A Dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology. By various writers. Ed. by William Smith. Illustrated by numerous engravings on wood.

ARISTOTELES.
thi philosopher continued his studies and lectures
in'Chalcis for some time longer without molestation. He died in the beginning of August, in the
year B. c. 322, a short time before Demosthenes
(who died in October of the same year), in the 63rd
year of his age, from the effects, not of poison, but
of a chronic disorder of the stomach. (Censorin. de
Die Nat. 14, extr.; Apollod. ap. Diog. LaEirt. v.
10; Dionys. 1. c. 5.) The accounts of his having
committed suicide belong to the region of fables
and tales. One story (found in several of the
Christian fathers) was, that he threw himself into
the Euripus, from vexation at being unable to discover the causes of the currents in it. On the
other hand, we have the account, that his mortal
remains were transported to his native city Stageira,
and that his memory was honoured there, like that
of a hero, by yearly festivals of remembrance.
(Vet. Intp. ap. Buhle, vol. i. p. 56; Ammon. p.
47.) Before his death, in compliance with the
wish of his school, lie had intimated in a symbolical
manner that of his two most distinguished scholars,
Menedemus of Rhodes and Theophrastus of Eresus
(in Lesbos), he intended the latter to be his successor in the Lyceum. (Gellius, xiii. 5.)* He also
bequeathed to Theophrastus his well-stored library
and the originals of his own writings. From his
will (in Diog. Laert. v. 21; Hermipp. ap. Athen.
xiii. p. 589, c.), which attests the flourishing state
of his worldly circumstances not less than his
judicious and sympathetic care for his family and
servants, we gather, that his adoptive son Nicanor,
his daughter Pythias, the offspring of his first marriage, as well as Herpyllis and the son he had by
her, survived him. He named his friend Antipater
as the executor of his will.
If we cast a glance at the character of Aristotle,
we see a man of the highest intellectual powers,
gifted with a piercing understanding, a comprehensive and deep mind, practical and extensive
views of the various relations of actual life, and
the noblest moral sentiments. Such he appears in
his life as well as in his writings. Such other information as we possess respecting his character
accords most completely with this view, if we
estimate at their real value the manifest ill-will
and exaggerations of the literary anecdotes which
have come down to us. At Athens the fact of his
being a foreigner was of itself a sufficient reason
for his taking no part in politics. For the rest, he
at any rate did not belong to the party of democratical patriots, of whom Demosthenes may hbe
regarded as the representative, but probably coincided rather with the conciliatory politics of Phocion.
A declared opponent of absolutism (Polit. ii. 7. ~ 6),
he everywhere insists on conformity to the law,
for the law is " the only safe, rational standard to
be guided by, while the will of the individual man
cannot be depended on." He wished to form the
beau ideal of a ruler in Alexander (Polit. iii. 8,
extr.), and it is quite in accordance with the
oriental mode of viewing things, when the Arabian
philosophers, as Avicenna and Abu-l-faraj, sometimes call Aristotle, Alexander's vizier. (Comp.
Schmoelder's Documenta Philosoph. Arab. p. 74.)
The whole demeanour of Aristotle was marked
by a certain briskness and vivacity. His powers
of eloquence were considerable, and of a kind
SHie praised the wines of both islands, but
said he thought that of Lesbos the more agreeable.

ARISTOTELES. 321
adapted to produce conviction in his hearers, a gift
which Antipater praises highly in a letter written
after Aristotle's death. (Plut. Cat. Maj. p. 354,
Coriol. p. 234.) He exhibited remarkable attention to external appearance, and bestowed much
care on his dress and person. (Timotheus, ap.
Diog. L. v. 1; Aelian, V. II. iii. 19.) He is described as having been of weak health, which, considering the astonishing extent of his studies,
shews all the more the energy of his mind. (Censor. de Die nat. 14.) He was short and of slender
make, with small eyes and a lisp in his pronunciation, using L for R (rpauX's, Diog. L. v. 1),
and with a sort of sarcastic expression in his
countenance (jcowuda, Aelian, iii. 19), all which
characteristics are introduced in a maliciously
caricatured description of him in an ancient epigram. (Anth. 552, vol. iii. p. 176, ed. Jacobs.)
The plastic works of antiquity, which pass as portraits of Aristotle, are treated of by Visconti.
(1conographie Grecque, i. p. 230.)
II. ARISTOTLE'S WRITINGS.
Before we proceed to enumerate, classify, and
characterise the works of the philosopher, it is
necessary to take a review of the history of their
transmission to our times. A short account of this
kind has at the same time the advantage of indicating the progress of the development and influence of the Aristotelian philosophy itself.
According to ancient accounts, even the large
number of the works of Aristotle which are still
preserved, comprises only the smallest part of the
writings he is said to have composed. According
to the Greek commentator David (ad Categ. Prooem.
p. 24, 1. 40, Brand.), Andronicus the Rhodian
stated their number at 1000 oryypcippuaTa. The
Anonym. Menagii (p. 61, ed. Buhle in Arist. Opp.
vol. 1) sets down their number at 400 iSatia. Diogenes LaSrtius (v. 27) gives 44 myriads as the
number of lines. If we reckon about 10,000 lines
to a quire, this gives us 44 quires, while the writings extant amount to about the fourth part of
this. (Hegel, Vorlesungen iber( die Gesch. der
Philosophie, vol. ii. pp. 307, 308.) Still these
statements are very indefinite. Nor do we get on
much better with the three ancient catalogues of
his writings which are still extant, those namely of
Diogenes Lairtius, the Anonym. Menag., and the
Arabian writers in Casiri (Bibl. Arab. Ilisp. vol. i.
p. 306), which may be found entire in the first volume of Buhle's edition of Aristotle. They all three
give a mere enumeration, without the least trace of
arrangement, and without any critical remarks.
They differ not only from each other, but from
the quotations of other writers and from the titles
of the extant works to such a degree, that all idea of
reconciling them must be given up. The difficulty
of doing so is further increased by the fact, that
one and the same work is frequently quoted under
different titles (Brandis, de perditis. Arist. libr de
Ideis et de Bono, p. 7; Ravaisson, Mitapliysique d'
Aristote, vol. i. p. 48, Paris, 1837), and that sections
and books appear as independent writings under
distinct titles. From Aristotle's own quotations of
his works criticism can here derive but little
assistance, as the references for the most part are
quite general, or have merely been supplied by
later writers. (Ritter, Gesch. der Phil. vol. iii. p.
21, not. 1.) The most complete enumeration of the
writings of Aristotle from those catalogues, as well
Y