aristotle.
would not necessarily do so. For 'An exposition of all the
further details v. Rose, Ar. Ps. rhetorical theories (rfxvai) down
135 sq., and Heitz, 85 sq. to Aristotle's own time was given
As to the remaining titles in our in the Tex^'coJ' (Twaywy)) (D, 77,
lists which relate to Rhetoric, as two books An. 71, and Pt,

examples,^ we have only one preserved to us,^ in whicli,

however, we possess without doubt the most mature state-
ment of his rhetorical doctrine. The Rhetoric addressed to
Alexander is now universally admitted to be spurious.^

24, as one book), D. 89, '^wayw- 'EyKdifiiov \6yov and ^EyKcofiiov

yris o! & , and D. 80, "AAXrj t^x^^^ irXoinov, are counted as pseudepi-
(Tvvaycoy^ (if tliat is the right grapha in An. 190, 194. The
reading) see'm to be duplicates various proverbs and apoph-
only. We hear of it in Cic. Be thegms quoted from Aristotle
Invent, ii. 2, 6, Be Orat. ii. 38, (Rose, Ar. Ps. 606 sq. Fr. Hz. ;

160, Brut. 12, 48, etc. Aq\ Fr.

: v. 337 sq.) are collected from dif-
130-135, p. 1500; Ar. Ps. 145; ferent sources.
Fr. Hz. 122. The same work or 2 I.e. the three books of the

an abstract of it seems to be Rhetoric. The date of its com-

meant by Demetr. Magn. {ap. position must be the last resi-
DioG. ii. 104) by the title 'Eirtro^^ dence of Aristotle at Athens;
f)7]T6pCOV. cf Brandis in Ar. Rhet.' Philol.

1 ^Evdvfi-fj/j.aTa pTjropiKa a', D. iv. 8. That it has suffered inter-

84, An. 76 ; and 'Evdv/jL-q/idTcov polations and transpositions {e.g.
SmtpeVets a' (D, 84; An. 88, mis- in book ii. c. 18-26 ought to pre-
written 'Ej/0. Koi aipea-ccav). To cede c. 1-17) was proved by
the same class belonged An. 127, Spengel, >t?>A. d. M'dnclin.Altad.
Upooi/JLicav a'; but I. Hapoi/xioiu, as vi. followed by Vahlen,
in D. 138. With these should be '
Schr.' Wien. Alad.
Z. Krit. Ar.
reckoned the XpeTai a collection xxxviii. 92, 121. The genuineness
of striking remarks, like Plu- of book iii. has been questioned
tarch's Apophthegms, quoted by by Sauppe, Bionys. n. Ar., GiJtt.
Stob. Floril. 5, 83,7,30, 31,29,70, 1863, p. 32 Rose, Ar. Ps. 137

90,43, 140,57, 12, 93, 38, 116, 47, n. Heitz, p. 85, 89; SCHAAR-

118, 29. But as a saying of Zeno SCHMIDT, Samml.Plat. Schr. 108,

the Stoic is quoted from it (57, whose view has been followed in
1 2), and as we can hardly credit Zellbr, Plato, p. 55.
Aristotle with such a collection ^ This work was known to
of anecdotes, it must either be a the author of our earliest list
forgery or else the work of a (v. D. 79, but its authenticity
later writer of the same name, is not to be thought of,
like the grammarian mentioned SpeNGEL {'Xvvay. rexv. 182,
ap. DiOG. V. 35. Rose believes Anaxim. Aq's Rhet. Proleg.
(^Ar. Ps. 611) that 'Apia-roreAovs ix. sq., cf. 99 sq.) attributes
is a misreading for 'ApicrTuvos. it, excepting the first and last
The same book seems to be what chapters, to Aristotle's contem-
is meant in Stob. (38, 37, 45, 21) porary An aximenes of Lampsacus.
by the citation e/c rwu koivwv : This suggestion, however, is very
'ApiCTTOTeXovs See its
Siarpifiav. questionable cf Rose, Ar. lib. ; .

Fr. ap. EosE, Ar. Ps. 611, and Ord. 100 Kampe, in the Philol.

Fr, H^. 335. The two orations, ix. 106 sq. 279 sq. For, apart

; :


Of tlie writings devoted to the development of his

philosophic system, the first place is given to collections
of Definitions ^
and Divisions ^
regarded as aids to

from the arbitrariness of the seems more probable) with the

separation of the part attributed Platonic Aiaipeaeis, it cannot be
to Anaximenes from the rest, the genuine. The quotation in Alex.
influence of the school of Ari- Toj). 126, Schol. 274, a, 42, from
stotle betrays itself throughout, Aristotle, iv rfj ruv ayaOcou Siai-
not only in the persistence of a peffci {Ar.Fr.'uO, p. 1496; Fr.
method of didactic definitions Hz. 119), is satisfied bv M. Mor. i.
and divisions, but also in the 2, 1183, b, 20 sq., cf. Eth. K. i. 12,
tenor of particular passages. Cf., 1101, b, 11, but may have found
e.g., c. 2 init. (with Rhet. 1. 3) its way from that source into the
c. 3, 1424, a, 12-19 {Polit. vi. 4, Aiaipea-eisalso. Aristotle himself
1318, b, 27-38); c. 5, 1427, a, 30 names an 'E/cAoyJ; tuv ivaa/riwv, in
(^Eth. N. V. 10, 1135, b, 11 sqq., Metaph. iv. 2, 1004, a, 1, where,
Rhet. i. 13, 1374, b, 6) c. 8, 1428, ; after the remark that all oppo-
a, 19 sqq. {Rhet. ii, 25, 1402, b, sitions finally go back to that
12 sqq.) c. 8, 1428, a, 25 {Anal,
; of the %v or *ov and its oppo-
pr. ii. 27 init.); c. 9 init. (RJiet. site, he adds reOeap'ficrda} 5' T]fi7v

i. 2, 1357, b, 28) c. 12 init. {Rhet.

; ravra iv ttj iK\oyfj rwv ivavriuv :

ii. 21, 1394, a, 22); and the dis- in the parallel passage, xi. 3,
tinction of ivdvfi-n/jLa and yvcofirj in 1061. a, 15, it is only earaxrav yap
c. 11 sq., though differently put, avrai reOeuprUiievai : cf. 1004, b,
is of Aristotelian origin (cf Rhet. . 33, irduTa 5e Kal toAAo avayofieva
ii. 21, 1394, a, 26) c. 17 {Rhet. i.
(paiverai els rh ev Kal rh ttAtj^os

15, 1376, b, 31 sq.) c. 28 init. ; elXT](pQQ} yap t] avaywy^ riixiv. To

29 init. {Rhet. iii. 9, 1410, a, 23). the same refers also x. 3, 1054, a,

D. 64, An. 61, 'Opifffiol, 13 29: eari Ze rov fiev evhs, &(r'irep
books Pt. 59
: "Opoi, 16 books,
: Koi ev TTJ Siaipearei rtov evavriuv
was certainly a later work of the 5ieypd\pafMev, rh ravrh Kal ofioiov
School, analogous to the Platonic Kal Xaov, etc. and the ravrhu and

Definitiones. As to the other Siioiov were themselves given in

title. An. ^l,''Opa}v ^ifixtov a', cf. Metaph. iv. 2, 1003, b, 35, as
p. 71, n. 2, mjyra. examples of the eld-n rov evhs
2 Besides the Platonic Divi-
treated of in the 'EK\oy^ r. ev.
sions '
mentioned the
p. 63, n, 2, cf. also X. c. 4 ad Jin. But in
lists name the following of this 3Iet. xii, 7, 1072, b, 2 the words
I class: D. 42, Aiaipeaeis iC [An. T] Ziaipeffis StjAo? refer, not to a
41, n. diaipea-fwu'] D. 43, An. 42,
; treatise, but to the division of
AiaipcTiKuv a' [Eose leg. -Khv, as two kinds of ov eveKa given just
in the duphcate title D. 62] Pt. ; before. Whether the reference
52 gives the Aiaip4(ris (which to the 'EK\oyi] T. iv. indicates a
might extend to any length ac- separate treatise or a section of
cording to the subjects chosen), the work On the Good,' even

26 books. Whether the work was Alexander did not know (cf. p.
different from or identical (as 61, n. 1); but since the subject


correct appreciation of the subject

but none of these
appear to have been genuine. Most important, there-
fore, is the treatise On the First Philosojthy '
a torso
which is now
bound up ^ with a number of
other fragments, some genuine, some spurious, to form
our Metaphysics.^ Probably, however, the genuine

on which Aristotle cites the a younger contemporary of An-

'EK\oy^ seems to have been dealt dronicus, the title (which never
with in the second book n. appears Ibefore, and is permanent
Tayadov, it is probable that after that date) may safely be
Aristotle had only that book in referred to Andronicus himself,
view. whose collection of Aristotle's
This is the name by which writings alone explains it for it

the work was originally cited ;

means, not as Simpl. Phys. 1,
V. De Motu Anim. 700, b, 8. 6, and the Neoplatonist Herennius
That Aristotle himself so named {ap. BONITZ, Ar. Metaph. ii. 5)
it, is probable from Metapli. vi, 1, supposed, the Supernatural, but
1026, a, 15, 24, 30, xi. 4, 1061, b, that which in the order of doc-
19; PTiy%. i. 9, 192. a, 35, ii. 2 trinal development, and of the
j\n. Be Calo, i. 8, 277, b, 10 Gen.
; ; works as collected, followed after
et Cm-r. i. 3, 318, a, 6; i>^ An. i. the books on the Natural Sciences
1, 403, b, 16; for Trpwrrj (pi\o(To<f>ia (cf Alex. Metaph. Y^l, 21
. As- ;

we also find (piKocrotpia alone CLEP. Schol. 519, b, 19). It is

(^Meiaph. xi. 3, 4, fOGl, b, 5, 25), named in the lists by An. Ill,
deoKoyiK^ (Mefaj}h. vi. 1, 1026, a, An. App. 154, and Pt. 49. The
19, xi. 7, 1064, b, 3), r/ irepl to latter has the usual Greek reckon-
de7a <\>iKo(To<pia {Part. An. i. 5, ing of thirteen books; the former
645, a, 4), <To<^ia {Metaph. i. 1, 2), has at 111 k\ at 154 t' which ;

and /j.46o5os Trepl rrjs apxrj^ t^s leaves it uncertain whether the
rrpuTfis (Phi/s. 1, 251, a, 7),
viii. editions referred to were incom-
as Aristotle's expression for the plete, the one having only A-K,
subject of the book and accord- ; and the other A-I, or whether
ingly the book itself is also K and I are corruptions of N,
spoken of as ao(f>ia, <pi\o(TO(i>ia, i.e. A-N.
deoKoyia (ASCLEP. Schol. in Ar. ^ The question of the arrange-
519, b, 19, 31). Cf BONITZ, v. 5, ment of our Metaphysics has
Arist. Metaph. ii. 3 sq. been so far established by Bran-
* We first find the name dis in Ar. Met.', Ahh. d. Berl.

fjLcra ra (pvaiKa in Nicolaus of Akad. 1834, Hist. Phil. Kl. p.

Damascus, who (ace. to the 63-87, Gr.-r6iii. Phil. ii. b. 1,
Schol. to Theoph. Metaph. p. 541 sq., and by Bonitz (^Ar. Met.
323, Brand.) wrote a 0ewp/a tuu ii. 3-35), that it is sufficient to

'Ap. /xera ra (pva-iKoi : afterwards refer the reader for earlier

in Plut. Alex. 7, and since then theories to the comprehensive
constantly. As this Nicolau.s was account given by Bonitz at p. 30.

portions were brought into this connection immediately

The main body of the work, passages of the Metaph. (e.g. x. 4,

begun but not finished by Ari- 1055, a, 23, with which cf, v. 10,
stotle, is niade up of books i., iii. 1018, a, 25, and x. 6, 1054, b. 34,
(B), iv., vi.-ix. In these, after cf. V. 15, 1021, a, 25) and a dis-

the critical and historical intro- cussion reserved in v, 7 ad fin.

duction in book i., one and the for another place is to be found
same inquiry, that as to Being as in ix. c. 7. The tract n, tou
such, is methodically carried on, 7ro(raxs, however, cannot have
although it is neither brought to originally formed part of the
a conclusion, nor in parts sub- work On the First Philosophy.'

mitted to final revision. Book x. It must have been written much

seems to have been intended for earlier
as is shown by the cita-
a somewhat further advanced tions in the Pliys. and in the
section of the same inquiry (cf.
Gen. et Corr. and as an aid to
X. 2 init. with iii. 1001, a,
4, the exact use and understanding
4 sq., and x. 2, 1053, b, 16 with of philosophic terms and as ;

vii. 13), but as not brought

it is such it appears in D. 36, and in
by Aristotle into any express An, 37 with the special addition
connection with book ix., it has n. T. iro<T. \4y. fj Twv Kara irpoa-
almost the appearance of a Oeaiv. Nevertheless, Ar. Met.
separate treatise. Between these vi, 2 init., alludes unmistakably
connected books there is in- to V. 7, 1017, a, 7, 22 sq., 31, in the
serted, in book v., an inquiry words :oAA.' eVel rh hv aTrAws
into the different meanings of XeySjuLCUou Xeyerai iroWaxSis, S>v
thirty philosophical conceptions %v fjihv iiv rh Kara avfi^efi-qKhs, etc.,
and terms, which stands in no in a way which indicates, by the
connection with either the pre- word ^v, that the discussion had
ceding or the following book. already come under the reader's
The Aristotelian authorship of this notice. It appears, therefore,
section is beyond doubt, Ari- that Aristotle actually intended
stotle himself quotes it (in to incorporate our book v. or the
Metaph. vii, 1 init., x. 1 cf. ; contents of it in this part of his
Gen. et Cm-r. ii. 10, 336, b, 29, work, but never was able to finish
Phys. i. 8, 191, b 29), with the the literary connection. As to
words eV TOLS irepl rov rrocraxcis or book xi., the second half (c, 8,
IT. ToG iro<r. Aeyerai eKaarov. The 1065, a, 26 sq.), is a compilation
view of Susemihl {Genet. Entw. from the Physics, obviously not
d. Plat. Phil, ii, 536) that these genuine. The first half exactly
citations are not satisfied by our corresponds in content with
book v., and that it is an un- books iii., iv., and vi. ; and is
Aristotelian tract which has taken therefore either an early sketch
the place of a genuine book with of the argument afterwards ex-
similar contents, is as decisively panded in them, or else, as Rose
disproved as that of Rose {Ar. (Ar. Lihr. Ord. 156) supposes, a
Lihr. Ord. 154) that the book is later abstract of them. A point
entirelyunworthy of Aristotle. in favour of the latter view is
The book is alluded to in other the objectionable recurrence,
seven times, of the particle yh the doctrine of changeable sub-
fi^v, which otherwise unknown
is stances and their causes only in
in Aristotle's writing (Eucken, narrow compass, and in a style
Be Ar. Die. Rat. i. 10; Ind. condensed often to the point of
Ar. 147, a, 44 sq.) In view, obscurity. This, with the fact
however, of the arguments from that in these chapters the for-
the contents of the book them- mula yuero TttUTO \_sc. Ae/CTcoy] oti
selves adduced in support of the occurs twice (i.e. 3 init., and 1070,
other view by Bonitz {Ar. Met. a. 4) indicates that it was not a
ii. 15, 451), this peculiarity is not book published by Aristotle, but
decisive, especially as the general a set of notes intended as a basis
style of the book has Aristotle's for lectures, in which many
characteristics, and as similar points were only hinted at in the
phenomena as to particles are the briefest way, with the know-
found elsewhere. [Thus re . .re ledge that they would be made
occurs in Aristotle almost exclu- plain by oral development. The
sively in the Ethics and Politico main theme of the lectures con-
(Eucken, 16); Se 76 almost ex- sisted of the points which in the
clusively in the Physics (ibid. 33), second half of book xi. are
in which also fxcvToi, ku'ltoi, and treated with special care while ;

roivvv are much commoner than the more general metaphysical

in the other works (ibid. 35, 51) : inquiries which were to serve as
6,pa recurs oftener in the later an introduction or basis for them
books of the ^letajjh. than in the were only lightly sketched. The
earlier (ibid. 50) : and among matter the lectures dealt with
the ten books of the Ethics, was no doubt intended to be
there are many variants as be- included in the work on the
tween the three last and the sec- First Philosophy; and c. 6-10
tions i.-iv. or v.-vii., which again are, as far as matter is con-
vary from one another in diction cerned, exactly fitted to be the
(ibid. 75 sq.). In this first half conclusion of it. C. 1-5, on the
of book xi. five of the seven cases other hand, include nothing
of 76 fiV occur in c. 2. Besides, which is not contained in the
7e is so often inserted by the earlier books. The polemic of
copyists that it is always possible Kose (Ar.IAbr. Ord. 160) against
some early scribe is partly re- this book which, as will be seen
sponsible.] Book xii. appears as in the next note, is specially well
an independent treatise, which fortified with external evidence
refers to none of the preceding has no value as against its
books, but seems to allude to the Aristotelian authorship, but only
Phys. viii. 10 (esp. 267, b, 17 sq.) as to its connection with our
in c. 7, 1073, a, 5, and in c. 8, Metaph. The relation of the
1073, a, 32, to Phys. viii. 8 sq., remaining two books to the rest
and also to the De Coelo ii. 3 sq. is not clear; but there is no
It is remarkable that while c. reason to hold with Kose (p. 157)
6-10 develop in some detail the that only xiv. is genuine. Ari-
views of Aristotle as to the God- stotle must have originally meant
head and other eternal Essences, to include them in the same
c. 1-5 on the contrary give us book, for xiii. 2, 1076, a, 39, refers

after Aristotle's death. ^ Of tlie other writings men-

tioned which would have stood in close relation with

to iii.998, a, 7 sq., xiii. 2, 1076,

2, Ajiofi. Urbin.'] in the Introd. to
b, 39,to iii. 2, 997, b, 12 sq., o, where the name is Pasicrates

xiii. 10, 1086, b, 14 to iii. 6. and Asclep. Schol. 520 a, 6, ex-

1003, a, 6 sq., and in viii. i. 1062, cept that he has erroneously
a, 22 he contemplates a treat- transferred the story from o to
ment of Mathematics and tlie A). That it was inserted after
Ideas, which, as appears by xiii. the other books were collected is
init., was intended to serve as an clear, not only from its designa-
introduction to Theology (cf. tion, but from the way in which
Brandis, 542, 413 a). On the it breaks the connection of the
other hand, in xiv. 1, the obvious closely consecutive books A and
reference to x. 1 is not noticed, B, for which reason manj'^ of the
and vii. and viii. are not referred ancients wished to make it a
to at all in xiii. and xiv. (BoNiTZ, preface to the Physics, or at least
p. 26). It is inconceivable that to book i. of the Metaph. {Scliol.
Aristotle would have repeated a 589, b, 1 sq.) Syrian {ap.
considerable section almost word Schol. 849, mentions that
a, 3)
for word, as is the case with the some critics proposed to reject A.
present text of i. 6, 9, and xiii. These, like Asclepius, probably
4, 5. But book i., as a whole, confused it with a if not, Syrian

must, as well as book iii., which was right in thinking their sug-
cites it (iii. 2, 996, b, 8, cf. i. 2, gestion laughable.
982, a, 16, b, 4, and 997, b, 3, This seems probable (cf.

cf. i. 6 sq.) be older than book Zeller, Ahh. d. Berl. Akad.

xiii. It seems to me, therefore, 1877, Hist. Phil. Kl. 145) because
the most probable conjecture of the circumstance that most of
that the argument in i. 9, which the genuine books of our Meta-
is apparently more mature than physics were in use at the date
that in book xiii., was inserted of the oldest peripatetic books or
on a second revision of book i., fragments which we possess, and
after Aristotle had decided to that they seem to have been
exclude books xiii. and xiv. from gathered together in the same
the scope of his main work on series of books with the rest at a
Metaphysics. Book ii. (o), a very early date. Book i., as
collection of three small essays, above stated, was not onlj^ the
written as an introduction to Phy- model for Theophrastus in book
sics rather than to Metaphysics i. of his History of Physics, but
(v. c. 3 Schol.), is certainly not by has also left clear traces in what
Aristotle. The majority of the we know of Eudemus, and is the
ancient commentators {oiir\eiovs) source of the point of view taken
attributed it to a nephew of by the author of the treatise on
Eudemus, Pasicles of Ehodes Melissus, &c. Books iii. (B) and
(Schol. ap. Jr. Oj)j). 993, a, 29 ;
iv. are referred to by Eudemus,
Schol. in Ar. 589, a. 41 the so-
; the fourth by Theophrastus also ;

called Philoponus [Bekker's book vi. by Theophrastus; book

.; ;


the Metaphysics, only a few can be considered to be Eudemus; book ix. by Metaph., like book xii., which

Theophrastus book xii. by Theo- ;
did not in fact belong to the
phrastus, Eudemus, the writer of main treatise, are in use as com-
the Magna Moralia, and the monly and at as early a date as
writer of the 11. C4^^ Kiu-fjcrecos ;
those parts which did, it must be
book by Eudemus book xiv.
xiii. ; conjectured that the whole was
apparently by Theophrastus and ; put together in the period imme-
the fifth, tract n. rod
the diately following Aristotle's
Koffaxois \y6fivov, by Strato cf ; death. This theory receives re-
the following: (1) Metaph. 1, markable confirmation from the
981, a, 12 sq., Eudem. Fr. 2, fact that already in the n. i^xav
Speng. (2) i. 3, 983, b, 20,
Kip-ffffeus (c. 6, 700, b. 8), which
Theophr. Fr. 40; (3) ihld. 1. belongs undoubtedly to the third
30, EUD. Fr. 117; (4) i. 5, 986, century B.C., book xii. itself is
b, 18 ; De Melisso, Xenoph. quoted by the title reserved by
etc., see vol. i. 468, 484 ; (5) ibid. Aristotle for his main treatise on
1. 21 sq., Theophr. Fr. 45 ; (6) Metaph. : i.e. eV to?s irepl r^s
ibid. 1. 27, Theophr. Fr. 43, irpdrrjs (piXocrotpias (cf. BONITZ,
44,EuD.i^r.ll, S. 21, 7; (7)1,6, T)td. Ar. 100,47 sq. the sus-
a, ;

Theophr. Fr. 48 ; (8) i. 6, 987, picion thrown on the passage by

b, 32, EuD. Fr. 11, S. 22, 7, Sp. Krische, Forsch. 267, 3, and
(9) i.989, a, 30, Theophr.
8, Heitz, V. S. 182, is groundless).
Fr. 46 (10) iii. 2, 996, b, 26, iv.
We may assume, then, with some
3, 1005, a, 19, EuD. Fr. 4; (11) probabilitythat immediately after
iii. 3, 999, a, 6, FfJi. Eud. i. 8, Aristotle's death the finished
1218, a, 1 (12) iv. 2, 1009, b, 12,
sections of the work on First
21, Theophr. Fr. 42; (13) iv. Philosophy (i.e. books i., iii., iv.,
6, 1011, a, 12,0. 7, 1012, a, 20, vi.-x.) were bound up with the
Theophr. Fr. 12, 26 (14) v. 11, ;
other sketches and notes of a
Strato ajmd SiMPL. Cat eg. Schol. like character left by him (i.e.
ifi Arist. 90, a, 12-46 (is) vi. 1, ;
xi. first part, xii., xiii., and xiv.),
1026, a, 13-16, Theophr. Fr. 12, and that at the same time book v.
1 (16) vii. 1, 1028. a, 10, 20,
was inserted between iv. and vi.
EuD. Fr. 5 (17) ix. 9, 1051, b,
but that book a, and the second
24, Theophr. Fr. 12, 26; (18) half of xi., were first attached by
xii. 7 init., cf. c. 8, 1073, a, 22, Andronicus to this work, with
De Motu An. 6, 700, b, 7; (19) which they were not connected
xii. 7. 1072, a, 20, Theophr. Fr. either by origin or contents.
12,5; (20) xii. 7, 1072, b, 24, c. Naturally, we cannot with cer-
9, 1074, b, 21, 33, Mh. Eud. vii. tainty affirm by whom the first
12, 1245, b, 16, M. Mor. ii. 15, redaction was undertaken. But
1213, a, 1 (21) xii. 10, 1075, b,
the statement of Alex. (ap.
34, Theophr. Fr. 12, 2; (22) Metaph. 760, b, 11 sq.), that it
xiii. 1, 1076, a, 28, Eth. End. i. 8, was Eudemus, deserves all con-
1217, b, 22; (23) xiv. 3, 1090, sideration while the different

b, 13, Theophr. Fr. 12, 2. Since, story told by Asclep. (ScJivl. in

therefore, the parts of our Ar. 519, b, 38 sq.) is open to the


genuine, and tliese must have belonged to Aristotle's

earlier period.^
The works on Natural Philosophy form the largest
bulk of all Aristotle's productions. We have first a
series of important investigations which Aristotle him-
self They deal with the general
connected together.
basis and conditions of the material universe, of the
earth and the heavenly bodies, of the elements with
their properties and relations, and of meteorological
phenomena. These are the Physics ^ the two con- ^

gravest doubts. Cf. further, p. ap. Rose, Ar. Ps. 615 Fr. Hz. ;

155 sqq. 347) seem to have formed part.

Besides the Books on Philo-
It is referred by Rose to the
sophy (jj. 55, n. 5, and 57), on the hand of Aristocles of Rhodes, a
Good, and on the Ideas (p. 61, n. contemporary of Strato but this :

1, 62, n. 1), the riept fvxn^ was seems unlikely cf. Heitz, V. S.

probably genuine (r. p. 58, n. 1, 294. It cannot, however, have

fin.). The three books IT. rvxns been a genuine work of Aristotle,
(An. App. 152) and the VlayiKhs anditseemstohave contained, not
were not. The latter is named by philosophical inquiries as to the
Diog. (i. 1. 8, ii. 45), and was also Godhead, but collections and pro-
evidently used by Plin. {H. N. bablj'^ explanations of myths and
XXX. 1, 2) as Aristotle's, but it is religious usages.
The IT. apx^^i
reckoned by An. (191) among from its position in the list of
the Pseudepigrapha,and we know D. 41, seems rather to have been
from Suidas('A'T<(r0.) that it was a metaphysical or physical tract
attributed sometimes to the So- than a political one, but we know
cratic Antisthenes, sometimes to
nothing of it. As to a * Theo-
the Antisthenes who was a Peri- logy of Aristotle,' which ori-
patetic of Ehodes circa 180 B.C. ginated in the Neoplatonic
{lege, by Bernhardy's happy con- School and is preserved to
jecture, 'PoSiw for "P6^wvi). On us in an Arabic translation,
this book, vide Ar. Fr 27-30, p. V. Dieteeci, Ahh. d. D.
1479; Fr.Hz. &Q> ; Heitz, F. S. mcrrgenl. Gesellsch. 1877, 1,
294, 8 Rose, A r. Ps. 50, who con-
; 117.
siders it to be a Dialogue. Of - ^vffiK)} oLKpoaaisin 8 books
the &eo\oyovfiva, which was as- (in AN. 148, leg. r[ for jtj'), as its
cribed to Aristotle by Macrob. own MSS and those of Simpl.

(Sat. i. 18), the * Theogony men- ' Phys. An. 148, Pt. 34, &c.,
tioned by Schol. Eur. Rhes. (28), name the treatise. Aristotle him-
and the reXeral spoken of by self commonly calls only the first
Schol. Laur. in Apoll. Rhod. iv. books <pv(TiKa or to irepl (pvafui
973 (?. these and other quotations (Phys. viii. 1, 251, a, 8, cf. iii. 1,




nected works On the Heavens and On Growth and

viii. 8, 253, b, 7, cf. ii. 1, 192, b, cluded book V. with book vi.,
20, viii. 10, 267, b, 20, cf. iii. 4 ;
with which it is so closely con-
Metaph. i. 3, 983, a, 33, c, 4, 985, nected, under the name n. Kivf]-
a, 12, c, 7, 988, a, 22, c, 10, xi. 1, creus. For though in the time of
1059, a, 31, cf. Phys. ii. 3, 7; Adrastus (aj). SiMPL. 16, 2, a)
Metaph. i. 5, 986, b, 30, cf. Phys. many may have named i.-v. TI.
i. 2 ; xiii. 1, c, 9, 1086, a, 23, cf. apxciv [(pvaiKuiv'], as others named
Phys. i.). The later books he the whole, while vi.-viii. bore the
usually calls ra irepi Kip-f^iO-ews title n. KLvi]aeo)s under which
{Metaph. ix. 8, 1049, b, 36, cf. Andronicus (Simpl. 216, a) also
Phys. viii., vi. 6 Be delo i. 5, 7, ;
cited them, yet it cannot be
272, a, 30, 275, b, 21, cf Phys. vi. . shown that this was so in the
7, 238, a, 20, 233, a, 31, viii.
c, 2. earliest period. When Theophr.
10 Be Coelo iii. 1, 299, a, 10, cf.
; cited book v. as e/c tuv (pvcriKcav
PAy5. vi. 2, 233, b, 15 Gen. et ; he may easily have meant not
Corr. i. 3, 318, a, 3, cf. P/^y^. only this whole treatise but
viii. Be Sensu
; c, 6, 445, b, 19, cf others also (ut supra and cf.:

Phys. vi. 1 Anal. post. ii. 12, 95,

Simpl. 216, a). When Damasus
b, 10). But in Phys. viii. 5, 257, the biographer and follower of
a, 34 ^J' ro7s Kudokov irepl (pvcrecos Eudemus {ap. Simpl. 216, a,
refers to B. vi. 1, 4, Metaph. viii. where it is impossible to read
1, and (pvffiKh to B. v. 1 in ; Bamascius the Neoplatonist)
Metaph. i. 8, 989, a, 24, xii. 8, speaks of t^s Trepi (pixreus

1073, 32, the phrase ret tt. (pixreus TTpayixareias ttjs 'Ap. twu ncpl Kivi)-
refers not merely to the whole of (T^ws rpia, it does not follow that
the Physica, but also to other he means vi., vii., viii., and not
works on Natural Science (cf. rather v., vi., viii. (cf. Rose,
BoNiTZ and Schwegleb. ad loc). Ar. Lihr. Ord. 198 Brandis, ii.

For more general references see b, 782). Indeed book

vii. gave
B, iii. 4, Be 274, a, 21,
Ca;lo^ i. 6, even ancient critics the impres-
eu TOis irepl rhs apxas, B. iv. 12, sion of a section not properly
vi. 1, Be Cailo iii. 4, 303, a, 23, fitted into the general connection,
Trepi )(^p6vov KoX KLvi]<T^(as, and see and Simpl. {Phys. 242, a) tells
Ind. Arist. 102, b, 18 sqq. us that Eudemus passed it over
D. 90, (115) names a n.
45 in his revision of the whole work.
(pvcreois and a n. Kiu-^a-ews, but the It need not on that account I e
former with three books only,and classed as spurious (with Eose,
the latter with one (cf. p. 50, n. 1). 199), but rather (with Brandis,
SiMPL.(P%s. 190, a, 216, a, 258, ii. b, 893 sq.) as a collection of

b,and 320, a) says that Aristotle preliminary notes which do not

and his kToipoi {i.e. Theophrastus belong to the Treatise on Physics.
and Eudemus) spoke of the first The text has taken on many in-
5 books as ^vaiKo. or n. apxa>v terpolations and alterations from
(pva-iKwy and of books vii. and a paraphrase, known even in the
viii. as n. Kiui}<Teus. No doubt time of Alexander and Simplicius
Porphyry, however, was right (v. SiMPL= 245, a, b, 253, b, and
(ap. SiMPL. 190, a) when he in- cf. Spengel, Alh. d. Miinchn.

Decay ^ and the Meteorology} Connected with these

leading works (so far as they are not to be classed
as sections of them under special names, or as spurious),

Akad. iii. 313 sq.), but the Ar. Meteorol. i. 415, ii. 199 (nor
original text is to be found in the from Cic. N. B. ii. 15, and Plut.
smaller edition of Bekker and in Plac. V. 20) infer that the n.
that of Prantl, The Aristotelian ovpavov was originally more com-
origin of B. vi. c, 9, 10 is rightly plete or existed in a recension
maintained by Brandis (ii. b, 889) different from ours.
against Weisse. '^
An. A})}). 150, MerewpoAo-
> The n. ovpavov in
4, and the yiKa Pt. 37, IT. fxeredpav 5' fj fie-

n. yfveaeus Koi (pOopas in two TcupocTKoirioi Pt. 76 do. with two


books. The current division of books only. This work, as above

these books, however, can hardly observed, places itself, in its
be derived from Aristotle, for opening chapter, in immediate
books iii. and iv. of the n. ovpavov connection with the works last
are more nearly connected with discussed and its genuineness is

the other treatise than are the beyond doubt. Aristotle himself
earlier books. Aristotle recog- does not name it (for Be Plant.
nises both by a short reference ii. 2, 822, b, 32 is a spurious
to their contents in the beginning book), but he frequently recalls
of the Meteoo'ol., and by citing its doctrines ; cf BONITZ, Jnd. .

De Coelo ii. 7 in Meieorol. i. 3 Ar. 102, b, 49. According to

. .irepi T^v &va}
, roirov iv . . , Alex. Meteor. 91 and Olympiod.
TOis TTfpl rov TTOielv Kttl Jra(r;^ti/ aj). IDELER, Ar. Meteor, i. 137,
^LupKr/jLepois to the Gen. et Corr.
; 222, 286, Theophrastus in his
i. 10 (not Metecyr. iv.) Be Sensu /ieTop(rtoAo7iKa(DiOG.v. 44) seems
c, 3, 440, b, 3, 12 (eV toTs ircpi to have imitated it. Ideler (ibid.
fii^ews) to the Gen. et Corr. ii.
; i. vii. sq.) shows that it was
2, Be An. 11, 423, b, 29, Be
ii. known to Aratus, Philochorus,
Sensv, 441, b, 12 {iv To7sTfep\
c, 4, Agathemerus, Polylaius, and Posi-
(TTOixeiuv). A
work n. ovpavov is donius. Eratosthenes, however,
ascribed by SiMP.(Z)e Cwlo, Schol. seems not to have known it cf. ;

in Ar. 468, a, 11, 498, b, 9, 42, ihid. i. 462. Of the four books,
502, a, 43) also to Theophrastus, the last seems from its contents
who is said to have followed the not to have originally belonged
lines of Aristotle's book. With to the same treatise. Alex,
this exception the earliest wit- {Meteor. 126, a) and Ammon.
nesses to the existence of the {ajj.Olympiod. in Ideler, Ar.
work are Xenarchus and Nicolaus Meteor, i. 133) prefer to connect

of Damascus (v. Brandis, Gr.- it with the n. yevdaews but it ;

r'om. Phil. ii. b, 952), but there is is not adapted to that work
no doubt of the authenticity either. Since it has all the ap-
either of these books or of the pearance of being Aristotelian,
n. yevefffcos. From Stob. Eel. i. and is cited by Aristotle (Part.
486, 536 we cannot, with Idelek An. ii. 2, 649, a, 23 cf. Meteor. ;


are a variety of other treatises on natural philosophy.'

iv. 10, Gen. An.

ii. 6, 743, a, 6; apxuv (ibid. 93), IT. Kiviiaiws (D.
cf Meteor,
. 883, b, 9, 384, a,
iv. 6, 45, 115; An. 102, 1 B Pt. 17. ;

33), it must be taken to be an 8 B the same again as Auscul-


isolated section, which was not tatio 2^^ysica, at No. 34 and ;

contemplated, in this form, when perhaps also as IT. apx^s at D. 41 ).

the Meteorology was begun (v. In what relation the same work
Meteor, i. 1 ad fin.'), but which stands to the titles n. <f>v<ri(05

in the end took the place of the (D. 90 as three books, An. 81, as
further matter that remained one); ^vaiKhv a' (D. 91); or n.
to be dealt with at the end of (pva-iKui/ a' (An. 82) is not clear.
book iii., which obviously does An. App. 170, Pt. 85 n. xp^vov :

not itself bring the treatise to a might also be only an extract

close. As Bonitz {Ind. Ar. 98, including Phys. iv. 10-14, though
b, 53) notices in criticising Heitz, it is preferable to think of it as
this book (c. 8, 384, b, 33) cites a special treatise by some of the
Meteor, iii. 677, 378, a, 15 (cf. on Peripatetics. Aristotle himself
this subject lDELER,?&M. ii. 347- refers with the words iv ro7s v.
360 ; Spengel, '
Ueb. d. Reihen- aroix^Lcov in the Pe An. ii. 11,
folge d. naturwissensch. Schrif ten 423, b, 28, and the Pe Sensu, 4,
d. Arist.,' Alhandl. d. MiincJin. 441, a, 12, to the Gen. et Corr.
Aliad. V. 150 sq. Brandis, Gr.-
; ii. 2 sqq. Whether in D. 39,
rom. Phil. ii. b, 1073, 1076; An. 35, the title n. a-roix^iaiv y'
Rose, A7nst. Libr. Ord. 197). only refers to this work (possibly
The doubts alluded to by Olym- in connection with Pe Coelo iii.
piod. ihid. i. 131, as to book i. and iv., cf. p. 50, n. 1 or with ;

are unsupported the reasons ; Meteor, iv., cf. Fr. Hz. 156), or
given by Ideler (i. xii. sq.) for whether it means a special collec-
holding that two recensions of tion of several Aristotelian tracts
the Meteor, existed in antiquity relating to the elements, or
are not convincing. The points whether there was a separate
which he supposed to have been treatise (which could not be con-
found in another edition of this, sidered genuine) must remain an
are for the most part referable to
open question. So, again, as to
other works, and where that is the book IT. toG vdcTx^i-v ^ imrov-
not so (Sen. Qn. Nat. vii. 28, 1 ;
devai (D. 25) Aristotle in Pe An.

cf. Meteor, i. 7, 344, b, 18) our ii. 5, 417, a, 1, and in Gen. Anim.

informant maybe in error. But it iv. 3, 768, b, 23 refers by the

ispossible that these points may formula, iv to7s tt. to 5 rroieTv Kol
have come from an edition that irdcrx^iv, to Gen. et Corr. i. 7 sq.,
had been expanded by a later a reference doubted by Trende-
hand or largely added to cf ; lenburg (Pe An. ibid.) and by
Brandis, p. 1075. Heitz (V. S. 80), but which it
The Physics have the fol-
' seems impossible, on compari-
lowing titles n. apxoou fj (pia-eus
: son of the passages, to reject
a' (An. 21), eV ToTs v. rS>v apx^iv (cf. with Gen. An. p. 324, a, 30
T7)s SAtjs (pva-fws (Themist. Pe sq. ; with Pe An. 416, b, 35, and
An. ii. 71, 76), ev toTs tt. tuv 323, a, 10 sq. with Pe An. ill


Another class of writings, less directly akin, are the

a, 1, rovTO 5e irws Svvarhv fj dSu- 277;ua(rta[t] or in the


varou, elprtKaiuLeu, etc., and 325, title ap. Ar. 0pp. 973, n.

b, 25, TTwy 5e eVSe'xeTot rovro av/x- cvfieicou), for the Fr. of which v,
fialvdv, traXiv Aeyu/JLev, etc.). It Ar. Fr. 237 sq. 1521 Fr. IJz. ;

suggests itself, therefore, either 157 Ar. Ps. 243 sq. The n. -tto-

to apply the title in DiOG. Tafidv (Ps.-Plut. De Flvv. c. 25

to this section only or to the ad fin.; Heitz, V. S. 297; Fr.
whole of book i. If, however, a Hz. 849) seems to have been a
separate treatise is meant, then late compilation. Of much ear-
it seems more likely that it was lier date
(according to Rose,
analogous to the Gen. et Corr. either by Theophrastus or of his
than that (as Teend. Gescli. time) is An. App. 159 Pt. 22, ;

d. Kategor., 130, supposes) it n. rrjs rod Ne/Aou ava^aanus, de

treated generally of the cate- q. V. Rose, Ar. Ps. 239 sq. Ar. Fr. ;

gories of Action and Passion. p. 1520; Fr. Hz. 211. The

With Physics also was connected treatises Be Hamoriht^ and Be
the tract Be qurcstionibus hijlwis, Siccitate, ap. Pt. 73, 74, cannot
Pt. 50, and perhaps also Pt. 75, be genuine, as they are men-
De acGidentlhvs unirersis, both tioned nowhere else. As to the
without doubt spurious. So must n. xp'^AiaTtwi', well founded objec-
be also An. Ajjjf- 184, n. K6(rfjLov tions have been raised by Prantl
ycveaews, which cannot have (Ar. ii. d. Farben, Miinch., 1849,
been written by Aristotle, who p. 82; cf. 107, 115, 142, etc.).
so decisively combats the idea Alex, in Meteor. 98, b, and Olym-
of a beginning of the world. piod. in Meteor. 36, a (/;. Ideler,
The book n. k6<tp.ov (which is not Ar. Meteor, i. 287 Sq.) allege that
even known to our three lists) was Aristotle wrote a book n. x^f^^^^
written at the earliest 50-1 B.C. but neither seems to have known
cf Zeller, Ph. d. Gr. iii. a, 558.
. it. So Michael of Ephesus, Be
The so-called quotation from a Vita et M. 175, b, remarks that
work n. /At|ea>s, given by Minoides Aristotle's n. (pvTwv koI x^^^^
Mynas, in his edition of Genna- was lost, so that it was necessary
dius against Pletho(i'>. Hz. 157), to rely on Theophrastus. Ari-
belongs perhaps to the SiotpeVets stotle himself alludes in Meteor.
spoken of p. 75, n. 2. Many ii. 3, 359, b, 20, to some more
of the books we hear of as re- extended inquiry into the quali-
lated to the subject of the Metecyr. ties of things relating to the
seem to have been spurious. sense of taste and since in the

A work n. avefiuv (ACHILL. late Be Sensu, c. iv. ad fin.., fur-

Tat. in Ar. c. 33, 158 A; Fr. ther inquiries on the same sub-
Hz. 350 Rose, Ar. Ps. 622) was
; ject are projected as part of the
ascribed to Aristotle, probably work on Plants, it is a question
by a confusion between him and whether we should refer the
Theophrastus (de q. r. DiOG. v. allusion in Meteor, ii. to a sepa-
42 Alex. Meteor. 101, b, 106, a,
; rate book n. x^H-^^t ^^^ not
etc.) and so with the 'S.r^niia
; consider it rather as a later in-
Xeifiiavuv (D. 112, or aj). An. 99, terpolation referring to Be Sensu'

mathematical, mechanical, optical, and astronomical


c. 4, TmdiDeAn. ii. 10. Aristotle ad Jin.). The n. oltSixuv TpafxixS>v

contemplates at the end of Me- (^Ar. Opp. 968 sq.), which in

teor, iii. a work on Metals, and our only named by Pt.

lists is
the commen^^ators mention a 10, and never cited by Aristotle
fiovofiifiAo^ TT. ixeTaWav. See himself, was also ascribed with
SiMPL. Phys. 1, a; J)e Coelo, much likelihood to Theophrastus
Schol. in Ar. 468, b, 25 Damasc. ; by SiMPL. De Calo, Schol. in
De CteZo.ibid. 454, a, 22; Philop. Ar. 510, b,10, and Philop.
PJiys. a, 1, m. (who, however, on Corr. 8 b, whereas Philop. ad
the Meteorologia,\. 135 id., speaks Gen. et Corr. 37, a, and ad Pliys.
as if he did not know such a ra. 8, treats it simply as by Ari-
tract) ; Olympiod. in Meteor, i. stotle.Its genuineness is doubted
133 id. Some, with more reason, alsoby Rose {Ar.Libr. OrdA^'i).
attribute the book to Theophras- The reference in EuTOC. ad Ar-
tus (Pollux, Onomast. vii. 99, ehim. de Ciro. Dlmens. pro(xm.
X. 149; cf. DiOG. V.44; Theophr. does not mean that Aristotle
De Lapid. init.Alex. Meteor.
; wrote a book on squaring the
126, a, ii. 161 Id.; and see circle the allusion is merely to

Rose, Arist. Ps. 254 sq., 261 Sopli. El. 11, 174, b, 14 or Pliys. i.

sq. Ar. Fr. 242 sq. S. 1523;

; 2, 185, a, 16. Without further
Fr. Hz. 161). Against the idea explanation Simpl. (^Categ. 1
that Meteor, 378, b, 5 iv.
iii. 7, ; names Aristotle's yewficrpiKoi re koL
8, 384, b, 34, refers to the n. /ier. }x'i]Xo-viKa fii^Xia ;but the extant
(on which see Heitz, p. 68), see M-nxaviKCL (in D. 123; An. 114,
BoNiTZ, Ind. Ar. 98, b, 53. We called jx-nxo-viKhv [-wv], but more
know nothing of the De metalli correctly aj). Pt. 18, Mtjx- '"'po-
fodinis (Hadschi Khalfa, a^). ^X-fjfiaTo) are certainly not from
Wenrich, De Auct. Gr. Vers. the hand of Aristotle cf Rose, ; .

Arab. 160). The tract on the Ar. Lihr. Ord. 192. D. 114,
Magnet (n. ttjs XiOov, D. 125; 'OTTTt/cbi/ a' [^-(ov, SC. irpo^ATjixa.Ttov'] ;

An. 117; Rose, Ar. Ps. 242; An. 103, 'OirriKa fiifiXia', cf.
Fr. H. 215) was probably spuri- David in Categ Schol. 25, a, 36 ;

ous. That De lajndibus, which Anon. Proleg. in Metaph. ap.

was much used by the Arabs Rose, Ar. Ps. 377, and Fr. IIz. 215 ;

(Hadschi Kh. loc. cit. 159 see ; 'OTTTt/cot irpofiK-fjiJ.., V. Marc. p. 2 and

Meyer, Nicol. Damasc. De plan- p. 8. It is clear from a reference

tis, praef. p. xi. Rose, Ar. Libr.
; in a Latin translation of Hero's
Ord. 181 sq., Ar. Ps. 255 sq.), KaroTTTpiKo. (circ. 230 B.C.) ap.
was certainly so. Rose, Ar. Ps. 378 Ar. Fr. 1534 ;

Ma07j^oTtKbj/ a! (D. 63 ; An.

* Fr. Hz. 216, and from the Pseud.
53), n. T^s eV ToTs /u-aO-fj/J-aaiv Ar. Problems, xvi. 1 ad fin., that
ovffias (An. App. 160), IT. /xovaSos such a book had currency under
(D. Ill; An. 100), n. fieyeOovs Aristotle's name at an early date.
(D. 85 An. 77, unless this was
; Its genuineness is not, however,
a Rhetorical tract; see p. 72, 2 assured, though it is very pro-


Next to the Physics and the related treatises come

the numerous and important works dealing with life.

Some of these are descriptive, others are inquiries. To the

former class belong the History of Animals ^ and the

bable that among Aristotle's titles to be referred which are

genuine Problems there were mentioned by Hadschi Khalfa
some in Optics. The De Spccnlo, (p. 159-161) Pe siderum arcanis,

attributed by Arabic and Chris- Pe sideribus eommque arcanis,

tian Middle-Age writers to Ari- Pe stellis labentibus, and Mille
stotle, appears to be only Euclid's verba de astrologia judiciaria.
YL.a.To-:tTf)iKh. (RoSE, Ar. Ps. 376). As to the accuracy of the other
D. 113; An. 101, report an mathematical and related writ-
^AarpouofiiKhv ; and Aristotle him- ings, we can decide nothing. The
self refers to such a work in attempt of Rose {Ar. Libr. Ord.
Meteor, i. 3, 339, b, 7 (^Stj yap 192) to prove that none of them
Sj-nrai Sia ruv affrpoXoyiKuv Oecaprj- can be Aristotle's does not
ixdruv rifuv), ibid. C. 8, 345, b, 1 succeed.
(^KaOdirep SeiKVvrai iu to7s -Trepl ' n. TO ^(fa IffTOpla (n. ^(fwv
&crrpo\oyiav 6ea>p-f}/xa(riv), and Pe IffTopias i', An.
155 the Ajjjj. ;

Ccelo, ii. 10, 291, a, 29 (Trepl Se same is meant by D. 102 and

TTjs Ta|6s avTcav etc. e/c ru>v An. 91, n. (cfiuv, nine books, and
TreplaarpoXoyiau Oewpelfrdu} Ae- ' by Pt. 42). The Arabic writers
yerai yap iKavus) ; SiMPL. on the count ten, fifteen, or nineteen
Pe Cwlo, Schol. 497, a, 8, ap- books, and had no doubt ex-
pears to have the same in his panded the extant text by
mind. The existence of the various added tracts cf Wen- ; .

book is accepted, of modern rich, Pe Auct. Grcec. Vers. 148.

scholars, by Bonitz (^Tnd. Ar. Aristotle quotes it by various
104, a, 17 sq.) and Prantl {ad names taropiai [-m] Tr. ra ^^a

n. ohp. p. 303); while Heitz {S. V. {Part. Anim. iii. 14, 674, b, 16
p, 117) thinks it probable, though iv. 5, 680, a, 1 ; iv. 8 ad Jin. ; iv.
in Fr. Hz. 160 he refuses to de- 10, 689, a, 18 ; iv. 13, 696, b, 14 ;
cide. Blass {Rhein. Mms. xxx. Gen. An. i. 4, 717, a, 33 i. 20, ;

504) applies the references to 728, b, 13; Resjnr. c. 16, init.) ;

writings by other hands. Ideler IffTopiai IT. ruv ^^wv {Part. Anim.
{Ar. Metajyh. i. 415) assumes a ii. 1, init. c. 17, 660, b, 2 Gen. ;

varying recension of the Pe Coelo, Anim. 716, b, 31

i. 3, Respir. c. ;

which has no probability. It 12, 477, a, 6), C^iK^i(TTopia{Part.

does not seem probable that Anim. iii. 5, Jin.), la-ropia ^vaiKii
this Astronomical or as Ari- {Part. Anim. ii. 3, 650, a, 31 ;

stotle would have called it {v. Ingr. An. c. 1, Jin.), and simply
Heitz, ibid.) Astrological work tffTopiai or iaropia {Pe Resjnr. 1 6,
took the form of Problems, since 478, b, 1 ; Gen. Anim. i. 11, 719,
Aristotle repeatedly speaks of a, 10; ii. 4, 740, a, 23; c. 7, 746,
dfcap-fi/xara. Not to it, but to a, 14; iii. 1,750, b, 31; c. 2, 753,
late interpolated tracts, are the b, 17 c. ^Jin. ; c. \OJin. c. 11 Jin.
; ;
; ;

In its contents, however, it is Heitz, 224 sq. ; Fr. Hz. 172). So
rather a Comparative Anatomy Clemens, Pcedag. ii. 150, C (cf.
and Physiology than a descrip- Athen. vii. 315, e) seems to
tion of animals. As to the plan refer to the same lost work, and
of it, cf. J. B. Meyer, Ar. Apollonius {3IiraMl. c. 27) men-
Thierk. 114 sq. Its genuineness tions it, distinguishing it ex-
is beyond question, though as to pressly from the extant Hist. An.
the tenth book, it must be taken (n. C^Jwj/). Parts of this lost work
to be, not merely with Spengel are probably indicated by the
(Z><? Ar. Libro X
Hist. Anim. names n. Qtipiwv (Eratosth. :

Heidelb. 1842), a retranslation of Catasterismi, c. 41, and there-

a Latin translation of a section from the Scholion in GrERMAN-
written by Aristotle to follow ICUS, Aratea Phcfinom. v. 427,
book vii., but wholly spurious Arat. ed. Buhle, ii. 88); 'TTrep
with Scl.neider (iv. 262, i. xiii.), Twv iJ.vdo\oyovjui.4vwv ^cpcov (D. 106;
Kose {Ar. Lihr. Urd. 171), and An. 95); virep rcHv avi'd^Twv ((fOiv
Brandis {Gr.-r'6m. Phil. ii. 6, (D. 105; An. 92); n. tQv pw-
1257). Apart from anything else" \ev6vTcov (Ptol. 23, ^fari tuftc-
the un-Aristotelian assumption lin^). DiOG. V. 44 attributes a
of a female semen would prove treatise of that name, doubtless
this of itself. No doubt this- the same, to Theophrastus, from
book is the same as that in which come the Fragm. 176-178,
D. 107, An. 90, uTrep [Trepl] tov Wimm. apiid Athex. ii. 63
/j.^ y^vvav. As to Alexander's re- c. iii. 105 d; vii. 314, b. To it
ported assistance for the whole also refers the notice in Plut.
work, cf. p. 29 sq. supra and as Qu. Conv. 8, 9, 3, which Rose,

to the sources used by Aristotle, Ar. Fr. 38, refers to the

cf Rose, Ar. Lihr. Ord. 206 sq.
. Dialogue Eudemus,' and Heitz, '

Besides this History of Animals, Fragm. Ar. 217, to the iarpiKa.

there were known to the ancients The citations from this and simi-
various similar works. Athenasus, lar works, sometimes under the
for example, uses one work dif- name of Aristotle, sometimes of
ferent (as is clear from his own Theophrastus, will be found in
words) from our Hist. An., under ROSE, Ar. Ps. 276-372; Ar. Fr.
the names iv r^ ir. Zcfwv, iv rois 257-334, p. 1525 sq. Fr. Hz.

IT. Z. (Rose, Ar. Ps. 277, and 171 sq. Plin. (H. Nat. viii. 16,
Eeitz, 224, unnecessarily read 44) says Aristotle wrote about
ZoJiKWJ'), iv rifi tt. ZcpiKuv, iv rc^ fifty, and Antigonus {Mlrah. c.
iiriypacpo/xevQ} ZcfiiK^, iv r^ ir. Zcfoiv 60 [66]) says about seventj^ books
^ [kOi] 'ixdvCOV, iv T^ TT. ZcplKoiv on Animals, Of all these it is
Kal 'lx6v(t}v, iv rcfi ir. 'IxGvoov ; but clear that none but the first nine
at the same time he curiously of our Hist. An. were genuine.
cites our Hist. An. v., as Tri/jLirrov The work which Athen. used
IT. (cfuv ixoplcav (see the notes of (which is not Aristotle's style, to
Schweighauser on the passages judge by the Fr.) seems to have
in question ; e.g. ii. 63, b iii. 88 ; ;
been a compilation from them
c. vii. 281 sq., 286, b and the ; and other sources, belonging, in
Index, and see Rose, Ar. Ps view of the passage quoted from
276 sq.: Ar. Fr. Nr. 277 sq.; AntigonuSjto the third centuryB.c.


Anatomical Bescriijtions} The latter class begin with

the three books On the Soul^'^ on which several other

anthropological tracts follow.^ The further investi-

1 The 'Aj/oTo/xai (seven books, a. 30, De Interpr. i. 16, a, 8, Be

in D. 103, An. 93) are very often Motu An. 0. 6 init. and c. 11 ad,
cited by Aristotle (cf. Bonitz, fin., and must therefore be earlier
Ind. Ar. 104, a, 4, and Fr. Hz. than these books. Ideler {Ar.
160), and it is not possible with Meteor, ii. 360) is not correct in
Rose {Ar. lAhr. Ord. 188) to ex- saying that the reverse follows
plain these references away. We from the end of Meteor, i. 1. The
know from R. An. i. 17, 497, a, 31, words in the Ingr. An. c. 19 ad
iv. 1, 525, a, 8, vi. 11, 566, a, 15 fin. which name this book as only
Gen. An. ii. 7, 746, a, 14 Part. ; projected and the n. C^^wi/ fiopiwu
An. iv. 5, 680, a, 1 and DeBesjnr. ; as in existence, are (with Brandis
16, 478, a, 35, that the 'AvaTo/ial ii. 6, 1078) to be considered as a

were furnished with drawings, gloss only. Of its three books the
which were perhaps the principal first two seem in a more com-
point of the work. The 8chol. on plete state than the third. Tor-
Ingr. An. 178, b (after Simpl. Be slrik, in the preface to his edition
Anima), can hardly have cited of 1862, has shown that there are
the work from his own know- preserved traces of a second re-
ledge. Apuleius {De Mag. c. 36, cension of book ii., and that
40) talks of a work of Aristotle, confusing repetitions have crept
n. ^(^(Dv avaTOfjLTjs, as universally into the present text of book iii.,
known ; but it is seldom men- through a combination of two
tioned elsewhere, and Apuleius recensions made before the date
himself possibly meant the IT. of Alexander of Aphrodisias and ;

Cvoov /JLop'wu. The extract from the same appears to be true of

the work iK\oyi] avaro^iSov, D. book i. also. Singularly enough
104, An. 94, Apollon. Mirah. c. D. and An. do not mention the

39 was certainly not by Ari- work but Pt. 38 has it whereas
; ;

stotle. Heitz {Ft. 171) rightly D. 73 and An. 68 give ecreis

rejects Eose's opinion {Ar. Ps. IT.ypvxvs a'. The Fudemns ought
276) that the avaroixai were one also to be reckoned with Ari-
work with the ^cf'iKa. An. 187 stotle's psychology see the:

gives an avaro/j.^ hvQpuirov among accounts of it at pp. 55, n. 4, 66,

the Pseudepigr. Aristotle did n. 2, snjjra.
no human anatomy (cf. H. An. ^ To this class belong the f ol-.

iii. 513, a, 12, i.

3, 16 init. and lowing extant treatises, which all
see Lewes, Aristotle). relate to the koiv^ adfxaros koX
- The n. y\ivxns epya {Be An. iii. 10, 433,
^vxns is often cited
by Aristotle in the lesser trea- 20) : (1) n. ala6r}(rus /col alarOr}-
tises presently to be mentioned ruv. Its proper name probably
(B0NiTZ,7;i^. Ar. 102, b, 60 sq.), was n. al<Td^<re(i}s only (cf.
and in the Gen. An. ii. 3, v. 1, 7, Idelek, Ar. Meteor, i. 650, ii.
736, a. 37, 779, b, 23, 786, b, 25, 358) and it is cited by Aristotle

288, b, 1, Part. An. iii. 10, 673, in the n. C- fJ^oplwv and the n. ^.

yevea-eus (BoNlTZ, Tnd. Ar. 1 03, wide sense, as including all the
a, 8 sq.), De 3Iemor. c. 1, init.. anthropological treatises which
Be Somno 2, 456, a, 2 {De Motu are introduced by Tl. alaQ. 1 init.,
Anivi. c. WJin.), and announced as by a common preface. The
as coming in the Meteor, i. 3, 341, same explanation will account
a, 14. TRBNDELENBUEG,i)d ^1. for the statement in Pai't. An.
1 18 (106) sq. (contra Rose, Ar. ii. 7, 653, a, 19 that Aristotle
Libr. Ord. 219, 226 Brandis, ; would speak ev re TOis TT. al<rd-f)aa>5
Gr.-rom. Phil. ii. b, 2, 1191, Kal IT. virvov SicapKTfMfUOis of the
284 BONITZ, Ind. Ar. 99, b, 54,
; causps and effects of sleep. The
100, b, 30, 40) believes that the subject is to be found only Pe
n. alaB. is mutilated, and that it Somno, 2, 3, 458, a, 13 sq, and no
is a separated section of it which fitting place for its introduction
is preserved as the e'/c rov irepl can be found in our IT. alad.
oLKovaroiv, Ar. 0pp. ii. 800 sq. It Probably it did not occur in the
is certain that some of the re- original text either and we are;

ferences in later writings cannot to understand the reference as

be satisfactorily verified in our indicating by n. aiad. the general,
present text. According to the and by n. viryov the particular
Gen. An. v. 2, 781, a, 20, and description of one and the same
PaH. An. ii. 10, 656, a, 27, it was treatise (in which view re should
explained eV 70?? Trepi alaGrjaews perhaps be dropped). So finally
that the canals of the organs of in Ge?i. An. v. 7, 786, b, 23, 788,
sense started from the heart a, 34 there are allusions to inves-
but, on the contrary, in the only tigations as to the voice iv to7s
applicable passage of the extant TT. ^vxvs and tt. ataOiia-cws. These
treatise (c. 2, 438, b, 25) we are are to be referred chiefly to Pe
told that the organs of smell and An. ii. 8, and secondarily to c. 1,
sight are seated near the brain, 437,a,3sq.,446,b,2sq.,andl2sq.,
out of which they are formed, whereas the beginning of c. 4 of
but those of taste and touch in the PeAn. itself tells us that it was
the heart. It is not until the Pe beyond the plan of that treatise
Vita et M. c. 3, 469, a, 30 that he to give any detailed account of
adds that the heart is the voice and tone, such as we find
seat of perception for the other in the extant fragment n.
senses also (only not (pav^pCis as aKova-TMv. The last-named work
for these); and here 1. 22 sq. is never cited by Aristotle, and
refers to the passage of the n. contains no express references to
altrQ. just cited (for it is only any of his books. In fact its own
there, and not in the Part. An. ii. broad and sketchy methods of
10, as cited Tnd. Ar. 99, b, 5, that exposition show it to be the work
the different positions are as- not of the founder, but of a later
signed to the organs of sense). scholar of the Peripatetic school,
From these facts it does not follow probably however of one of its
that a section dealing with this earliest generations. (2) n. fjLv-fi-
point is omitted in our text, but firis Hal avafivfjcreus, Pt. 40, is
rather that the words eV Toh tt. quoted in the Pe Motu An. c. 11,
alad. in Geti. An. v. 2 and Part. ad Jin. and by the Commentators.
An. ii. 10 are to be taken in a The book of Mnemonics noticed

p. 72, n. 2 fin. supra, has nothing ing (cf. KosE, Ar. Lihr. Ord.,
to do with (3) n. vttvov koI
it. who wrongly refers to Hist. An.
iyprfy6p(rews cited Dc Longit. V., iii. 3, 513, a, 21), and as the Essay

Part. An., Gen. An., Motu An., on Life and Death is spoken of
and announced as in contempla- in the Be Longit. V. c. 6, 467,
tion (^Ind. Ar. 103, a, 16 sq) by Be b, 6 as the conclusion of the
An. iii. 9, 432, b, 11, Z>^ Seimi, inquiries concerning animals,
c. 1, 436, a, 12 sq. It is fre- Brandis (1192 sq.) suggests that
quently connected with (2) (but only the first half of the so-called
clearly for external reasons only) '
Parva Naturalia' (Nos. 1-5) was
as if they were one treatise, IT. composed immediately after the\ii.t]% KoX VTTVOV (Gell. vi. 6, Be Anima; and that the rest of
Alex. Tojj. 279, Schol 296, b, 1, these (which in Ptolemy's cata-
copied SuiD. Ales. De
ixi^jxt]. logue stand at No. 46 sq. divided
Sensu, 125, b, Michael, in Arist from the books on Sense, Sleep,
De Mem. 127, a, Ptol. 4). It is, and Memory by the books on
however, clear from Arist. Divin. Zoology) were not written until
in Somn. c, 2, fin., that it was in after the works on the Parts, the
fact bracketed with (4) n. 'Ei/utt- Movement, and the Generation
viwu and (5) n. Tr^s Kad^ "tirvov of Animals, though projected
fiauTiKrjs. (4) is also in the Be earlier. And it is true that in
Somno, 2, 456, a, 27, announced the Be Generat. Anim. iv. 10,
as in preparation. (6) n. fiaKpo- 777, b, 8, we hear that inquiries
iStdrrjTos /cat fipaxvfiidTfjTOs, cited, into the reason of the varying
not by name, Part. An iii. 10, duration of hfe are projected,
673, a, 30, and by name Athen. and these are not further dealt
viii. 353, a, Pt. 46, and perhaps with in that work. But on the
also An. ApjJ- 141. (7) n. C^s other hand the Part. An. iii. 6,
KOI Qavdrov to which (8) n.
: 669. a, 4 refers to Be Respir. c.
avatrvoris, is in Aristotle's view so 10, 16, and the same iv. 13, 696,
closely related that they form b, 1, and 697, a, 22, to Be Respir.
one whole {Be Vita et M. c. 1, c. 10, 13; and Gen. An. v. 2, 781,
init. 467, b, 11, Be Respir. c. 21, a, 20,as already observed, to Be
486, b, 21). There was a third Vita et Morte, 3, 469, a, 10, sq.
tract, n. veoT-nros koI yijpas, spoken (cf. Ind. Ar. 103, a, 23, 34, sq.,
of by Aristotle (467, b, 6, 10), to where the other references are
which our editors ascribe the more problematical). If Brandis
lirst two chapters of the n. (corjs is right, these references must
Koi Bavdrov, but clearly without have been added, as does some-
reason, for it seems more probable times happen, to works previously
either that Aristotle never wrote completed. As to the genuineness
the tract or that it was lost at a of the writings already named, it
very early date (cf. Beandis, is guaranteed not only by inter-
1191, BONITZ, Ind. Ar. 103, a, nal evidence, but by the re-
26 sq, Heitz, p. 58). Inasmuch ferences referred to. Another
as the Be Vita et Morte, c. 3, 468, projected tract, n. v6(rov koL vyi-
b, 31 (cf. Be Respir. c. 7, 473, a, las (Be Sensu c. 1, 436, a, 17,
27) mentions the Essay on the Long. Vit. c. 1, 464, b, 32, Respir.
Parts of Animals as already exist- c. 21, 480, b, 22, PaH. An. ii. 7,


gations On the Farts of Animals ^^ with the connected

essays on the Generation ^ and the Movement of

653, a, 8), was probably never Peripatetic Cf. further <?/;. Rose,

written (though Heitz, p. 58 and Ar. Lihr. Ord. 167, sq., and
Fr. Ar. 169, thinks otherwise). It Brandis, p. 1 203, who both with
is unknown to Alexander, De Bonitz reject the book.
Sensu, 94, and therefore it is Hkely '
n. ^4^v fiopiuv four books
that the Be Sanitate et 3Iorho (in An. Apj). 157, three books) :

known by the Arabic writers cited in the Be Gen. An., Infjr.

(Hadschi Khalf a /;?if Wenrich, An., Motu An. (cf. Ind. Ar. 103,
1 60) was a forgery. Two books IT. a, 55 sq), and the Be Vita, et M.
t)i|/6a)s (An. Ajrp- 173) and one IT. and Be Besjnr. (de q. v. p. 91,
<pwvT}% (ibid. 164) could hardly
supra) but the Be Somno, 3, 457,
be genuine (cf. p. 86, n. 1). b, 28 might be referred to Be
book n. rpocprjs seems to be re- Sensu, 2, 438, b, 28, though Be
ferred to as existing in the Be, c. 2, 455, b, 34 may be
Somno, c. 3, 456, b, 5 (the re- better paralleled by Part. An.
ference in Meteor, iv. 3, 381, b, iii. 3, 665, a, 10 sq., than by Be
13 being too uncertain), and it is Sensu, 2, 438, b, 25 sq. It is
spoken of as a project in Be An. spoken of as projected in Meteor.
ii. 4//i., Gen. An. v, 4, 784, b, 2, i. 1, 339, a, 7, and Hist. A71, ii.
Part. An. ii. 3, 650, b, 10, and c. 17, 507, a, 25. The first book is
7, 653, b, 14, and c. 14, 674 a, 20, a kind of introduction to the
and iv. 4, 678, a, 19. The re- zoological works, including the
ference in Be Motu A71. 10, 703, treatises on the Soul, and the
a, 10 (cf Michael Ephes. atl loc.
. activities and conditions of life,
p. 156, a) is not to a n. Tpo<\>ris, and it cannot well have been
but to the n. iruev/jLaTos for the
: originally meant for this place
words ris fiev oZv r] (TooTripla tov (cf. Spengel, On the order of

avfXipvTov TTUcv/xaTOs flpnTai iv &\- Aristotle's books on Natural Phi-

Xois clearly relate to the words losophy,' Ahh. d. Munch. Aliad.
ris 7) TOV ifjL(pvTOv TTuevfxaTos Sia/jLOuij iv. 159, and the others there
(n. Ttv^v. init.). (So BoNiTZ, Ind. cited).
Ar. 100, a, 52 but Rose, Ar. Lihr.
; n. ^4<Jiv yevfffews, five books

Ord. 167 makes them refer to the (in An. App. 158, three books,
n. ^y'. Kivi\(T. itself, and Heitz, Pt. No. 44, five books, ibid.
Fr. Ar. 168 to the n. rpoit>r\s.^ The No. 77, the same work in two
work is named in Pt. No. 20, books the errors are of no signi-

where it is wrongly given three ficance). It is often referred to

books. It dealt with food and other by Aristotle, but only in the
matters in an aphoristic style; future (cf. Ind. Ar. 103, b, 8 sq.).
and that it is later than Aristotle DiOG. omits it but its genuine-

is clear from the fact that it ness is beyond doubt. Book v.,
recognised the distinction of however, seems not to belong to
veins and arteries, which was it, but to be an appendix to the
unknown to him (cf. Ind. Ar. works on the Parts and Genera-
109, b, 22, sq.). In any case it is tion of Animals, just as the

Animals,^ complete his zoological system. Later in

date, but earlier in their place in his teaching, were the
lost books On Plants} Other treatises touching this
' Parva Naturalia are to the Be
(Psyck. d'AHst. 237) accepts it
Aninia. For summaries of the as genuine. Of the Indices, An.
contents of the Part. An. and A2)2). No. 156, and Pt. No. 41,
the Generat. Anim. see Meyer, have the IT. (,(f)0}v Kivijffecos, and
Arist. ThierTi. 128 sq.,and Lewes, Pt. No. 45, n. ((^wv nopeias.
Ar. c. 16 sq. The tract Be Coitii - n. (pvruy
fi' (D. 108, An. 96,

(Hadschi K half a, ajj. Wenrich, Pt. 48). Promised by Aristotle

p. 159)was spurious: for it in Meteor, i. 1, 8.39, a, 7, Be Seimi
cannot be referred, as Wenrich c. 4, 442, b, 25, Zonff. Vita, 6,
refers it, to the title IT. /ti'|es in 467, b, 4, De Vita 2, 468, a, 31,
Be SensM, c. 3 (cf. p. 83, n. 1, FaH. Ail. ii. 10, 656, a, 3, Ge7i.
supra). As to the book 11. rov An. i.1, 716, a, 1, v. 3, 783, b, 20,
/i^ y^vv^v, V. p. 88, supra. and cited in H. An. v. 1, 539, a,
' n. ^4^v iropeias, cited by 20, Gen. An. i. 23, 731, a, 29 (in
that name in Part. An. iv. 11, the last, it is wrong to change
690, b, 15 and 692, a, 17, as the the perfect tense into the future
n. iropeias /cot Kiwqtrecos rwv ^(pcav in the words of citation). Though
in Part. An, iv. 13, 696, a, 12, both these references must
and as 11. tuv Cv'^'' Kiv^aecos in have been inserted after the
the Be Ccelo, ii. 2, 284, b, 13, cf. books were complete, it is possi-
Ingr. An. c. 4, 5, c. 2, 704, b, 18; ble that Aristotle may have
yet it itself cites (c. 5, 706, b, 2) inserted them. Alex. p. 183, on
the Part. An. iv. 9, 684, a, 14,34, De Sc7isu, I.e., remarks that a
as an earlier work. According book on Plants by Theophrastus
to its concluding words in c. 19 was extant, but none by Ari-
(which, as already suggested at stotle. So Michael Ephes. on
p. 89, n. 2, may be spurious) it is Be Vita et M. 175 b, SiMPLicius
later than the IT. Cv^'^ tiopiwv, to Philop. &c. {ajjud Rose, At. Ps.
which also its introductory words 261, Heitz, Fr. Ar. 163) say the
seem to refer back; and yet it is contrary, but we need not sup-
frequently cited in that work, pose they .spoke from personal
and at its close {Part. An. 697, knowledge of the n. <pvTuv.
b, 29) there is no hint of an Quintil. (xii. 11, 22) proves no-
essay on Movement as still to thing for, and Cic. (^Fin. v. 4, 10)
come. Probably it was, in fact, nothing, their genuine-
composed while the larger work ness. What Athen. (xiv. 652 a,

was in progress. The tract n. 653 d, &c.) cites from them (Ar.
^(fwv Kivi\<Ti(i3s hardly be
can Fr. 250-4) may as probably be
authentic among other reasons,
; taken from a false as from a
because it cites the n. iri/eu^oTos genuine book. The two Aristo-
(cf. p. 89, n. 3/w.). Rose {Ar. telian references mentioned make
lAhr. Ord. 163 sq.) and Brandis it,however, overwhelmingly pro-
(ii. b, 1, p. 1271, 482) declare it bable that Aristotle did write
spurious Barth61emy St. Hilaire
: two books on Plants, which were
still extant in the time of what Aristotle elsewhere says, or
Hermippus, though they were promises to discuss in his n.
afterwards displaced by the more (pvToov we know how con-
: for
elaborate work of Theophrastus stantly the earlier Peripatetics
(so Heitz, Ar. Fr. 250, and adopted the teaching and the
Verl. Schrift. 61, though Rose, very words of Aristotle. On
Ar. Ps. 261, thinks the books by the other hand, the only passage
Theophrastus were ascribed to cited verbally from Aristotle's
Aristotle). According to Antt- books (Athen. xiv. 652 a, aj).
GONUS (MiraMl. c. 169, cf. 129, Ar. Fr. 250) is not in those of
aj). Ar. Fr. 253, Fr. Hz. 223) Theophrastus, so far as we have
Callimachus as well as Theo- them and the latter contain no

phrastus seems to have borrowed direct reference to any of the

from these two books. So did Aristotelian writings a circum-
the compiler of the *uTz/fo, as to stance which would be incredible
which Pollux, x. 170 (^ap. Ar. Fr. in a work so extensive which
252, Fr. Hz. 224) could not say touched at so many points the
whether they belonged to Theo- earlier Aristotelian treatises. The
phrastus or to Aristotle, but very passage {Cans. PI. vi. 4, 1)
which no doubt, like the ^coi'/cct in which Jessen finds one main
mentioned at p. 88, svpra, w^ere proof of his theory points to
compiled by a later disciple for several later modifications of an
lexicographical purposes. In like Aristotelian doctrine which had
manner, Athenteus and other arisen in the School after his
similar collectors also used these death. Theophrastus, in con-
books Rose and Heitz,
(cf. trast with Aristotle's view, speaks
ihid.^ and they sometimes dis-
; of male and female plants (cf.
tinguish between the phrases Caus. PI. i. 22, 1, Hist. iii. 9, 2,
used by Aristotle and by Theo- &c.). But a decisive argument is
phrastus (^Ar. Fr. 254, Fr. to be found in the fact that not
Hz. 225).
The two extant only does the text of Theo-
books n. (pvTcov are emphatically phrastus speak of Alexander and
un-Aristotelian. In the older his Indian expedition in a way
Latin text they have passed {Hist. iv. 4, 1, 5, 9, Caus. viii. 4,
already through the hands of 5) which would be hardly possi-
two or three translators. Meyer ble in Aristotle's lifetime, but it
(Pref. to NicoL. Dam. De Plan- also refers to what happened in
us, ii. ed. 1841) ascribes them in the time of King Antigonus
their original form to Nicolaus of {Hist. iv. 8, 4) and the Archons
Damascus, though possibly they Archippus, B.C. 321 or 318 {Hist.
are only an extract from his book, iv. 14, 11) and Nicodorus, B.C.
worked over by a later hand. 314 {Cam. i. 19, 5). It would
Jessen's suggestion (Phein. Mns. likewise be clear on a full com-
1859, vol. xiv. 88) that Aristotle's parison that the diction and
genuine work is contained in the manner of statement in the Theo-
work of Theophrastus is in no phrastic books makes it impossi-
way support ed by the fact that ble to attribute them to Ari-
the latter closely agrees with stotle.

field of work, such as the Anthropology,^ the Physiogno-

mies,^ the works on Medicine,^ Agriculture,'' and Hunt-

* ^AvdpwTTov (pv(T^(i}$, only

n. For the little that remains of it,
named in An. Ajyj). 183. There see Rose, Ar. Ps. 384 sq., Ar. Fr.
are a few items which seem to 335-341, p. 1534; Fr. Hz. 216,
have belonged to this tract, apvd but on Fr. 362 cf. p. 88, svpra.
EOSE, Ar. Ps. 379, Ar. Fr. 257- The genuineness of these wri-
264, p. 1525, Ft. Hz. 189 sq. tings, or at least of some of them,
- ^vffioyvcofjLoviKa (Bekker,
805), cannot be maintained. That Ari-
[-Khv a' in D. 109, but -ko )3' in stotle held that medical subjects
An. 97]. An extended recen- should be treated in a technical
sion of this work is indicated by way, and not from the point of
the numerous references to view of natural science, is evi-
physiognomic theories not to be dent from his own declaration
found in our text, which occur in which he makes, p. 9, 1 Jin. (cf.
a treatise on Physiognomy writ- Pe Sens%(, i. 1, 436, a, 17 ; Longit.

ten probably by Apuleius {apud V. 464, b, 32 ; Pe Bespir. c. 21,

Rose, Anecd. Gr. 61 sq. cf Fr. ; . fin. Part. An. ii. 7, 653, a, 8),

Hz. 191, and ROSE,^?-. Ps. 696 sq.). and such an indefinite statement
* D. mentions two books of as that of ^lian ( V. H. ix. 22)
'larpiKd the ANON, two books IT.
: cannot prove the contrary. As
larpiKrjs ibid. APP. 167, seven
: to the composition IT. v6(tov kuI
books n. larpiKTJs: Pt. 70 five vyiias see p. 91 jin. Galen (as
books of UpofiK-fffiara tarpt/ca (from Heitz ifnd. justly remarks) can
which it appears that the larpiKo. have known no composition of
in the list of Diog. were also Aristotle on medical science,
problems, book i. of our extant since he never mentions any
Problems being made up of such such, although he quotes the
medical questions and answers) : philosopher more than six hun-
Vita Mare. p. 2 R, UpofiX-fiixara dred times.
larpiKh Pt. 71 IT. Sia'nrjs
: ibid. :
^ An. 189 mentions the TewpyiK^

74 b, De Pnlsu ibid. 92, one : amongst the Pseudepigrapba.

book larpiKhs : Hadschi Khalfa Pt. 72, on the other hand, gives 15
ajj. Wenrich, p. 159, Pe San- (or 10) books Pe Agricnltura as
gninis Profimone Coel. Aurel. : genuine, and the statement in
Celer. Pass. ii. 13, one book Pe Geopon. iii. 3, 4 {Ar. Fr. 255
Adjutoriis (perhaps a mistake sq. p. 1525) on the manuring
in the name). Galen in Hippocr. of almond-trees seems to have
Pe Nat. Horn., i. 1, vol. xv. 25 K, been taken from this, and not
knows of an 'larpiK^ (xwaywy^ in from the treatise on plants.
several books, bearing Aristotle's Rose (^Ar. Ps. 268 sq. Hz. Fr. ;

name, which was nevertheless 165 sq.) mentions other things

recognised as being the work of which may perhaps have come
his pupil, Meno and this is pos- ; from this source. That Aristotle
sibly identical with the l^vvaywyii did not write about agriculture
in two books named by Diog. 89 or similar subjects is clear
(as Wenrich, p. 158, from Polit. i. 11, 1258, a, 33, 39.

ing,^ are,withoiit exception, spurious. The Prohlems^

are no doubt based on Aristotelian materials ;
^ but our
extant collection under that name can only be described
as a set of gradually gathered and unequally developed
productions of the Peripatetic school, which must

have existed in many other forms parallel to our own.^

In the Index of Ptolemy, of the 10th century. The cha-
No. Hadschi Khalfa gives
23, racter ascribed in the text to the
(n. Twv <l>(t)\ev6vr(av) De Aid- : collection of Problems may

maliuni Captii/ra, nee non de also explain the many varying

Lods, quibus deversantur atqve statements as to its title and the
deliPjscnnt, i. number of books it included.
2 With regard to this treatise In the ]MSS. they are sometimes
see the exhaustive article by called UpofiXiifiara, sometimes
Prantl Ueb. d. Probl. d. Arist.'
' ^vffiKo. irpofiX'fjfj.aTa, and some-
among the Abh. d. Mimeh. times with the
addition /cot'
Akad. vi. 341-377 KOSE, Arist. ; e?5os (rvuayioyrjs (' arranged in
Lihr. Ord. 199 sqq. Ar. Ps. 215 ; accordance with the matter').
sqq. Heitz, Verl. Sehr. 103
; Gellius generally says, Proble-
sqq., Fr. Ar. 194 sqq. mata (xix, 4), Prob. ^jhysica (xx.
3 Aristotle refers in seven 4, quoting Probl. xxx. 10) Ilpo- :

places to the TlpofiK^ixaTa or )3A7jyuaTo ijKVKXia Apul. (^De;

UpofiX-nfMariKa (PeANTL, iUd. 364 Magia, c. 51) has Problemata\

sq. l7id. Ar. 103, b, 17 sqq.),
Athenfeus and ApoUonius iy\d.
but only one of these quotations Indices and Prantl, 390 sq.) al-
suits to a certain extent the ways IIpofi\'fjiu.aTa
<pv(nKd Macrob. ;

extant ' Problems and the same

' (Sat. vii. 12) Physicce qtuestianes.
is true (PR. ibid. 367 sqq.) of the To collections of problems are
majority of the later references. also referable the titles ^vctikQv :

* Prantl, i&i^. has abundantly Xf]' Karh aroix^lov (D. 120, An.
proved this, and he has also 110 as to the words k. o-rotx-, the

shown QTiinch. Gel. Anz. 18.58, explanation of which in Rose,

No. 25) that among the 262 fur- At. Ps. 215, is not clear, they are
ther problems which are given by to be understood of the arrange-
Bassemaker in vol. iv. of the ment of the different books in
Didot edition of Aristotle, and the alphabetical order of their
some of which were at one headings); npojSX^/iaTa (68 or 28
time erroneously ascribed to B, Pt. 65) 'EiriTe6afi4v(i}v irpo-

Alexander of Aphrodisias (cf. ^Xt]lx6.Twv jS' (D. 121, An. 112):

USENER, Alex. Aphr. Probl., Lib. 'E7Ku/fAiW )8' (D. 122, An. 113,
iii., iv., Berl. 1859, p. ix. sqq.), npofi\^IJ.ara iyKvK\. 4 bks., Pt.
there is probably nothing written 67) Physica Probleinata, Adspec-

by The same is true

Aristotle. tiva Prohl. (Ammon. Latin.
of those which Kose {Ar. Ps. p. 58); "AraKTu ifi' (D. 127.
666 sqq.) takes from a Latin MS. [ajSmTa/cTCDj' ifi' An. 119). I^te-

Turning to Ethics and Politics, we have on the

former subject three comprehensive works,' of which,
missa Qiccestionibus (Pt. 66, says and then again in the Appendix
the Greek title is hrbimatu brua-

174 : n. y]Bu)V (-ikwv) N iKOfiax^it^'v
graiva^ i.e. Upo^\r]fidT(i)v irpo- virod-fiKas(which seems to be an
ypa<f>ii, or 'n.poavaypa<f)-f)) ; l.vfxfi'iK- extract from the same work) Pt. ;

T(i)v ^rtTiqixd.rwv ofi' (AN. 66 with 30 sq. the Great Ethics in two
the additional clause &s <pi](riv Ei/-
: books, the Eudemian Ethics in
Kaipos 6 oKovariis aurou) David ; eight. Aristotle himself quotes
(Schol. in Ar. 24, b, 8) also speaks {Metaph. i. 1, 981, b, 25, and
of 70 books n. (rvfjLuiKTwv (ifr'n/xd- in six passages of the Politics^
rwu, and the Vita Marc. p. 2, R of the T\QiKa, meaning doubtless the
*v<rtKo irpo^X-fiuara in 70 books ;
Nicomachean Ethics (cf. Ben-
(or 'E|TjTO(rAieVo) kotoi
'ElTjyTj/ieVa DiXEN in PJdlologus x. 203,
7eVos (D. 128, AN. 121). With
.5' 290 sq. ; Ind. Ar. 103, b, 46
regard to the Tlpofi\i]ixaTafi'i]xo.viKa, sqq., and 101, b, 19 sqq,). Cic,
oTTTiKa, larpiKa, cf. p. 86, n. 1, and (^Fin. V. 5, 12) believes that the
95, n. 3. The spurious composi- Lih'i de Morilnis of Nicomachus
tion n. irpofi\T]iJ,dTuv, to which be- are ascribed to Aristotle, inas-
sides D. 51 (and also An. 48, much as the son would write
although the ire pi is here wanting) very much like his father. Dio-
Alex. Top. 34, Schol. in Ar. 258, a, genes also (viii. 88) quotes Eth.
16, also refers, seems to have con- N. X. 2 with the words tp-naX Se :

tained a theory as to setting and NiK6fjLaxos 6 'ApitTTOTiKovs. On the

answering problems. See Rose, other hand Atticus {apud EUS.
Ar. Ps. 126, Fragm. 109, p. 1496,* Pr. Ev. XV. 4, 6) gives all three
Fr. Hz. 115. On the other hand, Ethics with their present names
book XXX. of our Problems cannot as Aristotelian; likewise Simpl.
well be meant (as Heitz, 122, be- in Cat. 1, C. 43, e and Schol. Por-
lieves) by the iyKvKXia, Eth. N. 1, phyr. Schol. in Ar. 9, b, 22, who
3, 1096, a, 3. Aristotle seems says the Eudemian Ethics were
rather to indicate what he calls addressed to Eudemus, the M7oAa
in other places i^urepiKol \6yoi, Nj*co/icix*a (^I- Mor.) to Nico-
and Be Co'lo, i. 9, 279, a, 30 Ta machus the father, and the MiKpa
iyKVK\ia (piXoffotpiifiara. Cf. Ber- NiKOfidxia (Eth. JV.) to Nicoma-
NAYS, Dial, of Arist. 85, 93 sqq. chus, the son of Aristotle. The
171 ; BONITZ, Ind. Ar. 105, a, 27 same story is told by David,
sqq. More on this infra. Sekol. in A r. 25, a, 40. Eustrat.
' 'HOiKa NiKOfxdxeia 10 B., (in Eth. N. 141, a cf. Arist. Eth. ;

'HdiKo. EvS-fifiia 7 B., *H0tKO /jLeydha End. vii. 4 init. c. 10, 1242, b, 2)
2 B. Of our catalogues D. 38 speaks of the Eudemian Ethics
only names 'HBikwv c' al. 5' (al- as the work of Eudemus, that is

though DiOG. elsewhere (Vita, to say, he repeats this statement

21) cites the seventh book of the after one of the earlier writers
Ethics in connection with Eth. whom he used (cf. p. 72, b), and
End. vii. 12, 1245, b, 20) An. who was, it would seem, not alto-

39 has 'H0ikS>v k (e.g. the Eth. gether unlearned on the other :

Nic, the last book of which is ), hand, on his own supposition, or



however, only one the Nicomachean Ethics is of

directly Aristotelian authorship.^ A mass of smaller
following an equally worthless that, after the corresponding sec-
authority (1, b, m), he represents tions of the Eudemian Eth. were
IJth. JV. as dedicated to a certain lost at an early period, thej' were
Nicomachus, and Mh. Eud. to a employed to fill up the blanks in
certain Eudemus. A Scholion also the Eudemian Eth.; he is in-
which is attributed to Aspasius clined to look upon the treatise
{rid. Spengel On the Ethical Wri-
' on pleasure, Nic. vii. 12 sqq.,
tings under the name of Aristotle,' which Aspasius also attributes to
in the Abh. d. Miinch. ATtad. iii. Eudemus (see preceding note,
439-551, p. 520, cf. ' Schol. in Ar. fin.), as a fragment of the Eude-
Eth.' Class. Joujiialy vol. xxix. mian Ethics (p. 518 sqq.), but
117) must suppose Eudemus to without wishing to exclude the
be the author of the Eudemian possibility of its being a sketch
Ethics, since on this supposition intended by Aristotle for tbe
alone can he attribute the trea- Nicomachean Eth., and later on
tise on Pleasure to him, JSth. N. replaced by x. 1 sqq. In his A rist.
vii. 12 sqq. The Commentaries Stud. i. 20 (against which Walter
known to us (by Aspasius, Alex- argues in Die Lelire v. d. lyrakt.
ander, Porphyry, Eustratius) are Vernunft, 88 sqq.) Nio. vi. 13 is
concerned only with the Nico- also attributed to Eudemus, On
machean Ethics. For further the other hand Fischer (i)^ Etidcis
materials, cf. Spengel, ibid. 445 Eudem. et JVicom. Bonn, 1847),
sqq. and with him also Fritzsche
'Schleiermacher (' On the CArist. Eth. Eud. 1851, Prolegg.
Ethical Works of Aristotle,' for xxxiv.) refer onlyiV7c. v. 1-14 to
1817, W. W. Z. Philos. iii. 306 the Nicomachean, and JVie. v. 15,
sqq.) gave it as his opinion that, vi., vii., to the Eudemian Ethics.

of the three ethical works, the Grant (Etfdcs of Aristot. i. 49

so-called Great Ethics is the sqq.) refers the whole of these
oldest, and the Nicomachean three books to the Eudemian
Ethics the latest, but the treatise whilst Bendixen(PA?Zo%?/s, x.l99
of Spengel already cited makes sqq., 263 sqq.) on the contrary, for
the opposite \dew clear, viz. that reasons worthy of note, defends
the genuine work of Aristotle the Aristotelian origin of the
is the Nicomachean Ethics, that whole, including vii. 12-15.
the Eudemian Ethics is a supple- Brandis {Gr.-r'6m. Phil.ii. b, 1555
mentary work by Eudemus, and sq.), Prantl {D. dia?io'et. Tvgenden
that the Great Ethics is an ex- d. Ar. Miinch. 1852, p. 5 sqq.),
tract taken directly from the Eu- and in the main also Ueberweg
demian. But the position of ( Gesch. d. Phil. i. 177 sq. 5th ed.),
the three books which are and Rassow (Forsch. iih. d. nikorti.
common to the Nicomachean and Ethik, 26 sqq. cf. 15 sqq.) agree
Eudemian Ethics {Nic. v.-vii., wdth the conclusions of Spengel;
End. iv.-vi.) is still a moot the last-named with this modi-
point. Spengel (480 sqq.) be- fication, which has much to
lieves that they belong originally support it, that Mc. v.-vii.,
to the Nicomachean Eth., but though essentially Aristotelian,


tracts is also named, ^ but probably few of them were

genuine. Of tbe sociological writings only one the
has been submitted to the after- and the title does not sound
work of another pen, and has Aristotelian. D. 61, An. 60 have
perhaps, in consequence of a also Tlddf] a. Further (besides
mutilation, been supplied from the mentioned on p. 59),
the Eudemian Ethics. 'Epwrl/fa (An. App. 181 Pt. 13, 3 ;

Such are (besides the Dia-

B.) and 4 B. of eVeis ipwriKul
logues mentioned on p. 56, n. 1, (D. 71, An. 66 Pt. 56, 1 B.) are

59 sq., n. diKaioavvrjs, 'EpcoriKhs, mentioned, both of them doubt-

n. irXoinov, 11. ei7v.'os and 11. less equally spurious. An. 162
ri^ovT^s), the following the small : reckons n. au}<ppo<Tvvr]s among the
composition, still extant, Tl. Pseudepigrapha. n. <piXias a'
apTU)v KoX KaKiuv (^AHst. 0pp.
(D. 24, AN. 24, Pt. 25) is sup-
1249-1251), which is the work of posed not to be a copy from Fth.
a half -Academic, half -Peripatetic A\ viii. ix., but a special treatise,
Eclectic, hardly earlier than the which can hardly be genuine.
tirst century before Christ Ilpo- ; Still less can Aristotle have
Tatrets tt. operas (D. 34, AN. 342) ;
been the author of eVejs <piXiKa\
n. aper^s (An. ^7>|/>. 168); SiKaiuv 11. ^ (D. 72, An. 67). Of the
/3' (D. 76, An. 64 Pt. 11, 4 B.) two writings n. ffv/xfiidxreus avSpds

n. Tov fieXriouos a' (D. 53, An. Kal yvvaiKds (AN. Apjj. 165)
50) ; n. Kov(riov {-icDv) a' (D. 68, and Nocuous (-oi) auSpos /col ya/xe-
An. 58) n. TOV alperov koI rod
; Trjs (ibid. IG6), the former is men-
ffvixPfir]K6TOS a' (D. 58 11. o/peToO ; tioned by other writers several
Koi avfjifiaivovros, An. 56). It is times (e.g. by Clemens, Olympio-
not probable that Aristotle com- dor., and David in the passages
posed a treatise n. iviOvfitas given by Rose, Ar. Fs. 180 sq.,
In the beginning of the Be Se?is7(, Ar. Fr. 178 sq., p. 1507). Rose (Be
he proposes future researches into Ar. Libr. Ord. 60 sqq.) has pointed
the faculty of desire, but we do out two Latin translations of these
not hear that they were carried N(5/iot (or the writing IT. irvfifii<*><T.f
out what we find in Seneca (Be
; if both are not merely different
i. 3. 9, 2, 17, 1, iii. 3, l)may titles of the same book) which
more probably have been con- profess to be the second book
tained in the writing n. vaduv of the Economics see Ar. Psevd.

(or -ovs) oprns (D. 37, An. 30), 644 sqq. Fr. Hz. 153 sqq. Plu-

the supposed remnants of which tarch, Athen^us, and others

Eose (At. Ps. 109 sqq., Ar. Fr. quote from a writing n. /i0Tjs,
94-97, No. 1492) and Heitz perhaps a dialogue cf. Rose, ;

(^Fr. 151 sq.) have put together. Ar. Ps. 116 sqq., Ar. Fr. 98-106,
Whether it was a dialogue (Rose) p. 1493 sq.; Fr. Hz. 64 sq. It was
or a treatise (Heitz) cannot with certainly not genuine it may ;

certainty be determined the ; have been identical with the

latter seems the more probable writing of the same name by
opinion. Its genuineness is, to Theophrastus (Heitz, ibid.), only
say the least, undemonstrable, in that case Athenaeus, who,
; ;


eight books of the Politics

is preserved ; but though
it contains some of his most mature and admirable
work it is unhappily left, like the Metaphysics, un-
finished.2 The (Economics cannot be considered
genuine.^ Of all the rest we have lost everything

in addition to these two, quotes ' Aristotle puts this work in

a third by Chamaeleon, must the closest connection with the
have been indebted for his quota- Ethics, by treating the latter as
tions to various writers, to whom auxiliary to politics (JEth. N.
it was known by different names i. 1, 1094 a, 26 sqq., 1095, a,
a not very probable supposition. 2, c.2 init. c. 13, 1102, a, 5, vii.
What is quoted from it is con- 12 init.;Rhet. i. 2, 1356, a, 26).
cerned, partly with historical, He expects from politics the
partly with physiological discus- realisation of the principles laid
sions whether drunkenness was
; down by Ethics (iUd. x. 10). But
regarded also from a moral point he does not mean both to be
of view we do not know. Nor do we merely two parts of one composi-
know any more as lo the contents tion (cf. Polit. vii. 1, 1323, b,
of the No^ot avaaniKoi (in the 39, c. 13, 1332, a, 7, 21, ii. 1, 1261,
MSS., of D. 139, ti6iios (TvarariKbs, a, 30, iii. 9, 1280, a, 18. c. 12,
of An. 130 'N6fMa>v (TvaroTiKuv a', 1282, b, 19). Even apart from
for the circumstance of the the citation Rhet. i. 8 Jin., and the
Platonic republic being mentioned mention of it in the catalogue (D.
in it (Procl, in Remj). 350, Ar. 75,An. 70), its genuineness can-
Fr. 177, p. 1507) gives us no not be doubted, however seldom
indication ; hence we cannot it isnamed by ancient writers
determine whether Rose {Ar. (see the remarks of Spengel,
Ps. 179) is right in supposing Ueb. d. Politik d. Arist.,' Ahh.
that there was a discussion in it d. Milnchn. Akad. v. 44 infra).
on the arrangement of, and good 2 For further information, see

behaviour at symposia, or Heitz the section on the political philo-

(Jr. Fr. 307), in believing that sophy of Aristotle, ch. xiii., infra.
it contained a collection of ^ Of the second book (as to

the customs relating to them. the beginning of which see EosE,

n. avaairiwv ^ avfiTroaiuv (AN. Arist. Lilr. Ord. 59 sq.) this has
App. 161) is identical with it long been admitted, but Gottling
not so, however, the three books (Arist. (Econ. p. vii. xvii.) con-
2 vcraiTiKuv irpofiXT]fidTO)v{ A N 1 36),
. siders the first to be a section of
the title of which makes us think a genuine Aristotelian writing
not so much of questions with it seems more probable that it is
regard to meals, as of questions the work of a later wTiter based
such as are proposed at a meal, on Polit. i. (See end of ch. xxi.,
like Plutarch's 'S.vjxvoffiaKo. irpo- infra.) D. 23, An. 17 name OIkovo-
fiX-flfiara. For the TlapayyeXfiara fiiKds (or -ov) of. Cf p. 99 supra on

cf. p. 72, n. 2Jifi. another pretended second book.



except a few fragments.^ Among them the loss of

1 The political writings named, ness of the work, which Eose

besides those quoted, are the (Ar.Idbr. Ord. 56 sq., Ar. Ps.
following: (1) TioXn^iai, a col- 395 sq.) disputes, has no weighty
lection of facts with regard to 158 arguments against it (as Heitz,
states (D. 145, An. 135, the text p. 246 sqq. shows); and even if
of which Bernays, Rh. Mus, the external evidence, of which
vii. 289, with the approval of that of TiM-a:us {^ajmd Polyb.
EosE, Ar. Ps. 394, has evidently xii. 5, 11) is the oldest produc-
improved), which, according to ible, did not utterly exclude
the fragments and the statements Eose's supposition that the work
of Cic. Fin. V. 4, 11, and Plut. was published and circulated in
N. P. Su. V. 10, 4 (who names his name soon after Aristotle's
the work kt'kths koX voKirfiai) death, nevertheless the internal
not only treated of the consti- improbability of that theory
tution, but also of the usages, would be much strengthened by it.
customs, situation of the towns, The declarations of David, ihid.,
the history of their foundation, and the Schol. to Porphyry's Isa-
their local traditions, &c. Pt. 81 goge {vid. Eose, Ar. Ps. 399, Ar.
gives the number of cities as 1 71 Fr. 1535) favour the supposition
(or 191, according to the view that the different states in the
of Herbelot, Bihl. Or. 971, a) Polities are taken in alphabetical
Ammon. V. At. 48 gives 255: order; and this explains why the
Amman. Lat. p. 56, Ps.-Porphyr. Athenians (according to Fr. 378, Ar. 9, b, 26, and where, however, the reading is
David, ihid. 24, a, 34, say 250, uncertain) are treated in the 1st
and Philop. ihid, 35, b, 19, about book, and the Ithacans in the
250, but the increase does not 42nd (Fr. 466). The circum-
seem to be founded on any later stance that the numerous frag-
extension of the collection, but ments all contain merely isolated
merely on clerical mistakes (cf notes, without reference to a
Eose, Ar. Ps. 394). Simpl. ( Categ. uniform complete treatise, will
2, y.Schol. 27, a, 43) seems by the not (as Eose, Ar. Ps. 395
words iv Tots yvrfffiais ai/rov iroKi- holds) serve as a proof of the
reiais to point to the existence of spuriousness of the work; but,
spurious Polities pv-q' (158) in-
in conjunction with the fact tliat
stead of yvrialais may be the true the Aristotelian writings nowhere
reading (Heitz, Ar. Fr. 219), refer to the work in question
though Ideler, Ar. Meteor, i., (for even Fth. N. x. 10, 1181,b, 17,
xii. 40 can hardly be right in sub- refers to the Politics ; cf Heitz,

stituting ^in(rToA.arsfor voKiniais). 231 sq.), supports the view

The numerous fragments of (Heitz, 233 sq.) that the Poli-
the large collection are found ties was not a literary com-
in MuLLER, Fragm. Hist. ii. 102 pleted whole, but a collection by
sqq. (cf BOURNOT, in Philolog. iv.
. Aristotle, for his own use, of
266 sqq.) EoSE, Ar. Ps. 402 sqq.
; facts which he had gathered
Ar. Fr. 34.S-560, p. 1535 sqq.; partly by personal observation
Fr. Hz. 218 sqq. The genuine- and inquiries, and partly from

Aristotle's collection of forms of government in various
cities, is simply irreparable.^
Our Poetics ^ is only a fragment ; but not even so
writings. copies
If this be so, UoXiTiKhs cf. p. 57; on n. ^aaiMias
would only be circulated after and 'TTrep axo'iKcov, p. 60, suh Jin. ;

his death. A
chapter out of the on n. p-fiTopos fi iroKiTiKov, p. 72,
UoMrda 'A0Tjj/aiwymay have given n. 2, towards the end on n. apxvs, ;

rise to the title IT. twv ^oAcovos p. 81, n, 1, Ji/i. on a bungling


a^ouwv (An. App. 14:0 :cf. MiJL- forgery of the Middle Ages, Se-
LER, ibid., 109, 12). A similar cretum secretorum (or, Aristotelis
collection was (2) the N6i/.ifia ad Alexandrum rcgem demorihns
PapfiapiKa, which are quoted under rege dignis), cf. Geier, Arist.
this title by Appollon. Mirabil. und Alex. 234 sq; Rose, Arist.
11 Varro, i. 1, vii. 70 An. App.
; ; Libr. Ord. ] 83 sq, A7\ Ps. 583 sq.
186 (vofilficov fiapP. (Tvuayooyi)') 'Since this was written the
from this title also the designa- Athenian noXireia has been re-
tions Nt^/iot a' fi' y' S' (D. 140), covered.
vofilfxwp S' (An. 131), seem to have 2 This writing, in our editions,

been wrongly transcribed. To is entitled IT. Troi-nTiKrjs. Aristot.


them the vofjufxa 'Pw/xaitav (An. himself mentions it in the Politics

Ai^p. 185) and the v6fji.i^iaTvpp-f)vSsv (viii. 7, 1841, b, 38), as a future
(Athen. i. 23, d) probably be- work in the Mhetoric (i. lljiji.,

longed. Among the few fragments iii. 1, 1404, a, 38, c. 2, 1404, b, 7,

{apnd Muller, ibid. 178 sqq.. 28, 1405, a, 5, c. 18, 1419, b, 5,

Rose, Ar.. Ps. 537 sqq., Ar. Fr. with which cf p. 74, n. 1), as al-

561-568, p. 1570, Fr. Hz. 297 sq.), ready existing, with these words :

Nos. 562, 563 and 564 can only be eV ro7s ire pi TronjTiKrjs, or (1404, b,
attributed to Aristotle under the 28) iu T. TT. jrot^a-eos. The Indices
supposition that he did not give name TIpayfjt.aTeias rexvis toitj-

their contents in his own name, tjktJs (D. 83), rexvns voirfT. )3'

but as traditions somewhere (An. 75), De arte j^oetica secun-

current. (3) The AiKaKa/xaTa dnvi disciplinavi PythagorcB, Pt.
iS)v irSKewv (Ammon. Biffer. Fr. (this addition is caused by
Vocab., N^ey) or Aik. 'EWtivldccv the combination of two different
Marc. p. 2, R) seem
ir6\a)v ( V. titles: cf. Rose, Ar. Ps. 194).
to have dealt with quarrels Ps.-Alex. Soph. El. Schol. in
between the Hellenic states and Ar. 299, b, 44, has 4v Tcp ir. itojtjt. ;

their settlement; they are also likewise Herm. in Phcedr. Ill,

named more briefly AiKaidixara and AsT, h t^ it. it. ; 8IMPL. Cat.
(D. 129, An. 120, Harpocrat. Schol. 43, a, 13, 27: iv t(? it. tt.


Apvfios). The QeffeisTToXiTiKal David, iUd. 25, b, 19, rh v. it. ;

j8'(An. 69 the same is the right

; on the other hand Ammon. Be
reading in D. 74) were in any case interjyr. Schol. 99, a, 12, eV toIs
spurious. The Anon. 5 applies IT. vol.; Boeth. interpr. 290, Be
the name n. iroXiTtKrjs to the Gryl- in lihi'is q\ios de arte poetica
los,but that must be a mistake scrijjsit. The more ancient au-
(see above, p. 59). On the thorities are acquainted with two
; ;


mucli as this remains of Aristotle's other contributions

to the theory and history of Art or of his dissertations
on the poets. ^ Nor is there much left of the other
books on Poetry (a tMrd is men- come after chap. 18), which suf-
tioned only in the quotations ficiently prove that we
only pr s-
given on p. 58, n. 1, with regard sess Aristotle's work in a niuti-
to the writing IT. n-otT/TaJj/), the lated and hopelessly corrupt con-
more modern only with one dition. We cannot here inquire
except in so far as they copy how its present condition may be
more ancient writers, as we must explained (Susemihl, ibid., p. 3
suppose was the case with Am- sq., gives an enumeration of the
monius and Boethius. From different, and in part widely di-
this alone we might suppose that verging attempts at explanation).
the writing in question origic ally It may be true, as Susemihl
had a greater extension than it concludes, that the carelessness
now has, but this becomes certain of the writing, the caprice of
from the references to such the copyists, and the freaks of
parts of it as are missing in our accident account for most of the
recension, as for instance the mischief; but we cannot make
discussion on the Catharsis pro- these factors responsible for the
mised in Polit. viii. 7, 1341, b, 38, interpolations, except in so far as
which would naturally have come they may have rendered possible
in the section on Tragedy, and, the introduction of some mar-
as we learn from sure traces, ginal notes into the text.
actually did occur there (cf. '
Of the Dialogue n. toitjtwj/
Been AYS, ' Grundz. d. Abb. d. y' we have already spoken on p.
AriPt. iib. d. Wirkung d. Trag.' 58. Besides this An. 115 gives
Ahh. d. hist.-phil. Ges. in Breslav, KvkKov it. TrojTjTwv, likewise in
160 sqq., 197 sq. Susemihl, p.
; three books. This title may have
12; Vahlen, p. 81 sq. of his arisen, by duplication and cor-
edition, and others); the exam- ruption, from that of the Dia-
ination of Comedy, promised logue, or it may (according to
Poet. c. 6 init., and quoted Heitz, 178) designate a work
Rhet^ i. 11 fin., of which Bernays distinct fi'om it but the kvkKov

{Rk. Mns. viii. 561 sqq.) has may also have sprung from the
pointed out valuable remnants in ^iyKvKKiov' (or -Iccv) which is
Cramer's Anecd. Paris., vol. i, app. found in No. 113. Allied to it, it
(now in Susemihl, p. 208 sq., Vah- would seem, are n. rpaycpSicov a'
len, 76 sq.) and the discussion on
; (D. 136, An. 128) and Kw/xiko\
Synonyms, which Simpl. men- (Erotian, A^xjj. Voc. Hippocr. s.
tions, Categ. Schol. 43, a, 13, 27. v. 'HpaK\. v6<Tov). Miiller (Hist.
In other places also our text Gr. ii. 82), though not rightly,
shows many greater or smaller takes the AiSaaKuKiai (D. 137
gaps, as also interpolations (as c. An. 129 Rose, Ar. Ps. 550 sq.,

12 and many smaller ones), and Ar. Fr. 576-587, p. 1572 sq. ;

inversions (the most considerable Heitz, 256, Fr. Hz. 302 sq.),
that of chap. 1 5, which ought to seemingly a chronological cat a-
; ;


books named to us^ which dealt with subjects outside!

the main lines of the Aristotelian system ; ^ and among}

logue based on the existing in- Hist. ii. 188 sqq.) cannot bej
scriptions of the tragedies per- maintained. More ancient seems *

formed in Athens as a part of to be the book n. fiovffiKrjs, which <

the book on tragedies. Fur- both DiOG. (116, 132) and An.J
ther, a series of writings relating (104, 124) give us in two places,
to poets is named, which took and which is identical with the
the form of problems 'ATro/jTjfca- : musical problems noticed by
rwv iroirjTiKwv a' (AN. Aj)j). 14.5) ;
Labbeus, Pibl. nova, 116 (see
Alrlai TToirjTiKai {ibid. 146, Brandis, ii. b, 94) but it is no ;

ojTiotseems to indicate the form more genuine than the 11.

of treatment which is proper to KaKov (D. 69, An. 63, n. k6.\-
the dirop^jUOTO or irpofiA-fffiara, viz. Kovs).
* To these belong certain minor,
that the Sjci tI is sought, and the
reply consists in giving the StoVi mostly historical works, 'OAu/uirto-
or the oiTJo) ^AiroprffidTajv 'O/xr?-
; vlKai a' (D. 130, An. 122); Uv-
piK&v C (I^. 118; An. 106 ('; BioviKuv e\eyxot a' (D. 134 and
Heitz, 268 sq., Fr. Hz. 129; probably also An. 125) nvOiovlKai ;

KOSE, Ar. Ps. 148 sq., Ar. Fr. a' (D. 131, An. 123, with the
137-175, p. 1501 sq.) or, as the strange title, TlvdiovlKas ^ifiKiov
Vita Marc. p. 2. names it, 'Ojit. v ^ 'M.ivaixfJ^ov iv'iKTja-ev) ; UvOiKhs
^TjT^^OTO ; Upofi^Tjjj.a.Tiov 'Ofirjpi- a' (D. 133), possibly only a dif-
kS)v i' (An.147; Ptol.
A2fjp. ferent title for the same writing
91 Ammon. V. Ar. 44
; Amm. ; NiKot AiovvffiaKal a' (D. 135, An.
Lat. 54, probably a duplication 126, NlKWJ/ AlOV. affTlKUV Koi Atj-
of the oiropirj/iOTo) 'Airop-fi/xaTa; vaiwv a'). About these writings
'li<n65ov a' (An. Ajrp. 143) cf. Rose, Ar. Ps. 545 sqq., Ar.
'Airop. ^Apx^^oxov, EvpnTidovs, Fr. 572-574, p. 187; Heitz, 254
XoipiKov i {ibid. 144). To these sq., Fr. Hz. 300 sq.; Muller,
the 'Airop-fifiaTa 0to (An. 107) Hist. Gr. ii. 182 sq. Further
seem also to belong. The trea- n. vpT}fidT(t3u (Clemens, Strom.
tise Et Se TTore "O/njpos iiroiria-cv
: i. 308, A, where, however, an Ari-

ras 'H\iov fiovs ; (An. Aj)p. 142), stotelian work with this title
is no doubt only one of the Hom- which could not be genuine
eric problems.
Of these writings seems to be designated notes :

the ones which are more likely which may have come from the
to have an Aristotelian origin work are given by Muller, ibid.
are the Queries on Homer but ; 181 sq.). n. davfiaff'CcovaKovarixdTwv
even these may have had later quoted by Athen. (xii. 541 ; cf.
additions made to them. On the avfi. aK. c. 96) and, with the title
other hand the genuineness of iv davfxa<riois, perhaps also by An-
the neVA-os (An. 105 An. Apj). ; TIGON. Mirabil. c. 25 (cf. @avfi.
169 ; EosE, Ar. Ps. 568 sqq., Ar. aKova/jL. c. 30), a collection of

Fr. 594-600, p. 1574 sq.; Fr. strange phenomena,' the genuine-

Hz. 309 sqq.; cf. Bergk, Lyr. ness of which cannot be admitted.
Gr. 505 sqq. MuLLBR, Fragm.
; For further information on this


these also there is no doubt that many spurious titles

have crept in.

B. General Questions touching the Aristotelian


On a general survey of the works which are preserved

or known to us as Aristotelian, it is evident that they
apart from the letters and poems were of two different
kinds. The component parts of our Co-piis Ari-
stotelicum are without exception didactic treatises in
scientific form.* And almost all of these which can
be called genuine are, as will be seen, connected
together by express references in a way that is only to
be explained by the theory that they were addressed to
one circle of readers as the connected and mutually ex-
planatory parts of one whole. It is quite different in
the case of the writings which were afterwards styled
hypomnematic '
notes, that is to say, made by
work see Westermann, Ilopa- Schr. 163 sq. Fragm. 219) is

So^6ypa<poi, p. XXV. sqq., and espe- doubtful whether there was an

cially Rose, Ar. Lihr. Ord. 64 Aristotelian work on this subject,
sq., Ar. Pseud, 279 sq., who We cannot prove whether the
refers the main body of the references in Eustath. in Od.
work, consisting of chaps. 1-114, N 408 and Synes. Enc. Calvlt.
130-137, 115-129, 138-181, to c. 22 (^r. Fr. No. 454, No. 2)
the middle of the third century, belong to this or to other works.
An enlarged treatment of this, or In addition to these there
a more extensive specimen of the are two titles which are so
same sort of work, is perhaps the indefinite that they furnish no
napa5o|a, from the second book of safe clue to the contents of the
which Plut. {Parall. Gr. et Rom. writings to which they corre-
c. 29, p. 312) quotes something spond: napo)8oA.ol(D. 126); "Atok-
which is not found in our au/t. ra (to which irpo^A-fuxara or inro-
OK, Uapoifiiai a' (D. 138; cf. An. fitrfi/Aara may be supplied) i^ (D.
127), a collection of proverbs, the 127 cf p. 96, foot),
; .

existence of which seems to be ' The' wonderful stories' are

proved, i7iter alia, by Athen. ii. perhaps the only exceptions, but
60 d, although Heitz ( Verl. they are not Aristotelian.
: n


Aristotle merely for his own use, and therefore not

thrown by him into any such literary form and unity
as the works designed for publication.^ None of the
extant works which are genuine is of this class,^ but
several of those which are lost seem to have belonged
to it.^ From these two classes of works, however, there
is to be distinguished a third. Cicero, Quintilian, and
Dionysius of Halicarnassus praise Aristotle not only for
scientific greatness, but equally for the grace and rich-
ness of his exposition the
' golden stream of his
speech.' '*
This must have referred to works designed

* Simpl. (in Categ. Schol. in our Corpus were intended to serve

Ar. 24, a, 42) vTrofj.vT]nariKa ocra
: as the basis for lectures, or were
trphs vTTOjxvqcriv oiKilav Koi trX^iova compiled from them, they would
fiacravov (rvvera^ev 6 (piXoffocpos : not on that account be merely
these writings cannot, however, ' hypomnematical writings.'

be taken as TrduTr) (rnovdrjs &|ia, ^ E.g., those mentioned on

and hence we inav not draw from p. 62, n. 4, 5, and perhaps also the
them any proofs for the Ari- Polities (p. 101); whether the
stotelian doctrine 6 fieuroi 'AAe|-
: Tldpl TayaOov is also one (as al-
avSpos ra virofiVT^ixaTiKo. (TVjjiirecpvp- ready noted on p. 61, n. 2 Jin.),
fifva (pr](r\v elvai Kal fi^ irphs eVa seems doubtful.
(TKoirhp ava^epeaOai, and for this * Cic. Toj). 1,3: the works
very reason the others are dis- of Aristotle are not only recom-
tinguished from them as a-vuray- mended by their contents, sed
fiariKa. David {Schol. 24, a, 38) dicendi quoque incredibili qita-
vTroixv7)ixaTiKa, fikv Xiyovrai iv ols dam cunt copia tiivi etiam suari-
/jLOva TO. Ke(pd\aia airf/pdcpTOffav tate. De Invent, ii. 2, 6 (on the
Si'xo irpooi/xicoy Kal iinhoyuv Koi 2uj/a77^ rexvSov) Aristotle has

Tr\s iKhda^civ airayy^-

TrpeTTOutrrjs left the old orators suaritate et
\ias. Cf. Heitz, Verl. Schr. 24 hrei-itate dice?idi far behind. Ue
sq. Orat. i. 11, 49 si item Ari^toteles,

The Problems, which might

2 si TJieoplirastiis, si Carneades . . .

occur as an instance, cannot have eloquentes et in dicendo si/ares

been written down for his own use atqiie ornatifuere. Be Fin. i. 5,
alone, since Aristotle often quotes 14 (on Epicurus) quod ista Pla-

them (see above, p. 96), thereby tonis AHstotelis Theophrasti

implying that the}"" are known to orationis ornamenta neglexerit.
his readers. Other instances, such Acad.\\. 38, 119: reniet flume
as the Melissus, etc., cannot be orationis aureum fundens Ari-
supposed genuine. Even if it be stoteles.QuiNTiL. Inst. xi. 83 :

true that particular portions of quid Aiistotelem ? Quern duhito


by him for publication. It is not applicable to any of

those which are now extant ; and of these, indeed, the
two Latin writers probably knew but a small part.^
We are driven to suppose, therefore, that it was to other
works, lost to us, that they ascribed this kind of excel-
lence. The critic who judges of literary form by purely
scientific criteria will find, it is true, much to praise in
our extant Aristotle. He will acknowledge the apt dis-
crimination of all his ideas, the inimitable precision
and compactness of his diction, and his masterly
handling of an established terminology. But of the
qualities which Cicero emphasises, or any graceful move-
ment of a rich and rolling eloquence, he will find even
in the most popular of the extant books but little trace ;

while in other parts the dry methods of treatment, the

rough brevity of statement, the involved construction
of long sentences, often broken by anacolutha and
parentheses, stand in plain contradiction to Cicero's
description. We can, however, gather for ourselves,
even from the scanty fragments of the lost books, that

some of these were written in a style far more rich and

scientia rerum an scr'q)torum books. Of the others, however,
copia an eloqnendl siiaritate . . . Cicero used several of the writ-
clarlorem piitem. Dionys. De ings mentioned on p. 55 sqq., the
Verb. Cop. 24 of the philoso-
: books on Philosophj^ the Eude-
phers, Democritus, Plato, and mus, the Protreptievs, perhaps
Aristotle are the best as to style, also the TioXniKhs^ n. ^aa-iKeias
De Cens. Vet. Script. 4 irapa- : and IT. irXovrov cf Fin. ii. 1 3,
; .

A-TjirTcW 56 Koi ^Api(TroT(\r] els 40; Acad. ii. SS, 119; N. D. ii.
/xi/xtjcriv Trjs re irepl t^v epfirjveiau 15, 42, 16, 44, 125 ;
37, 95, 49,
Seivorr^ros Koi ttjs (Ta(pi]veias Kai Divin. i. 25, 53 Eragm. Hort.

Tov TjSeos Kol iroXvfiaQovs. apitd Augustine c. Jul. iv. 78 ;

Except the Topics and RJw-

Fin. v. 4, 11 Ad Quint. Fr. iii.

toric,we have no reason for sup- 5 Ad Att. xii. 40, 2, xiii. 28, 2
; ;

posing that any of them knew OJf. ii. 16, 56 and above, p. 60,

by personal reading the extant n. 1.


ornate, and approached far more closely to the literary

graces of the Platonic Dialogues, than any of the
scientific treatises now contained in our Corpus}
This difference is to be explained, not merely by the
earlier date of the writings in question, but also by the
fact that they were not intended to serve the same
purpose as the others, nor designed for the same
Aristotle himself occasionally refers to certain state-
ments of his doctrine, published by him, or then in
common use, in terms which seem to imply that a
portion of his writings (including these writings in
which the references in question occur) were not in
the same sense given to the public.^ And from his

' On this point see what is pre- may well doubt whether this gloss
served in Nos. 12-14, 17 sq., is allowable. The predicate ^k-
32, 36, 40, 48, 49, 71, 72 of the SeSofievoi would certainly not be
Fragments (Academy edition) there without a purpose, but is
from the Eudemus, Protrepticus, meant to distinguish the \6yoi
n. <f>i\o(To(}>ias, n. SiKaioavtrris, and ^/fSeSo/ieVoi from certain other
above, p. 56, n. 2. xSyoi. Neither can we translate
- We shall discuss this im- e/fJeSoyiieVot in such a way as
mediatel3\ to make * the writings published
^^ Poet. 15, 1454, b, 17: ^Ipvrai by me a mere periphrasis for 'my

Se TTcpl aifTwv iv rots iKS^Zojxivois writings partly because such a

; '

}<6yois Uavus. De An. i. 4 init. : turn of phrase is not found in

Koi 6.\Kr\ S Tis 5o|o iropaSc'SoTot Aristotle. When he refers, with-
inpi ^vxv^, iriOavij fihv rroWots . . . out indicating a particular work,
\6yov5 SxTvep 5' evOvuas (for which to something that has gone
IJernays, Pial. d. Ar. 15 sqq, before, he is accustomed to say
erasing \6yovs, reads: Ha-irep merely, eV &K\oi5, iv er4pois or
tiiOvvas Se) SeSw/cvIa KoL rois iv 'irp6Tepov. Again the fact that he
Koiv^ yiyvofxevois \6yois' apixoviav does not say ir' ifiov cKSeSofievoi
yap Tiva avr^v Xiyovcri, &c. In shows that the emphasis falls on
the first of these places, Bemays iKSeSofievoi, as such, and that the
says {ibid. 13) that 'pub- \6yoi iKSeSofjLevoi are meant as an
lished' here means the same as antithesis to ;ii^ ^KSeSoyueVot. Only
* already published' (the same we have no right to assume
explanation of the words is given that things /t^ e/ciSeSo/teVot mean
by Rose, Ar. Ps. 79), yet one things published later. The anti-


commentators we further learn that one of the points

thesis to * published is not ' later

' authors of the variant Acyo/teVots
published,' but 'not published ; instead of yiyvo/j..) of conversa-
and from the perfect eKSeSo/ieVot tions, such as would occur in
to read such as had already been
' educated circles, or (as Rose, Ar.
published at the time of the Ps. 717, thinks) of expressions of
writing of the Poetics, and so were opinion coming from the Platonic
earlier than that work,' is shown school for the evOvvas SeSwKvla re-

to be impossible by the reflection fers to some criticism, known to

of Ueberweg on this passage the reader, of the supposition that
{Arist. uh. d. Dichtk., p. 75) that the soul is the harmony of its
every author puts himself, in body, and cannot mean vague
regard to the reader, in the time conversations of third persons
at which his work will be in the (cf. also Bernays, ibid., 18 sq.).
reader's hands. Hence, if the Neither can one refer them to
Poetics were to be laid before the oral statements made by Ari-
whole reading world, i.e. pub- stotle to his pupils (Philop. see

lished, just like the K^yoi to which following note), partly because
they referred, they would not be Aristotle never elsewhere refers
designated in contradistinction to to such statements, and in a
the latter, by the predicate iK8e- treatise which, though perhaps
hofjLfvoi, since each of them would primarily intended as a text-
be, in relation to their reader, book for his school, yet gives
equally a \6yos iK^iSofidvos. Rose no indication anywhere of being
wished to refer the hSyoi exSeS., meant only for his personal
first to former passages in the pupils, he could not well appeal
Poetics (Ar. Lihr. Ord. 130), to them partly because the

and later (^Ar. Pseud. 79) to the Philosopher had really inserted
Rhetoric, but he was subsequently the criticism referred to in
{Ar. Ps. 714) right in withdraw- one of his own writings (cf. fol-
ing both, since the discussion for lowing note). The latter fact
which the Poetics refer to the indicates that it is wrong (as
Xoyoi ckScS, is found neither in SiMPL. does see following note)

the Rhetoric nor in the Poetics to refer the \6yoi 4v koiv^ yiyv. to
(cf. Beenays, ihid. 138): and, the Platonic Ph<edo, for which
even apart from this, the lat- this expression would not be a
ter could never have been so suflScient indication, nor would
indicated. Nor can we on the itcorrespond (cf. Been AYS, p. 20)
other hand (as Rose, Ar. Ps. Ill, with the manner in which it is
maintains) refer the expression in other places mentioned (cf.
to writings on Poetry by the Pla- Meteo^'ol. ii. 2, 355, b, 32).
tonic school, for we clearly must Finally, though Ueberweg ( Gesch .

confine it to Aristotelian writings: d. PJiil. i. 173, 5th ed.) under-

and in the second passage, De An. stands by the \6yoi 4v k. 7*71/.
i. 4, the \6yoi iv koiv^ yvyvSpavoi (extending the explanation of
cannot be understood (as ToE- Philoponus) discussions which
STETK, A rist. de An. 123 supposes, occurred in actual conversations,
he being perhaps preceded by the or in writings arranged in the


to which he so was to be found in the Eudemus.^


We find other and more frequent references of his to

the '
Exoteric Discourses as the place where he had

dealt with such and such a subject.^ Opinions, how-

ever, differ as to the meaning of that name and the

form of dialogues, it seems clear Ar. 124, writings in the common

that the latter could not be so strain,' is not so appropriate. The
named, and that there was here phrase is so explained by Simpli-
no reason for mentioning the cius (in De Calo, Schol. 487, a, 3
dialogue form of such discussions. where he says that Aristotle uses
From the point of view of gram- iyKvKK. (pi\. signify to Kara
mar, owing to the present tense of rrjv rd^iv e'lapxvs ro7s iroWoTs
yiyvofievois (to which BONITZ, Itid. TrpoT t0e'/i j/o, i.e. the i^corcpiKa).
AHst. 105, 46, rightly calls
a, We also see from Ar. Fr. 11, 1488,
attention), they cannot be ex- b, 36 sqq., andi'V. 15, 1476, b, 21,
plained as the speeches sub-
: ' that the matter for which Ari-
mitted (i.e. which have been stotle refers to the iyKVKXia, was
submitted) to publication,' for in actually treated in two of his
that case it would have been Dialogues. Cf. Bernays, ibid.
7j/o/ievots. It can only mean, as 84 sqq., 93 sq., 110 sqq.
Bernays translates it in his ' It is shown by the passages
Dial. d. Arist. 29, 'the dis- quoted in Eose, Ar. Fr. 41, p.
courses existing in a state of 1481 sq., and Heitz, Ar. Fr. 73,
publication, available for the use p. 51, from Philoponus, Simpli-
of all,' taking the iv koiv^ here in cius, Themistius, and Olympio-
the same sense as in the expres- dorus (the common source for
sions : iV KOivcfi KarariOea-Oai, iv whom may have been Alexander),
Koiv^ a<pi4vai (in medio relhi- that Arist. in the Eudemvs, after
quere, Metapli. i. 6, 987, b, 11). following the Plicedo, devoted
A similar meaning to that of the a searching examination to the
\6yoi iv Koiv<f yiyvdfjievoi seems to theory that the soul is the har-
be attached to cy/cv/cAto or eyKv- mony of its body, the principal
K\ia (pi\offo<pi\iiaTaj of which heads of which examination are
mention is made in Eth. i. 3, 1096, given by them. Hence the pas-
a, 2 (koI TTcpl jxkv tovtcov a\is' sages in question must refer to
iKuyus yap Koi 4v rols iyKVK\iois this dialogue, although Philopo-
efpTjToi irepl aiirwv) and De Ccelo, i. nus (De An. E, 2) leaves us the
9, 279, a, 30 (koX yhp Kaddirep iv choice between it and the it.ypa.-
ro7s iyKVK\iois <pi\o(ro(p^fia<n irepl (poi (Tvvovffiai vpds tous eraipous,

TO 67a iroWaKis Trpocpaiverai to7s and Simplicius {De An. 1 4,

Xoyois '6ti t6 Qiiov ajx^rdfiKriTOv a) connects it with the
avayKoiov elvai, &C.). ^EyKVK\ios Plucdo.
can, just as well as iv koiv^ ' All the passages are quotei

yiyv6fxevos, mean in medio positvs below.

Bernays' rendering. Dial, d.


relation of these '

Exoteric Discourses' to our ex-
tant Corpus. The ancients who mentioned them
always referred to them as a separate class of Aristotle's
works, distinguished from the technical scientific

treatises by a less strict method of treatment.^ But

they differ among themselves as to details. Cicero ^

and Strabo ^ speak of the exoteric works in general

terms as popular statements."* The former, however,
is unmistakeably thinking only of the Dialogues,-^
which we also find described as '
exoteric ' in Plutarch.^
According to Gellius, the treatises which dealt with

' The only exceptions are two the Aristotelian writings are
late Byzantine and altogether divided into acroamatic and
untrustworthy interpreters of the exoteric, oTa to, laropiKa kuI to
Ethics,Eustratius (90, a) and SiaXoyiKOL Koi o\(i)s to fii} htpas
the Pseudo-Andronicus (Helio- aKpifieias (ppovri^ovra.
dorus, clrc. 1367, cf. p. 69, n. 1), De An. E, 2 (ap. Stahr, Arigt.
the former of whom understands ii. 261) : to i^corepiKa avyypdfi-
by i^wTcpiKol \6yoi the common fiara, wv l(ri koI oi SidXoyoi . . .

opinion, the latter, oral instruc- aiTip 5io toCto i^uTepiKO, K(K\7]rai
tion. Sti ov irphs Tovs yvT]criovs uKpoaras
- Fin. V. 5, 12 about the: yiypafxfxiva.
highest good, Aristotle and Theo- ^ Cf. Ad Att. iv. 16, 2 : quo-
phrastus have written dico ge- niam in singulis lihris [of the
nera librorum, utium ifojnilainter discourse on the State] utor
scrijitum, qvod i^arrepiKhv apjjel- prooemiis, nt Aristoteles in vis
luhanty alterum limatius [aKpifii- quce i^an-cpiKovs vocat. In contra-
(rrfpus, in a more severe style], distinction to the Dialogues, the
qnod in cmuvientariis reliquerunt^ strictly scientific works are called
but in essentials they both (see preceding note) commentarii,
agree. continuous expositions, corre-
XIII. 1, 54, p. 609 because : sponding to the avT(yirp6(rama or
the Peripatetics, after Theo- cLKpoaTiKo. of the Greek interpre-
phrastus, had not his works and ters (see p. 112, n.l,andll3, n. 2).
those of Aristotle, ttA^j/ oAiyaiv Adv. Col. 14, 4, p. 1115 :

Koi fxaKiffra rwv i^corepiKuv, they Aristotle everywhere attacks the

happened fxjjSev ex*"' (p^^oa-ocpelv Ideas: iv rols iiBiKols inrofivi^fxaaiv
vpay/xaTiKus [going deeply into (synonymous with Cicero's com-
the subject, scientific] oA.Aa Oeaeis mentarii ; see preceding note), iv
TOiS <f>v(nKo7sy 5io ruv i^ancpiKwv
* Likewise Simpl. P?i7/8. 2, b: 5ia\6y(i)v.


Rhetoric, Topics, and Politics were named '


and those which related to Metaphysics, Physics, and

Dialectics '
acroatic,' ^ the reason being that the former,
as Galen explained, were meant for everyone ; the
latter only for the philosopher's scholars.^ Alexander,
in a letter which appears in Andronicus,^ is supposed to
complain tx) his master of the publication of the '
writings ; but inasmuch as Aristotle is expressly stated
to have published them, the notion that lie objected to
their publication cannot have been in the mind of the
writer of that fragment. At a later time we do find this
assumption also,'* and we find connected with it the further
theory that Aristotle purposely adopted in his '

iV. A. XX. 5 Aristotle's
: shows that the distinction be-
lectures and writings were di- tween the \6yoi aKpoariKol and
vided into two classes, the e|a>- ii^unipiKoL must have been known
TepiKot. and the aKpoariKo.. 'Elwre- to the author of the letter.
piKo. dicehantnr qua ad rhetorlcas * Thus Plut. Alex. c. 7
meditationes facultatemque argu- ioiKC 5' 'A\4^av5pos ov fi6vov rhv
tiaruvi civiliumqiie renim no- riOiKhu Koi iro\iTiKhv irapa\a$e7v
titiam coitducehant, aKpoariKk \6yov, aWa Kal rwv airopfi'fiTwv Kal
autem vocahantur In qmhus phih.- fiapvrepwv [fiaOvr.'] SiSaaKaXiuv, 6.S
sophia remotior 8vhtiliorqiie agi- oi &v5ps ISicos UKpoafiariKas Kal
tahatur qiueqiie ad naturcB con- iiroTTTiKas [as in mysteries] irpoo--
temp lationes disceptaiionesqiie ayopcvovTfS ovk i^fipfpov els iroK-
dialecticas ^^erf<>ie&w^. In the Aous,/i6Ta(rxtt'. Clemens, Strom.
Lyceum the morning was de- V. 575, A: not only the Pytha-
voted to the latter, the evening goreans and the Platonists, but
to the former (cf. p. 27, n. 3). all schools have secret doctrines
Zibrosqrioque suvs, earum omnium and secret writings : \4yova-i Se
rerum commentarios, seorsum dl- Kal 01 ^ApiffTOTfXOVS TO IJ.CV 4awT-
visit,ut alii exoterini dicerentur, avrdv
piKo, flvai ru)v avyypaiJifiaTOiV

2)artim acroatici. [-ou] ra Se Koivd re Kal i^uTcpiKa

2 Be Suhst. Fac. Nat. vol. iv. On the same theory, in the Bfiet.
758 K : ^Api<TTOT4\ovs fi eotppda-rov ad Alex. c. 1, 1421, a, 26 sq., Ari-
TO. ficv TOts iroWois yypa<f>6T(DV, stotle is requested by Alexander
ras 8e OLKpodfffis roils hraipois. to observe the strictest secrecy
Cf. Gell. ihid. ; Plut. with regard to this work, while
Alex. 7; vide mpra, p. 22, n. 1. Aristotle, on his part, lays a reci-
The wording ovk dpdws ivoi-naas
: procal duty of silence on Alexan-
iKSovs Tovs uKpoariKovs rwv \6ywv, der.

works a form of exposition which must make them unin-

telligible to any but his scholars while at the same

time it is said that it was here only that he disclosed his

views in their full logical connection. ^ On this theory
the '
exoteric ' writings were broadly distinguished from
the '
acroatic,' just by the fact that they were intended
for a wider public, and that they were therefore put in
a more popular form, did not cover the more difficult
classes of inquiry, and substituted for a severe and
scientific method of proof one more accommodated to
general comprehension.^

This idea is expressed in

' TtKws irphs 56^av. He instances the
the answer of Aristotle to Alex- Toj)ics, the p-qropiKo. and the e|a)-
ander (see Gell. ibid.^, when he repiKoi. ^
Koi yap iv iKcivo IS irKeiara
replies to the reproach of the Ka\ rcepl tuv ijdiKcov Kal irepl rwv
latter with regard to the aKpoariKol (pvariKcov iu$6^(i)s Aeyerat.' But the
\6yoi : l[<rdi ovv avrovs /col e/cSeSo- example of the Topics and the
jJLfVOVS KOL fx)) iKSedo/JL^VOVS '
|ui/TOl Rlietoric shows that this only
yap ilcri fjL6vois to7s tj/xcvv aKoixraaiv. refers to the basis of the opinions
See also Themist. Or. xxvi. 319, laid down in these writings, the
A sq., where it is said that Ari- argument from the universally
stotle did not find the same dis- acknowledged (the e;/5o|oi/), and
courses suitable for the masses not to the teaching as such. The
as for the philosophers, and there- later writers, as a rule, express
fore withdrew the highest secrets themselves in the same sense ;
of his teaching (the reAeo lepa, thus Simpl. Phys. 164, a: |-
the fjLva-TiKhp) from the former by repiKo. 5e iari ra Koiva Ka\ 5t'
using obscure language. Simpl. ivh6^(}V irepaiydfieva dAAa avo-

P/if/s. 2, b, referring to the letters SeiKTiKO. /tiTjSe aKpoa/xaTiKoi. As

just mentioned, says: iu toIs Ammon. and David, see follow-
aKpoafiOTiKois acrdcpeiav iireTr]5(V(T, ing note ; and cf . Philop. Phj/s.
&c. For the same view see Categ. p. 4. On
the other hand David,
Schol. 27, a, 38, David, Categ. Schol. ill At. 24, b, 33, changes
Schol. 22, a, 20 27, a, 18 sq. In
; the statement of Alexander
the same sense LuciAX, V. And. (which he quotes in order to re-
c. 26, calls Aristotle SnrXovs, &\\os fute it) into oti iv fiiv rols axpoa-

fxkv 6 eKToarO^v (paivS/jifvos &\\05 Sh fxariKols ra SoKovvra avrtp \eyei Kal

6 evToadeu, exotericand esoteric. TO oA.7)077, eV Se to7s 5iaAoyiKo7s ra
Alexander remarks, Tojj. 52,
- &\\oi5 doKovvra, ra ypevSrj.
that Aristotle speaks at one time 3 Besides the testimony al-
XoyiKws in order to unfold the ready adduced, the statements
truth as such, at another StoAe/c- found in the Neoplatonic com-

The theory just mentioned can be traced as far back
as Andronicus, perhaps even farther ;
^ but this does
not put its correctness beyond question. It is, however,
confirmed in the main, even if it requires correction in

one point or another, by the utterances of Aristotle

himself as to the ' Exoteric Discourses.' It is true that
in a general sense he may describe as '
exoteric ' any
topic which does not belong to the inquiry immediately

mentators go to establish this that David (24, b, 5) expressly

point. Thus the so-called Ammon. appeals to Ammonius (IT. ep/iij-
in Categ. 6, b sqq. (see also Stahr, j/etos) and to the commentar}"^ on
Aristotelia, ii. 255 sqq.), who, theCategories passing under Am-
after some other divisions of the monius' name (which, although in
the Aristotelian writings, among its present form it does not
syntagmatic ones distinguishes
come from Ammonius, yet seems
avTOirpdcruira koX aKpoa/xaTiKO, and to have originated in one written
SioKoyiKo. Kal i^wrepiKa. The for- by him), indicates that Ammonius
mer arewritten irphs yvn<rlovs was David's proximate authority
oLKpoaras, the latter vphs rijv rwv and though he (Ammonius) cer-
iroWwu w<pi\iiav\ in the former tainly made use of earlier writers
Aristotle expresses his own (and principally Alexander, whom
opinion with a strictly scientific David at 24, b, 33 attacks, and
argument, in the latter ra So- from whom his quotation of the
Kovvra avrcfi, aW' ov Si airoSeiK- Aristotelian Eudemns is probably
TiKuv iirixfiprifidTuv, Kol oh oToi r4 taken, like that in Philop. Dc
fiffiv 01 iroWol iiraKo\ovd7v. Simi- An. E, 2 sq.; Ar. Fr. p. 1481,
larly, only at greater length, No. 41), we do not know
David, Sckol. 21, a, 20 sqq., who how much has been added to
likewise divides the o-vvrayfjLaTiKa their testimony. On the other
into avTOTTpoa-aira or aKpoa/xaTiKa hand we must trace the state-
and SiaXoyiKo. & /cot i^wTepiKo. \4- ments in Cicero, Strabo, and
yovrai and considers the former GfoWm?, {ride supra p. Ill, n. 2-6,

to have been written vphs rovs 112, n. 1), to Tyrannic and An-
iiriTTjSdovs r-p ^i\o(ro((>i<f,, the dronicus, and the letters men-
latter irphs aueTrirrjbeiovs irphs <pi\o- tioned on p. 112, n. 3 etc., prove
(ro<piav, and hence the former St' that the latter was aware of the
avayKaffTiKwi/ \6yo3v, the latter distinction between exoteric and
5ta viQavwv. Cf. p. Ill, n. 4. acroatic writings, and of the sug-
In proof of this statement
' gestion that the last mentioned
we cannot attach so much im- were only intended to he un-
portance to the passage just derstood by the pupils of the
given from David as Heitz does philosopher.
XVcrl. Schr. 25 sq.). The fact

in hand/ or any discussion which does not go very deeply

into the subject.^ It is also true that the title does not
always and necessarily denote a distinct class of
writings.^ Nevertheless there are passages where we
have every reason to refer it to such a class ;
^ and that

1 Polit. i. 5, 1254, a, 33 ; aXKa at that time were everywhere in

ravra fiev tffcos f^corepiKwrepas vogTie even at social gatherings.
iarl <TK4\l/ews. Similarly, ibid. ii. That this does not fit other pas-
6, 1264, b, 39 in the liejrubliG
sages will be shown immediately;
Plato has only imperfectly treated as for the passage in question,
of legislation, to S' &\\a to7s such a rendering is forbidden by
f^wdev \6yoi5 ireirKripwKf rhv KoyovJ the strictly dialectical and ge-
The term ' I|(w0j/ \6'yoi covers in '
nuinely Aristotelian stjle of the
this case writings of the most discussions from p. 217, b, 32 to
speculative character. In like p. 218, a, 30.
manner Eudemus Fr. 6 (Simpl. ^ Thus, besides the passage
Plujs. 18, b), where instead of the given in the preceding note from
;^t S' airopiav .... ^acos Se ov vphs the Physics, the Eudemian Mk.
rhu \6yop of Aristotle {Phys. i. 2, ii. 1, 1218, b, 33, introduces the

185, b, 11) we read exet Se avrh

: division of possessions into the
Tovro airopiau i^ayrfpiK-fiu. external and the spiritual with the
Phys. iv. 10, init. irpwrov : remark : Kaddirep Siaipov/iicda kuI
Se KoXus ex^' avrov
SiaTroprjffaiirepl kv Tois i^(i}TpiKo7s \6yots. In the
[tov xpovov\ KoX 5ia twv i^uTepiKwv parallel passage, Bth. N. i. 8,
Koywv. The e|wT. x6yot here 1098, b, 10, Aristotle says: he
mean the discussion which fol- wishes to speak about happiness
lows immediately, and which is KoX fK tS)V \yo/j.4v(i}v irepl ainTJs,
called exoteric (in the same way by which, according to the con-
as Aristotle, in other places, puts text, only the prevailing views
the logical in opposition to the concerning happiness can be
physical, vid. iiifra, p. 174, n. 2), meant. It is to these, therefore,
because it does not aim at a that the e|T. \6yoi of Eudemus
strict and adequate notion of must also refer.
time (the ri iariv 6 xpovos, 218, a, * This true especially of
31), but only takes into consider- Polit. vii. 1823, a, 21
i. yo/xiaav- :

ation certain preliminary proper- Tos oZu iKavws iroWii, Keyeadai Kal
ties of it. The question is not Tuv iv ToTs i^Q)TpiKo7s \6yois
here of exoteric writings but ;
TTepl Trjs api(TTr]s (urjs Kal vvv
Prantl is none the less wrong (TTfov avTols. That by this he
(Arist. Physik, 501, 32) in main- does not mean mere oral expres-
taining that by the exoteric dis- sions of opinion in the conversa-
courses we are to understand, not tions of daily life is clearly
only in the present instance, but shown by what immediately fol-
everywhere, only those conversa- lows. For Aristotle continues iy :

tions on interesting subjects which a\rj6us yap irp6s ye /xiav Sialpeaiv


the writings referred to were of a more popular type

than our extant Aristotelian texts is made probable

ovSels afKpLcrfiVTva-eieu, etc. His ava\vTiKo7s Kiyofnv ihld. 32

; :

point may be stated thus from

' ocra 6.\Ka TrpoaSiopi^oimeda iy to7s
the arguments in the i^caTepiKol avaKvTiKois. And, on the other
\6yoi, it will be univei sally re- hand, the pvv xRVo't^ov avrois is
cognised that the conditions of adverse to this explanation. That
happiness include not only exter- is meant to designate what fol-
nal and bodily good things but also lows as something extracted from
and pre-eminently spiritual good the exoteric discourses but Ari- ;

things although it is true that in

: stotle would be far more likely to
common life we are wont to content use such a formula if he was quot-
ourselves with far too small a pro- ingsomething from a former work
portion of such spiritual good.' than if he was merely repeating
This line of reasoning necessarily in writing what he had already
implies that the f^corepiKol Xdyoi orally delivered. This latter, from
in question,with which the current the nature of the case, he must
opinion of society is said to be in have had occasion to do as often
partial agreement, are not the as a modern university teacher
same as any form of expression does it. The fact, then, that he
of that current opinion (cf. Bee- expressly mentions that he is
nays, Dial. d. Arist. 40). Then, 'making an extract from the |a>-
again, the words irpSs 76 fiiav 8t-
: rcpiKol A0701,' points,as in the
aipeaiv oiiZels au.<pi(r$T]T7}ai.ev point Dn CoeJo, ii. 13, 295, a, 2, and
to definite explanations, set down Meteor, iii. 2, 372, b, 10 (where
in writing, not merely existing some of the writings which we
in the intangible medium of oral possess are quoted with the same
conversation. It would be easier Xpficrriov) to an existing written
to connect them with oral dis- work. And an Ai-iMotelian writ-
courses of Aristotle himself (as ing must be meant, since that
Oncken does in Staatsl. d. Ar\i<t. which follows out of the e'l&n-ep-
i. 44-59). We cannot, however, iKoi \6yoi sounds perfectly Aristo-
base this view on the present telian, and forms a whole with
\4yofjLev (together with the Siopi- what Aristotle gives in his own
(dfi^ea, Pol. iii. G, 1278, b, 32), name {rj/xeTs 5e ipov/x^v, 1. 38).
since Aristotle not only quotes Lastly, although something si-
the writings of others very fre- milar to that which is here quoted
quently in this way, but not un- from the i^wr. \6yoi is found in
frequentlv even his own cf. ; some passages of the Ethics (i.
Pol. vii. is, 1332, a, 8 (pafihu hh
: 6 sqq. X 6 sqq,), which Zeller,
Kal iv rots T]QiKois Phjs. viii. 1,
\ in his second edition, brought
251, a, 1); <^o^ei/ 5^, etc. {Phys. into connection with this quo-
iii. 1); De Ccclo, i. 7, 275, b, 21 ;
tation, yet he now concedes
\6yos S' eV Tols ir(p\ Kivrjaews to Bernays {ibid. 71 sq. cf. ;

(eo-TiV); Metaph. v. 30 /w.; \6yos Oncken, ibid. 43, 5; Vahlen,

5e Toxnov iv erepois J^Jfh. vi. 3,
; Arist. Avfs. ii. 6) that Aristotle
1139, b, 26; Sca-irep Kal eV ro7s would not by the designation

both by the express distinction that is drawn between

i^ujTepiKol Koyoi have mentioned distinction

') of different kinds

the Ethics, which in the Politics of dominion, but for the exact
he repeatedly quotes as riQiKa, and limitation of their difference'
puts in the closest connection (as Bernays, p. 38 asserts), can-
with them (vid. p. 127, n. 2, of not be inferred from the Siopi(6-
Zeller's 2nd ed.). Bernays' the- fieOa, since this expression desig-
ory (73 sqq.), that the first chapter nates not only the exact distinc-
o the seventh book of the Politics tion, the carefully-weighed logi-

strikingly diverges from the usual cal antithesis,' but any kind of
style of his scientific works, and distinction whatever. If we
bears distinct traces of having compare with it the perfectly
been extracted from a dialogue analogous use of Keyofieu, diopi^-
can scarcely be supposed after 6fjL6a, &c., in the passages given
Vahlen's forcible objections above (p. 115), we shall be pre-
{Arist. Aufs. ii.)to be established; pared to give the same meaning
Zeller, however, feels bound to to the Siopi(6/j.eda here, 'and when
agree with Bernays that by the we have persuaded ourselves,
exoteric discourses in this pas- from other passages, that Aristotle

sage is meant a written work of names certain writings \6yoi i^a-

the philosopher's which is lost to repiKol, the passage appears to
us, and which Aristotle here seems fit this interpretation. (And
to follow pretty closely, for which there are certainly some among
very reason he refers to it, and the lost Aristotelian writings in
not to the Ethics, though the which the distinction here
parallel passages in the latter touched upon may have been
were closely connected with it given particalarly the TroXniKhs
in meaning. ;

Less convincing and n. fia(ri\eias v. supra, p. 58,


with regard to this, in spite of n. 1, and 60, n. 1). The like is

what Bernays says to the con- true of Eth. vi. 4 init. erepov :

trary (ibid. 38, 51 sqq.), appears 5' eVrl TToirjais Koi Trpa^is iricmv- '

to be Polit. iii. 6,1278, b, 30: o/xeu 5e irepl avrcou Koi ro7s i^corepi-
aWa fjL^v Koi TT^s apxvs rovs Ko7s \6yois. The connection here
Aeyo/jievovs rp6Trovs [the SecrnoTeia, unquestionably allows us to sup-
the oIkovo/xik^, and the ttoXitik^ pose that the words refer to
OLpx^l^ paSiov SieXetj/
Koi yap iv ro7s discussions in Aristotelian writ-
i^a}rpiKo7s \6yois Siopi^o/xeOa irepl ings of a character different from
avTwv iroWoLKis. These words, that of the scientific works which
looked at in themselves, might we possess, as for instance the
refer not only (as Oncken, ibid., Dialogue on the Poets or Gryllos ;

suggests) to oral disquisitions, but that it forbids any other sup-

but also (by taking the Siopi^6fjLeda position Bernays (p. 39, 57 sqq.)
as the collective we ') to conver- has not made out. If anybody

sations not connected with the wished to give to the passage,

School or even with scientific instead of the narrow meaning
philosophy. That Aristotle here assumed by Bernays, the broader
* refers to the 6|wt. \6yoi, not for one, ' this has already been proved
the existence' (more correctly in my other writings,' neither the

meaning of ^^wnpiKbs nor the words : A7toi Se irip\ out^s [sc.
context would stand in his way, rT\s fux^s] KoL iv rols i^corepiKols
since the rendering of the former \6yois apKovvTus evia Kol XRV^'^'^op
would be analogous to the ex- avTo7s. oTov rh fiev &\oyov avTrjs
amples quoted on p. 115, n. 1, ilvai rh Se \6yov ^xov. For
and as regards the latter the though it is by no means so
question whether Aristotle here incredible as Bernays, p. 36,
refers to scientific or popular believes, that the distinction be-
writings, is indifferent. If, on tween the rational and the irra-
the other hand, we wished to un- tional in the soul may have made
derstand the e|a)T. x6yoi of the its way from the Platonic school
what is said by others
' into wider circles (Epicharmus,
we could parallel the expres- at a much later period, comes
sion by an appeal to Eudemus very near to it with his vovs 6pa,
(see preceding note). Bernays, &c.), and though it could scarcely
referring to this, finds it impos- be said to be an actual impossi-
sible to believe that we are to bility to interpret the words i^wr.
draw the explanation of such a \6yoi as referring to opinions
corner-stone of the Peripatetic current outside the school, yet the
system as the connection of irot- introductory words here too much
Tjo-ts and Trpa^is, from the common resemble those given above from
conversation of well educated Polit. vii. 1, and the \4yerai
persons but if so, he ought to
: apKOvvTus %via Koi vvv xprjo'Teoi/
find it less absurd to draw
no avrois here points too obviously
from the very same source an to written discussions, for us to
explanation of the centre of be able to refer this quotation
gravity of all Ethics, the notion to mere Xeydfieva. If it refers
of EuSat^oyio. And yet we find to an Aristotelian work, this
in Eth. i. 8, init. incontestably must be one of the lost writ-
ffKeiTTeov 5^ ircp] avTrjs . . . Kal ings ^most probably the Eude-
eK rwv Xcyofxevctiv irepl avTrjs. This mus for the quotation does not

may not mean that we are to seek agree with n, ypvxvs iii. 9, 432, a,
tlie scientific definition of hap- 22 sqq., and this work would not
piness in the conversation of the
be cited by such a reference, but,
educated but neither would this
' as always in other places, by iv '

be affirmed in Eth. vi. 4 init. Tols "irepl ^vxvs.^

Neither in
about that of iroirjais and irpa^is, Metaj)A. xiii. 1, 1076, a, 28 (on
if we were to understand the the Ideas as such he will only
i^(0T. \6yoi in this passage of the speak air\w5 koL '6<rov v6/xov x^'
XeySfiepa. The appeal to uni- redpvWTjTtti yap ra iroWa Kal virh
versal conviction would be to Tuu i^tarepiKuv \6y(av) can we
establish a general distinction of understand by the |t. \6yoi
irol-rja-is from irpa^is ; and this is oral discussions of others. It
Aristotle's way : ry yhp dA7?0i must mean the work of Ari-
irdura (rvvo.5i ra inrdpxovTa (^Eth. stotle himself, since this alone
Much more definitely may could dispense him from a fuller
we discern in Eth. i. 13, 1102, a, criticism of the doctrine of Ideas ;
26 an intention of appealing to and that we are to look for
some Aristotelian writings in the such work neither in the philo-


the exoteric and the scientific treatises,^ and by the terms

that are used in describing the former.^ It is not to be

sopher's doctrinal discussions nor solution, in the Dialogue on Phi-

in his strictly scientific writings losophy.
is suggested not only by the de- - "E.\<aT(piKhs\xi Aristotle means
signation |a>T. AJ701, but also (1) that which exists outside,
by the koL (jcaX ef. X.), virb T. the external ; and (2) that
by which the i^or. \6yoi are dis- which goes out, refers to the
tinguished from other not exo- external. The word has the
teric \6yoi. Still more clearly former meaning when for in-
does this appear from Eudemus, stance a foreign province is called
when the latter, probably remem- an e^wT epiK^ o-pxh (Polit. ii. 10,
bering this passage, in Mh. i. 8, 1272, b, 19), or when hand and
1217, b, 22 says likewise of the foot are styled i^urepiKo. ixcprj
Ideas eVeV/ceTTTOt Se vo\Ko7s irepl
: (Gen. An. v. 6, 786, a, 26) to ;

avrov rpoirois Kol ev toTs i^wTcpiKols these uses cf. the e^coTepiKo, ayaOa,
\6yois Kol iv To'is Kara (piKoaotpiav, Pol. vii. 1, 1323, a, 25. In the
Cf. following note. second meaning the expression
* This is indicated by the ex- is used in the combination
press statement in the passages i^wrepiKoi irpd^eis (Pol. vii. 3,
quoted in the preceding note, 1325, b, 22, 29). If now, in the
especially from Polit. vii. 1, Eth. phrase i^wr. \6yoi, we propose to
i. 13, Metaph. xiii. 1, that certain give it the Jirst meaning, we can-
points have been sufficiently ex- not, by exoteric discourses, in
plained even in the exoteric dis-
those passages where Aristotelian
courses that is, inasmuch as we
' writings of a particular class or
should less expect such discus- the inquiries contained in them
sions in them. Eudemus puts it are meant, understand such dis-
more definitely, by putting the courses as lie outside the dis-
i^urepiKol \6yoi (see preceding cussion in which they are referred
note, Jin.) in opposition to the to as ' other discourses' (like the
\6yoi KaTo, (piXoaocplav. Since the i^iorepiKwrepa (TKerpis and the e|a>-
latter are scientific inquiries, 6ev \6yoi, p. 115, n. 1 and 3) ; nor
the former can only be popular yet (as Bernays thinks in Dial. d.
discourses and, since (as we have
; Ar. 92 sq.) such as do not enter
seen) writings are meant by into the essence of a thing, but
them, they can only be popu- are external to it (as p. 115, n. 2).
lar writings. Now it might in- The latter meaning would not
deed appear that the criticism suit, partly because this would
of the doctrine of Ideas, to which be a strange way of speaking of
Uth. Eud. i. 8, and Metaph. xiii. '
popular treatises,' partly because
1, loc. cit. refer, would of all it would not fit those cases in
things have been least suited for which Aristotle again takes up in
popular writings but we have ; later works, as being suitable and
already seen on p. 76, n. 3, 56, adequate, what he had said in
n. 2 vied, that he opposed this the i\onipiKo\ \6yoi (as in the
doctrine, with the greatest re- passages of the Politics, Ethias,

inferred either from the words i^corspCKol Xoyoi them-

selveSj or from the surrounding facts, that Aristotle's

Dialogues alone were meant. There may have been, and

in fact there appear to have been, other works also which
were adapted to the understanding of the general public.^
As to the later theories, the idea that the Master did
not intend his strictly scientific work for publication at all
is refuted by the contemporary record of the complaints
that were made because he published them ^ and the :

idea that he designedly chose for them a style obscure

and unintelligible to the lay mind is disproved by the
visible characteristics of the texts themselves. The
truth is that, except in cases where we ought to con-
sider them as mere sets of notes for his own use, he takes
all manner of trouble to aid the reader, by the use of a

strictly devised scientific terminology, by clear defini-

tions, by explanations and illustrations, by methodical

processes of thought, and by warnings against possible
obscurities, ambiguities or misconceptions. If it be true
nevertheless that there occur many particular points of

and Metaphysics given on p. 315, popular character was implied in

n. 4). Such writings could only the designation, but not directly
be called exoteric, in this use expressed in the adjective i^ure-
of the word, in the sense that piKhs as such. When Eudemus
they were known and in use even puts the Xoyoi e|coT. in opposi-
outside the Aristotelian school. tion to those Kara <pi\ocro(piav
But it comes to very much the (see preceding note), we might
game thing also if we start (as understand the latter to mean
Zeller prefers to do), with the '
such as were intended to serve
seco7id meaning of i^wnpiKhs, and for scientific instruction but at' ;

understand the ^|wt. K6'yoi to sig- the same time there is nothing
nify such works as were intended against the translation both in '

for outsiders or for the general those intended for the general
public, the same, in fact, as are public and in the scientific trea-
included in the terms \6yoi e'wSe- tises.'
So/xepoi or iv Koivcf yiyvSixcvoi. ' Cf. p. 60, n. 1.
That such writings were of a more 2 Cf. p. 22, n. 1, 112, n. 3,

difficulty, the reasons are to be found anywhere rather

than in the writer's intention. Besides, it is obvious
that any such theory attributes to the philosopher a
very childish sort of mystification, wholly destitute of
any reasonable motive.
It does seem, however, to be true that it was only a
portion of his writings which Aristotle published, in the
sense of making express provision for their dissemination
to a wide circle of general readers. Others which were
more closely connected with his oral teaching seem to
have been designed primarily for the use of his scholars

as classbooks.^ It was in the case of the former only that

he took pains to cultivate that eloquence and artistic
completeness and that popular style of exposition for
which his works were famous. The sole aim
' exoteric '

of the second set of texts was scientific investigation for

its own sake, and they were therefore distinguished by a

stricter logic and a less artistic dress. It seems that of

the former class by far the greater j)art, if not the whole,
consisted of those writings which Aristotle wrote before
the opening of the Peripatetic School at Athens, and
chiefly while he was still one of the Platonic circle : of
all of which nothing remains but a few fragments.^ On
' But without our having to tion the ilwrepiKol \6yoi, I could
suppose that they were forbidden everywhere translate that phrase
to communicate them to others. as meaning such discussions as
-In this sense', says Prof,
do not belong to the sphere of
Zeller, I had already expressed
' the inquiry actually under in-
myself in the second edition, vestigation. (Thus also Schweg-
p. 98, as to the probable state of ler, Gesch. d.griech. Phil. 194.)
facts with regard to the distinc- I have now rejected this opi-
tion between exoteric and eso- nion, and think that the general
teric writings. On the other meaning of i^urrepiKhs, to de-
hand, I then believed that, in the signate something external, or re-
Aristotelian passages which men- lating to the external, is more

such a theory there may have been a great diiference in

form between the '
exoteric '
and the '
acroatic ' texts,

appropriate. It follows that even Aristotelian writings, or in the

in the combination (^(arepiKoL \6- oral disputations of the school.
yoi this expression will apply not These, in their view, may be
only to such discussions as lie called exoteric, either because
outside a specified subject (as they always have to deal with
p. 115, n. 1), or are concerned only something foreign to the matter
with what is external to it (p. (cf. the e^o and <rw \6yos, Anal. 1.
115, n. 2), but also to such as 10, 76, b, 24), or because they
are current outside a particular always treat the subject exter-
circle (p. 115, n. 3), or such as nally. Grote (Aristotle, 63 sqq.)
are intended for outsiders (p. 115, agrees with them, except that,
n. 4). According as we begin besides the Aristotelian Dia-
from this or that passage in logues and some extracts from
Aristotle, and extend the mean- the acroamatic works, he thinks
ing of the expression in that conversations outside the school
particular passage to all the other are referred to. In like manner
cases, we get this or that render- (though with the exclusion of
ing of the i^coT. \6yoi. This is conversations outside the school)
the explanation of the fact that Ueberweg (GescL d. Phil. i.
even now there are the most 143, 5th ed.). Oncken (Staatsl.
diverse opinions on the matter. d. Ainst. i. 43 sq.) refers the term

Of these, the farthest removed to oral discussions, allied to the

from the explanation which has scientific lectures in which the
prevailed since the time of An- e|a>T. \6yoi are mentioned, but
dronicus, which understands by of a different class from them.
this expression a particular class On the other hand Ritter ( Geseh.
of Aristotelian writings, is the d. Phil. iii. 21 sqq.) holds more

supposition of Madvig (Exc. vii. closely to the statements of the

on Cic. Be Fin.), Prantl (Arut. ancient writers about the two
P/iysiJi, p. 501, 32), Spengel classes of Aristotelian pupils and
(' Arist. Studien,' Abh. d. hayr. writings, in assuming (p. 29)
ATiad. X. 181 sq.), Forchhammer that all the strictly scientific
{Arist. und die exoter. Rcden, works were only written by Ari-
cf. particularly pp. 15, 64), and stotle as a help to his lectures
SusEMiHL (Philol. Anz. v. 674 and were only published, at a
sq.),that only the conversations later period, by himself or his
of non-philosophical circles are pupils, and perhaps at first only
designated by the i^ur. \6yoi. for the latter whereas the re-

Rather nearer to it are Ravais- maining writings (which are lost

SON (Metajjh. d" Arist. i. 209 sq.) to us), were designed for the use
and Thurot (Ettides sur Aristote, of cultured persons and might, to-
209 sq.), who understand by them gether with any corresponding lee
such dialectic discussions (in con- tures, be called exoteric. A like
tradistinction to the strictly scien- position is held, in the main, by
tific), as proceed by arguments Bern AYS {Dial. d. Arist.), who
irphs Sd^aVf occurring either in by the exoteric discourses under-

and it may be very true that the matter of the former was
lessadvanced than the systematic doctrine of the Master,
as we have it from his riper years but it is entirely ;

beside the mark to suggest that he sought in either the

one case or the other to conceal his opinions or to with-
draw them from the reader's eye.
It is not only, however, the distinction noted between
these ' published ' or 'exoteric' books and the others,
which points to the conclusion that the extant, closely
reasoned writings of Aristotle were written primarily for
his scholars, as classbooks only. In the texts them-
selves there are many indications which it is hard to
reconcile with the idea that they were really jpuhlished,
in the full sense of the word, during Aristotle's lifetime.
In the first place there is the remarkable circum-
stance ^ that a book which is cited in another nevertheless

stands such lectures chiefly. the philosophical writings, such

Heitz (^Verl. Sclir.Ar. 122d. as the Dialogues, partly a special
sqq.), though agreeing with him manner of philosophising; the
in substance, prefers to give the latter broadly identifying the
expression (with reference to exoteric writings with the popu-
Phys. iv. 10 init.) the broader lar ones, but abstaining from
meaning, and to make it imply a further definition of them or
point of view farther removed of the expression " exoteric
from true science. Bonitz {Ind. discourses." Thomas {De Arist.
Arist. 104, b, 44 sqq. Zeitschrif-
; i^ur. \6yois) stands quite isolated
ten fur ostr. Gymn. 1866, 776 with his strange whim of looking
sq.) takes a similar view. Stahr for Aristotle's exoteric discourses
(^Aristotelian ii. 239 sqq., cf. in the greater Ethics. Space does
especially 275 sq.), and Bbandis not permit me a more searching
(Gr.-rom. Phil. ii. b, 101 sqq.) examination of these various
express themselves less decidedly suppositions the principles on

the former believing that by which it would be based are

the exoteric writings are meant contained in what has been said
partly those in which something above. Stahr, ibid., gives all
was treated merely in passing, the earlier references which bear
partly and principally those upon the question.'
which did not essentially belong RiTTER (iii. 29) and Bran-

to the systematic connection of Dis (ii. b, 113) have already


cites that other book itself : or that an earlier treatise

speaks of an inquiry as already completed, and yet a
later treatise says it is in contemplation only. These
cases are not rare. The Topics is frequently cited in the
Analytics ^^ and yet cites the latter four times.'-^ All four
may belong to a later- written portion of the Topics , but
atany rate they cannot be later than the Analytics^ in
which these same books are cited as well as the earlier
ones.^ When the Physics refers us back to discussions
which, as we know them, exist only in the Metaphysics^
it might be said that the reference is to a section which
existed as a separate treatise before the Metaphysics was
compiled ;
^ but it cannot be doubted that the zoological

noted this and explained in a TOTTiKols) to the passage Top. ix.

similar way. 4, 167, b,21, with which what
Cf. p. 67, n. 1. BONITZ follows is also closely connected.
{Ind. AHst. 102 sq.) gives the ^ In Phys. i. 8, 191, b, 2
passages on which the following Aristotle remarks, after a discus-
explanation is based, so far as sion on the possibility of coming
they have not been expressly into existence els ix^v 5)? rpdiros

cited here. ovTOS, &\\05 5' on ivSex^rai Tavra

VIT. 3, 153, a, 24
: /c riva>v \4yeiv KUTO, T^v Suva/xiv Koi rrjv
Se Se? KaraffK^vaQciv [sc. avXKoyicr- ivipyeiav rovro 5' iv &\Koii Siwpi-

fihv opov'j SiupicTTai ixkv iu erfpois arai 5i' aKpi^eias /j-aWov. This
cLKpifiiffTepov(cf. Anal. Post. ii. reference is most probabl}' to a
13), \iii. 11, 162, a, 11: (pavephv passage in the Metaphysics (for
S' e/c Twj/ avaXvTiKwv (Anal. Pr. ii. to refer it to one of the lost
2), viii. 13, 162, b, 32: rh 5' eV writings is forbidden by the fact
a.pxV '
'"''^^ otTeiTat 6 kpwrwv, that Aristotle is not accustomed
KOT^ aX-fiOeiav jxhv iv to7s\vTiKo7s in other places to quote these
[Anal. Pr. ii. 16] eJfpTjrat, Kara latter, as he cites the dogmatic
So^av Se vvv AeKxeoj/, ix. 2 (Sojjh. writings, with the simple iv
Ul.), 165, b, 8 TTipl fxkv ovv twv
: &\\ois; cf. p. 108, n. 3). In the
atroSeiKTiKOJV [sc. (TuWoyKTfiwv^ iv Metaph., however, it not only
TOts\vTiKo7s etp-qrai. agrees with ix. 6 sqq., but also
^ Anal. Pr. ii. 15, 64, a, 36 with V. 7, 1017, a, 85 sqq., i.e.
(eTTi Se &\\(av pct>rri/j.drwv (rvX-
5i' the treatise Uepl rod irocraxcis,
XoyiffaffBai Barepov ^ ws iv roils cf. p. 76, n. 3. The .same is true
TOTTiKols ixix^V ^oiSft") refers to of Ge7i. et Corr. ii. 10, 336, b,
Top. viii. and Anal. Pr. ii. 17, 65, 29, as compared with Metaph.
b, 15 (oirep eioTjTot lioi iv to7$ V. 7.


tract cited in the Be Goelo ^

was written later than that
work.^ The Meteorology refers to the De Sensu :
yet in its own preamble it described itself as the close
of the series of investigations as to inorganic nature, after
which the works on Animals and Plants were to be taken
up. The Natural History quotes the book on Plants,
which is spoken of in texts that are demonstrably latel*
as being still unwritten.'* The same treatise on Plants
is referred to in an early section of the Hspl ^cocdv

ryEV(T(os as already existing, and in a later one as yet

to come.^ The
book on Food is quoted in thelost

De Somno ; works on the Parts and

^ in the later
Generation of Animals, it is promised as in the future.'^
There is a similar relation of cross reference between
these same tracts and one of the lesser physiological

Be Calo, ii. 2, 281, b, 13 S)(Tirp dewpia ry Trepl
etprjTai iv rf}
if the world had a right and left (pvTwu. On
the other hand this
side, it would also be obliged to composition, as has been shown
have an above and below, a before on n. 1, is first promised
p. 93,
and behind Sidipia-rai ixeu ovv trepl
; in works which on their part
Tovruv iv Toh irepl ras tS>v ^(fwu quote in many places the History
Kivntrcis {Iiigr. An. 701, b, 18,
2, of Animals, Be Vita et Af., Part.
sqq,, ihid. c, 1 sq.) rh rris
5to An., and Ge7i. An.
{pvaecos ot/ceTo rrjs iKeivwu ^Ivai. 5 I. 23, 731, a, 29 oAAi Trepl :

- This is proved not only from fikv (pvTWP iv erepois iireaKevTai.

Meteorol. i. \fin. but also because On the other hand v. 3, 783, b,
the History of Animals and n. 23 : aWa Trepl fifv rovroov (the
i<fa}v fiop'iuv are quoted see Iiid, ; falling of the leaves in winter)
Arist. 100, a, 55 sq. iv &X\ois rh aXriov X(kt4ov (cf i. .

^ III. 2 fin. '.

ecTO) Se Trepl 1, 716, a, 1 Trepl fx^v olv (pvTWv,

TOVTUV TJIJUV Td(i}p7}fi4vOV iv TOiS avra Kad'' aura X'^P^^ iiriaK^irrioi',

Trepl ras alaO^creiy 5eiKvv/x4uois (^De and p. 93, n. 1).
iSeitsu, 3) 5ih TO /j.ev X4yw/JLV, rots C. 3, 456, b, 5 ^tp-nrai 5e

S' d)s vTra,pxov(Ti xPV<^('>H-^&o- olvtwp. Trepl rovrojv iv rols Trepl rpocprjs.
f^till more clearly must we, in Cf. p. 92, and on the chro-

3IeteoT. ii. 3, 359, b, 2-1, refer nological relation of the writings

the ('[priTUL ip 6.K\ois to De n. virvov, n. (c^wv fxopiwv, U. ^(fdiv
Sensu, 4. ycviaewst see BoNiTZ, Ind. Arist.
* H. An. V. 1, 539, a, 20: 103, a, 16 sqq., 55 sqq.


texts,^ making it impossible to say which comes before

the other. The tract on the Parts of Animals is cited
once in that on the Motion of Animals, which it cites

three times itself.^

How are we to treat this peculiarity ? Are we so to

pervert the formulas of reference in all these cases as to
read what ostensibly refers to an earlier writing as if it

were only an indication of something intended in a later

one ? This would be negatived by the number of cases in
which the phenomenon recurs itself a notable fact and
also by the circumstance that in several cases the assump-
tion of the later treatise as a thing already in existence is
too intimately interwoven with the tenor of the passage
to allow the change.^ The like reasons stand equally
against the theory that these abnormal references crept
into the text after Aristotle's death."* But there is a far

n, ^w7)$ Ka\ Oavdrov, together rh 5' airiov 4v rots irepi iropeias Kal
with the connected n. avairvoris, Kivf}<re(as rwv ((fwv ffprfrai.
of. p. 91 sq. 3Thus Toj?. vii. 3, 153, a,
Iiigr. An.
706, a, 33
5, 24, where two lines would have to
many animals have the front and be thrown out in order to remove
hind parts near one another, oTov the reference, and Meteorol. iii.
TO T6 jxaKoLKia KoX Tb. (TrpofifidSr} 2 fin. (p. 125, n. 3), where
Tuv offTpaKoSepfidiv. eljOTjToi Se irepi the ws inrdpxovffiy ;jtpi7 trw/ie^a
rovTwv irpSrcpop eV kr4pois [Part. plainly shows that the reference
An. iv. 9, 684, b, 1 sqq., 34, where is not to a future exposition.
the same is said of the fiaXoKid Still more violent than the
re Ka\ CTTpOfifiwSrj rwv otTTpoKoBep- changes of text here contested is
fxwy). Onthe other hand, Part. the resource {Ar. Libr. Orel. 118
An. iv. 11, 690, b,14 ^ S' alria: sq.) of giving to iXp-nrai, when
T7JS airoSlas ahrSbv (of snakes) necessary, the meaning of ^r;07j-
tlfprjTot iv rols irepl Trjs iropeias rwv o-erot, and of denying the
C(f(^v (c. 8, 708, a, 9 sqq.) Siwpia-- reference to the future in expres-
fifvois. Ibid, 692, a, 16: irepl 5e sions like JS iKitvov rov Kaiphv
Trjs Tuv KaixTTvKwv Kdfi\p(i)5 iv To7s
rrepl iropeias (c. 7, 707, b, 7, sqq.) Besides the passages given

TrpoTcpov iiriaKfiTTai Koiv^ inpi in the preceding note, this

irdvrwv.With reference to the suggestion seems especially ob-
same passage, iv. 13, 696, a, 11 jectionable in Be Ccelo, ii. 2 {rid.
ahistotle's writings 127

simpler explanation, if it be true that he did not at once

publish those books in which we find references to later
texts as already written, but used them for a time only
among his scholars and in connection with his oral
lectures. In such manuscripts addenda would be in-
and among them references to works written
laterwould come in from time to time. If the author
was never able to give to such a work any final revision
for the purpose of publication, it might well happen

that in one place a reference would stand in its origin-

ally correct form, as to a future work, though in another
passage of the same or an earlier text a note might
have been incorporated which spoke of the same work
as already written. The same theory will explain the
fact that the Politics which we have every reason to
consider as a book never finished by Aristotle, and
published in its unfinished form after his death ^
is cited
in the Rhetoric^ along with the Poetics,'^ which is itself

spoken of by the Politics in the future tense. ^ The fact

is that Aristotle had written a part of the Politics before
he wrote the Rhetoric and Poetics. Therefore he could
call the Poetics a future book in the Politics^ and yet
quote a passage of the Politics in the Rhetoric. If he

supra, p. 125, n, 1) since the et ko7s irepl tovtwp), the Poetics fre-
8e Sel Kal t^J ovpavcf, &c. (line 18) quently, vid. sujjra p. 102, n. 1.
corresponds with the Znjipiarai VIII. 7, 1341, b, 39: on the

fxiv oiv (line 13). The whole pas- catharsis vvv filv awXcis, irdXiv 5'
' '

sage from SKvpiarai to eHhoyov iv rois ir^pl iroi7]TiKris ipov/x^u

inrapx'^tv iy avrip (line 20), could (Ta<bi<mpov, which,
as Bernays
be dispensed with, and it would {Ahh. d. hist. jjMI. Ges. in
all have to be taken as a post- Breslau,Y). 139) rightly supposes,
Aristotelian interpolation. probably refers to a lost section
' Cf. infra^ ch. xiii. of our Poetics^ and not to one of
2 The Politics i. 8, 1366, a, the Politics (Heitz, Verl. Schr.
21 {dirjKpifiuTai yap iu to7s iroAtrt- 100 sq.).


had published the Rhetoric^ he could not in it have

referred as he did to the unpublished Politics}
The closing words of the Topics seem to indicate

that Aristotle's treatises were meant primarily for his

scholars. Addressing his readers, he bespeaks their
indulgence or their thanks for the theory he has un-
folded to them, 3 referring specially to those who have
heard his lectures. This does not imply that our Topics
are only the lecture notes of the Master, or the note-
book of one of his hearers. Such a view is negatived
both by the wording of the passage,'' and by the fact
that in later writings he often refers to the Topics
himself^ in words which cannot be explained away as
relating either to a lost book of his own or to another
author. Such an address would be out of place in a
work which was tendered to an unlimited circle of
readers by formal publication, but it is entirely natural
if the Topics was then issued only to Aristotle's scholars

^ It is more difficult to ex- iKapus irapa ras aWas irpayiJ.areias

plain the strange fact that Rliet. ras e/c irapaSoaews rjv^Tj/xevas, Xoiirhv
iii. 1, 1404, b, 22 speaks of the h.v ftTj irdvTCvv v/jluv ^ tu>v TjKpoa-
actor Theodorus as if he were /jLfvwv (pyov Td7s /xhu TropaAeAei/tjUe-
still living and acting, whilst VOIS TTJS /uLedoSoV (TVyyVUfjLT}U ToTs 5'
PoUt. viii. 17, 133G, b, 27 treats vpT)ixeuois TToAA^v e^eiv X-P'-^-
him as one belonging to the past. 3 Some MS8. read, instead of
But here the
question arises, vfiiv and vfxwv, rj/xiv and rj/xwu but

whether we possess, in the third Aristotle could not possibly have

book of Ehetoria, the work of included himself among those
Aristotle himself, or the work of whom he thanks, and to whom
a later writer, who, in this pas- he apologises.
sage, which seems to be in the
distinguishes among
genuine style of Aristotle, may the readers the ' ^/cpoa/xeVoj
have used one of his earlier from the rest only by striking

works. Cf. p. 72, n. 2. out the ^ before rtav ijKpoafxfpwu

- SojjJi. El. 33 fin. : Aristotle could we get a simple address
had no predecessor for his theory to listeners, but the MSS. all have
of demonstration ; et Se (paiv^rai it.

Biaaauevois i/fuu . . . e;;^etj/ tj fxedodos ^ T?id. Arxst, 102, a, 40 sqq.


as a memorial of the contents of his lectures or as an

auxiliary to them.^ That this was true of some of his
books, must be inferred from other passages also. The
synopsis of varying meanings of words, which now forms
the fifth book of the Metaphysics, could never have
been published by Aristotle in its present form as a
glossary without beginning or end. It can only have
been placed in the hands of his scholars simply as an
aid to his teaching. Yet he often refers to it, and
that even in texts earlier than the Metaphysics.^ The
same argument applies to the often-cited anatomical
texts, ^ which must have been limited to a narrow circle
because of the drawings which were an essential part of
them. If it be true, however, that writings which
Aristotle cites were published only to his scholars, it
follows that the same must be true of those in which
these citations occur for no one could in a published

book an unpublished one, or say that a subject

refer to
not gone into was fully explained in an inaccessible

The same theory by which we explain the group of

peculiarities already noticed, will explain others also.
The trick of carelessness in style which is so often re-
marked, the repetitions which surprise us in an expo-
which upset a
sition otherwise compact, the insertions
naturally well-ordered movement of thought are all
explained most easily if we suppose that the author
never put the finishing touches to the writings in ques-
tion, and that various matters were at the time of the
' As Stahr, ibid.t has sup- ' About which see p. 89,
ed. n. 1.
2 Cf.
pp. 76, n. 3, 124, n. 4.

posthumous publication added to the original text either

from parallel copies or from the author's notes.^ This
theory becomes extremely probable when, as in the
books On the Soul^^ we find throughout considerable
sections clear traces of a double recension, without any
reason to say that either recension is not Aristotle's.^
The same kind of argument would apply also to the
and Metaphysics^ but as to these we have

independent grounds for the belief that they remained

unfinished, and were only published after his death.'*

If this be so, a further inference is forced on us ; for we

must conclude that if a certain book was a posthumous
publication only, all which refer to it in such a way as
to show that they follow it in the series cannot have
been issued in Aristotle's life. This line of argument,
even we could apply it with high probability to

nothing more than the Be Anima^ would take us a long

way for that work is cited in many of the books on

natural philosophy.^
The scope and the modifications of this theory as to
the way in which the Aristotelian books were produced,
can only be settled by a detailed examination of the indi-
supposition which a number ^ Qf p gO, n. 2. It may be
of scholars have been led to adopt, otherwise with the repetitions
with various particular modifica- and disarrangements of the con-
tions : thus Bitter, iii. 29 {I'id. nection in the Etlilcs, especially
mpra, mid.) Bean-
p. 121, n. 2 ; bks. 5-7. Cf. p. 97, n. 1.
Dis, ii. Ueberweg, Gesch.
b, 113; As in Bk. vii. of the Physics,

d. Phil. i. 174, eighth ed., SusE- on which Spengel has written in

MIHL, Arist. Poet. p. 1 sq., Ber- Abh. d.Miinch. Akad. iii. 2, 305
NAYS, Arist. Politik, 212. It is also sqq. Cf .Prantl, Arist. Phys. 337.
probable that Aristotle, instead of * Cf p. 76, n. 3, and infra, Ch.

writing, usually dictated: which xiii,, init.

would account for many of their- * Vid. supra, p. 93, n. 2; Ind.
regularities of style, such as the Ar. 102, b, 60 sqq.
lengthy and involved anacolutha.

vidual texts. But the peculiarities above referred to,

the reference to a class of published or '
exoteric ' works,
the habit of citing later books in earlier ones, the tricks
of repetitionand disorder which indicate the absence of
the author's final revision
all these extend through

almost the whole of the extant Corp-is. From this and

from the fact that, though the Topics and the Be Anima
were apparently written only for Aristotle's pupils,
yet they are frequently cited by later treatises,^ it seems
very probable that the whole of our Corpus, so far as it

is genuine, consists of books which were produced in

connection with the teaching in the Lyceum, were
intended at first for Aristotle's pupils only, and were
made generally accessible by formal publication only
after the master's death. Of the great majority of them
it may also be assumed, not only from their contents,
but also from their express internal correlation that
Aristotle is them working up in writing what he had
already given his pupils by way of oral lectures,^ though
it is also likely that when they came to be published
by third parties explanations were added and whole
passages interpolated from Aristotle's papers or his
other lectures.^ A few of the texts may have served him
as aids in his teaching, without being themselves matter
of lecturing."* One of the books of the Metaphysics ^

* Cf. p. 129 and 130. in the MetapJtysies and the Be

^ Cf. what has been remarked Anima.
on p. 128 sq. with regard * Like the composition Ucpl
to the closing words of the rod iroaaxoos (cf. p. 76, n. 3, at p.
Tojncs. 77). One is inclined to think
^ As, from what has been the same of the ^Avarofxai.
said on pp. 76 and 130, * The twelfth, cf. same note,

seems to have been the case at p. 78.



seems to have been a plan for a lecture course, tliougli

not intended, in its present shape, for communication

to his pupils. This, however, cannot well be true of
any great portion of the extant writings. That theory
is excluded in the first place by the all-pervading

system of cross references, which both in number and

in manner go far beyond anything that Aristotle
could have wanted for himself.^ Again it is negatived
by the fact that, in spite of all the defects already
referred to, these works are from a literary point of

view far more carefully worked up than they would

have been if they were merely sketches for the lecturer's
own use. Then again, the unusual recurrence of formulaB
of introduction, transition and conclusion, shows that
the author is writing, not for himself, but for other s.^
* Bk. xii. of the Metajihysies {Sojjh. El. c. 2. fin. ; Metapli. vii.
has in the first half none at all, 12, init., xiii. 10, 1086, b, 16 and
and in the second, which is supra), Sxrirep Xeyofiev, Sxrirep
worked out much more fully ixiyoixev (Eth. ^^. vi. 3, 1139, b,
(since the SeSet/crai, c. 7, 1073, 26, Metaph. 1010, a, 4, Bhet.
iv. 5,
a, 5, relates 1071, b, 20), a
to c. 6, i. 1, 1055, a, 28 and
single reference (c. 8, 1073, a, 32 KaQairep iir-fiAOofiev (Meta2)h. x. 2,
SeSet/CTtti 5' iv rois ipvffiKois Trepl init., xiii. 2, 1076, b, 39), KaBairep
TovTosv). most
It is otherwise in SieiXS/jLeOa {Metajjh. vii. 1, init.),
of the other works. Still more h. Siwpiffafxev, iv oTs SuopKra/iifda,
decisive, however, is the form of TO. Sitopiafieva Tjfiiv (^Metaph. i. 4,
the references. No one uses for 985, a, 11, vi. i,fin., i. 7, 1028, a,
himself expressions like the 4), 5r)A.o/ Tifxiv {Rhet. i. 2, 1356, b,
(^a/iej/ mentioned in p. 115, n. 4, or 9, 1357, a, 29), rededprjTai rjfuv
circumstantial formulas, like %k iKavais avrwv (^Metaph. i. 3,
re rrjs Iffropias r^s irepi to ^ya 983, 33) cf. also those sen-
a, ;

<pavephv KoX rwv avarofiSiv koX tences in which what has been
vffTipov \ex&'f}0'^TO.t ev ro7s irepl discussed before is summed up,
yeveaews (Part. An. iv. 10, 689, and what is going to be treated
a, 18), and the like (the Ind. Ar. is announced (e.g. Metapli. xiii. 9,
97, b, sqq. furnishes examples), or 1086, a, 18 sqq., Rhet. i. 2, 1356,
like those quoted on p. 116. b, 10 sqq. ; Soph. El. c. 33, 183,
2 To this class belongs the a, 33 sqq. ; Meteorol. init.).
conclusion of the Topics (see p. Oncken {Staatsl. d. Ar., i. 68)
128, n. 2) the vvv 5e Xdyoofiev
; cites, from the Nlcom. Ethics and


Another unlikely theory ^ is that which suggests

that the whole or a great part of our Corpus consists of
transcripts in which Aristotle's pupils had set down the
contents of his lectures. We have seen that they are
in all probability closely connected with the lecture
courses. 2But whether they are a mere transcript of
working-up of the same matter, whether
these, or a free
they were designed to repeat as correctly as might be
the words of the master, or to leave us a spiritual re-
production of his thoughts, whether in fine they were
written by his pupils or by himself, is a very different
question. The note-theory may rely on the suggestion
that it would explain the carelessness of the methods of

the Politics dlone,thvctj-two pas- Trepl Tuv TToXniKav aKovaSjULCvov.

. . .

sages with such formulas. No one (Eth. X. 10, 1079, b, 23, 27 vii. ;

will believe that Aristotle would 5, 1147, b, 9, are not relevant

have had to write down ail such here ; and Pol. vii. 1, 1 .S23, b, 39 :

expressions in his lecture-book, kr4pas yap epyov (rxoA.7js

like a man beginning to teach, Tuvra, only means * this be-
who is not sure of a single longs to another inquiry.')
word. Oncken further proves that, in
' Oncken, ihid. 48 sqq. fol- referring on any point to other
lowing ScALiGER. 0. there re- works, only such expressions are
marks (62 sq.) that he thinks used as are suited to a person
he has only made this supposition who is sjjeaking, such as etpr]rai,
probable with regard to the KiKriov, &KKos \6yos, &c. but ;

Ethics and Politics, but his such language was certainly used
reasons would hold equally for in referring to writings (like the
the majority of our Aristotelian Problems and the i^wrepiKol \6yoi,
writings. see above, p. 96, and p. 115, n. 4),
2 Oncken, in proof of this, and is often so used in our own
rightly appeals, besides other days. He also refers to the title
passages (p. 59 sq.), to those TToAtTtK^ UKpoaa-is (aj). DlOG-. V.
passages of the Ethics in which 24) ; (pvcTiKi] aKp6a(ns is likewise
an audience is spoken of Eth. i. : universally used for the Physics
1 , 1095, a, 2, 1 1 :5iJ> t^s troKiTiicns (rid. supr. p. 81, n. 2) ; but since
ovK eo-Tt oIk7os aKpoari^s 6 vos . . . we do know with whom these
irepl ficv uKpoarov , TrecppoifiiaffOu
. . titles originate, not much can be
roaavTa. Ibid. c. 2, 1095, b, 4 inferred from them.
Sih Se? rols edecriv ^x^"* Ka\a>s rhv


statement.^ But on closer inquiry, tMs argument

comes to nothing. For it is not here a question of any
such defects as commonly arise in the redaction of
well-ordered lectures badly reported, through omissions
and repetitions and the erroneous piecing together of
the broken argument. It is more a question of peculi-
arities of style not restrained by the writer, which are
too characteristic and too constant in their character to
allow us to make chance and the errors of third persons
answerable for them.^ Such an origin might be thought
possible if they appeared in some books and not in
others. But as they in fact extend, though in varying
degrees, through the whole, they can only be ascribed
to Aristotle himself. The very style and form of the
' And this is the chief occurring so often in all Aristo-
ground on which Oncken bases telian writings, which are put at
his opinion. The defects of one time in simple form, at
our texts are most easily ex- another (as in De An. i. 1, 403,
plained from the natural defects
b, 7 sqq.. Gen. et Corr. ii. 11,337,
of a peripatetic monologue b, 5, and in the passages ex-
(he says, p. 62), ' hastily copied plained by BoNiTZ, Arist. Stiid.
in and badly edited from the ii. 16 sq., ihid. 6, 333, b, 30) in a

note-books of the audience.' disjunctive form, but are not

With these
must be answered. That such unanswered
reckoned the formation of the questions could not have occurred
sentences (searchingly inves- in a composition (Oncken, ihid.
tigated by BoNiTZ, Arist. Stud. 61), one cannot allow how
ii. 3 sqq.) especially the ex- many, for instance, are found,
planations, often of consider- only to mention one modern
able length, which are parenthe- writer, in Lessing ! Neither can
tically introduced, and the ana- one admit the supposition {Ihld.
colutha consequent on this the ; 59), that they were answered, in
frequent use or absence of certain oral discourse, by the audience or
particles (proofs of which are to the teacher. They seem to be,
be found in Eucken, De Arist. both in Aristotle and Lessing, a
Dicendi Rationed and in Bonitz's very natural diversion of an
notice of this work in the Ztschr. acute and lively Dialectic, which
f. d. ostr. Gymn. 1866, 804 sqq.), would have been more likely to
and similar points. The same is be removed than retained by any
the true view as to the questions reporter.


writings therefore afford a strong indication that not

only their contents but their language is Aristotle's own.
A like conclusion follows also (as we have seen ^) from
the series of cross references; for in a lecture a man
might allude to one or two past courses, but could
hardly refer to a whole series of lectures widely distant
in date, as to which he could not assume that the details

were in the memory of his present audience.^ It seems

moreover that in many cases, as in the Natural Philo-
sophy, the matter of the various treatises goes too closely
into detail for the purposes of oral teaching. Such
lectureswould have taxed the attention and memory of
the most zealous hearer, and it is difficult to see how
they could have been transcribed so perfectly.^ Yet
these treatises stand on no different footing from the

We learn that Theophrastus and Eudemus in their

Analytics followed Aristotle, not only in the general
plan, but in and we can bring proof that these

followers adopted word for word several passages of the

extant Metaphysics.^ Eudemus adopted the EtJiics of

' See pp. 128, 131. Anima, Be Sensu, Part. An.,

''Note, in relation to this Gen.An.'fiheMetajyhysicsqnoiQ
point, how one and the same the Analytics, Physics, Be Ccelo,
composition is frequently re- Ethics, the iK\oy^ tSjv iuauriuu
f erred to in the most remote inthe Rhetoric, the Topics, Afialy-
places, and how, on the other tics. Politics, Poetics, and the
hand, the most widely differing QeuScKTeia are quoted,
texts arecited in thesametreatise. ^ xjjg notion of formal dicta-
Thus the Physics, Be Coelo, Gen. tion can hardly be suggested,
et Corr., Meteor., Be Anima, Be but if it were, it would imply
Sensu, Part. An., are quoted in that our Aristotelian writings
many passages of the Metaphysics were the work of Aristotle him-
and in the Ethics the books on
; self and not his pupils' notes.
Generation and Corruption in the * Cf. p. 67.
Meteorology, Mei^aphysics, Be * Cf. p. 78, n. 1,


Aristotle, and still more the Physics,^ often verbal!

into his own corresponding texts. We actually possess
letters in which Eudemus consults Theophrastus as to
the text of a particular passage and receives his answer.^
These facts clearly justify Brandis' remark.^ that the
fashion in which Aristotle's followers clung to the
master's writings presupposes that they were dealing
with his actual words. As to the Topics in particular,
it has been already proved that it is not a mere tran-
script by another hand, but that on the contrary it

bears to be and must have been the work of Aristotle

(see p. 128).
If it be true that the philosophical works of Ari-
stotle had not yet passed at his death beyond the circle

of his personal hearers, this circumstance would make

it also intelligible that they might for a long time,
even after his death, have been withheld from general
publicity, or that they might even by an unlucky acci-
dent have been lost to the Peripatetic School. And,
according to a curious and well-known story, such an
accident was said to have occurred, involving, as was
supposed, the loss for two centuries of the texts of

* See the section dealing with Phys. v. 2, 226, b, 14, and are
Eudemus, etc., infra, Ch. xix., found in Simpl. Phys. 216 a,
and notes thereon. Schol. 404, b, 10.
' These have reference to ' Gr.-rom, Phil. ii. b, 114.



Strabo and Plutarch say that the works of Aristotle

and Theophrastus passed, at the death of the latter,

to his heir, Neleus of Scepsis, and that they were

stowed away in a cellar by the heirs of Neleus, dis-
covered only in the early part of the last century B.C.
by Apellico of Teos in a decayed condition, brought by
him to Athens and thence by Sulla as spoils of war to
Rome, where they were afterwards used and republished
by Tyrannic and Andronicus.^ From this story the
writers named argue that to the Peripatetics who
followed Theophrastus, not only the master's chief works,
but also his true philosophical system was unknown,
but they do not tell us whether this allegation is

grounded on their own opinion, or on definite evidence,

' The date of this edition must and Atticus (Cic. Ad Qu. Fr. ii. 6,
have fallen somewhere about Ad Att. iv. 4, 8). His work at
the middle of the last century Rome could not, therefore, have
B.C. For as Tyrannic was in B.C. extended very far beyond the
71 taken prisoner in Amisus and middle of the century, even
released by Muraena (cf Zeller,
. though he perhaps lived on into
I^h. d. Gr., pt. iii. a, 550, 1), he the last third of it. (He died ac-
could hardly have settled in cording to Suid. 8. v. ynpaihs, in
Rome before LucuUus' return to the third year of an Olympiad
Rome (66 B.C.). We know that the number of which has un-
he was even at the time of his fortunately been mis\\Titten.)
capture a scholar of renown, About Andronicus cf. Zeller,
that he was instructing in B.C. Ph. d. Gr., pt. iii. a, 549, 3, and
67 the sons of Cicero, and had above, p. 49, n. 6.
some intercourse with the latter

and what the nature of the evidence might be.^

if so,

Later found in the tale a welcome explanation of


the incompleteness and irregularities of the existing

Corpus ^ If in truth the case were exactly as Strabo
and Plutarch say, we should not only not wonder at the
existing defects, but we should rather have expected a
far wider and more hopeless corruption than appears in
fact to exist. For if it were true of the most important
' Our authorities for the Tols fiev irdhai roTs jxera &e6(ppa<r-
above narrative are, as we have rov ovK %xov(nv SAcws to fiifiXla
remarked, Strabo (xiii. 1, 54, p, ttA^J' 6\lya)i', Kal fjaKiara ruv e|-
608) and Phitarch {^ulla, 26), (arepiKwVy ex^"' <p^Xoao<p7v

for Suid. SwAAas only copies Phi- TrpayfiariKus dAAor Ocaas \rjKvdl^iv
tarch. The latter, however, un- To7s 5' varepov, a(p^ ov to. fiifiXia
doubtedly gets his information ravra irporjAdev, &fji^ivov fxev iKfivwv
from Strabo. The only thing <pi\o(ro(pe7v Kal apKTTOTeXi^etv,
which the latter does not give is at/ayKa^eadai nevroi. to. iroAAa
the remark that Andronicus ob- t/coTO \4yeip Sia rh ttAtj^os ru>v
tained copies of the Aristotelian a/jLapriuu. But we can only sup-
works through Tyrannio, pub- pose this to have been taken from
lished them, and wrote the rovs Andronicus, if we limit the
vvv ^epo/xevovs irivaKas. Plut. may ' younger Peripatetics (toTs '

have added this from what he S' &c.) to those pre-

knew from other sources, or also decessors of Andronicus who
(as Stahr supposes in Arist, w^ere able to use the editions
ii. 23) from Strabo's historical of Apellico and Tyrannio, and
work (made use of immediately it is very questionable whether
afterwards for an incident in anyone could attribute to these
Sulla's residence at Athens). "We men, who are qiiite unknown to
have no right to suppose (Heitz, us, an improvement of the Peri-
Verl. Si'hr. 10) a source for his patetic doctrine, and a closer
information about A pellico's dis- insight into Aristotle, such as
covery of books, independent of might with reason be ascribed to
Strabo. Hence our only stable Andronicus. As little can we
witness for this item is Strabo. assume Tyrannio or Boethus
But we do not know to whom the (to whom Grote ascribes it, Ari-
latter was indebted for his in- stotle, i. 54) as Strabo's source of
formation; the supposition that information, since the former
it was Andronicus is very unsafe. would have taken a different view
Strabo, after the statements as of his own edition, and the latter
to the purchase of the Aristote- of the younger Peripatetics.
lian books by Apellico, and as to 2 Thus BUHLE, Allff. EncyU.
his faulty editing of them, says : Sect. 278 sq., and lately
i. vol. V.
avve^r) Se ro7s iK twv irepnraTMv, Heitz; see next page, n. 2.


works that the only source of our extant text was to be

found in these MSS., which rotted for a century and
more in the cellar of Scepsis, till Apellico found them
worm-eaten, ruined by damp, and tossed into a dis-
ordered heap if it be true that he, as Strabo says,
supplied unskilfully the missing portions, and that
Tyrannio and Andronicus also had no further manu-
scripts they could collate who then could guarantee
that in any number of cases there would not have been
foreign matter, found among Neleus' MSS., adopted
into Aristotle's text, or connected parts of his own
works separated, and other portions blunderingly bound
together, or lacunas great and small filled up by the
editor's fancy ?
Modern criticism has, however, raised doubts about
Strabo's story ^ which even its defenders cannot alto-
gether silence.^ That Theophrastus bequeathed his
library to Neleus is beyond doubt. ^ That the MSS. of
^ After the isolated and dis- cularity (ArisMtelia,u. 1-166, cf.
regarded voice of a learned 294 sq.). Later scholars have
Frenchman, about the beginning: mostly followed them.
of the eighteenth century, had 2 Heitz, Verl. ScJir. d. Ar.
raised doubts as to this narration 9 sqq., 20, 29 sqq. Grote, Ari-

(see what Stahr gives in Arist. stotle, i. 50 sqq. Geant, Ethics


ii. 163 sq. from the Journal des of Ar. i. 5 sqq., Aristotle, 3 sqq.
Sqaransoi the year 1717, p. 655 Certain errors in Strabo's and
sqq., as to the anonymous com- Plutarch's representation are in-
position LeK Amenltcz de la deed admitted by these scholars,
Critique), Brandis (' Ueb. die but in the main it is said to be
Schick sale d. arist. Bucher.' correct. It is impossible here to
lihein. Mils. v. Niebuhr and examine in detail the reasons
Brandis, i. 236 sqq , 259 sqq. cf. ; given for this opinion, but the
Gr.-r'6m. Phil. ii. b, 66 sqq.) was grounds for its rejection are
the first to deal with it seriously. fully dealt with in the text.
KOPP (Rhein. Mnn. iii. 93 sqq.) 3 Theophrastus' will, ajnid
supplemented his criticism, and DiOG. V. 52 ; cf. Athen. i. 8,
finally IStahb has discussed the where added that Ptolemy
it is
question with exhaustive parti- Philadelphus bought the whole

Aristotle and Theophrastus belonging' to that library

passed to the heirs of Neleus and were by them hidden
in a canal or cellar to escape a royal book-collector
and were afterwards found by Apellico in a desperate
condition, there is no need to doubt. All the fdcts ^

which Strabo relates as to the matter may therefore be

correct enough. And it is also beyond question that
Andronicus' edition of the Aristotelian text-books was
of epoch-making importance both for the study of the
system and for the preservation of the text. If,how-
ever, it be maintained that these writings were
nowhere to be found outside the Scepsis cellar and were
unknown therefore to the Peripatetic School after the
death of Theophrastus, there are the strongest arguments
against any such theory.
In the first place, it is almost incredible that an
event so singularly notable as the discovery of the lost
masterpieces of Aristotle should never have been even
alluded to by any of those who, since that time, have
concerned themselves with Aristotle, as critics or as
philosophers. Cicero says not a word, though he had
abundant occasion, for he lived at Rome at the very
time when Tyrannio was working among the literary
booty of Sulla, and was, in fact, in active intercourse
with Tyrannio himself. Alexander, '
the Exegete,' says
nothing ; nor does any one of the Greek critics who used
the very works of Andronicus, either at first or at second
collection of Neleus and bad it Alexandria, this may easily be
brought to Alexandria. an inexact expression, just as
' For when Athenieus, or it is inexact, in .the opposite
the epitomiser of his introduc- way, when, in v 214, he makes
tion, ibid., asserts that the wJwle Apellico possess not the ?vorks,
library of Neleus was taken to but the librai'y of Aristotle.

hand. Andronicus himself seems to have ascribed to

Apellico's discovery so little importance that he based
neither the inquiry into the genuineness of a tract nor
the discussion of a various reading upon any reference
to the MSS. of Neleus.^ Later editors did not in any
way feel themselves bound by his text,^ though if

Strabo were right, it could be the only authentic one.

On the other hand, the theory that by the loss of
the works of Aristotle, the followers of Theophrastus
strayed from the original teachings of their school and
lost themselves in mere rhetorical developments, is an
obvious contradiction of the facts. It may be true that
the Peripatetics of the third century strayed away as
time went on from the study of natural philosophy and
metaphysics, but this change took place not on the
death of Theophrastus, but at the earliest on the death
of his successor Strato. So far was he from confining
himself to ethics and rhetoric, that he devoted himself,
on the contrary, with a one-sided preference to physics,
though he by no means neglected logic and meta-
physics. He frequently contradicted Aristotle ; but
that could not be by ignorance of the Aristotelian system,
because he attacked it expressly.^ It does not appear

> With regard to the first, pute by means of Sulla's MSS.

cf.theaccount given onp. 66,n. 1. (or, if he had not access to the
as to his doubts about the latter, at least by means of tlie
n. 'Epix-nveias with respect to
: copies of Tyrannic, which, ac-
the second point, cf. Dexipp. cording to Plutarch, he used). It
In Arist. Categ. p. 25, Speng. seems, therefore, that these MSS.
(^Schol. in Ar. i2, a, 30) vp&rov : were not the only copies nor
ixv ovK iv &Tra<n ro7s avri- even the original ones of the
ypdtpois rh " 6 5e \6yos rris ovaias" works in question. Cf. BeANDIS,
ws Ka\ Bo-qdhT /xPTifio-
irpSffKfirai, Rhein. MllS. i. 241.
vvi Kal'AvSp6viK05
it is not * Qf SiMPL. Phys. 101, a.
said that he has settled the dis- ' The proofs will be given,

that the scientific activity of the School came at once

to an end, even after Strato's death. ^ The theory that
the falling away of the later Peripatetics from Aristotle
was due to the loss of his writings from Athens is in
every way unnatural. It is much more reasonable to
correlate it to the parallel movement in the Academy,
which nevertheless was at no loss for texts of
But who can believe that the most important works
of the great philosopher were not extant at the date of
his successor's death in any other MSS. than those
which Neleus inherited ? or that not only in Aristotle's
lifetime, but also in the nine Olympiads between his
death and that of Theophrastus, not one of his many
followers had ever been willing and able to possess
himself of the most important sources of the Peripatetic
teaching ? Who can think that Eudemus, the most
loyal of the Aristotelian circle, or Strato, the shrewdest
of the Peripatetics, would have done without the Master's
books or that Demetrius of Phalerus did not include
them in his zeal for collecting learned works or that
Ptolemy Philadelphus bought other books of Aristotle
and Theophrastus for his Library of Alexandria, but

omitted to obtain copies of their essential texts ?

The story also supposes that the possessors of the

manuscripts objected to such uses of them : that Ari-
stotle kept his writings closely under lock and key, and
that Theophrastus, for no apparent reason, kept up this

in part, in the following p^ges. '

See, at end of vol. ii., the
They will also be found in section on the Pseudo-Aristote-
the section on Strato, infra^ lian texts {infra, Ch. xxi.).
Ch. XX., and notes thereon.

secrecy, and laid it as a duty on his heirs. All this is

too absurd to need serious refutation.

We are not left, however, wholly to conjecture.
The materials are very scanty for the history of a time
whose philosophic literature by an unhappy accident
we have almost wholly lost but we can still prove, as

to a great part of Aristotle's books, that they were not

unknown to the learned men of the two centuries that
elapsed between Theophrastus' death and the occupation
of Athens by Sulla. Whether Aristotle did or did not
\n.m.^e\i puhlish his strictly scientific treatises, they were
inany case destined to be the text-books of the School,
and to be used by its members. Even those numerous
passages in which they refer one to the other offer us a
palpable proof that, in the view of the writer, they were
not only to be read by his scholars, but closely studied
and compared, and, by consequence, that copies were to
be kept and multiplied. That this was done is clear,

not only from the notices which we find of particular

books, but from certain general considerations also.
If it is true that the Peripatetics lost the genuine
Aristotelianism when the library of Theophrastus
disappeared, must be because the sources of that

teaching were nowhere else to be found. But we hear

not only of Theophrastus but of Eudemus also, that he
imitated Aristotle ^ not only in the titles but also in the
contents of his books; and how close was the imitation
both in wording and in the line of thought, we can see
for ourselves in the JEthics and Physics of Eudemus.^

' For references see pp. 65 ^ Cf . p. 1 48, n. 4, and in the sec-

and 68. tion on Eudemus at Ch. xix., in/.


To do this, Eudemus must have possessed Aristotle's

texts; especially if, as a reliable story tells us,^ he used

them at a time when he was not living at Athens.

Again, it is beyond doubt that the Alexandrian Library
included a large number of Aristotle's works.^ The
compilers of the Alexandrine Canon, who place Aristotle
among the model writers of philosophy, may have had
chiefly in view the more careful style of his exoteric
writings ;
^ but in the foundation of that great collection
it is not possible that the scientific works of Aristotle
can have been left out of account. If the Catalogue of
Diogenes ^ comes from the Alexandrine Library, it is

proof positive that they were there : but even if that

conjecture (in itself extremely probable) were erroneous,
the Catalogue still proves in any case that the compiler of

Vide supra, p, 136, n. 3. 3 Besides what has been
2 Heitz ( Verl. Schr. 13) in- remarked on p. 142, we have the
deed thinks that if the Aristo- fact that Ptolemy Philadelphus
telianworks had been univer- busied himself zealously about
sallyknown and published, it Aristotelian books, paid high
would be incomprehensible that prices for them, and thus gave
Eudemus in his Physics (and occasion to the forgery of such
Ethics) should have imitated the texts (Ammon. Schol. in Arist.
words of Aristotle so exactly. 28, a, 43 David, iUd., 1. 14

It seems, however, that if SiMPL. Categ. 2, e). And such

Eudemus had hesitated to do accounts as those noticed at p.
this with regard to published 64, n. 1 and 67, n, 1, about the
works, a plagiarism on unpub- two books of the Categories and
lished ones must have seemed the forty of the Analytics which
much more unlawful to him. Adrastus found in old libraries,
It is impossible, however, to re- must refer especially to the
gard his conduct in this light Alexandrian Library. But it is
at all, and he himself probably not to be supposed that the
never so regarded it. His Ethics latter obtained only substituted
and Physics were never in- works, and did not possess the
tended to be anything but elabo- genuine ones, by reference to
rations of the Aristotelian works which the forgeries were proved.
universally known in the Peri- * See Stahr, ibid. 65 sq. on

patetic School, adapted to the this point.

needs of his own tuition. '^
For which see p. 48 sqq.


it, who lived later than Theoplirastus and earlier than

Andronicus, had before him a great part of our extant
Corpus Aristotelicum} Its probable author, Herm-
ippus, was acquainted with the works of Theophrastus
(which according to Strabo and Plutarch were buried in
Scepsis along with those of Aristotle), as is clear from
his catalogue of them, preserved, apparently, by Dio-
genes.^ That he at all events knew nothing of the
disappearance of the Aristotelian writings, may probably
be inferred from the silence of Diogenes on that subject.^
Another strong evidence of the use of the Aristotelian
books in the third century B.C. is to be found in the
Stoic teaching, which in its most systematic exposition
by Chrysippus follows both in logic and in physics
more closely on the Aristotelian than could be possible
if the Aristotelian text-books were unknown. There is,
indeed, some express evidence that Chrysippus had in
fact these texts in view.*

' Cf. p. 50, n. 1. originated with Hermippus, is

2 the more probable since that
the Metajyhysics of Theophrastus writer is mentioned immediately
rovTo Th fii^Xiov 'AuSpoviKos jxev before in v. 45.
KoX "Epfiiinros ayvoovaiv ovdh yap ^ For, on the one hand, it is

jMveiav avrov 8A.a>s TreTroiTjTot iv ttj not to be supposed that Herm-

avaypa<p^ rwu Qeocfypdarov fiifixiwv. ippus in his copious work on
From the same list evidently is Aristotle (mentionedon p. 51, n.2)
taken the scholion at the begin- would not have mentioned this cir-
ning of the seventh book of the cumstance, if he had been aware
History of Plants {apud Usener, of it and, on the other hand, it

Anal. Tkeophr . 23); Qo<f>pd(TTov isvery improbable that the author

irepl (pvruviaroplas Th tj'. "EpfjLiinros to whom Diogenes is indebted for
5e irepl (ppvyaviKcov Koi iroiw^wv, 'Ar- his many quotations from Hermip-
Sp6viKos Se irepl <pvrwv IffTopias. pus would have passed over this
DiOG. (ii. 55) names a book by information. Diogenes, to whose
Hermippus on Theophrastus, of literary tastes it must have recom-
which it probably formed a part, mended itself, would have seized
That the lists in Diog. v. 46 sqq., upon he found it.
it, if
at least in part and indirectly, * For even if we were not

If the works of Aristotle were first unearthed by

Apellico and first fully known through Tyrannio and
Andronicus, how could it be said of Critolaus that he
imitated the old masters of his school Aristotle, that

is, and Theophrastus ? ^ or how of Herillus the Stoic

that he based himself upon them,^ or of PauEetius that
he was always quoting them ? ^ How could we have
mention of the constant tendency of Posidonius towards
Aristotle ? '*
How could Cicero's teacher, Antiochus,
have explained the Aristotelian teaching as one with
the Academic, and attempted their complete and
thorough-going amalgamation ? ^ or where could oppo-
nents such as Stilpo and Hermarchus have found the
material for their attacks on Aristotle ?^ So again, since
Andronicus gives us the alleged letter in which Alex-
ander complains to Aristotle about the publication of
his doctrine,^ it follows that long before that date
writings of Aristotle, including some of those which
were afterwards reckoned '
exoteric,' must have in fact
been public property.
Scanty as are the sources open to us, we can our-
selves demonstrate the public use before Andronicus,
not only of many of the lost works, which, being

inclined to attach much import- * Ihid. iii. a, 514, 2.

ance to the polemic against one * Fuller particulars, ihid.
of the discourses mentioned on 635 sqq.
* Stilpo wrote, according to
p. 56, n, 1, yet the expression in
Plut. Sto. Rep. 24, p. 1045, sup- DiOG. ii. 120, an 'ApiaToreKris,
poses acquaintance with Ari- Hermarchus (ibid. x. 25) nphs
stotle's dialectical writings. 'ApiffTOT^Xyiv. From the expres-
Cic. Fin. V. 5, 14. sion of Colotes ajmd Plut. Adv.
2lUd. V. 25, 73. Col. 14, 1, p. 1115, we can, how-
' lUd. iv. 28, 79 cf. Zell., ever, conclude nothing.

Pit. d. Gr. pt. iii. a, 503, 3, 2nd edw ' Seepp.22,n. I,andll2,n. 3.


exoteric or hypomnsmatic/ are not here in point, but

also of the majority of the scientific treatises themselves.
In the case of the Analytics we show this by the
Catalogue of Diogenes and by the notices as to the use
made of them by Theophrastus and Eudemus.^ For the
Categories and the YispX kpiij^vsiasj we have the Cata-
logue.^ As to the former, Andronicus found in his
MS. the spurious Post-praedicamenta added to them,

and was acquainted with several recensions, having

varying titles and different readings.'' It follows, there-
fore, must have been long before
that the Categories
his day in the hands of transcribers.'^ The Topics are
in the Catalogue of Diogenes,^ and Theophrastus ^ and

The letters, vide supra ii.60, d) was attacked by Cephi-
p. 54, n. 2. ; the four books, n. sodorus; in short (as has been
SiKaio(rvv7}s (p. 56, n. 1), taken into shown at p. 48 s^q.),. all the
consideration by Chrysippus, compositions given in the Cata-
Teles, Demetrius (n. epfj.r]v.), pro- logue of Diogenes, not to men-
bably also by Carneades the ; tion the spurious but much-used
Protrej)ticus, which is known even composition n. (vyeveias (p. 59,
to Crates, Zeno. and Teles (p. 60, n. 2). The writings on ancient
n, 1), the Eitdenius (p. 56, n. 2), philosophers, among which is in-
which at any rate Cicero used cluded our extant tract on Melis-
the discourses on Philosophy sus, &c., are found apitd DiOG.
(p. 55, n. 6) and on Wealth (p. No. 92-101 (see p. 62, n. 2, sifpra).
which, before him, 2 See p. 67, n. 1.
58, n. 1 end),
Philodemus, and also Metrodo- 3 See
pp. 64, n. ], 66, n. 1.
rus, pupil of Epicurus, made See pp. 64 and 66; p. 141, n.l.

use of the ipwriKhs, which, ac-

* The same would follow
cording to Athen. XV. 674, b, from the statement (SiMPL.
Aristo of Ceos knew the dialogue
; Categ., Schol. 79, a, 1), that An-
n.irot7jTwj'(p.58, n. 1), which Era- dronicus followed pretty closely
tosthenes and Apollodorus seem the Categories of Archytas, since
to have used the 'OXvix-KiovlKai,
the latter at any rate are imita-
which Eratosthenes (apud DiOG. tions of the Aristotelian Sini- ;

viii. 51), quotes the JJidascalics,

plicius, however, bases what
which Didymus quotes in the is here said merely on his false
Scholiasts to Aristoph. Av. 1379 supposition of their genuine-
(cf. Heitz, Verl.Schr.hQ'); the ness.
Hapoifiiai, on account of which and
Cf. p. 68, n. 1, 71, n. 2.
Aristotle (according to Athen. ' Of Theophrastus this is


his follower Strabo ^ had used them. The Rhetoric is

imitated and referred to in writings which in all likeli-

hood are themselves earlier than Andronicus ; ^ and

the same is true of the Theodectine Rhetcn'ic.^ The
Physics were worked over by Theophrastus and
Eudemus, and the latter followed the text so closely
that he is actually cited in support of the correctness of
a various reading."* One of the scholars of Eude-
clear from Alexander In Top. same author In Categ. Schol. 92,
p. 5, m. (cf. 68. 72, 31), In Me- b, 20 sq., with Themist. Phys. 54,
taph. 342, 30, 373, 2 (705, b, 30, b, 55, a, b {Schol. 409, b, 8, 411,
719, b, 27). See Simpl. Categ. a, 6, b, 28), and Brandis, Rhein.
Sclwl. in Ar. 89, a, 15. Mils. i. 282 thereon ; about Eu-
Cf. Alex. Top., infra demus, Simpl. Phys. 18, b {Ariit.
(Schol. 281, b, 2). Among Strabo's Phys. i. 2, 185, b, 11); also 29,
writings is found apud DiOG. v. a 6 E{j5tjij.os t^ 'ApioToreAet irdvra

59, a T&trwv irpooiyna. KaraKo\ovOa)v ; 120, b, where it

The former in the Blietoric is remarked on Phys. iii. 208,
ad Alex, {vide snpra, p. 74, b, 18 KtiWiov yap, oTjxai,
: rh " e|co
n. 3), which Diogenes (No. 79) rov &(TT0}S " ovTus OLKOveiv, us 6
knows (cf. p. 72, n. 2) as well EijBr^fios ipo-fjtre to rod Kadrjye/jiSvos,
as our Rlietoric (about which see Sec; so 121, b: h
riai Se [sc.
*' KOivij "
p. 72, n. ad fin.) the latter
2, ; avTiypatois'] avrl rod
apud Demetrius, De Mocutione " irpdrrf." /col o^rw ypdcpei Kot 6
quotations from our Rhetoric are EijSrffjLos 128, b EUStjixos 5e rov-
; :

found here, c. 38, 41 ( Rhet. iii. rois irapaKoXovdwu, Sec. 178, b ; :

8, 1409, a, 1); c. 11, 34 {Rhet. Eudemus writes, in Phyn. iv.

iii. 9, 1409, a, 35, b, 16) c. 81; 13, 222, b, 18, not Udpwv but
{Rhet. iii. 11, init.); to it ibid. irapwv 201, b E5.; iv rots :

c 34 refers, which is earlier than kavTOv (pvaiKols Trapacftpd^uu to tov

the author Archedemus, who was 'ApKTrordKovs 216, a Eude- ',

probably the Stoic of that name, mus immediately connects with

circa 140 B.C. what is found in Aristotle at the
3 Which (as shown at p. 72, end of the fifth book, the be-
n. 2) is likewise given in Dio- ginning of the sixth 223, ;

genes, and is named by the Rhe- a in Aristotle an iirl rdBe re-


toric ad Alex. peated in a different context

* We get these facts, apart {Phys. vi. 3, 234, a, 1) gives an
from other proof, from the ex- ambiguity in expression, and so
ceedingly numerous references to Eudemus puts " ivcKetva " instead
the Physics in Simplicius for of the second iv\ rdSe
; 242, a ;

instance, about Theophrastus, (beginning of the seventh book) :

cf. Simpl. Rhys. 141, a and b, EiS. fi^xpt Tovdf '6\t]s (TxeSbi/ irpay-
and 187, a, 201, b, and the jxareias K<pa\alois aKoAovd^cras,
: . ;


mus ^ cited from the Physics of Aristotle the three books

on Movement.' It can also be proved that the same work
was known to Strabo,^ and Posidonius the Stoic showed
no less acquaintance with it.^ The De Gcdo cannot
be shown with certainty to have been known to any
writer older than Andronicus except Theophrastus.'*
It is, however, very unlikely that this work disap-
peared after his time when its continuation the Tiepl
ysvsasws Kol (j)Oopds appears in the Catalogue of
Diogenes,^ and when the Meteorology y which is closely

connected with both the one and the other, is known

to have been used by many writers of that period.^
Posidonius, for example, appropriated from it the theory
of the elements,^ and Strabo disputed its account of the
heaviness and lightness of bodies.^ The (spurious)
Mechanics, and the Astronomy, are in the list named
in Diogenes.^ The Natural History was adapted not
only by Theophrastus,^^ but also by the Alexandrine
writer Aristophanes of Byzantium.'^ That it was not
TovTo irap\dwv ws irfpirrhv iir\ ret Simplicius remarks that it is
iv T(f Te\evTaicf> fiifihitp Ke<pd\aia based on Aristotle (^Phyg. ii. 2).
/AfT^Afle 279, a: koI 3 76 Ev5.
* F?We *M/?ra, p. 83, n. 1.
irapa(ppd(ci}V (TxeSbj/ Koi avrhs to * That is, if No. 39, IT.
^Api(TTor4\ov5 riOjiai Kal ravra aroixiiuv a' $' y', refers to it
Tci awTdfius
Tfi-nnara ; 294, b about which see p. 50, n. 1
Aristotle shows that the first * Vide sujyra, p. 83, n. 1.
motor must be immovable to ' Simpl. De Coelo^ Schol. in
which Eudemus adds rh Trpurus : Ar. 517, a, 31.
Kivovv Kad' eKourrrjv KivT]<nv. For * SiMPL. ihid. 486, a, 5.

further details see oh. xix. infra, ' The former No. 123, the
and p. 136, n 2, latter 113 vide mpra, p. 86, n. 1.

' Damasus : vide siqjv'a, p. S2. ^ DiOG. v. 49 names as his

2 Cf. Simpl. Phys. 153, a 'EwiToiJ.uv'Api(rTOT4\ovs n.ZcpuvT'.
(155, b), 154, b, 168, a, 187, a, " According to Hierocl.
sqq., 189, b (of. Phys. iv. 10), Hipjnatr. Pr^. p. 4, this gram-
214, a. marian had written an 'Eirixo^^ of
* In the fragment aimd it, which Aetemidor. Oneiro-
SjMPL. Phys, 64, b of which ; crit. ii. 14 calls virofxvfifiara fls

unknown during the Alexandrine period is also shown'

by the Catalogue of Diogenes (No. 102), and by the
existence of a popular compilation from it which was';

much in use.^ The Be Anima was used, after Theo-j

phrastus,^ by the author of the book on the '
of Living Creatures,' who used also the spurious treatise
Ilspl TrvEVfiaros.^ As to the Problems,^ it is more
than improbable that the working up of that book for
the Peripatetic School began later than the time of
Andronicus. The Metaijliysics was used, as we have
seen,^ not only by Theophrastus and Eudemus, but after
them by Strabo and other Peripatetics. It was pro-
bably published by Eudemus though some sections of ;

it do seem to have been first introduced by Andronicus

into the then extant Aristotelian treatise on the First

Philosophy. Of the JEthics, it is obvious that it could not
have existed only in Theophrastus's MS. so as to be lost

with it, for if so it could not have been worked over

either by Endemus or at a later date by the author of
Magna Moralia. The Politics , if we are to judge by
the list of Diogenes, was to be found in the Library of
Alexandria,^ along with the first book of our Economics^

'Api(rTOTe\Tiv (see Schneider in For the present purpose it is of

his edition i. xix ), Demetrius no importance whether they are
also, Be Mocnt. 97. 157 (cf. H. mediate or immediate witnesses
An. 497, b, 28; ix. 2. 32,
ii. 1, for the use of Aristotle's work.
610, a, 27, 619, a, 16), or perhaps 2 Upon which see Themi-
the earlier writer used by him, STOCLES in De An. 89, b, 91, a ;

knows this epitome. Philop. Be An. C. 4. Cf. p. 89,

Aboutwhichseep.87,n. l,(i n. 1 , supra.
fin. From this compilation also 3 Cf. p. 89, n. 2 adfi7i.
the many quotations from the * As to which cf. p. 96.
Aristotelian History of Animals in * See p. 79, n. 1.
Antigonus' Mirabilia (c. 16, 22, * Vide snpra, p. 100, n. 1
27-113, 115) are perhaps taken. p. 100, n. 3.


whicli is also cited by Philodemus.^ It is obvious tbat

the author of that book ^ had the Politics before him

knew it also is indicated by the notices

that Dicaearchus
The use of it in the Magna Maralia
of his Tripoliticus.^
is not so well proven,'* and we cannot tell to what

source Cicero owed the parts of it which he used for his

own political works ^ but it is not doubtful that it

must have been accessible to learned persons after the

death of Theophrastus. The same is true of the
UoXiTSLai, for the use of which in the Alexandrine
period we have abundant proofs.^ That the Poetics

^ Be Vit. ix. ( Vol. Here, ii.) taken from the Aristotelian Po-
col. 7, 38, 47, col. 27, 15, where litics, citing Cic. Leff. iii. 6.,
it isascribed to Theophrastus. Rep. i. 25 (cf. Polit. iii. 9, 1280,
2 Whom we have rather to 6, 29, c, 6, 1278, b, 8, 19, i. 2,
seek in Eudemus or one of his 1253, a, 2) Rej). i. 26 (Pol. iii.

Peripatetic contemporaries than 1, 1274, b, 36, c. 6, 1278, b, 8, c.

in Aristotle : see ch, xxi. infra. 7, 1279, a, 25 sqq.); Rep. i. 27
^ On which see infra, ch. xix. (Pol. iii. 9, 1280, a, 11, c. 10, 11,
ad fin. 1281, a, 28 sqq., b, 28, c. 16, 1287,
* Although happiness is here, a, 8 sqq.) Rep. i. 29 (^Pol. iv.

i. 4, 1184, b, 3.S sqq., defined as 8, 11). Susemihl (^AHat. Pol.

ivipyna Ka\ xp^o^'s ttjs operas, this xliv. 81) also agrees with this.
has certainly a greater resem- But since Cicero does not name
blance to Polit. vii. 13, 1332, a, Aristotle in the Republic, and
7 (a passage to which Nickes, De Zeff. iii. 6 only refers to him in
Arist. Polit. Lihr. 87 sq. calls very indefinite expressions, he
attention) than to Eth. N. i. 6, seems not to have drawn imme-
X. 6, 7, End. ii. 1, since happiness diately on Aristotle, and the
is here certainly called ivcpyeia question arises where did he get

Kar' aper^v (or ttjs apT^s),but the this Aristotelian doctrine from ?
conjunction of the ivfpyeia and Susemihl, p. xlv, thinks, from
XPVO'^s is wanting. Then the Tyrannic, but we might also pre-
Xp^cts is also spoken of in Evd. sume Dicaearchus, whom Cicero
1219, a, 12 sqq. 23, Me. i. 9. was fond of using.
1098, b, 31, and thus it is quite * The oldest witness for this

possible that only these passages is Timaeus, apvd POLYB.xii. 6-11,

were in the mind of the author and the latter author himself.
of the Great Etiiies. There is also, besides Diog.
* Zeller had already proved (IIermipjJtcs)'So.l4i5,the Scholiast
in his 2nd ed., that in Cicero's of Aristophanes, who (according
political writings many things are to a good Alexandrine authority)

was also known to the Alexandrine grammarians is

placed beyond doubt by recent research.^

We may sum up the case by saying that of the
genuine portions of the extant Corpus there are only ^

the works on the Parts, Genesis, and Movement of

Animals, and the minor anthropological tracts, as to

which we cannot show either express proof or high

probability for the assertion that they were in use after
the disappearance of Theophrastus's library from Athens.
Even as to these we have no reason to doubt it only
we cannot positively prove it and that, when we re-

member the fragmentary character of our knowledge ot

the philosophic literature of the period in question, is

nothing strange. The belief of Strabo and Plutarch

that the scientific writings of Aristotle were after the
death of Theophrastus all but wholly withdrawn from
access is therefore decisively negatived by the facts. A
few of these writings may possibly have suffered the
fate which they ascribe to the whole. One book or
another may have been lost to the School at Athens
when they lost the library of Theophrastus, and may
have been again published by Andronicus from the
damaged MSS. of Sulla's collection. But that this
happened to any or all of the important books is for all

reasons antecedently improbable. There must have

quoted the noAtTcrat very often; see stophanes of Byzantium and

AHst. Fr. ed. Rose, Nos. 352, 355- Didymus from the proofs which
358, 370, 373, 407, 420 sq.. 426 sq., Susemihl has collected at p.
470, 485, 498 sq., 525, 533. 20 sq., of his edition (following
Their presence in the Alex-
Trendelenburg, Grammat. Grcec.
andrian library is clear from the de AHe Trag. Judic. Bel.) from
Catalogue of Diog. (No. 83), and the Introductions and Scholia to
tjieir having been used b^ Ari- Sophocles and Euripides,


been copies of the important text-books made during

the long life of Theophrastus. He who cared so well
for his scholars in every other way, by providing for
them gardens and houses and a museum and the means
of maintaining it, could never have deprived them of

his most precious and most indispensable possession

his own and his master's texts
if a sufficient substitute

for them were not at hand. Any theory, therefore, as

to an individual book of our collection, that its text
rests solely on a MS. from Apellico's library, ought
to rest entirely on the internal evidence of the book
itself for Strabo's and Plutarch's suggestion of a general

disappearance of the texts could give it no support.

It is not, however, to be denied that many of the
books show signs leading to the conclusion that in their
present form other bauds than the author's have been
at work. We find corruptions of the text, lacunae in
the logical movement, displacement of whole sections,
additions that could be made only by later hands, other
additions which are Aristotelian but were originally
designed for some other context, repetitions which
we should not expect in so condensed a style, and
which yet can hardly be late interpolations.^ Strabo's
story, however, does not serve for the explanation of
these phenomena, for the reason, among others, that
such peculiarities are to be found equally in those texts
Cf. with regard to this, not
book of the Meteorology (p. 83,
tomention other points, what has n 2), the tenth book of the History

been said before as to the Gate- of Animals (p. 87, n. 1), U.-^vxns
goi'ies (p. 64, n. 1), n. epfi-nveias (p. 89, n. 2), bk. v. Be Gen. An.
(p. 66, n. 1), the RTietoric (p. 72, (p.92,n. 2),theJ5'a/cs (p. 98, n.l),
n. 2), the Metaphysics (p. 76, n. and W\^Poetics (p. 102,'n. 2); and
3), the seventh book of the Physics the remarks in ch xiii. infra upon

(p. 81, n. 2 ad Jin.), the fourth the state of the Pplitics,


which we can prove to have been current before Apel^

lico. We must explain them really as arising in part
from the circumstances under which these treatises
were written and issued,^ in part from the way they
were used for teaching purposes,^ in part from the
carelessness of transcribers and the many accidents to
which each transcript was exposed.
If we pass to the discussion of the time and sequence
inwhich the writings of Aristotle were produced, we
must remember that this is of far less importance than
in the case of the writings of Plato. It is clear that
Aristotle commenced his career as a writer during his
first residence at Athens,^ and it is probable that he
continued his literary activity in Atarneus, Mitylene
and Macedonia. The extant writings, however, seem
all to belong to the second Athenian period, although
much preparation may probably have been made for
them before. The proof of this lies partly in certain
traces of the dates of their production, which control
not only those books in which they occur, but also all

that are later :

^ and partly in the common references
' Cf. p. 108 sqq. course and position being accu-
How easily, by this means, rately described as from subse-
explanations and repetitions may quent personal inquiry. The
find their way into the text, and Politics refer to the Holy War
greater or smaller sections may as an event in the past (v. 4,
come to be repeated, is perfectly 1.S04, a, 10), and to the expedition
plain, and is proved on a large of Phaljecus to Crete, which took
scale by the parallel case of the place at its conclusion about 01.
Eudemian Physics and Elhics. 108, 3 (Diodoeus, xvi. 62), with
^ See
p. 56 sqq. He left Athens in a vftaarl (ii. 10, Jin.), but the same
B.C. 345-4 and returned in 335-4. book refers to the assassination
* Thus Meteor, i. 7, 345, a, of Philip (B.C. 336) in v. 10, 1311,
mentions a comet which was vis- b, 1, without the least indication
ible when Nicomachus (01.109, 4, of its having been a very recent
B.p. 841) was Archop in Athens, its event. The Bhetoric in ii. 23,

which even the earliest of them contain to Athens and

to the place itself where Aristotle taught.^ If, then, the
view already indicated ^ as to the destination of these
texts for his scholars, their connection with his teaching,
and the character of their cross references be right, it

1397, b, 31, 1399, b, 12, refers son of the indefiniteness of that

without doubt to past events particle. Just as little does
of the years B.C. 338-336 in iii. ; it follow from Anal. PH. ii.
17, 1418, b, 27 it mentions Iso- 24, that Thebes was not yet
crates' Phihppus (B.C. 315) of ; destroyed at that time we might ;

the RhetoHc also Brandis shows rather gather the contrary, with
(Philoloffiis, iv. 10 sqq.) that the regard to this work, from Polit.
many Attic orators quoted in it iii. 6, 1278, a, 25.
and in the Poetics who were 1 Of. Brandis, Gr.-rdm. Phil.
younger than Demosthenes, could ii. b, 116. We may
give here a
by no means belong to a time few further instances, besides
prior to Aristotle's first departure those already noted. Categ. 4, 2,
from Athens, and the same is a, 1, c, 9 Jin. irov, oTov iu Aujcefq^.

true of the numerous works of Anal. PH. ii. 24 Athens and :

Theodectes which are used both Thebes, as examples of neigh-

here and in the Poetics. In bours. Likewise in Phys. iii. 3,
Metaph. i. 9, 991, a, 1, xii. 8, 202, b, 13; ibid. iv. 11, 219, b, 20:
1073, b, 17, B2, Eudoxus and the rh iv AvKi(f) dvai. Metapli. v. 5,
still younger Callippus, and in 30, 1015, a, 25, 1025, a, 25: t5
ML N. vii. 14. 1153, b, 5, x. 2, 7rAeu(rat ets ^-yivav^ as an example
init., Speusippus and Eudoxus of a commercial journey. Ihid.
are spoken of as if they were no V. 24, fin. the Athenian festivals

longer living. Kose {Arist. Lihr. Dionysia and Thargelia (Ari-

Ord. 212 sqq.) has shown with stotle also uses the Attic months
regard to the History of Animals, e.g. An. V. 11, &;c. ; but it
from viii. 9, ii. 5. init., and other is not fair to attach any import-
passages, that it was only written ance to this). B/iet. ii. 7, 1385,
(or at least completed), some a,28 5 : eV AvKclcp rhv <popfihv Sovs.
time after the battle of Arbela, Ibid. iii. 2, 1404, b, 22, Polit. vii.
in which the Macedonians saw 17, 1336, b, 27 the actor Theo-

elephants for the first time, and doras. Very frequent mention
probably not before the Indian is also made of Athens and the
expedition. The fact that even Athenians (Ind. At. 12, b, 34
much earlier events are intro- sqq.). Again the observation on

duced with a vvv as mMeteor. iii. the corona borealis (^Meteor, ii. 5,
1, 371, a, 30, the burning of the 362, b, 9) suits the latitude of
temple of Ephesus (01. 106, 1, Athens, as Ideler (i. 567), on this
B.C. 356), and in Polit. v. 10, 1312, passage, shows.
b, 19, Dion's expedition (01. 105, 2 P. 108 sqq. especially p. :

4 sq.)~proves nothing, b^ rea- 123 sq. and p. 128 sq.


follows that all of them raust have been composed during

his final sojourn in Athens. Equally decisive, on this
head, is the observation that throughout the whole of so
comprehensive a collection, there is hardly to be found
a single notable alteration of teaching or terminology.
All is ripe and ready. All is in exact correspondence. All
the important writings are woven closely together, not
only by express cross reference, but also by their whole
character. There are no scattered products of the
different periods of a life. We can only look upon them
as the ordered execution of a work planned when the
author, having come to a full understanding with himself,
had gathered together the philosophic fruit of a lifetime.
Even the earlier works which he proposed to connect
with his later writing, he revised on a comprehensive
plan. Therefore, for our use of these texts, it is no

great matter whether a particular book was wiitten

sooner or later than any other. The problem, however,
must be dealt with nevertheless.
A certain difficulty is caused by the use of cross re-
ferences already noticed.^ As such cases are, after all, only

exceptions in the general run of the citations, the value

of these as an indication of sequence is not so slight as
has been supposed. There are, in fact, but few instances
in which our judgment as to the order of the writings is

placed in doubt by the occurrence of references both ways.

Of the extant books, so far as they are open to this
classification,^ the logical treatises, excepting the tract on

* 124 sqq.
Cf. p. opposed on other grounds. Not
however, is always
This, only are none of these quoted
the case except with writings in the genuine works, and only
the genuineness of which c?in be a single one in a spurious compo-

Propositions,^ may be considered to come first. It is in

itself natural and accords with Aristotle's methodical

plan of exposition, that he should preface the material
development of his system by the formal inquiries which
were designed to establish the rules and conditions of
all scientific thinking. But it is also made evident by
his own citations that the Logic did precede the Natural
Philosophy, the Metaphysics^ the Ethics and Rhetoric.^
Of the logical tracts themselves, the Categories seems to
be the The Topics, including the book on Falla-

cies, came next, and then the twd Analytics the treatise :

sition,but only very few of them writings, the Categories is the

refer to other writings. On the only work which quotes no other,
other hand, there is not one and neither is it directly quoted
among the works which we con- (but cf p.64). The n. epfi-qveias, U.

sider as genuine, which does T. *co0' vTTvov fjLavTiKTis and the

not quote the others, or is not BhetoHc quote others, but are
quoted by them, or, at least, not quoted n. ^(fuv yevea-eus has

implied, whilst in most of them many quotations, but is only once

examples of all three connections cited, as a book planned for the
occur. To explain more fully: future of the Metajyhysics only

I, Of the
decidedly spurious bk. V. is quoted or used (cf pp. 76, .

works (a) the following are

: n.3, and 79, n.l) in genuine works,
neither quoted nor do they quote bks. i., xii., and xiii. in spurious
others n. KSfffj-ov, n. xp^a^^tw*',
: ones and the Metaph. itself

n. aKovarcop, ^vcrioyuwfioviKd, H. quotes the Anahjtics, the Physics^

ipxrrSov (see p. 93), n. davfjLacricav he Ccelo, and the Ethics.
a.Kov(Tix(XTO)V, MrtxctviKa, IT. arop-wv ' On which see p. 66, n. 1.
ypafifiwv, 'Auepiav Betreis, 11. s,vo- 2 Besides the arguments given
(pdvovs Sec, ^HOiKOL fieydXa, IT. on p. 67, n. 1, p. 68, n. 1,
aperwv KaKiuv,
kcu OlKovofiiKa, we have decisive passage
''P-qropiKi] TTphs 'A\4^auSpov. (b) in Anal. Post. ii. 12, 95, b,
n. TTvevfjLaTos quotes no other, but 10 : fJLaWov Se (pavepws iv rols
is quoted in the spurious treatise KadoKov vepl KivTiaews Set Aexdrjvai
n. Ccpwv Kiv-ff crews. (c) On the irepl avTwv. The Physics, however,
contrary, the latter itself is never is the earliest of the works on
quoted. But it names some other Natural Science. negative line A
writings as does also the Eic-
; of proof also is found in the fact
demian EtJiics, supposing that that in the Categories, the Ana-
its quotations refer to Aristotelian lytics, and the Topics^ none of
works. II. Among the remaining the other writings are quoted.

on Propositions was added afterwards.^ Later than the

Analytics but earlier than the Physics may be placed
the treatise which now forms the fifth book of the
Metaphysics? The Natural Philosophy came next. In
that section the Physics comes first. It is projected in

the Analytics and is referred to in the fifth book of

the Metaphysics ; but the latter is cited or presup-
posed not only in the metaphysical and ethical works
but also in the majority of the other tracts concerning
Natural Philosophy, while on the other hand neither

cites nor presupposes any one of them.^ That the De

Goelo,'^ the treatise on Growth and Decay, and the
Meteorology, follow the Physics in the order given,
is very expressly stated in the Meteorology itself'^

Whether the Natural History or the Be Anima came

next is not settled. It is very possible that the former
work, extensive as it was begun before the other

but completed after it.^ With the Be Anima we must

connect those lesser tracts which point back to it some-

- Seepp. 64,n. l,p.

67, n. l,p.
Which we cannot, like
68 sq., of Brandis
and the treatise Blass {Rhein. Mus, xxx. 498,
quoted in the first-cited note, 505), consider a hypomnemati-

which 256 sqq.), by a compa-

(p. cal writing, not merely because

rison of the Analytics with the of the references made to it, but
Topics, establishes the earlier on other grounds also.
date of the latter. ^ Meteor, i. 1, whereon of.
For, on the one hand, it further p. 83, n. 1, Ind. Arist.
is mentioned in the Physics and 98, a, 44 sqq., and the quotation
Be Gen. et Corr. {vide siqjra, p. of the tract n. ^qy'coi/ nop^ias in
76, n. 1, p. 124, n. 4) and, on the
the Be Ccclo, ii. given p.
other, it seems in c. 30 Jin. to re- 125.
fer to Anal. Post.i. 6, 75, a, 18 sqq., That the completion of the

28 sqq. though the latter point

; History of Animals should not
is not certain. be put too early is clear from
' Vide supra, p. 81 sqq., Ind. what has been said on p. 154,
Arist. 102, a, 53 sqq., 98, a, 27 n.4.

times expressly ^ and always by the nature of their

contents. Some of these were no doubt composed after
or with the writings on the Parts, the Movement, and
the Genesis of Animals.'^ That group of tracts is

undoubtedly later than the Natural History, the Be

Anima, and the treatises which followed upon it.-^

On the other hand, it is probably earlier than the

Ethics and Politics, inasmuch as it can hardly be sup-
posed that Aristotle would have broken in upon his
studies in Natural Philosophy by undertaking extended
works lying in a wholly different direction.'* It would

be less difficult to suppose that the ethical writings as

a whole came before the physical.-^ This view is not
excluded by any express internal references, excepting
the reference to the Physics in the Ethics.^ We must,
nevertheless, decide in favour of the earlier construc-
tion of the Natural Philosophy texts, for a thinker who
was so clearly convinced as Aristotle was that the
student of ethics must have a knowledge of the human
soul,^ must be supposed to have put his inquiry into
the soul before his researches into the moral activities
and relations. There are, indeed, in the Ethics very
unmistakable traces of his theory of the soul and of
the treatise thereon.^ Immediately after the Ethics

Thus n. oi(r07jcre&>s, n. uTTj/ou, ^ ThxisB.OSE,Arist. Libr. Ord.
n. ivvirviwv. 11. auairvorjs (^Ind.Ar. 122 sqq.
102, b, 60 sqq.). ^ Mh. x. 3, 1174, b, 2. Cf.
^ Vide sujjra, p. 89 sqq. Phys. vi.-viii.
3 See ' Eth. i. 13, 1102,
pp. 89, n.2, 89, n. 3,87, a, 23.
n. 1 :Ind. Arist. 99, b, 30 sqq, Though Aristotle in Eth.
* The further question of i. 13, 1102, a, 26 sqq. refers, not
the relative order of the three to Be An. iii. 9, 432, a, 22 sqq.
writings named has been already ii. 3, but to the i^unpiKol \6yoi,

discussed on p. 91 sq. yet ii. 2 init. seems to presuppose



comes the Politics} Judging by the internal refer-

ences, the Rhetoric should be later than both, and
the Poetics should be later than the Politics but
before the Rhetoric. This, however, is probably true
only of a part of the Politics or rather only of those
parts which Aristotle himself published, for his death
seems to have intervened before he had completed that
text as a whole.'^ So, again, in our so-called Meta-
phijsics, we have in all work which
probability a
and with which several other
Aristotle left incomplete,
fragments, some genuine, some spurious, have been
amalgamated since.

the bulk of the theoretical writ- 3 Cf. p. 76 sqq., and with

ings. But that there are not regard to citations of the Meta-
many more of such traces may physics, see p. 156, n. 2. Rose's
perhaps be explained by the fact supposition (Arist. Lihr. Ord.
that Aristotle did not wish to 135 sqq. 186 sq.) that the Meta-
interfere with the practical aim physics preceded all tlie writings
of an ethical work {Eth. i. 1, on natural science, or at any rate
1095, a, 4, ii. 2, init.) by any dis- the zoological ones, makes the
cussions which were not indis- actual condition of that work an
pensable to its purpose ; cf. i. 13, inexplicable puzzle. But there
1102, a, 23. is also the fact that the Physics,
See p. 100, n. 1. as well as the De Caelo, are quoted
2 See p. 127 mpra, and infra, in numerous passages of the
ch. xiii. And if this supposition Metaphysics {Ind. Ar. 101, a, 7
is correct, it would also go to make sqq.) as already existing, while
it improbable that the Ethics, so the Metaphysics are referred to
closely allied with the Politics, in PhysA. 9, 192, a, 35, as merely
should have been written before in the future.
the works on natural science.



As Plato connects directly with Socrates, so Aristotle

with Plato. Yet he made a comprehensive use of the
earlier philosophies as
well. He was better versed
than any of the earlier teachers in the theories and
writings of his forerunners, and it is with him a
favourite method to preface his own inquiries with a
retrospect of earlier opinions. He is wont to let them
designate the problems to be dealt with. He is eager
to refute their errors, to resolve their doubts, to bring
out the truth which underlay their views. But the
influence of the pre-Socratic systems upon Aristotle is
far less apparent in the general structure of his system
than it is in the treatment of special points. In prin-
ciple, Plato had refuted them all. Aristotle is not
under the same necessity to distinguish his position
accurately from theirs.^ He does not, at least in any
of the extant writings, devote any space to such pro-
paideutic efforts as those by which Plato established
the claims of philosophy and the true meaning of know-

Even in Metapli. i. 8 their Heraclitus, about whom Plato
principles are merelj"^ criticised busied himself so much, are
briefly from an Aristotelian point passed over altogether,
of view, and the Eleatics and i

162 AltlSTOTLE

ledge, as against ^ the ordinary consciousness ' on the

one hand, and the Sophists on the other. Aristotle
presupposes throughout that general point of view which
characterised the Socratico-Platonic Philosophy of Ideas.
His task is to work out, on these general lines, a more
perfect system of knowledge, by a more exact definition
of the leading principles, by a stricter accuracy ot
method, and by an extension and improvement of all

the scientific data ? It is true that in his own writings

the rare expressions of agreement with his teacher are
almost lost sight of by comparison with his keen and
constant polemic against Platonic views. Yet ^ in
reality and in the whole his agreement with Plato is

far greaterthan his divergence,^ and his whole system

cannot truly be understood until we treat it as a develop-
ment and evolution of that of Plato and as the com-
pletion of that very Philosophy of Ideas which Socrates
founded and Plato carried on.
In the first place, he agrees for the most part with
Plato in his general views as to the meaning and office

of Philosophy itself. To him, as to Plato, the ohject of

shall deal later on with stotle, as we have shown on p.
this polemic, especially as it was not unfrequently includes
14, n. 3,
directed against the doctrine of himself in the first person along
Ideas in Metaph. i. 9, xiii., xiv. with the rest of the Platonic
&c. Only a few passages are school. But his way
of treating
found in which Aristotle expressly such a relation opposite
is the
declares his agreement with Plato. to that of Plato. Whilst Plato
Besides the passages noted on puts his own view, even where
p. 12, and p. 14, n. 4, see Etli. it contradicts the original one
N. i. 2, 1095, a, 32 ii. 2, 1104, b,
; of Socrates, into the mouth of
\\\ Be An. iii. 4, 429, a, 27 ;
his teacher, Aristotle not un-
PoZi^.ii. 6,1265,a, 10. fi'equently attacks his teacher
2 also the valuable re-
Cf. even where they agree in the
marks of Strum PELL, Gesch. d. main point, and only differ in
theor. Phil. d. Gr. 177. Ari- opinion as to secondary matters.

J .^LiU^T^
Philosophy can be only Being as such,^ i.e. Essence, or,

to speak more accurately, the universal Essence of that

which is actual.^ Philosophy treats solely of the
causes and basis of things,^ and in fact of their
highest and most universal basis, or, in the last
resort, of that which presupposes nothing.'' For the
like reasons he ascribes to the philosopher in a
certain sense a knowledge of everything, thinking,
of course, of the point of unity where all knowledge
converges.^ As Plato had distinguished '
as the cognition of that which is Eternal and Necessary,

ATial. Post. ii. 19, 100, a, 6 : i. 24, 85, b, 13 ;

init.,u. 19, 100, a, 6,
eK 5' ifjLireipias . . . r^x^ns apxh and Mh. ]V. 6 init, x. 10, 1180,
Kal iiriaT-n/jiTis, iav fxev irepl yiveaiv, b, 15. ]\|ore infra, in chapter v.
vepl rh t)y, 4iri<Tr-f}iJLr]s. ^ Anal. Post. i. 2 init.
T6'x"js, eaj/ Se ctti- :

MetajjJi. iv. 1004, b, 15

2, t<? : ffTacrdai Se oiofieO' eKacTTOv . . .

ouri ^ hv effTi Tiva ^lo, Kal tovt' OTav Ti,v t' alTiav olu/xcda yiyvuo-
icrrl irepl wv rov <piAo(r6(pov iiri- aKeiv 5t' ^p Th irpay/jLoiicTiv . . .

(TKe^aadai raX-ndis. Ibid. 1005, a, Kal fi)] ivSdx^ardai tout' 6,\Kus

2, c. 3, 1005, b, 10. ix^iv. Ibid. c. 14, 79, a, 23, ii. 11
2 Metaj)h. iii. 2, 996, b, 14 init. Etlu 7, 1141, a, 17.
iV. vi.

sqq. rb etSeVat (Kaarov

: tot' . . . Metaph. 981, a, 28, 982, a, 1,
i. 1,
olo/xeda v-Kapx^iv, OTav eldw/xcp t'i c. 2, 982, a, 12, 982, b, 2 sqq.,
i<TTiv, Sec. vii. 1, 1028, a, 36 dSevai
; : vi. 1, init. Cf. SCHWEGLEE,
TOT oidfxeda eKaaTOv fxaXitrra, otuv Arist. Metajyh. iii. 9.
Ti ia-Tiv 6 &vdp(oiros yv(f> ^ to * Phys. i. 1, 184, a, 12 Tt^Te :

TTvp, fxaXKov ^ rb iroibv ^ rb iroahv yap ol6/j.eda yivwaKeiv eKacTov,

^ Th TToG, &c. c. 6, 1031, b, 20 rb
; : HTav TO. atria yvupiawfjLev to irpcora
iiria-Taadai 'dKacTTOV tovto iffTi t6 Tt Kal Tas apx^s tos irpuTas Kal
^v elvai liriffTaaQai, and cf. 1. 6 ;
ixixp'^ tcDj/ (TToix^iwu. Ibid. ii. 3
ibid. xiii. 9, 1086, b, 5: the init. Metajjh. i. 2, 982, b, 9:
determination of the notion of Set yap TavT7}v [that science which
the thing is indispensable, &vcv is to deserve the name tro^x'o] twj/

fxiu yap Tov Kad6\ov ovk %(Ttiv TrpwTODV &px^v KoI alTicov elpai
(iri(TTri/XT]v Ka^flv; c. 10, 1086, deajpTjTiKijP ; c. 3 init. tot yap

b, 33 ^ iiTi(TTr}fji7i tuv kuOSKov

eiSfpai (pa/j-kp cKacrrop, OTap ttjp
iii. 6 Jin. KaQoKov ai iTricrTTJfiai
: irpuTT\p alTiap oiufjuda ypwpi^cip ;

TrdvTwv, iii. 4, 999, b, 26: t6 iii. 2, 996, b, 13, iv. 2, 1003, b, 16,
4iri(TTa<rdai irus tffTai, et ^utj Tt ecTat iv. 3, 1005, b, 5 sqq.
%v kirt iravTwv ibid, a, 28, b, 1;
- Metajjh. i. 2, 982, a, 8, 21,
xi.l,1059,b, 25. Anal.Post.i.U iv. 2, 1004, a, 35.

H 2

from Fancy or '
Opinion/ whose sphere is the contin-
gent, so also Aristotle. To him, as to Plato, know-
ledge arises out of wonder, out of the bewilderment of
the common consciousness with itself.^ To him, its

object is exclusively that which is universal and neces-

sary; for the contingent cannot be hiown, but only
opined. It is an opinion, when we believe that a thing
might be otherwise ; it is knowledge, when we recog-
nise the impossibility of its being otherwise. So far
from '
Opinion ' and '
Knowledge ' being all the same,
it is rather true, as Aristotle holds, that it is utterly
impossible to know and to opine about the same subject
at the same time.^ So, again, '
Knowledge cannot '

consist in Perception, for that tells us only of individual

things, not of the universal, only of facts, not of causes.^
In like manner Aristotle distinguishes Knowledge '

from mere Experience by the test that the latter gives

' '

us in any matter only a ^

That/ while the former gives
us a '
Why '
also :
* which is the very mark that Plato

used to distinguish '

Knowledge from True Opinion.'
' '

> Metaph. i. 2, 982, b, 12 : ^ih. alcrOricrecos ecTtv iirlffTaaOai. For

yap rh Qavjxd^nv oi &udpw7roi Koi vvv perception has always to do with
Ka\ rh irpwTov ^p^avro <pi\o(ro(()7v, individuals (more on this subject
&c. Ibid. 988, a, 12. Cf. Zeller, infra), rh Se Ka66\ov Kal iirl
PA. d. 6^r.,pt. ii. div. 1, p. 511, 4. vaffiv aSvvaTov alaOdueaOai, Sec.
2 Anal. Post. i. 33 cf ibid. c.
; . Even though we could see that
6 Jin. c. 8, i7iit. c. 30 sqq. 3/*?- the angles of a triangle are equal
taph. vii. 15, 1026, b, 2
vi. 2, to two right angles, or that in an
sqq Mh. N. 1139, b, 18,
vi. 3, eclipse of the moon the earth
c. G init. To this line of thought stands between the sun and the
belongs the refutation of the prin- moon, yet this would be no know-
ciple, that for everyone that is true ledge, so long as the universal
which seems true to him, which is reasons of these phenomena re-
dealt with in i!/<?f<^/;/i. iv. 5, 6, much mained unknown to us.
as it is treated in Plato's Thecctet'us. * Metapli. i. 1, 981, a, 28.
Anal. Post. i. 31 ohl\ 5i' :


Finally, Aristotle is at one with Plato also in this, that

both of them proclaim Philosophy to be the mistress of

all other sciences, and Science in general to be the
highest and best that man can reach, and the most
essential element of his happiness.*
Nevertheless, it is also true that the Aristotelian
notion of Philosophy does not completely coincide with
the Platonic. To Plato, Philosophy, regarded as to its
content, is a term which includes all spiritual and
moral perfection, and it comprehends therefore the
'pi'actical as well as the theoretic side ; and yet, when
regarded as to its essence, he distinguishes it very
sharply from every other form of human activity.
Aristotle, on the contrary, marks it off more strictly
from the practical side of life ; while, on the other

See Metaph. i. 2, 982, b, 4 : a/xeivuv 5' oifSefiia ; xii. 7, 1072,

apx^KajTaTT] 5e ruv iiricrrrjfjLwv, Kal b, 24 : 7] Oewpia rh i^diarov koI
fiaWov apx^K^ t^J virr^peTOvcTTjs, t) &pi(TTov. In Eth. JV.X.7:' theoria
yvwpi^Qvaa rivos eyKfv iari irpa- is the most essential ingredient
kt4ov iKacTTOv TOVTO 5' ecrri raya- ' of perfect happiness cf. e.g. ;

6hu eV Kd<TTois. But that science 1117, b, 30: el 5^ delay 6 yads

is one which investigates the irphs rhy SLvOponrov, Kal 6 Kara
highest reasons and causes, since TavToy fiios delos irphs rhy avQpdotnyov
the good and the highest
fiioy av xph Se Kara rovs irapai'

end are included among these.

' yovyTas ayBpumiya (ppoyely &ydpwTrov
Ibid. 1. 2-i StjXov odv, us 5t'
: oyra ovSe dvrjra rhy Bvrjrhy, dAA'
ovSefiiav avT)]V ^t/tou/hcj/ xP^*"'' (/)' (iaay eySex^rai aOayari^eiy Kal
kripav, oAA.' Sxrirep 6.v6p(t)Tr6s (pafiev irdyTa irately irphs rh (f]v Kara rh
eAevflepos d aurov V(Ka Kal fJL^ KpdrL(Troy ruv iy aor(f . rh oiKeloy
. .

6,W0V S}V, OVTU Koi aVTT] fl6l/1J eKacrrcfj rfj (pvaei Kpdriarov Kal
iXcvdfpa ov(Ta tuv einaTrjfxoSv '
^Siardy iariv eKda-rcf Kal ry ay'

IxivT] -yap avr^ avTTJs '4vk4p iariv' Qp<i3TT(fi Sr] 6 Kara rhv yovy fiios,
Sib Kal SiKaiws &v ovk av6 pwirivT] eX-nep rovro /xdAiara Aydpcciras '

vofx'Xoiro axfTris rj KTrjais aAA'

. . . ovros &pa Kal ei/Saifxoyecrraros c. ;

ofJre T^ delay <f>6ovfphv ivS4x^^o.i 8, 1178, b, 28: 4(p' 'oaoy 5^ Sto-

ehai, odre rrjs roiain'qs &\\tjv
. . . reiyei 7) 6ea>pla, Kal t) evSaifioyia.
XPV POfii^eiv Tifxiayrepav 7] yap ' Cf. c. 9, 1179, a, 22, Mh. End.
Qeiorarrf Kal rifxiayraTi] avay- . . . vii. 15 tin. See further in chapter
KaLdrepai fihv oLv iracot ravrris, xii., infra.


hand, he brings it into a closer relation with the
experimental sciences. His view is that Philosophy is

exclusively an affair of the theoretic faculty. He dis-

tinguishes from it very sharply the practical activities
(7r/)affcs), which have their end in that which they produce
(not, like Philosophy, in the activity itself), and which
belong not purely to thought but also to opinion and
the '
unreasoning part of the soul.' He distinguishes
also the artistic creative effort (iroir^cns) which is

likewise directed to something outside itself.^ With

Experience, on the other hand, he connects Philosophy
more closely. Plato had banished all dealings with
the sphere of change and becoming out of the realm
of ^
Knowledge ' into that of *
Opinion.' Even as to
the passage from the former to the latter, he had only
the negative doctrine that the contradictions of opinion
and fancy ought to lead us to go further and to pass
to the pure treatment of Ideas. Aristotle, as we shall
presently see, allows to Experience a more positive
relation to Thought. The latter, with him, proceeds
out of the former by an affirmative movement that,
namely, in which the data given in Experience are
brought together into a unity.
Furthermore, we find that Plato was but little

interested in the descent from the treatment of the Idea

to the individual things of the world of appearance
the phenomena. To him, the pure Ideas are the one

Besides the passage just De Coelo, iii. 7, 306, a, 16. The

given, see Eth. N. vi. 2, c. 5, same is repeated hy Eudemus
1140, a, 28, b, 25; x. 8, 1178, b, Eth. i b fin., and by the author
20; vi. 1, 1025, b, 18 sqq. xi. 7 ; of Metaj^h. ii. 1, 993, b, 20.
De An. iii. 10, 433, a, 14; and


essential object of philosophic knowledge. Aristotle

concedes that scientific knowledge has to do only with
the universal essence of things ;
yet he does not stop
at that point, for he regards it as the peculiar task of
Philosophy to deduce the Individual from the Universal
(as in aTToSet^ty, vide infra). Science has to begin with
the Universal, the Indeterminate ; but it must pass on
to the Determinate.^ It has to explain the data, the
phenomena.^ It must not, therefore, think little of
anything, however insignificant, for even there inexhaust-
ible treasures of possible knowledge must lie.^ It is
for a like reason that Aristotle makes for scientific
thought itself rules less strict than Plato's. He takes
Metaph. xiii. 10, 1087, a, 10 : (Tv/jLficfiTjKOTa (Tu/xjSoAAeTot ficya
rh 5 t))v iiriar-qfJL'qv elvai KaQoKov IJifpos TTpds rd elSevai ro ri eariv '

Traffav . . . ;^et /jlcv fia.Ki(TT^ airopiav iireiSau yap e;^a)/nej' airoBiSdvai Kara
Tuv Aex^eVrajj/, ov fi^v oAA' ea'ri T7JJ/ (pavracriav irepl twv avfi^efirjKS-
fiev ws aXrides rh K^y6fX(vov, eari 5' Tuu ^ irdvTUv ^ rSiv ttX^'kttcov, tot
ws ovK a\T]64s 7] yap eVto'T'^jurj,
KoX irepl TTjs olffias e|ojLiej/ \4yeiv
Sxrircp Kol Th iiri<rTa(rdai, Sirrhv, KaXXiara- irdffrjs yap airoSei^fws
uv rh fihv Swdfiei rh 5e ivepyeia rj '
apxh ''0 Ti icrriv, &<rT Kad' '6<tovs
fihv oi>v SvuafjLis ws uAtj [tow] Tuv dpKTfxdSu fi^ (TvfiPaivei to (Tv/j.-
Ka66\ov oZaa koX a6pi(rros rov fiefirjKora yvapi^eiv . , . 8tj\ov on
Kad6\ov KoL aoptarov itrrlv, t\ S' 5ia\eKTiKcSs iXpr^vrai Ka\ Kvws
ivepyeia wpiafiivT] Koi upifffiivov airavres. Cf. C. 5, 409, b, 11 sq.
rovSe rivos.
T(^5e ri oi)(Ta ^ Part. An. i. 5, 645, a, 5
Metaph. i. 9, 992, a, 24 (at- Xonrhv irepl Trjs ^cut/c^y (pvaews
tacking the doctrine of Ideas) : eliTflv, jj-ri^fv TrapaXiTTOVTas (Is
SAws 56 (r)Tov(T'i]s T^s <ro(f>ias irepl Svva/xiv firtre arifidrcpov /jL-ffTe rip.i-

Twv (pauepuy rh atriou, tovto fihv wrepov '

Kol yap iv to7s fii] Kexapia-
ftaKOfifv yap Keyo/xev irfpl
(^ovdev fievois avrwv irpds t^Jv atcrdrja-iv
T7JS alrias Sdev r] apxh ttjs fiera- koto Ti]v dewpiav ^/aas t] STj/j-iovpyf}-

fioKris) &c. De Ca;lo, in. 7, 306, (raaa (pvais afxrjxdvovs rjSovas

a, 16 t4\os Se t^s fihv iroiriTiKrjs
: jTopexfi Tols Svvafievois tos alrias
iirKTriifirfS rh epyoy, rris Se (pvaiKris yvcvpi(iv Koi <t>v(Ti <j)i\o(r6(pois . . ,

rh (paivSixevou ael Kvp'ws Kara rijv di6 Bel fi^ SvffX^po-iy^^v -rraiSiKoSs r^v
aiae-riaiv. De An. i. 1, 402, a, 16 : Trepi roSv arifiurepuv Qfwu iiri-
toiKi S' OV fiSvov rd Ti ecTTt yvwvai (TKey^iv ' 4v traffi ydp ro7s ipvaiKols
XP^(TifJ.ov fivai irpos r6 dewpTJcai ras eveari ri OavfiatTTOv, &c. De Ceelo,
aiTias Twv (TVfifiefiTiKOTcav rals ii.12, 291, b, 25,
Qvffiais . . . aAA^ /col a.vdira\iv to

the content of '

Knowledge,' and of scientific proof, to

include not only the Necessary, but also tlie Usual {to
Q)s sirl TO TToXv).^ He deems it a sign of philosophic
crudity that a man should demand the same logical
strictness of all kinds of investigation,^ when in fact
it depends on the nature of the subject matter what
amount of exactitude can be attained in each of the
sciences.^ Where coercive proof fails him, he is content

' Anal Post. i. 30, iii. 12^1%. example being adduced). The
Pa/rt. An. iii. 2, 663, b, 27. Me- latter is thus expressed (Metajth.
taph. vi. 2, 1027, 20, 8, a, xi. xiii. 3,1078, a, 9) S^ &j/ irepl
: oa-tp

1064, b, sqq. Eth. N.A. 1, 1094, irpoTfpuv T(f \6yif (that which,
b, 19. according to its notion or na-
8 Eth. N. 1094, b, 11-27,
i. 1, ture, is earlier, or stands nearer
c. 7, 1098, 2, 1104, a, 1,
a, 26, ii. to the first principles cf p. ; .

vii. I fin. ix. 1, 1165, a, 12 (Polit. 330 sqq.) Kal (nrXovcrT^poiv roa-
vii. 7 fin. is not in point here). ovTCf) fiaWov 6%^* Ta.Kpi04s. From
It is chietiy as regards the ethical this it naturally follows, that the
discussions that Aristotle here de- first philosophy, according to
nies the claim they have to a tho- Aristotle, is capable of the
rough accuracy, because the na- greatest accuracy (cf. 3Ietaj}h. i.
ture of the subject does not allow 2, 982, a, 25 aKpi^icrrarai Se twv

of any such result for in judging ; i-KKXTiqixoiv at fidXicTTa tuv irpcoruv

of men and the issues of human etVi), and that every other science
action, much rests on estimates iscapable of so much the less
which are correct only ' in the according as it descends more
main and ' as a rule.'
' and more to the world of sensible
^ According to Anal. Post. i. things (cf. ibid. 1078, 11 sq.) ; a, '

27, that science is more exact for in the latter iroWi} rov aopi- tj

(o/cptjSea-Tepo), which besides the on (TTov (pvcris ^vvirapx^i {^MetapU. iv.

settles the 5i6ri ; that which has 5, 1010, a, 3 further infra, in

to deal with purely scientific ques- ch. vii. sec. 2). Therefore the na-
tions, not with their application tural sciences are necessarily less
to some given case (-h fi^ kuO' accurate than those which are con-
inroKei/jLevov [aKpifiearepa] ttjs ko0' cerned with what is constant, like
vTTOKei/xcvov, olov apid/xTiTiK^ apfxo- the first Philosophy, pure Mathe-
viKTJs), and lastly that which matics, and the doctrine of souls
deduces from a smaller
its results (of which De An. i. 1 init. extols
number assumptions (e.ff.
of the cLKp'. field); and those which
Arithmetic as compared with have the transient as their object
Geometry), or in other words the are less exact than Astronomy( Me-
more abstract (^ e| iXaTTdvwv t-^s taph. 1078, a, 11 sqq.). Kampe
iK irpoa-deffews, as is also said in (Erkenntnisstheorie d. Ar. 254)
MetajJh. i. 2, 982, a, 26, the same says, that in the scale of aKpificia

to put up with arguments possible and probable, and

to postpone a more definite decision until a further
analysis can be had.^ It is not, however, the essential
problems of philosophy which Aristotle so treats, but
always special questions of ethics or natural philosophy,
for which Plato himself had relaxed the strictness of
his dialectical procedure, and put probability in the
place of scientific proof. The real difference between
them is only this, that Aristotle includes this kindred
branch of knowledge in Phi i osopW ; whereas Plato
insists on treating everything except the pure Science
of Ideas as merely matter of intellectual discourse, or
as a condescension of the philosopher to the pressure of
practical needs. ^ Why, asks Aristotle rightly, should
the man who thirsts after knowledge not seek to learn
at least a little, even where he cannot establish all ? ^

Aristotle cannot be justly accused of having com-

promised the unit}^ of all spiritual efibrt by dividing
the science of nature takes the tIv hSyov, iav els rd Swardv
lowest place : but this would auaydywiJiev. Cf. Eucken, Metk.
rather, as has been said in the d. Arist. Ihrsck. 125 sq. See
preceding note, be true of Ethics further on this subject in the
and Politics. . next chapter.
De Ccelo, b, 28
ii. 5, 287, Rej). vi. 511, b, sq. vii. 519,

sqq. c. Gen. An. iii. 10,

12 init. C, sqq. Fl. 173, e; Tim. 2^, B,sq.

700, b, 27, where to a discussion andaZiJ. Cf Zeller, PA. d. Gr.,


on the reproduction of bees he Pt. ipp. 490, 516, 53(5 sq.

adds the remark ov ix^v e^X-qizTal
* De Ccelo, ii. 1 2 init. ireipaTiov

ye TO (Tvufiaivovra LKavus, ciAA' eav Keyeiv rb (paiv6fJLevoy, alSovs a^iav

irore Xri^Qrj, Tore ry alcrOriffeL ehai vo/jLi^ovras ttjj' TrpoQvfxlav
fxaWov Twv \6y(i)U iriarevrfov, Kal /uaA.Aov ^ ^pao-ovs (it does not occur
Tots \6yois, eav dixoXoyovjxeva to him that he himself might be
leiKvvuai roLs ^aivo^evois. H. An. accused rather of an unphilosophi-
ix. ^1 Jin. c. 42, 629, a, 22,27. cal modesty ), elrtsSiaT^c^tAoo-oc^/as
Metapli. xii. 8, 1073, b, 10 sqq. Zvi^^v koI fjLiKpas evirop'as ayairS
1074, a, 15. 3Ieteor. i. Id, init.: irepX wvras ixeyicrras exofiev a-Kopias.
irepl r<Sv acpavwu rfj aiad-fja-ei Cf. ^J^<?. 292, a, 14, c. 5, 287, b, 31
vofii^ofxev 'iKavws airodete7xdai Kara Part. An. i. 5, 644, b, 31.
off the theoretic from the practical activities.^ That
distinction is undeniably justified to the full ; but the
note of unity is expressly preserved in Aristotle's treat-
ment by the fact that while he presents ^scapia as the
completion of the true human life, he also represents the
practical activity as an indispensable element therein,
as a moral upbringing is an indispensable condition
precedent of ethical knowledge.^ If it be true that
this shutting back of Theory upon itself,
' this exclusion
from the notion of Philosophy of all practical need and

effort becomes apparent, for example, in the

(as it

Aristotelian sketch of the Divine Life) did in fact pre-

pare the way for the later withdrawal of the Wise Man
from practical usefulness, nevertheless we should not
overlook the fact that even here Aristotle only followed
in the direction indicated before by Plato ; for Plato's
Philosopher ' would also, if left to himself, live for
theory ' alone, and only take part in the life of the
Republic on compulsion. Least of all can Sne agree
with those who criticise Aristotle because he conceived
the office of Philosophy, not from the point of view of an
ideal humanly unattainable, but in a way that could
be carried out in the actual world,^ or with those who
attack him by praising Plato for distinguishing between
the ideal of knowledge and the scientific attainment of
men.'' If such a view of the relation of the ideal to
actuality were in itself and in Aristotle's view well
founded, it would only follow that he had sought, as
' x. 10, 1179, b, 20 sqq. i. 1, 1094,
Besides the passages to be
2 b, 27 sqq.
cited infra, on the inquiry into 3 RiTTER, iUd. and p. 56 sq,
the highest good,' cf Etk- -A"
' * JUd. ii. 222 sqq.

every philosopher should, not abstract ideals, but the

actual essence of things. Even this, however, is less

than the truth. To Aristotle the Idea does in truth

reach out beyond the phenomena it is not entirely
realised in any individual phenomenal thing, although
it is not an unactual ideal even so. Aristotle
recognised both sides with equal clearness. He sees
that the goal of knowledge is set very high that it

cannot be reached by everyone that even by the

best it can only be imperfectly attained.^ Yet he is

never content to call it wholly unattainable or to limit

the demands he makes upon Philosophy (as such) by the
weakness of humanity. Indeed, the whole course of
this account must have already shown how complete
is his real agreement with Plato on just this very
In his philosophic method Aristotle likewise follows
out in all essentials the lines which Socrates and Plato
opened out. His method is the dialectic method, which
indeed he himself carried to its highest perfection. With
it he combines the observational method of the student
of nature ; and even though it be true that he does not
succeed in getting a true equilibrium between the two,
yet the mere fact that he combined them was one of
the highest services rendered to philosophy among the
Greeks. By that advance he made good the one-sided-
ness of the Philosophy of Ideas, so far as that was
possible without a complete restatement of its principles.
As Socrates and Plato always began by asking for the

> Metapli. i. 2, 982, b, 28, xii. b, 2 sqq., x. 7, 1177, b, 30, c. 8,

7, 1072, b, 24 Eth. N. vi. 7, 1141,
; 1178, b, 25 ; of. iUd. vii. 1.

idea ' of eacli thing they dealt with, and set this kind
of cognition as the basis of all other knowledge, so also
does Aristotle delight to begin with an inquiry into
the 'idea' of whatever his subject for the time being
may be.^ As Socrates and Plato commonly set out on
such inquiries with the simplest questions examples
taken from everyday life, commonly accepted beliefs,

arguments from uses of words and ways of speech so

too is Aristotle wont to find his starting-point for the
definition of such ideas in prevalent opinions, in the
views of earlier philosophers, and particularly in the
expressions and names which are in common use on the
subject and in the meaning of words. ^ Socrates sought
to correct the uncertainty of such beginnings by means
of a dialectical comparison of various opinions and
experiences gathered from all sides. But in Aristotle
this process is far more complete and is directed with
more explicit consciousness to the scientific ends in
view. As a rule, he commences every important inquiry
with an accurate investigation as to the various points
of view from which the matter in hand can be treated,
as to the difficulties and contradictions which arise
from the different views that might be taken, and as to
the reasons which make for or against each view and ;

the task which he sets before the philosopher is simply

that of finding, by a more accurate definition of the

Thus, for instance, in Phys. Polit. iii. 1 sqq. the notion of
ii. 1, iii. ], iv, 10 sq.
1 sqq. iv. the State, and so on.
the notions of Nature, Motion, ^ It will be shown later what

Space and Time are investigated ;

significance universal opinion and
in De An. i. 1 sqq., ii. 1 sq. the the probable arguments deduced
notion of the Soul in Mh. iV. ii. ; from it, had with Aristotle as a

4 sq. the notion of Virtue; in foundation for induction.



ideas Involved, the solution of tlie difficulties disclosed.^

Aristotle is thus working in truth wholly on the ground

and along the lines of the Socratico-Platonic method of
dialectic. He developed the Socratic Induction into a
conscious technical device, and he completed it by the
theory of the syllogism which he invented and by all

the related logical inquiries. In his own writings he

has left us a most perfect example of a dialectical in-
vestigation carried through with keen and strict fidelity
from all sides of the subject. If we did not know it

before, we should recognise at once in Aristotle's philo-

sophic method the work of a scholar of Plato.
With this dialectical process he combines at the
same time a mastery in all that concerns the observation
of facts, and a passion for the physical explanation of
them, which are not to be found in Socrates nor in Plato
either. To Aristotle the most perfect definition of an
idea is that which exhibits the causes of the thing,^ for

On this also more definite oXriov rb tovto
fxiaov, iv airaai 5e
information will be given later. (VjTetTot. And
after quoting some
Be An. ii. 2 imt. ov yap : examples iv oKaai yap rovrois

fjiSuov rd on Se7 t6v dpKTTiKbv <pavep6u icmv on to avro icn rd ri

\6yov 5r]\ovv aWa koI tV . . . ian Koi Sia ri ianv, Sec. JMd. c.
alnav hvirdpx^iv Kal ifKpaiveaOai. 3 hiit. G. 8 init. ibid. i. 31, 88, a, ;

vvv 5' uxTTrep av/j-irepda-fiad' ol \6yoi 5 t^ 5e Kad6\ov rlfiiov 8ti Sri\o7 rd


rwv op'xv elcr'v '

olov ri icrn re- a'(nov. Metaph. vi. 1, 102o,h, 17
rpayuvKTfiis ; rh iaov kripofiT]Kei 8ta rh rrjs avrijs elvai Siavoias r6 re
opQoywviov elvai la^oivKevpou 6 Se *
ri tan 5rj\ou iroieiv koX el eariv.
roiovros opos \6yos rod av/j.irepdcr- Ibid. 1041, a, 27
vii. 17. (pavepou :

fiaros 6 Se
Xeyuv '6n iarlv 6 roivvv '6n ^T)re7 rd aXnov rovro 5' '

rerpaycovic/Jibs fiearis evpeais, rod 4<rrl rd ri ^v elvai, ws eiirelv \oyi-

Tcpdyfiaros \eyei rd aXnov. Anal, kws . t tTr' ivitav fxev ean rivos
Post. ii. every inquiry
1. sq. : eveKa, . . . eV eviaiv Se ri eKivriae
deals with four points, the oTt,the irpurov. Cf. Anal. Post. ii. 11
hi6n, the 1 iari, the ri eanv. i/iit.: eirel he eiria-raxrdai olb/xeOa Brav
These may, however, be reduced eiSufieu tV airiau, alriai 5e rer-
to the two questions el ean fieaov : rapes . . . iracrai avrai did rov p.e(Tov
and ri icrn, r 6 fiecrov rb piev yap

philosophy ought to explain the phenomena.^ There-

fore, in his view (as we shall see presently), it ought to
take account not only of the idea and the final cause of
a thing, but of the efficient and the material causes
also. Holding as decisively as we shall see he do^s
that a thing is to be explained by its own causes, he
could not well be content with a method which should
look only to the Universal which the '
Idea ' gives, and
neglect the immediate definiteness of the things them-
selves.^ This is the reason of that careful regard for

* Vid. sujyr. p. 167. &v Tis ws oiKciois iri(rTvffi \6yois,

' In this sense Aristotle not Obroi Koi TOLOVToi TlVfS ilaiv '

unfrequently contrasts the logical KoyiKws 5' iiriaKoirovcri kUv Sk tcDj/Sc

consideration of a subject {i.e. So^eie Tcp ravih tovto crvfifiaiveiv.
that which is only concerned with Gen. An. ii. 8, 747, b, 28 Xi-yw 5e :

what is universal in its con- Aoyt/cV [a7rJ5et|t/] Sto tovto oti

cept), either with the analytical, o(r(f} KaQoXov fiaXKou iroppuTepo} twv
which enters more deeply into o'lK^icov ia-Tlv dpx<*>v. And after a
the peculiarity of the given case, proof such as this has been brought
(and which he also calls e/c tS>v forward, he adds (748, a, 7): ovtos
/cetjueVwj/), or with the pliysical fjikv ovv 6 \6yos KadoXov Kiav KoX
research which draws its result Kei/os. oi yap fiij e/c twj' o'lKeiuv
not from the concept of a phe- apxoov Koyoi kcvol, &c. (similarly
nomenon merely, but from its I)e An. i. 1, 403, a, 2 SioXcktikms :

concrete conditions. The former, Kal Kevws Mh. Bud. i. 8, 1217, b, ;

for instance, Anal. Post. i. 21 fin., 21 \oyiKCtis koI Keyus).

: Hence in
c 23, 84, a, 7,cf. c. 24, 86, a, 22, c, such cases he much prefers the
32, 88, a, ] 9, 30 Metaph. vii. 4,
; physical treatment to the logical
1029, b, 12, 1030, a, 25, c. 17, (e.g. Gen. et Corr. i. 2, 316, a, 10:
1041, a, 28. The latter, Phys. iii. XZoi 5' &V TLS KOL e/C TOVTWV, OffOV
5, 204, b, 4, 10 (cf. a, 34, Metaph. hia<p4pov(Tiv ol (j}vcnKws Kal AoyiKcbs
xi. 10, 1066, b, 21), c. 3, 202, a, aKoirovj/Ts, &c., see Zellek, Ph.
21; De C<eIo, i. 7, 275, b, 12; d. Gr.,^t.\. p. 869, 1), whereas in
Metaph. xii. 1, 1069, a, 27, xiv. 1, metaphysical researches on Ideas
1087, b, 20 (similarly (pvaiKws and {Metaph. xiii. 5 Jin.) he thinks the
Kae6\ov, De Ca;lo, i." 10 Jin. c. 12, XoyM<t)TpoL x6yoi are the aKpifie-
283, b, 17). But here he takes (TTcpoi. See further, Waitz, Arist.
the logical to be so much the Org. ii. 353 sq. BONITZ, Arist.

more imperfect, the further re- Metaph. ii. 187; Ind. Arist. 432, b,
moved it is from the concrete 5 seq. Rassow, Arist. de not. def,

definiteness of the object. Cf. doctr. 19 sq.

Phys. viii. 8, 264, a, 7 oh fiev olv

facts which has drawn down on him often enough the

reproach of an unphilosophic empiricism.^ He was
not only one of the highest speculative thinkers he
was also one of the most accurate and untiring observers,
and one of the most erudite men of learning that the
world knows. As in his general theory he conceived
of experience as the condition precedent of thought,
and of perception as the matter out of which thoughts
come forth, so in practice he did not fail to provide for
his own system a broad substructure of experiential
knowledge, and to base his philosophic dicta upon an
all-round appreciation of the data of fact. Especially
in regard to any theory of nature he insists that we
should first know the phenomena and then look about
for their causes.^ We could not, of course, expect to
find in him the sureness and accuracy of method which
empirical science has in modem times attained. In
Aristotle's day it was only in its infancy, and it suffered
from the complete lack of the proper aids to observa-
tion and of the support of a developed mathematics. We
Thus SCHLEIERMACHER, and appears to be in every way un-
Gesch. d. Pliil. p. 120, says of
tenable that Aristotle's general
Aristotle: ' We
cannot deny that bent made him more suited for

^ there is a great want of specula-

tive genius,' &c., and on p. 110
the collective comprehension of
empirical and historical data,
he contrasts the older Academics than for the solving of metaphy-
with him, as being more specula-
' sical difficulties.'
tive' but he sets out with a prin-
^ Thus Part. An. i. 1, 639, b,

ciple, according to which Aristotle 7 sqq., 640, a, 14. ; Hist. An. i.

must certainly come off badly : 7, 491, a, 9 sq. Meteor, iii. 2,

Vj 'Never has one who first went 371, b, 21 Anal. Pr. i. 30, 46, a,

11 through a great mass of empirical 17 sqq. Aristotle appeals here (as

\i work become a true philosopher.' in PaH. An. 639, b, 7) especially
Thus also Steumpell, Theoret. to the progress of astronomy
Phil. d. Gr. lo(), who delivers about which see infra, cb. ix.

the judgment which, however, (middle). Cf. Eucken, Metlwde
can scarcely be reconciled with his d. Arist. Forsch. 122 sq.
own observations on pp. 184 sqq.,
also notice that in Aristotle the empirical effort is still

too often crossed by the speculative and dialectic

methods which he took over directly from Platonism.
Indeed, so far as natural science goes, it would be more
just to charge him with too little empiricism than too
much.i But it would be far truer to say simply that
he carried both methods as far as could be expected of
his day. The science of the Greeks began with specu-
lation. The empirical sciences only attained to any
sort of development at a late date, and largely by the
efforts of Aristotle himself Therefore it was natural
that the dialectical method of Socrates and Plato, with
its logical dissections and connections of ideas, guided by

current opinions and the indications of language, should

take precedence of any strict empirical rules. Aristotle
stood in a close relation to the dialectical movement, and
brought it in theory and practice, as we have just said,
to completion. It was not to be expected that the
art of empirical investigation should find in him an
equally complete exponent, and therefore an accurate
discrimination between the two methods was as yet far
off. That could only come after the fuller development
of the empirical sciences and the direct investigation
of the theory of knowledge, which the modern centuries
have brought to pass. All the greater is the credit
due to Aristotle that his wide and direct scientific

instinct led him even so soon to turn to the methods of

' This charge has been made a one-sidedness not uncommon

by Bacon, and, since the above with him, by Lange, Gesch. d.
was first written, by Lewes {AH- Mater, i. 61 sqq.
stotle^ 91, 97) ; and, through

observation and to connect them as well as he then

could with the dialectical treatment of ideas. ^

That Aristotle's dialectic had to do with a far more

extensive range of empirical data than Plato had to deal
with is the reason why Aristotle's methods of exposition
are distinguishable at a glance from Plato's by that air
of formal logic which they wear. Aristotle does not limit
himself to that unfolding of pure ideas which Plato ex-
pected of the philosopher,^ though his own attempts at it
were in truth but rare and partial. The ideal processes
by references to
are for ever interrupted, in Aristotle,
experience, by examinations of ambiguous terms, by
criticism of other views. The more extensive is the
matter which he has to bring under the yoke of science,
the more eager is he to see that every step in his far-
reaching investigations should be assured on the one
hand by a copious induction, and on the other by a
careful observance of the rules of logic. His manner
of presenting his work seems often dry and tedious as
compared with Plato's for the texts we now possess

yield us but rare examples of that richness and charm

for which his writings were praised no less than his

master's. We miss wholly the dramatic life, the

artistic finish, the fine mythical presentment which
make us love the Dialogues.^ But the Corpus Aristo-
telicum exhibits the peculiar qualities of a philosophic
style in so high a degree that we ought not only

' For fuller information on (1872) cf. especially

pp. 29
the methodological principles of sqq. 122 sqq. 152 sqq.
and their application,see
Aiistotle "^
See Zeller's Plato, ^asmt.
the next chapter and Eucken,
* Cf.
p. 106 sq.
Die Metlwde d. Arixt. Forschung


not to call him a bad '

writer,' ^ but ought rather to set

hitQ in this respect far above his great forerunner. He

is accused of '
formalism,' though where the discussion
grows more concrete, as in his physics or ethics, this
falls away but it will not be regarded as a blemish by

those who remember how

needful even in Plato's view
was how much bewilderment
this strict logical effort
among ideas must have been cured by keen distinctions
in the meanings of words
how many fallacies will have
been avoided by the exact analysis of the syllogism.
Rather has Aristotle done the world immortal service
in that he established a fixed basis for all scientific

procedure, and won for thought thereby a security

whose value to us we only overlook because we have
grown too used to it to remember that it is great.
If, again, we endeavour to appreciate, so far as at
this point we can, the standpoint and general view of
the universe which we can call Aristotelian, we shall
findtwo things. On the one hand, no one can overlook
the basis he inherited from Socrates and Plato. Yet,
on the other hand, there is an element of originality
so notable and so sustained as to make us stigmatise
the notion that Aristotle was a kind of dependent
follower of Plato who did nothing but formally work
up and complete his master's thought, as an error
utterly unjust.
Aristotle adheres not only to the Socratic proposi-
tion that Science has to do with the idea of things, but
also to the further consequence which takes us into the
heart of Plato's system, that that which is truly actual
* EiTTER, iii. 28.
2 Braniss, Gesch. d. Phil. ; see Kant, i. 179 sqq. 207 sq.

in a thing is only its essence as thought in the idea of

it, and that all else is '
actual ' only in so far as it

partakes of that ideal essentiality. Yet, whereas to

Plato this '
Essential Being '
was a thing existing by
itself, which he relegated to a separate ideal world
beyond the world of experience, his follower recognises
the truth that the Idea, as the essence of things, could
not stand separate from the things themselves. There-
fore he seeks to present the Idea, not as a Universal
existing for itself apart, but as a common essence of
things indwelling in the particular things themselves,

In lieu of the negative relation to which the sundering u'

of ideas and phenomena had led with Plato, he posits


rather the positive relation of each to the other and 1

their mutual dependence. Therefore he calls the sen- 1

sible element the Matter, and the insensible essence the

Form. He puts it that it is one and the same Being,
here developed into actuality, there undeveloped and
lying as a mere basis. So it comes that, for him.
Matter must, by an inner necessity, strive upward to
Form, and Form equally must present itself in Matter.
In this transformation of Plato's metaphysic, it is easy
to recognise the realism of the natural philosopher
whose aim is the explanation of the actual. Just this
is and ever recurrent charge against the
his strongest
Ideal Theory, that it leaves the world of phenomena,
the things of Becoming and Change, unexplained. For
his own part, he finds the very root-definitions of his
metaphysic in his treatment of those processes wherein
is the secret of all genesis and all change, whether by
nature or by art.

N 2

Yet Aristotle, too, is barred from completing his

philosophy in these directions by just that dualism of
the philosophy of Ideas which he inherited from Plato.
Hard as he tries to bring Form and Matter together,
still remain two principles, of
to the last they always
which he can neither deduce one from the other, nor
both from a third. Fully as they are w^orked out
through the range of finite things, still the highest
entity of all is nothing but the pure Spirit, left outside
the world, thinking in itself as the highest in man is

that Reason which enters into him from without, and

which never comes into any true unity with the indivi-
dual side of his being. In this way, Aristotle is at
once the perfection and the ending of the Idealism of
Socrates and Plato : its perfection, because it is the
most thorough effort to carry it throughout the whole
realm of actuality and to explain the world of pheno-
menal things from the standpoint of the Idea but '

also its ending, since in it there comes to light the im-

possibility of ever holding together the Idea and the
Phenomenon in any real unity, after we have once
posited, in our definition of the ultimate basis of the
world, an original opposition between them.
If we follow out the development of these principles
in the Aristotelian system, and seek for that purpose to
take a general view of the divisions he adopted, we are
met at once with the unfortunate difficulty that, neither
in his own writings nor in any trustworthy account of
his method, is any satisfactory information on that point
to be found. ^ If we should trust the later Peripatetics

1 Cf. for what follows : Ritter, iii. 57 sqq. ;.Bbandis, ii. b, 130

and the Neo-Pl atonic commentators, Aristotle had

divided all philosophy into Theoretic and Practical^
assigning to the former the office of perfecting the
cognitive part of the soul, and to the latter that of
perfecting the appetitive. In Theoretic Philosophy,
they say, he again distinguished three parts : Physics,
Mathematics, and Theology, also called First Philosophy
or Metaphysics. Practical Philosophy likewise fell, it

is said, into three : Ethics, Economics, and Politics.^

There are not wanting indications in the Aristotelian
writings which serve to support this statement. Ari-
stotle often opposes to each other the theoretical and
the practical reason. ^ He distinguishes between in-
quiries which are directed to Cognition, and those
which are directed to Action.^ Accordingly we find,

sqq. Teichmuller,
; ArU-t. real part as an instrument of
Forsch. ii. 9 sqq. Walter,
; Philosophy), practical philosophy
I)le Lelire v. d. iirakt. Vern. 537 into Ethics and Politics, and
sqq. Politics into the science of the
Thus Ammon. in Qu. roc. State and the science of the
Porjili. 7, a, sqq.(who adds the household. Alex. Toj). 17,
fourfold division of Mathematics gives as philosophical sciences,
into Geometry, Astronomy, Music, Physics, P.thics, Logic and Meta-
and Arithmetic), and after him physics but as to Logic cf. below

David, Sclwl. 25, a, 1 Simpl. ; p. 187, n. 2.

Pliys. init. Categ. i. c Philop.
2 De An. iii. 9, 432, b, 26, c.
Schol. in Ar. 36, a, 6, Phys. init. ; 10, 433, a, 14 ; Eth. 1139, a,
vi. 2,
Anatol. in Fahric. Plhl. iii. 6, cf.
i 13 vers. fin. Polit. vii. ;

462 H. EUSTRAT. in Eth. N.

; 14, 1333, a, 24. For further in-
init. Anon. Schol. in Arist. 9, a,
; formation see chap. xi.
31. The division into theoretical 3 Eth. i. 1, 1095, a, 5 ^ire*5)? rb :

and practical philosophy had al- TeA.os \rr\s iroAtTtttrjs] icrXv ovyvuffis
ready been griven by Alex, in aWa irpa^is. Likewise, ibid. x.
Anal. Pri. init. and DiOG. v. 28. JO, 1179, a, 35, ii. 2, init.: iirel
Further, the latter, in part diverg- oZv ri irapov(ra Ttpayfiari-a ov Oecoplas
ing from the others, divides fVe/fa i(TTiv wairep al &Wai (ov yap
theoretical philosophy into Phy- 'iv' flScHixeu tI iariv r) apcTrf (TKeirro-
sicsand Logic (vsrhich, however, fifda, dW' 'iv^ ayaQol ycydofieOa^ iird
he does not consider so much a ovShy hv ?iv 6<p\os avrifs), &C.



at an early date in his School, a division of Science

into theoretic and practical.^ He himself, however, is
accustomed to add a third the '
poietic science '

because he distinguishes irolrjacs or production from

irpa^is or action, both by its source and by its end,
saying that the former originates in the artistic faculty,
the latter in the and that production has its will,^

end work to be brought into

outside itself in the
being, but action has its end in the activity of the

' Metaph. ii. (a), 1, 993, b, speaks merely of an eVto-r^^/nT? (not

19 : opBus 5'
Xt koX rh KaXeiadai of a ((>i\o(ro({>ia') and voi-q-
r^v <pi\o(ro<piav eVto'TTjyUTjj' ttjs oAtj- riK^j, these passages would justify
yap (wherein,
deias. OecaprjTiKTJs fikv our using the latter expression,
however, the whole of philosophy since (piXoarotpia is sj'nonymous
is here included) rdXos aX-fjOcia, with ^Tnariifx-ri when the latter
irpaKTiKTJs 5' epyov. Mil. End. i. signifies not merely knowledge in
], 1214, a, 8: iroWwv S' ovtwv general, but science in the special
Bewprjixdroov ra fxkv ai/Twv ffvv-
. . . sense of the term. And since in
TiVet irphs rh yucovai /xSvov, ra de Mctaph. vi. 1 {vid. inf. 183, n. 3)
Ka\ irepl r^s KTTjcreis Koi irepl ras he gives three (piXocrocplai dewprjri-
irpd^eis rod irpdyfiaTos. ocxa fikv oZu Kal, this undoubtedly supposes
?X* (piKo<To<piav jxovov dewprjTiK'fjv, that there is a non-theoretical, i.e.
&C. a practical or poietic philosophy.
2 MetapTi. vi. 1, 1025, b, But one cannot believe that by
18 sq. : T] <j>v(TiK^ eTrtCTTj^uTj . . . the latter is meant, not that
StjXov 8x4 oijT irpoKTiKri eff-TiV ot/T6 science treats of irpa^is and
iroiTfriK'fi .... cScTe t ira(ro Siduoia (Ethics, Politics, and the

^ irpoKTt/c)j ^ TTOiTjTt/c); ^ decopririK^, t] science of Art), but the faculty of

(pvariKi] 6eupr}TiKi} ris hv ^t-q ; C. 2, the 7rpa|tsand TroiT/tris itself namely ,

1026, b, 4 (xi. 7) : ov^fii5. yap <pp6vr](ris and rix^n (WALTER,

iirKrT-fifiri irepl avrov [sc. Lehre v. d. praUt, Vern. 540 sq.).
Tou (ru/tt/3e)87j/coTOs] ovre irpa/CTt/cj) ^iKocio^ia never has this meaning,
oiire voirjTiKfj oijTe dewpriTiKfj. The and even iiria-r-nnrj cannot have it
same division of iiriaT-fifi-n in in this context. So again since cer-
Top. vi. 6, 145, a, 15; viii. 1, 157, tain branches are distinguished
a, 10. Further cf. Etli. iV. vi. as practical and poietic from
3-5, 1139, a, 27, x. 8, 1718,
c. 2, Physics, Mathematics and Meta-
b, 20, and on the difference physics, which are the theoretic
between poietic and theoretic sciences, the former must like-
science in Be Ccelo, iii. 7, 306, a, wise be really sciences. And
16 Metajjk. xii. 9, 1075, a, 1, cf.
what other place would be left
ix. 2, 1046, b, 2, and Bonitz on this for Ethics, &c. ?
passage. Though Aristotle here Metapli. vi. 1, 1025, b, 22

actor.^ The two coincide, however, as opposed to

the theoretic activity in this, that they have to do with
the determination of that which can be either one way
or another, whereas Knowledge has to do with the
determination of that which cannot be any otherwise
than as it is.^ Aristotle does also speak of three
theoretic Sciences, the first concerning things which
are movable and corporeal, the second referring to
things unmoved though corpo^-eal, the third dealing with
that which is incorporeal and unmoved : these being
Physics, Mathematics, and the First Philosophy,^ which

Twv yap iroiifTiKwv eV rq, iroi-

fihv XiopicTTO. S' tcrccs, aAA' ws iv v\t). r,

ovvTi apxv ^ voiJs ^ TexvV ^ Siva/xis

7) Se TrpcoTTj [sc. <l)i\o(ro(pia^ Kal irepi
ris, ruv 5e irpaKT ikojv iv r^ irpdr- X<^pio'Ta Kol aKivTira . . . Sxttc rpeTs
rovTi 7] irpoaipearis Hence Eth. vi. . tt.v eley (piKo(To<p'.at deooprjTiKal, jxaQi]-
5, 1140, b, 22 in the province of : /jLariKi), <pv<riK^, dcoKoyiK-f]. Simi-
art it is better to err voluntarily ;
larly xii. 1096, a, 30, c, 6 init.
1, ;

in that of morals involuntarily. De An. i. 1, 403, b, 7 sqq. About

Etli. vi. 4 init.
' erepov 5' : the name of the first philosophy,
ecTTi iroir](Tis Koi irpa^is C. 5, 1140,
; cf also p. 76, supra. As to Mathe-

b, 3 : &Wo Th y4vos irpd^ews koX matics as the science of numbers

iroir-i(r(i}s .... rrjs fiev yap iroi-fiacws and quantity, and the abstraction
ercpou rh reAos, ttjs Se irpd^coDS ovk peculiar to it, whereby it does not
tiv iXt] ' tan yap axn)] rj einrpa^ia consider a body according to its
Tc'Aos. IHd. i. 1 init. physical properties, but only from
2 Eth. vi.^ 3, 1139, b, 18: the point of view of magnitude in
4'in<rT'f}fn} fxev oZv rl itTTiv ivrcvdev space, and, in determining num-
<paup6v .... irdtnes yap inro\a/x- ber and quantity, disregards the
fidvo/icv, t) iiri(rTdfi6a fxr] ivS^x^o'Oo.i intrinsic condition of that in
&\\a)S ex^"' ^- 4 ifiif- J
tow S' eVSe- which they occur, see Phys. ii. 2,
XoixVOv &\\(i>s xetj/ ((TTi Ti Kal 193, b, 31 sqq. Anal. Post. i. 10,

ironqrhu Kal irpaKTOv, &;c. Cf. C. 2, 76, b, 3, c. 13, 79 a, 7 Anal. ;

1139, a, 2 sqq. Be Coelo, iii.7, 306, PH. i. 41, 49, b, 35 ; Metaph. xi.
a : vrld.supr. p 167, n. 2 ; Part. An. 4, 3, 1061, a, 28, vii. 10, 1036,
1. I, 640, a, 3 t] yap apxh to7s /xfv
; a, 9, xiii. 2, 1077, a, 9 to c. 3/.,
[the theorists] rh ov, to7s Se [the iii. 2, 997, b, 20, ilnd. 996, a, 29 ;

technicists] t^ eaSfievov. De An. iii. 1 fin. Detached state-

3 Metaph. vi. 1 (xi. 7) where ments on Mathematics are found
among other things 1026, a, 13 : in many places, e.g. Metaph. i. 2,
TJ flV yap (pVfflK^ TTfpl dx^P'O'TO flfV 982, a, 26 De Ccelo, iii. 1, 299, a,

ctAA' OVK aKLVTjra, ttjs Se fia6r]/xa- 15, c. 7, 306, a, 26; De An. i. 1,

TiKrjs ^j/ia irepl aKiv-qra fikv ov 402, b, 16. Cf. Brandis, p. 135

he names also Theology, and treats as the pinnacle of

all knowledge.^
If, however, we attempt to apply the suggested
division to the contents of the Aristotelian books,^ we
sqq. The contradiction which knowledge ; because it investi-
KiTTEB, 73 sq., finds in Ari-
iii. gates what is most difficult to be
stotle, viz. that a sensible sub- known because the science of

tratum is first denied and after- the last reasons is the most ac-
wards attributed to Mathematics, curate (et/cptjSeo-TciTT;) and gives the
and that its object is now de- most perfect instruction as to
signated as removed, now as not causes; because, more than any
removed, from what is sensible, is other, it pursues knowledge for
partly solved by the distinction its own sake and because, as the

of the purely mathematical from science of principles, and hence

the applied sciences, and partly a^so of final ends, it must govern
and chiefly by the remark that all others. In Toj). viii. 1, 157, a,
Aristotle nowhere says that the 9, the following is given as an
object of Mathematics is a X'^'P*" example of a division on eVt- :

(TThv, but only that it is considered ffT-fifir] iTTKTT'fiixr^s PeKTiwv fj ry o/cpt-

as such, ^.<'. by abstracting from its ficar^pa dvai ^ r^ ^\ti6pwv.

sensible nature in Metaph.. xii. 8,
; Aristotle in 3Ietap7i. xii. 9, 1074,
1073, b, 3, moreover, Astronomy b, 29 sq. also supposes that the
according to the common reading value of knowledge is propor-
is not called ' the truest philo- tioned to that of its object. The
sophy,' but the otKetoTctTTj, the universal pre-eminence of the
most important of the mathe- theoretical over the practical
matical sciences for the discus- and poietic sciences does not,
sion in hand still Bonitz is right
; however, rest on this, nor on then-
in reading ttjs otKetoraTT/s (piKo-
: greater exactness, for some of
(ro<p'a rS>v fia6T]fiaTiKwu e7rt(rTrj/xa'j/. them (the zoological and psycho-
^ MetajJh. vi. 1, 1026, a, 21 logical sciences) have no su-
(and almost the same in xi. 7, periority over Ethics in either
1064, b, 1), after what is given in respect but primarily on the fact

the preceding note tV ti/xicdto.- : that knowledare is here an end in

TTjv \_iTricrTiixr]v'\ Se? irepl rb rijxiw- itself; cf. Metaph. i. 1, 981, b,
rarop yevos (For, as is said
elvai. 17 sqq. 982, a, I.
in 1064, b, 5 fieXriuv /col x^^^^
: Thus Kavaisson (Essai snr

fKaarrj K^ycrai Karh rh oIk^Iov iiri- la Metaphysique d'Aristote, i.

(TTfiTSv.) al fiev odv BewpTjriKal tcSv 244 sqq.). who wishes to sub-
&\\q}v iinarT}ix(2v aiperdorfpai, ourrj divide theoretical philosophy
Se Twu deupTiTiKMv. He discusses into Theology, Mathematics and
at length in Metaph. i. 2, why the Physics, practical philosophy into
first philosophy especially de- Ethics, Economics and Pohtics,
serves the name ao^la because, : and poietic philosophy into
as perceiving the most universal, Poetics, Rhetoric and Dialectics.
it gives the most comprehensive

run at once into manifold troubles. Of all that Ari-

stotle wrote, the only thing which would fall under
poietic science ' is the Poetics ; for he himself rele-
gates the Rhetoric to another section by indicating
that it is a side-branch of Dialectics and Politics/ and
Dialectics cannot be disconnected from Analytics or
If we were to conclude from this difficulty that the
division into two groups theoretic and practical was
preferable to the division into three, we should thereby
be cutting ourselves loose from the statements of Ari-
stotle himself. It further appears that in the presenta-
tion of his system he took no account of the existence
of Mathematics. The one mathematical work
to which
he gives a reference, and which can with certainty be
taken to be genuine the tract on Astronomy belongs,
according to the classification above indicated, to

Rhet. i. 2, 1356, a, 25: oStrre purposes of Politics and since the


av/xfiaivei tt)v pijTopiKjjv olov irapa- character of a science depends

(pves Tt T^s StaAe/cTjKTjs elvai KoiTrjs on its purpose, he includes it in
irepi TO, i]6r] irpayfiaTcias, ^u S'lKaiSu the practical section. Hence,
ia-Ti -K poo-ay op(v( IV ttoXitiktiv. c. 3, although in itself an artistic
1359, b, 8: oirep yap Koi irpoTtpov science, and designated as such
eipriKOTfs rvyxo-vofxev a\r]9fs etniv, by Aristotle (e.g. Rhet. i. 1354, a,
OTt T) prjTopiKr) (TvyKeLTai fxkv iK re 11 sq. b, 21, 1355, a, 4, 33, b, 11,
rrjs avaXvriKTJs iTri(nr,uT]s Koi ttjs c. 2, 1356, b, 26 sqq. rhetorical

"Kcpl Ttt ^07j iro\iTiK^s, ofMo'a S' ia-rl theories are also called rexvai,
TO fiev r-fj Bia\KTiKTJ to. Se toIs cf. supra, p. 72, 2, 73, 1),
(To<f>iaTiKo7s \6yois. 1094,
ii^^/t. i. 1, still he does not seem to give
b, 2 : 6pcSfMu Se koI tos ivTiixoraras Rhetoric an independent place in
-^wj/ Zvvafj.av imh Tavrrfv \r))v iro- the system, as Brandia does (ii.
AtTi/cV] oijo-as, olov (rrpar-qyiK^v, b, 147), and still more decidedly
oiKovofjLiK^v, ^TjTopiKriV xP^I^^^'")^ ^^ Uoring {Kwistl. d. Arist. 78).
ravTTfs To?s \oiira7s twv irpoKTiKcSv ^ S<) in Tap. i. 1 init. c. 2,
iiria-TTj/jLuv, &c. These expressions it is plainly designated as an
seem to have a direct reference auxiliary science to philosophy in
to the passage cited from the general, and especially to the
Rhetoric. Aristotle sees in it an theoretical investigations,
application of Dialectics for the

Physics. Of the others, they are either of doubtful

authenticity or, in any case, the absence of any refer-
ences leaves us to suspect that these were not considered
an essential part of the connected exposition of his
system.^ The Physics^ again, is spoken of as the
not the third, philosophy as if there were
second,' ^
no thought of Mathematics standing between it and
the First Philosophy
and Aristotle himself refers :

the Mathematical Axioms to the ' First Philoso-

As regards Practical Philosophy, Aristotle does not

divide it Economics and Politics ^ like the
into Ethics,
later commentators^ who were misled in that matter by
the spurious Economics. He distinguishes in the first

place ^ the main Ethical Science which he desires to

call ^
Politics ' ^
from the auxiliary sciences of Econo-
mics, Military Tactics, and Rhetoric
and then in :

Politics '
he distinguishes that section which treats of

' About these writings cf. as the three parts of practical

p. 86, n, 1, mpra. science this division must con-

Metaph. vii. 11, 1037, a, 14 : sequently belong to the oldest
rris (pvcriK^s Kal Seurepos <pi\o(ro- Peripatetics.
<l>ias. * With whom, besides Ravais-
' Metaph. 3 init. (xi. 4).
iv. son, Ritter, 302, also agrees.
* Aristotle in Eth. vi. 9, 1142, Eth. i. 1094, a, 18 sqq.,
a, 9, besides (ppovria-is which re- vi. 9, 1141, b, 23 sqq.
lates to individual action, cer- "
Eth. i. 1, ibid., and 1095,
tainly names oi/coi/oyii^o and TToAiTeto a, 2, i. 2 init. tind Jin., ii. 2, 1105,
also: but in 1141, b, 31 he has a, 12, vii. 12m2Y., cf. i. 13, 1102, a,
divided Politics {i.e. the science of 23. BJiet. i. 2, 3, vid. sn/)r. p. 185,
the life in society with the ex- n. 1.
elusion of Ethics) into olKovoala, ^ Eth. i. 1, 1094, b, 2 Rhet. i. ;

w/io^eo-Io, iroAtrt/crj, so that, accord- 2, 1356, a, 25. Also in the first

ing to this, Economics forms a book of the Politics, Economics,
part of Politics. Still more de- as far as Aristotle has treated the
finitely Eudemus in Eth. End. i. subject, is taken to belong to the
8, 1218, b. 13, combines the science of the State.
tfoKniKi] KoX oIkopo/jliktj Koi (l>p6vri(Tis


the moral action of the individual from that which

treats of the State.
It is also important to remember that in the above
division, whether we take it to be twofold or threefold,
there is no place for Logic. The later Peripatetics get
over this difficulty by the theory which is a point of
controversy between them and the Stoics that Logic
is not a part of Philosophy, but only an instrument
for it.^ Aristotle himself never hints at this distinc-
tion,^ although he does, of course, treat Logic as a
Methodology.'^ Nor will the suggestion help us much ;

for since Aristotle had worked out his Logic with such
scientific care, it must have had some definite place in
his system.^ The only conclusion is that the scheme of
subdivision, which we deduce from the above-quoted
remarks of Aristotle, seems to be in part too wide and
in part too narrow for the matter which his books
A different subdivision of the system might be built

Etli. i. 1, 1094, b, 7. So also

philosophy, is of course beside
in the lengthy discussion, x. 10. the point.
2 DiOG. V. 28 Alex, in Pri.
; * Su2)ra, p. 91 sq.
Anal, init., ScJtol. 141, a, 19, b, 25, 5 No more trustworthy is Ea-
in Top. 41, m, Ammon. ajntd vaisson's statement (loc. cit. 252,
Waitz, Arist. Org. i. 44 med. ;
264 sq.), that Analytics is no
SiMPL. Categ. 1, C Schol. 39, b, special science, but the form of
and Philop. in Categ. Schol. in all science. It is much rather
Ar. 36, a, 6, 12, 37, b, 46. The the knowledge of this form, which
same in Anal. Pri. ibid. 143, a, 3. constitutes a particular branch
Anon. iUd. 140, a, 45 sqq. just as much as Metaphysics,
David, in Categ. Schol. 25, a, 1, which is the knowledge of the
where there are also further universal grounds of all Being.
fragmentary subdivisions of Logic Marbach, Gesch. d. Phil. i. 247,
and the logical writings. even thinks that there can be no

' That in Toj). i. 18/w., and doubt that the " Mathematics "
viii. 14, 163, b, 9, he speaks of which forms a part of philosophy
logical readiness as an organ of is what is now called Logic'

on the other remark, that all propositions and problems

are either ethical, physical, or logical.^ Under the
logical head, however, Aristotle here comprehends both
formal Logic and the First Philosophy or Metaphysics,^
and this alone would prove that he could not here have
meant to indicate a scheme for the presentation of his
system, in which these two departments are kept so
obviously distinct.
If, then, we are forced to give up the attempt to
find in his own isolated remarks any ke}^ to the plan of
his work which corresponds with the construction
itself, nothing remains but to gather from the actual
work as we have it, the method of the work he designed.
Abstracting from those of his writings which are in-
tended only as preliminary essays, or devoted to histo-
rical materials or collections concerning natural history,
or taken up with philosophic criticism, we distinguish
among Aristotle's writings four main masses. These
are his investigations of Logic, of Metaphysics, of
Natural History, and of Ethics. A fifth would be the

Toj). i. 14, 104, b, 19 : tffTi 5' to. fiev (pvariKrjs roSe riOiKrjs dewplas
ws Tinrtp Kepi\afi7v tcSu irporda-euu fiaWov eVrtV.
Kol rwu irpo^K'niJLa.Tuv fiipt) rpia. ai - As an instance of logical
)Ltev yap rjOiKoi TrpoTaa^is etVlj/, at Se propositions Toj). uhi iq). men-
XoyiKai .... 6/xoiccs Se kol to tto- tionstlie principle, which belongs
fi\-fj/xaTa .... TTphs /xhv ovv (piKo- equally to Methodology or Ana-
(Tocpiav kot' a\y]Q(iav ircpt avrcSi/ lytics and to Metaphysics (cf.
irpayfiaTCVTeov, SiaAeKTiKws Se irphs Metaph. 2, 1004, a, 9 sqq.,
Sd|ai/. no importance as
It is of 1005, a, that opposites fall
against this, that, in dealing with under the same science. Again,
the difference between know- in the instances given on p. 174,
ledge and representation, Ari- n. 2, supra, \oyiKhs at one time
stotle remarks in Anal. Post. i. 33 stands for logical, at another for
Jfn. : T^ Se Koiira iroSs Sc? metaphysical inquiries for the ;

itri re Siavolas Kal vov KoX iiricriin-ns latter also in Eth. End. i. 8, 1217,
KoX rex^VS Kal <ppovi\(ru>s KaX ffocpias b, 16.

Philosophy of Art, except that Aristotle did not work

out any part of it except the Poetics, He seems to
have forgotten to deduce these various branches of
work from the idea and problem of philosophy as a
whole, or to reduce them to any simpler plan of divi-
sion. Of these five, the section of Logic and Methodo-
logy ought to come first, not only in the time order of
the important texts,' but also in the order of exposi-
tion for Aristotle himself describes it as a propaideu-
tic for all other inquiries.^ After the investigation of
scientific method, the '
First Philosophy ' must come.
For, although the connected exposition of it belongs in
time to the close of Aristotle's work^ nevertheless it

contains the key to the philosophical understanding of

the Physics and the Ethics, and it is from it we must

obtain all the definitions, without which we could take

not a step in either of these sciences such as the
definitions of the Four Causes, of Form and Matter, of
the different senses of Being, of Substance and Acci-
dent, of the Mover and the Moved, &c. The very
' See si/;/;ra^, p. 156 seq. lytics,'or 'One must be ac-
2 Metaph. iv. 3, 1005, b, 2: qualnted with what Analytics has
8(ra S' iyx^tpovcTL rcSu \y6vT<i)v to discuss.' Inadmissible, on
Tives irepl rrjs aX-qdeias, hv Tp6irov the other hand, is Prantl's ex-
SeroiroSe'xeo'^ai, St' airaiSivaiav tcSv planation (Gesch. d. Log. i. 137),
avaXvTiKuv tovto Spwaiw Set yap which refers the tovtwv, not to
Tovruv TfjKeiv irpoeiricrTanevovs,
irepl the words with which it is im-
ctAAa ni] oLKovovras ^-lyrCiv. It is mediately connected, but to the
much the same for the ques- d^nafxaTa,about which Aristotle
tion in hand, whether the roxnav has spoken abpve. As a conse-
is referred to avaXmiKwv, or more quence of this translation, Prantl
correctly to the investigations in- thinks it monstrous that this
dicated in the words irepi rris passage should be used as a
dx-ndcias Sec, since from the proof of the precedence of the
nature of the thing it comes to Analytics.
the same, whether he says, One ' ^ Vid. sujjr. p. 76 sqq., and
must be acquainted with Ana- p. 160, n.

name of the '

First Philosophy ' expresses the fact that
in the logical order it precedes all other material
investigations, as being concerned with the discussion
of the most universal of all presuppositions.^ The
Physics follow on after the 'First Philosophy,' and the
Ethics follow the Physics , because the latter is pre-
supposed in the former.^ The Rhetoric must be taken
as belonging to Ethics.^ The philosophy of Art, on the
other hand, forms a section by itself, which is not
brought into any definite connection with the rest.
We can only treat it, therefore, as an appendix. To a
like position we must relegate also Aristotle's occasional
utterances as to Religion for a Philosophy of Religion,
in the true sense, was not within his view.

' Still more plainly than by riKrjs), Metaph. vi. 1, 1026, a, 13,
the superlative irpdorr} <pi\o(ro<pla is 30, Gen. et Con', i. 318, a, 5.
this shown by the comparative : Yid. supra, p. 159.
(piXo(TO(pia TrpoTepa{<pv(TiKrjs, (laQtiixa- See supra, p. 185, n.


From of old, Aristotle has been renowned as the founder

of Logic, and he has deserved his fame. We must not,
however, overlook the fact that he treated Logic, not as
an independent science, but only from the point of view
of Methodology, as the '
technique ' of his philosophic
investigations. In dealing with it, therefore, he does
not contemplate by any means a full and uniform i

account of the powers of thought as a whole, but rather

a simple inquiry into the forms and laws of scientific ,

proof. Of the first half of his Logic the Tojpics he r

admits this himself.^ Of the other and more important

section the Analytics it follows partly from single
references which assign to it the place of a Propaideutic
of Science,^ partly from the analogy of the Topics
aforesaid, but more especially from the whole treatment
of the subject. Of the two Analytics^ the logical m
masterpieces of Aristotle, the first is concerned with W

Syllogisms, the second^ with the jaws of Proof.^ Only

in connection with these investigations, and only in so

Toj). 1 init. fxhv irpSdecris '6Tav dpioius ^x*/***' ^cirep

' i. t]
: iir\

TTJs irpayfjiareias fi46odov evpelv, d^' p-qTopiKrjs koX laTpiKrjs Kal t<2v roi-
ris Svvr)(r6ii(0a (TvWoyi^cadai irepl oxnuv hwafxewv rovro S' iarl rh

iravrhs tov irporcOcvTos irpo^Xiifxaros Sk tuv eVSexo^wf I'wi' iroieTv & irpo-
e| ivS6^(i)V Kal alrol K6yov inrexovrfs aipovfieOa.
firiOhv ipovfjiv vireuavriov. Cf. c. 2. - Vid. supra, p. 189, n. 2.
c. 3 : e^ofiey Se reAewT r^v fiedodov, ' The common theme of both

far as may be necessary thereto, did he stay to consider

the theory of Propositions.' It was not until a later

period,^ (if at all) that he extended these hints into a

separate treatise in the Ylspl sp/jLrjvslas. In the same way,
it isfrom the consideration of the Syllogism that he is
led to the logical treatment of Notions. He touches on
Definition in the AnalyticSj^ merely as a matter con-
nected with Proof; and, in fact, the logical properties
of Notions as a whole are only takenup as incidental
The theory of the Categories, on the
to the Syllogism.'*
other hand, belongs more to Metaphysics than to
Logic, because it is not deduced from the logical form
of the Notion as such, or from the process of thought
involved in its construction, but is derived rather from
the natural division of those real relations, to which
the Categories, according to their content, are referred.^
The very name of 'Analytica'^ indicates that in the

is thus designated in Anal. PH. that Aristotle is going by an

init. : irpcSrov fikp elirelv Trepl ri Koi analytical method, and just as
t'ivos i(rT\v 7] (TKe\pi5, OTi irepl airS- he proceeds from syllogisms to
Sei^iv Koi iina-T-fiixTns airoSeiKTiKTJs. propositions, so in like manner
Likewise at end of Anal. Pest. ii. he passes from propositions to
19 init. : irepl fxkv ovv (rvXXoyi(rfxov notions. Both are merely con-
KoX ctTroSet'lecos, ri re iKcirepdu iffri sidered as factors in the syllo-
KoX TTcos 7ivTat, (pavephv, ajxa Se /col gism.
irepl iiriffr^/jLTis airo^eLKriKrjs Tai/rhv' * Some other writings on Con-
yap iffriv. cepts, which were mentioned on
AtmI. Pri. i. 1-3. Afwl. p. 70,supra, seem to have had a
Post. 2, 72, b, 7.
i. purely logical character but

Vid. supr. p. 66, n. 1.

2 probably not one of them was
3 Anal. Post. ii. 3 sqq. and cf. the work of Aristotle.
especially c. 10. ^ Aristotle not only calls both

* The little that has to be the principal logical writings

mentioned with regard to this 'KvoiKvTiKi. (see p. 67, n. 1 ), but
will be adduced later. The de- {rid. supr. p. 189, n. 2, and p. 185,
finition of the opos in Anal. Pri. i. n. 1) he uses the same designa-
1, 24, b, 16 alone shows ('6poj/ 5e tion for the science of which they
KoAco 15 tv SiaXverai r] irpSracris) treat.


investigations which we should class under '

Logic,' Aristotle was chiefly concerned to determine
the conditions of scientific procedure, and especially of
scientific processes of proof. ^

Socrates had revealed the method of forming Con-

ceptions Plato had added that of Division Aristotle
; ;

was the discoverer of the theory of Proof. This is to

him so clearly the one important point, that he re-
solves into it the whole science of Methodology. It
follows, then, that when the later Peripatetics described
Logic ^ as an '
instrument ' of philosophy,^ and when
accordingly the logical writings of Aristotle were in
the end published together under the name of the
Organon,''* this was in no way contrary to the

1 'AvaAveiv means to reduce a eVt rh TrpwTov aXriov, & iv ttj

given thing to the parts of which up4(rei etrxaTOj/ iariv
6 yap fiov-
it is composed, or to investigate \v6fjLvos 0iK ^ajTelj/ Koi ava\viy
the conditions through which it rhv dprifx4vov rpoirov Sxrirep 5m-
is brought about. In this sense ypafjLfxa. (pa'verai S' rj ovfikv ^i]Ti)ai5
Aristotle uses avdXvats and TTuaa dvai fiov\ev(ns,oTov at fiadriiia-
avoKveiv regularly for the reduc- TiKal, 7) Se fiovMvffis iraaa ^i\Tri<n5,
tion of syllogisms to the three Kol rh ((TxaTov iv t^ ava\vcri
figures, e.ff. Anal. PH. i. 32 init. irpuTOv elvai iu rfj yev4ffei. (Cf.
ei . . . roifs yeycvT^fievovs [^crvWoyur- Trendelenburg, Elem. Log.
fxovs'\ apaXvoifJLeu els tci npoeipT^fifva Arist. p. 47 sq.) The ai/aXvriK^ iiri-

(Tx-^MOTa, for which was written (TT-fjfiT] 1359,b, 10) desig-

immediately before ira>s S' avd- : nates accordingly the art of scien-
^ofxeu roiis (TvWoyicr/iovs els to. irpo- tific inquiry, or the introduction
fipr]fi4va crx'flfiO'Ta. Cf. BONITZ, to it, which is scientific method-
Ind. Arist. 48, b, 16. And since ology and similarly to avaXvriK^

every investigation consists in means that which deals with


tracing out the component parts scientific inquiry,' i.e. the theory
and conditions of that with of itas in Metaph. iv. 3, 1005, b, 2.

which it is concerned, avaXveiv 2 On this designation, proved

together with ^rjTcti/ stands for to have existed since the time of
' Thus Eth. N. iii. Cicero, cf. Prantl, Gesch. d. Log.
5, 1112, b, 15 (jSouAeverat ....
: i. 514, 27, 535.

ov^ih irepl rod reAouy) aWa 3 Vid. 8upr. p. 187, n. 2.

Ocfievoi TcAos rt, irws Ka\ Sia t'lvwv * This name is not used by
%<Trai (TKOirovai. . . . ea>s h,v tXQctxnv any of the Greek commentators

Master's ownview.^ The further theory that Logic, as

being the Organon of philosophy, could not be also

a ijccrt of philosophy, 2 he would hardly have approved.

In order rightly to comprehend this Science of
Method, it will first be necessary for us to go more
closely into Aristotle's view s concerning t he nature and
_ori^in of Knowledge. For it is the conception of
Knowledge which determines the aim and the direction
of the procedure of Science and the natural develop-

ment of Knowledge in the mind of man must point

the way for its systematic development in Science also.

I All Knowledge relates to the Essence of Tilings

LtQ__the UTiwersaL properties wliich remain identical
1 with themselves in all_jndividual things, and to the
^ Causes of all that is actual.^ Conversely, however, it

is true that the Universal is only to be known through

tillthe sixth century, as applied to and Ethics it has its own end in
the writings it only came to this
; itself and its own object, or
use later (cf. Waitz, Arist. Org. ii. that it is meant to be a philoso-
293 sq.). On the other hand, the phically established presentment
texts are, before that time, called of the activity of human thought
by them opyaviKo.^ because they and nothing else (ihid. p. 138
refer to the upyavov (or opyaviKbv a supposition which can
sq.), is
fiepos) (l)iXo(ro<pias cf SiMPL. in
; . neither be proved from any definite
Categ. 1, e; Philop. in Cat. statements of Aristotle, nor from
Schol. 36, a, 7, 15 David, ihid.
the construction of his logical
25, a, 3. writings. The real-metaphysical

Peantl, Gesch. d.Log. i. 136, side of the Aristotelian logic,'

is in this respect unreasonable, however, need not on this account
when he denounces the school- ' be disregarded. Even if it is re-
masters of later antiquity,' who, garded as the Science of Method,
infected with the folly of the it may have its foundations in
Stoic philosophy,' wished at any Metaphysics and even though it

price to represent Logic as the precede the latter, yet it may be-
tool of knowledge. This is really come necessary, in the end, to re-
the position and meaning which duce it to metaphysical principles.
Aristotle gives it. Thetheorythat 2 Vid. snpr. p. 187, n. 2.
in the same sense as Physics ' Vid. swpr. pp. 163 sq., 173 sq.

the Individuals, the Essence only through Appearances,

the Causes only through their Effects. This follows in
part from Aristotle's metaphysical propositions about
the relation of the individual to the universal, which
will meet us hereafter ; for if it is individual existence

alone which can be called originally actual if the

Universals exist, not independently as '
Ideas '
but only
in attachment to individual things as ^
properties '

knowledge of Individuals
follows that the experiential
must necessarily precede the scientific knowledge of
Universals.^ Quite as directly, to Aristotle, will the same
V conclusion follow from the nature of man's powers of
knowledge. For while he unhesitatingly admits that
the soul must bear within itself the ground-principle

of its knowledge, he is equally positive that it is not

possible to attain any real knowledge except by means
of experience. All learning presupposes, of course,
some present knowledge, to which it joins on.^ Out of
this axiom there arises the doubt, which had given
the earlier thinkers so much trouble,^ about the possi-

bility of learning at all. For either, as it seems, we

Cf i^ Aristotle himself points out afxa <pavTa<T[xd zi dcupeTp
ra yap
tills connection of his doctrine of (pauTaafiaTa &(nrep ataO-fifiaToi iari,
perception with his metaphysics irK^jv dvev vXrjs.
in Be An. iii. 8, 432, a, 2 eVel Se :
^ j^^i^i^ Post. i. init : iracra
ovde irpajfia ovQev iari irapa. ra. SidacrKaXia Koi iraffa ix6.Qt}(Tis Siavo-q-
fjLeyedrj, us 5oKei, ret, al(rdT]ra /ce^w- riK^ iK TrpovTrapxov(nis ylverai
pia-fxivov, eV ro7s etSecrt rois aladrjrois yuwffeeas which
he immediately
ra vQ7]rd iari (cf. c. 4, 430, a, 6 : proceeds to prove as to the dif-
ip 5e ro7s exoucrtj/ vXr}v Svvdfiei Ka- f erent sciences, both as regards
arov iari ruv vorirwt/) rd re iu syllogistic and inductive proof.
a(paip4<rei XeyS/xepa [abstract no- The like in 3fetajjh. i. 9, 992, b,
tions] Kal ocra r<au aladriroSv e^eis 30; Mh. vi. 3, 1139, b, 26.
Ka\ irddr]. Kal 5id rovro oiire fii] ^ See Zell,, Ph. d. Gr. pt. i.
aX<xQav6[t.^vos \i-i]%'kv hv fi&Boi
ovdev 996, and pt. ii. a, 696.
ovSh ^vvelrj orav re Oewp^, dvdyKt}
o 2


must already be possessed of that knowledge from which

all the rest is to be deduced which is not in fact true
or else we have still to acquire it, in which case the said
axiom does not hold for that which is the highest know-
ledge of all.^ It was this difficulty that Plato sought to
avoid by his doctrine of Anamnesis the latent recol-' ' '
lection of a prior knowledge. But apart from all the
other objections which he finds to lie against the pre-
existence of the soul,^ Aristotle is unable to reconcile
himself with this theory, because it seems to him un-
thinkable that we should have in us a hlowledge without
Jcnowing it ;
^ not to speak of all the various absurdities
to which a closer analysis of the notion of the existence
of the Ideas in the soul would obviously lead.'' His
solution lies rather in that conception by means of
which he has answered so many of the questions of
metaphysics and natural philosophy in the notion of
in the distinction between the ground-

work of potentiality and the completed actuality. The

soul, he says, must certainly bear within itself in some

sense its knowledge. For if even our Sense Perception

AtulL Post. ii. 19, 99, b, 20 :

Every knowledge by argument ayvoovari. Kal fi-qSefxiau e^*"''''"' ^1"'

supposes acquaintance with the iyylvecrOai.
highest principles (the apxou 2 Cf. the section as to the rela-
OLfxecroi, rid.ivf.y. toSv 5' a/xfo-wv t^jv tion of soul and body, infra, ch. x.
yvacriv . . . &v tis ....
Biairopr](Tiev init.
Koi TTOTcpov ovK ivovffai at e|ets [the ^ Anal. Post. loo. cit., and
yvoSa-i'! of the cipx"''] ^yy'i^vovTai ^ Jletajjh. 992, b, 33.
i. 9,
^vovaai \Arjda(nv. et fj.v 5r] exo/iei' * Top. ii.7, 113, a, 25 if ideas :

avras, ^.tottou ' (TVfifiaivei yap aKpi- were in us they would have also
/Seorrepos c^ovras yvaxreis OTroSetlecos to move with us, &c. Still Ari-
\avddueiv. et 5e Xap.^dvoiiV m^ stotle himself would scarcely
exoj/Tes TTpoTcpov, ttcDs ti.v yucopi^oifiev have laid much stress on this
Koi nauddvoifxiv e/c /x^ irpovirapxoi'O'Tls merely dialectical line of attack.
yvuxrews ' aSi/varoy yap . . . (payephy

is to be regarded, not as a passive reception of things

given, but rather as an activity for which such recep-
tion is the occasion,^ then the same must a fortiori be
true of Thought, 2 which has no outward object at all.

Because our pure thought is not different from the

things thought,^ therefore there lies in its nature as such
the possibility ofknowing with an immediate knowledge
those highest principles, which are presupposed by all
derivative and mediate knowledge as its condition and
starting-point.'^ So far, then, the soul may be de-
' Be An. ii. 5, 417, b, 2 sqq. b, 38 : ^ eV iulau 7] eVi(rT7]fi7j rh
Aristotle here says that neither irpayfia; irrl jui-eu rSjv TroiTjnKciv &vev
consciousness nor thought ought uAtjs 7] ovaia Kal rh ri ^v clvai,
to be called a Tc6.a'x^i-v and an iirl Se ro!)V Oeoipr^nKciv 6 Xdyos to
aXkoioiffis, unless we distinguish irpayfia Kal rj vSrjais.
two kinds of suffering and * Anal. Post. ii. 19, 100, b, 8 :

change : re eVJ ras cTT^p-qTiKas

r'}]v eVei Se . . , . ouSej/ iin(Tri]ix'qs aKpi-
5ia9<ris fiiTa^oX-qv kou ttjv cttI ras fiicTT^pov 6.XK0 yevos }) vovs, al S"

e^cis kolL rrjv (pvcriv. Similarly in iii. apxal Tuv OTToSei^ewj' yvcopifidorepai,
5, 429, b, 22 sqq., iii. 7, 431, a, 5. iiriarrifMr] S' airacra fiera \6yov icrrl,
2 Be An. a. n7,h, 18: Kal rh Twv ap-)(,<*>v iivKTTrifX'r] fxkv ovk hf e^rj,

Kar iuepyeiau [al(r6dve<r6ai'] Se eVei ovSev aKr)64aTpov eVSe'^eTci

AeyeTUL rq} OecopeTw Biacpepei
d/xoicos eivai iiri(Tr^iu.r)s fj vovv, vovs hv efr;
Se, onrod /xlu to. iron]TiKa rrjs Twv apxoHv et odv /iTjSej/ &K\o
. . .

ivepyclas e^wdeVj rh oparou etc. Trap' ^Tn(TT'r]fji7]v y4vos e;^0;iiej/

aXriov S' on rSov KaB' '^Kacrrov rj kut'' aATjSes, vovs Uv et'rj e'lriO-TTj/xTjs a.px'fl'
ivipyeiav a^crOrjais, r] S' iTnar'fijui.r] IJth. vi. 6 TTJs apxvs rod iiricrrriTOv

Twv Ka66Xov ravra 8' ev ai/rfj irciis

owt' hv iTricTTTjfMri elfrj ovt rexvv
(Tn rfj ^vxV- 5ib voijaai fxku eV oijTe (pp6v7](Tis .... Keiir^rai vovv
avTc^ trav fiovArjrai, alcrQavecrdai S' elvai Tuv apx^iv. C. 7, 1141, a, 17,
ovK eV avTCf' avayKOLOv yap virdp- b, 2, c. 9, 1142, a, 25 fihv yap :

X^iv rh al(rdr}T6v. vovs rcov '6pa}v, wv ovk ecri X6yos.

3 Be An. iii. at 430, a, 2 (fol- c. 12, 1143, a, 35 (with which cf.
lowing the passage to be cited Trendelenbueg, Histor. Beitr.
presently on p. 199, n. 2), he says : ii. 375 sqq. Walter, Bie Lehre ;

192, 3 : Kal avrhs 5k [5 vovs^ vorjTos V. d. i)rakt. Vernunft, etc., 38

ianv Si(nrep ra votird. iirl fiku yap sqq.) 6 vovs
: ruv iffx^Toov eir'
Tuv &vv vAr]s rh aWS i<rn rh voovv afi(p6repa ' Kal yap twv trpdoTcov '6pfov
Ka\ t}) voovfj.vov yap iiria'T'fiiJ.T} t]
7} Kal iffxdrwv vovs icrn Kal ov

deapTjTiKi] Kal rh ovtws lin(TT7]Thv rh X6yos, Kal 6 fxev Kara ras diroSet|is
avrd hanv. Ihid. iii. 7 init. rh S' : Tcov aKivfjTWV '6p(av Kal irpdoruv, 6 S'
ovtJ ianv r] kot^ iv4pyiav iiriaT^fir] eV Ta7s TTpaKTiKals rod ecrxdrov Kal
T^ Trpdy/xari. Metaph. xii. 7, 1074, ivSexofjLcvov etc. (More will be
: ;:


scribed as the *
place of the Ideas,' ' and it may be said
of the faculty of Thought that it is in itself all that is

said as to the latter, in ch. xi. ix)] elvai Kal TO a\rfds Kal rh
and xii. infra.') This recogni- ^'ei'Sos ; . . . fj uKTirep ovSe rh
tion of principles is an imme- aXrjdes iirl rovrcov rh ai/rh, orircas

diate knowledge {pLfx^ffov'), for the ovSk rh cTvai, oW' ecTt rh fiev
root principles of all argument a\r}des rh Sc vf/eCSos, rh fihv diyelv
cannot, in their turn, be proved Kal (pdvaL a\T]d5 . . . rd S' ayvoelv
(cf Anal. Post. i. 2, 3, 72, a, 7, b,
. fi^ 6 lyy dveiv *
airarrjOTivai yap ire pi

18 sqq. c, 22, 84, a, 30; ii. 9 rd rl ovk ecrriv aW' t) Kara

init.c. 10, 94, a, 9 and Meta^^h. iv. ; truAjSejSTjKos . S(ra 5^ iffriv Sirep
. .

4, 1006, a, 6, 1011, a, 13; more eivai ri Kal ivcpyela, irepl ravra ovk
fully later). But on this very- ^ voeTv ^ fi-ff
ecrriv airarT}0rjvai dA.A.'
account it is always true. For . rd 5k aXfjOes rh voeiv avrd
. . rh '

error only consists in a false con- Se i^ev^os ovk tcrriv, ovd' arrdrTj,
junction of perceptions, and hence aW' 6.yvoLa. According to these
arises only in the Proposition by passages we should understand
reason of the conjunction of the by the irpordaeis &ixe(Toi, which ex-
Predicate with a Subject {Categ. press the ultimate principles {An.
4 Jin. De Interpr. i. 16, a, 12
; Pod. i. 2, 23, 33, 72, a, 7, 84, b, 39,

Be An. iii. 8, 432, a, 11) im- ; 88, b, 36), only those propositions
mediate knowledge, on the other in which the predicate is already
hand, is concerned with pure contained in the- subject, not
conceptions relating to no subject those in which it attaches to a
distinct from themselves, which subject different from itself or :

we can only know or not know, in other words, only analytical

but as to which we cannot be a prioo'i judgments. In like
deceived De An. iii. 6 iiiit.
; manner the dpiffjihs rwv ajj-ea-wv
odv tS)v aSiaipcTcav vSriffis iv
r) fJLcv (ibid. ii. 10, 94, a, 9) is a decris
TOvTOis Trepl & oi/K cert rh TpevSos '
rod ri iariv ava'ir6SeiKros,\n which
iv oTs Se Kal rh \pev5os Koi rh nothing is affirmed as to the
ahTjdes, crvvOeffls ris ^Stj vorifidTcov existence or non-existence of a
&s v ovTcov ; and ibid, at the end : conception, nor of its connection
60-Tt S' 7] jxkv (pdais t\ Kard rivos, with a stated subject. Lastly,
StTTrep T] Kardfpacris, Kal a\r}d^s t) when the principle of contradic-
ypevd^s iraara ' 6 Se vovs ov ttSs, dAA' tion (in MetajjJi. iv. 3 sq. 1005,
6 Tov tI Kara rh tI ^v ^Ivai
icrri 'b, 11, 1006, a, 3) is designated
a\7]d^s, Kal ov tI Kara rivos a\\' '
as the fiefiaiordrr} ap-xrj iraffSiv irepl
Soairep rh 6pS.v tov iBiov a\7]6es, et ^v Siaypivadijvai aBvvarov, here also
d rh Aeu/cbv ^ fi-^, ovk
^vOpcoTTOs only the fundamental principle
aX7]Q\s ovtws e;^et Saa &v(v
ael, of all analytical judgments is
vKrjs. Metaph. ix. 10 eTret Se . : . . in question the formal identity
rh .aXrfOes ^ xpevSos .
. . iirl rwv . . of every conception with itself.
1 De An. iii. koX
vpayfxdrwv iarl TCf ffvyKelrrdai ^ 4, 429, a, 27 :

SiripTJcrdai . ir6r^ iarlv ^ ovk e<rri

. . eS S^ oi Kiyovns r)]V ^vx^v eJvai
rh aKT]de5 XcyS/xevov ^ rpevdos .... roTTov etSwj' (see on this Zeller's
Vpl Se 8^ rh aaivQera rl rh elvai ^ Plato), irX-fiv tin ot/re SAi? dAA'

thinkable.^ This contained knowledge, however, can

only become actual knowledge in the active exercise of
cognition. It follows, therefore, that, prior to experi-
ence, it cannot be in the soul except in the way of a
possibility and a basis ; and so, according to him, it is,

in virtue of the fact that the soul has the faculty of

forming its notions out of itself by its own inherent
activity. 2

yet learned nothing, but possesses

Svvd/xi TO el^Tj. the capacity for learning some-
Be An. iii. 8 init. : vDv Se thing, but also when he knows
irepl \\/vxv^ TO \-)(d^VTa avyKe- something, but has not at a
<pa\aiu)<ravrs e^irufMCV irdXiv on r) given moment this knowledge
^^X^ TO ovra ircos icrri irdvra. ^ actually present to his mind. It
'yap alaQriTO. to ovra ^ votjto,, eCTt was in the latter sense that
5' f} to iirKTTTjrd trus,
iirKTrTjfxr] /xev Plato conceived of innate know-
7} 5' olcrQifiais to aladrjTa. (Cf ii. . ledge,whereas Aristotle conceived
hfn. iii. 7 init.) of it under the former analogy.
''Be An. iii. 429, a, 15 4, : This is the meaning of his com-
oTTodes dpa. [before the
Set elvot parison of the soul with the book
Nous experiences the effect of that is not yet written on and it

the voTirhv, it must be without was a misapprehension when this

icddoscf. BONITZ, Ind. Ar. 72, a,
; comparison was understood in
36 sqq.], Scktikov Se rov etSovs the sense of the later Sensa-
Kol Swdfiei roiovTOV [sc. olov rh tion-theory of knowledge. (Cf.
elSos^ akXa fi)] tovto, Kal dfxoicas Hegel, Gesch. d. Phil. ii. 342
^x^iv, S^trirep rh ala6r]TiKhv irphs to sq,; Trendelenburg, on this
atV^TjTo, ovTOj t6v vovv irpds to passage, p. 485 sq.) Aristotle
vorjTd ... 6 &pa KaXovuevos ttjs only wants to illustrate by it the
^vxvs vovs. ovdiv iffrip ivepycia
. . difference between the dwdfxei
rSav tvTuv irplv voflv . . . KoX eS 5^ and iuepyeia. He does not here
etc. (vid. siq)r. p. 198, n.l). Ihid. go on to inform us in what way
b, 30 Svudfiei ircos iari to i/otjto 6
: potential knowledge becomes
vovs, oAA' ivriXcx^ia. ouSev, irpXv actual. But, according to what
h.v vofj. 5e7 S' ovtus uxnrcp eV has gone before (429, a, 15), it is
ypa/jL/uLaTcltf) y fir^dhv wrdpx^i evTe- not the aladrjrd but the voijto, by
Aexeio ycypafx/i^vou. birep crvfjifiaivei whose action the tablet of the
iirl Tov vov. Here (b, 5) and in vovs, blank in itself, is written
ii. 5, 417, a, 21 sqq. a still more upon, so that we have to deal
accurate distinction is made in fact with a theory far re-
between two meanings of the moved from the Sensation-
dwd/jLei : we can call a man Svudfiei philosophy.
inia-TT^fjLwy not only when he has as

Throughout his whole treatment of this question,

there runs a certain obscurity, the grounds of which we
can of course indicate, but which we cannot altogether
remove without doing violence to the statements of the
Master himself. On the one hand, Aristotle contests \

the possibility of any innate knowledge, and insists that I

all our notions arise out of perception.^ On the other !

hand, he speaks of an immediate knowledge of those

truths on which all others depend,^ and allows that all

the knowledge which in the course of our lives we gain

lay in our soul from the beginning in germ.^ Of
course^ this last view is not to be taken to imply that
the soul, prior to all experience, carried in itself the
said knowledge in so far as the content thereof is con-
cerned, or that the function of such experience was
merely to cause it to be brought out into consciousness.'*

Cf. pp. 195 sq., 205 sq. than the thought that the soul is
2 P. 197, n. 4. everything inasmuch as it is
3 Cf. pp. 196, n. 1, 197, n. 2, capable of having the forms (or
198, n. 1, and 199, n. 1. images) of all things within
* There is no necessity to in- itself. That it produces them out
terpret in that sense the passages of itself is not stated. On the con-
given above. On the contrary, trary, as the power of perception
when he says in De An. iii. 8 is called e'lSos ala-QriTav, because
{supra, p. 199, n. 1) that the soul ' it receives into itself the forms
is in a certain sense everything,' of the al(T9r]ToL, so the vovs may,
he immediately explains this in the same sense, be called elSos