S22 ARISTOTELES. of the extant as of the lost works, is to be found in Fabricius. {DM. Gr. iii, pp. 207 — 284, and pp. 388 — 407.) The lost works alone have been enumerated by Buhle {Cominentatio de deperd. Arist. libr. in Comment. Societ. Gotting. vol. xv. p. 57, &c.) But the labours of both these scholars no longer satisfy the demands of modern critical science. To make use of, and form a judgment upon those ancient catalogues, is still further attended with uncertainty from the circumstance, that much that was spu- rious was introduced among the writings of Aris- totle at an early period in antiquity. The causes of this are correctly assigned by Ammonius. {Ad Arist. Categ. fol. 3, a.) In the first place, several of the writings of the immediate disciples of Aris- totle, which treated of like subjects under like names, as those of Theophrastus, Eudemus Rho- dius, Phanias, and others, got accidentally inserted amongst the works of the Stagirite. Then we mast add mistakes arising Sio r-qv dixuvvfilav, as in the ancient philosophical, rhetorical, and historico- political literature there were several writers of the same name. Lastly, the endeavours of the Ptole- mies and Attali to enrich their libraries as much as possible with works of Aristotle, set in motion a number of people, whose love of gain rendered them not over scrupulously honest. (Comp. David, ad Categ. p. 28, a., 15, who assigns additional causes of falsification ; Ammon. /. c. ; Simplicius, fol. 4, 6 ; Galen, Comment. 2 in libr. de Nat. hum. pp. 16, 17 ; Brandis, RMn. Mus. p. 260, 1827.) It is very possible that the Greek lists, in particu- lar that in Diogenes Laertius, are notiing else than catalogues of these libraries. (Trendelenburg, ad Arist. de Anima, p. 123.) As regards the division of Aristotle's writings, the ancient Greek commentators, as Ammonius (ad Categ. p. 6, b. Aid.) and Simplicius {ad Cat. pp. 1, 6, ed. Bas.) distinguish — 1. "tiroiivr]ixariKd, i. e. collections of notices and materials, drawn up for his own use. 2. 'S.uvTayimTiKa^ elaborate works. Those which were composed in a strictly scientific manner, and contained the doctrinal lectures {aKpo- dfffis) of the philosopher, they called aKpoafiariKd (Gell. XX. 5, has aKpoariKa, which form, however, Schaefer, ad Plut. vol. v. p. 245, rejects), or else iffbrrfpiKd, iiroTTTiKa. Those, on the other hand, in which the method and style were of a more popular kind, and which were calculated for a cir- cle of readers beyond the limits of the school, were termed i^tonpiKd. The latter were composed chiefly in the form of dialogues, particularly such as treated upon points of practical philosophy. Of these dialogues, which were still extant in Cicero's time, nothing has been preserved. (The whole of the authorities relating to this subject, amongst whom Strab. xiii. pp. 608, 609 ; Cic. de Fin. v. 5, adAtt. iv. 16 ; Gell. l. c. ; Plut. Alex. 5, Advers.Co- lot. p. 1115, b. are the most important, are given at full length in Stahr's Aristotelia, vol. ii. p. 244, &c. ; to which must be added Sopater atque S}Tian. ad Hermog. p. 120, in Leonhard Spengel, l,vvaywyn Tfx^^'^i s- de Artium Scriptt. &c. p. 167.) The object which Aristotle had in view in the composition of his exoteric writings appears to have been somewhat of the following kind. He wished by means of them to come to an understand- ing with the public. The Platonic philosophy was so widely diffused through all classes, that it was at that time almost a duty for eveiy educated man to be a follower of Plato. Aristotle therefore was ARISTOTELES. obliged to bieak ground for his newer philosophy by enlightening the public generally on certain practical points. In this way originated writings like the " Eudemus," a refutation, as it appears, of Plato's Phaedon ; his book irepi NoVwv, a critical extract from Plato's "Laws;" farther, writings such as that Trepi ^iKaioavvtis^ &c. These were the yoi iu Koivq} e/cSeSo/ueVoj, and Stobaeus quotes from them quite correctly in his Floritegium, e« Twv 'Apia-ToreXovs KOINH^N SiaTpiScSv. (Comp. Philop. ad Arist. de Anima, i. 138, c. 2.) In Aris- totle himself (and this has not alwaj^s been duly con- sidered) there occurs no express declaration of this distinction. The designations esoteric, acroamatic^ or epoptic writings, would alike be looked for in vain in all the genuine works of the philosopher. It is only in his answer to the complaint of Alex- ander, that by publishing his lectures he had made the secrets of philosophy the common property of all, that he says, that "the acroatic (acroamatic, or esoter-ic) books had been published and yet not published, for they were intelligible only to one who had been initiated into philosophy." The ex- pression ejcoteric, on the other hand, we find in Aristotle himself, and that in nine passages. {Efh. Nic. i. 13, vi. 4, Eth. Eudem.. ii. 1, ii. 8, v. 4, Polit, iii. 4, vii. 1, Phys. iv. 14, Metaph. xiii. 1.) These very passages prove incontestably, that Aristotle himself had not in view a division of this kind in the sense in which it was subsequently understood. In one instance he applies the name exoteric to writings which, in accordance with the above-men- tioned division, must necessarily be set down as esoteric; and secondly, in several of those passages the term is merely employed to denote disquisitions which are foreign to the matter in hand. Nay, the expression is used to denote the writings of other authors. The whole subject concerns us more as a point of literary history than as having any scientific . interest. " One sees at once for one's self," says Hegel {Gesch. der Philos. ii. p. 310, comp. 220, 238), "what works are philosophic and speculative, and what are more of a mere empirical nature. The esoteric is the speculative, which, even though written and printed, yet remains concealed from those who do not take sufficient interest in the matter to apply themselves vigo- rously. It is no secret, and yet is hidden." But the same author is wrong in maintaining, that among the ancients there existed no difference at all between the writings of the philosophers which they published, and the lectures which they deli- vered to a select circle of hearers. The contrary is established by positive testimony. Thus Aristotle was the first to publish what with Plato were, strictly speaking, lectures {&ypa<pa Soy/jLara, Bran- dis, de perd. Ar. libr. de Ideis, p. 25 ; Trendelenb. Platojiis de Ideis doctrina ex Platone illustrata, p. 2, &c., Beriin, 1827). Hegel himself took good care not to allow all the conclusions to which his system conducted to appear in print, and Kant also found it unadvisable for a philosopher "to give utterance in his works to all that he thought, al- though he would certainly say nothing that he did not think." The genuine Aristotelian writings which are extant would have to be reckoned amongst the acroamatic books. The Problems alone belong to the class designated by the ancients hypomnematic writings. Of the dialogues only small fragments are extant. All that we know of them places
