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

ARISTOTELES.

them, as well as those of Theophrastus, far below
the dramatic as well as lively and characteristic
dialogues of Plato. The introductions, according
to a notice in Cicero (adAtt. iv. 16), had no internal connexion with the remainder of the treatises.
Fate of Aristotle's writings. 1. In antiquity.-If
we bear in mind the above division, adopted by
the Greek commentators, it is obvious that the socalled hypomnematic writings were not published
"by Aristotle himself, but made their appearance
only at a later time with the whole body of his
literary remains. On the other hand, there can
be no doubt that the exoteric writings, particularly
the dialogues, were published by the philosopher
himself. But respecting the acroamatic writings,
that is, respecting the principal works of Aristotle,
an opinion became prevalent, through misunderstanding an ancient tradition, which maintained its
ground for centuries in the history of literature,
and which, though at variance with all reason and
history, has been refuted and corrected only within
the last ten years by the investigations of German
scholars.
According to a story which we find in Strabo
(xiii. p. 608)-the main authority in this matter(for the accounts given by Athenaeus, Plutarch,
and Suidas, present only unimportant variations),
Aristotle bequeathed his library and original manuscripts to his successor, Theophrastus. After the
death of the latter, these literary treasures together
with Theophrastus' own library came into the
hands of his relation and disciple, Neleus of Scepsis. This Neleus sold both collections at a high
price to Ptolemy II., king of Egypt, for the Alexandrine library; but he retained for himself, as an
heirloom, the original MSS. of these two philosophers' works. The descendants of Neleus, who
were subjects of the king of Pergamus, knew of no
other way of securing them from the search of the
Attali, who wished to rival the Ptolemies in forming a large library, than concealing them in a cellar
(icard -ys Ev wnipvyT Twi), where for a couple of
centuries they were exposed to the ravages of
damp and worms. It was not till the beginning
of the century before the birth of Christ that a
wealthy book-collector, the Athenian Apellicon of
Teos, traced out these valuable relics, bought them
from the ignorant heirs, and prepared from them a
new edition of Aristotle's works, causing the manuscripts to be copied, and filling up the gaps and
making emendations, but without sufficient knowledge of what he was about. After the capture
of Athens, Sulla in B. c. 84 confiscated Apellicon's
collection of books, and had them conveyed to
Rome. [APELLICON.]
Through this ancient and in itself not incredible
story, an error has arisen, which has been handed
down from the time of Strabo to the present day.
People thought (as did Strabo himself) that they
must necessarily conclude from this account, that
neither Aristotle nor Theophrastus had published
their writings, with the exception of some exoteric
works, which had no important bearing on their
system; and that it was not till 200 years later
that they were brought to light by the above-mentioned Apellicon and published to the philosophical
world. That, however, was by no means the case.
Aristotle indeed did not prepare a complete edition,
as we call it, of his writings. Nay, it is certain
that death overtook him before he could finish
some of them, revise others, and put the. finishing

ARISTOTELES. 323
touch to several. Nevertheless, it carnot be denied that Aristotle destined all his works for publication, and himself, with the assistance of his
disciples, particularly Theophrastus, published those
which he completed in his lifetime. This is indisputably certain with regard to the exoteric writings. Of the rest, those which had not been published by Aristotle himself, were made known by
Theophrastus in a more enlarged and complete
form; as may be proved, for instance, of the physical and historico-political writings. Other scholars of the Stagirite, as for example, the Rhodian
Eudemus, Phanias, Pasicrates, and others, illustrated and completed in works of their own, which
frequently bore the same title, certain works of
their teacher embracing a distinct branch of learning; while others, less independently, published
lectures of their master which they had reduced to
writing. The exertions of these scholars were, indeed, chiefly directed to the logical writings of the
philosopher; but, considering the well-known multiplicity of studies which characterised the school
of the Peripatetics, we may assume, that the remaining writings of their great master did not
pass unnoticed. But the writings of Aristotle
were read and studied, in the first two centuries
after his death, beyond the limits of the school itself. The first Ptolemies, who were friends and
personal patrons of Aristotle, Theophrastus, Straton, and Demetrius Phalereus, spared no expense
in order to incorporate in the library which they
had founded at Alexandria the works of the founder
of the Peripatetic school, in as complete a form as
possible. For this and, they caused numerous
copies of one and the same work to be purchased;
thus, for example, there were forty MSS. of the
Analytics at Alexandria. (Ammon. ad Cat. fol. 3, a.)
And although much that was spurious found its
way in, yet the acuteness and learning of the great
Alexandrine critics and grammarians are a sufficient
security for us that writings of that kind were subsequently discovered and separated. It cannot be
determined, indeed, how far the studies of these
men were directed to the strictly logical and metaphysical works; but that they studied the historical, political, and rhetorical writings of Aristotle,
the fragments of their own writingl bear ample
testimony. Moreover, as is well known, Aristotle
and Theophrastus were both admitted into the
famous "Canon," the tradition of which is at any
rate very ancient, and which included besides only
the philosophers, Plato, Xenophon, and Aeschines.
There can therefore be little doubt, that it is quite
false that the philosophical writings of Aristotle,
for the first two centuries after his death, remained
rotting in the cellar at Scepsis; and that it was
only certain copies which met with this fate: this
view of the case accords also with the direct testimony of the ancients. (Gell. xx. 5; Plut. A lex. 7;
Simplicius, Prooem. ad Ar.Phys. extr., Ar. Po'`t.5,
extr.; Brandis, Abhandl. der Berlin. Akad. xvii.
p. 268.) And in this way is it to be explained
why neither Cicero, who had the most obvious inducements for doing so, nor any one of the numerous Greek commentators, mentions a syllable of
this tradition about the fate and long concealment
of all the more important works of Aristotle. In
saying this, however, we by no means intend to
deny-1. That the story in Strabo has some truth
in it, only that the conclusions which he and others
drew from it must be regarded as erroneous: or
v2