Skip to main content

Full text of "A life of Aristotle, including a critical discussion of some questions of literary history connected with his works"

See other formats 


•NRLF 


•LIFE     OF     ARISTOTLE; 


A    CRITICAL    DISCUSSION 


QUESTIONS    OF    LITERARY    HISTORY 


CONNECTED    WITH 


HIS    WORKS. 


BY 


JOSEPH  WILLIAMS  BLAKESLEY,  M.A. 

ft    t 
FELLOW    OF   TRINITY   COLLEGE,    CAMBRIDGE. 


CAMBRIDGE : 

J.  AND  J.  J.  DEIGHTON. 

LONDON:    JOHN   W.    PARKER. 

M.DCCC.XXX1X. 


ADVERTISEMENT. 


THE  following  Essay  is  intended  by  the  author 
to  be  preliminary  to  a  few  others  in  which  he  hopes 
to  give  an  account  of  the  several  systems  of  Ancient 
Philosophy  which  converged  in  those  of  Plato  and 
Aristotle, — to  pursue  some  of  the  more  important 
branches  of  speculation  in  the  course  which  they  took 
after  leaving  the  hands  of  the  latter, — and  to  examine 
the  success  which  has  attended  their  cultivation  up  to 
the  present  time.  Before  this  task  could  be  attempted 
with  any  advantage,  it  was  necessary  to  enter  upon  some 
points  relative  to  the  history  of  philosophical  literature, 
and,  from  the  nature  of  these,  no  mode  of  discussing 
them  appeared  preferable  to  interweaving  them  in  a  cri- 
tical biography  of  the  founder  of  the  Peripatetic  School. 
The  present  treatise,  however,  although  the  first  of  a 
series,  is  complete  in  itself,  and  it  is  the  intention 
of  the  writer  to  preserve  a  similar  independence  to 
each  of  the  others. 


CHAPTER 

INTRODUC  W J  I  7  E  E  SI  f  T! 

&1 


IF  the  acquaintance  we  possessed  with  the  private 
life  of  individuals  were  at  all  proportioned  to  the  in- 
fluence exerted  by  them  on  the  destinies  of  mankind, 
the  biography  of  Aristotle  would  fill  a  library;  for 
without  attempting  here  to  discuss  the  merits  of  his 
philosophy  as  compared  with  that  of  others,  it_may 
safely  be  asserted  that  no  man  has  ever  yet  lived  \vho 
exerted  so  much  influence  upon  the  world.  Absorbing 
into  his  capacious  mind  the  whole  existing  philosophy 
of  his  age,  he  reproduced  it,  digested  and  transmuted, 
in  a  form  of  which  the  main  outlines  are  recognised  at 
the  present  day,  and  of  which  the  language  has  pene- 
trated into  the  inmost  recesses  of  our  daily  life.  Trans- 
lated in  the  fifth  century  of  the  Christian^  era  into 
the  Syriac  language  by  the  Nestorians  who  fled  to 
Persia,  and  from  Syriac  into  Arabic  four  hundred  years 
later,  his  writings  furnished  the  Mohammedan  con- 
querors of  the  East  with  a  germ  of  science  which,  but 
for  the  effect  of  their  religious  and  political  insti- 
tutions, might  have  shot  up  into  as  tall  a  tree  as  it 
did  produce  in  the  West ;  while  his  logical  works, 
in  the  Latin  translation  which  Boethius,  "  the  last  of  the 
Romans,"  bequeathed  as  a  legacy  to  posterity,  formed 
the  basis  of  that  extraordinary  phenomenon,  the  Philo- 
sophy jrfthe  Schoolmen.  An  empire  like  this,  extending 
over  nearly  twenty  centuries  of  time,  sometimes  more 
sometimes  less  despotically,  but  always  with  great  force, — 
recognised  in  Bagdad  and  in  Cordova,  in  Egypt  and  in 
1 


2  SCANTY    MATERIALS. 

Britain, — and  leaving  abundan't  traces  of  itself  in  the 
language  and  modes  of  thought  of  every  European  nation, 
is  assuredly  without  a  parallel.  Yet  of  its  founder's  perso- 
nal history  all  that  we  can  learn  is  to  be  gathered  from 
meager  compilations,  scattered  anecdotes,  and  accidental 
notices,  which  contain  much  that  is  obviously  false  and 
even  contradictory,  and  from  which  a  systematic  account, 
in  which  tolerable  confidence  may  be  placed,  can  only 
be  deduced  by  a  careful  and  critical  investigation.  \J 

It  is  not,  however,  to  the  indifference  of  his  con- 
temporaries, or  to  that  of  their  immediate  successors, 
that  the  paucity  of  details  relating  to  Aristotle's  life 
is  due.  If  we  may  trust  the  account  of  a  commenta- 
tor, Ptolemy  Philadelphus,  the  second  of  the  Mace- 
donian dynasty  in  Egypt,  not  only  bestowed  a  great 
deal  of  study  upon  the  writings  of  the  illustrious  philoso- 
pher, but  also  wrote  a  biography  of  him1.  At  any 
rate,  about  the  same  time,  Hermippus  of  Smyrna,  one 
of  the  Alexandrine  school  of  learned  men,  whose  re- 
search and  accuracy  is  highly  praised  by  Josephus2, 
composed  a  work  extending  to  some  length,  On  the 
Lives  of  Distinguished  Philosophers  and  Orators,  in 
which  Aristotle  appears  to  have  occupied  a  consider- 
able space3.  Another  author,  whose  date  there  is  no 

1  David  the  Armenian,  in  a  commentary  on  the  Categories,  cited 
by  Brandis  in  the  Rheinisches  Museum,  Vol.  i.  p.  250,   and  since 
published  by  him  from  two  Vatican  MSS.,  says,  Twi/  'Apio-roTeAiKwi/ 
(Tvyypa/jifjidTutv   TroAA&H'  owrmv  ^i\i(av  TOV  apid/jLov,   OK   (ptjcri   IlToAe//a?O9 
o  OiAa3eA<£o?,  dvaypcKprjv  CIVTWV  Troitja-n/jievo^   KCU  TOV  fliov  avTov  KCCI  Trjv 
Siddea-iv.  K.  T.  A.  (p.  22.  ed.  Bekk.)  an  important  passage  if  not  cor- 
rupt, as  showing  who  the  Ptolemy  was  that  is  elsewhere  cited  in 
connection  with  Aristotle's  works. 

2  Contr.   Aplon.  lib.  i.   dvrjp  7rep\  trdffav  IffToplav  eVi/ueA*;?. 

3  Athenseus  (xiii.  p.  589.    xv.  p.  696.)     cites   him,  ei/  T» 


EARLY    LITERATURE    ON    THE    SUBJECT. 

direct  means  of  ascertaining,  but  who  probably  is  to 
be  placed  somewhere  about  the  end  of  the  third  cen- 
tury before  the  Christian  era4,  Timotheus  of  Athens, 
is  also  to  be  added  to  the  number  of  his  early  bio- 
graphers. But  independently  of  such  works  as  these, 
antiquity  abounded  in  others  which  contained  informa- 
tion on  this  subject  in  a  less  direct  form.  Aristoxenus 
of  Tarentum,  who  during  a  part  of  his  life  was  him- 
self a  pupil  of  Aristotle,  in  his  biographies  of  Socrates 
and  Plato  had  frequent  occasion  to  speak  of  the  great 
Stagirite.  Epicurus,  in  a  treatise  which  is  cited  under 
the  title  of  A  Letter  on  the  Pursuits  and  Habits 
of  former  Philosophers,  related  several  stories  to  his 
disparagement5.  The  same,  perhaps,  was  the  case  with 
Aristippus  (apparently  the  grandson  of  the  founder  of 
the  Cyrenean  school)  in  his  work  On  the  Luxury 
of  Antiquity*.  And  yet  more  valuable  materials  than 
were  furnished  by  the  two  last-mentioned  works,  of 
which  at  least  the  former  appears  to  have  been  com- 
posed in  that  vulgar  spirit  which  delights  in  finding 
something  to  degrade  to  its  own  level  all  that  is  above 
it7,  seem  to  have  been  contained  in  the  treatises  of 
Demetrius  the  Magnesian  and  Apollodorus  the  Athe- 
nian. The  first  of  these  was  a  contemporary  of  Cicero 

4  This    seems    to    follow    from    the  fact   that    Diogenes   only 
quotes  him  in  the  lives  of  Plato,  Speusippus,  Aristotle,  and  Zeno 
of  Cittium.      He   is   therefore  no  authority   for    any   thing    later 
than  the   time    of  the    last.     Zeno    was    an   old  man    B.  c.  260. 
(Diog.  Laert.  vii.  6.)     Timotheus's  work  is  quoted  under  the  title 
Flept  B<wi/. 

5  Ap.   Athen.   p.  354. 

Q  Diog.   Laert.    ii.   23.    v.    3. 

7  See  the  stories  which  were   related  in  it  of  Protagoras,  also 
mentioned  by  Athenaeus,  loc.  cit. 

1—2 


4  ALEXANDRINE    WRITERS. 

and  his  celebrated  friend  Atticus1,  and  appears  to  have 
exercised  his  acumen  in  detecting  such  erroneous 
stories  prevalent  in  his  time  as  arose  from  the  con- 
fusion of  different  poets  and  philosophers  who  had 
borne  the  same  name2;  a  cause  which  formerly  in  the 
absence  of  hereditary  surnames,  and  under  the  ope- 
ration of  many  motives  for  falsification,  was  much 
more  fertile  in  its  results  than  can  now  be  easily 
imagined3.  The  second  is  an  authority  which  for  the 
purposes  of  the  modern  biographer  of  Aristotle  is 
the  most  important  of  all.  He,  like  Hermippus,  was 
an  Alexandrine  scholar,  and  pupil  of  the  celebrated 
commentator  and  editor  of  the  Homeric  poems,  Ari- 
starchus4.  Among  his  voluminous  works  was  one  On 
the  Sects  of  Philosophers,  which  no  doubt  contained 
much  that  was  interesting  on  our  subject;  but  what 
renders  him  valuable  above  any  other  of  these  lost 
writers,  and  makes  us  treasure  up  with  avidity  the 
slightest  notices  by  him  which  have  come  down  to  us, 
is  his  celebrated  Chronology,  a  composition  in  iambic 
verse,  often  cited  under  the  title  of  Xpovwd,  or  Xpo- 
VIKIJ  cnWafis,  by  that  compiler  whose  treatise  is  unfor- 
tunately the  most  ancient  systematic  account  of  Aris- 
totle's life  which  has  escaped  the  ravages  of  time. 
These  citations  are  invaluable,  not  merely  for  the 
positive  information  which  we  gain  from  them,  but 
because  they  serve  also,  as  we  shall  have  occasion  to 

1  Cicero,  Brut.  91.     He  is  alluded  to  in  Epp.  ad.  Attic,  iv.  11. 
but  in  viii.  11.    ix.  9.    xiii.  6.  it  is  Demetrius  the  Syrian,  a  rhetori- 
cian, who  is  referred  to.     This  latter  is  also  spoken  of  in  Brut.  91. 

2  Diog.  Laert.  v.  3. 

3  See  Galen,   Comment,   in  Hippocr.   de  nat.    Horn.   ii.  p.   105, 
109,  and  in  Hippocr.  de  Humor,  i.  p.  5,  ed.  Kuehn. 

4  Suidas,  sub  v.  ' 


SMALL    CIRCULATION   OF    THEIR    BOOKS.  5 

observe  in    the   sequel,    for  a   touchstone    of  anecdotes 
whose  authority  is  otherwise  uncertain5. 

The  foregoing  list  of  authors,  which  might  be  yet 
further  enlarged,  abundantly  shows  that  in  the  be- 
ginning of  the  first  century  before  Christ  there  were 
materials  for  compiling  a  biography  of  Aristotle  as  de- 
tailed as  one  of  Newton  or  Young  could  be  in  the 
present  day.  This,  however,  soon  afterwards  ceased  to 
be  the  case.  When  the  only  means  of  obtaining  the 
copy  of  a  book  was  by  the  laborious  process  of  tran- 
scription, the  expense  necessarily  confined  its  acquisi- 
tion to  comparatively  few  persons,  and  when  to  this 
drawback  we  add  those  arising  from  voluminous  size 
and  but  partially  interesting  subject,  the  circulation 
would  be  very  limited  indeed.  It  may  be  questioned, 
perhaps,  whether  some  of  the  works  we  have  noticed 
ever  found  their  way  beyond  the  walls  of  the  royal 
library  at  Alexandria,  except  in  the  shape  of  extracts. 
If  this  were  the  case,  the  destruction  of  the  whole 
or  a  great  part  of  that  library6  in  the  siege  of  the  city 
by  Julius  Caesar  (B.  c.  48)  would  very  probably  cause 
their  annihilation.  At  all  events,  in  subsequent  times, 
when  Rome  was  the  centre  of  civilization  as  well  as 
of  empire,  works  of  such  a  description  became  totally 
unfit  to  satisfy  the  wants  of  the  age.  A  certain  ac- 
quaintance with  Greek  literature,  Greek  philosophy,  and 
Greek  history,  became  an  essential  accomplishment  for 
the  fashionable  Roman,  but  this  acquaintance  was 

5  See  with  reference  to  Apollodorus  and  his  works,    Voss.  DC 
Historicis    Greeds,   p     132,    et   seq.     Heyne,   ad  Apollodori  Bibli- 
othec.  Vol.  i.  p.  385,  457,   and  Brandis  in  the  Rhemisches  Museum, 
Vol.  iii.   p.    no.  in  whose  opinion  the  chronology  of  Apollodorus 
is  founded  on  that  of  Eratosthenes. 

6  Aulus  Gellius,  Nodes  Atticce,  vi.  17. 


6       GREEK  LITERATURE  FASHIONABLE  AT  ROME. 

nothing  like  the  one  which  Cato  and  Scipio,  which 
Atticus  and  Cicero  possessed.  It  was  expected  to  be 
extremely  comprehensive1,  and,  as  all  comprehensive 
knowledge  must  he  when  popularized,  it  was  propor- 
tionally superficial.  To  feed  this  appetite  for  general 
information  was  the  work  of  the  needy  men  of  letters 
under  the  Empire.  In  the  time  of  the  early  Ptolemies 
and  of  the  Kings  of  Pergamus  their  energies  had  been 
directed  by  the  munificence  of  those  monarch s  to  the 
accumulation  of  vast  stores  of  erudition  on  particu- 
lar subjects.  The  number  of  monographies,  and  the 
minute  subdivision  of  intellectual  labour  which  pre- 
vailed under  their  patronage,  is  scarcely  paralleled  by 
the  somewhat  similar  case  of  Germany  at  the  present 
day.  Homer,  a  sacred  book  for  the  Greeks,  was  the 
principal  subject  of  their  labours;  but  indeed  there 

1  See  Juvenal,  Sat.  vii.  229 — 236,  of  the  qualifications  required 
from  the  masters  of  his  time: — 

Vos  scevas  imponite  leges, 
Ut  prceceptori  verborum  regula  constet, 
Ut  legal  historias,  auctores  noverit  omnes 
Tanquam  ungues  digitosque  suos  •  ut  forte  rogatus 
Dum  petit  aut  tkermas  aut  Phcebi  balnea,  dicat 
Nutricem  Anchisaz,  nomen  patriamque  novercce 
Anchemori:  dicat,  quot  Acestes  vixerit  annos, 
Quot  Siculus  Phrygibus  vini  donaverit  urnas. 

The  work  of  Ptolemy  the  son  of  Hephaestion,  which  we  shall 
notice  afterwards,  is  quite  in  accordance  with  this  satirical  de- 
scription. The  censorship  which  was  established  in  the  time  of  Ti- 
berius accelerated  the  degeneracy  of  the  national  taste ;  its  opera- 
tion being  fatal  to  an  acquaintance  with  all  healthy  literature,  no 
less  than  to  its  production.  Thus  Caligula  wished  to  destroy 
the  writings  of  Homer,,  Virgil,  and  Livy.  (Sueton.  Vit.  §  34.) 
Of  Nero  we  are  told  "Liberates  disciplinas  omnes  fere  puer  atti- 
git;  sed  a  philosophia  eum  mater  avertit,  monens  imperaturo  con- 
trariam  esse,  a  cognitione  veterum  oratorum  Seneca  praeceptor, 
quo  diutius  in  admiratione  sui  detineret"  (Sueton.  Vit.  §  52.) 


COMPILATIONS. 

was  no  classical  author  and  no  literary  or  scientif 
question  which  did  not  employ  the  abilities  of  a  crowd 
of  antiquarians  or  commentators.  The  prodigious  stores 
thus  accumulated2  formed  the  stock  from  which  the 
litterateurs  of  Rome  derived  materials  for  the  new  spe- 
cies of  intellectual  repast  demanded  by  the  taste  of 
their  times.  In  the  first  generation  of  compilations 
which  were  composed  for  this  purpose,  the  writers  of 
course  made  use  of  the  existing  sources  of  information, 
and  fortified  their  statements  by  citations  of  their  au- 
thority in  each  particular  instance.  But  as  the  real 
love  for  literature  declined  before  the  debilitating  in- 

2  The  number  of  volumes  at  Alexandria  in  the  time  of  Callima- 
chus  (about  259  B.C.)  amounted  to  five  hundred  and  thirty-two 
thousand,  or  according  to  the  explanation  of  Ritschl,  (Die  Alex- 
andrinischen  Bibliotheken,  p.  28,)  four  hundred  and  thirty-two 
thousand.  At  the  time  of  the  destruction  of  the  great  part  of 
them  by  fire,  they  had  reached  seven  hundred  thousand.  The  dif- 
ference was  caused  in  no  small  measure  by  the  accumulation  of 
commentatorial  or  antiquarian  works.  Thus  Aristarchus  is  said  to 
have  written  more  than  eight  hundred  volumes  of  commentaries 
alone.  (Suidas,  sub  v.)  Some  are  said  to  have  spent  their  whole  lives 
on  the  elucidation  of  single  questions  relative  to  Homer.  (See  Wolf, 
Prolegomena  in  Homerum,  sec.  45.  51.)  Under  Ptolemy  Philadel- 
phus  an  immense  number  of  original  works  were  collected,  and 
the  arrangement,  description,  and  illustration  of  these  became 
the  principal  business  of  men  of  letters  under  his  successors. 
Under  Ptolemy  the  accumulation  was  so  rapid  that  there  was  no 
time  for  this.  Galen  relates  that  when  any  merchant-vessels  put 
into  the  harbours  of  Egypt,  all  manuscripts  which  happened  to 
be  on  board  were  taken  to  the  royal  library  and  transcripts  of 
them  sent  back  to  the  owners.  In  default  of  time  to  classify 
the  originals,  they  were  laid  up  in  the  collection  under  the  title 
of  TO  ex  Tr\oi<av,  "the  books  taken  out  of  ships."  (Galen,  cited 
by  Wolf,  Proleg.  sec.  42.)  It  is  hardly  necessary  to  remark  that 
the  word  "  volume,"  in  reference  to  this  time,  applies  to  the  papyrus 
rolls,  of  which  none  perhaps  contained  more  than  a  couple  of 
closely  printed  octavo  sheets,  while  some  were  very  much  less. 


8  MISCELLANIES PAMPHILA — PHAVORINUS. 

fluence  of  luxury,  while  at  the  same  time  the  fashion 
of  literary  accomplishments  remained,  it  became  neces- 
sary that  information  should  be  furnished  in  a  more 
generally  palatable  form.  Hence  out  of  the  first  crop 
of  compilations,  a  new  generation  of  writers  composed 
a  sort  of  Omniana,  (TravroSairai  uFTop'uu,)  a  species  of 
composition  which  became  exceedingly  popular,  as  it 
combined  a  loose  kind  of  information  on  those  points 
of  which  everybody  was  expected  to  possess  some  know- 
ledge, with  the  piquancy  of  memoirs,  and  the  variety 
of  subject  which  is  so  pleasant  to  a  frivolous  and  in- 
dolent reader.  It  very  soon  overlaid  and  destroyed  the 
learned  labours  of  the  preceding  ages,  and  from  the 
time  at  which  it  began  to  prevail,  it  becomes  very 
questionable  whether  a  writer,  when  he  quotes  an  au- 
thority of  a  date  earlier  than  the  Empire,  ever  has  cast 
eyes  upon  him,  or  even  wishes  his  readers  to  believe 
that  he  has  done  so.  One  of  the  earliest  as  well  as 
most  original  works  of  this  description  was  the  produc- 
tion of  a  female  hand.  Pamphila,  a  lady  of  Egyptian 
extraction  in  the  time  of  Nero,  had  married  at  a  very 
early  age  a  person  of  considerable  literary  tastes  and 
attainments,  whose  house  was  the  resort  of  many  per- 
sons distinguished  for  the  same,  either  for  the  purposes 
of  education  or  of  social  intercourse.  During  thirteen 
years  she  states  that  she  was  never  separated  from  her 
husband's  side  for  an  hour,  and  that  it  was  her  habit 
to  take  notes  of  any  thing  which  she  might  learn 
either  from  him  or  from  any  of  his  literary  circle, 
which  appeared  worth  recording.  Out  of  these  mate- 
rials, together  with  extracts  made  by  herself  from  au- 
thors which  she  had  read,  she  composed  eight  books 
of  miscellaneous  historical  memoirs,  (uvfLtuKTa  IcrTopiKa 
purposely  abstaining  from  any  thing  like 


LATER    COMPILATIONS.  9 

an  arrangement  according  to  subjects,  that  her  readers 
might  enjoy  the  pleasure  arising  from  the  variety. 
This  work  Photius,  from  whom  we  have  taken  our 
notice  of  it,  describes  as  being  "a  most  useful  one  for 
the  acquirement  of  general  information1." 

Phavorinus,  a  native  of  Aries,  who  flourished  in  the 
reign  of  the  Emperor  Hadrian,  was  the  compiler  of 
another  work  of  the  same  description,  but  not  com- 
posed under  such  interesting  circumstances.  His  Mis- 
cellaneous Historical  Questions  (Trai/rocWjj  vXrj  to-ro- 
piKtj,  or  TravToScLTTYi  \cTTopia)  were,  as  well  as  the  works  of 
Pamphila,  a  mine  much  worked  by  subsequent  writers. 
But  the  degenerate  taste  which  had  caused  the  pro- 
duction of  such  works  as  these,  or  at  any  rate  as  the 
latter,  did  not  stop  here.  Still  declining,  it  called  for 
yet  more  meager  and  worthless  compilations,  which 
were  furnished  by  drawing  from  the  confused  and  tur- 
bid Miscellanies  such  parts  as  referred  to  any  particu- 
lar subject  on  which  the  writer  thought  proper  to  make 
collections.  To  this  stage  belongs  the  work  of  Dioge- 
nes Laertius,  a  part  of  which  forms  the  nucleus  of  all 
modern  biographies  of  Aristotle,  as  well  as  of  Plato 
and  most  of  the  early  Greek  philosophers ;  and  to  a 
yet  later  period,  after  the  processes  which  we  have  been 
describing  had  been  again  and  again  repeated,  the  Lives 
by  the  Pseudo-Ammonius  and  his  anonymous  Latin 
translator  and  interpolater. 

If  we  were  to  estimate  the  relative  importance  of 
these  later  authorities  by  the  quantity  of  critical  dis- 
cernment or  sound  erudition  which  they  display,  there 
would  be  little  to  choose  between  the  contemporary  of 
Severus,  and  his  followers  of  some  centuries  later.  But 

1  Photius,  Biblioth.  p.  119-  ed.  Bekker. 


10  RELATIVE    VALUE    OF    LATER    WRITERS. 

Diogenes,  although  devoid  of  all  historical  or  philosophi- 
cal discrimination, — although  sometimes  contradicting 
himself  within  the  limits  of  a  single  biography, — and 
confusing  the  tenets  of  Peripatetics  and  Epicureans 
without  the  least  consciousness  of  his  own  indistinct 
views,1  is  yet  distinguished  hy  the  circumstance  that  in 
his  narrative  the  names  of  the  earliest  authorities  still 
appear,  while  from  the  rest  they  have  in  most  cases 
dropped  out.  With  the  use,  therefore,  of  due  caution 
and  diligence,  we  are  frequently  enabled  to  arrive  at 
the  views  entertained  on  a  given  point  by  individuals 
of  four  centuries  earlier  date,  who  possessed  both  the 
wish  and  the  means  to  ascertain  truth  where  the  later 
writers  were  deficient  in  both.  This  is  particularly  the 
case  with  certain  classes  of  facts.  Anecdotes  illustra- 
tive of  individual  character  or  habits  of  life  readily 
spring  up  and  have  a  rapid  growth,  if  the  smallest 
nucleus  of  truth  exist  as  a  foundation  for  them.  But 
dry  and  uninteresting  statements,  such  as  the  date  of 
an  insulated  event,  will  very  rarely  be  falsified  except 
by  accidents  attending  transcription,  unless  their  de- 
termination is  distinctly  felt  to  affect  the  decision  of 
some  more  obviously  important  question.  When,  there- 
fore, such  statements  coupled  with  the  name  of  an 
early  authority  have  been  preserved,  there  is  a  fair 
presumption  that  we  have  firm  standing  ground,  and 
other  notices  of  uncertain  origin  will  possess  a  greater 
or  less  claim  to  our  consideration,  as  they  appear  more 
or  less  adapted  to  make  parts  of  that  body  of  which, 
as  it  were,  a  few  fossil  bones  have  been  preserved. 
These  we  shall  first  present  collectively  to  the  view  of 
our  readers,  and  then  proceed  step  by  step  in  the  pro- 
cess of  redintegration. 

1  See  Casaubon's  note  on  Diog.  Laert.  v.  29. 


APOLLODORUS.  1  1 

On  the  authority  then  of  Apollodorus2  we  may  fix 
the  birth  of  Aristotle  in  the  first  year  of  the  ninety- 
ninth  Olympiad,  (B.  c.  384 — 3,)  and  his  arrival  at 
Athens  as  a  scholar  of  Plato  when  seventeen  years 
old.  After  remaining  there  twenty  years,  he  visited 
the  court  of  Hermias  (a  prince  of  Asia  Minor  of  whom 
we  shall  say  more  in  the  sequel,)  in  the  year  after 
his  master's  death,  Theophilus  being  then  archon,  (i.e. 
B.  c.  348 — 7,)  and  staid  there  for  three  years.  In  the 
archonship  of  Eubulus,  the  fourth  year  of  the  hundred 
and  eighth  Olympiad,  (B.  c.  345 — 4,)  he  passed  over 
to  Mytilene.  In  that  of  Pythodotus,  the  second  year 
of  the  hundred  and  ninth,  (B.  c.  343 — 2,)  he  commenced 
the  education  of  Alexander  the  Great  at  his  father's 
court ;  and  in  the  second  year  of  the  hundred  and 
eleventh,  returned  to  Athens  and  taught  philosophy  in 
the  school  of  the  Lyceum  for  the  space  of  thirteen 
years;  at  the  expiration  of  which  time  he  crossed  over 
to  Chalcis  in  Euboea,  and  there  died  from  a  disease 
in  the  archonship  of  Philocles,  the  third  year  of  the 
hundred  and  fourteenth  Olympiad,  (B.  c.  322 — 1,)  at 
the  age  of  about  sixty-three,  and  at  the  same  time 
that  Demosthenes  ended  his  life  in  Calauria. 

2  Ap.  Diog.  Laert.  Fit.  Arist.  sec.  9.  Compare  Dionysius  of 
Halicarnassus,  EpisL  i.  ad  Ammceum,  p.  727,  728,  whose  account 
agrees  with  that  of  Diogenes,  and  is  itself  probably  based  on  the 
chronology  of  Apollodorus.  See  Clinton's  Fasti  Hellenici,  ii.  a.  320 
col.  3. 


CHAPTER  II. 

BIRTHPLACE    OF    ARISTOTLE. 


Vl§TAGiRUS,  (or,  as  it  was  later  called,  Stagira,) 
the  birthplace  of  one  of  the  most  extraordinary  men, 
if  not  the  very  most,  that  the  world  has  ever  pro- 
duced, was  a  petty  town  in  the  north  of  Greece,/ 
situated  on  the  western  side  of  the  Strymonic  gulf, 
just  where  the  general  line  of  coast  takes  a  southerly 
direction.  It  lay  in  the  midst  of  a  picturesque  country, 
both  in  soil  and  appearance  resembling  the  southern 
part  of  the  bay  of  Naples.  Immediately  south  a 
promontory,  like  the  Punta  della  Campanella  and 
nearly  in  the  same  latitude,  ran  out  in  an  easterly  di- 
rection, effectually  screening  the  town  and  its  little 
harbour  Capros,  formed  by  the  island  of  the  same 
name,  from  the  violence  of  the  squalls  coming  up  the 
JEgean,  a  similar  service  to  that  rendered  by  the  Ita- 
lian headland  to  the  town  of  Sorrento.  In  the  ter- 
raced windings,  too,  by  which  the  visitor  climbs  through 
the  orange  groves  of  the  latter  place,  he  may  without 
any  great  violence  imagine  the  "narrow  and  steep 
paths"  by  which  an  ancient  historian  and  chorogra- 
pher  describes  those  who  crossed  the  mountains  out  of 
Macedonia  as  descending  into  the  valley  of  Arethusa, 
where  was  seen  the  tomb  of  Euripides,  and  the  town 
of  Stagirus'.V  The  inhabitants  possessed  all  the  ad- 

1  Ammianus  Marcellinus,  xxvii.  4.  The  similarity  in  the  name 
of  the  island  Capri,  (the  ancient  Capreae)  which  lies  off  Sorrento, 
is  curious,  and  seems  to  favour  the  account  of  Frontinus,  that  Sur- 
rentum  was  originally  colonized  by  Greeks. 


HIS    FAMILY.  13 

vantages  of  civilization  which  Grecian  blood  and  Gre- 
cian intercourse  could  give,  the  city  having  been 
originally  built  by  a  colony  of  Andrians,  and  its  popu- 
ulation  subsequently  replenished  by  one  from  Chalcis 
in  Eubcea.2  \fThe  mouth  of  the  Strymon  and  the  im- 
portant city  of  Amphipolis  was  within  three  hours' 
sail  to  the  north ;  and  every  part  of  the  Chalcidic 
peninsula,  a  district  full  of  Greek  towns3,  among  which 
were  Olynthus  and  Potidaea,  was  readily  accessible. 
With  the  former  of  these  Stagirus  appears  to  have 
been  leagued  as  a  humble  ally4  in  that  resistance  to 
the  ambitious  designs  of  Philip  which  terminated  so 
calamitously.  In  the  year  348  B.  c.  it  was  destroyed  by 
him5,  and  the  inhabitants  sold  as  slaves. 

Aristotle,  however,  did  not  share  the  misfortunes  of 
his  native  town,  to  which  it  is  probable  he  had  been 
for  many  years  a  stranger.  His  father,  Nicomachus, 
one  of  the  family  or  guild  of  the  Asclepiads,  in 
which  the  practice  of  medicine  was  hereditary,  had 
taken  up  his  residence  at  the  court  of  Philip's  father 
Amyntas,  to  whom  he  was  body  surgeon,  and  whose 
confidence  he  appears  to  have  possessed  in  a  high 
degree.6  He  did  not  confine  himself  to  the  empi- 
rical practice  of  his  art,  for  he  is  related  to  have 
written  six  books  on  medical  and  one  on  physical  sub- 

2  Thucyd.  iv.  88.     Dionys.  Halic.  Ep.  i.  ad  Amm.  p.  727. 

3  Demosthenes  (Philipp.  iii.  p.  11 7-)  says  that  Philip  destroyed 
thirty-two  there.     Some  of  these  were  doubtless  mere  hamlets. 

4  Dio  Chrysost.     Or.  ii.  p.  36. 

5  ara<rTaToi/.     Plutarch,    Fit.  Alex.  sec.  7«      If  Aristotle's  will, 
however,  preserved  by  Diogenes  Laertius,  be  genuine,  this  term 
must  be  considerably  qualified ;   for  in  it  he  speaks  of  his  irctTptpa 
oiKia  in  Stagirus.      One  naturally  expects  the  description  of  De- 
mosthenes (he.  cit.)  to  be  overcharged. 

8  laTpov  Ka\  </>t'Aov  xpe<a,  is  the  expression  of  Diogenes. 


14  HIS    EARLY    EDUCATION. 

jects1,  which  latter  head  would  in  that  age  include 
every  department  of  natural  history  and  physiology,  no 
less  than  those  investigations  of  the  properties  of  un or- 
ganic matter  to  which  the  term  is  appropriated  in  the 
present  day.  Now  this  circumstance  is  much  more  im- 
portant in  its  hearing  upon  the  intellectual  character 
of  Aristotle  than  may  at  first  appear.  In  his  writings 
appears  such  a  fondness  for  these  pursuits  as  it  seems 
impossible  not  to  believe  must  have  been  imbibed  in  his 
very  earliest  years,  and  most  probably  under  the  imme- 
diate superintendence  of  this  parent.  For  although  he 
was  an  orphan  at  the  age  of  seventeen,  (and  how  much 
earlier  we  cannot  say,)  yet  it  is  well  known  that  instruc- 
tion in  the  "  art  and  maistery  of  healing,"  and  such 
subjects  as  were  connected  therewith,  was  commenced 
by  the  Asclepiads  at  a  very  early  age.  "  I  do  not  blame 
the  ancients,"  says  Galen2,  "  for  not  writing  books  on 
anatomical  manipulation  ;  though  I  commend  Marinus, 
who  did.  For  it  was  superfluous  for  them  to  compose 
such  records  for  themselves  or  others,  while  they  were 
from  their  childhood  exercised  by  their  parents  in  dis- 
secting just  as  familiarly  as  in  writing  and  reading ; 
so  that  there  was  no  more  fear  of  their  forgetting  their 
anatomy  than  of  their  forgetting  their  alphabet.  But 
when  grown  men  as  well  as  children  were  taught,  this 
thorough  discipline  fell  off;  and  the  art  being  carried 
out  of  the  family  of  the  Asclepiads,  and  declining  by 
repeated  transmission,  books  became  necessary  for  the 
student."  And  we  have  another,  although  slighter, 

presumptive  evidence  thatfthe  childhood  of  the  great 

^^r- 

1  Suidas,  sub  v.  NIKO'JUUXXOS. 

2  Cited  and  translated  by  Whewell,    History  of  the  Inductive 
Sciences,  Vol.  iii.  p.  385.     See  also  Plutarch,   Fit.  Alex.  sec.  8. 


ORPHAN  WHEN  YOUNG — COMES  TO  ATHENS.      15 

philosopher  was  spent  with  his  father  at  the  Macedonian 
court,  in  the  circumstance  of  his  being  selected  hy  Philip, 
at  a  period  long  subsequent,  to  conduct  the  education  of 
Alexander.^  This  we  shall  find  an  opportunity  of  re- 
verting to  in  the  sequel. 

'^Whatever  influence,  however,  was  exercised  by  Ni- 
comachus  over  the  future  fortunes  of  his  son,  he  had  not 
the  happiness  of  living  to  be  a  witness  of  its  effects. 
He,  as  well  as  his  wife  Phaestis,  a  descendant  of  one  of 
the  Chalcidian  colonists  of  Stagirus,  died  while  Aristotle 
was  yet  a  minor,  leaving  him  under  the  guardianship  of 
Proxenus,  a  citizen  of  Atarneus  in  Asia,  who  appears  to 
have  been  settled  in  the  native  town  of  his  ward.  How 
long  this  person  continued  in  the  discharge  of  his  trust, 
we  have  no  means  of  determining  more  than  that  it  was 
sufficiently  long  to  imbue  the  object  of  it  with  a  respect 
and  gratitude  which  endured  through  life.  At  the  age 
of  seventeen,  however,  it  terminated,  and  Aristotle, 
master  of  himself  and  probably  of  a  considerable  for- 
tune, came  to  Athens,  the  centre  of  the  civilization  of 
the  world,  and  the  focus  of  every  thing  that  was  brilliant 
in  action  or  in  thought3.  It  is  not  probable  that  any 
thing  but  the  thirst  for  knowledge  which  distinguished 
his  residence  there,  was  the  cause  of  its  commencement. 
Plato  was  at  that  time  in  the  height  of  his  reputation, 
and  the  desire  to  see  and  enjoy  the  intercourse  of  such 
a  man  would  have  been  an  adequate  motive  to  minds  of 
much  less  capacity  and  taste  for  philosophy  than  Aris- 
totle's to  resort  to  a  spot,  where,  besides,  every  enjoy- 


3  Hippias  in  Plato's  Protagoras  §  69,  calls  Athens  r^  'E\\a'Bo«? 
aurox  TO  vrpvTave'iov  T»/9  <ro<£<as.  '  Where/  asks  the  Sicilian 
orator  in  Diodorus  (xiii.  27)  <  shall  foreigners  go  for  instruction,  if 
Athens  be  destroyed?' 


16  CALUMNY     OF    EPICURUS. 

ment  which  even  an  Epicurean  could  desire  was  to  be 
found  '.V  It  was  reserved  for  the  foolish  ingenuity  of 
later  times,  when  all  real  knowledge  of  this  period 
had  faded  away,  to  invent  the  absurd  motive  of  "  a 
Delphic  oracle,  which  commanded  him  to  devote  him- 
self to  philosophy2.  For  another  account,  scarcely  less 
absurd,  .the  excuse  of  ignorance  cannot  be  so  easily 
made.  Epicurus,  in  the  work  we  have  before  spoken 
of,  related  that  Aristotle,  after  squandering  his  paternal 
property,  adopted  the  profession  of  a  mercenary  soldier, 
and  failing  in  this,  afterwards  that  of  a  vender  of 
medicines ;  that  he  then  took  advantage  of  the  free 
manner  in  which  Plato's  instructions  were  given  to 
pick  up  a  knowledge  of  philosophy,  for  which  he  was 
not  without  talent,  and  thus  gradually  arrived  at  his 
views3.  It  is  at  once  manifest  that  this  story  is  in- 
compatible with  the  account  of  Apollodorus,  according 
to  which  Aristotle  attached  himself  to  the  study  of 
philosophy  under  Plato,  before  he  had  completed  his 
eighteenth  year.  Independently  of  the  difficulty  of 
conceiving  that  a  mere  boy  should  have  already  passed 
through  so  many  vicissitudes  of  fortune,  it  is  obvious 
that  he  could  not  before  that  time  have  squandered 
his  property,  except  through  the  culpable  negligence 
of  his  guardian,  Proxenus ;  and  any  supposition  of  this 
sort  is  precluded  by  the  singular  respect  testified  for 
that  individual  in  his  ward's  will,  the  substance  of 
which — or  rather  perhaps  a  codicil  to  it  —  has  been 

1  See  Xenophon,  Rep.  Ath.  cap.  ii.  sec.  7,  8. 

2  Pseudo-Ammonius,   Fit.  Arist. 

3  Athenaeus,  viii.  p.  354.     Julian,   Var.  Hist.  v.  9.     That  these 
two  accounts   are   derived   from   the  same  source  appears  no  less 
from  their  similarity   of  phrase   than   from  the   remark   of  Athe- 
nseus,  "that  Epicurus  was  the  only  authority  for  this  story  against 
Aristotle." 


AFFECTION    FOR    HIS    GUARDIAN.  17 

preserved  to  us  by  Diogenes  Laertius3.  In  it  he  di- 
rects the  erection  of  a  statue  of  Proxenus  and  of  his  wife, 
he  appoints  their  son  Nicanor  (whom  he  had  pre- 
viously adopted)  to  he  joint  guardian  with  Antipa- 
ter  of  his  own  son  Nicomachus,  and  also  bestows  his 
daughter  upon  him  in  marriage.  It  is  impossible  to 
conceive  that  such  feelings  could  have  been  aroused 
in  the  ward  by  a  negligent  or  indiscreetly  indulgent 
guardian;  and  we  should  hardly  have  reverted  to  the 
story  in  question,  except  to  remark  how  the  very  form 
of  the  calumny  seems  to  indicate  that  the  favourite 
studies  of  Aristotle,  in  the  early  part  of  his  life,  were 
such  as  his  father's  profession  would  naturally  have 
led  him  to,  Physiology  and  Natural  History4.  Indeed, 
nothing  is  more  probable  than  that  he  might  have 
given  advice  to  the  sick;  theoretical  knowledge  and 
practical  skill  being  in  those  times  so  inseparably  con- 
nected, that  the  Greek  language  possesses  no  terms 

3  Vit.  Arist.  sec.  11 — 16.     The  genuineness  of  this  document  is 
confirmed  by  the  notice  which  Athenaeus  (xiii.  p.  589)  gives  from 
Hermippus,  relative  to  the   provision  for  Herpyllis,    which   quite 
agrees  with  what  we  find  in  it.     Compare,  too,  the  author  of  the 
Latin  Life,  (ad  Jin.)  from  whom  it  appears  that  Ptolemy  and  An- 
dronicus   had   each  of  them  inserted   a  testament   of  Aristotle  in 
their  works. 

4  Athenaeus  tells  the  story,  after   mentioning   several  tenets  of 
Aristotle  on  matters  of  Natural  History,  in  reference  to  which  he 
calls  him   "the  medicine- vender,"  (o  ^a^juaKo-n-wX*/?).     There   is  a 
curious  passage,  too,  in  a  work  of  Aristotle's,  the  Politics  (p.  1258, 
line   12.  ed.   Bekker),   which  seems  to  have  some   bearing   upon 
this   matter.      It  may   almost  be   taken  as  an  explanation  of  his 
conduct,  if  it  was  such  as  we  have  supposed.     Timaeus   of  Tau- 
romenium  related  that  at  a  late  period  of  his  life  (o'\^e  T^  I/'AHCIO?) 
he  served  an  obscure  physician  in  a  menial  capacity.     (Aristocles, 
ap.  Euseb.  xv.  2.)     For  the  character  of  Timaeus,  see  Casaubon  on 
Diog.  Laert.  x.  8. 

2 


18  DISCREPANT    ACCOUNTS. 

which  formally  distinguish  them, — and  from  this  cir- 
cumstance the  report  may  have  arisen,  that  he  at- 
tempted medicine  as  a  profession. 

There  are  some  other  accounts  equally  discrepant 
with  the  chronology  of  Apollodorus,  which  we  have 
taken  as  our  standard.  One  of  these  is,  that  Aristotle 
did  not  attach  himself  to  Plato  until  he  was  thirty 
years  of  age:  another,  that  on  his  first  arrival  at 
Athens  he  was  for  three  years  the  pupil  of  Socrates1. 
The  first  of  these,  which  rests  on  the  sole  authority 
of  one  Eumelus2,  a  writer  of  whom  nothing  more 
whatever  is  known,  may  perhaps  be  a  feature  of  the 
story  of  Epicurus  which  we  have  just  discussed :  it 
has  been  conjectured,  however,  with  great  appearance 
of  probability,  that  its  sole  foundation  is  the  well-known 
maxim  of  Plato,  that  the  study  of  the  higher  philoso- 
phy should  not  be  commenced  before  the  thirtieth  year. 
The  second,  as  it  stands,  is  absolutely  unintelligible, 
Socrates  having  been  put  to  death  in  the  archonship 
of  Laches,  (B.  c.  400 — 399,)  that  is,  fifteen  years  be- 
fore the  birth  of  Aristotle.  But  it  has  been  ingeni- 
ously remarked3,  that  at  the  time  when  Aristotle  first 
came  to  Athens,  Plato  was  absent  in  Sicily,  from  whence 
he  did  not  return  till  Olymp.  ciii.  4,  the  third  year 
afterwards4;  so  that  if  Aristotle  was  then  introduced 

1  Pseudo- Ammonias. — Vita  Latina. 

2  Ap.  Diog.  Laert.   Vit.  Arist.  sec.  6.      All  other  accounts  are 
unanimous  in  representing  him  as  becoming  Plato's  disciple  while 
very  young. 

3  Stahr.  Aristotelia,  i.  p.  43. 

4  Corsini  (De  die  n.  Platonis)  cited  by  Aste.  Platons  Leben  und 
Schriften,  p.  SO.     Heraclides  of  Pontus  presided  in  the  school  of 
Plato  during  his  absence.     But  Xenocrates,  who  is  known  to  have 
been  an  intimate  associate  of  Aristotle  in  after  life,  may  possibly 


HIS   FIRST    STAY    IN    ATHENS.  19 

to  the  philosophy  of  the  Academy,  it  must  have  been 
under  the  auspices  of  some  other  of  the  Socratic  school, 
whom  the  foolish  compilers  of  later  times  mistook  for 
its  founder.  Under  this  natural  explanation,  the  ab- 
surd  story  becomes  a  confirmation  of  the  account  of 
Apollodorus,  which  we  have  followed — a  coincidence 
the  more  satisfactory  as  it  is  quite  undesigned, 
V  We  shall  now  proceed,  as  well  as  the  scanty  infor- 
mation which  has  come  down  to  us  will  allow,  to 
sketch  the  course  of  Aristotle's  life  during  the  ensuing 
period  of  nearly  twenty  years  which  he  spent  at  Athens, 
It  appears  to  have  been  mainly,  although  not  entirely, 
occupied  in  the  acquisition  of  his  almost  encyclopaedic 
knowledge,  in  collecting,  criticising,  and  digesting.  fOf 
his  extraordinary  diligence  in  mastering  the  doctrines 
of  the  earlier  schools  of  philosophy  we  may  form  some 
estimate  from  the  notices  of  them  which  are  preserved 
in  his  works,  which  indeed  constitute  the  principal 
source  of  our  whole  knowledge  upon  this  subject.  That 
this  information  should  have  been  acquired  by  him 
during  this  part  of  his  life  is  rendered  likely  both  by 
the  nature  of  the  case  and  by  the  scattered  anecdotes 
which  relate  that  his  industry  no  less  than  his  intel- 
ligence elicited  the  strongest  expressions  of  admiration 
from  Plato,  who  is  said  by  Pseudo-Ammonius  to  have 
called  Aristotle's  house  "the  house  of  the  reader'' 
The  Latin  translator  adds,  that  in  his  absence  his 
master  would  exclaim,  "that  the  intelligence  of  the 

have  been  the  means  of  drawing  his  attention  to  intellectual  phi- 
losophy ;  the  social  intercourse  in  which  this  might  be  effected 
would  to  later  ages  appear  in  the  light  of  formal  instruction ;  and 
when  this  was  the  case,  the  name  Xenocrates  would  readily  by 
the  carelessness '  or  meddling  criticism  of  a  transcriber  be  altered 
into  that  of  Socrates. 

2—2 


20  HIS    INDUSTRY — WORKS    OF    THIS   TIME. 

school  was  away,  and  his  audience  but  a  deaf  one1!" 
A  treatise  on  Rhetoric,  not  that  which  has  come  down 
to  us,  but  one  which,  as  we  shall  have  occasion  to 
show  in  the  sequel,  was  probably  written  during  this 
period  of  his  life,  is  described  by  Cicero2  as  contain- 
ing an  account  of  the  theories  of  all  his  predecessors 
upon  this  subject,  from  the  time  of  Tisias,  the  first  who 
wrote  upon  it, — so  admirably  and  perspicuously  set 
forth,  that  all  persons  in  his  time  who  wished  to  gain 
a  knowledge  of  them,  preferred  Aristotle's  description 
to  their  own.  We  may  take  occasion  to  remark  by 
the  way  that  this  taste  for  reading  could  not  have  been 
gratified  without  very  ample  means.  A  collection  of 
books  was  a  luxury  which  lay  within  the  reach  of  as 
small  a  portion  of  the  readers  of  that  day,  as  a  gal- 
lery of  pictures  would  of  the  amateurs  of  this3.  This 

1  Intellectus  abest ;  surdum  est  auditorium.     This  story  is  pro- 
bably only  an  expansion  of  a  saying  of  Plato's,  recorded  by  Philopo- 
nus,  (De  JEternitate  Mundi,  vi.  27.)  that  Aristotle  was  "  the  soul 
of  his  school,"  (o  i/o us  T»;<?  BtaT|0</3»7?.) 

2  De  Oratore,  ii.  38.  compared  with  De  Inventione,  ii.  2. 

3  The   facilities  for  obtaining  the  copy   of  a  book   were  very 
much  increased   after   the    extensive   manufacture   of  papyrus   at 
Alexandria  under  the  Ptolemies,  and   when  transcription   had  be- 
come a  profitable  and  widely  practised  profession.     Yet   we   find 
Polybius   (iii.  32.)  at  some  pains  to  take  off  the  objection  to  his 
work  arising  from  its  costliness.     But  in   the   time  of  Aristotle's 
youth,  the  expense  must  have  been  far  greater.     He,  probably  in 
the  latter   part  of  his  life,  possessed  a  very  large  library,  (Athe- 
ncei  Epitom.  p.  3.)   which   he   left  to   his  successor,  Theophrastus. 
(Strabo,  xiii.  p.  608.)     The  philosophers  after  him  appear  likewise 
to  have  made   collections.     We  know    this   for   certain   of    Theo- 
phrastus, Strato,  and  Lycon ;  (Diog.  Laert.  v.  52,  62, 73.)  and  such 
were  probably  used  under  greater  or  less  restrictions  by  their  re- 
spective   scholars.     But   nothing    of   this  sort   is    related   of    the 
earlier  philosophers,  whose  systems  indeed  did  not  require  (at  least 
to  any  thing  like  the   extent  of  Aristotle's)  any  previous  histori- 


RHETORIC — PROVERBS — CONSTITUTIONAL  LAW.   21 

circumstance,  then,  is  calculated  to  throw  additional 
discredit  on  the  story  told  by  Epicurus  of  Aristotle's 
youth.  A  bankrupt  apothecary  could  never  have  been 
a  book  collector.  Another  work  of  Aristotle's,  which 
is  unfortunately  lost,  was  compiled  during  this  same 
time.  It  was  a  collection  of  Proverbs  (Trapo'i/miai,)  a 
species  of  literature  to  which  he,  like  most  other  men 
of  reflection,  attached  great  value.  Two  other  most 
important  works,  both  of  which  are  likewise  lost,  we 
may,  from  what  we  know  of  their  nature,  probably  re- 
fer to  the  same  period,  at  least  as  far  as  their  plan 
and  commencement  are  concerned.  The  first  of  these 
was  a  work  on  the  fundamental  principles  on  which 
the  codes  of  law  in  the  States  of  his  time  were  seve- 
rally based4.  The  second  was  an  account  of  no  less 

cal  investigation.  And  Plato,  if  he  really  did  purchase  the  work 
of  Philolaus,  as  he  was  said  by  Satyrus  and  Timon  the  Sillo- 
grapher  (Aulus  Gellius,  iii.  17-  Diogenes  Laert.  iii.  Q,  viii.  15.  85.) 
to  have  done,  and  reproduced  the  philosophy  of  it  in  his  Timceus, 
certainly  had  no  intention  of  communicating  it  to  his  scholars. 
Hence  it  appears  unlikely  that  Aristotle  could  have  obtained  the 
use  of  the  greater  part  of  the  works  which  the  plan  of  his 
studies  required  by  other  means  than  purchase. 

4  The  title  of  the  treatise  was  AtKajco/xara  TroXewi/.  (See  Casau- 
bon  and  Menage  on  Diog.  Laert.  v.  26.)  Grotius,  deceived  by  the 
corrupt  reading,  TroXeynav  for  TroAewi/,  in  Ammonius  (sub  v.  vrjes.) 
and  Sir  James  Macintosh  (Discourse  on  the  Law  of  Nature  and 
Nations,  p.  16.)  implicitly  following  him,  conceived  that  the  work 
was  "  a  treatise  on  the  laws  of  war."  But  any  one  who  will  peruse 
attentively  the  third  book  of  the  Politics  will  see  that  it  would 
be  much  more  accurately  described  by  calling  it  "a  treatise  on 
the  spirit  of  laws."  In  the  small  states  of  Greece  it  was  not 
difficult  to  reduce  all  the  existing  laws,  or  at  any  rate  those  which 
related  to  the  political  constitution,  to  some  one  axiom,  which 
was  regarded  as  the  generative  principle,  the  idee-mere  of  the 
whole  code.  For  this  axiom,  whether  explicitly  stated,  or  only 
to  be  gathered  from  the  common  and  statute  law,  the  technical 


22  HISTORY    OF    SEVERAL   STATES. 

than  one  hundred  and  fifty  -eight  (according  to  others 
one  hundred  and  seventy-one  or  two  hundred  and  fifty- 
five)  States,  which,  judging  from  some  fragments  which 
have  heen  preserved,  involved  their  history  from  the 
earliest  known  times  to  his  own.1  Of  this  invaluable 
collection  a  great  many  scraps  remain.  Those  which  re- 
late to  Athens,  Sigonius  is  said  to  have  made  the  basis 
of  his  account  of  that  commonwealth.2  And  another 
work  for  which  these  apparently  formed  the  foundation, 
the  Politics,  has  come  down  to  us  in  all  probability 
in  the  unfinished  draught  in  which  it  was  left  at 
the  moment  of  the  author's  death.  We  may  con- 
clude the  evidence  which  these  productions  afford  of 
their  writer's  activity  and  industry  with  an  anecdote 
preserved  by  Diogenes  (Tit.  Arist.  sec.  16).  Appa- 
rently to  prevent  the  remission  of  attention  which  re- 
sults from  nature  insensibly  giving  way  under  the 


term  in  Aristotle's  time  was  TO  Skatoi/,  "the  rule  of  right."  This 
was  different  in  different  States:  he  speaks  of  TO  Sinaiov  d\i- 
jap^iKOv,  TO  SLKCIIOV  apiffTOKpariKov,  and  TO  Stfcatoi/  ^^OKpaTiKOv,  "  the 
oligarchal,  aristocratic,  and  democratic  rules  of  right."  Such  as- 
sertions of  political  claims  as  might  be  considered  obvious  appli- 
cations of  these  fundamental  axioms  were  called  by  the  name 
SiKaioa/jLctTa,  "prerogatives,"  or  "pleas  of  right."  Thus  in  our 
own  country,  the  right  of  the  Crown  to  dissolve  parliament,  that 
of  the  subject  to  be  tried  by  jury  and  to  be  held  innocent  of 
any  charge  till  found  guilty,  that  of  the  peers  to  demand  an  au- 
dience of  the  sovereign,  and  to  be  the  ultimate  court  of  appeal 
in  civil  cases,  are  so  many  ^iKai^/jLara.  They  are  not  referible  to 
one  standard  of  political  justice,  because  our  constitution  contains 
monarchical,  aristocratic,  oligarchal,  and  democratic  elements. 
But  the  Greek  states  were  almost  always  pure  oligarchies  or  pure 
democracies. 

1  Diog.  Laert.   Fit.     Pseudo-Ammon.  and    Fit.  Lat.     Compare 
Cicero,  De  Fin.  v.  4.  10.     Varro,  De  L.  L.  vii,  3. 

2  Nunnez,  ad  Fit.  Pseudo-Ammon.  p.  59. 


HIS   GENIALITY. 

pressure  of  extremely  laborious  study,  he  was  acci 
tomed  to  read  holding  a  ball  in  one  hand,  under  which 
was  placed  a  brazen  basin.  On  the  slightest  involun- 
tary relaxation  of  the  muscles,  the  ball  would  fall,  and 
by  the  sudden  noise  which  it  made,  at  once  dissipate 
the  incipient  drowsiness  of  the  student. 

But  this  intense  love  of  knowledge  had  not  the 
common  effect  of  converting  him  into  a  mere  bookworm. 
In  his  works  we  see  nothing  like  an  undue  depreciation 
of  the  active  forms  of  life,  or  even  of  its  pleasures.  And 
this  is  the  more  remarkable,  as  we  know  that  his  frame 
was  delicate,  and  his  constitution  weakly,  and  that  in 
the  latter  part  of  his  life  he  suffered  much  from  bad 
health3, — circumstances  which  in  general  lead  to  an 
under  estimate  of  those  pursuits  for  which  a  certain 
robustness  of  body  is  a  necessary  condition.  His  at- 
tention to  neatness  of  person  and  dress  was  remark- 
able; indeed  it  is  said  that  he  carried  it  to  an  extent 
which  Plato  considered  unworthy  of  a  philosopher4. 
Whether  this  account  be  true  or  not,  it  is  certain 
that  his  habits  and  principles  were  the  reverse  of  cy- 
nical, that  he  enjoyed  life,  and  was  above  any  un- 
necessary affectation  of  severity.  "Not  apathy,  but 
moderation,"  is  a  maxim  ascribed  to  him  by  Dio- 
genes 5. 

We  have  seen  that  Plato  felt  and  testified  the 
highest  admiration  for  the  talents  of  his  pupil.  But 

3  Censorinus,  De  die  natali,  cap.  xiv.     Aristotelem  ferunt  natu- 
ralem  stomachi  injirmitatem  crebrasque  morbidi  corporis  offensiones, 
adeo  virtute  animi  diu  sustentasse,   ut   magis  mirum   sit  ad  annos 
Ixiii.   eum   vitam   protulisse,    quam   ultro  non  pertulisse.      Compare 
Gellius,  xiii.  5. 

4  jElian,  Varia  Hixtoria,  iii.  19.     Diog.  Laert.  Vit.  Arist,  mil. 
:>  Vit.  sec.  31. 


24  IS    SAID    TO   HAVE   DISPLEASED    PLATO. 

it  appears  that  in  spite  of  this  there  was  by  no  means 
a  perfect  congeniality  in   their  feelings.      Aristotle  is 
said   to    have    offended    his    master   not   only   by   the 
carefulness   respecting   his    personal    appearance  which 
we  have  just   spoken   of,    but  by    a   certain    sarcastic 
habit  (juto/act)1,  which   showed  itself  in  the   expression 
of  his  countenance.     It  is  difficult  to  imagine  that  he 
should  have  indulged  this  humour  in  a  greater  degree 
than   Socrates  is  represented   to   have  done   by  Plato 
himself.     However,    a  vein   of  irony  which  would   ap- 
pear very  graceful  in  the  master  whom  he  reverenced, 
and  whose  views  he  enthusiastically  embraced,  might 
seem   quite  the   reverse  in   a  youthful  pupil  who  pro- 
mised  speedily   to   become   a   rival.      An    anecdote    is 
related   by  Julian2,  from  which   we   should  infer   that 
overt  hostility  broke  out  between  them.     Aristotle,  it 
is  said,  taking  advantage  of  the  absence  of  Xenocrates 
from   Athens,    and   of   the    temporary   confinement    of 
Speusippus  by  illness,  attacked  Plato  in  the  presence 
of  his  disciples  with  a  series  of  subtle  sophisms,  which, 
his   powers   being  impaired  by  extreme  old  age,   had 
the  effect  of  perplexing  him  and  obliging  him  to  retire  in 
confusion  and  shame  from  the  walks  of  the  Academy.  Xe- 
nocrates, however,  returning  three  months  after,  drove 
Aristotle   away,    and    restored    his   master   to    his   old 
haunts.     On  this  or  some  other  occasion  it  is  said  that 
Plato  compared  his  pupil's  conduct  to  that  of  the  young 
foals  who  kick  at  their  dam  as  soon  as  dropped3.     And 
the  opinion  that  Aristotle  had  in  some  way  or  other 
behaved  with  ingratitude  to  his  master,  certainly  had 
obtained  considerable  currency  in  antiquity;    but  it  is 

1  JElisan,  he.  cit. 

2  Ibid. 

*  Mian,  Var.  Hist.  iv.  9. 


PROBABLE    ORIGIN    OF    THE    STORY.  25 

probable  that  this  in  a  great  measure  arose  from  the 
false  interpretation  of  a  passage  in  the  biography  of 
Plato  by  Aristoxenus  the  musician,  whom  we  have 
noticed  in  the  last  chapter.  This  writer  had  related 
that  "while  Plato  was  absent  from  Athens  on  his  tra- 
vels, certain  individuals,  who  were  foreigners,  established 
a  school  in  opposition  to  him."  "Some,"  adds  Aristo- 
cles,  the  Peripatetic  philosopher4,  after  quoting  this 
passage,  "  have  imagined  that  Aristotle  was  the  per- 
son here  alluded  to,  but  they  forget  that  Aristoxenus, 
throughout  the  whole  of  his  work,  speaks  of  Aristotle 
in  terms  of  praise."  Every  one  who  is  conversant 
with  the  productive  power  of  Greek  imagination,  and 
the  rapidity  with  which  in  that  fertile  soil  anecdotes 
sprang  up  and  assumed  a  more  and  more  circumstan- 
tial character  on  repetition,  will  not  wonder  that  in 
the  course  of  five  centuries  which  intervened  between 
Aristoxenus  and  ^Elian,  the  vague  statement  of  the 
first  should  have  bourgeoned  into  the  circumstantial 
narrative  of  the  second5. 

*  Ap.  Eusebium,  Prceparatio  Evangelica,  xv.  2.  Aristocles,  a 
native  of  Messina,  was  the  preceptor  of  the  virtuous  Emperor  Alex- 
ander Severus,  not  of  Alexander  Aphrodisiensis,  and  consequently 
lived  in  the  first  half  of  the  third  century  of  the  Christian  era. 
The  work  from  which  Eusebius  extracts  a  passage  of  some  length 
relating  to  Aristotle,  was  a  kind  of  History  of  Philosophy,  in  ten 
books.  Eusebius's  extract  is  a  part  of  the  seventh.  The  learning 
and  discrimination  of  the  writer  is  very  great.  He  traces  the 
stories  which  he  has  occasion  to  mention  up  to  their  earliest  ori- 
gin, and  refutes  them  in  a  masterly  manner.  There  is  a  literary 
notice  of  him  in  Fabricius's  Bibliotkeca  Grceca,  iii.  c.  viii.  where 
see  Heumann's  note.  It  is  curious  that  in  the  Latin  Life  Aristocles 
is  cited  together  with  Aristoxenus  as  an  authority  for  the  very  story 
which  he  is  concerned  to  refute. 

The  literary  men  of  the  declining  period  considered  it  a  part 
of  their  duty  to  supply  all  the  details  which  their  readers  might 


26  DISCREPANT    ACCOUNTS. 

Independently  of  the  vulgar  insolence  with  which 
this  story  invests  the  character  of  Aristotle, — a  quality 
of  which  there  is  not  a  trace  in  his  writings, — there 
is  much  which  may  render  us  extremely  suspicious  of 
receiving  it.  In  the  first  place,  other  stories  of  equal 
authority  represent  his  feelings  towards  his  master  as 
those  of  ardent  admiration  and  deep  respect.  His  bio- 
grapher informs  us  that  he  dedicated  an  altar  (by 
which  he  probably  means  a  cenotaph)  to  Plato,  and 
put  an  inscription  on  it  to  the  purport  that  Plato  "  was 
a  man  whom  it  was  sacrilege  for  the  bad  even  to 
praise."  There  is  certainly  not  much  credit  to  be  at- 
tached to  the  literal  truth  of  this  story1;  but  its  cha- 

desiderate  in  the  more  general  notices  of  the  classical  writers.  An 
amusing  instance  of  this  kind  of  writer  is  Ptolemy,  the  son  of  He- 
phaestion,  whose  book  is  described  by  Photius  (Biblioth.  p.  146 — 153, 
Bekker),  and  strongly  praised  by  him  for  its  utility  to  those  who 
were  desirous  of  -rroXv^adia  foroputij.  Not  to  mention  the  secret 
history  of  the  death  of  Hercules,  Achilles,  and  various  other  cele- 
brated characters,  we  are  informed  of  the  name  of  the  Delphian,  whom 
Herodotus  abstains  from  mentioning  (i.  51),  and  of  that  of  the 
Queen  of  Candaules,  which  latter  it  seems  was  Nysia.  The  reason 
of  Herodotus  abstaining  from  giving  it  was,  that  a  youth  named 
Plesirrhoiis,  to  whom  he  was  much  attached,  had  fallen  in  love 
with  a  lady  of  that  appellation,  and,  not  succeeding  in  his  suit,  had 
hanged  himself.  This  Ptolemy  related  in  his  fifth  book.  In  the 
third  he  had  informed  his  readers  that  this  very  Plesirrhoiis  inhe- 
rited Herodotus  s  property,  and  wrote  the  preface  to  his  History,  the 
commencement  of  it  as  left  by  the  author  having  been  with  the 
words  Ilepo-ewi/  ol  \6jioi.  He  probably  knew  that  the  readers  for 
whom  he  wrote,  even  if  they  read  both  anecdotes,  would  have 
forgotten  the  first  by  the  time  they  reached  the  second.  Yet  the 
age,  whose  taste  could  render  books  of  this  description  popular, 
was  no  more  recent  than  that  of  Hadrian,  at  whose  court  JElian  and 
Phavorinus  lived  and  wrote. 

1     The  phrase  in  question  is  found  in  an  elegy  to  Eudemus,  cited 
by  Olympiodorus,  Comment,  ad  Plalon.  Gorgiam.    (Bekk.  p.  53.} 


HIS   OWN  EXPRESSIONS — XENOCRATES.  27 

racter  may  be  considered  to  indicate  the  view  which  the 
authority  followed  hy  the  biographer  took  of  Aristotle's 
sentiments  towards  his  master.  Still  better  evidence 
exists  in  the  way  in  which  Plato  is  spoken  of  in  the 
works  of  his  pupil  that  have  come  down  to  us.  His 
opinions  are  often  controverted,  but  always  with  fair- 
ness, and  never  with  discourtesy.  If  he  is  sometimes 
misapprehended,  the  misapprehension  never  appears  to 
be  wilful.  In  one  rather  remarkable  instance  there  is 
exhibited  a  singular  tenderness  and  delicacy  towards 
him.  The  passage  in  question  is  near  the  commence- 
ment of  the  Nicomachean  Ethics2.  To  the  doctrine  of 
Ideas  or  Archetypal  Forms,  as  maintained  by  Plato, 
Aristotle  was  opposed.  It  became  necessary  for  him, 
in  the  treatment  of  his  subject,  to  discuss  the  bearing 
of  this  doctrine  upon  it,  and  he  complains  that  his  task 
is  an  unwelcome  one,  from  the  circumstance  of  persons 
to  whom  he  is  attached  (<j)i\ovs  av^pas)  having  originated 
the  theory.  "  Still,"  he  adds,  "  it  seems  our  duty  even 
to  slay  our  own  flesh  and  blood" — an  allusion  to  such 
cases  as  those  of  Iphigenia,  Polyxena,  and  Macaria, — 
"where  the  cause  of  truth  is  at  stake,  especially  as  we 
are  philosophers:  loving  both  parties,  it  is  a  sacred 
duty  to  prefer  the  truth."  The  delicacy  which  prompted 
such  a  preface  as  this  would  surely  have  restrained  its 
author  from  such  coarseness  as  is  attributed  to  him  in 
Elian's  story. 

The  way  in  which  Xenocrates  is  mixed  up  with 
this  affair  is  not  to  be  overlooked.  He  is  represented 
as  the  vindicator  of  his  master's  honour,  and  the 
punisher  of  the  insolence  and  vanity  of  his  rival.  But 
we  shall  see  presently  this  same  Xenocrates  in  the 
character  of  Aristotle's  travelling  companion  during  the 
2  P.  1096.  col.  i.  c.  11.  ed.  Bekker. 


28  REASONS    AGAINST    THE    STORY. 

three  eventful  years  of  his  life  which  immediately  fol- 
lowed the  death  of  Plato,  consequently  at  no  long 
period  after  the  alleged  insult  took  place  and  was  re- 
venged; a  circumstance  which  certainly  is  very  far 
from  harmonizing  with  that  conduct  of  the  two  philo- 
sophers towards  each  other  which  Elian's  narrative 
describes. 

We  must  not  forget  either  that  Aristotle,  although 
probably  possessed  of  considerable  wealth,  and  perhaps 
also  of  some  influence  from  his  Macedonian  connections, 
was  still  only  a  METIC,  or  resident  alien.  How  sensi- 
tive the  pride  of  the  Athenian  citizen  was  to  any  ap- 
pearance of  pretension  on  the  part  of  these,  is  notorious1. 
In  certain  public  festivals  duties  of  an  inferior,  not 
to  say  menial,  character  were  assigned  to  them2.  They 
could  hold  no  land;  they  could  not  intermarry  with 
citizens,  nor  even  maintain  a  civil  action  in  their  own 
persons,  but  were  obliged  for  this  purpose  to  employ  a 
citizen  as  their  patron  or  sponsor,  (Tr^oo-Tar^3.)  Plato, 
on  the  contrary,  was  of  one  of  the  most  illustrious  fa- 
milies in  Athens,  and,  if  we  may  judge  by  the  anecdotes 
of  his  connection  with  Chabrias  and  Timotheus,  pos- 
sessed friends  among  the  most  influential  public  cha- 
racters of  the  day4.  It  is  scarcely  credible  therefore, 

1  Eurip.  SuppL  892. 


Ai/7r»;po<?   OVK  tjv,   oJB'  €7ri(f)dovo<; 
ouB'  €^epi(TTtj<;  TWV  \oytov,   oQev  fiapvs 
ULO.XKTT    av  eir]   Bf/uoT»/s   T€   KOI  £e'i/<K. 

Aristoph.  Acharn.  58.      TOUS  yap  /JLCTOIKOVS  a-^ypa  T<av  dcrTtav  Ae'ytu, 
which  after  all,  was  doubtless  meant  and  taken  as  a  compliment. 

2  They  were  the  o-KCKpytyopoi,  a-Kia^tityopoi,  and  v$pia(popoi. 

3  See  the  authorities  collected  by  Schoemann.      Jus  publicum 
Grcccum,  p.  190. 

4  Diog.  Laert.   Vii.  Plat.  sec.  1,  23.     ^lian,  Var.  Hist.  ii.  18. 


PARALLEL   BETWEEN    HIM   AND    PLATO.  29 

even  had  all  better  motives  been  wanting,  that  fear  of 
making  a  powerful  enemy  should  not  have  restrained 
Aristotle  from  behaving  to  his  master  in  the  way  which 
has  been  described. 

It  is  not  difficult  to  imagine  how  such  stories  grew 
up.  There  is  a  most  marked  contrast  observable  in  the 
modes  of  thought  of  the  two  philosophers,  such  a  dif- 
ference indeed  as  seems  incompatible  with  congeniality, 
although  quite  consistent  with  the  highest  mutual  ad- 
miration and  respect.  It  manifests  itself  in  their  very 
style;  Aristotle's  being  the  dryest  and  most  jejune 
prose,  while  that  of  Plato  teems  with  the  imagery  of 
poetry.  The  one  delights  to  dress  his  thoughts  in  all 
the  pomp  of  as  high  a  degree  of  fancy  as  one  can  con- 
ceive united  to  a  sound  judgment ;  the  other  seems  to 
consider  that  the  slightest  garment  would  cramp  their 
vigour  and  hide  their  symmetry.  In  Aristotle  we  find 
a  searching  and  comprehensive  view  of  things  as  they 
present  themselves  to  the  understanding,  but  no  attempt 
to  pass  the  limits  of  that  faculty, — no  suspicion  indeed 
that  such  exist.  Plato,  on  the  contrary,  never  omits  an 
opportunity  of  passing  from  the  finite  to  the  infinite, 
from  the  sensuous  to  the  spiritual,  from  the  domain  of 
the  intellect  to  that  of  the  feelings :  he  is  ever  striving 
to  body  forth  an  ideal,  and  he  only  regards  the  actual 
as  it  furnishes  materials  for  it.  Hence  he  frequently 
forgets  that  he  violates  the  conditions  to  which  the 
actual  world  is  subjected ;  or,  perhaps  we  should  rather 
say,  he  disregards  the  importance  of  this.  A  striking 
exemplification  of  the  essential  difference  between  the 
two  great  philosophers  is  afforded  by  the  Republic  of 
Plato  compared  with  the  criticism  of  it  by  Aristotle. 
(Pol.  ii.)  The  former  seems  to  have  grown  up  out  of  a 
wish  to  embody  an  ideal  of  justice,  and  is  the  genuine 


30  THEIR    DIFFERENCES    GREAT. 

offspring  of  a  vigorous  and  luxuriant  imagination  review- 
ing the  forms  of  social  life  and  seeing  in  all  analogies  to 
the  original  conception  which  it  was  the  aim  of  the  artist 
to  set  forth.  But  from  this  point  of  view  it  is  never  once 
contemplated  by  its  critic.  Essentially  a  picture,  it  is 
discussed  by  him  as  if  it  were  a  map1.  The  natural 
consequence  of  these  different  bents  is  that  Aristotle's 
views  always  form  parts  of  a  system  intellectually  com- 
plete, while  Plato's  harmonize  with  each  other  morally; 
we  rise  from  the  study  of  the  latter  with  our  feelings 
purified,  from  that  of  the  former  with  our  perceptions 
cleared ;  the  one  strengthens  the  intellect,  the  other  ele- 
vates the  spirit.  Consistently  with  this  opposition  it 
happened  that  in  the  earlier  centuries  Christianity  was 
often  grafted  on  Platonism,  and  even  where  this  was  not 
the  case,  many  persons  were  prepared  for  its  reception 
by  the  study  of  Plato ;  while  in  the  age  of  the  School- 
men— an  age  when  religion  had  become  theology— 
Aristotle's  works  were  the  only  food  which  the  philoso- 
phy of  the  time  could  assimilate. 

The  difference  which  is  so  strikingly  marked  between 
the  matured  philosophical  characters  of  these  two  giant 

1  The  sacred  subjects,  as  they  were  treated  by  the  early  Italian 
painters, — indeed  down  to  the  time  of  Raffaelle  and  Correggio, — 
present  an  analogy  to  this  work.  There  is  in  them  a  certain  do- 
minant thought,  which  it  is  the  artist's  problem  to  embody,  and 
which  all  the  details,  however  incongruous  they  may  be  in  all 
other  respects,  assist  in  bringing  out  more  fully  and  clearly.  Thus 
in  the  celebrated  Vierge  au  Poisson  there  is  a  real  unity  of  feeling 
to  which  each  of  the  particulars  contributes  its  share.  But  a 
spectator  who  misses  this  will  at  once  remark  on  the  glaring  ab- 
surdity of  the  evangelist,  an  old  man,  reading  his  gospel  to  the 
subject  of  it,  an  infant  in  arms;  and  of  Tobias  presenting  a  fish 
of  the  size  of  a  mackerel,  as  that  one  which  "leaped  out  of  the 
river  and  would  have  devoured  him."  Exactly  on  such  principles 
does  Aristotle's  critique  on  the  Republic  proceed. 


LIKELY   TO    BE    MISINTERPRETED.  31 

intellects  is  of  a  kind  which  must  have  shown  itself 
early.  Neither  could  have  entirely  sympathized  with 
the  other,  however  much  he  might  admire  his  genius; 
and  this  circumstance  may  very  well  have  produced  a 
certain  estrangement,  which  hy  such  of  their  followers 
as  were  of  too  vulgar  minds  to  understand  the  respect 
which  all  really  great  men  must  entertain  for  each 
other,  would  readily  he  misinterpreted.  Difference  of 
opinion  would,  if  proceeding  from  an  equal,  be  repre- 
sented in  the  light  of  hostility, — if  from  a  former 
pupil,  in  that  of  ingratitude.  The  miserable  spirit  of 
par tizan ship  prevailing  among  the  Greeks,  which  is  so 
strongly  reprobated  by  Cicero2,  rapidly  gave  birth  to 
tales  which  at  first  probably  were  meant  only  to  illus- 
trate the  preconceived  notions  which  they  were  in  course 
of  time  employed  to  confirm.  And  so,  if  Plato  had 
ever  made  a  remark  in  the  same  sense  and  spirit  as 
Waller's  Epigram  to  a  lady  singing  one  of  his  own 
songs3,  this  might  very  easily  in  its  passage  through 
inferior  and  ungenial  minds  have  been  distorted  into 
the  bitter  reflection  we  have  noticed  above. 

Respecting  the  relation  between  Aristotle  and  an- 
other celebrated  contemporary  of  his,  there  can  be  no 
manner  of  doubt.  All  accounts  agree  with  the  infer- 
ence we  should  draw  from  what  we  find  on  the  subject 
in  his  works,  that  between  him  and  Isocrates  the 
rhetorician  there  subsisted  a  most  cordial  dislike,  ac- 

2  Sit  ista  in  Graecorum  levitate  perversitas,  qui  maledictis  msec- 
tantur  eos,  a  quibus  de  veritate  dissentiunt. 

De  Finibtts,  ii.  25. 

The  eagle's  fate  and  mine  are  one, 

Who  on  the  shaft  that  made  him  die 
Espied  a  feather  of  his  own, 

Wherewith  he  wont  to  soar  so  high. 


32  HIS    DISLIKE    OF    ISOCRATES. 

companied,  on  the  part  of  the  former  at  least,  with  as 
cordial  a  contempt.  Isocrates  was  in  fact  a  sophist 
of  hy  no  means  a  high  order.  He  did  not  possess  the 
cleverness  which  enabled  many  of  that  class  to  put 
forth  a  claim  to  universal  knowledge,  and  under  many 
circumstances  to  maintain  it  successfully.  He  professed 
to  teach  nothing  but  the  art  of  oratory,  and  the  subject- 
matter  of  this  he  derived  exclusively  from  the  field  of 
politics.  But  his  want  of  comprehensiveness  was  not  com- 
pensated by  any  superior  degree  of  accuracy  or  depth,  and 
Dionysius  of  Halicarnassus1  is  right  in  considering  this 
limitation  as  the  characteristic  which  distinguishes  him 
from  the  more  ambitious  pretenders  Gorgias  and  Protago- 
ras. Oratory,  according  to  his  view,  was  the  art  of  making 
what  was  important  appear  trivial,  and  what  was  trivial 
appear  important,— in  other  words,  of  proving  black  white 
and  white  black2.  He  taught  this  accomplishment  not 
on  any  principles  even  pretending  to  be  scientific,  but 
by  mere  practice  in  the  school3  like  fencing  or  boxing. 
Indignation  at  this  miserable  substitute  for  philosophical 
institution,  and  at  the  undeserved  reputation  which  its 
author  had  acquired,  found  vent  with  Aristotle  in  the 
application  of  a  sentiment4  which  Euripides  in  his  Phi- 
loctetes,  a  play  now  lost,  put  into  the  mouth  of  Ulysses. 
He  resolved  himself  to  take  up  the  subject,  and  his 
success  was  so  great  that  Cicero  appears  to  regard  the 
reputation  arising  from  it  as  one  of  the  principal  motives 
which  induced  Philip  to  intrust  him  with  the  education 

1  De  Isocr.  jud.  p.  536. 

2  Isocrat.  Panegyr.  §  8. 

3  ov  jueflo'Sw  a'xx'  d<rKij<rei.     Pseudo- Plutarch,  Fit.  Isocr.   Compare 
Cicero,  De  Invent,  ii.  2.     Brut.  12. 

4  alo-ypov  (Tito-Trm/,  (3ap/3dpovs  §'  eav  Xeyetv.      Aristotle  substituted 
the  word  'lo-oK^aVt;  for  /3ap(3apov<;. 


HIMSELF    TEACHES   RHETORIC.  33 

of  Alexander5.  The  expressions  too,  which  he  uses  in 
describing  Aristotle's  treatment  of  his  subject  apply 
rather  to  lectures  combined  with  rhetorical  practice  and 
historical  illustration  than  a  formal  treatise6.  And  this 
is  an  important  point,  inasmuch  as  it  proves  that  he 
assumed  the  functions  of  an  instructor  during  this  his 
first  residence  at  Athens.  However,  such  part  of  his 
subject  as  embraced  the  early  history  of  the  art,  and 
might  be  regarded  in  the  light  of  an  introduction  to 
the  rest,  would  very  likely  appear  by  itself;  and  this  is 
exactly  the  character  of  the  work  so  highly  praised  by 
Cicero  in  another  place,  but  unfortunately  lost,  to 
which  we  have  before  alluded  (p.  20).  It  was  purely 
historical  and  critical,  and  contained  none  of  his  own 
views.  These  were  systematically  developed  in  another 
work7,  perhaps  the  one  which  we  possess,  which  was 
certainly  not  written  at  this  early  period.  Apparently, 
in  the  lost  work  the  system  of  Isocrates  was  attacked 
and  severely  handled.  The  assailed  party  does  not 
seem  to  have  come  forward  to  defend  himself;  but  a 
scholar  of  his,  Cephisodorus,  in  a  polemical  treatise  of 
considerable  length,  did  not  confine  himself  to  the  de- 
fence of  his  master's  doctrines,  but  indulged  in  the 
most  virulent  attacks  upon  the  moral  as  well  as  intel- 
lectual character  of  his  rival8.  Upon  this  work  Dio- 

6  De  Orat.  iii.  35. 

6  Itaque  ornavit  et  illustravit  doctrinam  illam  omnem,  rerumque 

cognitionem  cum  orationis  exercitatione  conjunxit Hunc  Alex- 

androjilio  doctorem  accivit,  a  quo  eodem  ille  et  agendi  acciperet  pras- 
cepta  et  eloquendi.     Cicero,  loc.  cit. 

7  Cujus  \_Aristotelis~\  et  ilium  legi  librum,  in  quo  exposuit  dicendi 
artes  omnium  superiorum,  et  illos,  in  quibus  ipxe  sua  qucedam  de  eddem 
arte  dixit.     De  Orator,  ii.  38. 

8  Aristodes  ap.  Euseb.  loc.  cit.     Athenaeus,  p.  60. 

3 


34  HIS    POLEMICS    WITH   CEPHISODORUS. 

nysius  of  Halicarnassus,  perhaps  sympathizing  with  a 
brother  rhetorician,  passes  a  high  encomium1.  But  from 
the  little  which  we  know  of  it,  there  is  but  scanty  room 
for  believing  that  its  author  carried  conviction  to  the 
minds  of  many  readers  not  predisposed  to  agree  with 
him.  One  of  the  grounds  on  which  he  holds  his  adver- 
sary up  to  contempt  is  the  having  made  a  Collection 
of  Proverbs,  an  employment,  in  the  opinion  of  Cephi- 
sodorus,  utterly  unworthy  of  one  professing  to  be  a 
philosopher.  Such  as  have  not,  like  Cephisodorus,  an 
enemy  to  overthrow  by  fair  means  or  foul,  will  be 
inclined  to  smile  at  such  a  charge,  even  if  indeed  they 
do  not  view  it  in  something  like  the  contrary  light. 
"  Apophthegms,"  says  Bacon,  "  are  not  only  for  delight 
and  ornament,  but  for  real  businesses  and  civil  usages ; 
for  they  are,  as  he  said,  secures  aut  mucrones  verborum, 
which  by  their  sharp  edge  cut  and  penetrate  the  knots 
of  Matters  and  Business;  and  occasions  run  round  in 
a  ring,  and  what  was  once  profitable  may  again  be 
practised,  and  again  be  effectual,  whether  a  man  speak 
them  as  ancient  or  make  them  his  own."  Proverbs  are 
the  apophthegms  of  a  people,  and  from  this  point  of 
view  Aristotle  appears  to  have  formed  his  estimate  of 
their  importance.  He  is  said  to  have  regarded  them 
as  exhibiting  in  a  compressed  form  the  wisdom  of  the 
ages  in  which  they  severally  sprang  up ;  and  in  many 
instances  to  have  been  preserved  by  their  compactness 
and  pregnancy  through  vicissitudes  that  had  swept 
away  all  other  traces  of  the  people  which  originated 
them2. 

1  De  Isocratejudicium,  sec.  18.  He  calls  it  TTO.VV  dav/jiaa-T^v.  But 
Dionysius  utterly  fails  where  he  attempts  literary  criticism.  Witness 
the  absurd  principles  on  which  he  proceeds  in  his  comparison  of 
Herodotus  and  Thucydides. 

a  Synesius,  Encom.  Calvitii,  p.  59,  ed.  Turneb. 


CHAPTER   III. 

ARISTOTLE    IN    ASIA, 


WE  now  pass  to  another  stage  in  the  life  of 
Aristotle.  After  a  twenty  years'  stay  at  Athens,  he, 
accompanied  hy  the  Platonic  philosopher  Xenocrates, 
passed  over  into  Asia  Minor,  and  took  up  his  residence 
at  Atarneus  or  Assos  (for  the  accounts  vary),  in  Mysia, 
at  the  court  of  Hermias3.  Of  the  motives  which  im- 
pelled him  to  this  step  we  have,  as  is  natural,  very 
conflicting  accounts.  His  enemies  imputed  it  to  a 
feeling  of  jealousy,  arising  from  Speusippus  having 
been  appointed  by  Plato,  who  had  died  just  before,  as 
his  successor  in  the  school  of  the  Academy4.  Others 
attributed  it  to  a  yet  more  vulgar  motive,  a  taste 
for  the  coarse  sensualities  and  ostentatious  luxury  of 
an  oriental  court5.  But  the  first  of  these  reasons  will 


3  Strabo,   xiii.  p.  126,  ed.  Tauchnitz.     Diodorus  Siculus,   xvi. 
53. 

4  jElian,  Var.   Hist.  iii.  19.      Eubulides    (ap.  Aristocl.   Euseb. 
Prcep.  Ev.  xv.  <2.)  alleged  that  Aristotle  refused  to  be  present  at 
Plato's  death-bed. 

5  To  this  the  Epigram  of  Theocritus  of  Chios  (ap.  Aristocl.  loc. 
cit.)  perhaps  alludes :  i 

Hh'i ' 

'HLppiov  cvvov^ov   -re   KCU  'Eu/?ouAou   To'Se   SouAoi»         ^\*' 

Mi/tj/ia   Kevov  Kevofyptav    drjitev  'ApurTOTeXw 
O?   Sta  Tf/i/  aKpctTtj  yaa-Tpos   (f>va-iv  e'i\€TO   vaieiv 
AI/T'  *AKCt$«7/A6ta$  fiopfiopov  ei>  Tr^o^oaiV. 

although  Plutarch  applies  it  to  his  residence  in  Macedonia.     The 
cenotaph  spoken  of  in  the  second  line  is  probably  the  foundation  for 

3—2 


36  REASONS    FOR    GOING    THERE. 

seem  to  deserve  but  little  credit,  when  we  consider 
that  the  position  which  Plato  had  held  was  not  recog- 
nised in  any  public  manner ;  that  there  was  neither 
endowment  nor  dignity  attached  to  it ;  that  all  honour 
or  profit  that  could  possibly  arise  from  it  was  due  solely 
to  the  personal  merits  of  the  philosopher;  that  in  all 
probability  Aristotle  himself  had  occupied  a  similar 
position  before  the  death  of  Plato ;  and,  that  if  he  felt 
himself  injured  by  the  selection  of  Speusippus  (Plato's 
nephew),  he  had  every  opportunity  of  showing,  by  the 
best  of  all  tests,  competition,  how  erroneous  a  judgment 
had  been  formed  of  their  respective  merits.  And  with 
regard  to  the  second  view,  it  will  be  sufficient  to  remark, 
that  for  the  twenty  years  preceding  this  epoch,  as  well 
as  afterwards,  he  possessed  the  option  of  living  at  the 
court  of  Macedonia,  where  he  probably  had  connexions, 
and  where  there  was  equal  scope  for  indulging  the 
tastes  in  question.  We  shall,  therefore,  feel  no  scruple 
in  referring  this  journey  to  other  and  more  adequate 
causes.  The  reader  of  Grecian  history  will  not  fail 
to  recollect  that  the  suspicions  which  the  Athenians 
had  for  some  time  entertained  of  the  ambitious  designs 
of  Philip  received  a  sudden  confirmation  just  at  this 
moment  by  the  successes  of  that  monarch  in  the  Chal- 
cidian  peninsula.  The  fall  of  Olynthus  and  the  de- 
struction of  the  Greek  confederacy,  of  which  that  town 
was  at  the  head1,  produced  at  Athens  a  feeling  of  in- 
dignation mixed  with  fear,  of  which  Demosthenes  did 
not  fail  to  take  advantage  to  kindle  a  strong  hatred  of 

the  "  altar"  to  Plato,  of  which  the  latter  writers  speak.  See  above, 
p.  7.  Theocritus  of  Chios  was  a  contemporary  of  Aristotle.  The 
Syracusah  poet  of  the  same  name,  in  an  Epigram  ascribed  to  him, 
protests  against  being  identified  with  him. 

1  Above,  p.  13. 


STATE    OF    POLITICS.  37 

any  thing  belonging  to  Macedon.  The  modern  ex- 
ample of  France  will  enable  us  readily  to  understand 
how  dangerous  must  have  been  the  position  of  a 
foreigner,  by  birth,  connexions,  or  feelings  in  the 
slightest  degree  mixed  up  with  the  unpopular  party, 
especially  when  resident  in  a  democratic  State,  in 
which  the  statute  laws  were  every  day  subject  to  be 
violated  by  the  extemporaneous  resolutions  (^Yi^ia^ara) 
of  a  popular  assembly.  Philip  indeed  was  accustomed 
— or  at  any  rate  by  his  enemies  believed — to  make  use 
of  such  aliens,  as  from  any  cause  were  allowed  free 
ingress  to  the  States  with  which  he  was  not  on  good 
terms,  as  his  emissaries2.  It  is  scarcely  possible  under 
these  circumstances  to  conceive  that  the  jealousy  of 
party  hatred  should  fail  to  view  the  distinguished 
philosopher,  the  friend  of  Antipater,  and  the  son  of  a 
Macedonian  court-physician,  with  dislike  and  distrust, 
especially  if,  as  from  Cicero's  description  appears  highly 
probable,  political  affairs  entered  considerably  into  the 
course  of  his  public  instructions. 

Here,  then,  we  have  a  reason,  quite  independent  of 
any  peculiar  motive,  for  Aristotle's  quitting  Athens  at 
this  especial  time.  And  others,  scarcely  less  weighty, 
existed  to  take  him  to  the  court  of  Hermias.  Some 
little  time  before,  the  gigantic  body  of  the  Persian 
empire  had  exhibited  symptoms  of  breaking  up.  Egypt 
had  for  a  considerable  period  maintained  itself  in  a 
state  of  independence,  and  the  success  of  the  experi- 
ment had  produced  the  revolt  of  Phoenicia.  The  cities 
of  Asia  Minor,  whose  intercourse  with  Greece  Proper 
was  constant,  naturally  felt  an  even  greater  desire  to 
throw  off  the  yoke,  and  about  the  year  349  before 

•  The  case  of  Anaxirious  (see  vEschines  c.  Ctes.  p.  85.  Demosth. 
De  Cor.  p.  272.)  may  serve  as  one  instance  among  many. 


38  REVOLT    OF    PERSIAN    DEPENDANCIES. 

the  Christian  era,  most  of  them  were  in  a  state  of 
open  rebellion.  Confederacies  of  greater  or  less  extent 
were  formed  among  them  for  the  purpose  of  maintaining 
the  common  independence ;  and  over  one  of  these,  which 
included  Atarneus  and  Assos,  one  Eubulus,  a  native  of 
Bithynia,  exercised  a  sway  which  Suidas  represents  as 
that  of  an  absolute  prince1.  This  remarkable  man,  of 
whom  it  is  much  to  be  regretted  that  we  know  so  little, 
is  described  as  having  carried  on  the  trade  of  a  banker2 
in  one  of  these  towns.  If  this  be  true,  the  train  of 
circumstances  which  led  him  to  the  pitch  of  power 
which  he  seems  to  have  reached  was  probably  such  a 
one  as,  in  more  modern  times  made  the  son  of  a 
brewer  of  Ghent  Regent  of  Flanders,  or  the  Medici 
Dukes  of  Tuscany.  A  struggle  for  national  existence 
calls  forth  the  confidence  of  the  governed  in  those  who 
possess  the  genius  which  alone  can  preserve  them,  as 
unboundedly  as  it  stimulates  that  genius  itself;  and 
there  appears  no  reason  why  the  name  of  tyrant  or 
dynast  should  have  been  bestowed  upon  Eubulus  more 
than  upon  Philip  van  Artevelde  or  William  of  Orange. 
He  was  assisted  in  the  duties  of  his  government,  and 
afterwards  succeeded  by  Hermias,  who  is  termed  by 
Strabo  his  slave, — an  expression  which  a  Greek  would 
apply  no  less  to  the  Vizier  than  to  the  lowest  menial 
servant  of  an  Asiatic  potentate.  He  is  also  described 
as  an  eunuch,  but,  whether  this  was  the  case  or  not, 
he  was  a  man  of  education  and  philosophy,  and  had 
during  a  residence  at  Athens  attended  the  instructions 
of  both  Plato  and  Aristotle3.  By  the  invitation  of  this 


'ITOV.     Strabo,  xiii.  vol.  iii.  p.  126. 
3  Strabo,  loc.  cit. 


SUPPRESSION    OF    THE    REVOLT.  39 

individual,  the  latter,  accompanied  by  Xenocrates,  passed 
over  at  this  particular  juncture  into  Mysia ;  and  it  will 
surely  not  seem  an  improbable  conjecture  that  the 
especial  object  for  which  their  presence  was  desired  was 
to  frame  a  political  constitution,  in  order  that  the  little 
confederacy,  of  which  Hermias  may  perhaps  be  regarded 
as  the  general  and  stadtholder,  might  be  kept  together 
and  enabled  to  maintain  its  independence  in  spite  of 
the  formidable  power  of  the  Persian  empire.  Ably  as 
such  a  task  would  doubtless  have  been  executed  by  so 
wise  a  statesman,  as  even  the  fragmentary  political 
work  that  has  come  down  to  us  proves  Aristotle  to  have 
been,  it  was  not  blessed  with  success.  Fortune  for  a 
time  favoured  the  cause  of  freedom,  but  the  barbarian's 
hour  was  not  yet  come.  The  treachery  of  a  Rhodian 
leader  of  condottieri  in  the  service  of  the  revolted 
Egyptians  enabled  the  Persian  king,  Artaxerxes  Ochus, 
rapidly  to  overrun  Phoenicia  and  Egypt,  and  to  devote 
the  whole  force  of  his  empire  to  the  reduction  of  Asia 
Minor.  Yet  Hermias  made  his  ground  good,  until 
at  last  he  suffered  himself  to  be  entrapped  into  a  per- 
sonal conference  with  the  Greek  general  Mentor,  the 
traitor  whose  perfidy  had  ruined  the  Egyptian  cause, 
and  who  now  commanded  the  Persian  army  that  was 
sent  against  Atarneus.  In  spite  of  the  assurance  of  a 
solemn  oath,  his  person  was  seized  and  sent  to  the 
court  of  the  Persian  king,  who  ordered  him  to  be 
strangled ; — the  fortresses  which  commanded  the  coun- 
try surrendered  at  the  sight  of  his  signet ; — and  Atar- 
neus and  Assos  were  occupied  by  Persian  troops'. 

The   two    philosophers,  surprised   by   these   sudden 
misfortunes,  were  however  fortunate  enough  to  succeed 

4  Strabo.  loc.  cit.     Diodorus,  xvi.  sec.  52,  53,  54. 


40  MARRIAGE    OF    ARISTOTLE. 

in  escaping  to  Mytilene,  whither  they  carried  with  them 
a  female  named  Pythias,  who  according  to  the  most 
probable  accounts  was  the  sister  and  adopted  daughter 
of  Hermias l.  It  is  singular  that  Aristotle's  intercourse 
with  the  Prince  of  Atarneus,  and  more  especially  that 
part  which  related  to  his  connection  with  this  woman, 
whom  he  married,  should  have  brought  more  calumny 
^non  him  than  any  other  event  of  his  life ;  and  the 
angest  thing  of  all,  according  to  our  modern  habits 
ol  thinking,  is  that  he  himself  should  have  thought 
it  necessary,  for  the  satisfaction  of  his  own  friends,  to 
give  a  particular  explanation  of  his  motives  to  the  mar- 
riage. In  a  letter  to  Antipater,  which  is  cited  by  Aris- 
tocles2,  he  relates  the  circumstances  which  induced  him 
to  take  this  step;  and  they  are  calculated  to  give  us 
as  high  an  opinion  of  the  goodness  of  his  heart  as  his 
works  do  of  the  power  of  his  intellect.  The  calamity 
which  had  befallen  Hermias  would  necessarily  have 
entailed  utter  misery,  and  in  all  probability  death,  upon 
his  adopted  daughter,  had  she  been  left  behind.  In 
this  conjuncture,  respect  for  the  memory  of  his  murdered 
friend,  and  compassion  for  the  defenceless  situation  of 
the  girl,  induced  him,  knowing  her  besides,  as  he  says, 
to  be  modest  and  amiable3,  to  take  her  as  his  wife.  It 
is  a  striking  proof  of  the  utter  want  of  sentiment  in  the 
intercourse  between  the  sexes  in  Greece,  that  this  noble 
and  generous  conduct,  as  every  European  will  at  once 
confess  it  to  have  been,  should  have  drawn  down  ob- 
loquy upon  the  head  of  its  actor ;  while,  if  he  had  left 
the  helpless  creature  to  be  carried  off  to  a  Persian  ha- 
rem, or  sacrificed  to  the  lust  of  a  brutal  soldiery,  not 

1  Aristocles,  #p.  Euseb.  /be.  cit. 
-  Ap.  Euseb.  loc.  cit. 


CALUMNIES   AGAINST    HIM.  41 

a  human  being  would  have  breathed  the  slightest  word 
of  censure  upon  the  atrocity.  Even  his  apologists  ap- 
pear to  have  considered  this  as  one  of  the  most  vul- 
nerable points  of  his  character.  When  Aristocles4  dis- 
cusses the  charges  which  had  been  made  against  him, 
he  dismisses  most  of  them  with  contempt  as  carrying 
the  marks  of  falsehood  in  their  very  front.  "  Two,  how- 
ever," he  adds,  "do  appear  to  have  obtained  credit, 
the  one  that  he  treated  Plato  with  ingratitude,  the 
other  that  he  married  the  daughter  of  Hermias."  And 
indeed  the  relation  of  Aristotle  to  the  father  furnished 
a  subject  for  many  publications5  in  the  second  and  third 
centuries  before  Christ,  and  appears  to  have  excited  as 
much  interest  among  literary  antiquarians  of  that  day, 
as  the  question  of  the  Iron  Mask  or  of  who  wrote  the 
Letters  of  Junius,  might  do  in  modern  times.  The 
treatise  of  Apellicon  of  Teos,  a  wealthy  antiquary  and 
bibliomaniac  contemporary  with  Sylla,  was  regarded  as 
the  classical  work  among  them.  We  shall  have  occasion, 
in  the  sequel,  to  say  something  more  about  this  per- 
sonage. Aristocles6  speaks  of  his  book  as  sufficient 
to  set  the  whole  question  at  rest,  and  silence  all  the 
calumniators  of  the  philosopher  for  ever.  Indeed,  if 
we  may  judge  of  the  whole  of  their  charges  from  the 
few  specimens  that  have  come  down  to  us,  a  further 
refutation  than  their  own  extravagance  was  hardly 
needful.  The  hand  of  Pythias  is  there  represented 
as  purchased  by  a  fulsome  adulation  of  her  adopted 
father7,  and  a  subserviency  to  the  most  loathsome 

4  Ap.  Euseb.  loc.  cit. 

5  Aristocles,  loc.  cit. 

6  Ap.  Euseb.  loc.  cit. 

7  She  is  in  some  accounts  represented,  not  as  his  sister,  but  his 
concubine.     Others,  not  considering  him  an  eunuch,  call  her  his 


42  SCOLIUM   TO   HERMIAS. 

vices  which  human  nature  in  its  lowest  state  of  de- 
pravity can  engender;  and  the  husband  is  said,  in 
exultation  at  his  good  fortune,  to  have  paid  to  his 
father-in-law  a  service  appropriated  to  the  gods  alone, 
singing  his  praises,  like  those  of  Apollo,  in  a  sacred 
paean.  Fortunately  this  composition  has  come  down 
to  us,  and  turns  out  to  be  a  common  scolium,  or  drink- 
ing song,  similar  in  its  nature  to  the  celebrated  one, 
so  popular  at  Athenian  banquets,  which  records  the 
achievement  of  Harmodius  and  Aristogiton.  It  pos- 
sesses no  very  high  degree  of  poetical  merit,  but  as  an 
expression  of  good  feeling,  and  as  a  literary  curiosity, 
being  the  only  remaining  specimen  of  its  author's  powers 
in  this  branch,  it  perhaps  deserves  a  place  in  the  note  *. 

daughter.  One,  probably  to  reconcile  all  accounts,  calls  her  his 
daughter,  j?i/  KO.\  0Aa3<cc<?  a»Y  ea-ireipev.  (Pseudo-Ammon). 

*  'ApcTa  TroAujiAoyfle  jevei  j3poTei(o 
Bijpa/jia  KCtAAt<rTOi/  (3iia  ! 
o-as  Trept,  7rap0ei/£,  /JLoptyds 
KCU  Qaveiv  ^Awros  ev  EAXaot  TTOT/JIO?, 
KCU  TTOI/OVS  T\rjvai  /uaAepoJ?  ctKa/jaTOi/9. 
Toiov  eir\  <f)pev  epwra  /2aAAet? 
napirov  (frepeis  T'  ddavaTov 


TC  Kpeffcru)  Kai  yovetav 

To  6  UTTI/OU. 
<rev  B'  ei/e'  OVK  Ato? 


€  Kovpo 
epyots  <rdv  dypevovres 
<ro??  re  Trodois  ' 
"Ata?  T'  cu'Bao  BOJUO 
crcz?  T  evenev  (f>i\iov 
KO\  'Arapi/e 
aeAiou  ^rjpwtrev  at-ya?. 
Toiydp  a'oi'BtjUO?  epyots* 
dOdvaTov  TC  fjnv  av 


re  yepas  fiefiaiov. 


CHARGE    OF    BLASPHEMY.  43 

The  perfection  of  the  manly  character  is  personified  as 
a  virgin,  for  whose  charms  it  is  an  enviable  lot  even  to 
die,  or  to  endure  the  severest  hardships.  The  enthu- 
siasm with  which  she  inspires  the  hearts  of  her  lovers 
is  more  precious  than  gold,  than  parents,  than  the  lux- 
ury of  soft-eyed  sleep !  For  her  it  was  that  Hercules 
and  the  sons  of  Leda  toiled,  and  Achilles  and  Ajax 
died!  her  fair  form,  too,  made  Hermias,  the  nursling 
of  Atarneus,  renounce  the  cheerful  light  of  the  sun. 
Hence  his  deeds  shall  become  the  subjects  of  song, 
and  the  Muses,  daughters  of  memory,  shall  wed  him 
to  immortality  when  they  magnify  the  name  of  Jupiter 
Xenius  (i.e.  Jupiter  as  the  protector  of  the  laws  of 
hospitality),  and  bestow  its  meed  on  firm  and  faith- 
ful friendship  I  By  comparing  this  relic  with  the  sco- 
lium  to  Harmodius  and  Aristogiton,  which  Athenaeus 
has  preserved  on  the  page  preceding  the  one  from  which 
this  is  taken,  the  reader  will  at  once  see  that  Hermias 
is  mentioned  together  with  Achilles  and  Ajax,  and  the 
other  heroes  of  mythology,  only  in  the  same  manner  as 
Harmodius  is ;  yet  not  only  did  this  performance  hring 
down  on  its  author's  head  the  calumnies  we  have  men- 
tioned, but  many  years  after  it  was  even  made  the  basis 
of  a  prosecution  of  him  for  blasphemy  :  such  straws  will 
envy  and  malice  grasp  at ! 

The  respect  of  the  philosopher  for  his  departed  friend 
was  yet  further  attested  by  the  erection  of  a  statue,  or, 
as  some  say,  a  cenotaph,  to  him  at  Delphi,  with  an  in- 
scription, in  which  his  death  was  recorded  as  wrought 
in  outrage  of  the  sacred  laws  of  the  gods,  by  the  mo- 

This  Scolium  is  preserved  in  Diogenes  Laert.  Vit.  Arist.  sec.  7  ; 
Athenaeus,  p.  696;  and  Stobaeus,  Serm.  i.  p.  2.  From  the  first, 
sec.  27,  we  learn  that  Aristotle  also  composed  some  epic  and  some 
elegiac  poetry. 


44  ARISTOTLE    IN   MACEDONIA. 

narch  of  the  bow-bearing  Persians,  not  fairly  by  the 
spear  in  the  bloody  battle-field,  but  through  the  false 
pledge  of  a  crafty  villain !  /  And  "  the  nearer  view 
of  wedded  life  "  does  not  seem  in  any  respect  to  have 
diminished  the  good  opinion  he  had  originally  formed 
of  his  friend's  daughter.  She  died, — how  soon  after 
their  marriage  we  cannot  say,  —  leaving  one  orphan 
daughter ;  and  not  only  was  her  memory  honoured  hy 
the  widower  with  a  respect  which  exposed  him,  as  in 
the  former  instance  of  her  father,  to  the  charge  of 
idolatry2,  but,  in  his  will,  made  some  time  afterwards, 
he  provides  that  her  hones  should  be  taken  up  and 
laid  by  the  side  of  his,  wherever  he  might  be  buried, 
as,  says  he,  she  herself  enjoined3. 

At  this  epoch  of  Aristotle's  life,  when  the  clouds  of 
adversity  appeared  to  be  at  the  thickest,  his  brightest 
fortunes  were  about  to  appear.  He  had  fled  to  Myti- 
lene  an  exile,  deprived  of  his  powerful  friend,  and  ap- 
parently cut  off  from  all  present  opportunity  of  bringing 
his  gigantic  powers  of  mind  into  play.  But  in  Myti- 
lene  he  received  an  invitation  from  Philip  to  undertake 
the  training  of  one  who,  in  the  World  of  Action,  was 
destined  to  achieve  an  empire,  which  only  that  of  his 
master  in  the  World  of  Thought  has  ever  surpassed. 
A  conjunction  of  two  such  spirits  has  not  been  yet 
twice  recorded  in  the  annals  of  mankind ;  and  it  is 
impossible  to  conceive  any  thing  more  interesting  and 
fruitful  than  a  good  contemporary  account  of  the  in- 
tercourse between  them  would  have  been.  But,  although 
such  a  one  did  exist,  as  we  shall  see  below,  we  are  not 

1  Diog.  Fit.  sec.  6. 

2  Ibid.  sec.  4. 

;  7A/W.  sec.  16. 


PREVIOUSLY    KNOWN    TO    PHILIP.  45 

fortunate  enough  to  possess  it.  The  destroying  hand 
of  time  has  been  most  active  exactly  where  we  should 
most  desire  information  as  to  details,  and  almost  all  the 
description  we  can  give  of  this  period  is  founded  upon 
the  scanty  notices  on  the  subject  furnished  by  Plutarch 
in  his  biography  of  the  Great  Conqueror. 

How  much  the  mere  personal  character  of  Aristotle 
contributed  to  procuring  him  the  invitation  from  Philip, 
it  is  difficult  to  say.  Cicero  represents  the  King  as 
mainly  determined  to  the  step  by  the  reputation  of  the 
philosopher's  rhetorical  lectures4.  But  a  letter  preserved 
by  Aulus  Gellius5,  which  is  well  known,  but  can 
scarcely  be  genuine,  would  induce  us  to  believe  that, 
from  the  very  birth  of  Alexander,  he  was  destined  by 
his  father  to  grow  up  under  the  superintendence  of  his 
latest  instructor.  It  is,  indeed,  not  unlikely  that,  at 
this  early  period,  Aristotle  was  well  known  to  Philip. 
We  have  seen  that,  not  improbably,  his  earliest  years 
were  passed  at  the  court,  where  his  father  possessed  the 
highest  confidence  of  the  father  of  Philip.  Moreover, 
he  is  said,  although  neither  the  time  nor  the  occasion 
is  specified,  to  have  rendered  services  to  the  Athenians 
as  ambassador  to  the  court  of  Macedon6.  But  if  Gel- 
lius's  letter  be  genuine,  how  are  we  able  to  account  for 
the  absence  of  the  philosopher  from  his  charge  during  the 
thirteen  years  which  elapsed  between  its  professed  date 
and  the  second  year  of  the  109th  Olympiad,  in  which 
we  know  for  certain  that  he  first  entered  upon  his  im- 
portant task?  For  that  it  was  not  because  he  consi- 
dered the  influences  exerted  upon  this  tender  age 

4  De  Oratore,  iii.  55. 

5  ix.  3. 

6  Diog.  Vit.  sec.  2. 


46  ALEXANDER'S  EARLY  PRECEPTORS 

unimportant,  is  clear  from  the  great  stress  he  lays  upon 
their  effect  in  the  eighth  book  of  his  Politics,  which 
is  entirely  devoted  to  the  details  of  this  subject1.  And 
although  Alexander  was  only  thirteen  years  old  when 
his  connection  with  Aristotle  commenced,  yet  the  seeds 
of  many  vices  had  even  at  that  early  period  been  sown 
by  the  unskilful  hands  of  former  instructors;  and  per- 
haps the  best  means  of  estimating  the  value  of  Aris- 
totle's services,  is  to  compare  what  his  pupil  really 
became  with  what  he  would  naturally  have  been  had 
he  been  left  under  the  care  of  these.  Two  are  par- 
ticularly noticed  by  Plutarch2,  of  totally  opposite  dis- 
positions, and  singularly  calculated  to  produce,  by  their 
combined  action,  that  oscillation  between  asceticism  and 
luxury  which,  in  the  latter  part  of  his  life  especially, 
was  so  striking  a  feature  in  Alexander's  character.  The 
first  was  Leonidas,  a  relation  of  his  mother  Olympias, 
a  rough  and  austere  soldier,  who  appears  to  have  di- 
rected all  his  efforts  to  the  production  of  a  Spartan  en- 
durance of  hardship  and  contempt  of  danger.  He  was 
accustomed  to  ransack  his  pupil's  trunks  for  the  pur- 
pose of  discovering  any  luxurious  dress  or  other  means 
of  indulgence  which  might  have  been  sent  to  him  by  his 
mother :  and,  at  the  outset  of  Alexander's  Asiatic  expe- 
dition, on  the  occasion  of  an  entertainment  by  his  adopted 
mother,  a  Carian  princess,  he  told  her  that  Leonidas's 
early  discipline  had  made  all  culinary  refinements  a 
matter  of  indifference  to  him  ;  that  the  only  cook  he  had 
ever  been  allowed  to  season  his  breakfast  was  a  good 
night's  journey ;  and  the  only  one  to  improve  his  supper, 

1  See  especially  p.  1334,  col.  2,  line  25,  et  seq. ;  p.  1338,  col.  1, 
line  5,  et  seq.  ed.  Bekker. 

2  Fit.  Alex.  sec.  5. 


LEONIDAS — LYSIMACHUS.  47 

a  scanty  breakfast3.  An  education  of  which  these  traits 
are  characteristic  might  very  well  produce  the  personal 
hardiness  and  animal  courage  for  which  Alexander  was 
distinguished; — it  might  enable  him  to  tame  a  Buce- 
phalus, to  surpass  all  his  contemporaries  in  swiftness 
of  foot,  to  leap  down  alone  amidst  a  crowd  of  enemies 
from  the  ramparts  of  a  besieged  town,  to  kill  a  lion  in 
single  combat4 ; — it  might  even  inspire  the  passion  for 
military  glory  which  vented  itself  in  tears  when  there 
was  nothing  left  to  conquer5; — but  it  would  be  almost 
as  favourable  to  the  growth  of  the  coarser  vices  as  to  the 
developement  of  these  ruder  virtues,  and  we  learn  that, 
to  the  day  of  his  death,  the  ruffianly  and  intemperate 
dispositions  which  belong  to  barbarian  blood,  and  which 
the  influences  of  Leonidas  had  tended  rather  to  increase 
than  diminish,  were  never  entirely  subdued  by  Alex- 
ander6. 

The  character  of  Lysimachus,  the  other  instructor 
especially  noticed  by  Plutarch,  was  very  different,  but 
hardly  likely  to  have  produced  a  much  more  beneficial 
effect.  He  was  by  birth  an  Acarnanian,  and  an  expert 
flatterer,  by  which  means  he  is  said  to  have  gained 
great  favour.  His  favourite  thought  appears  to  have 
been  to  compare  Alexander  to  Achilles,  Philip  to  Pe- 

3  Plutarch,  Vit.  sec.  22. 

4  Ibid.  6—40,  &c. 

5  Unus  Pellceo  juueni  non  sufficit  orbis. — Juv.  Sat.  x.  168. 

6  Leonidas  Alexandri  pcedagogus,  ut  a  Babylonia  Diogene  traditur, 
quibusdam  cum  vitiis  imbuit,  quce  robustum  quoque  et  jam  maximum 
regem  ab  ilia  institutione  puerili  sunt  prosecuta.     Quintilian,  Inst. 
Or.  i.  1.  8.     Is  it  not  probable  that  Aristotle,  in  the  seventh  book 
of  his  Politics,  (p.  1324,  col.  1,  line  23,  et  seq.,  and  p.  1333,  col.  2, 
line  10,  et  seq.)  has  a  particular  reference  to  the  views  of  Leonidas? 
See  also  above,  p.  4-6.  note  1 . 


48  LITTLE    GAIN    FROM    THEM. 

leus,  and  himself  to  Phoenix,  as  the  characters  were 
described  in  the  epic  poetry  of  Greece,  and  this  insipid 
stuff  it  was  his  delight  to  act  out  in  the  ordinary  busi- 
ness of  life.  At  a  later  period,  this  passion  for  scene- 
making  nearly  cost  poor  Phcenix  and  his  master  their 
lives ' ;  and  to  it  is  probably  due,  in  a  great  measure, 
the  cormorant  appetite  for  adulation  which  is  the  most 
disgusting  feature  in  the  history  of  the  latter. 

To  neither  then  of  these  two  individuals, — and  if 
not  to  these,  of  course  much  less  to  the  crowd  of  mas- 
ters in  reading,  writing,  horsemanship,  harp-playing, 
and  the  other  accomplishments  included  by  ancient 
education  in  its  two  branches  of  HOUVIKJ  and  yvfjivofrriKri, — 
can  we  ascribe  a  share  in  the  production  of  that  cha- 
racter which  distinguishes  Alexander  from  any  successful 
military  leader.  But  to  Aristotle  some  of  the  ancients 
attribute  a  degree  and  kind  of  merit  in  this  respect 
which  is  perfectly  absurd.  Plutarch  says  that  his  pupil 
received  from  him  more  towards  the  accomplishment  of 
his  schemes  than  from  Philip2.  Alexander  himself  was 
accustomed  to  say,  that  he  honoured  Aristotle  no  less 
than  his  own  father,  that  to  the  one  he  owed  life,  but 
to  the  other  all  that  made  life  valuable3; — and  it  is 
very  likely  that  the  misinterpretation  of  such  phrases 
as  these  led  to  the  belief  that  the  Conqueror  had  re- 
ceived from  his  instructor  direct  advice  for  the  accom- 

1  Plutarch,   Fit.  sec.  24. 

2  Plutarch,    De   Fortun.   Alexandri.    p.   327-      See    Ste.    Croix, 
Examen  critique  des  historiens  d'  Alexandre-le-grand,  p.  84.     Such 
expressions  as  these  led  later  writers  to  yet  more  extravagant  ones, 
such   as    Roger    Bacon's,    per    vias    sapientice    mundum   Alexandra 
tradidit  Aristoteles  ;  and  probably  to  the  same  source  is  to  be  traced 
the   romance   of  the   philosopher   having   personally   attended   his 
pupil  in  his  expedition. 

3  Plutarch,   Vit.  Alex.  sec.  8. 


EFFECTS    PRODUCED    BY    ARISTOTLE.  49 

plishment  of  the  great  exploit  which  has  made  him 
known  to  posterity.ViBut  the  obligations  to  which  he 
really  alluded  were  probably  of  a  totally  different 
kind.  Philip  is  said  to  have  perceived  at  a  very  early 
age  that  his  son's  disposition  was  a  most  peculiar  one, 
sensible  in  the  highest  degree  of  kindness,  and  tract- 
able by  gentle  measures,  but  absolutely  ungovernable 
by  force,  and  consequently  requiring,  instead  of  the 
austerity  of  a  Leonidas,  or  the  flattery-  of  a  Lysi- 
machus,  the  influence  of  one  who  could  by  his  cha- 
racter and  abilities  command  respect,  and  by  his  tact 
and  judgment  preserve  it.  Such  qualifications  he  found 
in  Aristotle,  and  the  good  effects  seem  to  have  speedily 
shown  themselves.  From  a  rude  and  intemperate  bar- 
barian's his  nature  expanded  and  exhibited  itself  in  an 
attachment  to  philosophy,  a  desire  of  mental  eultiva-  / 
tion,  and  a  fondness  for  study.  Kl§o  completely  did  he 
acquire  higher  and  more  civilized  tastes,  that  while 
at  the  extremity  of  Asia,  in  a  letter  to  Harpalus  he 
desires  that  the  works  of  Philistus  the  historian,  the 
tragedies  of  ^Eschylus,  Sophocles,  and  Euripides,  and 
the  dithyrambs  of  Telestes  and  Philoxenus,  should  be 
sent  to  him.  Homer  was  his  constant  travelling  com-  \ 
panion.  A  copy,  corrected  by  Aristotle,  was  deposited 
by  the  side  of  his  dagger,  under  the  pillow  of  the  couch 
on  which  he  slept4 ;  and  on  the  occasion  of  a  magnifi- 
cent casket  being  found  among  the  spoils  of  Darius's 
eamp,  when  a  discussion  arose  as  to  how  it  should  be 
employed,  the  King  declared  that  it  should  be  appro- 
priated to  the  use  of  containing  this  copy5.  But  his 
education  had  not  been  confined  to  the  lighter  species 

4  Plutarch,   Vit.  sec.  7,  8. 

3  Plutarch,   Vit.  sec.  26.     Strabo,  xiii.     Plin.  Nat.  Hist.  v.  SO. 

4 


50  HIS   RAPID    EDUCATION. 

of  literature ;  on  the  contrary,  he  appears  to  have  been 
introduced  to  the  gravest  and  most  abstruse  parts  of 
philosophy,  to  which  the  term  of  acroamatic  was  specifi- 
cally applied.  We  shall  in  the  sequel  examine  more 
fully  what  exact  notion  is  to  be  attached  to  this  term: 
in  the  mean  time,  it  will  be  sufficient  to  observe  that  it 
included  the  highest  branches  of  the  science  of  that  day. 
In  a  letter,  then,  preserved  by  Plutarch  and  Aulus 
Gellius1,  Alexander  complains  that  his  preceptor  had 
published  those  of  his  works  to  which  this  phrase  was 
applied.  "How,"  he  asks,  "now  that  this  is  the  case, 
will  he  be  able  to  maintain  his  superiority  to  others  in 
mental  accomplishments,  a  superiority  which  he  valued 
more  than  the  distinction  he  had  won  by  his  conquests?" 
Gellius  likewise  gives  us  Aristotle's  answer,  in  which  he 
excuses  himself  by  saying,  "  that  although  the  works  in 
question  were  published,  they  would  be  useless  to  all 
who  had  not  previously  enjoyed  the  benefit  of  his  oral 
instructions."  Whatever  may  be  our  opinion  as  to  the 
genuineness  of  these  letters,  which  Gellius  says  he  took 
from  the  book  of  the  philosopher  Andronicus,  (a  contem- 
porary of  Cicero's,  to  whom  we  shall  in  the  sequel 
again  revert,)  it  is  quite  clear  that  if  they  are  forgeries, 
they  were  forged  in  accordance  with  a  general  belief  of 
the  time,  that  there  was  no  department  of  knowledge 
however  recondite  to  which  Aristotle  had  not  taken 
pains  to  introduce  his  pupil. 

But  the  most  extraordinary  feature  in  the  education 
of  Alexander  is  the  short  space  of  time  which  it  occupied. 
From  the  time  of  Aristotle's  arrival  in  Macedonia  to 
the  expedition  of  his  pupil  into  Asia  there  elapsed  eight 
years,  (i.  e.  from  Olymp.  cix.  2.  to  Olymp.  cxi.  2.)  But 

1  Plutarch,  Fit.  Alex.  sec.  7-     Gellius,  Noc.  Ait.  xx.  5. 


BOOKS    WRITTEN    FOR    HIM.  51 

of  this  only  a  part,  less  than  the  half,  can  have  been  de- 
voted to  the  purpose  of  systematic  instruction.  For  in 
the  fourth  year  of  this  period2,  we  find  Philip  during  an 
expedition  to  Byzantium  leaving  his  son  sole  and  abso- 
lute regent  of  the  kingdom.  Some  barbarian  subjects 
having  revolted,  Alexander  undertook  an  expedition  in 
person  against  them,  and  took  their  city,  which  he  called 
after  his  own  name,  Alexandropolis.  From  this  time 
he  was  continually  engaged  in  business,  now  leading 
the  decisive  charge  at  Chseronea,  and  now  involved  in 
court  intrigues  against  a  party  who  endeavoured  to  gain 
Philip's  confidence  and  induce  him  to  alter  the  succes- 
sion3. It  is  clear  therefore  that  all  instruction,  in  the 
stricter  sense  of  the  word,  must  have  terminated.  Yet 
that  a  very  considerable  influence  may  have  been  still 
exerted  by  Aristotle  upon  the  mind  of  Alexander,  is  not 
only  in  itself  probable,  but  is  confirmed  by  the  titles  of 
some  of  his  writings  which  are  now  lost.  Ammonius, 
in  his  division  of  the  works  of  the  philosopher,  mentions 
a  certain  class4  as  consisting  of  treatises  written  for  the 
behoof  of  particular  individuals,  and  specifies  among 
them  those  books  "  which  he  composed  at  the  request 
of  Alexander  of  Macedon,  that  On  Monarchy,  and  In- 
structions on  the  Mode  of  establishing  Colonies."  The 

2  Plutarch,   Fit.  sec.  9-     Diodorus,  xvi.  77.     See  Clinton,  Fast. 
Hell  a.  340,  339- 

3  Plutarch,   Vit.  sec.  9,  10. 

4  TO.  MojOiKct.     Ammon.  Hermeneut.  ad  Aristot.  Categor.  p.  7-  ed. 
Aid.     The  two  works  alluded  to  are  cited  by  the  anonymous  au- 
thor of  the  Life  printed  by  Buhle  in  his  edition  of  Aristotle,  p.  60 
— 67,  under  the  titles  irep\  jSaa-tXeias  and  'AAe'£ai/fyjo<?,  17  wVep  diroiKioiv. 
Diogenes   mentions   the   latter  by    the    same    name,    and    Pseudo- 
Ammonius  the  former.     The  anonymous  writer  adds  a  third  QTepi] 
'A\e£ai/Bpou,  17  TT€p\  ptJTopos  17  TroXiTiKou,  by  which  he  probably  means 
the  ptfTopiKri  7rpo\  'AXefrti/Spo*',  which  we  have. 

4—2 


52  HIS    POLICY    AS    A    CONQUEROR. 

titles  of  these  works  may  lead  us  to  conjecture  that 
the  distinguishing  characteristics  of  Alexander's  sub- 
sequent policy, — the  attempt  to  fuse  into  one  mass  his 
old  subjects  and  the  people  he  had  conquered, — the  as- 
similation of  their  manners,  especially  by  education  and 
intermarriages, — the  connection  of  remote  regions  by 
building  cities,  making  roads,  and  establishing  com- 
mercial enterprises, — may  be  in  no  small  measure  due  to 
the  counsels  of  his  preceptor.  A  modern  writer  indeed 
has  imagined  an  analogy  between  this  assimilative 
policy  of  the  conqueror,  and  the  generalizing  genius 
of  the  philosopher1.  And  there  really  does  seem  some 
ground  for  this  belief,  in  spite  of  an  observation  of 
Plutarch's2,  which  is  at  first  sight  diametrically  oppo- 
sed to  it.  After  speaking  of  the  Stoical  notions  of  an 
universal  republic,  he  says,  that  magnificent  as  the 
scheme  was,  it  was  never  realized,  but  remained  a  mere 
speculation  of  that  school  of  philosophy;  and  he  adds 
that  Alexander,  who  nearly  realized  it,  did  so  in  op- 
position to  the  advice  of  Aristotle,  who  had  recom- 
mended him  to  treat  the  Greeks  as  a  general, 
vtKwsy)  but  the  barbarians  as  a  master,  (^ 
the  one  as  friends,  the  other  as  instruments.  But 
there  is  no  other  authority  than  Plutarch  for  this 
story;  and  it  seems  far  from  improbable  that  it  is  en- 
tirely built  upon  certain  expressions  used  by  Aristotle 
in  the  first  book  of  his  Politics.  In  that  place  he 
recognises  the  relation  between  master  and  slave  as  a 
natural  one;  and  he  also  maintains  the  superiority 
of  Greeks  over  barbarians  to  be  so  decided  and  per- 
manent as  to  justify  the  supremacy  of  the  one  over 
the  other.  Of  the  latter  he  argues  that  they  have  not 

1  Joh.  von  Mueller,  Allgemeine  Geschickte,  i.  p.  160. 

2  De  Virt.  et  Fort.  Alexandri.  p.  329- 


ARISTOTLE'S  DOCTRINE  OF  SLAVERY.          53 

the  faculty  of  governing  in  them,  and  that  therefore 
the  state  of  slavery  is  for  them  the  natural  and  pro- 
per form  of  the  social  relation3.  But  it  should  not 
be  overlooked,  as  by  some  modern  writers  it  has  been4, 
that  Aristotle  explicitly  distinguishes  between  a  slave 
de  facto  and  a  slave  de  jure,  and  that  he  grounds  his 
vindication  of  slavery  entirely  on  the  principle  that  such 
a  relation  shall  be  the  most  beneficial  one  possible  to 
both  the  parties  concerned  in  it.  Where  this  condition 
is  wanting,  wherever  the  party  governed  is  susceptible 
of  a  higher  order  of  government,  he  distinctly  main- 
tains that  the  relation  is  a  false  and  unnatural  one5- 
If  therefore  his  experience  had  made  him  acquainted 
with  the  highly  cultivated  and  generous  races  of  upper 
Asia  to  which  Alexander  penetrated,  he  must  in 
consistency  with  his  own  principle,  that  every  man's 
nature  is  to  be  developed  to  the  highest  point  of  which 
it  is  capable,  have  advised  that  these  should  be  treat- 
ed on  the  same  footing  as  the  Greeks,  and  Alexander's 
conduct  would  only  appear  a  natural  deduction  from 
the  general  principles  inculcated  by  his  master.  As 
far  as  concerned  the  barbarians  with  whom  alone  the 
Greeks  previously  to  Alexander's  expedition  had  been 
brought  into  contact,  the  neighbours  of  the  Greek 

3  P.  1252,  col.  1,  lin.  34,  et  seq. 

*  Paley,  Moral  and  Political  Philosophy,  ch.  v.  p.  12.    "  Aristo- 
tle lays  down,  as  a  fundamental  and  self-evident  maxim,  that  nature 
intended  barbarians   to  be  slaves;    and  proceeds  to   deduce  from 
this  maxim  a  train  of  conclusions,  calculated  to  justify  the  policy 
which  then  prevailed.     And  I  question  whether  the   same  maxim 
be  not  still  self-evident   to  the    company  of  merchants  trading  to 
the  coast  of  Africa." 

*  See  p.  1255,  col.   1,  line  5  ct  scq.  and  col.  2,  line  4.  et  seq,  also 
p.  1259,  col.  2,  line  21,  ft  seq. 


54  STAGIRUS    REBUILT. 

cities  in  Asia  Minor  and  the  Propontis,  the  savage 
hordes  of  Thrace,  or  the  Nomad  tribes  inhabiting  the 
African  Syrtis,  Aristotle's  position  was  a  most  reason- 
able one.  Christianity  seems  the  only  possible  means 
for  the  mutual  pacification  of  races  so  different  from 
one  another  in  every  thought,  feeling,  and  habit,  as 
these  and  the  polished  Greeks  were :  and  Christianity 
itself  solves  the  problem  not  by  those  modifications  of 
social  life  through  which  alone  the  statesman  acts,  or 
can  act ;  but  by  awakening  all  to  the  consciousness 
that  there  exists  a  common  bond  higher  than  all  so- 
cial relations ; — it  does  not  aim  at  obliterating  national 
distinctions  19  but  it  dwarfs  their  importance  in  compa- 
rison with  the  universal  religious  faith.  If  we  would 
really  understand  the  opinions  of  a  writer  of  antiquity, 
we  ought  to  understand  the  ground  on  which  he  rests, 
and  must  rest.  We  have  no  right  to  require  of  a 
pagan  philosopher  three  centuries  before  Christ,  that 
in  his  system  he  should  take  account  of  the  influ- 
ences of  Christianity;  and  they  who  scoff  at  the  im- 
portance which  he  attaches  to  the  differences  of  race, 
would  do  well  to  point  out  any  instance  in  the  his- 
tory of  the  world  where  a  barbarous  people  has  be- 
come amalgamated  with  a  highly  civilised  one  by  any 
other  agency. 

If  Aristotle  might  reasonably  feel  proud  of  the 
talents  and  acquirements  of  his  pupil,  his  gratification 
would  be  yet  more  enhanced  by  the  nature  of  the 
reward  which  his  services  received.  We  have  men- 

1  This  was  the  essence  of  the  Stoic  theory,  of  which  Plutarch 
gives  the  substance,  loc.  cit.  Ivn  [iq  Kara  9t<£\eic,  utj$e  wrd 

Bmt?  6Kao"rot   duapur/nevoi  BtKaio/c,  aX\a  iravra^  a 
^tj/jLOTas  KO.\   ?roArra<?,    eis   6e   pios    y   Ka\ 
<rvvvofjLOV     i'0/jiw     Koivta     (rvvr  pe(po[jit  I/JJT. 


INHABITED    BY    ARISTOTLE.  55 

tioned  above  the  unhappy  fate  of  Stagirus,  Aristotle's 
birthplace.     Although  his  own  fortunes  were  little  af- 
fected  by    this   calamity,    his   patriotism,    if    we   may 
believe   the  account   in  Plutarch,   induced   him    to  de- 
mand as  the  price  of  his  instructions,  the  restoration 
of  his  native   town.     It  was   accordingly  rebuilt,  such 
of  the   inhabitants   as   were   living   in   exile   were   re- 
stored to  the  home  of  their  infancy,  such  as  had  been 
sold  for  slaves  were  redeemed,  and  in  the  days  of  Plu- 
tarch strangers  were  shown  the  shady  groves  in  which 
the   philosopher  had   walked,    and   the   stone   benches 
whereon  he  used  to   repose2.     The   constitution   under 
which  the  new  citizens  lived  was  said  to  be  drawn  up 
by  him3,  and  long  afterwards  his  memory  was  celebra- 
ted by  the  Stagirites  in   a   solemn  festival,   and,  it   is 
said,    one   month  of    the    year   (perhaps    the   one    in 
which   he   was  born)    called  by   his   name4.     There   is 
every  reason  to  believe  that   during  the  latter   part  of 
his  connection  with  Alexander,  when  the  more  direct 
instruction  had  ceased,  the  newly  built  town  furnished 

2  Plutarch,  Vit.  Alex.  sec.  7-  In  this  matter  the  accounts  are  con- 
fused. Julian,  (Far.  Hist.  iii.  1?.  xii.  54.)  Diogenes,  (v.  4.)  and  Pliny 
(vii.  29.)  attribute  the  restoration  to  Alexander.  If  it  took  place 
at  the  commencement  of  the  regency  these  may  be  reconciled 
with  Plutarch.  But  the  testimony  of  Valerius  Maximus  (v.  &) 
would  refer  both  the  destruction  and  rebuilding  of  Stagirus  to 
Alexander,  and  that  too  at  a  time  when  Aristotle  was  very  old 
and  residing  in  Athens.  The  gentlest  mode  of  reconciling  this 
inaccurate  epitomizer  with  possibilities,  is  to  suppose  that  he  has 
confounded  Stagirus  with  Eressus,  the  birthplace  of  Theophrastus, 
of  whom  Diogenes  and  Pseudo-Ammonius  relate  a  somewhat  simi- 
lar story. 

3  Plutarch  adv.  Colot.  extr. 

4  Pseudo-Ammon.   and  Vit.  Lat.  The  name  "  Stagirites  "  shows 
the  very  late  growth  of  this  feature  of  the  story.     It  may  be  built, 
however,  on  a  true  foundation. 


56  FELLOW    PUPILS    OF    ALEXANDER. 

him  with  a  quiet  retreat,  and  that  he  then  and  there 
composed  the  treatises  we  have  mentioned  ahove,  for 
the  use  of  his  absent  pupil.  While  their  personal  com- 
munication lasted,  Pella,  the  capital  of  Macedonia,  was 
perhaps  his  residence1,  as  it  is  scarcely  prohahle  that 
Philip  would  have  liked  to  trust  the  person  of  the 
heir  apparent  out  of  his  dominions. 

We  shall  conclude  the  account  of  this  portion  of 
Aristotle's  life  hy  the  mention  of  three  other  remark- 
able persons  who  probably  all  shared  with  Alexander 
in  the  benefit  of  his  instructions,  although  this  is  only 
positively  stated  of  the  last  of  them2.  The  first  of 
these  was  Callisthenes,  a  son  of  Aristotle's  cousin,  who 
afterwards  attended  Alexander  in  his  Asiatic  expedition, 
and  to  whom  we  shall  have  occasion  to  revert  in  the 
sequel.  The  second  was  Theophrastus,  Aristotle's  suc- 
cessor in  the  school  of  the  Lyceum  some  years  after- 
wards; and  the  third  was  one  Marsyas,  a  native 
of  Pella,.  brother  to  the  Antigonus  who,  after  the 

1  This  has  been  by  Stahr,  Aristotelia,  i.  p.  104,  inferred  from  the 
expression   fio'pftopov  ev  irpo-^om^  in    Theocritus's  Epigram  quoted 
above  p.  35.  note.  The  Macedonians,  Plutarch  says>  called  the  river, 
on  whose  banks  Pella  stood,  by  the  name  Bo'jo/3opo?. 

2  Suidas,    v.    Ma^o-Ja?.     That    Callisthenes    and   Theophrastus 
were   together   pupils   of    Aristotle   appears   from    Diogenes,   Vit. 
Theoph.  sec.  3$.    And  the  Macedonian  connections  of  both  would 
incline   us  to   believe   that  it  was  in  that   country  that   this  rela- 
tion existed.     Theophrastus   was  personally  known   to  Philip  and 
treated  with  distinction  by  him.      (/Elian,  War.  Hist.  iv.  19.)     And 
if  Callisthenes  had  been  Aristotle's  pupil  at  Athens,  his  character 
would  surely  have  been   sufficiently  developed  eleven  years  after- 
wards   to   exhibit   his    unfitness    as   an    adviser    of    Alexander  to 
any  eye,  certainly  to  the  sharp- sighted  one  of  Aristotle.     Besides, 
it  is  not  likely  that  Alexander  would  have  chosen  one  whom  he  was 
not  already  acquainted  with,   to  attend  him*  in  such  a  capacity  as 
Callisthenes  did. 


THEOPHRASTUS — CALLISTHENES MARSYAS.      57 

death  of  Alexander,  when  the  generals  of  the  monarch 
divided  their  master's  conquests  among  them,  became 
King  of  Lycia  and  Pamphylia.  He  was  a  soldier 
and  a  man  of  letters ;  and  one  work  of  his  On  the 
Education  of  Alexander  is  perhaps  as  great  a  loss 
to  us  as  any  composition  of  antiquity  which  could  be 
named. 


UNIVERSITY 


CHAPTER  IV. 

ARISTOTLE    RETURNS    TO    ATHENS. 


ON  Alexander  commencing  his  eastern  expedition, 
Aristotle,  leaving  his  relation  and  pupil  Callisthenes  to 
supply  his  own  place  as  a  friendly  adviser  to  the  youthful 
monarch,  whom  he  accompanied  in  the  ostensible  cha- 
racter of  historiographer1,  returned  to  Athens.  ^Whe- 
ther this  step  was  the  consequence  of  any  specific  in- 
vitation or  not,  it  is  difficult  to  say.  Some  accounts 
state  that  he  received  a  public  request  from  the  Athe- 
nians to  come,  and  conjointly  with  Xenocrates  to  suc- 
ceed Speusippus2.  But  these  views  appear  to  proceed 
upon  the  essentially  false  opinion  that  the  position  of 
teacher  was  already  a  publicly  recognised  one,  and  be- 
sides to  imply  the  belief  that  Xenocrates  and  Aristotle 
were  at  the  time  on  their  travels  together;  whereas  we 
know  that  the  latter  was  in  Macedonia  till  B.C.  335, 
and  that  the  former  had  four  years  before  this  time 
succeeded  Speusippus,  not  by  virtue  of  any  public  ap- 
pointment, but  in  consequence  of  his  private  wish3. 
If  any  more  precise  reason  be  required  for  the  philo- 
sopher's change  of  residence  than  the  one  which  pro- 
bably determined  him  at  first  to  visit  Athens,  namely 
the  superior  attractions  which  that  city  possessed  for 
cultivated  and  refined  minds,  uve  should  incline  to 
believe  that  the  greater  mildness  of  climate  was  the 

1  Arrhian,  iv.  10. 

2  Pseudo-Ammon.  Vit.  Lat. 

3  Diog.  Laert.  iv.  3. 


TEACHES  TN  THE  LYCEUM.          59 

influencing  cause1.  His  health  was  unquestionably 
delicate  ;  and  perhaps  it  was  a  regard  for  this,  com- 
bined with  the  wish  to  economize  time,  that  induced 
him  to  deliver  his  instructions  (or  at  least  a  part  of 
them)  not  sitting  or  standing,  but  walking  backwards 
and  forwards  in  the  open  air.  u-The  extent  to  which 
he  carried  this  practice,  although  the  example  of  Pro- 
tagoras 5  in  Plato's  Dialogue  is  enough  to  show  that 
he  did  not  originate  it,  procured  for  his  scholars,  who 
of  course  were  obliged  to  conform  to  this  habit,  the 
soubriquet  of  Peripatetics,  or  Walkers  backwards  and 
forwards6.]^  From  the  neighbouring  temple  and  grove  of 
Apollo  Lyceus,  his  school  was  commonly  known  by  the 
name  of  the  Lyceum  7  ;  and  here  every  morning  and  even- 
ing he  delivered  lectures  to  a  numerous  body  of  scholars. 
Among  these  he  appears  to  have  made  a  division.  The 
morning  course,  or,  as  he  called  it  from  the  place  where 
it  was  delivered,  the  morning  walk,  (ewdti/o?  Tre^/Traros), 
was  attended  only  by  the  more  highly  disciplined  part 
of  his  auditory,  the  subjects  of  it  belonging  to  the  higher 
branches  of  philosophy,  and  requiring  a  systematic  at- 
tention as  well  as  a  previously  cultivated  understanding 

4  This  seems  to  be  the  true  interpretation  of  the  expression  of 
Aristotle  cited  by  Demetrius.     De  Elocut.  sec.  29,  155:    ejta  CK  ^eV 
a  rj\0ov  £/a  TOV  j3a<ri\ea  TOV 


5  P.  314.  E.  315.  C. 

6  Cicero,  Academ.  Post.  i.  4.     Cicero  translates  the   word 

by  inambulare.  Hermipptis  explained  it  by 
Diogenes  Laertius  (v.  2.)  attributes  the  origin  of  this  practice 
with  Aristotle  to  a  regard  not  for  his  own  health  but  for  that  of 
Alexander. 

7  Before  the  Peloponnesian  War  it  had  been  used  as  a  gymna- 
sium, and  was  said  to  have  been  built  by  Pisistratus.     See  Aristoph. 
Pac.  355,  and  the  Scholiast. 


60  DIVISION    OF    HIS    SCHOLARS. 

on  the  part  of  the  scholar.  In  the  evening  course  (<5a~ 
\ivo<?  7re/o/7raTos)  the  subjects  as  well  as  the  manner  of 
treating  them  were  of  a  more  popujar  cast,  and  more 
appreciable  by  a  mixed  assembly,  ^^ulus  Gellius1  who 
is  our  sole  authority  on  this  matter,  affirms  that  the 
expressions  acroatic  discourses  and  exoteric  discourses 
(\oyoi  aKpwaTiKoi  and  \oyoi  e^curepiKoi)  were  the  appro- 
priate technical  terms  for  these  instructions;  and  he 
further  says  that  the  former  comprised  Theological, 
Physical,  and  Dialectical  investigations,  the  latter  Rhe- 
toric, Sophistic,  (or  the  art  of  disputing,)  and  Politics.- 
We  shall  in  another  place  examine  thoroughly  into 
the  precise  meaning  of  these  celebrated  phrases,  a 
task  which  would  here  too  much  break  the  thread 
of  the  narrative.  We  may,  however,  remark  that  the 
morning  discourses  were  called  acroatic  or  subjects  of 
lectures,  not  because  they  belonged  to  this  or  that 
branch,  but  because  they  were  treated  in  a  technical 
and  systematic  manner ;  and  so  the  evening  discourses 
obtained  the  name  of  exoteric  or  separate,  because  each 
of  them  was  insulated,  and  not  forming  an  integral 
part  of  a  system.  It  is  obvious  that  some  subjects 
are  more  suitable  to  the  one  of  these  methods,  and 
others  to  the  other;  and  the  division  which  Gellius 
makes  is,  generally  speaking,  a  good  one.  But  that 
it  does  not  hold  universally  is  plain,  not  to  mention 
other  arguments,  from  the  fact  that  the  work  on  Rhe- 
toric which  has  come  down  to  us  is  an  acroatic  work, 
and  that  on  Politics  apparently  the  unfinished  draught 
of  one ;  while  on  the  contrary,  a  fragment  of  an  exo- 
teric work  preserved  by  Cicero  in  a  Latin  dress  is  upon 
a  theological  subject. 

1  Noct.  Alt.  xx.  5. 


PHILOSOPHICAL    SYMPOSIA.  61 


The  more  select  circle  of  his  scholars  Aristotle  used 
to  assemble  at  stated  times  on  a  footing,  which  without 
any  straining  of  analogy  we  may  compare  to  the  periodi- 
cal dinners  held  by  some  of  the  literary  clubs  of  modern 
times.  The  object  of  this  obviously  was  to  combine 
the  advantages  of  high  intellectual  cultivation  with  the 
charms  of  social  intercourse ; — to  make  men  feel  that 
philosophy  was  not  a  thing  separate  from  the  daily  uses 
of  life,  but  one  which  entered  into  all  its  charities  and 
was  mixed  up  with  its  real  pleasures.  '--'These  reunions 
were  regulated  by  a  code  of  rules2,  of  which  we  know 
enough  to  see  that  the  cynicism  or  pedantry,  which  fre- 
quently induces  such  as  would  be  accounted  deep  thinkers 
to  despise  the  elegancies  or  even  the  decencies  of  life, 
was  strongly  discountenanced3.  In  these  days,  espe- 
cially in  England,  where  so  many  different  elements 
combine  to  produce  social  intercourse  in  its  highest  per- 
fection, it  is  difficult  to  estimate  the  important  effect 
which  must  have  been  brought  about  by  a  custom  such 
as  that  just  mentioned.  k^To  enjoy  leisure  gracefully 
and  creditably4,"  is  not  easy  for  any  one  at  any  time, 
but  for  the  Athenian  in  the  days  of  Aristotle  was  a 
task  of  the  greatest  difficulty.  ^-"Deprived  of  that  kind 
of  female  intercourse  which  in  modern  social  life  is  the 
great  instrument  for  humanizing  the  other  sex,  soften- 
ing, as  it  does,  through  the  affections,  the  disposition 
to  ferocity  and  rudeness,  and  checking  the  licentious 
passions  by  the  dignity  of  matronly  or  maidenly  purity, 

8  Athenseus,  p.  186. 

Apio-TOTeAf/s  3e  U\OVTOV  KCLI  KOVIOOTOV  'jrXtjprj  r/Wti/  TIVU  eTri  TO  <rv/Ji- 
yro<riov  air  penes  elvai  (prj<riv.     Athenseus,  p.  186.  E. 

4  a"^o\a'(eiv  KaAws.  Polit.  viii.  p.  1337,  col.  2,  line  34.  Compare 
also  Nicom.  Ethic,  p.  1177,  col.  2,  line  4>,  and  Polit.  vii.  p.  1334,  col. 
1,  line  18—34.  • 


62  STATE    OF    SOCIAL    INTERCOURSE. 

the  youth  of  ancient  Greece  almost  universally  fell  either 
into  a  ruffianly  asceticism,  or  a  low  and  vulgar  profli- 
gacy. Some  affected  the  austere  manner  and  sordid 
garb  of  the  Lacadaemonians L,  regarding  as  effeminate 
all  geniality  of  disposition,  all  taste  for  the  refinements 
of  life,  every  thing  in  short  which  did  not  directly  tend 
to  the  production  of  mere  energy  :  while  others  entirely 
quenched  the  moral  will  and  the  higher  mental  facul- 
ties in  a  debauchery  of  the  coarsest  kind2.  To  open 
a  new  region  of  enjoyment  to  the  choicer  spirits  of  the 
time  and  thus  save  them  from  the  distortion  or  corrup- 
tion to  which  they  otherwise  seemed  doomed,  was  a 
highly  important  service  to  the  cause  of  civilization. 
The  pleasure  and  utility  resulting  from  the  institution 
was  very  generally  recognised.  Xenocrates,  the  friend 
of  Aristotle,  adopted  it.  Theophrastus,  his  successor, 
left  a  sum  of  money  in  his  will  to  be  applied  to  defray- 
ing the  expenses  of  these  meetings ;  and  there  were 
in  after  times  similar  periodical  gatherings  of  the  fol- 
lowers of  the  Stoic  philosophers,  Diogenes*  Antipater, 
and  Panaetius3.  If  some  of  these,  or  others  of  similar 
nature,  in  the  course  of  time  degenerated  into  mere 
excuses  for  sensual  indulgence,  as  Athenseus  seems  to 
hint,  no  argument  can  be  thence  derived  against  their 

1  That  the  AaKowoucma  so  admirably  hit  off  by  Aristophanes  (Av. 
1729;  e*  se(l')  tasted  long  after  his  time,  is  clear,  not  to  mention  other 
arguments,  from  the  evident  prevalence  of  the  views  which  Aristotle 
(Politic,  vii.  p.  1324,  col.  1,  line  23,  et  seq.,  also  p.  1332,  col.  2, 
line  20,  p.  1334,  col.  2,  line  28)  takes  so  much  pains  to  controvert. 


TTfcK  yap  ov 

"ffivfi-v  oi$>€  Koi  fiiveiv  /JLOVOV  j     Aristoph.  Ran.  751. 
The  manners  of  the  latter  comedy,  as  preserved  in  Terence's 
plays,   are  a  sufficient  evidence  that  this  sarcasm   was   little   less 
applicable   at   Athens   throughout   the   fourth   century  before   the 
Christian  era. 

3  Athenseus,  p.  186. 


DISCIPLINE    OF    THE    SCHOLARS.  63 

great  utility  while  the  spirit  of  the  institution  was  pre- 
served. 

^Another  arrangement  made  by  Aristotle  in  the  ma- 
nagement of  his  instructions  appears  particularly  wor- 
thy of  notice.  In  imitation,  as  some  say,  of  a  practice 
of  Xenocrates,  he  appointed  one  of  his  scholars  to  play 
the  part  of  a  sort  of  president  in  his  school,  holding 
the  office  for  the  space  of  ten  days,  after  which  another 
took  his  place  V^This  peculiarity  seems  to  derive  illus- 
tration from  the  practice  of  the  universities  of  Europe 
in  the  middle  ages,  in  which,  as  is  well  known,  it 
was  the  custom  for  individuals  on  various  occasions  to 
maintain  certain  theses  against  all  who  chose  to  con- 
trovert them.  A  remnant  of  this  practice  remains  to 
this  day  in  the  Acts  (as  they  are  termed)  which  are 
kept  in  the  University  of  Cambridge  by  candidates 
for  a  degree  in  either  of  the  Faculties.  It  is  an 


*  a\\ct  KCU  €i/ 

%€Ka  rjpepcK;  ap-^ovra  -rroieiv.  Diog.  Laert.  Fit.  sec.  4.  The  follow- 
ing passages  from  Cicero  seem  to  furnish  a  kind  of  commentary 
on  these  obscure  expressions.  Itaque  mihi  semper  Peripateticorum 
Academiasque  consuetude  de  omnibus  rebus  in  contrarias  paries  dis- 
serendi  non  ob  earn  causam  solum  placuit,  quod  aliter  non  posset,  quid 
in  qudque  re  veri  smile  esset,  inveniri  ;  sed  etiam  quod  esset  ea 
maxima  dicendi  exercitatio:  qua  princeps  usus  est  Aristoteles,  deinde, 
eum  qui  secuti  sunt.  Tusc.  Qu.  ii.  3. 

Sin  aliquis  extiterit  aliquando,  qui  Aristotelio  more  de  omnibus 
rebus  in  utramque  partem  posset  dicere,  et  in  omni  causa  duas  con- 
trarias orationes,  prceceptis  illius  cognitis,  explicare  ;  aut  hoc  Arcesilce 
modo  ei  Carneadi,  contra  omne  quod  propositum  sit  disserat; 
quique  ad  earn  rationem  adjungat  hunc  rhetoricum  usum  mo- 
remque  dicendi,  —  is  sit  verus,  is  perfectus,  is  solus  orator.  De 
Oral.  iii.  21. 

The  passage  from  Quintilian,  (i.  2.  23.)  quoted  by  Menage  in 
his  note  on  Diogenes,  (loc.  cit.)  refers  to  an  essentially  different 
kind  of  discipline,  arising  out  of  other  grounds  and  directed  to 
other,  ends. 


64  ANALOGOUS    MODERN    PRACTICES. 

M~  **     &    for$e    */  '**-*-  &J++0U+&,    Ytfon.< 

arrangement  which  results  necessarily  from  the  scarcity 
of  books  of  instruction,  and  is  dropped  or  degenerates 
into  a  mere  form  when  this  deficiency  is  removed. 
While  information  on  any  given  subject  must  be 
derived  entirely  or  mainly  from  the  mouth  of  the 
teacher, — as  was  the  case  in  the  time  of  Aristotle  no 
less  than  that  of  Scotus  and  Aquinas, — the  most  satis- 
factory test  of  the  learner's  proficiency  is  his  ability  to 
maintain  the  theory  which  he  'has  received  against  all 
arguments  which  may  be  brought  against  it.  We 
shall  probably  be  right  in  supposing  that  this  was  the 
duty  of  the  president  (ap-^wv)  spoken  of  by  Diogenes. 
He  was,  in  the  language  of  the  sixteenth  century, 
keeping  an  act.  ^Re  had  for  the  space  of  ten  days  to 
defend  his  own  theory  and  to  refute  the  objections, 
(a.7ropiai)  which  his  brother  disciples  might  either  en- 
tertain or  invent,Vthe  master  in  the  mean  time  taking 
the  place  of  a  moderator,  occasionally  interposing  to 
show  where  issue  must  be  joined,  to  prevent  either  party 
from  drawing  illogical  conclusions  from  acknowledged 
premises,  and,  probably,  after  the  discussion  had  been 
continued  for  a  sufficient  time,  to  point  out  the  ground 
of  the  fallacy.  This  explanation  will  also  serve  to 
account  for  a  phenomenon,  which  cannot  fail  to  strike 
a  reader  on  the  perusal  of  any  one  of  Aristotle's  wri- 
tings that  have  come  down  to  us.  The  systematic 
treatment  of  a  subject  is  continually  broken  by  an  ap- 
parently needless  discussion  of  objections  which  may 
be  brought  against  some  particular  part.  These  are 
stated  more  or  less  fully,  and  are  likewise  taken  off; 
or  it  sometimes  happens  that  merely  the  principle  on 
which  the  solution  must  proceed  is  indicated,  and  it 
is  left  to  the  ingenuity  of  the  reader  to  fill  up  the 
details.  To  return  to  our  subject,  it  is  quite  obvious 


EFFECT    OF    THE    DISCIPLINE.  65 

that  such  a  discipline  as  we  have  described  must  have 
had  a  wonderful  effect  in  sharpening  the  dialectical 
talent  of  the  student,  and  in  producing — perhaps  at 
the  expense  of  the  more  valuable  faculty  of  deep 
and  systematic  thought — extraordinary  astuteness  and 
agility  in  argumentation.  Indeed,  if  we  make  ab- 
straction of  the  subject-matter  of  the  discussions,  we 
may  very  well  regard  the  exercise  as  simply  a  practi- 
cal instruction  in  the  art  of  disputation, — that  which 
formed  the  staple  of  the  education  of  the  Sophists. 
And  now  we  may  understand  how  Gellius1,  writing  in 
the  second  century  after  Christ,  should  place  this  art 
among  the  branches  which  Aristotle's  evening  course 
embraced,  although  in  the  sense  in  which  the  Sophists 
taught  it,  he  would  have  scorned  to  make  any  such 
profession2.  In  what  other  light  could  this  compiler 
have  viewed  the  fact,  that  insulated  topics  arising  out 
of  a  subject  which  they  had  heard  fiystematicaUy 
treated  by  their  master  in  his  lectures  (d/f/ooaVets)  of 
the  morning,  were  debated  by  Aristotle's  more  advanced 
scholars,  in  the  presence  of  the  entire  body,  in  the 
evening,  the  master  being  himself  present  and  regulat- 
ing the  whole  discussion. 

It  is  evident  that  in  this  species  of  exercise  it  is 
not  the  faculty  of  comprehending  philosophic  truth 
that  plays  the  most  prominent  part.  As  regards  the 
subject-matter  of  such  debates,  nothing  which  is  at  all 
incomplete,  nothing  unsusceptible  of  rigid  definition 
is  available.  Consequently  the  whole  of  that  extensive 


1  Noct.  Alt.  xx.  5.     See  above,  p.  60. 

2  See,  for  instance,  the  contempt  with  which  he  speaks  of  the 
Sophistical  principle, — the  one  on  which  Isocrates  taught  rhetoric. 
Rhetoric,  i.  inil. 

5 


66  ITS   EFFECT  ON    PHILOSOPHY. 

region,   where   knowledge   exists   in  a  state  of  growth 
and  gradual  consolidation, — the  domain  of  half-evolved 
truths,   of  observations   and  theories   blended  together 
in    varying   proportions,    of  approximately    ascertained 
laws,  in  the  main  true,  but  still  apparently  irreconcil- 
able  with  some  phenomena, — all   this  fertile  soil,  out 
of  which  every  particle  of  real  knowledge   has  sprung 
and  must  spring,  will  be  neglected  as  barren  and  unpro- 
fitable.    Where  public  discussion  is  the  only  test  to  be 
applied,  an  impregnable  paradox  will  be  more  valued  than 
an  imperfectly  established  truth1.    And  it  is  not  only  by 
diverting  the  attention  of  the  student  away  from  the  pro- 
fitable fields  of  knowledge  that  a  pernicious  effect  will  be 
produced.     He  will  further  be  tempted  to  give,  perhaps 
unconsciously,  an  artificial  roundness  to  established  facts 
by  means  of  arbitrary  definitions.    In  Nature  every  thing 
is  shaded  off  by  imperceptible  gradations  into  something 
entirely  different.     Who  can  define  the  exact  line  which 
separates  the  animal  from  the  vegetable  kingdom,  or  the 
family  of  birds  from  that  of  animals  ?  Who  can  say  ex- 
actly where  disinterestedness  in  the  individual  character 
joins  on  to  a  well-regulated  self-love  ? — or  where  fanati- 
cism ends  and  hypocrisy  begins?    But  on  the  other  hand 
the  intellect  refuses  to  apprehend  what  is  not  clear  and 
distinct.     Hence  a   continual  tendency  to  stretch  Na- 
ture on  the  Procrustes-bed  of  Logical  Definition,  where, 
with   more   or   less   gentle   truncation   or    extension,   a 
plausible  theory  will  be  formed.     Should  one  weak  point 
after  another  be  discovered  in  this,  a  new  bulwark  of 

1  Sapientis  hanc  censet  Arcesilas  vim  esse  maximam,  Zenoni 
assentiens,  cavere  ne  capiatur  ;  ne  fallatur,  videre.  Cicero,  Aca- 
dem.  Prior,  ii.  21.  Who  can  fail  to  recognise  the  disputatious  habit 
of  mind  which  gave  birth  to  this  principle?  Compare  sec.  21. 
Si  ulli  rei  sapiens  assentietur  unquam,  aliquando  etiam  opinabitur : 
nunquam  autem  opinabitur ;  nulli  igitur  rei  assentietur. 


ITS   EFFECT    ON    PHILOSOPHERS.  67 

hypothesis  will  be  thrown  up  to  protect  it,  and  at  last 
the  fort  be  made  impregnable,  —  but  alas  !  in  the  mean 
time  it  has  become  a  castle  in  the  air.  Should  however 
the  genius  of  the  disputant  lie  less  in  the  power  of 
distinguishing  and  refining,  than  in  that  of  presenting 
his  views  in  a  broad  and  striking  manner,  should  his 
fancy  be  rich  and  his  feelings  strong,  —  above  all,  should 
he  be  one  of  a  nation  where  eloquence  is  at  once  the 
most  common  gift  and  the  most  envied  attainment,  — 
he  will  call  in  rhetoric  to  the  aid  of  his  cause;  and, 
in  this  event,  as  the  accessory  gradually  encroaches  and 
elbows  out  that  interest  to  aid  which  it  was  originally 
introduced,  —  as  the  handling  of  the  question  becomes 
more  important,  and  the  question  itself  less  so,  —  there 
will  result,  not,  as  in  the  former  case,  a  Scholastic 
Philosophy,  but  an  arena  for  closet  orators,  who  will2 
abandon  the  systematic  study  of  philosophy,  and  var- 
nish up  declamations  on  set  subjects.  Such  results 
doubtless  did  not  follow  in  the  time  of  Aristotle  and 
Xenocrates.  Under  them,  unquestionably,  the  original 
purpose  of  this  discipline  was  kept  steadily  in  sight  ; 
and  it  was  not  suffered  to  pass  from  being  the  test 
of  clear  and  systematic  thought  to  a  mere  substitute 
for  it.  But  the  transition  must  have  been  to  a  con- 
siderable extent  effected  when  an  Arcesilaus  or  a  Car- 
neades  could  deliver  formal  dissertations  in  opposition 
to  any  question  indifferently,  and  when  Cicero  could 
regard  the  rhetorical  practice  as  co-ordinate  in  import- 
ance with  the  other  advantages  resulting  to  the  stu- 
dent3, In  the  very  excellence  and  reputation  then  of 


(j)i\oa'o(p6Tv  TTjoay/jiaTJKto?,  a'AAa  dfcrets  \r}Kvdifeiv,  Strabo, 
xiii.  p.  124.  ed  Tauchnitz. 

3  See  the  passages  cited  above  p.  63.  not.     Compare  also  Acad. 
Prior,  ii.  18.     Quis  enim  ista  tarn  aperte  perspicueque  et  perversa  et 


68  RESOURCES   OF    ARISTOTLE. 

this  peculiar  discipline  of  the  founder  of  the  Peripa- 
tetic school,  we  have  a  germ  adequate  to  produce  a 
rapid  decay  of  his  philosophy,  and  we  have  no  occa- 
sion to  look  either  to  external  accidents  or  to  the 
internal  nature  of  his  doctrines  for  a  reason  of  the 
degeneracy  of  the  Peripatetics  after  Theophrastus.  The 
importance  of  this  remark  will  be  seen  in  the  sequel. 
y  It  was  probably  in  the  course  of  this  sojourn  at 
Athens,  which  lasted  for  the  space  of  thirteen  years, 
that  the  greater  number  of  Aristotle's  works  were  pro- 
duced. His  external  circumstances  were  at  this  time 
most  favourable.  The  Macedonian  party  was  the  pre- 
valent one  at  Athens,  so  that  he  needed  be  under  no 
fears  for  his  personal  quiet;  and  the  countenance  and 
assistance  he  received  from  Alexander  enabled  him  to 
prosecute  his  investigations  without  any  interruption 
from  the  scantiness  of  pecuniary  means.  The  Con- 
queror is  said  in  Athenseus  to  have  presented  his 
master  with  the  sum  of  eight  hundred  talents  (about 
two  hundred  thousand  pounds  sterling),  to  meet  the 
expenses  of  his  History  of  Anima&}aud  enormous  as 
this  sum  is,  it  is  only  in  proportion  to  the  accounts 
we  have  of  the  vast  wealth  acquired  by  the  plunder 
of  the  Persian  treasures2.  Pliny  also  relates  that  some 
thousands  of  men  were  placed  at  his  disposal  for  the 
purpose  of  procuring  zoological  specimens — which  served 
as  materials  for  this  celebrated  treatise.  The  under- 

falsa  secutus  esset,  nisi  tanta  in  Arcesila,  multo  etiam  major  in 
Carneade,  et  copia  rerum,  et  dicendi  vis  fuisset.  Yet  the  eloquent 
Arcesilaus  and  Carneades  left  nothing  behind  them  in  writing.  (Plu- 
tarch, Defort.  Alex.  p.  323.  ed.  Paris.) 

1  Athenaeus,  p.  3p8.  E. 

2  See  the  authorities  on  this  subject  collected  by  Ste.  Croix.  Eza- 
men  Hisiorique,  pp.  428 — 430. 


HIS   NATURAL    HISTORY.  69 

taking,  he  says,  originated  in  the  express  desire  of 
Alexander,  who  took  a  singular  interest  in  the  study 
of  Natural  History3.  For  this  particular  object  indeed,  i 
he  is  said  to  have  received  a  considerable  sum  from  i 
Philip,  so  that  we  must  probably  regard  the  assistance 
afforded  him  by  Alexander,  (no  doubt  after  conquest 
had  enlarged  his  means),  as  having  effected  the  ex- 
tension and  completion  of  a  work  begun  at  an  earlier 
period,  previous  to  his  second  visit  to  Athens4.  Inde- 
pendently too  of  this  princely  liberality,  the  profits  of 
his  occupation  may  have  been  very  great5,  and  we 
have  before  seen  reason  to  suppose  that  his  private  for- 
tune was  not  inconsiderable.  *^It  is  likely  therefore 
that  not  only  all  the  means  and  appliances  of  know- 
ledge, but  the  luxuries  and  refinements  of  private  life 
were  within  his  reach,  and  having  as  little  of  the  cynic 
as  of  the  sensualist  in  his  character,  there  is  every  pro- 
bability that  he  availed  himself  of  them.t-'Indeed  the 
charges  of  luxury  which  his  enemies  brought  against 
him  after  his  death,  absurd  as  they  are  in  the  form 
in  which  they  were  put,  appear  to  indicate  a  man  that 
could  enjoy  riches  when  possessing  them  as  well  as  in 
case  of  necessity  he  could  endure  poverty. 

3  Hist.  Nat.  viii.  17- 

4  &lia.n,  Var.  Hist.  iv.  12. 

5  See  the  beginning  of  the  Hippias  Major  of  Plato  for  the  profits 
of  the  sophists,  which  there  is  no  reason  to  suppose  were  greater 
than  those  of  their  more  respectable  successors.     Hippias  professes 
to  have   made    during   a   short   circuit   in    Sicily   more   than   six 
hundred  pounds,  although  the  celebrated  Protagoras  was  there  as 
a  competitor.    (§5.)    Hyperbolus's  instructions  in  oratory  cost  him 
a  talent,  or  two  hundred  and  fifty  pounds.    (Aristoph.  Nub.  874.) 
But  there  is  nothing  to  enable  us  to  determine  whether  Aristotle's 
teaching  was  or  was  not  gratuitous. 


CHAPTER  V. 

TURBULENT    POLITICS    AT    ATHENS. 


FORTUNE,  proverbially  inconstant,  was  even  more 
fickle  in  the  days  of  Aristotle  than  our  own.  At  an 
earlier  period  of  his  life,  we  have  seen  the  virulence 
of  political  partizanship  rendering  it  desirable  for  him 
to  quit  Athens.  The  same  spirit  it  was  which  again, 
in  his  old  age,  forced  him  to  seek  refuge  in  a  less 
agreeable  but  safer  spot.  The  death  of  Alexander  had 
infused  new  courage  into  the  anti-Macedonian  party  at 
Athens,  and  a  persecution  of  such  as  entertained  con- 
trary views  naturally  followed.  Against  Aristotle,  the 
intimate  friend  and  correspondent  of  Antipater,  (whom 
Alexander  on  leaving  Greece  had  left  regent,)  a  pro- 
secution was  either  instituted  or  threatened  for  an 
alleged  offence  against  religion1.  The  flimsiness  of 
this  pretext  for  crushing  a  political  opponent, — or  ra- 
ther a  wise  and  inoffensive  man,  whose  very  imparti- 
ality was  a  tacit  censure  of  the  violent  party-spirit  of 
his  time, — will  appear  at  first  sight  of  the  particulars, 
of  the  charge.  Eurymedon  the  Hierophant,  assisted  by 
Demophilus,  accused  him  of  the  blasphemy  of  paying 
divine  honours  to  mortals.  He  had  composed,  it  was 
said,  a  paean  and  offered  sacrifices  to  his  father  in  law 
Hermias,  and  also  honoured  the  memory  of  his  deceased 
wife  Pythias  with  libations  such  as  were  used  in  the 
worship  of  Ceres.  This  p&an  is  the  scolium  'Aperd 

1  Phavorinus  ap.  Diog.  Laert.  Fit.  §  5.  -flSlian,  Far.  Hist.  iii.  36. 
Athenaeus,  p.  696.  Origen  c.  Celsum,  i.  p.  51.  ed.  Spencer.  Demo- 
chares  cited  by  Aristocles,  (ap.  Euseb.  Prcep.  Ev.  xv.  2.) 


ARISTOTLE    GOES  TO   EUBO3A.  71 

e,  &c.,  which  we  have  described  above  (p.  42.) 
and   although  we  cannot    tell   what  the    circumstance 
was  which  gave  rise  to  the  latter  half  of  the  charge, 
we  may  reasonably  presume  that  it  as  little  justified  the 
interpretation  given  to  it  as  the  ode  does.     That  igno- 
rance and  bigotry  stimulated  by  party  hatred  should  find 
matter  in  his  writings  to  confirm  a  charge  of  impiety 
founded  on  such  a  basis,  was  to  be  expected;   and  he 
is  related  to  have  said   to  his  friends,  in  allusion   to 
the  fate  of  Socrates,    "Let  us  leave  Athens,   and  not 
give  the  Athenians  a  second  opportunity  of  committing 
sacrilege   against  Philosophy."     He  was    too  well   ac- 
quainted   with    the    character    of    "the    many-headed 
monster"   to  consider  the  absurdity  of  a  charge  as  a 
sufficient  guarantee  for  security  under  such  circumstan- 
ces,   and  he  retired   with   his  property   to  Chalcis  in 
Euboea2,  where  at  that  time  Macedonian  influence  pre- 
vailed.    In  a  letter  to  Antipater  he  expresses  his  regret 
at   leaving  his  old   haunts,   but   applies  a  verse  from 
Homer  in  a  way  to  intimate  that  the  disposition  that 
prevailed  there  to  vexatious  and  malignant  calumnies 
was   incorrigible3.     It  is   not   impossible  that  his   new 
asylum  had  before  this  time  afforded  him  an  occasional 
retreat  from   the  noise  and  bustle  of  Athens4.      Now 
however  he  owed  to  it  a  greater  obligation.     He  was 
out  of  the  reach  of  his  enemies,  and  enabled  to  justify 
himself  in   the  opinion    of  all   whose  judgement   was 

2  Apollodorus,  ap.  Diog.  Vit.  §  10.     Lycon  the  Pythagorean  cited 
by  Aristocles  ap.  Euseb.  Prcep.  Ev.  xv.  2,  grounds  a  charge  of  lux- 
ury on  the  number  of  culinary  utensils  which  were  passed  at  the 
custom-house  in  Chalcis. 

3  Pseudo-Ammon. — ^lian,  V.  H.  iii.  36.  (compare  xii.  52.)  Pha- 
vorinus  (ap.  Diog.  Fit.  §  9.) 

4  Diog.  Vii.  Epicuri,  §  1.  Strabo,  x.  p.  325. 


72  IS    PERSECUTED. 

valuable  by  a  written  defence  of  his  conduct1,  and  an 
exposure  of  the  absurdities  which  the  accusation  in- 
volved. "  Was  it  likely,"  he  asks,  "  that  if  he  had 
contemplated  Hermias  in  the  light  of  a  deity,  he  should 
have  set  up  a  cenotaph  to  his  memory  as  to  that  of  a 
dead  man?  Were  funeral  rites  a  natural  step  to  apo- 
theosis?" Arguments  like  these,  reasonable  as  they  are, 
were  not  likely  to  produce  much  effect  upon  the  minds 
of  his  enemies.  The  person  of  their  victim  was  beyond 
their  reach  ;  but  such  means  of  annoyance  as  still  re- 
mained were  not  neglected.  Some  mark  of  honour  at 
Delphi,  probably  a  statue,  had  been  on  a  former  occa- 
sion (perhaps  the  embassy  alluded  to  above)  decreed 
him  by  a  vote  of  the  people.  This  vote  seems  to  have 
been  at  this  time  rescinded,  an  insult  the  more  mor- 
tifying, if,  as  appears  likely,  it  was  inflicted  on  the 
pretext  that  he  had  acted  the  part  of  a  spy  in  the 
Macedonian  interest2.  In  a  letter  to  Antipater  he 
speaks  of  this  proceeding  in  a  tone  of  real  greatness, 
perfectly  free  from  the  least  affectation  of  indifference. 
He  alleges3  that  it  does  not  occasion  him  great  uneasi- 

1  Athenaeus,  (p.  697.)  quotes  a  passage  from  this  work,  to  which 
he  gives  the  title  of  aVoAoyi'a  aVe/Je/a?,  but  at  the  same  time  men- 
tions a  suspicion  that  it  was  not  genuine.  It  might  very  well  be 
written  by  one  of  his  scholars  in  his  name,  and  embody  his  senti- 
ments, just  as  the  Apology  of  Plato  does  those  of  Socrates.  This 
is  the  more  likely,  as  Aristotle  at  this  time  appears  to  have  been 
in  a  very  weak  state  of  health.  It  seems  to  be  identical  with  the 
\oyos  ZLKUVIKOS  mentioned  by  Phavorinus,  (ap.  Diog.  Fit.  §  9.)  and  to 
be  so  called  because  written  in  that  form,  although  probably  never 
intended  to  be  recited  in  court. 

8     Demochares  cited  by  Aristocles,  (Euseb.  Prcep.  Ev.  xv.  2.) 
3  .ZElian,  Var.  Hist.  xix.  1.      OU'TW?  e'}£a>,  cos  nt'/re  /not  <r<po%pa  fjieXeiv 
vircp  avTiov,  jufjre  /uty^eV  /xc/Xeiv.     Pausanias  (vi.  4.  8.)  speaks  of  a  statue 
at  Olympia  said  to  be  his;  but  it  had  no  name,  nor  was  it  known 
who  had  placed  it  there. 


ESTRANGEMENT    OF    ALEXANDER.  73 

ness,  but  that  he  still  feels  hurt  by  it.  It  is  impos- 
sible to  find  expressions  more  characteristic  of  an  un- 
affectedly magnanimous  nature,  or  which  better  illustrate 
the  description  of  that  disposition  given  by  himself  in 
one  of  his  works4. 

A  subject  which  it  is  likely  occasioned  him  during 
the  latter  years  of  his  life  far  greater  pain  than  any 
thing  which  the  fickle  public  of  Athens  could  think 
or  do,  was  the  coolness  which  had  arisen  between  him- 
self and  his  illustrious  pupil.  It  seems  to  have  been 
closely  connected  with  the  conduct  of  Callisthenes, 
whom  we  have  mentioned  above  (p.  56.)  who  had  ac- 
companied Alexander  into  Asia  by  his  particular  re- 
commendation. This  individual  possessed  a  cultivated 
mind,  a  vigorous  understanding,  and  a  bold  and  fear- 
less integrity,  combined  with  a  strong  attachment  to 
the  homely  virtues  and  energetic  character  of  the  Ma- 
cedonians, and  a  corresponding  hatred  and  contempt 
for  the  Persian  manners  which  had  been  adopted  by 
Alexander  after  his  successes.  Unfortunately  no  less 
for  those  whom  it  was  his  desire  to  reform  than  for 
himself,  the  sterling  qualities  of  his  mind  were  obscured 
by  a  singular  want  of  tact  and  discretion 5.  He  had  no 
talent  for  seizing  the  proper  moment  to  tell  an  un- 
welcome truth,  and  so  far  from  being  able  to  sweeten 
a  reproof  by  an  appearance  of  interest  and  affection 
for  the  party  reproved,  he  often  contrived  to  give  his 
real  zeal  the  colouring  of  offended  vanity  or  personal 
malice.  Aristotle  is  said  to  have  dreaded  from  the 
very  first  that  evil  would  follow  from  these  defects  in 

4  Nicom.  Ethic,  iv.  pp.  1123.  col.  i.  1.  34—1125.  col.  i.  1.  35. 

5  Aristotle  himself  said  of  him,  on  hearing  of  his  behaviour  at 
court  that  he  was  \oy<i>  /ieV  Si/i/aroc  «ai  fieyaSj  vovv  £'  OVK  f*Xev' 
mippus  ap.  Plutarch.  Fit.  Alex.  §  54. 


74  CONDUCT    OF    CALLISTHENES. 

his  character,  and  to  have  advised  him  to  abstain  from 
frequent  interviews  with  the  king,  and  when  he  did 
converse  with  him,  to  be  careful  that  his  conversation 
was  agreeable  and  goodhumoured 1.  He  probably  judged 
that  the  character  and  conduct  of  Callisthenes  would  of 
itself  work  an  effect  with  a  generous  disposition  like 
Alexander's,  and  that  its  influence  could  not  be  in- 
creased, and  would  in  all  probability  be  much  dimin- 
ished, by  the  irritation  of  personal  discussion,  producing, 
almost  of  necessity,  altercation  and  invective.  Callis- 
thenes however  did  not  abide  by  the  instructions  of 
his  master;  and  perhaps  the  ambition  of  martyrdom 
contributed  almost  as  much  as  the  love  of  truth  to  his 
neglect  of  them.  The  description  of  Kent,  which  Shaks- 
peare  puts  into  the  mouth  of  Cornwall2  would  certainly 
not  do  him  justice ;  but  it  is  impossible  to  shut  our 
eyes  to  the  fact  that  he  made  it  "  his  occupation  to  be 
plain."  Disgusted  at  the  ceremony  of  the  salaam,  and 
the  other  oriental  customs,  which  in  the  eyes  of  many 
were  a  degradation  to  the  dignity  of  freeborn  Greeks,  he 
did  not  take  the  proper  course,  namely,  to  withdraw 
himself  from  the  royal  banquets,  and  thus  by  his  ab- 
sence enter  a  practical  protest  against  their  adoption;  but, 


1  Valerius  Maximus,  vii.  2. 


-This  is  some  fellow, 


Who,  having  been  praised  for  bluntness,  doth  affect 

A  saucy  roughness,  and  constrains  the  garb 

Quite  from  his  nature :    He  cannot  flatter,  he  ! 

An  honest  mind  and  plain ! — he  must  speak  truth : 

An  they  will  take  it,  so:    if  not,  he's  plain. 

These  kind  of  knaves  I  know,  which  in  this  plainness 

Harbour  more  craft  and  more  corrupter  ends, 

Than  twenty  silly  ducking  observants 

That  stretch  their  duties  nicely ! 

King  Lear,  Act  ii«  sc.  2. 


HIS    HATRED    OF    ANAXAKCHUS.  75 

while  he  still  did  not  cease  to  attend  these,  he  took  every 
opportunity  of  testifying  his  disapprobation  of  what  he 
saw,  and  his  contempt  of  the  favours  which  were  he- 
stowed  on  such  as  were  less  scrupulous  than  himself. 
One  of  them  who  appears  to  have  particularly  excited 
his  dislike  was  the  sophist  Anaxarchus,  an  unprincipled 
flatterer,  who  vindicated  the  worst  actions  and  encou- 
raged the  most  evil  tendencies  of  his  master 3 ;  and  per- 
haps the  jealousy  of  this  miscreant  and  an  unwillingness 
to  leave  him  the  undivided  empire  over  Alexander's 
mind,  was  one  reason  which  prevented  him  from  adopt- 
ing what  would  have  been  probably  the  most  effectual 
as  well  as  the  most  dignified  line  of  conduct.  Some 
anecdotes  are  related  by  Plutarch,  which  exhibit  in  a 
very  striking  manner  both  the  mutual  hatred  of  the 
philosophers  breaking  out  in  defiance  of  all  the  de- 
cencies of  a  court,  and  the  rude  bluntness  of  Callisthe- 
nes's  manners.  On  one  occasion,  a  discussion  arose  at 
supper  time,  as  to  the  comparative  severity  of  the  win- 

3  When  Alexander,  after  having  slain  his  friend  Clitus  in  a  fit  of 
drunken  passion,  threw  himself  upon  the  earth,  overwhelmed  with 
remorse,  deaf  to  the  solicitations  of  his  friends,  and  obstinately 
refusing  to  touch  food, — Callisthenes  and  Anaxarchus,  the  philoso- 
phers of  that  day  standing  in  the  place  of  the  priests  of  this,  were 
sent  to  offer  him  spiritual  consolations.  The  latter,  wise  in  his 
generation,  determined  to  sear  the  conscience  which  he  could  not 
heal,  and  entered  the  tent  with  an  expression  of  indignation  and 
surprize.  "What,"  he  cried,  "  is  this  Alexander  on  whom  the  eyes  of 
the  whole  world  are  bent  ?  is  this  he  lying  weeping  like  a  slave,  in  fear 
of  the  reproaches  and  the  conventional  laws  of  men,  when  he  ought 
to  be  himself  the  law  and  the  standard  of  right  and  wrong  to  them  ? 
Why  did  he  conquer  the  world  but  to  rule  and  command  it ;  surely 
not  to  be  in  bondage  to  it  and  its  foolish  opinions  ?  "  "  Dost  thou 
not  know/'  he  continued,  addressing  the  unhappy  prince,  "that 
Justice  and  Law  (A/K^i/  not  Qcpiv)  are  represented  the  Assessors  of 
Jupiter,  as  a  sign  to  all  that  whatever  the  mighty  do  is  lawful  and 
just  ?  "  Plutarch,  Vit.  Alex.  §  52. 


76  HIS    DISLIKE    OF    PERSIAN    HABITS. 

ters  in  Macedonia  and  in  the  part  of  the  country  where 
they  then  were.  Anaxarchus,  is  opposition  to  his  rival, 
strongly  maintained  the  former  to  be  the  colder.  Cal- 
listhenes  could  not  resist  the  temptation  of  a  sneer 
at  his  enemy.  "  You  at  least,"  said  he,  "  should 
hardly  be  of  that  opinion.  In  Greece  you  used  to 
get  through  the  cold  weather  in  a  scrubby  jacket, 
(ev  Tpifiwvi) ;  here,  I  observe  that  you  cannot  sit  down 
to  table  with  less  than  three  thick  mantels  (SdiriSai) 
on  your  back  V*  Anaxarchus,  whose  vulgar  ostentation 
of  the  wealth  which  his  low  servilities  had  procured  him 
was  observed  and  ridiculed  by  all,  could  not  turn  off 
this  sarcasm ;  but  the  meanest  animal  has  its  sting, 
and  he  took  care  not  to  miss  any  opportunity  for  lower- 
ing the  credit  of  Callisthenes  with  Alexander, — a  task 
which  the  unfortunate  wrong-headedness 2  of  the  other 
rendered  only  too  easy.  On  the  occasion  of  another 
royal  banquet,  each  of  the  guests  as  the  cup  passed 
round,  drank  to  the  monarch  from  it,  and  then  after 
performing  the  salaam,  received  a  salute  from  him, — 
a  ceremony  which  was  considered  as  an  especial  mark 
of  royal  favour.  Callisthenes,  when  his  turn  arrived, 
omitted  the  salaam,  but  advanced  towards  Alexander, 
who  being  busy  in  conversation  with  Hephsestion,  did 
not  observe  that  the  expected  act  of  homage  had  been 
omitted.  A  courtier  of  Anaxarchus's  party,  however, 
Demetrius,  the  son  of  Pythonax,  determined  that  their 
enemy  should  not  benefit  by  this  casualty,  and  accord- 

1  Plutarch,  Vit.  Alex.  §  52. 

2  c-Kaiorrjs  and  vVepoK-yo?  a(3e\T6pia  are  terms  in  which  Arrhian, 
who  perfectly   appreciates  the  manly  spirit  of  Callisthenes  and  is 
no  idolater  of  Alexander,  characterizes  his  manners.     (De  cxped. 
Alex.  iv.  c.  12.) 


0, 


POPULAR    WITH    THE    MACEDONIA!*^  77 

ingly  called  out,  "  Do  not  salute  that  fellow,  sire  ;  for 
he  alone  has  refused  to  salaam  you."  The  king  on 
hearing  this  refused  Callisthenes  the  customary  com- 
pliment; but  the  latter  far  from  heing  mortified,  ex- 
claimed contemptuously  as  he  returned  to  his  seat, 
"  Very  well,  then  I  am  a  kiss  the  poorer  3  !  "  Such 
gratuitous  discourtesy  as  this  could  hardly  fail  to  alien- 
ate the  kindness  of  a  young  prince,  whose  mere  taste 
for  refinement,  —  leaving  entirely  out  of  consideration 
the  intoxication  produced  by  unparalleled  success  and 
the  flatteries  which  follow  it,  —  must  have  been  revolted 
by  it4.  It  however  gained  him  great  credit  with  the 
Macedonian  party,  who  were  no  less  jealous  of  the 
favour  which  the  Persian  nobles  found  with  the  Con- 
queror than  disgusted  with  the  adoption  of  the  Persian 
customs.  He  was  considered  as  the  mouthpiece  of  the 
body,  and  as  the  representative  and  vindicator  of  that 
manly  and  plain  speaking  spirit  of  liberty  which  they 
regarded  as  their  birthright5,  and  the  satisfaction 
which  his  vanity  received  from  this  importance,  com- 
bined with  a  despair  of  reconquering  the  first  place  in 
Alexander's  favour  from  the  hated  and  despised  Anaxar- 
chus,  probably  determined  him  to  relinquish  all  attempts 
at  pleasing  the  monarch,  and  to  adopt  a  line  which 
might  annoy  and  injure  himself  but  could  hardly  bene- 
fit any  one.  When  an  account  was  brought  to  Aris- 
totle in  Greece  of  the  course  pursued  by  his  relation, 

3  Plutarch,  Fit.  §  54.     Arrhian,  iv.  12. 

4  "Do  not  the  Greeks  seem  to  you,"  said  he,  to  two  of  his  friends, 
on  the  occasion  of  Clitus's  outrageous  behaviour,  "  compared  with 
the  Macedonians,  like  demigods  among  brute  beasts  ?  "     (Plutarch, 

ru.  §  51.) 

5  Plutarch,  Fit.  §  53.     Arrhian,  iv.  12. 


78  HIS    BAD    TASTE    AND    TEMPER. 

his  sharp-sigh tedness  led  him  at  once  to  divine  the  re- 
sult.    In  a  line  from  the  Iliad J, 

Ah  me!  such  words,  my   son,  bode  speedy  death! 

he  prophetically  hinted  the  fate  which  awaited  him.  In- 
deed the  latter  himself  appears  not  to  have  been  blind 
to  the  ruin  preparing  for  him  ;  but  this  conviction  did 
not  produce  any  alteration  in  his  conduct,  or,  if  any- 
thing, it  perhaps  induced  him  to  give  way  to  his  tem- 
per even  more  than  before.  At  another  banquet,  the 
not  unusual  request  was  made  to  him,  that  he  would 
exhibit  his  talents  by  delivering  an  extemporaneous  ora- 
tion, and  the  subject  chosen-  was  a  Panegyric  upon  the 
Macedonians.  He  complied,  and  performed  his  task  so 
well  as  to  excite  universal  admiration  and  enthusiastic 
applause  on  the  part  of  the  guests.  This  circumstance 
appears  to  have  nettled  Alexander,  whose  affection  for 
his  old  fellow-pupil  had  probably  quite  vanished,  and 
he  remarked  in  disparagement  of  the  feat,  in  a  quo- 
tation from  Euripides,  that  on  such  a  subject  it  was 
no  great  matter  to  be  eloquent.  "  If  Callisthenes 
wished  really  to  give  a  proof  of  his  abilities,"  said  he, 
"  let  him  take  up  the  other  side  of  the  question,  and 
try  what  he  can  do  in  an  invective  against  the  Mace- 
donians, that  they  may  learn  their  faults  and  reform 
them."  The  orator  did  not  decline  the  challenge  :— 
his  mettle  was  roused,  and  he  surpassed  his  former 
performance.  The  Macedonian  nation  was  held  up  to 
utter  scorn,  and  especial  contempt  heaped  upon  the 
warlike  exploits  and  consummate  diplomacy  of  Alex- 
ander's father  Philip.  His  successes  were  attributed 
to  accident  or  low  intrigue  availing  itself  of  the  dis- 

ttj  fjiot,  T€Ko<?,  t<r<rea«,  ot"  ayopeven.     Diog.  Laert.  Vit.  §  5. 


HIS    INTIMACY   WITH    THE    PAGES.  79 

sensions  which   existed    at   that  time  in   Greece;    and 
the  whole  was  wound  up  by  the  Homeric  line 


KO.I    o   TrajKctKos  eAAave 
When  civil  broils  prevail,  the  vilest  soar  to  fame  ! 

The  effect  of  this  course  was  such  as  might  have  been 
expected.  Alexander  fell  into  a  furious  passion,  tell- 
ing the  performer  what  was  not  far  from  the  truth,  that 
his  speech  was  an  evidence  not  of  skill,  but  of  male- 
volence, and  the  latter,  perhaps  conscious  that  he  had 
now  struck  a  blow  which  would  never  be  forgiven,  left 
the  room  repeating  as  he  went  out  a  verse  from  the 
Iliad,  which  seems  to  be  an  allusion  to  the  death  of 
Clitus,  and  an  intimation  that  he  expected  to  be  made 
the  second  victim  to  his  sovereign's  temper2. 

A  victim  he  was  destined  to  be,  although  not  in 
the  way  in  which  he  appears  to  have  expected.  A 
practice  had  been  introduced  by  Philip,  similar  to  that 
which  prevailed  in  the  courts  of  the  feudal  sovereigns 
in  the  Middle  Ages,  that  the  sons  of  the  principal  no- 
bles should  be  brought  up  at  court  in  attendance  on 
the  person  of  the  king.  Of  these  pages,  esquires,  or 
grooms  of  the  bed-chamber,  (for  their  office  appears  to 
have  included  all  these  duties3),  who  attended  on  Alex- 
ander, there  was  one  named  Hermolaus,  a  youth  of 
high  spirit  and  generous  disposition,  who  was  much 
attached  to  Callisthenes  and  took  great  pleasure  in  his 
society  and  conversation.  The  philosopher  appears  to 
have  considered  his  mind  as  a  fit  depository  for  the 
manly  principles  of  Grecian  liberty,  which  the  tenets 
of  Anaxarchus  and  the  corrupt  example  of  the  monarch 

2  KCtT0ai/e    KCII    OaTpoKAo?,    oirep    ceo    troXXov    a/ue'ji/a>i/.      Plutarch, 
Fit.  §  54. 

3  Arrhian,  iv.  c.  13. 


80  HIS    RHETORICAL    COMMONPLACES. 

threatened  utterly  to  extinguish,  and,  in  the  inculca- 
tion of  these,  to  have   made   use  of  language   and  of 
illustrations,    which    considering    the    circumstances   of 
the  case  were  certainly  dangerous,  although  in   refer- 
ence to  the  then  prevailing  tone  of  morality  we  shall 
scarcely  he  justified  in  censuring  them.     Harmodius  and 
Aristogiton  having  with  the  sacrifice  of  their  own  lives 
been  fortunate  enough  to  bring  about  the  freedom   of 
their  country,   had  been   canonized  as  political   saints, 
and  were  held  up  to  all  the  youth  of  the  free  states  of 
Greece  for  admiration  and  imitation;  and  Callisthenes 
can  hardly  deserve  especial  blame  for  participating  in 
this  general  idolatry,  or  for  representing  the  glory  of  a 
tyrannicide  as  surpassing  that  of  a  tyrant,  however  bril- 
liant the  fortunes  of  the  latter  might  be.     Neither  can 
we  at  all  wonder  that  he  should  delight  in  depreciating 
the  "pride,  pomp   and    circumstance"   of  greatness  in 
comparison  with  dignity  of  character  and  manly  energy, 
and  in   exposing   the  impotence   of  externals   to  avert 
any   of  "the  ills  to  which  flesh  is  heir."     Such   con- 
siderations have  been  in  all  ages  and  ever  will  be  the 
staple  both  of  Philosophy  and  of  the  sciolism  which  is 
its   counterfeit,   and   the    necessity   for  dwelling    upon 
them  might  to  Callisthenes  appear  the  greater  in  order 
to  counterbalance  the  habits  of  feeling  which   Persian 
manners  and   sophistry  like   that  of  Anaxarchus   were 
calculated  to  spread  among  the  Macedonian  youth.    He 
is   said  indeed  to  have  continually  professed  that  the 
only  motive  which  induced  him  to  accompany   Alex- 
ander into  Asia  was  that  he  might  be  the  means  of 
restoring  his  countrymen  to  their  father-land,  as  true 
Greeks  as  they  went  out,  uncorrupted  by  the  manners 
or  the  luxury  of  the  Barbarians1, — and  he  seems   un- 

*  l  Plutarch,   Fit.  §  53. 


CONSPIRACY    OF   THE    PAGES.  81 

questionably  to  have  succeeded  in  putting  a  stop,  at 
least  for  a  time,  to  the  ceremony  of  the  salaam,  of  all 
Eastern  customs  the  one  most  galling  to  Macedonian 
pride8.  In  an  evil  day  however  to  Callisthenes,  it  hap- 
pened, that  Hermolaus  was  out  boar-hunting  with  Alex- 
ander, when  the  animal  charged  directly  towards  the  king. 
The  page,  influenced  probably  more  by  the  ardour  of 
the  chase,  and  his  own  youthful  spirits,  than  by  any  just 
apprehension  for  his  sovereign's  safety,  struck  the  crea- 
ture a  mortal  wound  before  it  came  up  to  him.  Alex- 
ander, the  keenest  of  huntsmen,  baulked  of  his  ex- 
pected sport,  in  the  passion  of  the  moment,  ordered 
Hermolaus  to  be  flogged  in  the  presence  of  his  brother- 
pages,  and  deprived  him  of  his  horse,  (apparently  the 
sign  of  summarily  degrading  him  from  his  employment.) 
Such  an  insult  to  a  Greek  could  only  be  washed  out  in 
the  blood  of  the  aggressor,  and  Hermolaus  found  ready 
sympathy  among  his  compeers.  It  was  agreed  by  them 
that  Alexander  should  be  assassinated  while  asleep,  and 
the  execution  of  the  design  was  fixed  for  a  night  on  which 
Antipater,  the  son  of  Asclepiodorus,  (whom  Alexander 
had  made  lord-lieutenant  of  Syria,)  was  to  be  the  groom 
in  waiting.  It  so  happened,  that  on  that  night  Alex- 
ander did  not  retire  to  bed  at  all,  but  sat  at  table 
carousing  until  the  very  morning, — whether  by  acci- 
dent, or  in  consequence  of  the  advice  of  a  Syrian  fe- 
male, to  whom  in  the  character  of  a  soothsayer  he  paid 
great  respect,  is  not  agreed  by  the  contemporary  histo- 
rians. But  this  circumstance,  whatever  was  the  cause 
of  it,  saved  the  king  and  led  to  the  detection  of  the 
plot.  The  next  day,  Epimenes,  one  of  the  conspira- 

2  Plutarch,  Vit.  §  54.     Compare  Arrhian,  iv.  14,  where  Hermo- 
laus is    said  to   have    complained   of  TYJV   Trpo^Kvutja-iv  TVJV 

Bt'ia'Ctv    KCti    ovirta 

6 


82  CALL1STHENES   INCULPATED. 

tors,  mentioned  the  matter  to  an  individual  who  was 
strongly  attached  to  him.  This  person  communicated  it 
to  Eurylochus,  the  brother  of  Epimenes,  perhaps  consider- 
ing that  his  relationship  was  a  sufficient  guarantee  for 
secrecy.  Eurylochus,  however,  at  once  laid  an  informa- 
tion before  Ptolemy  the  son  of  Lagus,  subsequently  the 
first  of  the  Greek  dynasty  in  Egypt,  and  then  one  of  the 
guard  of  honour  in  attendance  on  Alexander.  He  re- 
ported to  the  king  the  names  of  those  who  he  had 
been  told  were  concerned  in  the  affair :  they  were  ar- 
rested, and  on  being  put  to  the  torture  confessed  their 
crime  and  gave  up  the  names  of  others  who  were  par- 
ticipators1. So  far  all  accounts  agree  as  to  the  sub- 
stantial facts  of  this  story, — but  here  a  great  discrepancy 
commences.  Ptolemy  and  Aristobulus2  both  asserted  that 
the  pages  named  Callisthenes  as  the  instigator  of  their 
design.  This  however  was  denied  by  the  majority  of 
contemporary  writers  on  the  subject,  who  related  that 
the  ill  will  towards  Callisthenes  previously  existing  in 
the  mind  of  Alexander,  combined  with  the  intimacy  that 
subsisted  between  Hermolaus  and  the  former,  furnished 

1  Arrhian,  iv.  13,  14. 

8  Aristobulus  was  one  of  Alexander's  generals,  and  wrote  an 
account  of  his  campaigns.  He  did  not  however  commence  this 
work  till  his  84th  year,  (Lucian,  De  Macrob.  §  22)  long  enough 
therefore  after  the  transaction  in  question,  to  allow  us  to  sup- 
pose that  by  a  slip  of  the  memory  he  may  have  confused  circum- 
stantial with  direct  evidence.  Moreover  as  there  was  no  act 
which  made  Alexander  so  unpopular  as  the  execution  of  Callis- 
thenes, (Quintus  Curtius,  De  rebus  gestis  Alex.  viii.  c.  8),  so  there 
was  nothing  which  his  biographers  took  so  much  pains  to  exte- 
nuate. See  Ste  Croix,  p.  360,  seqq.  Arrhian  (iv.  14,^.)  at  the  same 
time  that  he  speaks  of  the  opportunities  of  knowledge  possessed 
by  Ptolemy  and  Aristobulus,  and  of  their  general  fidelity,  yet 
remarks  that  their  accounts  of  the  details  of  this  affair  differ  from 
one  another. 


PRESUMPTIVE    EVIDENCE.  83 

ample  means  to  his  enemies  to  raise  a  strong  suspicion 
against  him3.  They  alleged,  that  to  a  question  from 
Hermolaus,  "  how  a  man  might  make  himself  the  most 
illustrious  of  his  species"?  he  replied,  "  Bij  slaying  him 
that  is  most  illustrious":  and  that  to  incite  the  youth 
to  the  rash  act,  he  hade  him  "not  be  in  awe  of  the 
couch  of  gold,  but  remember  that  such  a  one  often 
holds  a  sick  or  a  wounded  man"; — also,  that  when 
Philotas  had  asked  him  whom  the  Athenians  honoured 
most  of  all  men,  he  replied,  "  Harmodius  and  Aristo- 
giton,  the  tyrannicides"  and  when  the  querist  expressed 
a  doubt  whether  such  a  person  would  at  the  existing 
time,  find  countenance  and  protection  any  where  in 
Greece,  he  replied,  "that  if  every  other  city  shut  its 
gates  against  him,  he  would  certainly  find  a  refuge  in 
Athens"  and  in  support  of  this  opinion  quoted  the  in- 
stance of  the  Heraclidae  who  there  found  protection 
against  the  tyrant  Eurystheus4.  It  requires  hut  little 
penetration  to  see  how,  under  circumstances  of  such 
peculiar  irritation,  the  words  of  Callisthenes  might  with 
very  little  violence  and  with  the  greatest  plausibility, 
be  interpreted  in  a  treasonable  sense,  although  they 
were  nothing  more  than  Macedonian  principles  expressed 
in  a  strong  and  antithetical  manner.  Indeed,  the  very 
admixture  of  legendary  history  in  the  instance  of  the 
sons  of  Hercules  seems  to  betray  the  common  places  of 
the  rhetorician.  And  that  this  account  of  the  matter, 
to  which  Arrhian,  following  the  majority  of  contempo- 
rary accounts,  inclines,  is  the  true  one,  seems  proved 

3  Arrhian,  loc.  cit. 

4  Plutarch,  Vit.  §  55.     Arrhian,  iv.  10.     This  Philotas  is  not  the 
son   of   Parmenio,   put  to   death   together   with    his   father   on   a 
former  occasion,  but  a  page,  the  son  of  Carsis,  a  Thracian.     See 
Arrhian,  iv.  13. 

6—2 


84  ARISTOTLE    INCULPATED. 

beyond  all  doubt  by  two  letters  of  Alexander  himself, 
which  are  cited  by  Plutarch.  In  the  former  of  these, 
written  immediately  after  the  event  to  his  general, 
Craterus,  he  states,  "  that  the  pages  on  being  put  to 
the  torture  confessed  their  own  treason,  but  denied 
that  any  one  else  was  privy  to  the  attempt."  He 
wrote  to  Attains  and  Alcetas  to  the  same  effect.  But 
afterwards  in  a  letter  to  Antipater,  he  says,  "  the 
pages  have  been  stoned  to  death  by  the  Macedonians ; 
but  as  for  the  sophist  I  intend  to  punish  him,  and 
those  too  who  sent  him  out,  and  also  the  cities  which 
harbour  conspirators  against  me."  In  the  latter  part 
of  this  phrase,  according  to  Plutarch,  he  alludes  to 
Aristotle,  as  being  the  great-uncle  of  Callisthenes,  and 
the  person  by  whose  advice  he  had  joined  the  court.  It 
seems  plain  that  in  the  interval  between  the  writing  of 
these  letters,  Alexander's  mind  had  been  worked  upon 
by  those  whose  interest  it  was  to  identify  the  cause  of 
manliness  and  virtue  with  that  of  disloyalty  and  trea- 
son, by  Anaxarchus  and  the  crew  of  court  sycophants 
whose  practice  he  sanctioned  by  his  example,  and 
attempted  to  justify  by  his  philosophy.  The  tide  of 
hatred  however  was  setting  too  strong  against  Cal- 
listhenes for  him  to  stem  it.  He  was  placed  under 
confinement,  and  according  to  accounts  which  there  is 
too  much  reason  to  fear  are  true,  cruelly  mutilated. 
It  is  said  to  have  been  Alexander's  intention  to  bring 
him  to  a  trial  in  the  presence  of  Aristotle  on  his  re- 
turn to  Greece ; — but  the  unfortunate  man  after  remain- 
ing in  his  deplorable  situation  for  a  considerable  time, 
died  from  the  effects  of  ill  treatment. 

Whatever  prejudices  against  his  old  master  may 
have  been  raised  in  the  mind  of  Alexander  on  the 
score  of  Callisthenes,  and  whatever  ill  consequences 


DEATH  OF   ALEXANDER.  85 

might  perhaps  have  followed  if  the  conqueror  had  lived 
to  revisit  Europe,  intoxicated  with  his  military  suc- 
cesses, and  hardened  by  the  influence  of  those  flat- 
terers who  after  Callisthenes's  death  reigned  supreme 
at  court, — it  is  explicitly  stated  by  Plutarch,  that  while 
he  lived  his  estrangement  never  led  him  to  injure  Aris- 
totle in  the  slightest  degree.  Mortification  therefore  at 
the  degeneracy  of  his  pupil,  and  sorrow  at  the  loss  of 
an  affection  in  which  he  doubtless  took  both  pride 
and  pleasure,  were  the  only  evils  which  the  latter 
during  his  remaining  days  had  to  endure.  But  a  few 
years  after  the  death  of  both,  a  story  began  to  be 
circulated  which  at  last  grew  into  a  form  in  the  highest 
degree  detrimental  to  his  character.  It  is  impossible 
to  doubt  that  Alexander  died  from  the  fever  of  the 
country,  caught  immediately  after  indulgence  in  the 
most  extravagant  excesses.  At  the  moment  no  suspicion 
to  the  contrary  was  entertained l.  But  some  time  after- 
wards, the  ambitious  and  intriguing  Olympias,  who  had 
long  indulged  a  bitter  hostility  towards  Antipater,  (a 
hostility  which  the  successful  establishment  of  the  latter 
in  the  government  of  Macedonia  after  her  son's  death 
had  inflamed  into  a  fiendish  hatred,)  seized  the  oppor- 
tunity which  Alexander's  rapid  illness  afforded  to  throw 
the  suspicion  of  poisoning  him  upon  her  enemy,  whose 
younger  son  lolaus  had  been  his  cupbearer.  It  was  not 
till  the  sixth  year  after  the  fatal  event  that  this  story 
was  set  on  foot;  and  it  seems  to  have  originated  in 
nothing]  but  Olympias's  desire  of  vengeance,  which 
then  first  found  a  favourable  vent.  The  bones  of  lo- 
laus, who  had  died  in  the  interim,  were  torn  from 
their  grave,  and  a  hundred  Macedonians,  selected  from 
among  the  most  distinguished  of  Antipater's  friends, 

1  Plutarch,  Vit.  §  77- 


OO  SAID    TO   HAVE    BEEN    POISONED. 

barbarously  butchered1.  The  accusation  of  poisoning 
the  king  seems  at  first  to  have  been  vaguely  set  on 
foot,  the  only  circumstantial  part  of  the  story  being 
the  point  necessary  to  justify  Olympias's  malignity, — 
namely,  that  lolaus  was  the  agent  in  administering  the 
poison.  But  in  process  of  time  the  minutest  details  of 
the  transaction  were  supplied.  We  give  them  in  the 
last  form  which  they  assumed.  The  fears  of  Antipater, 
it  was  said,  arising  from  the  growing  irritation  of 
Alexander  incessantly  stimulated  against  him  by  Olym- 
pias,  induced  him,  on  hearing  that  he  was  superseded 
by  Craterus  and  ordered  into  Asia  with  new  levies, 
to  plot  against  his  master's  life.  A  fit  means  for 
this  purpose  was  pointed  out  to  him  by  his  friend 
Aristotle,  who  dreaded  the  personal  consequences  to 
himself  which  seemed  likely  to  follow  from  Alexan- 
der's anger  against  Callisthenes 2.  The  nature  of  this 
is  quite  in  keeping  with  the  other  features  of  the  nar- 
rative. It  was  no  other  than  the  water  of  the  river 
Styx,  which  fell  from  a  rock  near  the  town  of  Nona- 
cris  in  Arcadia,  and  which,  according  to  a  local  su- 
perstition which  is  not  extinct  to  this  day3,  possessed 
not  only  the  property  of  destroying  animal  life  by  its 

1  Diodorus,  xix.  11.     Plutarch,  loc.  cit. 

2  Although  Callisthenes  had  been  put  to  death  five  years  before, 
i.  e.  in  B.C.  328  !     See  Clinton,  F.  H.  ii.  p.  376. 

3  See   Col.  Leake's  Travels  in  the  Morea,  vol.  iii.  pp.  165 — 9. 
The  natives  say  that  the  water  which  they  call  TU  Mavpa-vepta  (the 
black  waters)  and  ra  ApctKo-vepta  (the  terrible  waters)  is  unwhole- 
some, and  also  that  no  vessel  will  hold  it.     It  is  a  slender  perennial 
stream  falling  over  a  very  high  precipice,  and  entering  the  rock 
at  the  bottom,  which  is  said  to  be  inaccessible  from  the  nature  of 
the  ground.     Col.  Leake  quotes  the  phrases  of  Homer  KaT€i{3dfj.cvov 
STuyo?  v^xap  and  STUYO?  i/Baro?  aiTrd  peeOpa  as  exact  descriptions  of  it. 
See  also  Herod,  vi.  74.     Hesiod,  Theog.  785—805. 


ARISTOTLE    INCULPATED.  87 


cold  and  petrifying  qualities  (\l/v^pov  mi  Trcryera^es)  but 
also  that  of  dissolving  the  hardest  metals,  and  even 
precious  stones.  One  substance  alone  was  proof  against 
its  destructive  influences,  —  the  hoof  of  a  Scythian  ass  ! 
In  a  vessel  made  out  of  this,  a  small  portion  of  the 
fluid  was  conveyed  by  Cassander,  lolaus's  elder  brother, 
into  Asia,  and,  on  the  occasion  of  the  debauch  at  which 
Alexander  was  taken  ill,  administered  to  him  by  the 
latter.  lolaus  was  stimulated  to  the  act  by  the  desire 
of  revenging  an  outrage  upon  himself  by  the  king, 
and  attachment  to  him  induced  Medius,  a  Thessalian, 
at  whose  palace  the  debauch  took  place,  to  be  an  ac- 
complice in  the  treason.  The  assassin,  according  to 
the  author  of  the  Lives  of  the  Ten  Orators  falsely 
attributed  to  Plutarch4,  was  rewarded  by  a  proposition 
of  the  demagogue  Hyperides  at  Athens,  to  confer  pub- 
lic honours  upon  him  as  a  tyrannicide,  and  the  horn 
cup  in  which  the  fatal  draught  had  been  conveyed  from 
Greece  deposited  in  the  temple  of  Delphi  5. 

4  p.  849,  ed.  Paris.  The  same  is  stated  by  Photius,  Biblioth. 
p.  496.  1.  3,  Bekk. 

6  Epig.  ap.  ^Elian.  De  Nat.  Animal,  x.  40.  That  it  should  have 
been  deposited  there,,  as  the  epigram  states,  by  Alexander  himself,  is 
a  circumstance  scarcely  necessary  to  increase  the  incredibility  of  the 
story. 

An  almost  equally  great  confusion  of  times  and  circumstances 
appears  in  Mr  Landor's  Imaginary  Conversations,  Vol.  ii.  pp.  495— 
530.  Callisthenes  himself  is  represented  as  exciting  Aristotle's  fears 
for  his  own  personal  safety  by  describing  Alexander's  jealousy  of 
every  thing  great;  and  the  dialogue  between  them  ends  as  fol- 
lows : 

"  ARISTOTELES.  Now  Callisthenes  !  if  Socrates  and  Anytus  were 
in  the  same  chamber,  if  the  wicked  had  mixed  poison  for  the  vir- 
tuous, the  active  in  evil  for  the  active  in  good,  and  some  divinity 
had  placed  it  in  your  power  to  present  the  cup  to  either,  and  touch- 


88  IMPROBABILITY    OF    THE    STORY. 

The  absurdity  of  this  account  is  glaringly  manifest 
to  readers  of  the  present  day,  of  whom  nine  out  of 
every  ten  are  probably  better  acquainted  with  the  nature 
and  operation  of  petrifying  springs  than  the  best  in- 
formed of  the  Greek  naturalists  were.  The  ancients 
were  not  in  possession  of  the  touchstone  for  the  dis- 
covery of  falsehood  which  modern  science  affords ;  but 
even  they  were  long  before  they  attached  any  credence 
to  the  calumny.  "  The  greater  part  of  the  writers  on 
the  subject,"  says  Plutarch1,  "  consider  the  whole  matter 
of  the  reputed  poisoning  a  mere  fiction,  and  in  confirma- 
tion of  this  view  they  quote  the  fact,  that  although  the 
royal  remains  lay  for  several  days  unembalmed,  in  con- 
sequence of  the  disputes  of  the  generals, — and  that  too 
in  a  hot  and  close  place, — they  exhibited  no  marks  of 
corruption,  but  remained  fresh  and  unchanged."  Arrhian3 
too,  who  as  well  as  Plutarch  derives  his  account  of  the 
king's  illness  and  death  from  the  court  gazettes  (etyrjue- 
piSes),  and  confirms  the  statements  of  these  by  the  narra- 
tives of  Ptolemy  and  Aristobulus,  says  of  the  charge  of 

ing  your  head,  should  say,  ( This  head  also  is  devoted  to  the  Eume- 
nides  if  the  choice  be  wrong/  what  would  you  resolve  ? 

CALLISTHENES.  To  do  that  by  command  of  the  god  which  I 
would  likewise  have  done  without  it. 

ARISTOTELES.  Bearing  in  mind  that  a  myriad  of  kings  and 
conquerors  is  not  worth  the  myriadth  part  of  a  wise  and  virtuous 
man,  return,  Callisthenes,  to  Babylon,  and  see  that  your  duty  be 
performed." 

Alexander  did  not  enter  Babylon  until  the  spring  of  324.  B.  c., 
consequently  till  four  years  after  the  death  of  Callisthenes.  The 
conspiracy  of  the  pages,  in  which  Callisthenes  was,  whether  justly 
or  unjustly,  mixed  up,  was  detected  while  Alexander  was  in  Bactra. 
But  before  this  conspiracy  there  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  Alex- 
ander entertained  any  coolness  towards  Aristotle. 

1  Fit.  Alex.  ult. 

2  vii.  27- 


ITS    GROWTH.  89 

poisoning,  which  he  afterwards  mentions,  that  he  has 
alluded  to  it  merely  to  show  that  he  has  heard  of  it, 
not  that  he  considers  it  to  deserve  any  credence.  In 
fact,  the  sole  source  of  the  story  in  its  details  appears 
to  have  heen  one  Hagnothemis  (an  individual  of  whom 
nothing  else  is  known),  who  is  reported  to  have  said  that 
he  had  heard  it  told  by  King  Antigonus3.  But  its 
piquancy  was  a  strong  recommendation  to  later  writers, 
and  it  is  instructive  and  amusing  to  observe  how  their 
statements  of  it  increase  in  positiveness  about  in  pro- 
portion as  they  recede  from  the  time  in  which  the  facts 
of  the  case  could  be  known.  Diodorus  Siculus  and 
Vitruvius,  living  in  the  time  of  the  two  first  Caesars, 
merely  mention  the  rumour  that  Alexander's  death  was 
occasioned  by  poison,  through  the  agency  of  Antipater, — 
but  do  not  pretend  to  assert  its  credibility.  Quintus 
Curtius,  writing  under  Vespasian,  considers  the  autho- 
rities on  that  side  to  preponderate.  The  epitomizer  of 
a  degenerate  age,  Justin,  flourishing  in  the  reign  of 
Antoninus  Pius,  slightly  alludes  to  the  intemperance 
which  he  allows  had  been  assigned  as  the  cause  of 
Alexander's  death,  but  adds  that  in  fact  he  died  from 
treason,  and  the  disgraceful  truth  was  suppressed  by  the 
influence  of  his  successors.  And  finally  Orosius,  in 
the  fifth  century,  states  broadly  and  briefly  that  he 
died  from  poison  administered  by  an  attendant,  with- 
out so  much  as  hinting  that  any  different  belief  had 
ever  even  partially  obtained4.  But  it  is  remarkable 

3  Plutarch,  Vit.  Alex.  loc.  cit. 

4  Diodorus  xvii.  117,  Vitruvius  viii.  3,  Q.  Curtius  x.  10,  Justin 
xii.  14,  Orosius  iii.  20.     It  is  possible  that  some  readers  may  quote 
Tacitus  (An?ial.  ii.  73),  as  opposing  the  view  we  have  given  in  the 
text  of  the  gradual  progression  of  credulity.     But  the  exception  is 
only  apparent.     Tacitus  does  not  give  his  own  view,  but  merely 


90  REVIVED    BY   CARACALLA. 

that  of  all  these  writers,  not  one  mixes  up  Aristotle's 
name  with  the  story ;  and  it  is  probable  that  the  foolish 
charge  against  him  mentioned  (and  discountenanced) 
by  Plutarch  and  Arrhian,  fell  into  discredit  very  soon 
after  it  arose,  and  perhaps  was  only  remembered  as  a 
curious  piece  of  scandalous  history,  until  the  half-lunatic 
Caracalla  thought  proper  to  revive  it,  in  order  to  gratify 
at  once  the  tyrant's  natural  hatred  for  wisdom  and 
virtue,  and  his  own  morbid  passion  for  idolizing  the 
memory  of  Alexander.  It  is  recorded  of  him  that  he 
persecuted  the  Aristotelean  sect  of  philosophers  with 
singular  hatred,  abolishing  the  social  meetings  of  their 
body  which  appear  to  have  taken  place  in  Alexandria, 
confiscating  certain  funds  which  they  possessed,  and 
even  entertaining  the  design  of  destroying  their  master's 
works,  on  no  other  ground  than  that  Aristotle  was 
thought  to  have  aided  Antipater  in  destroying  Alex- 
ander1. 


that  of  those  who  chose  to  draw  a  parallel  between  the  circumstances 
of  Germanicus's  life  and  those  of  Alexander ;  for  which  purpose  this 
version  of  the  death  of  the  latter  was  necessary,  and  perhaps  to  this 
i,t  owed  much  of  its  subsequent  popularity.  With  respect  too  to 
the  silence  concerning  Aristotle,  it  is  to  be  remarked  that  the  ex- 
pressions of  Pliny,  magna  Aristotelis  infamid  excogitatum,  (H.  N. 
xxx.  ult.),  if  they  are  genuine,  do  not  imply  a  belief  either  on  his 
own  part  or  that  of  people  in  general,  that  the  Philosopher  was 
guilty  of  abetting  Antipater.  But  they  seem  more  likely  to  be  a 
marginal  note  implying  that  "the  story  of  the  poisoning  by  such 
water  was  a  figment  that  had  done  Aristotle's  character  much 
harm." 

1  Xiphilinus,  Epilom.  Dionis.  pp.  329,  30.  Caracalla  wore  arms 
and  used  drinking  cups  which  had  belonged  to  Alexander,  erected 
a  great  number  of  statues  to  him  both  in  Rome  and  at  the  several 
military  stations,  and  raised  a  phalanx  of  Macedonians,  armed  all 
after  the  manner  of  five  centuries  back,  which  he  named  after  the 
Conqueror  of  the  East.  In  his  wish  to  destroy  the  philosopher's 


ITS    PROBABLE    ORIGIN.  91 

To  attempt  to  account  for  the  origin  of  so  absurd 
a  charge  as  that  we  have  been  discussing  may  perhaps 
appear  rash.  We  cannot  however  resist  the  temptation  of 
hazarding  a  conjecture,  that  while  the  intimacy  of  Aris- 
totle with  Antipater  undoubtedly  furnished  a  favourable 
soil  for  the  growth  of  the  story,  the  actual  germ  of  it 
is  to  be  looked  for  at  Delphi.  The  cup  in  the  treasure 
house  there,  which  the  epigram  we  have  quoted  above 
represents  as  presented  by  Alexander,  was  probably  of 
onyx,  a  stone  of  which  the  coloured  layers  resembling 
as  they  do  the  outer  coats  of  a  hoof,  procured  it  the 
name  by  which  it  goes.  Now  it  is  obvious  that  in  the 
time  of  which  we  are  speaking,  when  the  merchant 
who  sold  the  wares  was  for  the  most  part  himself  a 
traveller  in  distant  countries,  marvellous  tales  would  be 
related  respecting  the  strange  commodities  which  he 
imported.  The  onyx  might  to  the  admiring  Greek  be 
represented  as  the  solid  hoof  of  some  strange  animal, 
with  no  less  plausibility  than  in  the  fourteenth  cen- 
tury a  cocoa  nut  could  be  sold  as  a  griffin's  egg, — a 
long  univalve  shell  represented  as  the  horn  of  a  land 
animal, — or  the  ammonites  of  Malta  regarded  as  ser- 
pents changed  into  stone  by  St  Paul2.  And  although 

works  (KO\  TCC  f3ij3\'ia  avrov  KaraKav<rai  edeXtjcrai)  he  had  the  pre- 
cedent of  Caligula.     See  above,  p.  6.  not. 

2  Compare  for  instance  the  stories  related  by  Herodotus,  iii. 
102 — 111,  of  the  way  in  which  gold  dust  and  the  various  spices 
brought  from  the  East  were  procured.  The  account  which  he 
gives  of  cinnamon  is  confirmed  with  a  little  variation  in  the  de- 
tails by  Aristotle.  Hist.  Anim.  ix.  13.  p.  6l6.  col.  1.  Bekk.  Theo- 
phrastus  (H.  P.  iv.  7,  8)  represents  various  corals  as  plants  growing 
in  the  Indian  Ocean.  The  madrepora  muricata  is  termed  by  him 
"  stone  thyme." — The  authority  of  Herodotus  is  no  doubt  some  of 
the  travelling  merchants  who  came  by  the  caravans  to  Egypt,  and 
one  of  these  probably  furnished  the  egg,  which  Pausanias  saw  hang- 


92  RELICS    IN   ANCIENT    TEMPLES. 

the  more  extensive  communication  with  the  East,  which 
commenced  after  Alexander's  expedition,  would  in  pro- 
cess of  time  spread  more  correct  views  on  the  subject  of 
natural  productions,  the  old  legends  would  linger  in 
the  temples,  handed  down  traditionally  by  the  atten- 
dants, who  showed  the  curiosities  to  strangers,  and 
were  expected  to  be  provided  with  a  story  for  every 
relic1.  If  any  one  of  these  ciceroni  (efiryirrcu),  aware 
of  the  intimate  friendship  which  subsisted  between 
Aristotle  and  Antipater,  and  also  of  the  rumour  that 
Alexander  had  been  poisoned  through  the  agency  of 
the  latter,  had  either  chanced  to  stumble  himself,  or 
to  be  directed  by  a  more  learned  visitor  to  a  passage 
in  a  work  of  Theophrastus,  (Aristotle's  favourite  scholar 
and  successor,)  at  that  time  extant,  which  stated  "  that 
in  Arcadia  there  was  a  streamlet  of  water  dropping 
from  a  rock,  called  the  water  of  Styx,  which  those  who 
wished  for,  collected  by  means  of  sponges  fastened  to 
the  end  of  poles ;  and  that  not  only  was  it  a  mortal 

ing  up  in  the  temple  of  Phoebe  Leucippis  at  Sparta,  and  which  he 
was  informed  was  the  production  (not  of  an  ostrich,  but)  of  Leda. 
(iii.  16.  1.) 

1  It  has  been  remarked  by  Heeren  that  Herodotus's  account 
of  the  history  of  Egypt  is  derived  entirely  from  local  narrations 
connected  with  public  monuments.  (Manual  of  ancient  History, 
pp.  52,  53.  Eng.  transl.).  This  remark  admits  of  far  wider  appli- 
cation. It  would  not  be  difficult  to  show  that  almost  all  the  early 
events  recorded  by  that  author  rest  on  the  same  basis.  For  in- 
stance the  history  of  the  Lydian  Kings  in  the  first  book  is  obvi- 
ously entirely  made  up  of  stories  connected  with  offerings  in  the 
temples  of  Apollo  at  Delphi  and  Miletus.  This  is  plain  from  the 
fact  that  every  narrative  at  all  circumstantial  of  any  of  these  mo- 
narchs,  terminates  with  a  reference  to  one  of  these  temples.  The 
historians  before  him,  with  perhaps  the  exception  of  Hellanicus, 
made  use  even  of  the  topographical  form  in  the  composition  of 
their  works. 


ORIGIN   LATER    THAN    ARISTOTLE.  93 

poison  to  whoever  drank  it,  but  it  possessed  the  pro- 
perty of  dissolving  all  vessels  into  which  it  was  put, 
except  they  were  of  horn1"  he  must  have  possessed  much 
less  fancy,  and  a  much  greater  regard  for  historical 
accuracy  than  the  rest  of  his  countrymen,  if  he  did  not 
upon  the  visit  of  the  next  pilgrim  to  the  temple,  ad 3.  at 
least  a  conjecture  or  two  as  to  the  connection  which 
the  relic  in  question  had  with  a  story  possessing  so 
much  interest  to  all.  It  should  not  be  forgotten,  in 
reference  to  that  part  of  the  account  which  represents 
Aristotle  as  the  discoverer  of  this  peculiar  property  of 
the  '  Stygian  water,' — that  Theophrastus  is  the  earliest 
authority  for  its  possessing  it,  and  that  if  Aristotle  had 
been  aware  that  such  a  belief  existed,  we  should  hardly 
fail  to  find  it  in  the  book  Trepl  Qavttatrkav  aKovfffj.ara)v9  in 
the  121st  Chapter  of  which  there  is  an  account  of  a 
pestilential  fountain  in  Thrace,  the  water  of  which  was 
said  to  be  clear  and  sparkling,  and  to  the  eye  like  any 
other,  but  fatal  to  all  who  drank  of  it. 

1  Theophrastus  ap.  Antigonum  Carystium,  Hist.  Mirab.  §  174. 
Pausanias  where  he  describes  the  water  and  its  singular  effects, 
speaks  of  the  story  of  Alexander  having  been  destroyed  by  it  as 
one  which  he  had  heard,  but  not  as  if  it  had  been  told  him  at 
the  place.  Beckmann  (ad.  Antig.  Caryst.  I.  c.)  supposes  that  a  part 
of  the  legend  is  due  to  the  fact  that  the  water  contained  in  solu- 
tion a  volatile  acid,  which  exercised  a  corrosive  effect  upon  metallic 
cups. 


CHAPTER   VI. 

DEATH    OF    ARISTOTLE. 


WE  must  now  return  from  the  discussion  of  the 
imputed  share  of  Aristotle  in  the  death  of  his  illustrious 
pupil,  to  the  narrative  of  his  own.  He  did  not  long 
survive  his  departure  from  the  city  in  which  he  had 
spent  so  large  a  portion  of  his  life.  He  retired  to 
Chalcis  in  the  year  of  Cephisodorus's  archonship  (B.  c. 
323 — 322),  and  early  in  that  of  his  successor  Philocles, 
died  (as  we  are  justified  hy  Apollodorus's  authority  in 
stating  positively1),  from  disease-  ^t  nearly  the  same 
time  the  greatest  orator  that  the  world  ever  saw,  the 
leader  of  that  party  whose  influence  had  expelled  Aris- 
totle from  Athens,  was  driven  to  have  recourse  to  poison, 
to  escape  a  worse  fate.  /There  are  not  wanting  accounts 
that  the  philosopher  also  met  a  violent  death.  That  he 
poisoned  himself  to  avoid  falling  into  the  hands  of  his 
accusers  is  the  view  of  Suidas  and  of  the  anonymous 
author  of  his  Life2.  But  independently  of  the  superior 
authority  of  Apollodorus,  and  the  evidence  which  Aris- 
totle's own  opinions,  expressed  in  more  than  one  place, 
on  the  subject  of  suicide,  afford  in  contradiction  of  this 
story,  the  fact  of  Chalcis  heing  then  under  Macedonian 
influence,  and  consequently  a  perfectly  secure  refuge  for 

1  Ap.  Diog.  Laert.,  and  Dionys.  Hal.  Ep.  Amm.  p.  728. 

2  They  appear  to  follow  one  Eumelus,  whom  Diogenes,  (Fit. 
Arist.  §  6,)  cites  and  contradicts.     He  related  that  Aristotle  died  by 
drinking  hemlock,  at  the  age  of  70,   and  had  become  a  pupil  of 
Plato  at  that  of  SO.     See  above,  p.  18. 


VARIOUS    ACCOUNTS.  95 

any  one  persecuted  for  real  or  supposed  participation  in 
Macedonian  politics,  is  quite  enough  to  induce  us  to 
reject  this  story.  A  yet  more  absurd  one  is  repeated  by 
some  of  the  early  Christian  writers./ Mortification,  ac- 
cording to  them,  at  being  unable  to  discover  the  cause 
of  the  Euripus  ebbing  and  flowing  seven  times  every 
day,  induced  him  to  throw  himself  headlong  into  the 
current^  Of  this  story  it  is  scarcely  necessary  to  say 
more  than  that  the  phenomenon  which  produced  such 
fatal  consequences  to  the  philosopher  does  not  really 
j?xist*.  The  stream  constantly  sets  through  the  narrow 
channel  between  Eubcea  and  the  mainland  from  north 
to  south,  except  when  winds  blowing  very  strongly  in 
an  opposite  direction,  produce  for  a  time  the  appearance 
of  a  current  from  south  to  north.  But  instead  of 
wasting  time  upon  the  refutation  of  these  foolish  ac- 
counts, we  shall  perhaps  please  our  readers  better  by 
bringing  together  a  few  circumstances  which  appear  to 
confirm  the  statement  of  Apollodorus,  to  which  inde- 
pendently of  these,  we  should  not  be  justified  in  refusing 
belief. 

Aulus  Gellius5  relates  that  Aristotle's  scholars,  when 
their  master  had  past  his  sixty-second  year,  and  being  in 
a  state  of  extremely  bad  health  gave  them  but  little 
hopes  that  he  would  survive  for  any  length  of  time, 

8  Pseudo-Justin  Martyr,  Parcenet.  ad  Grcecos,  p.  34,  diet 
7ro\\rjv  cl%o£iav  «a\  al<r^(yvt]v  \VTrr}deis,  ^ereff-rri  TOV  (3iov.  Gregor. 
Nazianz.  Or  at.  i.  in  Julian,  p.  123.  Later  writers  go  so  far  as  to 
put  various  sentiments  into  his  mouth  immediately  before  the  per- 
petration of  this  rash  act.  Elias  Cretensis  (Comm.  in  S.  Greg. 
Oral,  iv.)  attributes  to  him  the  words,  Quoniam  Aristoteles  Euripum 
non  cepit,  Aristotelem  Euripus  habeat. 

4  Tanaquil  Faber.   Epp.  Critic,  i.  Ep.  xiv. 
*  Noct.  Alt.  xiii.  5. 


96  A    DISEASE    THE    REAL    CAUSE. 

entreated  him  to  appoint  some  one  of  their  body  as 
his  successor,  to  keep  their  party  together  and  preserve 
the  philosophical  views  which  he  had  promulgated. 
"  There  were  at  that  time,"  says  Gellius,  "  many  dis- 
tinguished men  among  his  disciples,  hut  two  preemi- 
nently superior  to  the  rest,  Menedemus"  (or,  as  some 
suppose  it  should  be  written,  Eudemus),  "  a  Rhodian, 
and  Theophrastus,  a  native  of  Eresus,  a  town  in  the 
island  of  Lesbos."  Aristotle,  perhaps  unwilling  that 
his  last  moments  should  be  disturbed  by  the  heart- 
burnings which  a  selection,  however  judicious,  might 
produce,  contrived  to  avoid  the  invidious  task,  and  at 
the  same  time  to  convey  his  own  sentiments  on  the 
subject.  He  replied,  that  at  the  proper  time  he  would 
satisfy  their  wishes,  and  shortly  afterwards  when  the 
same  persons  who  had  made  the  request  happened  to 
be  present,  he  took  occasion  to  complain  that  the  wine 
which  he  usually  drank  did  not  agree  with  him,  and  to 
beg  that  they  would  look  out  for  some  sort  which  might 
suit  him  better, — '  for  instance',  said  he,  e  some  Lesbian 
or  Rhodian' ; — two  wines  which,  as  is  notorious,  were 
beyond  almost  any  others  celebrated  in  antiquity.  When 
a  sample  of  each  had  been  brought  to  him,  he  first 
tasted  the  latter  and  praised  it  for  its  soundness  and 
agreeable  flavour.  Then  trying  the  Lesbian,  he  seemed 
for  a  time  to  doubt  which  he  should  choose,  but  at  last 
said,  'Both  are  admirable  wines,  but  the  Lesbian  is 
the  pleasanter  of  the  two'  He  never  made  any  further 
allusion  to  the  matter  of  a  successor,  and  the  disciples 
universally  concluded  that  this  observation  relative  to 
the  Rhodian  and  Lesbian  vintages  was  meant  as  an 
answer  to  their  question,  Theophrastus  the  Lesbian 
being  a  man  singularly  distinguished  for  suavity  both 
of  language  and  manners  ;  and  accordingly  on  the  death 


PROBABLE    NATURE    OF    THE    DISEASE.  97 

of  Aristotle  they  unanimously  acknowledged  him  as 
the  chosen  successor.  That  this  anecdote  implies  the 
belief  that  a  disease  of  some  duration  was  the  cause  of 
the  philosopher's  death  is  quite  ohvious  ;  and  there  is 
some  ground  for  supposing  that  this  disease  was  an 
affection  of  the  intestines,  from  which  he  had  long 
suffered.  "  This  affection,"  says  another  ancient  author1, 
"  which  he  bore  with  the  greatest  fortitude,  was  of  such 
a  nature  that  the  wonder  is  that  he  contrived  to  prolong 
his  life  to  the  extent  of  sixty-three  years,  not  that  he 
died  when  he  did."  For  complaints  of  this  kind  warm 
fomentations  of  oil  applied  to  the  stomach  were  recom- 
mended in  the  medical  practice  of  antiquity2.  Now 
Lycon  the  Pythagorean3,  a  bitter  calumniator  of  Aris- 
totle, grounded  a  charge  of  inordinate  luxury  against 
him,  upon  the  assertion  that  he  indulged  himself  in 
the  habit  of  taking  baths  of  warm  oil  ;  —  an  assertion 
which,  if  we  should  fail  at  once  to  recognize  it  as  a 
misrepresentation  of  the  medical  treatment  alluded  to, 
will  be  unquestionably  explained  by  the  more  accurate 
description  of  another  writer4,  who  obviously  alludes 
to  the  same  circumstance. 

Diogenes  Laertius,  as  we  have  mentioned  in  an 
earlier  part  of  this  essay,  speaks  of  having  seen  Aris- 
totle's will,  and  proceeds  to  give  the  substance  of  it5. 
That  this  is  not  an  abstract  of  the  authentic  document 

1  Censorinus,  De  die  natali,  cited  above,  p.  23.  not.  3. 

2  Celsus.  ii.  17?  iii.  ult. 

3  Cited  by  Aristocles  ap.  Euseb.  1.  c.     He  adds,  that  his  avarice 
induced  him  to  sell  the  oil  after  this  use  had  been  made  of  it. 

4  Diog.  Laert.   Fit.  §  16.     He   adds   to  Ly  con's  account,   evtot 
£e  ica\  ctffKiov  defjiov  €\aiov  eiriTiBcvai  avrov  Tta 


5  Fit.  Arist.  §  12—16. 

7 


98  CODICIL    TO    HIS    WILL. 

is  obvious,  from  the  circumstance  that  no  mention  what- 
ever is  made  in  it  of  his  literary  property,  which  was 
very  considerable,  and  which  we  know  from  other  sources 
came  to  Theophrastus l.  Neither  however  does  there 
appear  to  us  any  good  grounds  for  suspicion  that  the 
account  of  Diogenes  is  either  a  forgery  or  the  copy  of 
a  forgery.  The  whole  document  bears  the  stamp,  in 
our  judgment,  of  a  codicil  to  a  previously  existing  will, 
drawn  up  at  a  time  when  the  testator  was  dangerously 
ill,  and  had  but  little  expectation  of  recovery.  Thus, 
at  the  very  commencement,  Antipater,  the  Regent  of 
Macedonia,  is  appointed  the  supreme  arbiter  and  referee, 
and  four  other  persons  besides  Theophrastus,  "  if  he  be 
willing  and  able,'9  are  directed  to  administer  until  Ni- 
canor  the  son  of  Proxenus, — to  whom  he  gives  his 
orphan  daughter  in  marriage,  and  the  guardianship  of 
his  orphan  son  Nicomachus,  together  with  the  whole 
management  of  his  property, — shall  take  possession. 
(e'ft>s  av  KCLTaXdfiri).  Nicanor  was  apparently  abroad  on 
some  service  of  danger.  If  he  escapes,  he  is  directed 
by  the  codicil  to  erect  certain  statues  of  four  cubits 
in  height  in  Stagira,  to  Jupiter  and  Athene  the  Pre- 
servers (A«  HioTrjpi  /ecu  'AOrjva  crcoTeipr}),  in  pursuance  of 

a  vow  which  the  testator  had  made  on  his  account.  If 
anything  should  happen  to  Nicanor  before  his  marriage, 
or  after  his  marriage  before  the  birth  of  children,  and 
he  should  fail  to  leave  instructions,  Theophrastus  is  to 
take  the  daughter,  and  stand  for  all  purposes  of  ad- 
ministration in  the  place  of  Nicanor.  Should  he  decline 
to  do  so,  the  four  provisional  trustees  are  to  act  at  their 
own  discretion,  guided  by  the  advice,  of  Antipater, 
Besides  these  arrangements,  all  which  seem  adopted  to 

1  Strabo,  xiii.  p.  124. 


HIS   REMAINING    FAMILY.  99 

meet  a  sudden  emergency,  such  as  that  of  a  man  dying, 
away  from  the  person  in  whom  he  puts  the  most  con- 
fidence, and  in  doubt  whether  the  one  whom  he  next 
trusted  would  be  able  to  act,  we  find  legacies  to  more 
than  one  individual  which  apparently  imply  a  former 
bequest2,  and  a  trifling  want  of  arrangement  in  the 
latter  part,  quite  characteristic  of  a  document  drawn 
up  under  the  circumstances  we  have  supposed.  Thus 
he  orders  statues  to  be  erected  to  Nicanor,  and  Nica- 
nor's  father  and  mother;  also  to  Arimnestus  (his  own 
brother),  "  that  there  might  be  a  memorial  of  him,  he 
having  died  childless."  A  statue  of  Ceres,  vowed  by 
his  mother,  is  to  be  set  up  at  Nemea  or  elsewhere. 
Then,  as  if  the  mention  of  one  domestic  relation  had 
suggested  another,  he  commands  that  wherever  he 
should  be  buried,  the  bones  of  his  deceased  wife 
should  be  taken  up  and  laid  by  his  side  according 
to  her  desire;  and  after  this  he  again  reverts  to  the 
subject  of  statues  to  be  set  up,  and  gives  directions 
for  the  fulfilment  of  the  vow  which  he  had  made  for 
the  safety  of  Nicanor. 

Aristotle  left   behind  him  a  daughter  named  after 
her   mother,  Pythias.     She  is  said  to  have  been  three 


"  A  legacy  is  left  to  Herpyllis  vrpos  ro?<?  trporepov 
(§  13),  and  one  Simus  is  to  have  ^w/o«?  TOV  irpoTepov  dpyvpiov, 
another  slave,  or  money  to  buy  one  (§  15).  The  battle  of  Cranon 
took  place  in  August,  B.  c.  322  ;  but  it  is  very  probable  that  it 
could  not  be  safely  conjectured  till  a  short  time  after  what  course 
Greek  politics  would  take.  If  now  Theophrastus  was  in  Athens, 
and  not  with  Aristotle  at  Chalcis,  as  seems  far  from  improbable, 
(see  Diog.  Laert.  Fit.  Theophrasti,  §  36),  Aristotle  might  reasonably 
fear  that  he  perhaps  would  not  be  able  to  act  as  his  executor.  Thus 
too  when  he  directs  a  house  and  furniture  to  be  provided  for  Her- 
pyllis, he  selects  Chalcis  and  Stagira,  —  both  places  where  she  would 
be  safe  from  Athenian  hatred,  —  for  her  to  choose  between  as  a  re- 
sidence (§  14). 

7—2 


100  HERPYLLIS. 

times  married,  first  to  Nicanor  the  son  of  Aristotle's 
guardian  Proxenus  and  his  own  adopted  child ;  se- 
condly to  Procles,  a  descendant — apparently  son  or 
grandson — of  Demaratus  King  of  Lacedaemon,  by  whom 
she  had  two  sons  named  Procles  and  Demaratus,  scho- 
lars of  Theophrastus ;  and  thirdly  to  Metrodorus,  an 
eminent  physician,  to  whom  she  bore  a  son  named  after 
his  maternal  grandfather1.  He  also  left  behind  him  an 
infant  son,  named  after  his  paternal  grandfather,  Nico- 
machus,  by  a  female  of  the  name  of  Herpyllis,  of  whom 
it  is  very  difficult  exactly  to  say  in  what  relation  she 
stood  to  him.  To  call  her  his  mistress  would  imply  a 
licentious  description  of  intercourse  which  the  name  by 
which  she  is  described  (TraXXa/o/)  by  no  means  warrants 
us  in  supposing,  and  which  the  character  of  Aristotle, 
the  absence  of  any  allusion  to  such  a  circumstance  in 
the  numerous  calumnies  which  were  heaped  upon  him, 
and  the  terms  of  respect  in  which  she  is  spoken  of  in 
his  will2,  would  equally  incline  us  to  discredit.  It  seems 
most  probable  that  he  was  married  to  her  by  that  kind 
of  left-handed  marriage  which  alone  the  laws  of  Greece 
and  Rome  permitted  between  persons  who  were  not 
both  citizens  of  the  same  state.  The  Latin  technical 
term  for  the  female  in  this  relation  was  concubina.  She 
was  recognized  by  the  law,  and  her  children  could  in- 
herit the  sixth  part  of  their  father's  property.  Mark 
Antony  lived  in  this  kind  of  concubinage  with  Cleo- 
patra, and  Titus  with  Berenice.  The  two  Antonines, 
men  of  characters  the  most  opposite  to  licentiousness, 

1  Stahr,  Aristotelia,  p.  164. 

9  He  provides  amply  for  her,  and  enjoins  his  executors,  if  she 
should  desire  to  marry,  to  take  care  that  she  is  not  disposed  of  in 
a  way  unworthy  of  him,  reminding  them  that  she  has  deserved  well 
of  him  (on  (nrov^aia  trepi  e/*e  eyei/ero).  Diog.  Laert.  §  1 3. 


LEFT    HANDED    MARRIAGES.  101 

were  also  instances  of  this  practice,  which  indeed  re- 
mained for  some  time  after  Christianity  became  the  re- 
ligion of  the  state,  and  was  regulated  by  two  Christian 
Emperors,  Constantine  and  Justinian3.  The  Greek 
term  is  not  used  so  strictly  in  a  technical  sense,  and 
may  be  said  to  answer  with  equal  propriety  to  either 
of  the  Latin  words  pellex  and  concubina.  Where 
however  the  legal  relation  was  denoted,  there  was  no 
other  word  selected  in  preference4;  and  we  may  safely 
say  that  this,  in  the  case  before  us,  is  the  probable  in- 
terpretation, although  there  is  no  positive  authority 
that  it  is  the  true  one.  The  son  of  Nicomachus  was 
brought  up  by  Theophrastus,  and  if  we  are  to  credit 
Cicero's  assertion  that  the  Nicomachean  Ethics  which 

3  Taylor,  Elements  of  the  Civil  Law,  p.  273.     The  terms  Semi- 
matrimonium  and   Conjugium  incequale,  were   applied  to   this   con- 
nexion,  which  was  entered  into  before  witnesses  (testatione  inter- 
posita),  and  with  the  consent  of  the  father  of  the  woman.     Both 
contracting   parties  too  were  obliged  to  be  single.      See   Gibbon, 
chap.  44.  Vol.  v.  pp.  368—370. 

4  The  author  of  the  Oration  against  Nesera  thus  uses  it  in  the 
distinction  which  he  draws  (p.  1386),  TCIS  /xei/   yap  eraipa*  t/Soi/t/s 
eveKct  eyo/xei/,  Tot?  B€  Tree  A  \a»ca9  TJ/S  xafl'  tj/jiepav  Bepctireia^  TOV  <ra)juaT09 
ra?    Se    7ui/a?Ka?    TOV    7raj2o7roieT(r0at    yvr]<ri(i}S    K.OLI    Ttov    evcov    (f)v\a.K.a 
TTt<rrtjv  e^ei!/.     It  must  not  be  concealed  that  Athenaeus,  p.  589,  (and 
perhaps    Hermippus  whom  he   quotes),    called   Herpyllis    by  the 
term  erdipa.     But  possibly  the  word  eVa'tjoa  was  used  by  him  in 
that  sense  which  Athenaeus  (p.  571.  C.)  speaks  of.     And  even  if 
Herpyllis  had  been  originally  an  adventurer  of  the  same  description 
as  Aspasia,  we  shall   not  necessarily  think   the  worse  of  Pericles 
for  his  connection  with  the  latter,  or  Aristotle  for  his  with  the  former, 
when  we  consider  that  every  thing  which  elevates  marriage  above 
a  faithful  intercourse  of  this  kind  is  due  to  the  religious  sanction  and 
the  religious  meaning  which  it  derives  from  Christianity.     In  Pa- 
ganism the  superiority  of  the  one  to  the  other  was  purely  legal  and 
conventional.     The  wife  was  the  housekeeper  and  the  breeder  of 
citizens,  and  nothing  whatever  more. 


102  NICOMACHUS. 

are  found  among  Aristotle's  works,  were  by  some  attri- 
buted to  him,  must  have  profited  much  by  his  master's 
instructions.  It  seems  however  more  likely  that  Aris- 
tocles's  account  of  him  is  the  correct  one,  who  relates 
that  he  was  killed  in  battle  at  a  very  early  age1. 

1  Aristocles  ap.  Eitseb.  1.  c.     Cicero,  De  Finibus  v.  5. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

REPUTED    BURIAL    OF    ARISTOTLE'S    WRITINGS. 


THE  works  of  Aristotle  are  said  to  have  met  with 
a  most  singular  mischance.  They  are  related  to  have 
been  buried  some  time  after  his  death,  and  not  to 
have  been  recovered  till  two  hundred  years  afterwards. 
This  story  is  so  curious  in  itself,  and  of  such  vital 
importance  in  the  History  of  Philosophy,  that  we  shall 
make  no  apology  for  investigating  it  thoroughly,  in 
spite  of  the  tediousness  which  a  minute  examination 
of  details  necessarily  brings  with  it. 

The  main  authority  for  the  opinion  is  Strabo  in 
a  passage  of  his  Geographical  Work,  where  having 
occasion  to  speak  of  Scepsis,  a  town  in  the  Troad,  he 
mentions  two  or  three  persons  of  eminence  who  were 
born  there.  One  of  these  is  Neleus,  the  son  of  Co- 
riscus,  a  person  who  was  a  scholar  both  of  Aristotle 
and  Theophrastus,  and  who  succeeded  to  the  library 
of  the  latter  in  which  was  contained  that  of  the  former 
also.  "For  Aristotle2,"  Strabo  goes  on  to  say,  "made 

2  Geogr.  xiii.  p.  124.  We  have  translated  the  whole  of  this 
celebrated  passage  as  it  stands  in  the  text  of  all  the  printed 
editions.  But  besides  the  words  TO.  re  'Apto-ToreXou?  KOI  ret  6eo- 
(f>pd<TTov  fli(3\ia,  which  we  look  upon  as  a  marginal  note  that  has 
crept  into  the  text,  there  appears  to  us  to  be  unquestionably  a 
corruption  in  the  latter  part.  In  default  of  the  authority  of  MSS. 
a  conjecture  can  only  be  received  with  great  caution :  but  still  we 
should  be  inclined  to  think  that  immediately  after  the  word  7rpo<r- 

€\df3eTo  should    come    KU\  /3t/3\io7ra>\ai    r«/e9 'AXefai/Speia,  and 

that  after  ftift\ioQnK^  probably  followed   something   like    KCU   -nap 

tu7rop»7<rac   TWV  dvTiypd<buv  ek  pevov 


104  STRABO'S    ACCOUNT. 

"over  his  own  library  to  Theophrastus,  (to  whom  he 
"also  left  his  school),  and  was  the  first  that  I  know 
"  of,  who  collected  books  and  taught  the  kings  in  Egypt 
"to  form  a  library.  Theophrastus  made  them  over  to 
"Neleus;  he  took  them  over  to  Scepsis  and  made 
"  them  over  to  his  heirs  (rots  /uer'  aJroV), — uneducated 
"men,  who  let  the  books  remain  locked  up  without 
"any  care.  When  however  they  observed  the  pains 
"which  the  kings  of  the  Attalic  dynasty,  (in  whose 
"  dominions  the  town  was)  were  at  in  getting  books  to 
"furnish  the  library  at  Pergamus,  they  buried  them 
"  under  ground  in  a  sort  of  cellar.  A  long  time  after, 
"when  they  had  received  much  injury  from  damp  and 
"worms,  the  representatives  of  the  family  sold"them  to 
"Apellicon  of  Teos, — the  books  both  of  Aristotle  and 
"of  Theophrastus, — for  a  very  large  sum.  Apellicon 
"  was  more  of  a  book-collector  than  a  philosopher ;  and 
"the  result  was  that  in  an  attempt  to  supply  the  gaps 
"  when  he  transcribed  the  text  into  new  copies,  he  filled 
"them  up  the  reverse  of  well,  and  sent  the  books  a- 
"  broad  full  of  mistakes.  And  of  the  Peripatetic  phi- 
"  losophers,  the  more  ancient  who  immediately  succeeded 
"  Theophrastus,  as  in  fact  they  had  no  books  at  all, 
"except  a  very  few,  and  those  chiefly  of  the  exoteric 
"class,  were  unable  to  philosophize  systematically,  but 

KCU  dveypa\l/€  TOUS  vvv  (pepopevovs  Tru/ciKd?.  Plutarch,  (  Vit.  Syll.  C.  26,) 
from  whom  we  have  taken  these  words,  unquestionably  follows 
Strabo  in  the  account  of  which  he  gives  of  this  affair.  He  cites  him 
by  name  almost  immediately  afterwards,  as  is  remarked  by  Schnei- 
der (Prcef.  ad  Aristot.  H.  A.  p.  LXXX.)  It  was  however  scarcely 
the  Geography,  but  the  Historical  Memoirs  of  Strabo,  which  was  his 
authority  through  the  Life  of  Sylla.  Hence  the  slight  divarication 
of  the  two  narratives ;  in  the  topographical  work  the  circumstances 
of  the  story  which  are  most  connected  with  Scepsis  are  principally 
dwelt  upon ;  in  the  other  those  connected  with  Sylla. 


PLUTARCH'S  ACCOUNT.  105 

"  were  obliged  to  elaborate  rhetorical  disquisitions  (/m^ev 
6i  eyew  <pL\oao<p€l.v  Trpay/uLariKMs  a\\d  9e<rei$  XrjKvOi^eiv) 

"  while  their  successors  after  the  time  when  these  books 
"  came  out,  speculated  better  and  more  in  Aristotle's 
"spirit  than  they,  although  they  too  were  forced  to 
"explain  most  of  his  views  by  guess  work  (ret  TroXXa 
"  eiKOTct  \eyeiv}  from  the  multitude  of  errors.  And  to 
"this  inconvenience  Rome  contributed  a  large  share. 
"For  immediately  after  the  death  of  Apellicon,  Sylla 
"  having  taken  Athens,  seized  upon  the  library  of  Apel- 
"  licon  :  and  after  it  had  been  brought  here,  Tyrannio 
"  the  grammarian,  who  was  an  admirer  of  Aristotle,  had 
"  the  handling  of  it  (^e^e^/o-aro) l  by  the  favour  of  the 
"  superintendant  of  the  library ;  and  [so  had]  some 
"booksellers,  who  employed  wretched  transcribers,  and 
"neglected  to  verify  the  correctness  of  the  copies, — an 
"  evil  which  occurs  in  the  case  of  all  other  authors  too 
"  when  copied  for  sale,  both  here  and  in  Alexandria." 

Plutarch  in  his  Biography  of  Sylla 2,  confirms  a  part 
of  this  account,  and  adds  a  feature  or  two  which  is 
wanting  here.  His  authority  is  obviously  Strabo  him- 
self in  another  work  now  lost,  and  he  is  therefore  not 
to  be  reckoned  as  an  additional  witness,  but  as  the 
representative  of  the  one  last  summoned,  again  re- 
called to  explain  some  parts  of  his  own  testimony. 
From  him  we  learn  that  Sylla  carried  the  library  of 
Apellicon  containing  the  greater  part  of  the  books  of 
Aristotle  and  Theophrastus,  with  which  up  to  that  time 
most  people  had  no  accurate  acquaintance3,  to  Rome. 
"There,"  he  continues,  "it  is  said,  Tyrannio  the  gram- 

1  In  the  parallel  narrative  of  Plutarch,  the  term 
is  used. 

3  Vit.  Syll.  §  26. 

3  OVTTU)   Tore  <ra<p<a<;   jvwpi^o/jLfvct   TO 


106  GENERAL    BELIEF    OF    THE    STORY. 


"marian  arranged  (evaKtvdaavQai)  the  principal  part  of 
"  them,  and  Andronicus  the  Rhodian,  ohtaining  copies 
"from  him,  published  them  and  drew  up  the  syllabuses 
"  (TrivaKos)  which  are  now  current."  He  confirms  the  ac- 
count of  Straho  that  the  early  Peripatetics  had  neither 
a  wide  nor  an  accurate  acquaintance  with  the  works 
of  Aristotle  and  Theophrastus,  from  the  circumstance 
of  the  property  of  Neleus,  to  whom  Theophrastus  be- 
queathed his  books,  falling  into  the  hands  of  illiterate 
and  indifferent  persons;  but  of  the  story  of  burying 
the  books  he  says  nothing,  nor  yet  of  the  endeavours 
of  Apellicon  to  repair  the  damaged  manuscripts. 

Our  readers  have  here  the  whole  authority1  which 
is  to  be  found  in  the  writers  of  antiquity  for  this 
celebrated  story,  which  has  been  transmitted  from  one 
mouth  to  another  in  modern  times  without  the  least 
question  of  its  truth  until  very  lately.  And  not  only 
has  it  been  accepted  as  a  satisfactory  reason  for  an 
extraordinary  and  most  important  fact,  the  decay  of 
philosophy  for  the  two  centuries  preceding  the  time  of 
Cicero,  but  editors  and  commentators  of  the  works  of 
Aristotle  have  resorted  to  it  without  scruple  for  a  so- 
lution of  all  the  difficulties  which  they  might  encoun- 
ter. They  have  allowed  themselves  the  most  arbitrary 
transpositions  of  the  several  parts  of  the  same  work, 
and  acknowledged  no  limit  to  the  number  or  magnitude 
of  gaps  which  might  be  assumed  as  due  to  the  damp 
and  worms  of  the  cellar  at  Scepsis2.  Of  late  years 
however,  as  the  critical  study  of  the  Greek  language 

1  The   account  of  Suidas    (V.   SuAXa?)  is   obviously   extracted 
from  the  passage  in  Plutarch. 

2  Thus  Antonius  Scainus  interpolated  the  seventh   and  eighth 
books  of  the   Politics   between  the  third  and  fourth.     Conringe, 
who  followed  him,  made  up  for  a  scrupulous  abstinence  from  this 
course   by   indulging   himself  freely   in  hypothesized  lacunccy  —  to 


THE    STORY    EXAMINED.  107 

has  increased,  and  the  attention  of  scholars  been  more 
drawn  towards  the  philosophical  department  of  anti- 
quity, the  inadequacy  of  this  story  to  account  for  the 
state  in  which  Aristotle's  writings  have  come  down  to 
us  has  become  more  and  more  apparent;  notices  have 
been  found  which  were  quite  incompatible  with  it; 
and  at  the  present  time  it  may  safely  be  said  that  the 
falsity  of  the  account  in  the  main  is  completely  proved. 
We  will  endeavour  to  give  our  readers  some  idea  of 
the  laborious  researches  which  have  led  to  this  result. 
They  have  been  carried  on  chiefly,  if  not  entirely,  by 
German  philologers, — the  pioneers  in  this  as  in  almost 
every  other  uncleared  region  of  antiquity'5.  But  we 
must  first  call  their  attention  to  other  circumstances 
which  would,  antecedently  to  the  investigations  of 
of  which  we  speak,  dispose  us  to  look  with  some  sus- 
picion on  the  tale  unless  very  considerably  qualified. 

The  work  of  Athenseus  to  which  we  are  indebted 
for  so  much  fragmentary  information  on  matters  of 
antiquity,  is  cast  in  a  form  which  had  particular  at- 
tractions for  the  readers  of  the  time  in  which  the 
author  live/d, — the  reigns  of  Marcus  Aurelius  and 
Commodus.  A  wealthy  Roman  is  represented  as  hos- 

such  an  extent  that  Goettling  somewhat  facetiously  observes  "as- 
teriscis  suis  interpositis  noctem  Aristoteliam  quasi  stellis  illustrare 
sategit."  Prcef.  ad  Arist.  Polit.  p.  vi. 

3  Brandis,  Ueber  die  Schicksale  der  Aristotelischen  Buecher,  und 
einige  Kriterien  ihrer  Aechtheit,  in  Niebuhr's  Rheinisches  Museum. 
vol.  i.  Kopp,  Nachtrag  zur  Brandisischen  Untersuchung  &c.  in 
the  same  work.  vol.  iii.  Fabricius  (Biblioth.  Grceca.  iii.  c.  5) 
mentions  a  French  author  who  in  a  work  entitled  Les  amenites 
de  la  Critique,  published  at  Paris  in  1717?  impugns  the  story 
of  Strabo.  Of  the  two  German  writers  the  former  has  contributed 
by  far  the  more  important  investigations  of  this  subject.  Stahr, 
Aristotelia,  Zweiter  Theil,  has  availed  himself  of  both,  but  has 
added  little  of  his  own. 

*"••   \lp\- 


108  ATHEN^EUS'S   ACCOUNT. 

pitably  entertaining  several  persons  eminent  for  their 
acquaintance  with  literature  and  philosophy,  and  the 
most  curious  notices  imaginable  from  a  multitude  of 
writers,  and  upon  all  subjects,  are  woven  ingeniously 
into  the  conversation  of  the  guests.  Nearly  in  the 
beginning  of  the  work,  the  author,  who  himself  is 
one  of  them,  enlarges  on  the  splendid  munificence,  the 
literary  taste,  and  the  accomplishments  of  the  host. 
Among  other  things  he  praises  the  extent  and  value 
of  his  library.  "  It  was  of  such  a  size,"  he  says,  "  as 
"  to  exceed  those  of  all  who  had  gained  a  reputation 
"  as  book  collectors, — Polycrates  the  Samian,  Pisistra- 
"  tus  the  tyrant  of  Athens,  Euclid,  (also  an  Athenian,) 
"  Nicocrates  of  Cyprus,  aye,  the  kings  of  Pergamus  too, 
"  and  Euripides  the  poet,  and  Aristotle  the  philosopher, 
"  [and  Theophrastus,]  and  Neleus  who  had  (^aT^^o-ai/ra) 
"  the  books  of  these,  from  whom  king  Ptolemy  my 
"  countryman,  surnamed  PhiladelphusT^ow^/  the  whole, 
u  and  carried  them  away  together  with  those  he  got 
"  from  Athens  and  those  from  Rhodes,  to  the  fair  city 
"  of  Alexandria1."  It  is  obvious  that  the  author  here 
follows  an  account  very  different  from  Strabo's,  one 
which  represented  Neleus's  library  including  the  costly 
collections  of  Aristotle  and  Theophrastus2  as  forming, 
together  with  some  others,  the  basis  of  the  famous 
collection  at  Alexandria.  Now  it  is  utterly  incon- 
ceivable that  if  Ptolemy  bought  the  whole  library  of 
Neleus,  he  should  have  been  satisfied  to  leave  the 
works  of  Aristotle  and  Theophrastus  only  behind  in 
the  hands  of  men  so  ignorant  of  their  value  and  care- 
less of  what  became  of  them,  as  Neleus's  heirs  are  repre- 

1  Athenaei  Epitome,  p.  3. 

2  The  words   KCU  Qeo<f>pa<rTov  are  inserted  by  conjecture.     But 
the   MSS.  all   have   rd  TOVTWV   SiaTtjptja-avTa  fiif3\ia. 


SILENCE    OF    THE    ANECDOTE-COLLECTORS.       109 

sented  to  have  been,  if  no  other  copies  of  these  works 
existed;  and  even  supposing  it  possible  that  he  should 
have  done  so,  would  not  so  singular  an  incident  of 
literary  history  have  been  mentioned  by  some  author 
of  antiquity?  Should  we  not  find  some  record  of  it 
in  Cicero,  from  whom  we  learn  so  much  of  the  his- 
tory of  Greek  philosophy?  He  even  mentions  the 
degeneracy  of  the  Peripatetic  school  after  Theophrastus 
in  strong  terms3:  is  it  conceivable  that  if  it  had  been 
really  attributable  to  the  want  of  their  founders'  works, 
he  should  either  not  have  heard  of  this,  or  should  not 
think  it  worth  mentioning?  Could  such  a  story  have 
escaped  the  anecdote-collectors  under  the  Empire, 
jElian,  Phavorinus,  and  a  host  of  others?  Would 
Diogenes  Laertius,  who  relates  how  many  cooking  uten- 
sils Aristotle  passed  at  the  Euboean  custom-house,  have 
neglected  so  interesting  an  anecdote  as  this?  Such 
considerations  combined  with  the  notice  in  Athenaeus 
must  prevent  an  impartial  judge  from  attaching  more 
than  a  very  small  degree  of  credit  to  that  part  of  Strabo's 
narrative  which  denies  the  publication  of  the  works  of 
Aristotle  to  any  considerable  extent  before  the  time 
of  Sylla.  And  this  scepticism  will  not  be  diminished 
when  we  consider,  that  the  greater  part  of  Aristotle's 
works  are  so  closely  connected  with  each  other  that 
if  any  were  published,  all  or  nearly  all  must  have 
been  so.  He  continually  refers  from  the  one  to  the 
other  for  investigations  which  are  necessary  to  the  argu- 

3  De  Finibus,  v.  5.  Simus  igitur  content!  his  p.  e.  Aristotele 
et  Theophrasto]  Namque  horum  posteri,  meliores  illi  quidem  med 
sententid  quam  reliquarum  philosophi  disciplinarum ;  sed  ita  de- 
generarunt,  ut  ipsi  ex  se  nati  esse  videantur.  It  is  strange  that 
the  words  in  italics  should  not  have  opened  the  eyes  of  men  to 
look  for  a  general  cause  of  a  general  deterioration.  Could  they 
suppose  that  all  the  schools  had  lost  all  their  books  ? 


110  DIFFICULTY    OF    THE    QUESTION. 

merit  which  he  has  in  hand.  And  although  these  re- 
ferences may  he,  and  prohably  often  are,  due  to  a 
later  hand,  still  this  objection  cannot  be  made  in  all 
cases ; — in  those  for  instance  where  the  special  work 
referred  to  is  not  named,  but  described  in  such  a  way 
that  it  is  impossible  not  to  identify  it1. 

But  after  all,  these  arguments  are  little  else  than 
negative,  and  although  they  lead  to  a  probability  of  a 
very  high  order  against  the  truth  of  Strabo's  narrative, 
they  are  not  absolutely  conclusive.  In  fact  the  work 
of  disproof  is  a  most  difficult  one,  from  the  circum- 
stance of  the  whole  of  the  literature  of  the  two  centu- 
ries after  Theophrastus, — enormous  as  its  extent  was, — 
having  been  swept  away,  except  such  scanty  fragments 
as  are  found  here  and  there  imbedded  in  the  work  of 
some  grammarian  or  compiler.  This  will  be  strikingly 
evident  from  the  consideration,  that  if  the  works  of 
Aristotle  which  have  come  down  to  us  had  been  lost, 
and  a  similar  story  had  been  related  of  Plato's  works 
to  that  which  we  read  in  Strabo  respecting  those  of 
Aristotle  and  Theophrastus,  its  refutation  would  be 
quite  as  difficult  as  that  of  the  one  about  which  we 
are  at  present  concerned.  But  the  difficulty  of  the 
problem  did  not  damp  the  ardour  of  the  German 
scholars  we  have  spoken  of  above.  They  have  rum- 
maged the  voluminous  works  of  the  commentators  upon 

1  Hitter,  (Geschichte  der  Philosophic,  vol.  iii.  p.  35.)  gives  a 
list  of  the  passages  in  which  the  philosopher  alludes  to  his  own 
writings.  Against  many  of  them  the  objection  we  have  noticed 
may  be  made.  A  more  conclusive  one  is  Poetic,  p.  1454.  col.  2. 
lin.  18.  (quoted  by  Stahr.  Aristotelia,  ii.  p.  296)  from  which  it 
is  certain  than  an  Ethics — not  however  necessarily  the  Nicoma- 
chean, — was  published  at  the  time  the  passage  was  written.  But 
unfortunately,  (supposing  the  work  alluded  to  really  to  be  the  Nico- 
machean  Ethics,)  there  is  perhaps  no  one  of  Aristotle's  writings 
so  independent  of  all  the  rest. 


REVIVAL    OF    PHILOSOPHY.  Ill 

Aristotle  which  the  learned  eclecticism  of  the  third,  fourth 
and  fifth  centuries  of  the  Christian  era  produced,  some 
of  them  still  only  existing  in  manuscript2,  with  indefati- 
gable diligence,  and  have  detected  in  the  works  of  much 
more  modern  scholiasts  extracts  from  their  predecessors, 
which  prove  to  demonstration  that  the  notice  in  Athe- 
nseus  in  all  probability  true,  and  that  certainly  so  much 
of  Strabo's  account  as  is  incompatible  with  it,  is  false. 

We  have  seen  that,  according  to  the  authorities  on 
which  the  story  rests,  a  very  considerable  impulse  was 
given  in  the  first  century  before  the  Christian  era  to 
the  study  of  the  Peripatetic  philosophy.  Andronicus 
the  Rhodian  is  mentioned  as  the  principal  promoter  of 
this  revival,  having  re-arranged  the  works  of  Aristotle 
in  a  way  which  was  generally  received  in  the  time  of 
Strabo,  and  which  formed  the  basis  of  the  present  di- 
vision. Contemporary  with  Andronicus,  although  younger 
than  him,  was  Athenodorus  of  Tarsus;  and  in  the  next 

3  The  Royal  Academy  of  Berlin  were  induced  by  the  advice  of 
Schleiermacher  to  publish  a  complete  edition  of  Aristotle's  works, 
based  upon  the  collation  of  as  many  manuscripts  as  could  be  made 
available  for  the  purpose.  The  execution  of  this  work  was  placed 
under  the  superintendance  of  two  most  distinguished  men,  the 
one,  Immanuel  Bekker,  the  celebrated  .editor  of  Plato,  Thucydides, 
and  the  Greek  Orators, — a  scholar  whose  piercing  intuition  into  the 
genius  of  the  Greek  language  can  only  be  compared  to  that  of 
Newton  into  the  laws  of  the  Universe,  or  that  of  Niebuhr  into 
the  institutions  of  Antiquity; — the  other,  Christian  Brandis,  the 
friend  of  Niebuhr  and  guardian  of  his  orphan  children.  The 
former  fulfilled  his  portion  of  the  task  in  1831,  by  publishing 
the  text  of  Aristotle's  works,  from  the  collation  of  more  than  a 
hundred  manuscripts,  in  two  quarto  volumes.  The  latter,  on  whom 
the  task  of  collecting  and  arranging  the  Greek  Commentators,  and 
of  elucidating  the  philosophy,  devolved,  published  one  volume  of 
these  (some  from  hitherto  unedited  manuscripts)  in  1836,  and 
promises  in  the  preface  a  second,  with  prolegomena,  as  soon  as 
the  pressure  of  bad  health  will  allow. 


112      ANDRONICUS — BOETHUS — ADRASTUS. 

generation  to  Athenodorus,  Boethus  of  Sidon,  both  ce- 
lebrated for  their  acquaintance  with  the  doctrines  of 
Aristotle,  and  for  their  investigations  of  the  literary 
questions  connected  with  them.  Now,  although  the 
works  of  all  these  writers  have  perished1,  they  were 
not  lost  until  they  had  furnished  materials  to  Adrastus 
and  Alexander  of  Aphrodisias  in  the  second  century, 
and  to  the  eclectic  philosophers  Ammonius  Saccas,  Por- 
phyry, Ammonius  the  son  of  Hermias,  Simplicius,  and 
David  the  Armenian  in  the  third,  fourth,  and  fifth ; 
and  of  most  of  these  considerable  remains  have  come 
down  to  the  present  time2,  so  that  we  are  enabled, 
with  very  great  precision,  to  ascertain  the  views  of  "  the 
ancient  commentators"  (o\  TraXaioi  e^^rcu)  as  Andron- 
icus  and  his  contemporaries  are  called  by  their  more 
modern  followers,  on  several  particulars,  and  among 
others,  on  some  having  a  direct  bearing  upon  the 
story  of  Strabo. 

We  find,  for  instance,  that  a  point  which  occupied 
much  of  the  attention  of  "the  ancients,"  was  to  de- 
termine between  the  claims  of  rival  works,  bearing  the 
same  name  and  upon  the  same  subject,  to  be  reputed 
the  genuine  productions  of  Aristotle.  Andronicus  ques- 
tioned the  pretensions  of  the  treatise  wepl  e^o^i/ems,  and 
those  of  the  latter  part  of  the  Categories3.  Adrastus 
found  two  editions  (if  we  may  use  the  expression)  of 
the  latter  work,  differing  very  considerably  from  each 
other.  The  same  is  stated  by  him  of  the  seventh 

1  The  Paraphrase  of  the  Nicomachean  Ethics  which  has  come 
down  to  us  under  the  name  of  Andronicus's,  is  generally  considered 
to  be  of  a  later  date. 

*  Adrastus,  Trept  Trjs  TCt^eoK  TWI/  'Ap«rroTeA.ovs  ffvyypafjifjidrdaVf  is 
said  still  to  exist  in  an  Arabic  version.  Brandis,  1.  c.  p.  263. 

3  Brandis,  p.  241. 


NO    DOCUMENTS    POSSESSED    BY   THEM.  113 

Book  of  the  Physical  Lectures4.  Cicero  mentions  it  as 
a  question  which  could  not  he  decided,  as  to  whether 
a  work  on  Ethics  (apparently  that  which  has  come 
down  to  us  under  the  title  of  f}0<*a  NiKo/mxeia»)  was  writ- 
ten hy  Aristotle  or  by  his  son  Nicomachus.  And  that 
the  only  evidence  on  the  one  side  or  the  other  was 
merely  internal,  is  obvious  from  the  remark  in  which 
he  expresses  his  inclination  towards  the  latter  opinion, 
"  that  he  does  not  see,  why  the  style  of  the  son  should 
not  bear  a  close  resemblance  to  that  of  the  father5." 
Another  question  which  occasioned  considerable  per- 
plexity was  the  arrangement  of  the  several  works  which 
were  held  to  be  genuine.  The  present  distribution  is 
entirely  based  upon  an  arrangement  which  goes  no 
further  back  than  the  time  of  Andronicus,  and  is  en- 
tirely different  from  the  one  or  more  which  appear  to 
have  prevailed  before  him.  There  are  at  this  day  three 
known  catalogues  of  the  writings,  the  first  is  the  one 
given  by  Diogenes  Laertius  in  his  Life,  the  second, 
that  of  the  anonymous  Greek  Biographer,  published  by 
Menage.  These  resemble  one  another  very  much,  and 
bear  every  appearance  of  having  been  derived,  probably 
however  through  secondary  channels,  from  the  same 
source,  which  has  been  conjectured  with  great  plausi- 
bility to  be  Hermippus  of  Smyrna's  work6  of  which  we 
have  spoken  in  the  early  part  of  this  essay.  But  it 
is  impossible  to  imagine  a  greater  difference  than  is 
found  between  these  lists  and  the  works  which  have 
come  down  to  us.  The  names  are  so  completely  un- 
like, and  there  are  so  many  reciprocal  omissions,  that 
a  scholar  of  the  sixteenth  century  was  able,  with  the 

4  Brandis,  1.  c. 

5  De  Fin.  v.  5. 

8  Brandis,  p.  249 — 262.  See  above  p.  2. 


114      DIFFICULTY    OF    ARRANGING    THE    WORKS. 

aid  of  a  mortal  antipathy  to  the  Aristotelian  philosophy, 
to  succeed  in  persuading  himself  that  every  thing  which 
has  come  down  to  us  under  the  name  of  the  great  Sta- 
girite,  was,  with  very  slight  exceptions,  spurious1.  The 
third  catalogue  is  found  only  in  Arahic,  and  is  said  to 
correspond  much  more  nearly  with  our  own2.  And  in- 
deed a  great  part  of  the  difference  between  this  and 
the  two  former  is  explicable  from  the  fact  that  the 
same  work  is  often  referred  to  under  more  names  than 
one,  not  merely  by  subsequent  commentators  on  Aris- 
totle, but  also  by  the  philosopher  himself3.  But  such 
differences,  independently  of  positive  testimony,  abun- 
dantly show  that  many  pieces  which  now  form  the 
component  parts  of  a  larger  treatise  were  not  left  by 
the  author  in  such  an  order,  or  at  least,  that  no  au- 
thentic documents  from  which  any  given  arrangement 
could  be  decisively  inferred,  came  to  the  knowledge  of 
Andronicus  and  his  brethren.  If  they  had, — if,  that 
is,  the  manuscripts  of  Apellicon  had  been,  as  they  are 
represented,  a  genuine  copy  of  all  or  most  of  Aristotle's 
works,  never  till  then  known,  the  task  of  these  critics 
would  have  been  a  most  easy  one.  There  would  have 
been  no  occasion  for  discussions  of  the  internal  evidence 

1  Patritius  (Discussiones  Peripatetics  i.  p.  16.  sqq.)  His  only 
exceptions  were  the  Mechanics  and  the  treatise  on  the  doctrines 
of  Xenophanes,  Zeno  and  Gorgias.  Some  years  afterwards  a  yet 
more  extravagant  opinion  was  propounded,  that  the  present  Greek 
manuscripts  of  Aristotle  were  translations  from  the  Arabic.  Phi- 
lippe Cattier  (quoted  by  Harles  on  Fabricius,  Bibl.  Gr.  vol.  iii.  p.  207), 
mentions  it  as  the  belief  of  some. 

3  Brandis,  p.  262. 

3  Brandis,  p.  26l.  Petiti  (Observatt.  Miscell.  iv.  9)  and  Buhle 
(Comment  ationes  Societatis  Reg.  Gottingensis,  vol.  xv.  p.  57)  quoted 
by  Brandis,  give  several  instances  of  this  identity :  as  also  Brandis 
himself  (Diatribe  de  perditis  Arist.  librix  De  ideis  ei  De  bono,  p.  7). 


ARISTOTLE'S  IMMEDIATE  SUCCESSORS.         115 

to  determine  between  various  readings  of  the  text,  dif- 
ferent systems  of  arrangement,  or  contending  claims  as 
to  authorship.  A  simple  reference  to  a  primitive  copy 
would  at  once  have  settled  all.  And  what  shall  we 
say  to  the  letter  of  Alexander  to  Aristotle,  complain- 
ing that  he  had  published  his  acroamatic  works  and 
thus  put  the  world  on  a  footing  with  his  most  highly 
instructed  pupils?  It  is  of  no  avail  to  say  that  the 
letter  is  not  genuine:  it  very  likely  may  not  be  so, 
but  it  was  extracted  by  Gellius  from  the  book  of  the 
very  Andronicus  whom  this  tale  represents  as  the  first 
publisher  of  these  writings,  and  therefore  proves  his 
belief  at  any  rate  that  some  of  them  had  been  pub- 
lished long  before4. 

This  evidence  seems  to  prove  incontrovertibly  that 
the  part  of  Strabo's  and  Plutarch's  narrative  which  re- 
lates to  the  extraordinary  treasure  first  made  available 
by  Andronicus,  cannot  be  true.  By  another  chain  of 
testimony  equally  elaborate,  Brandis  has  shown  that 
many  of  the  works  of  Aristotle  of  the  highest  and  most 
recondite  character  that  we  now  possess,  were  actually 
in  the  hands  of  the  Peripatetic  school,  whose  degeneracy 
has  been  attributed  to  the  loss  of  them.  It  is  well  known 
that  the  successors  of  the  great  philosopher  in  several 
instances  composed  works  on  the  same  subject  (and 
sometimes  identical  in  title  also),  with  existing  treatises 
of  their  founder3.  For  indeed  the  spirit  of  dogmatism, 
which  is  often  imputed  to  the  Aristotelian  philosophy  by 
persons  who  are  only  acquainted  with  the  schoolmen's 

4  Aulus  Gellius,  Noel.  Alt.  xx.  5. 

6  Ammonius,  Proem,  ad  Categor.    ol  yap 
juoc  Koi  Oai/j'a^  KOI  Qco<ppa<TTO<:  Kara  tyjXov  TOV 
s    KCU    7T€p\    fp/jirive me    KOI 

8—2 


116  HIS    WORKS    KNOWN    TO    THEJVI. 

modifications  of  it  in  the  fifteenth  and  sixteenth  cen- 
turies, is  really  so  alien  to  it,  that  it  would  be  difficult 
to  find  in  the  history  of  civilization  an  example  of  a 
more  vigorous  and  healthy  independence  of  thought,  and 
a  greater  ardour  for  investigation  than  is  afforded  by  the 
earlier  disciples  of  the  Lyceum1.  Although  the  works 
in  question  have  long  since  been  lost,  Brandis  has  suc- 
ceeded in  eliciting  from  the  notices  which  remain  of 
them  in  the  Commentators  we  have  referred  to,  very 
many  particulars,  which  show  in  some  instances  that  the 
author  actually  followed  the  course  of  the  Aristotelian 
parallel  work,  and  in  more  that  he  made  use  of  it.  Under 
the  first  of  these  two  classes  are  brought,  by  decisive 
arguments,  the  Physical  Lectures  and  the  first  book 
of  the  Former  Analytics;  and  there  is  a  considerable 
probability  that  the  second  book  of  the  Former  Analytics 
and  thejifth  of  the  Metaphysics  may  be  added  to  these  2. 
Under  the  second  we  may  number  the  Latter  Analytics, 
the  Categories,  perhaps  the  treatise  irepl  ep/uj/i/ei'as,  the 


1  Aristotle  himself  is  especially  noticed  for  having  modified  some 
of  his  views  which  had  been  attacked  by  other  philosophers,  with 
perfect  readiness,  and  without  attempting  any  vexatious  resistance, 
or  exhibiting  any  annoyance  :  eW  rtav  7rpo<r6ev  auVo??  (besides  Aris- 
totle, Democritus  and  Chrysippus  are  spoken  of),  dpea-Kovruv  ddopv- 
/?OK  /cat  dStjKTtas  KO\  /ue0'  ijbovrjs  a<pci<rdv.     Plutarch,  De  virtute  morali, 
p.  448.     This  passage  will  serve  to  show  how  little  Bacon's  well- 
known  representation  of  him  as  one  who  "  bore,  like  the  Turk,  no 
brother   near  the  throne,"  is  founded  on  fact.     But,  in  truth,  the 
great  father  of  modern  science  imputed  to  Aristotle  all  the  positive- 
ness  and  dogmatism  of  the  modern  Aristotelians  :  his  disgust  at  the 
idolaters  was  extended  to  the  object  of  their  idolatry.     Somewhat 
similarly  he  confounds  the  practice  of  the  later  Peripatetics  (pi  &e<re^ 
XrjKvQityvTcs)  with  that  of  their  founder.     (Novum  Organum,  lib.  i. 
§  71-) 

2  Brandis,  pp.  266—269,  28  J,  282. 


KNOWN    ALSO   TO    THE    STOICS.  117 

Topica,  the  treatises  on  the  Heavens,  on  Generation 
and  Decay,  on  the  Soul,  and  the  Meteor ologica.  Fur- 
ther researches  on  the  principle  here  indicated  may  very 
probably  add  to  the  lists,  but  a  very  small  part  of  either 
would  be  sufficient  to  demonstrate, — when  we  consider 
that  almost  every  one  of  these  treatises  would  involve 
the  possession  of  some  others  in  order  to  be  itself  intel- 
ligible,— that  it  was  not  the  want  of  acroamatic  works 
that  produced  the  decay  of  the  Peripatetic  school. 

To  make  an  objection  to  the  inference  which  these 
facts  allow  us  to  draw  against  the  correctness  of  Strabo's 
story  on  the  ground  that  Theophrastus  may  possibly  have 
chosen  to  keep  the  works  of  Aristotle  as  well  as  his  own, 
in  his  private  possession,  and  communicate  the  use  of 
them  only  to  the  more  favoured  of  his  scholars,  would  be 
a  most  arbitrary  proceeding ;  as  there  is  not  the  slightest 
historical  ground  for  such  an  hypothesis.  But  Brandis 
has  precluded  even  this  step.  He  has  shown  that  Chry- 
sippus  the  Stoic  (who  in  his  dialectical  work  quoted  by 
Plutarch 4,  speaks  in  the  highest  terms  of  the  cultivation 
of  that  branch  of  science  by  the  Academics  down  to 
Polemo,  and  by  the  Peripatetics  down  to  Strato  inclusive), 
in  several  of  his  particular  doctrines  had  an  especial 
reference  to  the  former  treatment  of  the  same  by  Aris- 
totle, Eudemus,  and  Theophrastus5.  His  discussion  of 
the  Idea  of  Time  is  entirely  based  upon  that  of  Aris- 
totle, and  exhibits  an  unworthy  endeavour  to  conceal 
the  similarity6.  Nay,  the  ancient  commentators  of 

3  Brandis,  pp.  270,  272—275. 

4  De  Stoic.  Repugn,  p.  1045,  fin. 

5  Brandis,  pp.  246,  247- 

6  To  the  passages  illustrative  of  this  position  collected  by  Baguet, 
De  Chrysippi  vita,  doclrind,  et  reliquiis,  pp.  170,  181,  Brandis    adds 
Aristot.  Phys.  Ausc.  iv.  (10—14). 


118  KNOWN    AT   ALEXANDRIA. 

highest  reputation  maintained  that  the  whole  of  the 
Stoics'  Logical  Science,  on  which  they  prided  themselves 
much,  was  nothing  more  than  a  following  out  of  Aris- 
totle's principles,  and,  in  particular  that  their  doctrine 
of  Contraries  (ra  evavna)  was  entirely  derived  from 
Aristotle's  hook  on  Opposites  (-n-epl  avrwn^evw^h 

But  it  was  not  only  to  philosophers  either  of  his 
own  or  of  rival  sects  that  the  works  of  Aristotle  were 
known  at  the  time  when  they  are  reported  to  have 
heen  lying  in  the  cellar  at  Scepsis.  Aristophanes  of 
Byzantium,  the  celebrated  grammarian  of  Alexandria 
in  the  early  part  of  the  second  century  hefore  Christ, 
made  an  abridgement  of  his  Zoological  works2,  and  also 
wrote  commentaries  apparently  on  these,  or  some  other 
of  his  works  relating  to  Natural  History3.  But  hefore 
his  time,  Antigonus  of  Carystus  under  Ptolemy  Euer- 
getes  (B.  c.  247 — 222),  in  his  Collection  of  Wonderful 
Stories,  quoted  largely  both  from  these  and  from  the 
works  of  Theophrastus  on  similar  subjects.  Kopp  says, 
that  he  used  not  only  these,  but  also  the  work  on 
Foreign  Customs,  (fldp&apa  vo/uniua,)  and  that  the  same 
is  probable  both  of  Callimachus  and  Nicander4,  and  he 
acutely  remarks,  that  the  reason  that  the  works  on  the 
Parts  of  Animals  and  the  Generation  of  Animals  are 
not  so  often  cited  as  the  Natural  History,  is  that  the 
latter  furnished  far  more  material  for  works  that  would 

1  Simplicius  ap.  Brandis,  p.  247,  not  30. 

8  TO.  Trepi  0u<rews  fco'wi/,  Hierocles  cited  by  Schneider,  Prcef. 
ad  H.  A.  p.  xviii. 

3  Artemidorus  Oneirocr.  ii.  c.  14.  on  which  see  Schneider.  1.  c. 
p.  xix. 

4  Rheinisches  Museum,  vol.  iii.  pp.  95 — 98-      He  also  says  that 
Aratus  in  his  Prognostics,  made  use  of  the  Meteorological   works 
of  Aristotle. 


NATURE    OF   EXOTERIC    WORKS.  119 

possess  a  general  interest,  whereas  the  former  necessarily 
implied  a  certain  knowledge  of  physiology  in  the  reader. 
But  that  they  could  not  have  remained  unknown  while 
the  last  was  published,  is  evident  from  the  circum- 
stance that  in  it  the  author  frequently  refers  to  them. 
Nor  were  the  writings  which  related  to  physical  phe- 
nomena the  only  ones  which  we  are  sure  reached  Alex- 
andria. Andronicus  related  that  in  the  great  library 
there  were  found  forty  books  of  Analytics  and  two  of 
Categories,  professedly  the  work  of  Aristotle.  Of  the 
former  of  these  four  only,  of  the  latter  one, — in  both 
instances  those  which  we  have, — were  decided  upon  by 
the  ancient  critics  to  be  genuine5.  Besides  which  the 
Alexandrine  writers  who  formed  Canons  of  Classical 
Poets,  Historians,  and  Philosophers,  included  Aristotle 
among  the  last,  surely  not  on  the  strength  either  of 
his  mere  reputation,  or  only  of  his  exoteric  works. 

But  what,  after  all,  was  the  nature  of  these  exoteric 
writings ;  for  we  are  now  obviously  come  to  a  point 
at  which  the  accurate  determination  of  this  question, 
which  the  continuity  of  the  narrative  has  hitherto  pre- 
vented, becomes  necessary.  We  shall  endeavour  to  be 
as  brief  as  possible  in  our  answer. 

If  we  apply  to  Aristotle  himself  for  information, 
we  shall  find  nothing  at  all  in  his  writings  to  confirm 
the  popular  opinion  of  a  division  of  his  doctrines  into 
two  classes,  of  which  the  one  was  communicated  freely, 
while  the  other  was  carefully  reserved  for  those  disci- 
ples whose  previously  ascertained  character  and  talents 
were  a  security  for  their  right  appreciation  of  them. 
Wherever  the  term  exoteric  occurs,  it  is  with  reference 
to  a  distinction  not  of  readers  or  hearers,  but  of  ques- 

5  Ammonias,  Simplicius,  and  David  the  Armenian,  cited  by 
Brandis,  p.  250. 


120  HIS    OWN    USE    OF    THE   TEKM. 

tions  treated  on.  It  signifies  little  or  nothing  more 
than  extrinsic,  separate,  or  insulated.  That  facility  of 
comprehension  as  regards  the  main  subject-matter  was 
not  necessarily  a  characteristic  of  such  works,  appears 
from  a  passage  in  the  Metaphysics1,  in  which  the  writer 
excuses  himself  from  touching  upon  the  doctrine  of 
Ideas  (or  Constituent  Forms,)  any  more  than  the  order 
of  his  work  demanded,  assigning  as  a  reason,  that  his 
views  on  this  particular  were  already  matters  of  fa- 
miliarity from  the  exoteric  discourses.  It  is  notorious 
that  this  was  one  of  the  deepest  and  most  difficult 
questions  of  the  ancient  philosophy,  being  in  fact  the 
point  where  the  schools  of  the  Academy  and  Lyceum 
diverged,  and,  consequently,  if  any  part  of  Aristotle's 
views  had  been  confined  to  a  chosen  few, — if  there  had 
been  such  a  thing  as  an  interior  coterie, — here  would 
have  been  proper  matter  to  be  reserved  for  them.  Simi- 
larly, in  the  Nicomachean  Ethics*,  he  refers  his  readers 
to  the  "  the  exoteric  discourses"  for  an  analysis  of  the 
human  mind.  The  law  of  subordination  among  the 
parts  of  a  composite  whole,  as,  for  instance,  the  law 
of  harmony  in  music,  is  another  subject  which  he  con- 
siders as  "rather  proper  for  an  exoteric  investigation3." 
In  "the  exoteric  discourses,"  he  discussed  the  Philo- 
sophy of  Life,  the  relative  importance  of  the  several 
elements  which  go  to  make  up  happiness,  and  the  con- 
ditions which  the  social  relation  imposes  on  a  man4. 

1  p.  1076.  col.  1.  1.   28.    TedpvXXrjTai   jap    TCI    TroXXa    KOI   viro    TCOV 
e'fwTcpiKwi/  \ojtav.     Metaph.  xiii.  init. 

2  p.  1102.  col.  1.1.26. 

3  Politic,    i.  p.   1254.  col.  1.  1.  33.   KOI  jap  cv  TOW   /A»; 
£o>»/?  6<rTi  Tie  ap-ftf],  olov  dp^ovia^.  dXXa  TavTo.  pev  urwe  e 


4  Politic,  p.  1323.  col.  1.  1.  22.      In  a  remarkable  passage  (Sat. 
57 72.)  the  Stoic  Persius  sums  up  all    the    great    questions 


ERRONEOUS    MODERN 


And  in  the  same  he  proposes  that  an  examination  of 
the  Idea  of  Time  should  be  gone  into5.  Here  then 
we  have  ample  evidence  that  the  most  abstruse  sub- 
jects, physical,  metaphysical,  and  moral,  were  treated 
of  somehow  or  other  in  discourses  bearing  the  name  of 
exoteric,  a  name  to  which  modern  usage  has  almost 
indissolubly  attached  the  notion  of  shallowness  if  not 
of  something  like  fraud  also.  Of  any  thing  like  Free- 
masonry, any  thing  amounting  to  a  severance  of  know- 
ledge into  two  distinct  spheres,  the  one.  to  be  inhabited 
by  the  vulgar,  the  other  by  choicer  spirits,  there  is  not 
a  vestige.  If  any  acroamatic  work  by  Aristotle  has  come 
down  to  us,  the  Nicomachean  Ethics  is  one.  Yet  in 
it  is  nothing  requiring  such  profundity  of  reflection  or 
sobriety  of  mind  as  would  be  demanded  by  the  psy- 
chological discussion  in  the  exoteric  work  to  which  the 
author  refers.  And  as  for  the  terms  by  which  Plutarch 
and  Clement  of  Alexandria  denote  that  class  of  works 
which  they  place  in  contradistinction  to  the  exoteric, 
they  are  in  part  not  used  by  Aristotle  at  all,  and  in 
part  used  in  a  totally  different  sense6.  The  phrases  by 

with  which  the  philosophy  of  his  school  engaged.  The  parts 
printed  in  italics  would  all  have  been  handled  by  Aristotle  in  the 
exoteric  discourses  to  which  he  in  this  passage  refers, 

— causas  cognoscite  rerum; 

Quid  sumus ;  et  quidnam  victuri  gignimur ;  or  do 
Quis  datus ;  aut  metae  quam  mollis  flexus,  et  unde; 
QMS  modus  argento;  quid  fas  optare ;  quid  asper 
Utile  nummus  habet ;  patriot,  carisque  propinquis 
Quantum  elargiri  deceat ;  quern  te  Deus  esse 
Jussit  ;  et  humand  qua  parte  locatus  es  in  re. 
It  is  apparently  to  this  work  of  Aristotle  that  Cicero  refers  Acad. 
ii.  42.  De  Fin.  ii.  6.  13.   iv.  18,  20,  26,  and  De  Offic.  iii.  8. 

5  Phys.  Auscult.  p.  217.  col.  2.  1.  31.  Bekk. 

6  Plutarch,    Vit.  Alex.  C.  7-   opposes  TOV  ijtiiKOV  *a\   ITO\ITIKOV  \oyov 

to  ai  airopptjTai  KCU  fiaQvrepai  Si8a<rKu\£cu  and  describes  these  latter 


122  ACROASES,  A  TECHNICAL  PHRASE,  LECTURES. 

which  he  designates  such  works  as  appear  to  stand  in 
opposition  to  the  exoteric  are  \6yoi  eymicXuH,  \oyoi  Kara 
(friXoa-ocfriav  and  /ue'0o£os, — and  in  such  cases  we  are  al- 
ways directed  to  scientific  treatises  containing  a  system 
of  several  parts  methodically  arranged  and  organically 
cohering,  such  in  short  would  be  formed  by  the  outline 
of  a  continuous  course  of  lectures  on  some  main  branch 
of  philosophy.  And  that  the  works  included  under  the 
name  acroamatic  or  acroatic  by  the  philosophers  since 
the  time  of  Andronicus  Rhodius,  were  of  this  descrip- 
tion seems  most  probable,  not  only  from  the  appearance 
presented  by  those  which  have  come  down  to  us,  but 
from  the  fact  that  at  the  time  when  Greek  philosophy 
was  first  imported  into  Rome,  the  word  aKpoaaeis  had 
become  the  technical  term  for  such  productions.  Crates 
Mallotes,  who  came  to  Rome  on  an  embassy  between 
the  second  and  third  Punic  war,  is  spoken  of  by  Sue- 
tonius in  terms  which  seem  to  show  that  a  similar 
distinction  to  that  which  obtained  in  Aristotle's  works, 
prevailed  also  in  his1. 

as  as  ol  ai/Soes  iS/ws  ctKpoajmaTtKa?  KCU  eTTOTTTtKCis  Trpocrayopevovre^ 
OVK  egetyepov  ek  TOUS  7roA\ou?.  Clement.  Stromm.  V.  p.  475,  classes 
Pythagoras,  Plato,  Epicurus,  the  Stoics,  and  Aristotle  together  as 
philosophers  who  concealed  a  part  of  their  opinions,  (\eyovan  Be 
KCU  ol  'Apio-ToreAoi/s,  TO.  pev  ea-wrepiKCt  eivai  TWV  crvyypaiJLiJiaTtav 
avTtav,  T-a  §e  KOWO.  re  Ka\  egwTepiKa,)  and  says  that  as  the  Pythagoreans 
have  their  aKouoyictTtKoV  and  fjiadrj^aTiKov,  so  the  Peripatetics  have 
their  ev%o£ov  and  67rto-T»//xoi/iKOi/.  The  terms  aKpoa^ariKo^,  eTroTrrt- 
«o<?,  ewrepiKos  and  eVto-T^oi/iKo^  are  never  used  by  Aristotle,  and 
the  word  aVo'/j/otjTo?  only  in  the  ordinary  classical  sense.  Even 
the  phrase  efwre^tKo?  is  often  applied  by  him  not  in  reference  to 
to  these  discourses.  For  instance,  TO??  e£u>Qev  \oyois  (Polit.  p.  1264, 
!•  39,)  "with  discussions  foreign  to  the  subject";  egtorepiKif  ap%ri 
(Id.  p.  1272,  1.  19,)  "external  rule";  eguTepio  ir'nT-rowi  T-a?«?  ir\ei- 
o-rat?  TWV  TTo'Xewi/,  (Id.  p.  12Q5,  1.  32,)  "  do  not  apply  to  the  gene- 
rality of  states." 

1  Suetonius,  De  cl.  grammat.  cap.  2,  "  plurimas  acroases  subinde 


TWO    CLASSES    OF    ARISTOTLE?S    WORKS.  123 

If  now  we  keep  steadily  in  view  this  distinction 
which  it  is  plain  that  Aristotle  himself  made  in  his 
discourses,  the  distinction  between  cyclical,  methodical, 
scientific  productions,  and  insulated,  independent  essays, 
we  shall  perceive  at  once  from  the  nature  of  the  case, 
that  without  any  premeditated  design  on  the  part  of 
the  author,  the  former  would  only  be  appreciable  by 
genuine  disciples,  those  who  were  able  and  willing  to 
afford  a  steady  and  continuous  application  to  the  de- 
velopement  of  the  whole,  while  the  latter  might  be 
understood  by  those  who  brought  no  previous  know- 
ledge with  them,  but  merely  attended  to  the  matter 
in  hand 2 ;  that  the  one  required  a  severe  and  rigid 
logic  to  preserve  all  parts  of  the  system  in  due  co- 
herence, the  other  readily  admitted  of  the  aid  which 
the  imagination  affords  to  the  elucidation  of  single 
points,  but  which  often  becomes  mischievous  when  they 
are  to  be  combined;  that  to  the  first  the  demonstra- 
tive form  of  exposition  would  alone  be  appropriate, 
to  the  second  any  one,  narrative  or  dialogic  or  any 
other,  which  might  be  most  fit  for  placing  the  one 
matter  to  be  illustrated  in  a  striking  light.  But  we 
must  be  very  careful  not  to  confuse  these  resulting 

fecit,  assidueque  disseruit"  There  is  obviously  a  distinction  in- 
tended between  the  dissertations  which  he  continually  delivered, 
and  the  lectures  which  he  gave  from  time  to  time. 

2  An  illustration  may  perhaps  be  useful  in  clearing  up  what  we 
apprehend  to  have  been  the  real  division.  For  the  demonstration  of 
Pythagoras's  celebrated  Theorem,,  (the  4?th  Proposition  of  the  first 
Book  of  Euclid)  the  whole  of  the  preceding  part  of  the  Book  is 
requisite.  This  then  is  an  example  of  a  Xoyos  Kara  QiXcxroQiav.  But 
in  the  particular  case  of  an  isosceles  triangle,  the  property  of  the 
square  of  the  hypothenuse  being  equal  to  twice  the  square  of  one 
side,  may  be  directly  shown  to  a  person  ignorant  of  geometry,  as  it 
is  by  Socrates  in  Plato's  dialogue  Meno.  This  we  conceive  might 
be  described  as  a 


124       CICERO'S  IMITATION  OF  THE  EXOTERIC 

distinctions  with  the  primitive  one  from  which  they 
flowed,  and  still  more  not  to  suppose  that  they  were 
the  cause  of  it;  for  we  shall  see  presently  that  want 
of  attention  to  this  caused  in  later  writers  first  of  all 
inaccurate  expressions  as  to  the  nature  of  this  cele- 
brated division  and  finally  an  utterly  erroneous  view 
of  it,  and  of  the  spirit  in  which  it  originated. 

Cicero  in  two  of  his  letters  to  Atticus1  speaks  of 
having  composed  two  works  in  the  manner  of  Aris- 
totle's exoteric  ones.  The  points  of  comparison  which 
these  two  treatises  (the  De  Finibus,  and  the  De  Re- 
publicd)  offer,  consist  in  the  dialogic  form  in  which 
they  are  written  and  the  prefaces  which  serve  to  in- 
troduce to  the  reader  the  dramatis  persona  who  carry 
on  the  discussion.  The  objections  which  some  of  these 
propound  to  the  view  which  it  is  the  design  of  the 
author  to  elucidate  are  turned  into  a  means  of  bring- 
ing it  out  in  stronger  and  bolder  relief.  This  mode 
of  treatment  in  the  hands  of  a  master  obviously  offers 
many  advantages.  The  dramatic  interest  keeps  the  at- 
tention of  the  reader  from  flagging,  and  the  peculiar 
obstacles  which  the  differences  of  individual  tempera- 
ment not  unfrequently  interpose  to  the  reception  of 
any  doctrine  may  be  in  this  way  most  clearly  set 

1  Ad  Attic,  iv.  16.  Hanc  ego  de  Republica  quam  institui  dispu- 
tationem  in  African!  personam  et  Phili  et  Laelii  et  Manilii  contuli : 
adjunxi  adolescentes,  Q.  Tuberonem,  P.  Rutilium,  duo  Laelii  generos, 
Scaevolam,  et  Fannium.  Itaque  cogitabam,  quoniam  in  singulis  libris 
utor  procemiis,  ut  Aristoteles  in  iis,  quos  egwreptKovs  vocat,  aliquid 

efficere  ut  non  sine  causa  istum  appellarem,  &c Ad  Attic,  xiii. 

19.  Quae  autera  his  temporibus  scripsi,  Aristoteleum  morem  habent; 
in  quo  ita  sermo  inducitur  ceterorum,  ut  penes  ipsum  sit  principatus. 
Ita  confeci  quinque  libros  vre/oj  reXcoi/,  &c.  On  the  same  principle  he 
had  constructed  his  books  De  Oratore;  (Epp.  Attic,  iv.  16;  Epp.  ad 
Famil  i.  9-  §  23.) 


DIALOGUES  OF    ARISTOTLE.  125 

forth  and  most  easily  removed.  The  dialogues  of 
Plato  are  an  obvious  example  of  this.  But  if  we 
consider  the  De  Oratore,  De  Finibus,  and  De  Re- 
publicd  of  Cicero  to  represent  with  tolerable  accuracy 
the  character  of  the  Aristotelian  dialogues,  we  see  at 
once  a  very  considerable  change.  The  genial  produc- 
tive power  of  the  artist  has  given  way  to  the  systematic 
reflection  of  the  philosopher.  The  personages  intro- 
duced are  not  living  and  breathing  men  with  all  their 
feelings,  prejudices,  and  individual  peculiarities,  they 
are  mere  puppets  which  speak  the  opinions  entertained 
by  those  whose  name  they  bear.  These  opinions  may 
be  fairly  and  lucidly  stated,  they  may  be  backed  by 
all  the  pomp  and  power  of  rhetoric,  as  they  are  in 
Cicero  and  as  they  probably  were  in  Aristotle,  but  the 
speakers  have  no  life,  the  scene  no  reality,  and  in  spite 
of  the  pains  taken  by  the  author  to  prevent  it  by  al- 
lusions to  particular  times,  places,  and  circumstances, 
we  rise  from  the  perusal  with  our  opinions  more  or 
less  modified,  but  with  no  more  distinct  recollection 
of  the  parties  by  whom  the  discussion  has  been  carried 
on  than  if  they  had  been  distinguished  by  the  letters 
of  the  alphabet  instead  of  the  names  of  knpwn  cha- 
racters2. But  what  these  productions  have  lost  as 
works  of  art,  they  have  gained  as  works  of  science. 
The  distinct  and  explicit  exposition  of  a  principle 
which  prevents  them  from  being  the  former,  is  a  merit 
in  them  as  the  latter.  And  as  the  dialogic  form,  even 

*  Bishop  Berkeley's  Hylas  and  Philonous,  and  Minute  Philoso- 
pher make  no  pretension  to  dramatic  effect.  The  very  names  of  the 
collocutors  indicate  the  principles  which  they  profess.  In  our  opin- 
ion, Berkeley  has  acted  wisely,  but  would  have  done  better  still  to  have 
dropped  the  dialogic  form.  Harris's  Three  Treatises  are  an  attempt 
to  come  much  nearer  to  the  Platonic  Dialogue,  and  in  our  judgment, 
a  signal  failure. 


126  THEIR    STYLE. 

where  it  fails  in  producing  the  dramatic  impression 
that  we  receive  from  Plato,  admits  to  the  fullest  ex- 
tent of  all  the  assistance  which  rhetoric  can  afford,  it 
is  not  wonderful  that  it  should  have  been  selected  by 
Aristotle  as  an  appropriate  one  for  many  or  even  most 
of  his  exoteric  treatises1. 

Neither  in  those  cases  where  he  adopted  this 
form  can  we  be  surprized  .that  Aristotle  should  have 
made  use  of  a  style,  which  however  unfit  for  the  pur- 
poses of  a  rigidly  scientific  investigation,  is  not  at  all 
inappropriate  to  compositions  such  as  we  have  described. 
A  few  relics  (and  unfortunately  a  very  few,)  have  come 
down  to  us  of  them ;  about  thirty  lines  in  the  original 
Greek  are  quoted  by  Plutarch2  from  one  of  the  most 
celebrated,  and  Cicero  has  in  a  Latin  dress  preserved 
two  other  small  fragments3.  The  first  of  these  is  part 
of  a  treatise  which  was  either  addressed  to  Eudemus, 
Aristotle's  disciple,  or  written  on  the  occasion  of  his  death, 
and  from  the  nature  of  the  extract,  no  less  than  from 
the  name  it  bore,4  seems  to  have  treated  upon  the 

1  Cicero,  although  he  does  not  expressly  say  that  the  exoteric 
works  were  all  dialogues,,  speak  of  them  as  if  they  were  nearly  co- 
extensive.    So  too  Ammonius  (Introd.  ad  Categ.  §  2)  divides  the 
regular  treatises  of  Aristotle  into  two  heads :  TWV  a-wTaj/jLaTiKwv  vd 
jueY  vvTOTrpoGta-ira  K.OLI  aKpoa/jLariKO,'   TCI  Be  StaXoyiKCt  KOI  e^tarepiKCt.     But 
Simplicius  and  Philoponus  prevent  us  from  construing  their  expression 
too  rigidly.     The  former  says  B<%»7  Be  Stgptjficvtftv  O.VTOV  TWV  crvyypafj.- 
JJLGITWV,  er?  Te  Ta  e£arre^tKa,  oia  TO.  i<rTOpiKGt   KO\   TCI   SiaXoyiKct,  KCLI  O\OK 
TGI  ij.tj  ctKpa^  aKpifleias  (ppovTityvTa, —  «at  ek  TCI  aKpoa/jLaTiKa,  &C.   (ad 
Phys.  Auscult.  init.)  and  the  latter  speaking  of  the  exoteric  writings, 
says  "  among   which  are  the  Dialogues,  of  which  Eudemus  is  one." 
(ad  Arist.  De  Anima,  i.  138.) 

2  De  Consolat.  ad.  Apollon.  p.  115.     He  also  alludes  to  the  same 
work  in  his  life  of  Dion,  cap.  22. 

3  De  naturd  Deorum,  ii.  37-  De  Officiis,  ii.  16. 

'   $  -rrepi   ^u^9' 


SOME    FRAGMENTS    PRESERVED.  127 

immortality  of  the  soul,  and  the  miserable  condition  of 
man  while  imprisoned  in  the  body,  as  compared  with 
that  which  preceded  and  will  follow  the  present  life. 
Our  existence  on  earth  is  regarded  as  a  punishment  in- 
flicted upon  us  by  the  Gods,  and  in  support  of  this 
opinion  an  appeal  is  made  to  the  experience  of  the 
human  race  manifesting  itself  in  proverbs  and  mytho- 
logical tales  to  that  effect.  The  dead  are  represented 
as  dwelling  in  a  higher  sphere  of  Being  than  the  living, 
and  as  dishonoured  by  any  expressions  or  feelings  on  the 
part  of  the  latter  which  involve  an  opposite  opinion. 
The  language  in  which  these  sentiments  are  embodied 
is  of  proportionate  dignity  to  the  theme ;  it  is  totally 
unlike  the  dry  and  jejune  style  in  which  the  works 
which  have  come  down  to  us  are  written ;  on  the  con- 
trary it  is  rather  diffuse  and  ornamented,  and  fully 
enables  us  to  understand  the  expression  of  Cicero  "  Aris- 
totle, with  his  golden  flood  of  language6," — which  judging 
from  his  rigidly  demonstrative  works  alone,  we  should 
deem  singularly  inappropriate.  One  of  the  passages 
preserved  in  Cicero  is  even  more  gorgeous  and  eloquent 
than  the  one  in  Plutarch,  and  for  the  sake  of  the  subject 
we  will  endeavour  to  give  some  notion  of  its  rhythm 
and  structure,  although  of  course  a  translation  twice 

5  It  is  probably  this  treatise  which  is  referred  to  in  the  Ni- 
comachean  Ethics,  p.  1102.  col.  1.  1.  26, — and  which  was  quoted  by 
Cicero  in  his  dialogue  Hortensius  (ap.  Augustin.  c.  Julian,  vol.  x. 
p.  623.  ed.  Benedict.).     The  Fragment  is  given  by  Orelli   in   the 
seventh  volume  of  his  edition  of  Cicero's  works  pp.  485 — 6. 

6  Veniet,  flumen  orationis  aureum  fundens,  Aristoteles.     Acad. 
Pr.  ii.  38.     In  another  passage  Torquatus  alleges  that  his  adver- 
sary  is   prepossessed  against   Epicurus,    because   his   writings  are 
deficient  in  those  "ornaments  of  style"  which  he  finds  in  Plato, 
Theophrastus  and  Aristotle.    De  Fin.  i.  5.     To  the  scientific  works 
this  phrase  is  about  as  applicable  as  to  the  elements  of  Euclid. 


128  THE    TELEOLOGICAL    ARGUMENT. 

removed  from  the  original,  can  do  this  but  very  inade- 
quately. The  argument  is  the  common  one  of  Na- 
tural Theology,  the  evidence  which  the  wonders  of  the 
Universe  afford  of  the  existence  of  an  intelligent  Crea- 
tor. Aristotle's  reasoning  appears  to  be  directed  against 
those  who  asserted  that  such  an  inference  was  the  re- 
sult of  a  traditional  belief  handed  down  from  generation 
to  generation,  and  interpreting  all  phenomena  into  an 
accordance  with  itself.  He  attempts  by  an  illustration 
to  show  that  this  is  not  the  case,  but  that  it  proceeds 
from  the  natural  conviction  of  the  human  mind,  un- 
swayed by  any  particular  bias,  as  soon  as  its  attention 
is  roused  to  these  objects.  "Suppose  there  to  exist," 
says  he,  "a  race  of  beings,  who  had  always  inhabited 
"a  region  in  the  heart  of  the  earth,  dwelling  in  fair 
"  and  lordly  mansions  adorned  by  statues  and  pictures, 
"  and  provided  with  all  the  appliances  of  luxury  in  which 
"  those  whom  the  world  envies,  abound, — but  who  never 
"had  visited  the  surface.  Now,  if  these  had  heard  by 
"rumours  and  hearsay  that  there  was  a  certain  Divine 
"  Power,  living  and  acting,  and  then  at  some  time  the 
"jaws  of  the  Earth  were  to  open  and  allow  them  to 
"  quit  their  obscure  dwelling-place  and  come  forth  into 
"  the  region  which  we  inhabit, — then,  when  all  at  once 
"they  beheld  Earth,  Sea,  and  Sky, — the  enormous 
"  clouds, — the  mighty  winds, — when  they  gazed  on  the 
"  Sun,  and  perceived  how  vast,  how  beautiful  it  was, 
"how  potent  in  its  operation,  how — by  diffusing  its 
"  light  through  the  whole  of  the  Heaven — it  was  the 
"  cause  of  the  day :— and  again,  when  night  had  veiled 
"  the  earth  in  darkness,  and  they  observed  the  whole 
«'  firmament  studded  and  lit  up  with  stars, — the  moon 
"  with  her  varying  phases, — now  increasing,  now  wan- 
"ing, — and  all  rising  and  setting  and  running  on  their 


EXOTERIC    WORKS    THE    MOST    STUDIED.          129 

"courses  steadily  and  unvaryingly  for  an  eternity  of 
"ages; — surely,  when  they  heheld  all  this,  they  would 
"believe  hoth  that  there  were  Gods,  and  that  these 
"  mighty  works  were  from  their  hand !"  The  passage 
in  the  De  Officiis  appears  rather  to  be  a  summary  of 
Aristotle's  expressions  in  his  own  words  than  a  trans- 
lation like  the  above,  but  even  there  the  reader  will 
easily  recognize  an  oratorical  structure  quite  unlike  what 
is  to  be  found  in  any  of  the  philosopher's  works  which 
have  come  down  to  us. 

From  these  few  and  meagre  specimens  of  the  ex- 
oteric works  of  Aristotle,  we  may  observe  without  any 
difficulty  that  in  every  respect  they  were  calculated  in 
a  rhetorical  and  superficial  age,  such  as  that  of  the 
successors  of  Theophrastus  was,  to  supersede  the  others. 
Literature  became  fashionable  in  high  places.  Philo- 
sophers thronged  to  the  courts  of  an  Antigonus,  a 
Ptolemy,  or  an  Attains,  and  exerted  themselves  in 
making  royal  roads  to  knowledge  for  the  sake  of  their 
patrons.  A  general  acquaintance  with  the  doctrines  of 
the  school  to  which  they  attached  themselves  was  all 
that  these  latter  could  pretend  to,  and  the  instructor 
soon  found  out  that  very  little  more  would  be  sufficient 
for  himself.  Why  should  he  bestow  time  and  labour 
on  what  would  not  be  available  to  his  purposes  ? — 
Why  should  he  trouble  himself  with  thinking  out  the 
results  which  he  could  find  ready  provided  to  his  hand  ? 
Above  all,  why  should  he  neglect  works  which  supplied 
food  to  his  fancy  and  grace  to  his  style,  agreeably  and 
lucidly  written,  and  generally  acceptable  in  literary  so- 
ciety, for  the  dry  and  laborious  systematic  treatise  whose 
only  merit  was  its  rigidly  logical  connection.  The  very 
discipline  of  the  Lyceum,  as  we  have  shown  in  an  earlier 
part  of  this  essay,  contributed  its  share  to  the  work  of 
9 


130  CICERO'S  KNOWLEDGE  OF  THEM. 

deterioration,  by  producing  an  unconscious  indifference 
to  the  truth  of  opinions  provided  only  they  were  plau- 
sible and  coherent;  and  the  vanity  of  possessing  a 
multifarious  knowledge  lost  the  only  check  which  could 
have  restrained  it.  The  age  of  thought  gave  way  to 
an  age  of  mere  accumulation  of  learning,  and  in  such  a 
one  what  could  take  any  man  to  works  like  Aristotle's 
scientific  ones?  In  the  time  of  Cicero  a  considerable 
impulse  had  certainly  been  given  to  philosophy.  Yet 
how  instructive  is  the  story  which  he  relates  in  the 
introduction  to  his  Topica.  His  friend  Trebatius  had 
stumbled  while  looking  over  his  library  upon  the  Topica 
of  Aristotle,  of  which  he  had  never  heard,  and  on 
learning  from  Cicero  the  nature  of  the  work  was  seized 
with  a  strong  desire  to  read  it.  The  obscurity  of  the 
book  repelled  him,  and  an  eminent  rhetorician  to  whom 
he  applied  for  assistance  told  him  that  of  those  works 
of  Aristotle  he  knew  nothing.  "  This  I  was  by  no 
means  surprized  at,"  says  Cicero,  "  that  a  rhetorician 
should  know  nothing  of  a  philosopher,  of  whom  philoso- 
phers themselves,  with  the  exception  of  a  very  few,  knew 
nothing1."  And  although  Cicero  deservedly  prides  him- 
self upon  being  the  introducer  of  Greek  philosophy 
among  his  countrymen,  it  is  extremely  questionable 
whether,  with  the  exception  of  those  works  which  have 
a  direct  application  to  oratory,  his  knowledge  of  Aris- 
totle was  not  confined  to  the  exoteric  writings.  It  is 
certainly  these  which  he  takes  as  his  model  and  his 
basis  in  his  own  philosophical  treatises. 

Where   a  writer's  opinions  are  studied  rather  than 
his  principles  and   method,  where  readers  do  not  take 

1  Topica,  i.  1.  So  too  in  a  fragment  (ap.  Nonium,  v.  conten- 
dere,)  he  says,  "  Magna  etiam  animi  contentio  adhibenda  est  expli- 
cando  Aristoteli." 


APPARENT   INCONSISTENCY    OF    ARISTOTLE.     131 

the  trouble  to  put  themselves  upon  his  standing  ground, 
to  enter  into  his  thoughts,  and  follow  them  out  through 
the  ramifications  of  his  system,  there  will  often  appear 
a  want  of  harmony  between  the  results  at  which  he 
arrives.  There  is  indeed  a  point  from  which  all  these 
will  appear  in  their  true  perspective,  but  this  point  is 
on  an  eminence  which  demands  both  time  and  labour 
to  ascend.  This  want  of  agreement  in  his  results  was 
imputed  to  Aristotle  at  an  early  period, — certainly  be- 
fore the  time  of  Cicero,  who  notes  it  and  gives  a  partial 
explanation  of  it.  "  On  the  subject  of  the  Chief  Good," 
says  he,  "  there  are  two  kinds  of  works,  the  one  written 
"  in  a  popular  manner,  and  termed  by  them  exoteric,  the 
"other  elaborated  with  greater  care,  (limatius]  which 
"  they  left  in  the  form  of  notes,  (quod  in  commentariis 
"  reliquerunt.)  This  makes  them  thought  not  always 
"  to  say  the  same  thing ;  although  in  the  upshot  there 
"is  no  discrepancy  at  all,  in  those  at  least  whom  I 
"mentioned,  [Aristotle  and  Theophrastus]  neither  do 
"the  two  differ  the  one  from  the  other2."  Here  Cicero 
only  speaks  of  those  works  which  the  author  kept  by  him 
and  continually  made  additions  to,  a  class  of  writings 
which  did  not  form  an  important  part  of  the  scientific 
ones3.  But  it  is  quite  plain  that  the  remark  might  be 

2  De  Finibus,  v.  5. 

8  Ammonius  (Introd.  ad.  Arist.  Categ. )  describes  those  writings 
which  he  calls  yVojui/^/xariKa,  which  answer  to  Cicero's  commentarii, 
as  common-place  books  kept  by  Aristotle  for  his  own  use,  some 
of  them  devoted  to  one  subject,  some  miscellaneous.  Simplicius 
says  of  them  (Proleg.  in  Cat.}  (We?  Be  TO.  »Vtyuty/*o«njca  M  iraVrp 
crirov%rj<;  af<a  elvai.  He  however  does  not  seem  to  know  much  about 
them  himself,  for  he  quotes  Alexander  of  Aphrodisias  as  his  autho- 
rity. But  all  the  ancient  Commentators  are  agreed  in  making  the 
acroamatic  works  a  separate  class,  and  a  more  important  than  the 
h  ypomn  e.matic. 

9—2 


132  INNER   AND    OUTER    DOCTRINES. 

extended  to  the  whole  of  these  latter ;  in  every  one  of 
them  might  be  found  instances  where  Aristotle  might 
"appear  not  to  say  the  same  thing"  as  in  his  more 
popular  publications,  but  where  at  the  same  time  "  in 
the  upshot  there  would  be  no  discrepancy  at  all."  Now 
here  we  have  the  fact  which  formed  the  basis  of  the 
subsequent  opinion  that  Aristotle  had  an  inner  and 
an  outer  doctrine,  an  opinion  which  gathered  strength 
and  distinctness  as  it  passed  from  one  hand  to 
another,  and  is  in  modern  times  repeated  with  a  con- 
fidence that  would  lead  one  to  imagine  it  rested  on  the 
explicit  assertion  of  the  author  himself.  But  neither 
in  Strabo,  Plutarch,  nor  Gellius  is  there  any  hint  of 
such  a  wilful  suppression  of  sentiments  on  the  part  of 
Aristotle1,  although  all  three  of  these  authors  allude 
to  a  division  of  his  works  into  two  classes  adapted  to 
different  mental  qualifications  in  the  readers.  In  Cle- 
ment of  Alexandria  appears  the  first  trace  of  any  such 
notion,  and  the  expressions  which  he  makes  use  of  are 
hardly  sufficient  to  justify  us  in  concluding  that  he  had 
at  all  a  decided  opinion  on  this  score2.  But  it  was  a 
suggestion  which  would  not  fail  to  be  caught  hold  of 

1  The   word  dir 6 p prjr a   may    seem    opposed  to   this   statement, 
(Plut.  Vit.  Alex.  §  7)  but  it  seems  only  intended   to  indicate  those 
writings  which  were  not  published;  and  which  were  kept  secret 
not  because  they  contained  peculiar  doctrines,  but  from  the  same 
reasons  which  prevent  any  man  from  showing  a  work  yet  growing 
under  his  hands  to  any  but  his  particular  friends.     One  of  these 
works   was  the  Rhetoric,  as   has  been  remarked  by  Niebuhr  in  a 
note  to  the  History  of  Rome,  vol.  i.  p.  19.     Eng.  Trans. 

2  Stromm.  V.  p.  4>7<5.     After  speaking  of  double  doctrines  of  the 
Pythagoreans,  Plato,  Epicurus  and  the  Stoics,  he  adds,  Aeyovo-t  Be 
KO\  01  'Apt<rTOT€\oi»9  TO  /U6i/  €<r(aT€piKa  clvat    TUV  ffvjypa/jiijidrfav  airran/j 
TO.  Be  Koivd  T€   KO.\  egu)T€piKci,  where  the  true  reading  would  seem 
to  be  ai/Tou  instead  of 


GRADUAL    GROWTH    OF    THE    THEORY.  133 

in  an  age  singularly  attached,  as  the  declining  Roman 
empire  was,  to  mystical  orgies  and  secret  associations. 
Before  Clement  indeed,  Lucian  had  taken  advantage  of 
it  for  the  purpose  of  a  jest,  where  in  his  Sale  of  Philo- 
sophers, he  puts  Aristotle  up  to  auction  as  a  double 
man3.  But  obviously  this  is  only  a  ludicrous  version 
of  the  fact  that  his  works  were  of  very  different  kinds, 
stated,  as  it  is  not  unlikely  that  even  the  Aristotelians  of 
that  age  would  be  fond  of  doing,  in  a  paradoxical  form. 
Nay,  even  when  we  get  down  to  the  close  of  the  fourth 
century,  to  the  rhetorician  Themistius,  a  very  great 
allowance  must  be  made  for  the  conceits  of  his  affected 
style,  before  we  can  safely  form  our  estimate  of 
his  real  sentiments.  No  one  can  dream  of  taking  in 
their  literal  sense  such  phrases  as  those  of  "Aristotle 
shutting  up  and  fortifying  his  meaning  in  a  rampart 
of  obscure  phraseology,  to  secure  it  from  the  ravages 
of  uninitiated  marauders*" — or  "  considering  that  know- 
ledge was  like  food  and  drugs,  one  sort  proper  for  the 
healthy,  another  for  the  sicfr"  and  therefore  "  involving 
his  meaning  in  a  wall  of  cloud,  the  doors  of  which  two 
guardians,  Perspicuity  and  Obscurity,  like  the  Homeric 
Hours,  stood  ready  to  open  to  the  initiated  and  close 
upon  the  profane*"  But  after  making  all  proper  al- 
lowance, there  is  no  question  that  in  the  time  of 
Themistius  the  opinion  of  the  double  meaning  of  Aris- 

3  Vol.  iii.  p.  112.  Ed.  Bipont. 

4  Oral,  xxiii.  p.  294. 

5  Oral.   xxvi.  p.   319.     The   allusion  is  to  Iliad.    V.  750,   and 
there  are  some  others  in  the  context,  equally  tasteless  and  strained, 
to  the  marshalling  of  the  Median  army  by  Cyaxares  (Herod,  i.  103.) 
and  to  the  palace  of  Agbatana  with  its  concentric  sevenfold  walls 
(Herod,  i.  98.) 


134  ITS   FINAL   ESTABLISHMENT. 

totle  was  widely  received1.  Ammonius,  in  the  fifth 
century,  thinks  it  necessary  to  state,  apparently  in  op- 
position to  the  popular  belief,  "  that  the  dialogues  of 
"Aristotle  differ  very  much  from  the  direct  treatises 
"  (avTotrpovwircL)  ;  that  in  the  latter,  as  addressing  his 
"  discourse  to  genuine  students,  he  not  only  delivers 
"his  real  opinions,  but  employs  the  severest  methods, 
"  such  as  people  in  general  cannot  follow ;  while  in  the 
"  latter,  as  they  are  written  for  general  use,  he  delivers 
"  his  real  opinions  too,  but  still  employs  methods  not 
"rigidly  demonstrative  but  of  such  a  kind  that  the 
"ordinary  run  of  people  are  able  to  follow  them2." 
But  his  scholar  Simplicius  no  longer  swims  against  the 
tide :  he  asserts  that  in  the  "  acroamatic  works  Aristotle 
"aimed  at  obscurity,  in  order  through  it  to  repel  the 
more  indolent  from  him3."  The  wit  of  the  satirist  and 
the  flourishes  of  the  rhetorician  were  thus  translated 
into  plain  prose;  and  from  this  time  forward  the  du- 
plicity of  Aristotle's  doctrines  may  be  considered  as 
reckoned  among  the  most  indisputable  facts. 

Having  now  thoroughly  satisfied  ourselves  that  the 
narrative  of  Strabo  requires  much  qualification,  we  may 
enquire  whether  there  is  any  part  of  it  which  is  con- 
sistent with  what  from  other  sources  we  know  really 
was  the  case.  And  there  seems  nothing  to  prevent 
us  from  believing  that  Neleus's  heirs  really  possessed 

1  One  great  reason  of  this  no  doubt  was  the  desire  of  recon- 
ciling him  with  Plato,  which  is  observable  in  Themistius,  and  was 
by  his  time  the  great  object  of  philosophers.  See  especially, 
Oral.  xx.  pp.  235,  6.  Utterly  unable  to  ascend  to  the  point  which 
would  enable  them  to  appreciate  both,  they  endeavoured  to  esta- 
blish a  spurious  agreement  by  the  help  of  fictions  like  this. 

-  Ammonius,  /.  supr.  c. 

3  Ad  Auscult.  Physic,  fol.  2,  6.  1.  22. 


QUALIFICATION    OF    STRABO'S    STORY.  135 

some  books  which  had  belonged  to  Aristotle  and  Theo- 
phrastus, — that  Apellicon  purchased  these, — and  that 
they  were  brought  by  Sylla  to  Rome  and  there  first 
made  known  to  people  in  general.  But  that  these 
were  works  of  any  great  importance  we  have  seen 
could  not  be  the  case ;  nor  that  the  decay  of  the  Pe- 
ripatetic school  was  owing  to  the  want  of  them.  A 
part  of  the  story  relates  to  matters  of  fact,  for  which 
Strabo  is  a  most  respectable  witness;  a  part  to  a  mat- 
ter of  opinion,  on  which  he  is  no  authority  whatever 
beyond  any  competent  person  of  the  present  day.  The 
one  half  is  reconcileable  with  the  fact  that  the  princi- 
pal acroamatic  works  of  Aristotle  were  in  the  hands  of 
his  successors,  and  in  the  Library  at  Alexandria,  du- 
ring the  interval  between  Neleus  and  Apellicon.  It  is 
in  accordance  also  with  the  notice  of  Athenaeus  that 
Ptolemy  carried  the  libraries  of  Aristotle  and  Theo- 
phrastus  to  Alexandria,  and  likewise  with  various  other 
stories  which  having  a  less  obvious  bearing  upon  the 
question,  we  have  for  the  sake  of  perspicuity  omitted 
noticing  before,  but  now  present  to  the  reader  in  a 
note4.  The  other  is  inconsistent  with  these  and  many 

4 1.  Dionysius  of  Halicarnassus  mentions  it  as  a  prevalent  opinion 
that  Demosthenes  owed  his  skill  in  oratory  to  the  study  of  Aristotle's 
Rhetoric,  and  takes  some  trouble  to  prove  by  quotations  in  that 
work  from  Demosthenes,  that  all  his  famous  orations  (the  XII.  Phi- 
lippics, as  they  were  called)  were  delivered  before  the  treatise  was 
written.  (Ep.  i.  ad  Ammceum.) 

II.  Theophrastus  corresponded  with  Eudemus  concerning  cer- 
tain errors  in  the  copies  of  the  5th  Book  of  the  Physical  Lectures. 
(Andronicus  Rhodius  ap.  Simplicium,  quoted  by  Brandis,  p.  245.) 

III.  Valerius  Maximus  relates  that  Aristotle  first  of  all  gave 
his  Rhetoric   to  a  favourite   Scholar,   Theodectes,  and  that  it  was 
published  under  his  name:  but  that  his  greediness  for  reputation 
afterwards  induced  him  to  claim  it  for  himself,  by  quoting   from 
it  in  another  work  as  his  own  production,     (viii.  14.) 


136  CHARACTER    OF    APELLICON. 

other  facts  and  may  be  rejected  without  invalidating 
the  reputation  of  Straho  either  for  veracity  or  accuracy 
as  regards  matters  which  came  within  his  scope,  a  re- 
putation which  we  should  be  the  last  persons  to  desire 
to  destroy. 

What  then  was  the  nature  of  these  documents  the 
preservation  of  which  was  the  foundation  for  so  remark- 
able a  story?  We  can  only  guess  an  answer,  but  we 
will  nevertheless  make  the  attempt. 

Athenaeus1,   quoting  from    the   work   of  Posidonius 
the   historian,  a  contemporary   of  Pompey    the   Great, 
gives   a   sketch   of  the   character   of  Apellicon,   which 
seems  to  throw  some  light  upon  this  question.    A  man 
of  vast  wealth   and  of  a  restless   disposition,   and   an 
adopted  citizen    of  Athens,   he  appears  to  have  alter- 
nately plunged   himself  into  the  turbulent   politics   of 
his  time,  and   cultivated   literature  in  a  spurious  kind 
of  way.     His  taste  for  letters  was  a  mere  bibliomania, 
and   brought  him   into  trouble.     He  purchased,  while 
the  fit  for  philosophy  was  upon  him,  "the  Peripatetic 
"  books  and  the  library  of  Aristotle  and  a  great  many 
"  others,  being  a  man  of  great  property.     Moreover  he 
"  surreptitiously  obtained  possession  of  the  ancient  ori- 
"  ginal  decrees  of  the  Assembly,  which  were  preserved 
"  at  Athens  in  the  temple  of  the  Mother  of  the  Gods, 
"  and  from  the  other  cities  too  he  got  hold  of  what- 
"  ever  was  ancient  and  curious."     This  theft   obliged 
him   to  save   his    life   by  flying  the   country;  in    the 
troublous   times  however,   which   soon  after  succeeded, 
he  contrived  to  procure  his  recal  by  joining  the  party 
of  the  demagogue  Athenion.     This  individual  had  in- 
duced his  countrymen  to  take  a  part  in  the  confederacy 

1  Athenaeus,  v.  cap.  53.  pp.  214— -5. 


A   COLLECTOR    OF    CURIOSITIES.  137 

which  Mithridates  had  organized  against  the  power  of 
Rome.  In  an  evil  hour  Apellicon  quitted  book-collect- 
ing for  military  service.  He  took  the  command  of  an 
expedition  against  Delos,  which  was  occupied  by  Orbius 
the  Roman  praetor;  but  displayed  such  utter  ignorance 
of  the  commonest  duties  of  a  commander  that  his  ene- 
my soon  found  an  opportunity  of  attacking  him  una- 
wares, destroyed  or  captured  the  whole  of  his  troops, 
and  burnt  all  the  machines  which  he  had  constructed 
for  storming  the  city.  The  unfortunate  dilettante  es- 
caped with  his  life,  but  died,  in  what  way  is  not  known, 
before  Sylla  stormed  Athens  and  seized  on  the  library 
which  had  cost  him  so  dear2.  It  seems  almost  certain 
from  this  account  of  Apellicon,  that  it  was  the  posses- 
sion not  of  the  works  but  of  the  autographs  of  them 
which  was  the  attraction  to  him.  Can  we  then  con- 
ceive that  it  was  the  original  autographs  of  Aristotle 
and  Theophrastus  which  he  purchased  from  the  repre- 
sentatives of  Neleus's  family? — Autographs  of  what 
works  ?  Not  of  the  exoteric :  for  these  were  so  gene- 
rally known  that  he  would  have  had  no  difficulty  in 
filling  up  the  gaps  which  the  damp  and  worms  had 
produced  in  his  copy.  Nor  of  the  systematic  treatises; — 
for  if  the  original  manuscript  of  these  had  existed,  An- 
dronicus  would  have  had  no  difficulty  in  determining 
what  was  the  production  of  Aristotle,  and  what  not, 
in  the  various  cases  where  that  question  arose.  Of 
neither  of  these  classes  of  writing  then  can  we  imagine 
that  the  story  of  Strabo  is  to  be  understood  But  if 
we  suppose  Aristotle  to  have  left  behind  him,  as  every 
literary  man  whose  energies  last  to  the  end  of  his  life 
will  do,  collections  on  various  subjects,  rough  draughts 

2  Stahr,  Aristotelia,  ii.  p.  lip. 


138  DRAUGHTS   OF    ARISTOTLE'S    WORKS. 

of  future  works,  commonplace  books  some  of  a  miscel- 
laneous nature,  some  devoted  to  particular  matters, 
containing,  it  may  be,  extracts  from  other  writers,  re- 
ferences to  their  opinions,  germs  of  thoughts  hereafter 
to  be  worked  out,  lines  of  argument  merely  indicated;— 
it  is  very  conceivable  that  these  documents,  so  long  as 
a  healthy  and  lively  philosophical  spirit  existed  in  the 
Peripatet^.  school,  would  receive  very  little  attention. 
If  they  were  too  fragmentary  and  unsystematic  for  pub- 
lication they  would  remain  in  the  possession  of  Theo- 
phrastus  and  Neleus1,  too  curious  to  destroy,  too  un- 
finished to  make  any  use  of;  and  if  the  heirs  of  Neleus 
were  illiterate  men,  they  would  see  nothing  in  them 
but  so  many  slovenly  and  disjointed  scrawls,  and  not 
dream  of  putting  them  among  the  sumptuous  collec- 
tion of  books  which  they  sold  to  King  Ptolemy.  But 
in  the  time  of  Apellicon,  the  state  of  things  was 
changed.  The  relics  of  the  founder  of  the  school 
would  have  acquired  a  sacred  character,  and  unsaleable 
as  they  might  have  been  to  Ptolemy,  who  appears  to 
have  been  a  real  lover  of  literature  and  not  a  mere 
book-fancier, — would  fetch  a  good  price  with  the  pur- 
chaser of  stolen  records.  And  it  is  not  at  all  inconsis- 
tent with  this  view,  that  a  person  whose  acquaintance 
with  philosophy  was  of  such  a  kind,  should  mistake 
the  nature  of  the  documents  he  had  got  hold  of, — 
"  attempt  to  supply  the  gaps  when  he  transcribed  the 
"  text  into  new  copies, — fill  these  up  the  reverse  of 

1  Parts  of  some  of  them  may  very  likely  have  been  incorpo- 
rated by  Theophrastus,  Strato,  and  others,  in  works  of  their  own; 
a  proceeding  which  in  those  days  would  not  have  been  considered 
a  plagiarism.  Such  too  was  doubtless  the  case  with  all  mere  col- 
lections, such  as  the  Problems  and  the  book  irep\  dav/jiaa-itov  duov- 
o-juaVwi/,  which,  as  we  have  it  now,  probably  contains  additions 
from  several  hands. 


PROBABLE  SPECIMENS  OF  THESE.      139 

"  well, — and   send  the  books   out  into  the   world  full 
"  of  mistakes2." 

Such  is  the  theory  which,  it  appears  to  us,  will 
reconcile  the  varying  accounts  respecting  Aristotle's 
writings,  and  while  it  sweeps  away  all  that  is  adven- 
titious in  the  statement  of  the  Greek  geographer, 
will  leave  his  testimony  substantially  unimpaired.  And 
this  theory  is  in  fact  confirmed  by  the  state  in  which 
some  of  the  works  of  Aristotle  have  come  down  to  us. 
For  some  of  these  are  not  merely  books  kept  by  the 
author  and  continually  worked  at,  like  the  Rhetoric,  and 
Theophrastus's  History  of  Plants,  nor  are  they  mere 
notes  for  lectures,  a  dry  skeleton  of  the  subject,  complete 
in  themselves  and  only  requiring  the  illustration  and 
developement  which  would  be  supplied  by  the  extem- 
poraneous efforts  of  the  instructor.  Neither  of  these 
two  descriptions  will  explain  all  the  phenomena  which 
strike  the  reader  in  the  Poetics  and  the  Politics,  as 
these  two  treatises  are  found  in  our  manuscripts.  Neither 
of  them  complete  the  discussion  of  the  range  of  topics 
which  they  promise,  and  it  is  impossible  to  receive  as 
a  satisfactory  explication  of  this  fact  that  they  are 
only  fragments  of  complete  works  of  which  the  re- 
mainder has  been  lost.  This  is  quite  incompatible  with 
what  we  find  in  them,  namely  redundancies, — whole 
paragraphs  recast,  and  standing  together  with  those  for 
which  they  seem  meant  as  a  substitute.  Such  appear- 
ances are  only  to  be  understood  on  the  supposition  that 
the  work  in  which  they  occur  was  an  interleaved  draught 
of  a  future  treatise,  itself  never  published  (nor  yet  in- 
tended for  publication)  by  the  author.  In  such  a  case 
we  should  expect  to  find  what  we  do  find  here,  and 

3  Strabo,  /.  supr.  c. 


140  POETICS — POLITICS. 

certainly  not,  to  the  same  extent,  in  any  other  work, — 
scholia  containing  archaeological  or  historical  notes  in- 
serted in  the  midst  of  metaphysical  divisions, — imperfect 
analyses, — defective  enumerations, — tacit  references  to 
writings  of  others  or  to  opinions  current  at  the 
time, — allusions  to  questions  treated  on  by  the  author 
in  the  work,  which  are  no  where  to  he  found, — gaps 
where  obviously  something  was  to  be  inserted, — and  ex- 
pressions so  slovenly  as  to  be  almost  or  wholly  ungram- 
matical1.  And  on  the  supposition  that  these  works 
were  note-books  devoted  to  the  particular  subjects  on 
which  they  treat,  kept  by  the  author  until  the  materials 
they  contained  had  been  worked  up  and  published  in  a 
complete  form,  and  then  discarded  by  him,  we  shall 
see  in  what  relation  they  probably  stood  to  the  works 
read  by  Cicero2,  and  named  in  the  catalogues  of  Dio- 
genes Laertius  and  the  anonymous  Biographer3,  and 
understand  what  kind  of  writings  those  in  all  proba- 

1    See  the   Appendix. 

3  De  leg.  iii.  6.     De  divin.  ii.  1.     Epp.  ad  Quint.  Frai.  iii.  5. 

3  Diogenes  quotes  Trep\  TTOJ»/TWI/  in  three  books,  Trpay/jiareia  Tc'^i/t/9 
TroirjTiKrjs  in  two  books,  Troif/TiKa  in  one  book  (perhaps  the  treatise 
we  have),  trep\  TpayuSuav  in  one  book ;  all  of  which  had  some  rela- 
tion to  the  Poetics ;  and  TroAtriKo?  in  two  books,  virep  airo'uuav  in 
one  book,  Trep\  (3a<ri\eias  in  one  book,  7rep\  TraiBeia?  in  one  book, 
OiKOi/o/JUKO?  in  one  book,  TroXiTiKa.  in  two  books,  TroAiTiK^  anpoao-i  cos 
tj  Qeofypdo-Tov  in  eight  books,  7rep\  liKa'uav  in  two  books,  SiKaito/xara 
in  one  book  and  158  constitutions  of  democratic,  oligarchal,  aristo- 
cratic, and  monarchical  states,  all  having  some  bearing  on  the 
Politics.  To  these  perhaps  may  be  added  from  the  anonymous 
writer  7rep\  evyeveias  in  one  book,  Trep\  ffva-a-n-iiov  J)  <rv/j.iro<ri(av  in  one 
book,  0e<reis  TroXtrtKat  in  two  books,  TroXiTiKrj  axjodao-/?  in  twenty 
books,  TpuAAo?  in  three  books,  SiKaita/jiaTa  iroXeiav  in  one  book. 
However  these  writings  may  have  been  confused  by  the  unskilful 
epitomizers  of  Hermippus,  it  is  quite  plain  that  Aristotle  wrote  a 
great  deal  more  on  both  these  subjects  than  has  come  down  to 


us. 


ESTIMATE   OF   THEM.  141 

bility  were,  which  descended  with  the  rest  of  Aristotle's 
lihrary  to  Theophrastus,  and  from  Theophrastus  to 
Neleus, — which  were  neglected  by  the  librarians  of 
Ptolemy  Philadelphia, — and  emerged  from  their  ob- 
scurity in  the  vault  of  Scepsis  to  be  purchased  by  the 
antiquarian  Apellicon.  Only  in  making  this  estimate 
we  must  not  forget  the  different  importance  which  such 
writings  possess  for  us,  deprived  for  ever  of  those  which 
were  formed  out  of  them, — from  that  which  they  may 
have  had  for  their  author  and  his  immediate  successors, 
to  whom  they  would  appear  in  no  other  light  than  the 
scaffold,  by  the  aid  of  which  the  cathedral  has  been 
erected,  does  to  the  architect.  And  perhaps  we  may 
properly  imagine  that  the  greater  fulness  of  these  pro- 
cured their  preservation  after  they  were  recovered,  while 
many  others  of  the  same  kind,  but  yet  further  removed 
from  completeness,  were  suffered  to  perish. 


CHAPTER    VIII. 

REMAINING    WORKS   OF    ARISTOTLE. 


WE  shall  conclude  this  memoir  hy  a  list  and  a  brief 
literary  notice  of  the  Works  which  have  come  down  to 
us  under  the  name  of  Aristotle,  in  the  order  in  which 
they  are  given  in  the  edition  of  the  Berlin  Academy. 

I.  Categories.  (Karriyopiai  or  KCtTqyopiai  ire  pi  TWV 
Seicct  iyeviKO)TGLTwv  yevwv.) 

The  genuineness  of  this  work  was  much  disputed 
in  the  time  of  the  ancient  commentators.  Adrastus 
found  a  work  on  the  same  subject  hearing  the  name 
of  Aristotle,  and,  singularly  enough,  consisting  of  ex- 
actly the  same  number  of  lines.  It  was  however  by 
them  determined  to  be  genuine,  with  the  exception  of 
the  last  part,  which  treats  on  what  the  Latin  Logi- 
cians term  the  Post-pr&dicamenta.  This  extends  from 
the  tenth  chapter  to  the  end.  The  work  of  Harris 
called  Philosophical  Arrangements  is  an  exposition, 
very  much  in  the  manner  of  the  old  commentators,  of 
this  Treatise.  A  short  but  most  masterly  critique  on 
it  will  be  found  in  Kant's  Kritik  der  reinen  Ternunft, 
p.  79-  Adrastus  wished  to  call  the  work  rd  -n-po  TCOI> 
TOTTt/coji/,  considering  it  as  merely  an  introduction  to 
the  Topics,  an  appellation  of  which  Porphyry  disap- 
proves. The  evidence  which  determined  the  ancient 
critics  in  their  decision  between  the  rival  works  bear- 
ing this  name  was  solely  internal.  The  cast  of  thought 
and  the  phraseology  appeared  to  them  to  be  Aristotle's, 
and  they  conceived  that  references  to  this  one  were  to 


LOGICAL    WRITINGS.  143 

be  found  in  others  of  the  Aristotelian  writings.  But 
before  Aristotle,  Archytas  the  Pythagorean  philosopher, 
in  his  work  irepl  TTCLVTOS,  had  written  on  the  Ten 
Categories,  and  some  of  the  moderns1  have  considered 
that  this  work  was  to  be  referred  to  one  of  that  School. 
Grotius  quotes  the  book  without  naming  Aristotle  as 
the  author*.  Brandis  however  on  the  principle  we  have 
indicated  above  (p.  116)  has  established  the  prevalent 
opinion  on  this  subject,  on  evidence  possessing  a  very 
high  degree  of  authority. 


II.      On   interpretation.      (Trepl  e 

A  philosophical  treatise  on  grammar  as  far  as  re- 
lates to  the  nature  of  nouns  and  verbs.  Some  of  the 
old  commentators  from  its  obscurity  imagined  it  to  be 
a  mere  collection  of  notes,  and  Andronicus  considered 
it  not  to  be  Aristotle's.  Alexander  of  Aphrodisias, 
however,  and  Ammonius  proved  it  to  be  his,  and  to 
have  been  used  by  Theophrastus  in  a  treatise  of  the 
same  name  which  he  wrote.  Still  the  latter  of  these, 
as  well  as  Porphyry,  suspected  that  the  last  part  of 
the  work  was  the  addition  of  some  more  modern  hand. 

III.     Former  Analytics,  i.  n.     Latter  Analytics, 

I.  II.   (avaXvTiKa    TrpOTepa,    ava\VTiKoi    vcrrepa.) 

Of  the  former  of  these  treatises  the  true  and  ancient 
title  was  Trepl  GvXXoyiviuLov  and  that  of  the  latter  Trepl 
aVo^e^ews-.  Diogenes  Laertius,  (Tit.  §  23)  speaks  of 
eight  books  of  the  Former  Analytics,  or  as  one  MS. 
has  it,  ten,  and  of  two  of  the  Latter.  And  Petiti 
conceived  that  the  work  which  is  referred  to  in  the 

1  Jonsius  De  Histories  Philosophies  Scriptoribus  p.  4.  "  Auctor 
libri  de  Categoriis,  quicumque  Platonicorum  vel  Pythagoreorum  is 
demum  fuerit." 

2  Ad  Matth.  Ev.  xiv.  4 


144  LOGICAL   WRITINGS. 

Nicomachean  Ethics  ,'  has  not  come  down  to  us. 
The  old  commentators  found  forty  books  on  this  sub- 
ject, professedly  by  Aristotle,  and  determined  on 
the  genuineness  of  these  only,  rejecting  all  the  rest, 
Their  subject  is  that  which  in  modern  times  is  es- 
pecially termed  Logic,  but  would  be  more  properly 
called  Dialectics,  that  is,  an  examination  of  the  possible 
forms  in  which  an  assertion  may  be  made  and  a  con- 
clusion established. 

Theophrastus,  Eudemus  and  Phanias,  scholars  of 
Aristotle,  wrote  treatises  on  the  same  subjects  as  these 
three  of  their  master,  and  called  them  by  the  same 
name,  a  circumstance  which  probably  had  some  connec- 
tion with  the  number  of  "Analytics"  ascribed  to  him. 

IV.  Topics.  I.  II.  III.   IV.  V.    VI.   VII.    VIII.  (TOTTIKCI.) 

An  analysis  of  the  different  heads  from  which  de- 
monstrative arguments  may  be  brought.  It  was  con- 
sidered by  the  ancient  commentators  as  the  easiest  of 
all  Aristotle's  systematic  writings.  The  Romans  how- 
ever, as  Cicero  tells  us  in  the  preface  to  his  work  of 
the  same  name,  found  it  so  difficult  as  to  be  repelled 
by  it,  although  he  himself  praises  it  no  less  for  its 
language  than  for  its  scientific  merits.  His  own  work 
is  an  epitome  of  it  made  by  himself  from  memory 
during  a  sea  voyage  from  Velia  to  Rhegium2. 

V.  On  sophistical  proofs,  i.  n. 


An  analysis  of  the  possible  forms  of  fallacy  in  de- 
monstration. This  work  has  a  natural  connection  with 
the  Topics,  as  Aristotle  himself  remarks  in  the  begin- 
ning of  the  last  chapter  of  the  second  book. 

1  VI.  3.  p.  1139.  col.  2.  tin.  27-  Bekk. 
*  Epp.  Fam.  VII.  19- 


PHYSICAL    AND    METAPHYSICAL  WRITINGS.      145 

The  preceding  works  taken  together  complete  Aris- 
totle's Logical  writings,  and  with  the  introduction  of  Por- 
phyry to  the  Categories  have  gone  generally  in  modern 
times  by  the  name  of  the  Organum,  from  the  circum- 
stance of  Aristotle  having  called  Logic  opyavov  opydvwv. 
The  philosopher  gave  this  name  to  the  art  because  of 
all  others  it  is  the  most  purely  instrumental,  that  is, 
the  most  entirely  a  means  to  something  else,  and  the 
least  an  end  to  be  desired  for  its  own  sake.  The  term 
however,  was  in  subsequent  ages  misapplied  to  mean 
that  it  was  the  best  of  all  instruments  for  the  dis- 
covery of  truth,  as  opposed  to  the  observation  of  facts, 
and  the  art  was  correspondently  abused. 

VI.     Physical  Lectures,  i.  n.  in.  iv.  v.  vi.  vn- 

VIII.    \(j)vcriKr)  a/CjOoao'is). 

It  is  a  very  questionable  matter  whether  this  treatise 
was  published  by  the  author  as  one  organic  whole.  The 
last  three  books  probably  formed  a  treatise  by  themselves 
under  the  name  Trepl  Kii^'crews3,  and  the  five  first  another, 
under  that  of  0v<n/ca.  Again,  of  these  the  first  one  is 
quite  independent  of  the  rest,  and  is  devoted  to  the 
discussion  of  primal  principles  (a^ou)4,  to  which  every 
thing  in  nature  may  be  resolved.  This  book  is  ex- 
tremely valuable  for  the  history  of  philosophy  before 
the  time  of  Aristotle.  He  discusses  in  it  the  theories 
of  Melissus,  Parmenides,  Anaxagoras,  Empedocles,  and 
others.  The  second  is  taken  up  with  an  examination 

3  Simpl.  ad  Phys.  Auscult.  f.  21 6.     Diogenes  however  gives  a 
work  TT6p\  (aircrew?  in  two  books.     This  is  not  conclusive  against  the 
opinion  quoted  in  the  text.     See  below,  the  notice  respecting  the 
Rhetoric,  pag.  159- 

4  Perhaps  it  is  to  this  book  that  the  title  irep}  apxw>  *n  Diogenes's 
Catalogue,  refers. 

10 


146     PHYSICAL    AND    METAPHYSICAL  WRITINGS. 

of  the  ideas  of  Nature,  Necessity,  and  Chance  ;  and 
the  next  three  with  the  properties  of  Body,  or  rather 
with  the  analysis  of  those  notions  of  the  understanding 
which  are  involved  in  the  idea  of  Body.  Of  this  work 
abstracts  and  syllabuses  (/ce^aXaTa  /cal  a-wfyeis)  were 
very  early  made  by  the  Peripatetic  school1,  and  these 
by  keeping  their  attention  fixed  upon  the  connection  of 
a  system  of  dogmas,  perhaps  contributed  much  to  divert 
them  from  the  observation  of  nature,  and  to  keep  up 
that  perpetually-recurring  confusion  between  laws  of 
the  Understanding  and  laws  of  the  external  World 
which  characterizes  the  whole  of  the  ancient  physical 
speculations. 


VII.  On  the   Heavens,   i.  n.  m.  iv.  (Trepl  ovpa- 

vov). 

Alexander  of  Aphrodisias  considered  that  the  proper 
name  for  this  work  was  Trepl  Koa^ov9  as  only  the  first  two 
books  'are  really  on  the  subject  of  the  heavenly  bodies 
and  their  circular  motion.  The  two  last  treat  on  the 
four  elements  and  the  properties  of  gravity  and  light- 
ness, and  afford  much  information  relative  to  the 
systems  of  Empedocles  and  Democritus. 

VIII.  On  Generation  and  Decay,  i.  n.  (^repl  76- 


KOL 


This  work  treats  on  those  properties  of  bodies  which 
in  our  times  would  be  consideredfto  be  the  proper  sub- 
jects of  physiological  and  of  chemical  science.  Many 
other  notions,  however,  of  a  metaphysical  nature,  are 
mixed  up  with  these,  and  it  is  only  for  its  illustration 
of  the  history  of  philosophy  that  this  work,  like  the 

1  Simplicius,  (Introd.  ad.  Phys.  Ausc.  vi.  and  vii.) 


PHYSICAL    AND    METAPHYSICAL  WRITINGS.     147 

rest  of  the  physical  treatises,  is  of  any  value  to   the 
modern  student.) 


IX.  Meteorology.     I.  II.  III.  IV. 

The  first  of  these  hooks  was  by  some  in  the  time 
of  the  old  commentators  held  not  to  be  genuine;  and 
Ammonius  and  others  considered  that  the  fourth  should 
immediately  follow  the  second  of  the  last  treatise,  with 
which  the  subjects  on  which  it  treats,  the  changes  ef- 
fected in  bodies  by  heat  and  cold,  moisture  and  dry- 
ness,  &c.,  are  certainly  more  nearly  connected. 

X.  To  Alexander,   on  the    World, 


The  titles  of  this  tract  in  the  various  MSS.  differ 
much  from  one  another.  In  one  it  is  called  Trepl  /cou- 
fjLoypa(j)6ias',  in  another  Trepi  KOCT/ULOV  KOI  eTcpwv  ctvayKaiwv', 
in  a  third  cruvo\j/is  <piXocro(pias  Trepl  /cocrjuof  ;  in  Stobseus 
e7ri<7ToX>7  Trepl  TOV  7rai>To9,  which  Fabricius  holds  to  be 
the  true  title.  He  considers  the  work  to  be  genuine, 
contrary  to  the  opinion  of  Scaliger,  Salmasius,  Casau- 
bon,  Voss,  and  Buhle.  Fabricius's  opinion  has  been 
taken  up  by  Weisse,  but  the  spuriousness  of  the  piece 
is  glaring.  Stahr2  has,  as  we  think,  satisfactorily  shown 
that  it  is  in  all  probability  a  composition  of  very  late 
date,  based  upon  Apuleius's  work  De  Mundo.  He 
remarks  that  it  is  not  mentioned  by  any  writer  before 
Apuleius:  for  that  the  passage  of  Demetrius  (De  Elocut. 
§  243)  does  not  really  contain  any  allusion  to  it.  On 
the  other  hand,  Simplicius  expressly  states  that  Aris- 
totle wrote  no  one  treatise  on  this  subject  ;  and  that 
this  very  circumstance  was  the  inducement  for  Nicolaus, 
one  of  the  later  Peripatetics,  to  do  so. 

2  Aristoteles  bei  den  Roemern.  p.  165.  et  scq. 

10—2 


148     PHYSICAL    AND    METAPHYSICAL  WRITINGS. 


XI.  On  the   Soul.      I.  II.  III.      (-Tre/cn 

In  the  first  of  these  books  are  discussed  the  opinions 
of  preceding  philosophers  upon  this  subject;  in  the  se- 
cond, the  Soul  in  its  sensible  relations;  in  the  third, 
in  its  rational  ones.  A  celebrated  dialogue  of  Aris- 
totle's, to  which  we  have  before  referred,  bore  this 
same  title;  and  such  as  consider  that  the  exoteric 
works  were  all  in  the  form  of  dialogues,  imagine  that 
in  the  Nicomachean  Ethics1  he  alludes  to  it.  There 
are  parts,  however,  of  the  third  book  of  this  treatise 
which  seem  apt  for  his  purpose  in  that  place,  and  al- 
though the  work  serves  to  make  up  that  system  of 
Aristotle's  to  which  the  preceding  physical  treatises  as 
well  as  the  following  belong,  it  is  sufficiently  independ- 
ent of  them  to  allow  of  its  being  perfectly  understood 
without  their  perusal;  a  character  which  in  our  opinion 
is  the  only  essential  one  of  an  exoteric  writing. 

XII.  Eight  tracts  on  physical  subjects,  namely, 
(a.)     On    Perception   and    Objects   of  Perception. 

(jrepl   aia-0q<T€(t)$  Kctt  aidOrjTwv.) 

(b.)     On    Memory  and  Recollection,     (-n-epl 


(c.)      On  Sleep  and   Waking.      (wept  VTTVOV   Kal   eyprj- 


(d.)     On  Dreams,     (wep 

(e.)     On  the  Prophetic  Vision  in  Sleep,     (ire  pi 


KCtO'   VTTVOV 


.}     On   Length  and  Shortness  of  Life, 


KOL 


(g.)     On  Youth  and  Age,  Life  and  Death, 

Kal  yrjpws  Kat  Trepl  ^ooijs   /cat   QUVCLTOV.) 

(h.)     On  Respiration,     (-n-epl  a 

1  Pag.  1102.  col.  a.  lin.  27- 


PHYSICAL    WRITINGS.  149 


XIII.  Oil    Breath.      (Trepi   TOV 

This  treatise,  of  which  the  subject  is  the  same  as 
that  of  the  last  mentioned,  except  that  there  is  more 
reference  in  it  to  the  lower  animals,  has  been  con- 
sidered by  many  not  to  be  by  Aristotle.  Sylbourg 
considers  the  style  to  point  to  Alexander  of  Aphrodi- 
sias  as  its  author.  Meursius  thought  it  probably  to 
be  by  Theophrastus,  and  Patritius  by  Strato,  principally 
because  such  a  book  is  mentioned  by  Diogenes  among 
the  writings  of  these.  Fabricius  considers  it  to  be 
Aristotle's,  because  Aristotle  himself,  in  his  treatise 
On  the  Movement  of  Animals,  appears  to  allude  to  it, 
and  Galen  quotes  it  as  his.  But  neither  of  these  two 
passages  are  quite  conclusive. 

XIV.  Accounts  of  Animals,    i  .........  x.    (irepl  ra 


This  work  is  variously  entitled  in  the  manuscripts, 

(^TTCpl    <^Jft)t/    i<JTO|Of'a,    TWV    TTCpl    ^COWV    \(TTOpia.         Pliny2,   where 

he  speaks  of  Aristotle's  magnificent  work  On  Animals* 
in  fifty  books,  appears  to  include  together  with  this 
all  the  treatises  on  natural  history  which  follow  it, 
(and  indeed  are  naturally  connected  with  it,)  as  well 
as  some  on  comparative  anatomy,  now  lost.  The  same 
may  be  said  of  Cicero's  notice  of  them3.  This  work 
was  illustrated  by  diagrams  of  the  several  parts  of 
animals,  which  together  with  the  necessary  explanations 
perhaps  formed  a  treatise  by  themselves.  He  alludes 
to  them  in  several  passages  by  the  names  of  r\  kv  dva- 

To/JiCLLS    cia.fypa(pr)'    ai   avaTOju.ai'    ai   avaTo^al   ciayeypaiu.fJLevai. 

Schneider,  who  has  published  an  edition  of  this  work, 

2  Nat.  Hist.  viii.  17. 

3  DC  Fin.  v.  4. 


150  PHYSICAL    WRITINGS. 

most  learnedly  illustrated  as  regards  the  snbject,  not 
perceiving  in  it  any  traces  of  the  injury  which  Aris- 
totle's works,  according  to  Straho's  account,  received, 
was  induced  to  consider  it  as  one  of  the  exoteric  pub- 
lications. But,  in  fact,  the  whole  of  the  works  on 
natural  history  are  as  closely  connected  with  one  an- 
other as  the  several  parts  of  the  Organum,  and  it 
would  be  difficult  to  assign  any  reason  why  the  one 
class  should  be  regarded  as  exoteric  and  the  other  not 
so.  Of  the  probable  gradual  growth  of  these  works 
we  have  spoken  above. 

XV.     On  the  Parts  of  Animals,  i.  n.  in.  iv. 


XVI.     On  the  Movement  of  Animals, 


A  curious  tract  investigating  the  influences  which 
operate  db  extra  upon  animals.  This  treatise,  together 
with  the  one  following,  and  that  On  Breath,  are  often 
put  together  with  the  eight  tracts  before  mentioned, 
(No.  XII.)  and  make  up  in  the  aggregate  what  are  called 
the  Parva  Nat  ur  alia. 

XVII.     On  the  Locomotion  of  Animals, 

peias 


XVIII.     On  the  Engendering  of  Animals,  i.  n 
III.   IV.     (wept   ^u> 


XIX.     On  Colours, 

This  has  been  considered  by  some  critics  to  be  the 
work  of  Theophrastus.  Plutarch  speaks  of  a  treatise 
by  Aristotle  of  the  same  name  in  two  books. 


PHYSICAL    WRITINGS.  151 

XX.     From    the    Book  on    Sounds,     (e/c  rov 


Apparently  this  tract  is  only  a  fragment;  although 
Porphyry,  who  has  preserved  it  in  his  commentary  on 
the  Harmonicon  of  Ptolemy,  says  that  he  has  given 
the  whole  work. 


XXI.     Physiognomica. 

Of  this  tract  the  last  chapter  of  the  Former  Ana- 
lytics is  a  sort  of  compendium.  Buhle  considers  it 
spurious.  It  is  not  mentioned  hy  any  of  the  old  com- 
mentators, but  is  by  Stobseus  and  by  Diogenes  Laertius 
in  his  catalogue. 


XXII.  On   Plants,    (irepl 

Aristotle  wrote  two  books  on  plants,  but  not  these 
which  we  have.  They  are  a  translation  into  Greek 
from  the  Latin  ;  and  even  this  version  was  considerably 
removed  from  a  Greek  original,  having  been  made  by 
some  Gaul  from  an  Arabian  version,  which  again  was 
only  derived  from  a  more  ancient  Latin  translation. 
The  original  of  all  these,  according  to  Sealiger's  view, 
was  only  a  cento  of  scraps  taken  partly  from  Aristotle, 
and  partly  from  the  first  book  of  Theophrastus's  History 
of  Plants.  Aristotle's  work  was  already  lost  in  the  time 
of  Alexander  of  Aphrodisias. 

XXIII.  On    Wonderful  Stories,    (irepl 


This  book,  in  spite  of  its  title,  is  nothing  more  than 
a  collection  of  strange  accounts,  nor  does  it  appear  to 
have  formed  a  part  of  a  larger  work  of  at  all  a  different 
description.  The  latter  part  is  obviously  spurious,  and 
with  respect  to  the  remainder  various  opinions  have  been 


152  MISCELLANEOUS    QUESTIONS. 

held.  Dodwell  conceives  Theophrastus  to  have  been 
the  author,  Scaliger  Aristotle.  Buhle  considers  the 
whole  to  he  a  patchwork  of  extracts  from  the  works 
of  the  latter.  Our  opinion  is,  that  the  germ  of  the 
work  is  to  be  looked  for  in  one  of  those  note-books  or 
vTro/uLvrifjLara  which  were  appropriated  to  collections,  and 
from  which  supplies  were  occasionally  drawn  for  more 
systematic  writings  :  —  and  that  this  was,  in  its  trans- 
mission down  to  our  times,  added  to  by  several  hands, 
and  some  of  these  most  unskilful  ones.  See  our  notice 
of  the  Problems  below  (No.  XXV). 


XXIV.  Mechanics. 

The  first  part  of  this  work  touches  upon  the  prin- 
ciples of  mechanics,  and  is  followed  by  a  number  of 
questions  which  are  resolved  by  a  reference  to  them. 
This  latter  division  is  probably  only  a  part  of  the 
TrpoftX^fjiaTa  eyKVK\ia  or  questions  on  the  whole  cycle 
of  science,  which  we  find  mentioned  as  a  work  of 
Aristotle's  in  two  books  by  Diogenes  Laertius,  and 
which  is  quoted  by  Aulus  Gellius. 

XXV.  Problems.  (TrpoftX^ara). 

This  is  a  collection  of  questions  on  various  subjects 
in  thirty-eight  divisions,  of  which  the  first  relates  to 
medical,  the  fifteenth  to  mathematical,  the  eighteenth 
to  philological,  the  nineteenth  to  musical,  the  twenty- 
seventh  and  three  following  to  ethical,  and  the  rest 
mainly  to  physical  and  physiological  matters.  Theo- 
phrastus is  also  said  to  have  compiled  a  collection  of 
problems,  and  Pliny  quotes  him  as  the  authority  for  a 
circumstance  which  we  find  mentioned  in  this  work1. 

\ 

1  Prob.  xxxiii.  12.     Plin.  Hist.  Nat.  xxviii.  6. 


MISCELLANEOUS   QUESTIONS.  153 

In  his  treatises,  too,  trepi  KOTTWV  and  Trepl  tipdrcw,  there 
are  several  coincidences  with  the  Problems  of  Aristotle ; 
and  hence  some  have  held  him  really  to  be  the  author 
of  these,  while  others  have  considered  those  works  to 
he  nothing  more  than  a  patchwork  of  Aristotle's  Pro- 
blems. 

Besides   the  TrpoftX^aTa  e^KVKXia   which   we   men- 
tioned in  the  last  article,  Diogenes  mentions  two  books 

of  TrpofiXijiuLaTa  eTnreflea/xeVa,  (problems  farther  C0W- 
Sldered),  and  two  of  TrpoflXrjimaTa  e/c  TWV  ArjfjLOKpiTov. 

Moreover  Plutarch  and  Athenaeus,  and  other  authors, 
quote  from  the  TrpofiXijimaTa  (pucruca.  That  the  work 
which  has  come  down  to  us  is  neither  any  one  of  these, 
nor  the  aggregate  of  them  all,  is  certain.  Sylbourg  in 
his  preface  points  out  several  instances  in  which  Aris- 
totle himself  speaks  of  questions  discussed  in  them, 
which  will  be  looked  for  in  vain  in  the  present  treatise. 
Neither  do  we  find  most  of  the  quotations  made  by 
Aulus  Gellius,  Macrobius,  Apuleius,  and  Alexander  of 
Aphrodisias.  On  the  other  hand,  some  citations  which 
Gellius  produces  from  the  TrpoftX^fjLara  eynvicXia,  and  one 
which  Macrobius  does  from  the  TTjOo/BX^Vara  Availed  are 
found.  So  are  two  citations  by  Cicero,  and  one  by 
Galen,  quoting  generally  from  the  Problems.  These 
circumstances  indicate  that  the  work  has  been  very 
much  changed  since  it  came  from  Aristotle's  hands ; 
and  the  most  plausible  hypothesis  seems  to  be  that  the 
nucleus  of  the  work  is  a  selection2  from  the  collections 
of  Aristotle  and  Theophrastus,  added  to  it  in  its  course 
down  to  us.  There  are  many  repetitions  to  be  found 
in  it,  some  even  three  times  over  with  the  change  of 

2  Perhaps  by  some  Alexandrine  scholar.  Aristophanes  the  cele- 
brated grammarian  epitomized  some  of  Aristotle's  works  on  Natural 
History  (flicrnr/rx  cited  by  Schneider.  Pref.  ad  H.  A.  p.  xviii.) 


154  MATHEMATICAL    WRITINGS. 

only  a  few  words  ;  there  is  a  great  difference  of  style 
observable  in  several  parts  ;  in  many  of  the  more  ancient 
manuscripts  some  passages  are  omitted  and  others  dif- 
ferently arranged  ;  and  as  regards  the  philosophy,  it 
is  impossible  to  suppose  that  a  part  could  proceed  either 
from  Aristotle  or  Theophrastus,  or  from  any  philosopher 
of  an  undegenerate  age.  A  great  deal  is  no  doubt 
due  to  the  book-makers  under  the  Roman  empire:  it 
was  a  work  particularly  well  suited  to  the  manufacture 
of  such  Miscellanies  as  the  taste  of  that  time  delighted 
in,  and,  with  the  exception  of  the  works  on  natural 
history,  appears  to  have  been  by  far  the  most  generally 
popular  of  any  of  the  Aristotelian  writings.  These 
circumstances  render  it  necessary  for  the  historian  of 
philosophy  to  be  extremely  cautious  how  he  infers  the 
opinions  of  Aristotle  upon  any  subject  from  it. 

XXVI.     On  Indivisible  Lines,  (irepl  CLTO/ULWV 


This  tract  is  said  by  Simplicius  to  have  been  by 
some  of  the  ancient  commentators  ascribed  to  Theo- 
phrastus. 

XXVII.  The  Quarters  and  Names  of  the  Winds. 

Oe&eis  Kal   TrpocrrjyopiaL). 

A  fragment  from  Aristotle's  work  Trepl  o-rj/uLeicov  ^1^- 
mentioned  by  Diogenes  in  his  catalogue.  It  is 
found  in  some  manuscripts  of  Theophrastus's  works,  but 
Salmasius  considers  it  to  be  by  Aristotle. 

XXVIII.  On  Xenophanes,  on  Zeno,  on  Gorgias. 

(TTCpl   EevotyavovSj    irepl   Z,r)V(*)vos,   Trepl    Topyiov). 

This  fragment,  according  to  Brandis,  is  the  only 
one  of  all  the  works  which  have  come  down  to  us  under 


THE    METAPHYSICS.  155 

the  name  of  Aristotle's,  which  presents  the  least  indica- 
tion of  that  treatment  which  the  manuscripts  are  said  to 
have  met  with  at  the  hands  of  Apellicon.  This  too 
and  the  Mechanics  are  the  only  works  which  Patritius 
allowed  to  he  genuine.  It  is  singular  that  one  of  the 
manuscripts  ascribes  it  to  Theophrastus.  Another  gives 

as  a  title  /card  ras-  ^o^a?  TWV  <pi\oao(f)u)v. 


XXIX.     The   Metaphysics,  i.    n xiv.    (rd 

JUL6TO.     TO.     <f)VCTLKa). 

This  collection  of  treatises  is  said  to  have  been 
called  by  Andronicus  by  this  name,  because  when  he 
endeavoured  to  group  the  works  of  Aristotle  together 
systematically,  these  remained  after  he  had  completed 
his  physical  cycle,  and  he  had  no  better  resource  than 
to  put  them  together  after  it.  Harris1  gives  a  different 
account  of  the  name,  which  he  grounds  on  a  passage 
in  a  manuscript  work  of  Philoponus.  Men,  he  con- 
ceives, were  led  to  the  study  of  the  highest  causes,  by 
an  ascent  from  the  contemplation  of  the  lower  or  phy- 
sical. Hence  the  first  philosophy  (Prima  Philosophia) 
which  treats  of  them,  was,  from  being  subsequent  in 
time  to  these  physical  enquiries,  called  Metaphysical. 
Brandis2  relates  from  a  manuscript  commentary  of  As- 
clepius,  (a  writer  of  no  great  value,)  that  Aristotle  had 
during  his  lifetime  committed  the  several  treatises, 
the  aggregate  of  which  goes  by  this  name,  to  his  scho- 
lar Eudemus,  who  considered  that  they  were  not  in  a 
fit  state  for  publication;  but  that  after  his  death  sub- 
sequent Peripatetics  (oi  /meTayevevrepoi)  endeavoured  to 
work  them  up  into  a  whole,  supplying  what  was  defi- 

1  Additional   note  to  the  second  of   The  Three  Treatises,   pp. 
.364,  5. 

-  Rhein.  Mus.  i.  p.  242,  note  If). 


156 


ARRANGEMENT    OF    THE    METAPHYSICS. 


cient  from  other  works  of  their  founder.  Whatever 
may  be  the  truth  of  this  story,  it  is  unquestionable 
that  the  arrangement  of  the  several  books  is  purely 
arbitrary,  and  several  variations  have  been  proposed, 
among  others  one  by  Petiti,  which  we  annex  with  the 
addition  of  those  works  named  by  Diogenes  Laertius 
in  his  catalogue,  which  he  conceived  to  be  identical 
with  the  several  parts  of  this  work.  In  the  Greek 
manuscripts,  the  first  book  is  denoted  by  the  letter  (A), 
the  second,  not  by  the  letter  (B),  but  by  (a),  the 
third  by  (B),  the  fourth  by  (F),  and  so  regularly  on 
to  the  fourteenth. 


Greek 
MSS. 

Du  Val's 
arrange- 
ment. 

Petiti's 
arrange- 
ment. 

Works  cited  by  Diogenes  Laertius 
corresponding  to  the  several  parts  of 
the  Metaphysics. 

1 

1 

5 

irepi    djD^wi/,    a. 

2 

2 

3 

irepi    €7ri(TTr]/J.(ai')  a. 

3 

3 

6 

Treot    doycoi/,    /3'. 

4 

4 

4 

71  e^Ol     eTTtCTTf/^COl/,     /3'. 

5 

5 

1 

Trept    TWJ/    TrocravaK    Xeyo/jievuv. 

6 

7 

6 

7 

1} 

Trept    el^cov    KOI    ycvu)  i/,    a. 

8 

8 

9 

7T6|[)t     UA^?1. 

9 

9 

10 

Tre/ot    evepyeias1. 

10 

10 

2 

tj    €K\oyr]    Ttav   evavrnav. 

11 

13 

14 

Trent    €7n<Trti  /j.r]s  . 

12 

14 

13 

7rep\    (f)t\o<ro(})ia<;,    a. 

13 

11 

11 

trcpt    (bi\o<Tod)ict<?,    (3  • 

14 

12 

12 

TTcpi    (bi\o(ro(bi(x.S)    y  . 

The  thirteenth  and  fourteenth  books  are  not  found 
in  the  old  Latin  version,  or  that  of  Argyropylus.  The 
second  book  (a  of  the  Greek  MSS.)  was  considered  by 
some  of  the  ancient  commentators  to  be  the  work  of 
Pasicrates  the  Rhodian,  brother  of  Eudemus.  Alex- 
ander of  Aphrodisias  says  that  it  is  by  Aristotle,  but 

1    These  are  not  mentioned  by  Diogenes. 


ETHICAL    WRITINGS.  157 

is  mutilated.  Others  have  held  that  it  is  a  sort  of 
scholium,  and  that  its  proper  place  is  as  a  preface  to 
the  second  book  of  the  Physical  Lectures.  And  the 
circumstance  of  its  being  denoted  by  so  singular  a 
mark  in  the  manuscripts  would  incline  us  to  believe 
that  some  opinion  of  this  sort  was  widely  received. 

XXX.  Nicomachean  Ethics,    i.  n.  in....x.   (*}0t/cd 

Nt/couaveta.) 

CD 

This  is  one  of  the  most  perspicuous,  as  well  as 
most  valuable  of  the  works  of  Aristotle  which  has  come 
down  to  us.  Although  in  a  scientific  form,  there  is  a 
reference  throughout  to  practical  utility,  and  Aristotle 
himself  seems  to  avow  that  he  has  sacrificed  some  of 
the  rigidness  of  his  method  to  this  consideration.  It 
is,  however,  unequalled  to  this  day  as  a  treatise  on 
Morals.  On  the  subject  of  the  name  different  accounts 
are  given.  Most  of  the  ancient  commentators  assert 
that  it  was  so  called  by  Aristotle  because  inscribed 
to  his  son  Nicomachus.  Cicero  appears,  as  we  have 
seen,  to  consider  the  son  the  author.  Petiti  endeavours 
to  show  that  the  treatise  was  written  at  a  time  when 
Nicomachus  was  not  born.  It  was  probably,  like  the 
Rhetoric,  worked  at  by  the  author  after  having  been 
published,  and  this  will  account  for  some  of  those 
passages  which  he  considers  to  be  interpolations  by 
the  son. 

XXXI.  The   Great  Ethics.   I.    II.   (v&m   /meyaXa.) 

XXXII.  The  Eudemian  Ethics,  i.  n.  in.  iv.  v. 

VI.  VII.    (iOiK 

This  work  was  in  ancient  times  attributed  to  Theo- 
phrastus  or  Eudemus.  The  third  and  three  following 


158  ETHICAL    WRITINGS. 

books  agree  considerably  both  in  subject  and  style 
with  the  fifth,  sixth,  and  seventh  of  the  Nicomachean 
Ethics.  Some  of  this  agreement  may  be  artificial  and 
arise  from  the  transcribers  interpolating  the  one  work 
from  the  other.  But  it  seems  highly  probable  that 
both  this  treatise  and  the  Great  Ethics  are  a  work 
made  up  from  the  notes  of  Aristotle's  scholars.  They, 
particularly  the  last  named,  which,  contrary  to  what 
its  name  would  lead  us  to  expect,  is  by  far  the  shortest, 
seem  to  stand  in  very  much  the  same  relation  to  the 
Nicomachean,  as  the  little  book  Anweisung  zur  Men- 
schen-und-Weltkenntniss  (which  was  published  by  a 
scholar  of  Kant's  from  notes  of  a  course  of  lectures 
delivered  by  him)  does  to  the  work  Anthropologie  in 
pragmatischer  Hinsicht,  which  the  philosopher  himself 
published. 

XXXIII.  On  Virtues  and  Vices,    (irepl  dperwv  /ecu 

KCLKICOV. 

A  spurious  fragment  preserved  by  Stobams.  The 
author  is  by  some  scholars  supposed  to  be  Andronicus 
of  Rhodes ;  but  others  think  it  should  rather  be  attri- 
buted to  a  platonising  eclectic  of  later  times. 

XXXIV.  Politics.   I.. ..VIII.    (TroXiTura.) 

Of  this  work  we  have  given  our  opinion  in  an 
earlier  part  of  this  Essay. 

XXXV.  Economics,     (rnxovofwcd.) 

Of  Aristotle's  work  bearing  this  name  Diogenes 
Laertius  only  mentions  one  book  ;  and  of  these  it  seems 
quite  evident  that  both  are  not  by  the  same  author. 
Erasmus  held  the  first  to  be  Aristotle's  but  to  be  only  a 
fragment,  but  Niebuhr  considers  that  lately  discovered 
authorities  incontestably  prove  it  to  be  by  Theophrastus. 


RHETORICAL    WRITINGS.  159 

If  the  second  book  is  Aristotle's,  it  is  probably  a 
collection  made  by  him  when  collecting  materials  for 
his  historical  and  philosophical  writings  on  government. 
It  is  chiefly  a  string  of  instances  of  oppression  exer- 
cised by  one  people  upon  another,  or  by  tyrants  upon 
their  subjects. 

XXXVI.      The  Art  of  Rhetoric,   i.  n.  in.   ( 


Besides  these  books  which  contain  his  exposition  of 
the  art,  Aristotle  wrote  one  other  which  contained  a 
history  of  it  and  of  its  professors  from  the  earliest  times 
to  his  own.  Of  this  Cicero  speaks  in  the  highest  terms, 
but  it  is  unfortunately  lost.  The  division  into  three 
books  is  ingeniously  conjectured  by  Stahr1  to  be  due  to 
Andronicus  of  Rhodes.  Some  of  the  MSS.  collated  by 
Bekker  mark  this  division  as  peculiar  to  the  manuscripts 
of  the  Latin  arrangement.  The  Greek  one  terminated 
the  first  book  with  the  end  of  the  ninth  chapter,  and 
made  our  second  book  the  third.  Jonsius  conjectures 
that  the  treatise  mentioned  by  Diogenes  in  his  cata- 
logue under  the  title  Trepl  av^fiovXias,  is  the  sixth  and 
seventh  chapters  of  the  first  book  of  this  work.  That 
this  treatise  is  a  different  one  from  that  which  Aristotle  is 
said  to  have  made  over  to  his  scholar  Theodectes2  ap- 
pears from  a  passage3  in  which  he  quotes  that  production. 
Hence  it  would  seem  that  independently  of  the  Rhetoric 
to  Alexander,  the  author  of  which  is  uncertain,  Aristotle 
published  three  distinct  works  on  this  subject,  which 
certainly  accords  with  what  Cicero  says4,  that  the  Peri- 

1  Aristoteles  bei  den  Roemern,  p.  30. 

2  See  above,  p.  135,  note  4>,  and  compare  Cicero,  Brut.  64,. 
:J  P.  1410,  col.  2,  line  2  ed.  Bekker. 

4  De  Oratore,\.  10. 


160  RHETORICAL    WRITINGS. 

patetics  boasted  "that  Aristotle  and  Theophrastus  not 
only  wrote  better,  but  wrote  much  more  on  the  subject 
of  oratory  than  all  the  professed  masters  of  the  science." 

But  it  seems  to  us  more  probable  that  the  work 
which  he  cites  was  one  by  Theodectes,  his  own  scholar, 
and  that  Valerius  Maximus  mistook  for  an  act  of  envy 
what  was  more  probably  meant  and  taken  for  a  flatter- 
ing encouragement.  The  first  sketch  of  the  Rhetoric 
was,  as  is  remarked  by  Niebuhr,  published  long  before 
it  was  worked  up  into  the  form  we  have  it  in  now, 
and  in  this  interval  Theodectes,  of  whom  Cicero  speaks 
as  a  writer  on  the  subject,  probably  published  his  book. 
It  will  be  observed  that  Aristotle  does  not  cite  the  trea- 
tise as  his  own  ;  but  this  was  overlooked  by  Valerius,  or 
the  authority  whom  he  followed,  and  the  tale  we  have 
mentioned  above  was  coined  to  illustrate  the  passage. 
It  may  also  be  remarked  that  the  double  publication  of 
the  Rhetoric  will  serve  to  account  for  the  growth  of  that 
story  which  Dionysius  of  Halicarnassus  takes  so  much 
pains  to  refute.  No  one  could  have  hazarded  such  a 
fiction  with  all  the  quotations  from  Demosthenes  under 
his  very  eyes.  It  must  have  originated  with  some  one 
who  used  a  copy  of  the  early  edition  ;  while  Dionysius 
in  his  refutation  used  the  later. 

XXXVII.     The  Rhetoric   to  Alexander. 


This  treatise  is  not  mentioned  by  Diogenes  Laertius 
in  his  catalogue  of  Aristotle's  works  ;  and  the  dedicatory 
preface  at  the  beginning  is  a  solitary  instance,  if  it  be 
a  writing  of  Aristotle's,  of  such  a  style.  Quintilian1 
appears  to  quote  it  as  the  production  of  Anaximenes  of 

1  Compare  Quintilian,  lust.  Oral.  iii.  4.  9-  with  Rhetoric,  p. 
1421.  col.  b.  lin.  8. 


POETICAL    CRITICISM.  161 

Lampsacus,  a  contemporary  of  the  Stagirite.  Neither 
the  style  nor  the  treatment  of  the  subject  accords  with 
the  character  of  the  last  work,  and  perhaps  what  most 
contributed  to  procure  its  ascription  to  Aristotle  is  the 
circumstance  that  the  writer  claims  the  authorship  of 

the    re-^yai   TW    9eo$e/cr>7   ypcKpei&ai,    which,    according    to 

the  story  of  Valerius  Maximus  spoken  of  in  the  last 
Article,  could  only  belong  to  Alexander's  preceptor. 
Notwithstanding  this,  Victorius  and  Buhle  have  attri- 
buted the  work  to  Callisthenes.  We  should  be  inclined 
to  consider  it  the  performance  of  a  sophist  of  a  very 
late  date,  and  should  regard  the  allusion  to  Theodectes 
rather  as  a  confirmation  of  the  opinion. 

XXXVIII.     On  the  Poetic  Art.  (irep\  TTO^™^.) 

On  the  subject  of  this  work  we  have  spoken  (p.  139)- 
It  has  been  considered  by  others  a  fragment  of  the 
two  books  On  Poets,  which  Macrobius  quotes2,  but  it 
hardly  seems  possible  to  consider  it  in  this  light.  If  it 
is  derived  in  any  way  from  a  published  work,  it  must 
have  been  by  a  process  of  epitomizing  and  selecting,  and 
that  not  very  skilfully. 

*  Saturnal,  v.  18.  "  Ipsa  Aristotelis  verba  ponam  ex  libro  quern 
"  de  Poetis  subscripsit  secundo":  The  quotation  which  follows  ap- 
pears to  be  taken  from  a  work  of  a  very  different  character  to  the 
fragment  which  we  have. 


11 


APPENDIX. 

THE   NATURE    OF    THE   POLITICAL    TREATISE. 


THE  Political  Treatise  of  Aristotle  is  so  important 
for  the  elucidation  of  Greek  history  and  Greek  philo- 
sophy, that  it  seems  desirable  to  give  some  of  the 
reasons  which  have  led  us  to  form  the  opinion  we  have 
expressed  in  the  text  (p.  140),  at  greater  length  than 
would  be  allowed  by  the  limits  of  an  ordinary  note ; — and 
the  principal  of  them  are  accordingly  here  subjoined.  At 
the  same  time,  however  satisfactory  we  may  deem  them, 
we  cannot  expect  that  they  will  appear  at  once  equally 
conclusive  to  those  who  have  been  accustomed  always 
to  regard  the  work  in  a  different  light,  and  we  would 
request  such  persons,  after  perusing  the  following  note, 
to  study  the  treatise  itself,  and  then  decide  whether 
the  form  of  its  composition  is,  or  is  not,  incompatible 
with  any  other  view  than  the  one  we  have  taken 
of  it. 

I.  In  the  third  Book,  the  author,  on  the  occasion  of 
mentioning  certain  states  where  an  executive  power, 
almost  supreme,  was  entrusted  to  one  individual, 
although  the  rest  of  the  institutions  partook  more  or 
less  of  a  democratic  character,  gives  Epidamnus  as  an 
existing  instance1.  In  the  fifth  Book,  he  has  occasion 
again  to  refer  to  this  functionary,  but  he  speaks  of  his 

1  p.  1287-  col.  a.  lin.  7- 


NOT    WRITTEN   CONTINUOUSLY.  163 

office  as  one  which  no  longer  existed*.  A  revolution, 
gradual  but  complete,  had  in  the  interval  been  effected 
at  Epidamnus.  The  constitution  had  acquired  a  com- 
pletely popular  character,  and  the  office  of  Supreme 
Administrator  had  together  with  the  other  oligarchal 
features  of  the  government,  been  swept  away.  That 
such  blemishes  as  this  would  not  have  been  left  standing 
in  a  work  published  by  the  author  himself,  few  persons 
will  be  inclined  to  question.  Still  it  may  be  argued 
that  although  not  published  by  him,  it  may  yet  have 
been  in  course  of  preparation  for  publication  in  its 
present  form,  and  that  its  last  finish,  in  which  such  in- 
congruities would  have  been  removed,  may  have  been 
prevented  by  his  death.  But  this  argument  may  be 
shown  to  be  inadmissible.  In  this  same  fifth  Book 
there  is  a  passage3  obviously  written  while  the  expe- 
dition and  death  of  Dion  the  Syracusan,  (which  latter 
happened  soon  after  the  dethronement  of  Dionysius 
the  tyrant  by  his  agency,)  was  a  subject  of  common 
talk  and  considered  as  an  event  of  the  day.  "One 
cause  of  despotical  governments  being  overthrown  is," 
says  Aristotle,  "  dissension  among  those  parties  in  whose 
hands  they  are,  as  in  the  instance  of  Gelon's  relations, 
and  at  the  present  time  (KOI  vvv)  in  that  of  Dionysius' s." 
Dion's  death,  which  he  mentions  presently  afterwards, 
took  place  in  the  first  half  of  the  year  353,  B.  c.  Now 
Aristotle  was  at  this  time  little  more  than  thirty  years 
of  age,  and  was  at  Athens  pursuing  his  studies  under 
Plato.  (See  above,  p.  11.)  We  cannot  therefore  sup- 
pose that  the  Politics  is  a  work,  the  elaboration  of  which 
was  cut  short  by  the  author's  death,  without  at  the  same 
time  supposing  that  this  expression  was  by  him  suffered 

2  p.  1301.  col.  b.  lin.  2fi. 
8  p.  1312.  col.  b.  lin.  10. 

11—2 


164 


EVIDENCE    OF 


to  stand  for  a  period  of  more  than  thirty  years,  of  which 
every  succeeding  one  would  render  its  impropriety  more 
glaring. 

II.  In  a  passage  of  the  first  Book1,  in  the  course 
of  an  analysis  of  the  different  elements  which  enter 
into  the  Social  Relation,  the  question  is  started  whether 
the  acquisition  of  external  objects  of  desire,  necessarily 
and  in  the  nature  of  things  is  a  part  of  the  office  of  the 
master  of  a  household.  For  the  purpose  of  elucidating 
his  views  on  this  subject,  the  Author  digresses  into  a 
general  discussion  of  the  question  of  Production  (>) 
KTYITIKYI).  Some  kinds  of  this  he  considers  as  pointed 
out  by  Nature  herself  to  Man ; — the  exercise  of  them 
is  necessary  to  the  supply  of  his  natural  wants  in  the 
Social  State,  and  consequently,  (this  Social  State  itself 
being  grounded  in  Nature,)  the  industrial  tendency 
which  prompts  him  to  such  exercise  is  to  be  regarded 
as  analogous  to  those  ordinary  instincts  which  direct 
the  animal  creation  to  the  particular  regions  that  furnish 
the  food  required  by  their  peculiar  organization.  But 
Production  has  a  natural  limit,  and  this  limit  is  short 
of  the  extent  to  which  the  powers  of  Man  are  capable 
of  carrying  it.  Its  natural  limit  is  the  satisfaction 
of  the  natural  wants  of  the  Community,  under  the 
highest  possible  form  of  civilization.  So  soon  as  this 
limit  is  passed,  Production  changes  its  character.  Its 
employment  (epyov)  then  becomes  the  accumulation  of 
means  without  reference  to  an  end ;  and  it  assumes  the 
character,  according  to  the  views  of  the  ancients,  of  a 
spurious,  unnatural,  and  sordid  pursuit.  To  this  species 
of  Production,  Aristotle  proposes  to  appropriate  the  name 

1  p.  1256.  col.  a.  lin.  4. 


SUPPLEMENTARY    PARTS.  165 


of  Acquisition  (rj  ^prj/uLariffriK^).  The  same  arguments 
which  prove  that  the  former  kind  was,  in  the  nature 
of  things,  part  of  the  duty  of  the  head  of  the  Family, 
would  show  that  this  latter  is  not;  and  such  is  the 
conclusion  to  which  Aristotle  comes,  and  which  he 
formally  states  (p.  1258.  col.  a.  lin.  18). 

But  when  we  look  to  the  place  where  this  discussion 
commences,  we  see  plainly  that  in  the  first  draught 
of  the  text  it  could  not  have  existed.  Originally  perhaps 
the  passage  (p.  1256.  col.  a.  lin.  15)  ran  thus  :  ei  yap 

TOV  xprjuaTKTTiKOv  Oecopijaai  woOev  yjpr\i*.aTa.  K.GLI  /CTJ/CTIS 
>J  yjprw.aTiaTiK.ri  T»J9  oiKOVo/niKris  ftepos  av  €i^.~\     But 

as  this  conclusion  could  not  be  assented  to  without  a 
limitation,  the  writer  subjoined  the  words  which  follow 

in    the    MSS.    r]    $e    KTijais    TroXXa    Trepiei\ri<pe    fj.eprj  Kal    o 

0)(TT€     TTpWTOV    Tf     yeWpyiKIJ     TTOTCpOV     M^/OOS      Tl      TtJS 

,   tj  crepov    TI    yevos,   Kai   KaOoXov   r]  irepl   Tr)v 

Tpo(j»jv  €7n/me\€ia  KOI  KTYICTIS,  as  a  memorandum  for  him- 
self of  the  form  which  the  discussion  necessary  for 
explaining  the  nature  of  such  limitations  must  take. 
Subsequently  he  expanded  this  germ  into  the  essay 
(as  we  may  almost  call  it)  which  extends  from  the  words 
aXXd  MV  c'iSij  ye  TroXXa  Tpo<pij$  (p.  1256.  col.  a.  lin.  19) 
down  to  the  formal  restatement,  with  all  its  proper 
qualification,  of  the  position  contained  in  the  words  be- 
tween brackets.  Finally  we  may  conjecture  that  some 
person  into  whose  hands  the  MS.  fell,  sollicitous  not 
to  lose  a  line  that  had  come  from  the  pen  of  the  great 
author,  strung  the  original  question,  the  memoranda, 
and  the  explanatory  excursus  together  in  a  continuous 
series,  and  thus  produced  the  strange  confusion  which 
we  find  in  our  manuscripts,  where  the  grammatical 
construction  and  the  scientific  arrangement  are  equally 
violated. 


' 


166  EVIDENCE    OF 

That  some  such  solution  of  the  difficulties  which 
meet  us  in  this  passage  is  likely  to  be  the  true  one, 
is  confirmed  by  the  words  which  occur  shortly  after:1 
(pvcrews  yap  SGTIV  epyov  Tpo(£>rjit  TW  ycvvrjOevTi  Trape^eiv' 
TravTi  yap  ef  oil  yiverai  Tpo<prj  TO  XCITT  OJULGVOV  eo~Tiv. 

Now  these  words  are  nothing  more  than  the  sub- 
stance of  what  is  said  more  fully  in  an  early  part  of 
the  explanatory  note:2  r\  fj.ev  ovv  Totdvrrj  KTtjais  VTT  avrrjs 

rijs  0uc76W9  SiSo/ULevrj  Tracnv,  wcnrep  Kara  TYJV  irpw- 
yevecriv  evOvs,  ourco  Kai  TeXeitoOeicriv,  KO.I  yap  Kara 
e£  <*px*is  yevefftv  TO.  pev  crvveKTiKTei  TWV  ^owv  TO- 

'  i     \  «         «  ^  •?  t  Ti>^/  »< 

cravTrjv  TpoCprjv  <os  ucavriv  eivai  /ULe^pis  ov  av  cvvrjTai  avTO 
avrip  irop'^eiv  TO  yevvrjOev,  olov  oo~a  O-KO)\TJKOTOK€?  rj  yoro- 
ocra  $e  QCOTOKCI,  -roTs  yevojmevois  e^et  Tpo<prjv  ev  av- 
i  TWOS,  TY\V  Tov  Ka\ovfji€vov  ya\aKTo$  (pvo~iv. 

Yet  that  the  former  passage  is  not  a  condensation  of 
the  latter,  put  in  for  the  purpose  of  reminding  a  reader, 
is  manifest  on  the  inspection  of  the  context.  As  it 
stands,  it  is  completely  superfluous,  and  apparently  un- 
accountable, except  on  the  supposition  that  at  the  time 
it  was  written  the  long  explanatory  note  did  not  exist- 

Ill.  In  the  third  Book  is  proposed  for  discussion 
the  question  whether  government  by  a  Monarch  on 
whom  there  is  no  constitutional  check,  or  by  a  Code 
of  Laws  absolutely  rigid  and  unchangeable,  is  the  al- 
ternative to  be  preferred,  —  on  the  hypothesis  that  in 
the  one  case  the  laws,  and  in  the  other  the  autocrat, 
shall  be  the  best  conceivable.  The  heads  of  the  argu- 
ments on  both  sides  are  given.  But  strangely  enough, 
we  find  in  this  place,  that  immediately  after  the  sub- 
ject has  been  to  all  appearance  concluded,  it  recom- 

1  p.  1258.  col.  a.  lin.  35. 

2  p.  1256.  col.  b.  lin.  7. 


INTERLEAVING.  167 

mences  afresh.  Here  in  fact  are  two  long  paragraphs, 
of  which  the  one  is  obviously  intended  to  be  a  recast- 
ing of  the  other,  standing  side  by  side,  the  original 
one  closely  following  its  more  digested  and  orderly  ar- 
ranged substitute.  Their  identity  is  quite  manifest  on 
the  most  cursory  perusal,  after  the  attention  of  the 
reader  has  once  been  directed  to  the  circumstance.3 
It  is  worth  remarking  that  the  passage  where  the  ma- 
gistracy at  Epidamnus,  to  which  we  before  adverted, 
is  spoken  of  as  existing,  occurs  in  what  we  consider 
the  prior  in  time  of  these  two  rival  paragraphs. 

IV.  Towards  the  end  of  the  third  book  (p.  1288. 
col.  a.  lin.  37)  Aristotle  mentions  having  discussed  an- 
other subject  which  may  be  regarded  as  the  connecting 
link  between  his  Moral  and  his  Political  philosophy, 
namely,  whether  the  qualities  which  go  to  make  up 
the  perfection  of  a  man,  as  a  man,  are  the  same  in 
kind  and  degree  as  those  which  constitute  his  perfec- 
tion as  a  citizen ;  or,  in  the  phraseology  of  the  Greek 
philosophy,  whether  the  virtue  of  a  man  is  identical 
with  the  virtue  of  a  citizen.  This,  he  says,  he  has 
settled  in  his  first  Book  (ei>  TOIS  irpwTo^  Xoyois).  But 
the  subject  is  really  handled  not  in  the  first,  but  the 
third  Book4.  Now  we  can  scarcely  conceive  that  Aris- 
totle himself  could  cite  his  own  work  so  inaccurately, 
and  we  might  be  inclined  perhaps  to  consider  that  the 
expression  TT/OWTOI  Xo7oi  referred  to  a  former  treatise 
and  not  a  former  part  of  this  one.  But  we  are  pre- 
vented from  doing  this  by  the  recurrence  of  the  same 

8  The  two  paragraphs  are  p.  1285.  col  b.  lin.  19 — p.  1286.  ult. 
and  p.  1287-  col.  a.  lin.  1.— col.  b.  lin.  36. 

«  Namely  from  p.  1276.  col.  b.  lin.  Ifi.  to  1277-  col.  b.  lin.  17. 


168  DIFFERENT    DIVISION    OF    BOOKS. 

phrase  in  another  passage1  where  it  is  impossible  to 
avoid  referring  it  to  the  first  book  of  the  Politics. 
We  are  therefore  inclined  to  conjecture  that  at  the 
time  this  reference  was  made,  the  first  Book  did  not 
terminate  where  it  now  does,  but  was  continued  on 
into  what  is  now  the  third,  that  the  present  second 
Book,  (which  is  perfectly  insulated  from  all  the  rest  of 
the  treatise,  and  consists  entirely  of  a  review  of  certain 
constitutions  existing  in  the  time  of  Aristotle,  together 
with  a  discussion  of  the  political  writings  of  Plato, 
Phaleas  of  Chalcedon,  Hippodamus  of  Miletus,  and 
others,)  was  wanting, — and  that  the  then  second  Book 
commenced  with  the  words  eTre/  Sc  raDra  Suopurrat. 
(p.  1278.  col.  b.  lin.  69.) 

V.  Other  passages  might  be  produced  which  ap- 
pear to  indicate  the  accumulation  of  materials,  or  the 
growth  of  thoughts,  in  a  manner  which  we  could  not 
expect  to  find  either  in  a  published  work,  or  one  in 
course  of  preparation  for  publication. 

Thus  the  examination  of  what  rights  constitute 
citizenship,  a  question  entered  upon  by  him  in  the 
beginning  of  the  third  Book,  has  every  appearance  of 
being  a  collection  of  notes  put  down  by  him  while  he 
was  in  the  course  of  coming  to  his  opinions.  His  first 
definition  of  citizenship  is  '  participation  in  judicial  and 

1  p.  1278.  col.  b.  lin.  18. 

2  It   could  not  have  commenced    further  on  in  the  work  than 
this,  for  it  is  only  a  few  lines  further  on  (col.  b.  lin.  18.)  that  he 
quotes  "the  Jirst  book."     Yet  in  another  passage  (p.  1295.  col.  a. 
lin.  4.)  he  quotes  as  in  the  first  book  a  discussion  which  does  not 
occur   till  more   than    six    pages  further,  i.  e.  in  p.  1284.  col.  b. 
lin.  S5.  seqq.      Hence  a  still  greater  confusion  seems  necessary   to 
be  supposed.     We  must  believe  the  same  expression  vrp&Toi  \oyot 
to  refer  to  one  division  in  one  place,  to  another  in  another! 


GRADUAL    GROWTH    OF    NOTES.  169 


official    functions'    (ncrc-^eiv    Kpicrecas    /cat    apxfjs,    p.    1275. 

col.  a.  lin.  23).  Then  he  goes  on  to  say  that  this 
definition  is  more  applicable  to  democracies  than  to 
any  other  form  of  government,  and  after  exemplifying 
the  truth  of  this  observation  by  the  cases  of  Lacedaemon 
and  Carthage,  proposes  to  alter  it  and  substitute  for  it 
the  position  '  that  a  citizen  is  one  who  has  a  right  to 
a  share  in  functions  either  deliberative  or  judicial'  (<£ 

c^ova  ia    Kowwveiv     ap\W     ftovXfVTtKtjs    fj     KpirtKrjs,    col.   b. 

lin.  21).  Then  follow  two  notes  of  which  the  second 
grows  as  it  were  out  of  the  first,  and  continues  to  the 
end  of  the  chapter  (p.  1276.  col.  b.  lin.  15).  In  the 
former  he  distinguishes  between  the  legal  and  the 
natural  definition  of  citizenship,  and  in  the  second 
remarks  upon  certain  political  writers  of  the  time, 
who  had  raised  a  question  connected  with  the  definition 
of  citizenship,  namely,  what  constituted  the  identity 
of  a  state.  After  this  he  again  resumes  the  thread  of 
the  discussion.  But  these  notes  are  not  like  the  one 
we  mentioned  above:  they  are  very  short,  but  they 
refer  to  a  great  many  points,  and  even  the  opinions 
which  are  remarked  on  are  rather  implied  as  known 
than  distinctly  stated. 

In  the  fourth  Book  (p.  1290.  col.  b.  lin.  21)  he 
attempts  an  analysis  of  States  considered  as  masses  of 
individuals.  But  the  passage  is  in  disorder  and  the 
enumeration  incomplete.  The  fifth  class  he  speaks  of 
is  the  military  one.  The  mention  of  this  class  suggests 
a  critique  upon  the  Republic  of  Plato,  in  reference  to 
a  similar  analysis  which  is  introduced  there.  On  re- 
verting to  his  own  division,  he  proceeds  not  with  a 
sixth  t  but  a  seventh  class. 

Some  way  further  on  (p.  1297.  col.  b.  lin.  35)  he 
begins  the  subject  again,  as  it  were  from  a  new  point 


170  REFERENCES    TO 

of  view.  He  proceeds  to  attempt  a  classification  of 
states,  by  analyzing  government  into  its  component 
functions,  and  exhausting  the  number  of  ways  in  which 
the  various  judicial,  executive,  and  deliberative  duties 
of  the  state  may  be  performed.  But  the  division  is 
incomplete,  and  to  all  appearance  designedly  so.  See 
for  instance  p.  1300.  col.  a.  lin.  23.  seqq.,  where  it  ap- 
pears plain  that  the  author  did  not  wish  to  enumerate 
all  the  different  modes  by  which  the  functionaries  might 
be  appointed,  but  only  the  more  important  ones,-  —  those 
perhaps  on  which  he  had  certain  remarks  to  make. 
Still  a  complete  enumeration  is  so  apparently  necessary, 
that  the  passage  seems  to  have  been  tampered  with  by 
some  person  who  desiderated  it1. 

The  confusion  in  one  or  two  of  these  passages  some 
may  be  inclined  to  attribute  merely  to  ordinary  causes, 
such  as  the  ignorance  or  carelessness  of  transcribers,  or 
the  damaged  condition  of  the  manuscripts  which  they 
copied.  We  are  not  disposed  to  accept  this  solution 
of  the  difficulties  which  meet  us  so  constantly  in  the 
work  ;  although  it  is  extremely  difficult  to  say  what 
degree  of  disarrangement  may  not  be  due  to  this  cause. 
Such  an  hypothesis  however  can  hardly  be  entertained 
in  such  cases  as  the  following. 

VI.    In  a  passage  in  the  third  Book  the  manuscripts 


1  Thus  the  passage  Ka\  TO  Tivas  CK  TTCIVTIOV  rtt9 
Tavai  TCI?  Be  K\tip(a  jj  a'/x0o?i/,  ras  /JLCV  K\tjpu)  TCCS  Se  alpeo-ei,  o 
(p.  1300.  col.  a.  lin.  38  —  40),  appears  to  have  been  introduced  by  him 
because  after  the  cases  where  all  were  the  appointing  body  to  offices, 
he  thought  those  ought  to  come  where  a  particular  class  appointed, 
not  observing  that  those  cases  of  this  kind  which  were  of  practical 
importance  had  been  already  noticed  in  the  preceding  clause  TO  Be 
Htj  TrdvTd*;,  &c.  The  same  cause  is  the  origin  of  the  interpolations 
i;  €K  TIVWV  (lin.  35),  and  TO  %e  rti/ct?  e£  aVa'i/TUJi/.  (col.  b.  lin.  4). 


AN   OMITTED    DISCUSSION.  171 


all  run  as  follows2  I  el  yap  dSvvarov  e£  d  Tret  I/TOW  Giro 
OVTWV  elvai  TroAti/,  eel  $  cmnrrov  TO  KaO'  avrov  epyov  ev 
TOUTO  o  CLTT  dperfjs*  €7rei  $  dSvvarov  o/uoiOW  elvai 
rofs  TroX/ras,  OVK  av  eiv]  fjiia  apery  irdXirov  KCLI 

dvfyos  dyaOov.  It  appears  impossible  by  an  alteration 
of  a  kind  and  degree  which  the  principles  of  conjectural 
criticism  would  sanction,  to  produce  any  tolerable  sense 
of  this  passage.  The  question  on  which  Aristotle  is 
engaged  is  the  one  we  alluded  to  before  (p.  167.)  whether 

the    perfection    of    civism     (apery     iro\irov    dyaOou)     is 

identical  with  the  perfection  of  humanity  (apery  dv$po$ 
dyaOov).  "This  question  may,"  he  says,  after  resolving 
it  in  one  way,  "  be  settled  with  the  same  result  by 
another  course  of  investigation,  viz.,  by  determining 
what  is  the  idea  of  the  perfection  of  a  state3."  Now  a 

2  p.  1276.  col.  b.  lin.  37  —  40.     One  manuscript  alone  has  o/xoiw? 

for  O/XOiOl/5. 

3  aAAa   KOI  KCCT'  d\\ov  Tpoirov  COTTI  SicnropovvTas  eVeA0e?i/  TOV  O.VTOV 
\oyov  Tre/oi  T»;5  dpicTTtj^  ijro\tTeia<s.  (col.  b.  lin.  36).    It  is  scarcely 
necessary  to  remark  that  supposing  the  work  a  finished  one,  the 
meaning  we  have  given  in  the  text  to  this  passage  would  not  be 
defensible.     But  that  it  really  is  the  only  true  one,  and  that  the  last 
four  words  are  merely  a  memorandum  to  indicate  what  the  a\\o? 
TpoTros  is,  is  quite  obvious  by  the  course  of  the  argument.     There 
are  not  wanting  many  other  instances  of  expressions  equally  slovenly. 
Thus   p.   1301.   col.  b.  lin.  39>    ^'o  KOI  /jid\i<rTa  Buo  •ylvovTat  TroXireTai, 
SfjfjLos  KCU   o\iyap%ia'  evyeveia  yap  KCU  dperij  ev  oXtyois,   Tavra  Se  ev 
•rrXeioffiv,  where  the  object  to  which  raura  refers  is  to  be  gathered 
from  a  passage  a  long  way  back  (p.  1301.  col.  a.  lin.  30)  and  is 
really  freebirth,  and   such  like  qualifications,  attaching  equally  to 
the  richest  and  the  poorest.     Just  before  too:  dpoXoyovvTe*;  Be  TO 
aTrXto?  eivai  B/KCKOI/,   TO  KaV  dgiav  $ict(j)epovTai,  the  principle  alluded 
to  by  the  words  TO  aVXco?   is   TOO?  iVou?  t'o-wi/,   KC«   TOUC  CBW<r<Wt  dviatav 
dgiovvQai.  (see  col.  a.  lin.  25  —  35).     See  also  p.  1278.  col.  a.  lin.  10, 
ov$e   £\€vdepov    fjiovov,   a\X    bcroi    TUV  epytav  el<r\v  d(f)eifjt.et'ot    TCOI/   avay- 
ttaitav'    Tdiv   d'  aj/ayKaiwi/  ol  fjiev  ev\  \6iTovpyovvTe<;  TO.  TotavTct  cov\oif 
ol  Be  KOIVO\  ftdvavffoi  KOI  0^re?.     The  passage  too,  which  has  given 


172  PROBABLE    SUBJECT 

perfect  state  requires  that  the  employment  of  the  mem- 
bers of  it  should  be  different,  but  that  each  one  should 
perform  his  duty  in  the  best  imaginable  manner.  That 
mental  and  bodily  state  of  the  individual  which  is  the 
best  adapted  to  produce  this  result  in  the  highest  con- 
ceivable degree,  is  in  the  language  of  Greek  metaphysics 
called  his  virtue  or  perfection  (apery}.  If  now  the 
duty  to  be  performed  be  different,  the  virtue  (or  talent) 
which  is  requisite  to  produce  the  performance  will  be 
different.  But  such  is  the  case  in  the  perfection  of  a 
state  :  there  must  be  a  division  of  labour,  handicrafts- 
men as  well  as  philosophers,  tillers  of  the  soil  as  well 
as  politicians.  It  is  therefore  inconsistent  that  all  the 
citizens  should  be  of  the  highest  order  of  mind  (O-TTOV- 
Saioi),  or  indeed  of  the  same  order  whatever  it  may  be 
(O/ULOIOI).  Now  on  looking  back  to  the  passage  in  question, 
we  shall  see,  that  if  we  suppose  a  note  to  have  been  in- 
terposed between  the  two  clauses  of  it,  developing  the 
line  of  argument  which  we  have  sketched  out,  the  second 
clause  will  be  in  exactly  the  terms  which  on  reverting  to 
the  thread  of  the  discussion  would  be  required,  and  the 
substitution  of  the  more  general  phrase  o/moiovs  for 
ffwovSalovs  will  appear  peculiarly  appropriate. 

And  that  such  a  discussion  was  introduced  here, 
is  not  a  mere  hypothesis  to  account  for  the  phenomena 
which  the  text  in  this  passage  presents,  but  is  ren- 
dered extremely  likely  by  some  references  made  by 
the  author  in  other  parts  of  the  work  apparently  to  it. 


so  much  trouble  to  critics,  TTO\XOU?  yap  etyvXerevo-e  £fvovs  KCU 
peToiKovs  (p.  1275.  col.  b.  lin.  3?),  is  probably  not  corrupt,  but  only 
a  careless  expression,  and  meaning  that  Clisthenes  put  many 
foreigners  into  the  tribes  (thus  making  them  complete  citizens), 
and  gave  to  many  slaves  the  rights  of  metics;  the  word  firo'iycre 
being  left  to  be  gathered  from  the  sense  of  the  former  part  of  the 
phrase. 


OF    SUCH    SEPARATE    DISCUSSION. 

In  p.  1289.  col.  b.  lin.  40,  he  has  the  following  observ- 

ation ert  TT/OOS  rat?  /cara  TT\OVTOV  cia(popais  etrrtp  rj  /uei/ 
/caret  yevos  fj  $e  /car'  a^err/i/,  KCLV  ei  TI  or)  TOIOVTOV  erepov 
eiprjTai  Tro'Xea)?  eti/ai  /uepo?  ei>  rots  Trepi  rrjv  aptcn-o- 
KpctTtav'  e/cet  yap  $t€(Xo/ue0a  e/c  ntfar&i'  nepwv  avayKaicw 
eWt  TraVa  TroXt?.  Now  the  only  passage  remaining  in 
the  manuscripts  to  which  this  description  will  at  all 
apply,  is  one  which  does  not  precede  but  follow  the 
reference  in  question,  namely  the  paragraph  beginning 

with    the    words    on    jmei/  ovv    TroXtretat    TrXeiovs   (p.    1290. 

coL  b.  lin.  21.)  ]  The  allusion  must  therefore  be  to  a 
passage  now  no  longer  remaining.  And  where  we 
are  to  look  for  this,  will  we  think  be  irrefragably  de- 
termined by  another  observation  (p.  1293.  col.  b. 
lin.  30.)  which  shows  that  the  discussion  described  by 
the  phrase  ra  Trepl  rrjv  dpKTTOKpariav,  was  really  an 
examination  into  the  best  form  of  government,  the 
ideal  perfection  of  a  state,  in  which,  and  in  which 
alone,  (according  to  Aristotle's  views)  the  perfection  of 
humanity  and  of  civism  are  identical  for  any  portion 
of  the  community  whatever2.  Here  then  we  have  a 
confirmation  of  our  conjecture  as  to  the  deficiency  which 
we  remarked  in  the  original  passage.  But  that  this 
deficiency  should  have  been  occasioned  by  the  errors  of 
transcribers  is  perfectly  impossible.  The  essay  intended 
to  fill  up  the  gap  must  have  existed  in  a  separate 
form,  or  it  could  not  have  entirely  disappeared.  Yet 

1  And  even  here  a  reference  is   made  to  an  earlier  treatment 
of  the  question  OTI  /uei/  ovv  iroXiTelat  7rX€/ou?,  KOI  $i  tjv  aiTiav,  €*pr]Tai. 


irep\  »/?  $ttj\0o  fj.fv 
tv  TO??  irptoTOts  Ao«yots.  Trjv  yap  f*  Ttav  apurTuv  ctTrAftK  KOT' 
dpcrijv  iroXiTfiav,  KOI  fjiij  •Jrpo'i  VTrodea-iv  TWO.  djaduv  ai/fy>o»i/,  novrjv 
c'tKtiiov  irpovayopcveiv  dpurroKpa-riav.  ev  ^ovy  yap  aTrXwc  o  aurov 
dvtjp  Kai  iroAiTij?  dyado':  fffTtv  ot  Se  ev  Ta??  oAA.ai?  dyadot 
Ttji/  •jToXiTe'tav  elffi  rrjv  avrtav, 


174  SEPARATE    DISCUSSION    OF   TYRANNY. 

it  could  not  have  been  a  separate  work,  or  it  would 
not  have  been  quoted  as  an  organic  part  of  this  one, 
as  we  see  is  the  case. 

VII.  The  instance  of  an  obvious  deficiency  which 
we  have  just  given,  although  perhaps  one  of  the  most 
striking  cases  of  this  kind,  is  not  the  only  one.  In 
the  enumeration  of  the  different  archetypal  forms  of  Go- 
vernment, he  expresses  his  intention  to  treat  of  Despotic 
Monarchy  (or  Tyranny,}  the  last  in  order  ;  "  for  of  all," 
says  he,  "it  has  the  least  claim  to  be  considered  a 
"Polity,  and  polities  are  the  subject  with  which  our 
"investigation  is  concerned."  Then  follow  the  words 

Si    rfv  fji€v  ovv   airiav  rexa/crm   TOV   Tpoirov  TOVTOV,  e'ipriTai 

(p.  1293.  col.  b.  lin.  30.)  Now  certainly  we  might 
refer  this  observation  to  the  reason  which  has  just 
been  assigned,  but  if  this  be  its  right  application,  how 
very  superfluous  and  unnecessarily  formal  it  is.  A 
couple  of  pages  further  on,  the  number  of  different 
modifications  which  the  despotic  form  of  government 
assumes  are  enumerated,  (p.  1295.  col.  a.  lin.  1  —  24.) 
and  the  author  winds  up  the  paragraph  by  saying 
"These  are  the  different  species  of  Despotic  Monarchy, 
"  so  many  and  no  more  from  the  causes  which  have  been 
"  mentioned1"  But  the  reader  will  look  in  vain  for  this 
professed  mention  of  the  causes;  and,  putting  this 
circumstance  together  with  the  formal  statement  before- 
mentioned,  we  have  little  scruple  in  conjecturing  that 
the  latter  really  followed  a  separate  discussion  of  the 
nature  of  Despotic  Government,  which  also  contained  rea- 
sons why  the  forms  it  assumed  should  be  so  many 
and  no  more. 


TCIVTO.    KO.    Tocravta      ia    TO?   e 


TACIT    ALLUSIONS   TO    OTHERS.  175 

VIII.  There  is  another  class  of  cases,  in  which 
the  author  obviously  alludes  to  the  writings  of  contem- 
poraries, but  the  allusions  are  so  little  explicit  —  and 
at  the  same  time  it  is  so  obvious  that  they  are  allu- 
sions —  that  it  seems  impossible  to  avoid  one  of  two 
inferences,  either  that  the  passages  in  which  they  occur 
are  little  else  than  memoranda  for  the  writer  himself,  — 
or  that  the  work  is  a  collection  of  notes  for  lectures, 
and  that  a  formal  oral  statement  of  the  opinions  re- 
ferred to  had  antecedently  been  given.  The  latter  view 
has  been  entertained  with  respect  to  most  of  Aristotle's 
writings2,  but  in  our  opinion  it  is  inconsistent  with 
the  comparatively  full  developement  of  some  parts  of 
this  work,  —  with  the  incompleteness  of  the  whole  as  a 
system,  —  and  above  all,  with  the  contemporaneous  ex- 
istence of  such  phenomena  as  those  of  which  we  have 
above  given  an  example  (p.  167)  where  an  original  pa- 
ragraph stood  side  by  side  with  its  intended  successor. 
The  following  may  serve  as  instances  of  the  allusions 
we  speak  of,  although  an  inspection  of  the  whole  course 
of  the  argument  in  the  context  is  necessary  to  appre- 
ciate their  force. 

In  the  early  part  of  the  third  Book3,  Aristotle  ob- 
serves that  in  the  question  of  what  constitutes  citizen- 
ship, exiles  and  persons  disqualified  for  some  particular 
reason  may  in  a  certain  sense  be  termed  citizens,  "but,'' 
he  adds,  "a  citizen,  simply  and  unconditionally,  is  by 

2  Thus  the  expression  in  the  Nicomachean  Ethics  (p.  1147. 
col.  2.  lin.  8.)  ov  Xoyov  Be?  irapd  TUJV  (pvcnoXoyujv  dx.o\ieiv  has  been  con- 
sidered such  as  would  naturally  be  used  by  a  lecturer  addressing 
his  class. 


3  p.    1275.  Col.   a.   lin.   20.    KCU   TT€p\   ruv  aVi^wi/  KCU  <j)vyd§(av 
ret   Toiavra    KCU   Siairoe?!/  KOI   \veiv'   iroX'tTr^   8'   aVXw?   ovSevi   Tiav  aA- 


KCU 


176  DIVISION    OF    GOVERNMENTS. 

"  none  of  the  other  definitions  more  completely  described, 
"than  by  the  one  *  that  he  is  a  participator  in  judicial 
"'and  official  functions'1'.  Now  these  "other  defini- 
tions" are  not  explicitly  given,  either  as  those  of  the 
author,  or  of  any  other  person,  but  what  some  of  them 
at  least  were  are  hinted  by  some  phrases  in  the  few 
sentences  immediately  preceding.  One  was  apparently 
that  fixed  residence  in  the  particular  spot  (rw  oi/ce?i/ 
KOV)  was  the  essence  of  citizenship;  another  that  the 
right  of  suing  and  being  sued  at  law  constituted  it. 
(TWV  ciKaitov  imere^eiv  ovrws  WCTTC  KOI  SIKTIV  vireyeiv  Kat 


In  the  fourth  Book1  he  speaks  of  certain  political 
writers,  and  says  that  their  usual  mode  of  considering 
the  various  modifications  of  Government,  was  to  sup- 
pose two  types,  pure  Oligarchy  and  pure  Democracy, 
and  to  regard  the  other  forms  as  compounds,  in  various 
proportions,  of  these.  Similarly  they  held  that  there 
were  two  archetypal  species  in  musical  composition,  the 
Dorian  and  the  Phrygian,  of  which  the  rest  were  but 
compounds.  "But,"  says  he,  "the  better  and  the  truer 
"  mode  of  division  is  that  which  we  adopted,  to  lay 
"  down  the  properly  constituted  forms  of  Government 
"  as  being  two  or  one  in  number,  and  regard  the  rest 
"  as  lapses  from  this  type."  Now,  if  we  recur  to  Aris- 
totle's own  division,  we  find  that  he  really  lays  down 
neither  one  nor  two  properly  constituted  archetypal  forms 
of  Government,  but  three;  namely,  Monarchy  ',  Aristo- 
cracy and  Polity.  These  three  differ  from  one  another 
in  the  circumstance  that  the  supreme  authority  in  them 
is  respectively  in  the  hands  of  one  individual,  a  minority 

1  p.  1290.  col.  a.  lin.  24.   d\ij6ea-T(pov  3e  KCU  (3e\Ttov  eo?   *7/Af?<?  SieV 


fj 


PARALLEL    DIVISION    BY    OTHERS.  177 

and  a  majority,  while  they  agree  with  one  another, 
and  are  regarded  as  uncorrupted  and  legitimate  forms 
(6p6al  TToXireiai}  in  that  the  recognized  end  of  govern- 
ment is,  equally  in  all  of  them,  the  advantage  not  of 
the  governors  hut  of  the  whole.  Tyranny,  Oligarchy, 
and  Democracy,  in  which  the  interest  not  of  the  whole, 
hut  severally  of  the  One,  the  Few,  and  the  Majority, 
is  the  recognized  end,  are  considered  hy  him  as  lapses 
or  deviations  respectively  from  the  three  types3.  Now 
there  is  nothing  in  the  interval  between  this  formal 
division  and  the  passage  with  which  we  are  at  pre- 
sent concerned  to  prepare  us  for  a  resolution  of  the 
tripartite  distribution  into  the  alleged  bipartite  one ; — 
although  certainly  it  may  be  argued  that  Monarchy  is 
only  a  particular  case  of  Aristocracy  and  may  be  here  so 
considered.  This  view  of  the  subject  however  does  not 
accord  with  Aristotle's  manner  of  treating  the  question 
of  Monarchy  in  the  latter  part  of  the  third  Book3. 
Should  we  not  rather  be  justified  in  supposing  that  as 
the  writers  of  whom  he  is  speaking  neglected  the  con- 
sideration of  the  Monarchical  form,  so  Aristotle  in 
comparing  his  own  division  with  theirs,  threw  out  of 
consideration  that  part  of  it  to  which  theirs  furnished 
no  parallel,  and  thus  that  the  two  properly  constituted 
types  to  which  he  alludes  are  the  Aristocracy  and 
Polity  of  his  former  division4.  If  this  opinion  be  a 

2  p.  1279.  col.  a.  lin.  1. — col.  b.  lin.  10.  The  term  7rapeK/3aWi? 
(lapses)  was  apparently  first  used  by  Aristotle  in  this  technical 
sense,  as  appears  from  his  promise  to  explain  it.  (p.  1275.  col.  b. 
lin.  2.) 

8  p.  1284.  col.  a.  lin.  3.  seqq. 

4  The  one  properly  constituted  type  which  he  speaks  of,  is  in 
our  opinion  the  dpiff^n  iroXiTeia  (the  ideally  best  form)  that  was 
discussed  in  the  excursus  which  we  have  above  (p.  172)  attempted 
to  show,  must  have  been  intended  for  insertion  in  p.  1276.  col.  b. 
lin.  39- 

12 


178       ALLUSION  TO  POPULAR  ERRORS. 

sound  one ;  if  the  author  really  did  thus  tacitly  mo- 
dify his  statements  with  a  reference  to  the  treatment 
of  the  same  suhject  hy  others,  we  cannot  but  regard 
the  work  as  neither  published  nor  intended  for  publi- 
cation1. 

In  another  passage  in  the  same  book2,  we  find  a 
reference  apparently  to  a  popular  error  in  some  political 
writings  of  the  day,  arising  from  unconscious  associa- 
tions with  the  etymology  of  the  words  apiaToKparia  and 
evvo/uLia.  "  It  is  thought,"  says  Aristotle,  "  a  matter 
"  of  impossibility  that  a  state  in  the  hands  of  the 
"  Best  should  not  be  well-governed  (T^V  apicrroKparov- 
*'  nevriv  TroXff  M*)  evvoju.e'ia-Oai) ;  if  not,  it  must  be  in  the 
"  hands  of  the  worthless  (TrovrjpoKpaTovjmevrjv).  But  good 
"  government  (evvojuLia)  does  not  mean  that  there  should 
"  be  good  laws  without  obedience  being  paid  to  them. 
"  Hence  we  must  understand  one  kind  of  good  govern- 
"  ment  consisting  in  obedience  to  the  existing  laws, 
"  and  another  consisting  in  the  goodness  of  the  laws 
"  that  are  adhered  to, — seeing  that  obedience  may  be 
"  rendered  to  laws  even  though  they  be  bad.  And 
"  this  point  again  (i.  e.  the  goodness  of  laws)  ad- 
"  mits  of  a  twofold  distinction,  for  the  laws  obeyed 
"  may  either  be  the  best  applicable  to  those  who  are  to 
"  obey  them,  or  unconditionally  the  best." — There  is 
nothing  in  the  context  calling  for  this  division  of 
subjects  included  in  the  term  Ewo/uua;  and  it  would 
seem  only  intended  as  an  indication  of  the  clue  to 

1  An  allusion  to  the  controverted  division  seems  to  be  con- 
tained in  the  words  StoVi  Be  TrAetou?  TWV  elpr^eviav.  (p.  1290.  col.  b. 
lin.  22.)  They  certainly  cannot  apply  to  the  chapter  immediately 
preceding  them. 

1  p.  1294«.  col.  a.  lin.  1—9. 


AN    OBSCURE    PASSAGE    EXPLAINED.  179 

some  fallacious  opinions  which  the  writer  had  in  his 
eye3. 

The  same  political  writers  are  perhaps  those  alluded 
to  in  the  early  part  of  the  sixth  Book  ;  but  the  expres- 
sion is  general  in  its  form.  Aristotle  proposes  to  dis- 
cuss the  modifications  of  government  which  arise  in 
cases  where  a  combination  is  formed  of  heterogeneous 
elements,  such  as  courts  of  law  regulated  on  the  prin- 
ciples of  aristocracy  with  election  to  offices  on  those 
of  oligarchy,  or  an  oligarchal  executive  council  and 
oligarchal  courts  of  law  with  an  aristocratical  mode  of 
selecting  magistrates4.  These  are  cases,  he  says,  which 
ought  to  be  considered,  and  in  the  current  theories  were 
not  so5. 

We  will  terminate  this  long  and  somewhat  wearisome 
discussion  by  directing  the  attention  of  the  reader  to  one 
other  passage,  which  although  certainly  corrupt,  and, 
besides,  very  slovenly  expressed,  may  perhaps  be  tolerably 
explained  on  the  principle  which  has  been  stated.  Vio- 
lent revolutions,  by  which  the  whole  constitution  of  the 

3  It  may  be  said  that  this  paragraph  is  an  instance  of  those  dis- 
cussions of  possible  objections  which  we  have  remarked  on  above 
(p.  64),  and  that  the  fallacy  which  is  detected  is  too  shallow  to  have 
been  used  any  where  but  in  the  public  disputations  we  there  spoke 
of.     Considering  how  very  apt  the  ancients  were  to  confuse  notions 
with  objects,  (a  confusion  of  which  many  instances  might  be  given 
both  from  Plato  and  Aristotle),  we  are  not  inclined  to  this  opinion. 
Parallel  sophisms  might  be  produced  from  writings  of  the  present 
day  which  are  not  without  their  enthusiastic  admirers.     The  par- 
ticular  instance  however   may   be   easily  spared   from   our   argu- 
ment. 

4  In  this  part  of  the  work,  personal  merit  or  peculiar  race  are 
considered  as  aristocratic  principles,  and  a  high  pecuniary  qualifica- 
tion as  the  oligarchal  one. 

5  ovfr  e<TK€fjifjitvoi  ft  clo\  vvvt.  p.  1317-  col.  a.  lin.  4. 


180  IDENTITY    OF    THE    STATE 

government  was  changed,  were  of  almost  daily  occurrence 
in  the  petty  states  of  Greece.  They  were  generally 
alternate  oscillations  between  an  oppressive  and  grinding 
oligarchy  and  an  unbridled  and  as  oppressive  democracy, 
and  the  hatred  which  the  contending  parties  reciprocally 
entertained  for  each  other  was  something  scarcely  conceiv- 
able by  modern  readers,  notwithstanding  the  experience 
of  the  last  century  has  illustrated  the  reigns  of  terror 
at  Argos  and  Corcyra  by  the  parallel  instance  of  Paris1. 
Now  under  these  circumstances  nothing  was  more  natural 
than  for  the  triumphant  party  to  refuse  to  take  upon 
themselves  the  pecuniary  obligations  which  had  been 
contracted  by  their  predecessors.  But  injustice  cannot 
bear  the  naked  sight  of  itself  and  instinctively  seeks  for 
a  veil  of  reason,  however  flimsy  and  transparent. 
Wherever  their  common  interests  unite  a  large  body 
of  men  in  one  course  of  policy,  writers  will  arise  to 
justify  it  by  a  plausible  theory.  Such  was  the  case  in 
Greece.  The  philosophical  principle  on  which  the  de- 
fence of  such  acts  was  based,  was  that  the  identity  of 
the  state,  the  subject  of  these  obligations,  did  not  go 
back  further  than  the  revolution  which  changed  the 
character  of  the  constitution.  Before  that  point,  it 
was  not  the  state,  but  the  Few,  or  the  Tyrant,  who  con- 
tracted obligations;  why  should  the  state  discharge  these, 
more  than  one  individual  burden  himself  with  the  debts 
of  his  neighbour  ?  Naturally,  the  particular  case  which 
oftenest  occurred,  was  that  in  which  Democracy  succeeded 
Oligarchy,  and  accordingly  this  is  the  case  which  would 

1  Even  the  horrible  massacres  which  took  place  in  these  states 
during  the  triumph  of  the  popular  faction  are  perhaps  less  revolting 
than  the  formal  oath  which  Aristotle  represents  as  being  taken  by 
the  oligarchs  in  some  others:  KO.\  TW  ^tjfjita  KCLKOVOVS  e^o/^ot  KO.\  /3ov\€v<rta 
o  TI  a\>  e^w  KCIKOV.  Politic,  v.  p.  1 310.  col.  a.  lin.  9- 


THE    SAME    FOR    ALL   FORMS.  181 

be  peculiarly  insisted  upon  in  the  theories  constructed 
to  justify  such  policy.  Hence  when  Aristotle,  re- 
ferring to  these  theories  without  formally  explaining 
their  views,  wishes  to  assert  the  general  principle  that 
the  question  of  what  constitutes  identity  in  a  state 
is  entirely  separate  from  the  question  of  the  justifica- 
tion of  this  or  that  form  of  government,  he  does  it 
by  a  loosely-worded  remark  specifically  referring  to 
these.  "  If  then  there  are  any  cases,"  says  he,  "  of 
democracies  under  these  circumstances,  the  acts  of  this 
form  of  government  are  to  be  considered  acts  of  the 
state,  in  exactly  the  same  sense  as  the  acts  of  the  oli- 
garchy, or  the  tyranny,  are2." 

2  p.  1276.  col.  a.  lin.   13,  e'ltrep  ovv  KOI  ^rj/jiOKparovvrai   rii/e?  Kara 

TOV      TpOTTOV      TOVTOI',      O/UL0i«tt      TtJS      7TO\£OK     (fictTedlf     ClVCtl     [VaUTf/^]      TCI? 

dets    KO\   Tdt?      CK      T^9    o\iya-ia<:    KCU    T 


THE    END. 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 
Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


REC'D  LD 

|OCT13'63-5PM 

ft        8IW63PS 


JUN221976 
76 

Ift  STACKS 


REC'D  LU 


r-a 


""l.B  21A-40m-4.'G3 
(D6471slO)476B 


General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


YC  3154: 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY