AUTSTOTELES. tliom, as woll as those of Thcophnistiis, far below the clranuilic as well as lively and chamctcristic dialogues of Plato. The introductions, according to a notice in Cicero {odAtt. iv. 16), had no inter- nal connexion with the remainder of the treatises. Fate of Aristotle's writings. 1. In antitjuity. — If we bear in mind the above xii vision, adopted by the Greek commentators, it is obvious that the so- called hjfpomnematic 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 misunder- standing 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 manu- scripts 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 Scep- sis. This Neleus sold both collections at a high price to Ptolemy II., king of Egypt, for the Alex- andrine library ; but he retained for himself, as an heirloom, the original MSS. of these two philoso- phers' 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 form- ing a large library, than concealing them in a cellar {Kara yijs iv Sio'ypvyi rivi), 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 ma- nuscripts to be copied, and filling up the gaps and making emendations, but without sufficient know- ledge 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. [Apkllicon.] 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 Theophi-astus 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-men- tioned 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 Borne of them, revise others, and put the finishing ARISTOTELES. 32S touch to several. Nevertheless, it cainot be de- nied that Aristotle destined all his works for pulv lication, and himself, with the assistance of his disciples, particularly Theophrastus, published those which he completed in his lifetime. This is indis- putably certain with regard to the exoteric writ- ings. Of the rest, those which had not been pub- lished by Aristotle himself, were made known by Theophrastus in a more enlarged and complete form ; as may be proved, for instance, of the phy- sical and historico-political writings. Other scho- lars of the Stagirite, as for example, the Rhodian Eudemus, Phanias, Pasicrates, and others, illus- trated and completed in works of their own, which frequently bore the same title, certain works of their teacher embracing a distinct branch of learn- ing; while others, less independently, published lectures of their master which they had reduced to writing. The exertions of these scholars were, in- deed, chiefly directed to the logical writings of the philosopher ; but, considering the well-known mul- tiplicity of studies which characterised the school of the Peripatetics, we may assume, that the re- maining 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 it- self. The first Ptolemies, who were friends and personal patrons of Aristotle, Theophrastus, Stra- ton, 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 acutenes? and learning of the great Alexandrine critics and grammai'ians are a sufficient security for us that writings of that kind were sub- sequently discovered and separated. It cannot be determined, indeed, how far the studies of these men were directed to the strictly logical and meta- physical works ; but that they studied the histori- cal, political, and rhetorical writings of Aristotle, the fragments of their own writings 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 testi- mony of the ancients. (Gell. xx. 5 ; Plut. Alex. 7 ; Simplicius, Prooem. ad Ar.Phys. extr., Ar. Foct.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 in- ducements for doing so, nor any one of the nume- rous 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 V 2
