Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 2.djvu/573

Rh AEISTOTLE 513 world had forgotten all about Aristotle, except so far as he was represented by his own youthful and lighter pro ductions, or by spurious imitations of these, it came to pass later that all except his solid and great philosophical treatises passed into oblivion. Turning now to the catalogue of the works of Aristotle which has been preserved by Diogenes Laertius, we find that it contains 14G different names, not one of which 1 seems to correspond with any of the forty works which make up &quot; our Aristotle.&quot; This is very striking, and sug gests the question, Did Aristotle really write all these works enumerated in the catalogue, and if so, how is it that they are all lost? Did he really write over and over again on the same subject, as the catalogue, taken together with our edition, would indicate 1 Or is the catalogue virtually a list of forgeries, published under the name of Aristotle at the time when the unique M8S. of many of his greatest works were shut up underground and forgotten 1 Neither hypothesis can be accepted absolutely, but the last mentioned contains, probably, by far the nearest approxi mation to the truth. It seems credible that the catalogue in question was taken from the backs of rolls in the Alexandrian library, and that it was made by Hermippus, pupil of Callimachus, the chief librarian, between the years 240 and 210 B.C. 2 It found its way into some bio graphy, and was thence mechanically copied by Diogenes. If this be so, it represents the kind of books which were being received by the world as Aristotle s at a time when the real Aristotle was buried out of sight. The books enumerated in the catalogue strike us at once as peculiar in character : first we meet with the names of several dialogues (such as &quot; Nerinthus,&quot; &quot; Gryllus, or on Khetoric,&quot; &quot;Menexenus,&quot; &quot;Symposium,&quot; &quot; the Lover,&quot; etc.); afterwards there are the names of apparently short treatises or mono graphs on separate subjects. 3 without any trace of that organic unity of each of the great branches of philosophy which we find in Aristotle as we know him. This organic unity has not been superinduced by the editorial labours of Andronicus, for we see by the openings of the Meta physics, Ethics, Politics, and other existing works, taken in connection with their succeeding parts, that Aristotle con ceived a grand and comprehensive plan for each main branch of philosophy and science ; that he proposed to follow this out so as to produce in each case a complete whole, but that most of his multifarious designs were arrested by death, so that much that he has left bears the character of a mighty fragment. But the Peripatetic school seem to have abandoned his comprehensive views, and to have only followed him in that other side of his method which consisted in working out the details of special and subordinate questions. This tendency resulted in the production of small separate treatises and essays, and it is the names of such as these that are recorded in the cata logue. The Peripatetic school seem to have worked on a sort of co-operative principle. Aristotle, during his own lifetime, probably encouraged them to work up separate 1 With the exception of &quot; Categories, in one book,&quot; and &quot; On Inter pretation, in one book.&quot; &quot; Great Posterior Analytics, in two books,&quot; may stand to the Post. Anal, of Aristotle as the Great Ethics do to th. Nicomach. Titze, Michelet, and other writers, have endeavoured to identify some of the monographs of the catalogue with parts of Aristotle s extant works, e.g., works On the Voluntary, On Friendship, On Pleasure, with parts of Eth. Nic.; the book On the Various Senses of Words, with part of the Metaphysics, &c. But, as Grote says, vol. i. p. 61, note, &quot; the identification is not convincing.&quot; In fact, the theory is untenable. 2 Heitz, Die Verlorenen Schriflen des Aristoteles (Leipsic, 1865), pp. 45-52 ; Grote, Ar., vol. i. pp. 48, 49. 3 E.g., On Su/ering (irtpl TOV irdirxetv), one book ; On Contraries, one book ; On Science, one book ; Feelings, one book; Art, one book ; On Unproductiveness, one book ; Signs of Storms, one book ; Proverbs, one book ; Sckct Dissections, one book, &c. points for incorporation into his philosophy; and if so, they would have less scruple in affixing his name to works written after his death, but which they conceived to represent, or, perhaps, a little to improve upon, his views. Whatever may have been the literary morality of this procedure, we can hardly doubt that it existed as a fact. Even the works of Aristotle, as we possess them, show clear traces of it. Take, for instance, the four different ethical treatises which are found among these works. Of these the first is the Nicomachean Ethics* the main bulk of which is the genuine writing of Aristotle. It is conceived on a comprehensive plan, and the beginning and end are complete, but the middle part was probably never written. The name of this treatise was, perhaps, given to it for the sake of distinguishing it from the other ethical works in the Peripatetic school library, the MS. c.f this having been to some extent revised and edited by Xicomachus, the son of Aristotle. The second is the Eudemian Ethics, a para phrase of the work of Aristotle, written by Eudernus, one of his scholars, with a slight divergence in some points from the original doctrines. Three books from the Eudemian treatise, on Justice, on the Relation of the Intellect to Morality, and on Weakness of the Will, were afterwards incorporated by some editor into the Nicomachean Ethics, so that in modern times they have always formed part of both treatises, and their authorship has been much dis puted. 5 The third is called the Great Ethics, 5 and is the work of a later Peripatetic; it is a resume of morals, made up chiefly out of the work of Eudemus, but with some of its conclusions taken directly from that of Aristotle, and with some matter introduced from another source, perhaps the ethical writings of Theophrastus. The fourth is a little tract On Virtues and Vices, which is not even Aristo telian in doctrine, though it shows an acquaintance with the Aristotelian system. It is chiefly characterised by some small points of physiognomical observation, such as are found in the characters of Theophrastus. These four works well illustrate the growth of an ungenuine Aristotelian literature. We begin with a genuine work of Aristotle himself, though even into this a spurious element has been introduced ; we go on to a paraphase, and then to the paraphrase of that paraphrase ; we end with a light essay written for the sake of one or two observations on character which the writer had made ; and yet all stands under the name of Aristotle. 7 This instance which we have before our eyes, and the proportion of the ungenuine to the genuine which it presents, may enable us to form a conception of the nature of those works, the 146 names of which make up the catalogue of Diogenes. Far be it from us to say that none of the works so enumerated were written by Aristotle himself, but probably much the greater portion of them were not written by him. And without denying that many works of Aristotle, and even some works by him of interest and value, have been lost, we may say with confidence that the &quot; lost works &quot; 8 of Aristotle were of no importance in comparison with what has been preserved, 4 See Grant s Ethics of Aristotle, vol. i. essay 1. 5 See Spengel, &quot; Ueber die unter dem Namen des Aristoteles erhaltenen ethischen Schriften&quot; (in Alhandl. der Philos.-philol. Klasse der K. Bay. Akad., 1841), and Grant s Ethics, I.e. 6 This name may have been due to the vanity of the compiler. We have seen in the Catalogue of Diogenes the name Great Posterior Analytics. See above note 1. 7 Whether all stood thus in the edition of Andronicus, or whether some of these works were added in subsequent editions, we have no means of knowing. If the former, Andronicus must have aimed at giving a collected body of Aristotelian doctrine, rather than an edition of Aristotle s own undoubted writings. We know that Andronicus pronounced the treatise On Interpretation to be spurious, and yet we find it in our edition of Aristotle. 8 See above, note 1, and compare Valentine Rose, Arist. I s epiyniph., where the fragments are commented upon. II. 65