Chapter 5

26Plutarch, Sylla, c. xxvi.

27The testimony of Porphyry in respect to Andronikus, and to the real service performed by Andronikus, is highly valuable. Porphyry was the devoted disciple and friend, as well as the literary executor, of Plotinus; whose writings were left in an incorrect and disorderly condition. Porphyry undertook to put them in order and publish them; and he tells us that, in fulfilling this promise, he followed the example of what Andronikus had done for the works of Aristotle and Theophrastus. Ἐπεὶ δὲ αὐτὸς (Plotinus) τὴν διόρθωσιν καὶ τὴν διάταξιν τῶν βιβλίων ποιεῖσθαι ἡμῖν ἐπέτρεψεν, ἐγὼ δὲ ἐκείνῳ ζῶντι ὑπεσχόμην καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις ἑταίροις ἐπηγγειλάμην ποιῆσαι τοῦτο, πρῶτον μὲν τὰ βίβλια οὐ κατὰ χρόνους ἐᾶσαι φύρδην ἐκδεδομένα ἐδικαίωσα, μιμησάμενος δâ€™ Ἀπολλόδωρον τὸν Ἀθηναῖον καὶ Ἀνδρόνικον τὸν Περιπατητικόν, ὧν ὁ μὲν Ἐπίχαρμον τὸν κωμῳδιογράφον εἰς δέκα τόμους φέρων συνήγαγεν, ὁ δὲ τὰ Ἀριστοτέλους καὶ Θεοφράστου εἰς πραγματείας διεῖλε, τὰς οἰκείας ὑποθέσεις εἰς ταὐτὸν συναγαγών, οὕτω δὴ καὶ ἐγὼ πεντήκοντα τέσσαραὔντα ἔχων τὰ τοῦ Πλωτίνου βίβλια διεῖλον μὲν εἰς ἓξ ἐννεάδας, τῇ τελειότητι τοῦ ἓξ ἀριθμοῦ καὶ ταῖς ἐννεάσιν ἀσμένως ἐπιτυχών, ἑκάστῃ δὲ ἐννεάδι τὰ οἰκεῖα φέρων συνεφόρησα, δοὺς καὶ τάξιν πρώτην τοῖς ἐλαφροτέροις προβλήμασιν. (Porphyry, Vita Plotini, p. 117, Didot.) Porphyry here distinctly affirms that Andronikus rendered this valuable service not merely to the works of Aristotle, but also to those of Theophrastus. This is important, as connecting him with the library conveyed by Sylla to Rome; which library we know to have contained the manuscripts of both these philosophers. And in the Scholion appended to the Metaphysica of Theophrastus (p. 323, Brandis) we are told that Andronikus and Hermippus had made a catalogue of the works of Theophrastus, in which the Metaphysics was not included.

28Strabo, xiii. 609: βιβλιοπῶλαί τινες γραφεῦσι φαύλοις χρώμενοι καὶ οὐκ ἀντιβάλλοντες, &c.

This interesting narrative â€” delivered by Strabo, the junior contemporary of Andronikus, and probably derived by him either from Tyrannion his preceptor or from the Sidonian BoÃªthus29and other philosophical companions jointly, with whom he had prosecuted the study of Aristotle â€” appears fully worthy of trust. The proceedings both of Apellikon and of Sylla prove, what indeed we might have presumed without proof, that the recovery of these long-lost original manuscripts of Aristotle and Theophrastus excited great sensation in the philosophical world of Athens and of Rome. With such newly-acquired materials, a new epoch began for the study of these authors. The more abstruse philosophical works of Aristotle now came into the foreground under the auspices of a new Scholarch; whereas Aristotle had hitherto been chiefly known by his more popular and readable compositions. Of these last, probably, copies may have been acquired to a certain extent by the previous Peripatetic Scholarchs or School at Athens; but the School had been irreparably impoverished, so far as regarded the deeper speculations of philosophy, by the loss of those original manuscripts which had been transported from Athens to SkÃªpsis. What Aristotelian Scholarchs, prior to Andronikus, chiefly possessed and studied, of the productions of their illustrious founder, were chiefly theexotericor extra-philosophical and comparatively popular:â€” such as the dialogues; the legendary and historicalcollections; the facts respecting constitutional history of various Hellenic cities; the variety of miscellaneous problems respecting Homer and a number of diverse matters; the treatises on animals and on anatomy, &c.30In the Alexandrine library (as we see by the Catalogue of Diogenes) there existed all these and several philosophical works also; but that library was not easily available for the use of the Scholarchs at Athens, who worked upon their own stock, confining themselves mainly to smooth and elegant discourses on particular questions, and especially to discussions, with the Platonists, Stoics, and Epikureans, on theprincipiaof Ethics, without any attempt either to follow up or to elucidate the more profound speculations (logical, physical, metaphysical, cosmical) of Aristotle himself. A material change took place when the library of Apellikon came to be laid open and studied, not merely by lecturers in the professorial chair at Athens, but also by critics like Tyrannion and Andronikus at Rome. These critics found therein the most profound and difficult philosophical works of Aristotle in the handwriting of the philosopher himself; some probably, of which copies may have already existed in the Alexandrine library, but some also as yet unpublished. The purpose of Andronikus, who is described as Peripatetic Scholarch, eleventh in succession from Aristotle, was not simply to make a Catalogue (as Hermippus had made at Alexandria), but to render a much greater service, which no critic could render without having access to original MSS., namely, to obtain a correct text of the books actually before him, to arrange these books in proper order, and then to publish and explain them,31but to take no account of otherAristotelian works in the Alexandrine library or elsewhere. The Aristotelian philosophy thus passed into a new phase. Our editions of Aristotle may be considered as taking their date from this critical effort of Andronikus, with or without subsequent modifications by others, as the case may be.

29Strabo, xvi. 757. Stahr, in his minor work, Aristoteles unter den RÃ¶mern, p. 32, considers that this circumstance lessens the credibility of Strabo. I think the contrary. No one was so likely to have studied the previous history of the MSS. as the editors of a new edition.

30Strabo, xiii. 609: συνέβη δὲ τοῖς ἐκ τῶν περιπάτων τοῖς μὲν πάλαι τοῖς μετὰ Θεόφραστον, ὅλως οὐκ ἔχουσι τὰ βίβλια πλὴν ὀλίγων καὶ μάλιστα τῶν ἐξωτερικῶν, μηδὲν ἔχειν φιλοσοφεῖν πραγματικῶς, ἀλλὰ θέσεις ληκυθίζεινÂ· τοῖς δâ€™ ὕστερον, ἀφâ€™ οὖ τὰ βίβλια ταῦτα προῆλθεν, ἄμεινον μὲν ἐκείνων φιλοσοφεῖν καὶ ἀριστοτελίζειν, ἀναγκάζεσθαι μέντοι τὰ πολλὰ εἰκότα λέγειν διὰ τὸ πλῆθος τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν. Also Plutarch, Sylla, c. xxvi.The passage of Strabo is so perspicuous and detailed, that it has all the air of having been derived from the best critics who frequented the library at Rome, where Strabo was when he wrote (καὶἔνθαδεκαὶ ἐν Ἀλεξανδρείᾳ, xiii. 609). The Peripatetic Andronikus, whom he names among the celebrated Rhodians (xiv. 655), may have been among his informants. His statements about the bad state of the manuscripts; the unskilful emendations of Apellikon; the contrast between the vein of Peripatetic study, as it had stood before the revelation of the manuscripts, and as it came to stand afterwards; the uncertain evidences upon which careful students, even with the manuscripts before them, were compelled to proceed; the tone of depreciation in which he speaks of the carelessness of booksellers who sought only for profit, â€” all these points of information appear to me to indicate that Straboâ€™s informants were acute and diligent critics, familiar with the library, and anxious both for the real understanding of these documents, and for philosophy as an end.

The passage of Strabo is so perspicuous and detailed, that it has all the air of having been derived from the best critics who frequented the library at Rome, where Strabo was when he wrote (καὶἔνθαδεκαὶ ἐν Ἀλεξανδρείᾳ, xiii. 609). The Peripatetic Andronikus, whom he names among the celebrated Rhodians (xiv. 655), may have been among his informants. His statements about the bad state of the manuscripts; the unskilful emendations of Apellikon; the contrast between the vein of Peripatetic study, as it had stood before the revelation of the manuscripts, and as it came to stand afterwards; the uncertain evidences upon which careful students, even with the manuscripts before them, were compelled to proceed; the tone of depreciation in which he speaks of the carelessness of booksellers who sought only for profit, â€” all these points of information appear to me to indicate that Straboâ€™s informants were acute and diligent critics, familiar with the library, and anxious both for the real understanding of these documents, and for philosophy as an end.

31Plutarch, Sylla, c. xxvi. Spengel (â€œUeber die Reihenfolge der naturwissenschaftlichen Schriften des Aristoteles,â€� MÃ¼nchen. philol. Abhandl. 1848,) remarks justly that the critical arrangement of Aristotleâ€™s writings, for collective publication, begins from the library of Apellikon at Rome, not from that of Alexandria. See p. 146: â€œMehr als zweihundert Jahre lang fehlt uns alle nÃ¤here Kunde Ã¼ber die peripatetische Schule. Erst mit der viel besprochenen Auffindung der Bibliothek des Aristoteles in Athen und deren WegfÃ¼hrung nach Rom durch Sulla wird ein regeres Studium fÃ¼r die Schriften des Philosophen bemerkbar â€”und zwar jetzt eigentlich der Schriften, weniger der Lehre und Philosophie im Allgemeinen, welche frÃ¼her allein beachtet worden ist. Wir mÃ¶chten sagen, von jetzt an beginne das philologische Studium mit den Werken des Aristoteles, die kritische und exegetische Behandlung dieser durch Tyrannion, Andronikus, Adrastus und viele andre nachlfolgende,â€� &c.

The explanation just given, coinciding on many points with Brandis and Heitz, affords the most probable elucidation of that obscurity which arises about the Aristotelian Canon, when we compareourAristotle with the Catalogue of Diogenes â€” the partial likeness, but still greater discrepancy, between the two. It is certain that neither Cicero32nor the great Alexandrineliterati, anterior to and contemporary with him, knew Aristotle from most of the works which we now possess. They knew him chiefly from the dialogues, the matters of history and legend, some zoological books, and the problems; the dialogues, and the historical collections respecting the constitutions of Hellenic cities,33being more popular and better known than any other works. While the Republic of Plato is familiar to them, theyexhibit no knowledge of our Aristotelian Politica, in which treatise the criticism upon the Platonic Republic is among the most interesting parts. When we look through the contents of our editions of Aristotle the style and manner of handling is indeed pretty much the same throughout, but the subjects will appear extremely diverse and multifarious; and the encyclopedical character of the author, as to science and its applications, will strike us forcibly. The entire and real Aristotle, however, was not only more encyclopedical as to subjects handled, but also more variable as to style and manner of handling; passing from the smooth, sweet, and flowing style â€” which Cicero extols as characterizing the Aristotelian dialogues â€” to the elliptical brevity and obscurity which we now find so puzzling in the De AnimÃ¢ and the Metaphysica.34

32This is certain, from the remarks addressed by Cicero to Trebatius at the beginning of the Ciceronian Topica, that in his time Aristotle was little known and little studied at Rome, even by philosophical students. Trebatius knew nothing of the Topica, until he saw the work by chance in Ciceroâ€™s library, and asked information about the contents. The reply of Cicero illustrates the little notice taken of Aristotle by Roman readers. â€œCum autem ego te, non tam vitandi laboris mei causÃ¢, quam quia tua id interesse arbitrarer, vel ut eos per te ipse legeres, vel ut totam rationem a doctissimo quodam rhetore acciperes, hortatus essem, utrumque ut ex te audiebam, es expertus. Sed a libris te obscuritas rejecit: rhetor autem ille magnus, ut opinor,Aristotelia se ignorarerespondit. Quod quidem minime sum admiratus, eum philosophum rhetori non esse cognitum,qui ab ipsis philosophis, prÃ¦ter admodum paucos, ignoraretur.â€� Compare also Cicero, Academ. Post. i. 3, 10.

33Even the philosophical commentators on Aristotle, such as David the Armenian, seem to have known the lost work of Aristotle called Πολιτεῖαι (the history of the constitutions of 250 Hellenic cities), better than the theoretical work which we possess, called the Politica; though they doubtless knew both. (See Scholia ad Categorias, Brandis, p. 16, b. 20; p. 24, a. 25; p. 25, b. 5.) â€” We read in Schneiderâ€™s Preface to the Aristotelian Politica (p. x.): â€œAltum et mirabile silentium est apud antiquitatem GrÃ¦cam et Romanam de novÃ¢ Aristotelis RepublicÃ¢, cum omnes ferÃ¨ scriptores GrÃ¦ci et Romani, mentione ReipublicÃ¦ PlatonicÃ¦ pleni, vel laudibus vel vituperiis ejus abundant.â€� â€” There is no clear reference to the Aristotelian Politica earlier than Alexander of Aphrodisias. Both Hildenbrand (Geschichte der Staats- und Rechts-Philosophen, t. i. pp. 358-361), and Oncken (Staatslehre des Aristot. pp. 65-66), think that the Aristotelian Politica was not published until after the purchase of the library by Apellikon.

34What Strabo asserts about the Peripatetic Scholarchs succeeding Theophrastus (viz., μηδὲν ἔχειν φιλοσοφεῖν πραγματικῶς, ἀλλὰ θέσεις ληκυθίζειν: that they could not handle philosophy in a businesslike way â€” with those high generalities and that subtle analysis which was supposed to belong to philosophy â€” but gave smooth and ornate discourses on set problems or theses) is fully borne out by what we read in Cicero about these same Peripatetics. The Stoics (immediate successors and rivals) accused their Peripatetic contemporaries even of being ignorant of Dialectic: which their founder, Aristotle, in his works that we now possess, had been the first to raise into something like a science. Cicero says (De Finibus, iii. 12, 41): â€œHis igitur ita positis (inquit Cato) sequitur magna contentio: quam tractatam Ã Peripateticis mollius (est enim eorum consuetudo dicendi non satis acuta, propter ignorationem DialecticÃ¦), Carneades tuus, egregiÃ¢ quÃ¢dam exercitatione in dialecticis summÃ¢que eloquentiÃ¢, rem in summum discrimen adduxit.â€� Also Cicero, in Tuscul. Disput. iv. 5. 9: â€œQuia Chrysippus et Stoici, quum de animi perturbationibus disputant, magnam partem in iis partiendis et definiendis occupati sunt, illa eorum perexigua oratio est, quÃ¢ medeantur animis nec eos turbulentos esse patiantur. Peripatetici autemad placandos animos multa afferunt, spinas partiendi et definiendi prÃ¦termittunt.â€� This last sentence is almost an exact equivalent of the words of Strabo: μηδὲν ἔχειν φιλοσοφεῖν πραγματικῶς, ἀλλὰ θέσεις ληκυθίζειν. Aristotle himself, in the works which we possess, might pass as father of the Stoics rather than of the Peripatetics; for he abounds in classification and subdivision (spinas partiendi et dividendi), and is even derided on this very ground by opponents (see Atticus ap. Euseb. PrÃ¦p. Ev. xv. 4); but he has nothing of the polished amplification ascribed to the later Peripatetics by Strabo and Cicero. Compare, about the Peripatetics from Lykon to Kritolaus, Cicero, De Finibus, v. 5: â€œLyco, oratione locuples, rebus ipsis jejunior.â€� Plutarch (Sylla, c. xxvi.) calls these later Peripatetics χαριέντες καὶ φιλόλογοι, &c.

I shall assume this variety, both of subject and of handling, as a feature to be admitted and allowed for in Aristotle, when I come to discuss the objections of some critics against the authenticity of certain treatises among the forty-six which now pass under his name. But in canvassing the Aristotelian Canon I am unable to take the same ground as I took in my former work, when reviewing the Platonic Canon. In regard to Plato, I pointed out a strong antecedent presumption in favour of the Canon of Thrasyllus â€” a canon derived originally from the Alexandrine librarians, and sustained by the unanimous adhesionof antiquity. In regard to Aristotle, there are no similar grounds of presumption to stand upon. We have good reason for believing that the works both of Plato and Aristotle â€” if not all the works, at least many of them, and those the most generally interesting â€” were copied and transmitted early to the Alexandrine library. NowourPlato represents that which was possessed and accredited as Platonic by the Byzantine Aristophanes and the other Alexandrine librarians; butourAristotle does not, in my judgment, represent what these librarians possessed and accredited as Aristotelian. That which they thus accredited stands recorded in the Catalogue given by Diogenes, probably the work of Hermippus, as I have already stated; whileourAristotle is traceable to the collection at Athens, including that of Apellikon, with that which he bought from the heirs of Neleus, and to the sifting, correction, and classification, applied thereto by able critics of the first centuryB.C.and subsequently; among whom Andronikus is best known. We may easily believe that the library of Apellikon contained various compositions of Aristotle, which had never been copied for the Alexandrine library â€” perhaps never prepared for publication at all, so that the task of arranging detached sections or morsels into a whole, with one separate title, still remained to be performed. This was most likely to be the case with abstruser speculations, like the component books of the Metaphysica, which Theophrastus may not have been forward to tender, and which the library might not be very eager to acquire, having already near four hundred other volumes by the same author. These reserved works would therefore remain in the library of Theophrastus, not copied and circulated (or at least circulated only to a few private philosophical brethren, such as EudÃªmus), so that they never became fully published until the days of Apellikon.35

35The two Peripatetic Scholarchs at Athens, Straton and Lykon, who succeeded (after the death of Theophrastus and the transfer of his library to SkÃªpsis) in the conduct of the school, left at their decease collections of books, of which each disposes by his will (Diogen. L. v. 62; v. 73). The library of Apellikon, when sent by Sylla to Rome, contained probably many other Aristotelian MSS., besides those purchased from SkÃªpsis.Michelet, in his Commentary on the Nikomachean Ethica, advances a theory somewhat analogous but bolder, respecting the relation between the Catalogue given by Diogenes, and the works contained inourAristotle. Comm. p. 2. â€œId solum addam, hoc Aristotelis opus (the Nikomachean Ethica), ut reliqua omnia, ex brevioribus commentationibus consarcinatum fuisse, quÃ¦ quidem vivo Aristotele in lucem prodierint, cum unaquÃ¦que disciplina, e quÃ¢ excerpta fuerint in admirabilem illum quem habemus ordinem jam ab ipso Aristotele sive quodam ejus discipulo redacta, in libris Aristotelis manu scriptis latitaverit, qui hereditate ad Nelei prolem, ut notum est, transmissi, in cellÃ¢ illÃ¢ subterraneÃ¢ ScepsiÃ¢ absconditi fuerunt, donec Apellicon Teius et Rhodius Andronicus eos ediderint. Leguntur autem commentationum illarum de Moribus tituli in elencho librorum Aristotelis apud Diogenem (v. 22-26): περὶ ἀρετῶν (Lib. ii., iii. c. 6-fin. iv. nostrorum Ethicorum); περὶ ἑκουσίου (Lib. iii. c. 1-5); &c. Plerumque enim non integra volumina, sed singulos libros vel singula volumina diversarum disciplinarum, Diogenes in elencho suo enumeravit.â€�In his other work (Essai sur la MÃ©taphysique dâ€™Aristote, pp. 202, 205, 225) Michelet has carried this theory still farther, and has endeavoured to identify separate fragments of the Aristotelian works now extant, with various titles in the Catalogue given by Diogenes. The identification is not convincing.

Michelet, in his Commentary on the Nikomachean Ethica, advances a theory somewhat analogous but bolder, respecting the relation between the Catalogue given by Diogenes, and the works contained inourAristotle. Comm. p. 2. â€œId solum addam, hoc Aristotelis opus (the Nikomachean Ethica), ut reliqua omnia, ex brevioribus commentationibus consarcinatum fuisse, quÃ¦ quidem vivo Aristotele in lucem prodierint, cum unaquÃ¦que disciplina, e quÃ¢ excerpta fuerint in admirabilem illum quem habemus ordinem jam ab ipso Aristotele sive quodam ejus discipulo redacta, in libris Aristotelis manu scriptis latitaverit, qui hereditate ad Nelei prolem, ut notum est, transmissi, in cellÃ¢ illÃ¢ subterraneÃ¢ ScepsiÃ¢ absconditi fuerunt, donec Apellicon Teius et Rhodius Andronicus eos ediderint. Leguntur autem commentationum illarum de Moribus tituli in elencho librorum Aristotelis apud Diogenem (v. 22-26): περὶ ἀρετῶν (Lib. ii., iii. c. 6-fin. iv. nostrorum Ethicorum); περὶ ἑκουσίου (Lib. iii. c. 1-5); &c. Plerumque enim non integra volumina, sed singulos libros vel singula volumina diversarum disciplinarum, Diogenes in elencho suo enumeravit.â€�

In his other work (Essai sur la MÃ©taphysique dâ€™Aristote, pp. 202, 205, 225) Michelet has carried this theory still farther, and has endeavoured to identify separate fragments of the Aristotelian works now extant, with various titles in the Catalogue given by Diogenes. The identification is not convincing.

But though the edition published by Andronikus would thus contain many genuine works of Aristotle not previously known or edited, we cannot be sure that it would not also include some which were spurious. Reflect what the library of Apellikon, transported to Rome by Sylla, really was. There was in it the entire library of Theophrastus; probably, also, that of Neleus, who must have had some books of his own, besides what he inherited from Theophrastus. It included all the numerous manuscript works composed by Aristotle and Theophrastus, and many other manuscript works purchased or acquired by them, but composed by others â€” the whole in very bad order and condition; and, moreover, the books which Apellikon possessed before, doubtless as many Aristotelian books as he could purchase. To distinguish, among this heterogeneous mass of manuscripts, which of them were the manuscripts composed by Aristotle; to separate these from the writings of Theophrastus, EudÃªmus, or other authors, who composed various works of their own upon the same subjects and with the same titles as those of Aristotle â€” required extreme critical discernment and caution; the rather, since there was no living companion of Aristotle or Theophrastus to guide or advise, more than a century and a half having elapsed since the death of Theophrastus, and two centuries since that of Aristotle. Such were the difficulties amidst which Apellikon, Tyrannion, and Andronikus had to decide, when they singled out the manuscripts of Aristotle to be published. I will not say that they decided wrongly; yet neither can I contend (as I argued in the case of the Platonic dialogues) that the presumption is very powerful in favour of that Canon which their decision made legal. The case is much more open to argument, if any grounds against the decision can be urged.

Andronikus put in, arranged, and published the treatises of Aristotle (or those which he regarded as composed by Aristotle) included in the library conveyed by Sylla to Rome. I have already observed, that among these treatises there were some, of which copies existed in the Alexandrine library (as representedby the Catalogue of Diogenes), but a still greater number which cannot be identified with the titles remaining of works there preserved. As to the works common to both libraries, we must remember that Andronikus introduced a classification of his own, analogous to the Enneads applied by Porphyry to the works of Plotinus, and to the Tetralogies adopted by Thrasyllus in regard to the Dialogues of Plato; so that even these works might not be distributed in the same partitions under each of the two arrangements. And this is what we actually see when we compare the Catalogue of Diogenes withourAristotle. Rhetoric, Ethics, Physics, Problems, &c., appear in both as titles or subjects, but distributed into a different number of books or sections in one and in the other; perhaps, indeed, the compositions are not always the same.

Before I proceed to deal with the preserved works of Aristotle â€” those by which alone he is known to us, and was known to mediÃ¦val readers, I shall say a few words respecting the import of a distinction which has been much canvassed, conveyed in the wordexotericand its opposite. This term, used on various occasions by Aristotle himself, has been also employed by many ancient critics, from Cicero downwards; while by mediÃ¦val and modern critics, it has not merely been employed, but also analysed and elucidated. According to Cicero (the earliest writer subsequent to Aristotle in whom we find the term), it designates one among two classes of works composed by Aristotle:exotericworks were those composed in a popular style and intended for a large, indiscriminate circle of readers: being contrasted with other works of elaborated philosophical reasoning, which were not prepared for the public taste, but left in the condition of memorials for the instruction of a more select class of studious men. Two points are to be observed respecting Ciceroâ€™s declaration. First, he applies it to the writings not of Aristotle exclusively, but also to those of Theophrastus, and even of succeeding Peripatetics; secondly, he applies it directly to such of their writings only as related to the discussion of theSummum Bonum.36Furthermore, Cicero describes the workswhich Aristotle called exoteric, as havingproemsor introductory prefaces.37

36Cicero, De Finibus, v. 5, 12. â€œDe summo autem bono, quia duo genera librorum sunt, unum populariter scriptum, quod ἐξωτερικὸν appellabant, alterum limatius, quod in commentariis reliquerunt, non semper idem dicere videntur: nec in summÃ¢ tamen ipsÃ¢ aut varietas est ulla, apud hos quidem quos nominavi, aut inter ipsos dissensio.â€�The wordlimatiushere cannot allude to high polish and ornament of style (nitor orationis), but must be equivalent to ἀκριβέστερον,doctius,subtilius, &c. (as Buhle and others have already remarked, Buhle, De Libris Aristot. Exoter. et Acroam. p. 115; Madvig, ad Cicero de Finib. v. 12; Heitz, p. 134), applied to profound reasoning, with distinctions of unusual precision, which it required a careful preparatory training to apprehend. This employment of the wordlimatiusappears to me singular, but it cannot mean anything else here. Thecommentariiare the general heads â€” plain unadorned statements of facts or reasoning â€” which the orator or historian is to employ his genius in setting forth and decorating, so that it may be heard or read with pleasure and admiration by a general audience. Cicero, in that remarkable letter wherein he entreats Lucceius to narrate his (Ciceroâ€™s) consulship in an historical work, undertakes to compose â€œcommentarios rerum omniumâ€� as materials for the use of Lucceius (Ep. ad Famil. v. 12. 10). His expression, â€œin commentariis reliquerunt,â€� shows that he considered the exoteric books to have been prepared by working up some naked preliminary materials into an ornate and interesting form.

The wordlimatiushere cannot allude to high polish and ornament of style (nitor orationis), but must be equivalent to ἀκριβέστερον,doctius,subtilius, &c. (as Buhle and others have already remarked, Buhle, De Libris Aristot. Exoter. et Acroam. p. 115; Madvig, ad Cicero de Finib. v. 12; Heitz, p. 134), applied to profound reasoning, with distinctions of unusual precision, which it required a careful preparatory training to apprehend. This employment of the wordlimatiusappears to me singular, but it cannot mean anything else here. Thecommentariiare the general heads â€” plain unadorned statements of facts or reasoning â€” which the orator or historian is to employ his genius in setting forth and decorating, so that it may be heard or read with pleasure and admiration by a general audience. Cicero, in that remarkable letter wherein he entreats Lucceius to narrate his (Ciceroâ€™s) consulship in an historical work, undertakes to compose â€œcommentarios rerum omniumâ€� as materials for the use of Lucceius (Ep. ad Famil. v. 12. 10). His expression, â€œin commentariis reliquerunt,â€� shows that he considered the exoteric books to have been prepared by working up some naked preliminary materials into an ornate and interesting form.

37Cicero, Ep. ad Att. iv. 16.

In the main, the distinction here drawn by Cicero, understood in a very general sense, has been accepted by most following critics as intended by the termexoteric: something addressed to a wide, indiscriminate circle of general readers or hearers, and intelligible or interesting to them without any special study or training â€” as contrasted with that which is reserved for a smaller circle of students assumed to be specially qualified. But among those who agree in this general admission, many differences have prevailed. Some have thought that the term was not used by Aristotle to designate any writings either of his own or of others, but only in allusion to informal oral dialogues or debates. Others again, feeling assured that Aristotle intended by the term to signify some writings of his own, have searched among the works preserved, as well as among the titles of the works lost, to discriminate such as the author considered to be exoteric: though this search has certainly not ended in unanimity; nor do I think it has been successful. Again, there have not been wanting critics (among them, Thomas Aquinas and Sepulveda), who assign to the term a meaning still more vague and undefined; contending that when Aristotle alludes to â€œexoteric discourses,â€� he indicates simply some other treatise of his own, distinct from that in which the allusion occurs, without meaning to imply anything respecting its character.38

38Sepulveda, p. 125 (cited by Bernays, Dialoge des Aristoteles, p. 41): â€œExternos sermones sive exotericos solet Aristoteles libros eos appellare, quicunque sunt extra id opus in quo tunc versatur, ut jure pontificio periti consueverunt: non enim exoterici sermones seu libri certo aliquo genere continentur, ut est publicus error.â€�Zeller lends his high authority to an explanation ofexotericvery similar to the above. (Gesch. der Philos. ii. 2, p. 100, seq.:â€” â€�dass unter exoterischen Reden nicht eine eigene Klasse populÃ¤r geschriebener BÃ¼cher, sondern nur Ã¼berhaupt solche ErÃ¶rterungen verstanden werden, welche nicht in den Bereich der vorliegenden Untersuchung gehÃ¶ren.â€�) He discusses the point at some length; but the very passages which he cites, especially Physica, iv. 10, appear to me less favourable to his view than to that which I have stated in the text, according to which the word meansdialecticas contrasted withdidactic.

Zeller lends his high authority to an explanation ofexotericvery similar to the above. (Gesch. der Philos. ii. 2, p. 100, seq.:â€” â€�dass unter exoterischen Reden nicht eine eigene Klasse populÃ¤r geschriebener BÃ¼cher, sondern nur Ã¼berhaupt solche ErÃ¶rterungen verstanden werden, welche nicht in den Bereich der vorliegenden Untersuchung gehÃ¶ren.â€�) He discusses the point at some length; but the very passages which he cites, especially Physica, iv. 10, appear to me less favourable to his view than to that which I have stated in the text, according to which the word meansdialecticas contrasted withdidactic.

To me it appears that this last explanation is untenable,and that the termexotericdesignates matter of a certain character, assignable to some extent by positive marks, but still more by negative; matter, in part, analogous to that defined by Cicero and other critics. But to conceive clearly or fully what its character is, we must turn to Aristotle himself, who is of course the final authority, wherever he can be found to speak in a decisive manner. His preserved works afford altogether eight passages (two of them indeed in the Eudemian Ethics, which, for the present at least, I shall assume to be his work), wherein the phrase â€œexoteric discoursesâ€� (ἐξωτερικοὶ λόγοι) occurs. Out of these eight passages, there are seven which present the phrase as designating some unknown matter, not farther specified, but distinct from the work in which the phrase occurs: â€œEnough has been said (or is said, Aristotle intimates) about this subject, even in the exoteric discourses.â€� To what it is that he here alludes â€” whether to other writings of his own or oral discussions of his own, or writing and speech of a particular sort by others â€” we are left to interpret as we best may, by probable reason or conjecture. But there is one among the eight passages, in which Aristotle uses the termexotericas describing, not what is to be looked for elsewhere, but what he is himself about to give in the treatise in hand. In the fourth book of the Physica, he discusses the three high abstractions, Place, Vacuum, Time. After making an end of the first two, he enters upon the third, beginning with the following words:â€” â€œIt follows naturally on what has been said, that we should treat respecting Time. But first it is convenient to advert to the difficulties involved in it, byexoteric discourse alsoâ€” whether Time be included among entities or among non-entities; then afterwards, what is its nature. Now a man might suspect, from the following reasons, that Time either absolutely does not exist, or exists scarcely and dimly,â€� &c. Aristotle then gives a string of dialectic reasons, lasting through one of the columns of the Berlin edition, for doubting whether Time really exists. He afterwards proceeds thus, through two farther columns:â€” â€œLet these be enumerated as the difficulties accompanying the attributes of Time. What Time is, and what is its nature, is obscure, as well from what has been handed down to us by others, as from what we ourselves have just gone through;â€�39and this question also he first discusses dialectically, and then brings to a solution.

39Aristot. Physic. iv. 10, p. 217, b. 29. Ἐχόμενον δὲ τῶν εἰρημένων ἐστὶν ἐπελθεῖν περὶ χρόνουÂ· πρῶτον δὲ καλῶς ἔχει διαπορῆσαι περὶ αὐτοῦκαὶ διὰ τῶν ἐξωτερικῶν λόγων, πότερον τῶν ὄντων ἐστὶν ἢ τῶν μὴ ὄντων, εἶτα τίς ἡ φύσις αὐτοῦ. Ὅτι μὲν οὖν ἢ ὅλως ἔστιν, ἢ μόλις καὶ ἀμυδρῶς, ἐκ τῶνδέ τις ἂν ὑποπτεύσειεν. Then, after a column of text urging various ἀπορίας as to whether Time is or is not, he goes on, p. 218, a. 31:â€” Περὶ μὲν οὖν τῶν ὑπαρχόντων αὐτῷ τοσαῦτâ€™ ἔστω διηπορημένα. Τί δâ€™ ἐστὶν ὁ χρόνος, καὶ τίς αὐτοῦ ἡ φύσις, ὁμοίως ἔκ τε τῶν παραδεδομένων ἄδηλόν ἐστι, καὶ περὶ ὧν τυγχάνομεν διεληλυθότες πρότερον â€” thus taking up the questions, What Time is? What is the nature of Time? Upon this he goes through another column of ἀπορίαι, difficulties and counter-difficulties, until p. 219, a. 1, when he approaches to a positive determination, as the sequel of various negatives â€” ὅτι μὲν οὖν οὔτε κίνησις οὔτâ€™ ἄνευ κινήσεως ὁ χρόνος ἐστί, φανερόν.ληπτέονδέ, ἐπεὶ ζητοῦμεν τί ἐστιν ὁ χρόνος,ἐντεῦθεν ἀρχομένοις, τί τῆς κινήσεώς ἐστιν. He pursues this positive determination throughout two farther columns (see ὑποκείσθω, a. 30), until at length he arrives at his final definition of Time â€” ἀριθμὸς κινήσεως κατὰ τὸ πρότερον καὶ ὕστερον, καὶ συνεχής (συνεχοῦς γὰρ) â€” which he declares to be φανερόν, p. 220, a. 25.It is plain that the phrase ἐξωτερικοὶ λόγοι here designates the preliminary dialectic tentative process, before the final affirmative is directly attempted, as we read in De Gener. et Corr. i. 3, p. 317, b. 13: περὶ μὲν οὖν τούτων ἐν ἄλλοιςτε διηπόρηται καὶ διώρισταιτοῖς λόγοις ἐπὶ πλεῖον â€” first, τὸδιαπορεῖν, next, τὸδιορίζειν.

It is plain that the phrase ἐξωτερικοὶ λόγοι here designates the preliminary dialectic tentative process, before the final affirmative is directly attempted, as we read in De Gener. et Corr. i. 3, p. 317, b. 13: περὶ μὲν οὖν τούτων ἐν ἄλλοιςτε διηπόρηται καὶ διώρισταιτοῖς λόγοις ἐπὶ πλεῖον â€” first, τὸδιαπορεῖν, next, τὸδιορίζειν.

Now what is it that Aristotle here means by â€œexoteric discourse?â€� We may discover by reading the matter comprised between the two foregoing citations. We find a string of perplexing difficulties connected with the supposition that Time exists: such as, â€œThat all Time is either past or future, of which the former no longer exists, and the latter does not yet exist; that the Now is no part of Time, for every Whole is composed of its Parts, and Time is not composed of Nows,â€� &c. I do not go farther here into these subtle suggestions, because my present purpose is only to illustrate what Aristotle calls â€œexoteric discourse,â€� by exhibiting what he himself announces to be a specimen thereof. It is the process of noticing and tracing out all the doubts and difficulties (ἀπορίας) which beset the enquiry in hand, along with the different opinions entertained about it either by the vulgar, or by individual philosophers, and the various reasons whereby such opinions may be sustained or impugned. It is in fact the same process as that which, when performed (as it was habitually and actively in his age) between two disputants, he callsdialectic debate; and which he seeks to encourage as well as to regulate in his treatise entitled Topica. He contrasts it with philosophy, or with the strictly didactic and demonstrative procedure: wherein the teacher lays down principles which he requires the learner to admit, and then deduces from them, by syllogisms constructed in regular form, consequences indisputably binding on all who have admitted the principles. But though Aristotle thus distinguishes Dialectic from Philosophy, he at the same time declares it to be valuable as an auxiliary towards the purpose of philosophy, and as an introductory exercise before the didactic stage begins.The philosopher ought to show his competence as a dialectician, by indicating and handling those various difficulties and controversies bearing on his subject, which have already been made known, either in writings or in oral debate.40

40See Aristot. Topic. i. p. 100, b. 21, p. 101, a. 25, 34-36, b. 2. Πρὸς δὲ τὰς κατὰ φιλοσοφίαν ἐπιστήμας (χρήσιμος ἡ πραγματεία), ὅτι δυνάμενοι πρὸς ἀμφότερα διαπορῆσαι ῥᾷον ἐν ἑκάστοις κατοψόμεθα τἀληθές τε καὶ τὸ ψεῦδος, p. 105, b. 30. Πρὸς μὲν οὖν φιλοσοφίαν κατâ€™ ἀληθειαν περὶαὐτῶνπραγματευέον,διαλεκτικῶςδὲ πρὸς δόξαν.Compare also the commencement of book B. in the Metaphysica, p. 995, a. 28 seq., and, indeed, the whole of book B., which contains a dialectic discussion of numerous ἀπορίαι. Aristotle himself refers to it afterwards (Γ. p. 1004, a. 32) in the words ὕπερ ἐν ταῖς ἀπορίαις ἐλεχθη.The Scholia of Alexander on the beginning of the Topica (pp. 251, 252, Brandis) are instructive; also his Scholia on p. 105, b. 30, p. 260, a. 24.διαλεκτικῶς δὲ πρὸς δόξαν, ὡς ἐν ταύτῃ τῇ πραγματείᾳ (i.e.the Topica) καὶ ἐν τοῖς ῥητορικοῖς, καὶἐν τοῖς ἐξωτερικοῖς. καὶ γὰρ ἐν ἐκείνοις πλεῖστα καὶ περὶ τῶνἠθικῶν καὶ περὶ τῶν φυσικῶνἐνδόξωςλέγεται.We see here that Alexander understands by theexotericthe dialectic handling of opinions on physics and ethics.In the Eudemian Ethica also (i. 8, p. 1217, b. 16) we find ἐπέσκεπται δὲ πολλοῖς περὶ αὐτοῦ τρόποις, καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἐξωτερικοῖς λόγοις καὶ ἐν τοῖς κατὰ φιλοσοφίαν, where we have the same antithesis in other words â€” Exoteric or DialecticversusPhilosophical or Didactic. Compare a clear statement in Simplikius (Schol. ad Physic. p. 364, b. 19). Πρῶτον μὲν λογικῶς ἐπιχειρεῖ, τούτεστι πιθανῶς καὶ ἐνδόξως, καὶ ἔτι κοινότερόν πως καὶ διαλεκτικώτερον. Ἡ γὰρ διαλεκτικὴ ἡ Ἀριστοτέλους κοινή ἐστι μέθοδος περὶ παντὸς τοῦ προτεθέντος ἐξ ἐνδόξων συλλογιζομένη â€” τὸ γὰρ λογικὸν ὡς κοινὸν εἴωθεν ἀντιδιαστέλλειν τᾳ οἰκείῳ καὶ κατὰ φύσιν τοῦ πράγματος καὶ ἀποδεικτικῷ.

Compare also the commencement of book B. in the Metaphysica, p. 995, a. 28 seq., and, indeed, the whole of book B., which contains a dialectic discussion of numerous ἀπορίαι. Aristotle himself refers to it afterwards (Γ. p. 1004, a. 32) in the words ὕπερ ἐν ταῖς ἀπορίαις ἐλεχθη.

The Scholia of Alexander on the beginning of the Topica (pp. 251, 252, Brandis) are instructive; also his Scholia on p. 105, b. 30, p. 260, a. 24.διαλεκτικῶς δὲ πρὸς δόξαν, ὡς ἐν ταύτῃ τῇ πραγματείᾳ (i.e.the Topica) καὶ ἐν τοῖς ῥητορικοῖς, καὶἐν τοῖς ἐξωτερικοῖς. καὶ γὰρ ἐν ἐκείνοις πλεῖστα καὶ περὶ τῶνἠθικῶν καὶ περὶ τῶν φυσικῶνἐνδόξωςλέγεται.

We see here that Alexander understands by theexotericthe dialectic handling of opinions on physics and ethics.

In the Eudemian Ethica also (i. 8, p. 1217, b. 16) we find ἐπέσκεπται δὲ πολλοῖς περὶ αὐτοῦ τρόποις, καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἐξωτερικοῖς λόγοις καὶ ἐν τοῖς κατὰ φιλοσοφίαν, where we have the same antithesis in other words â€” Exoteric or DialecticversusPhilosophical or Didactic. Compare a clear statement in Simplikius (Schol. ad Physic. p. 364, b. 19). Πρῶτον μὲν λογικῶς ἐπιχειρεῖ, τούτεστι πιθανῶς καὶ ἐνδόξως, καὶ ἔτι κοινότερόν πως καὶ διαλεκτικώτερον. Ἡ γὰρ διαλεκτικὴ ἡ Ἀριστοτέλους κοινή ἐστι μέθοδος περὶ παντὸς τοῦ προτεθέντος ἐξ ἐνδόξων συλλογιζομένη â€” τὸ γὰρ λογικὸν ὡς κοινὸν εἴωθεν ἀντιδιαστέλλειν τᾳ οἰκείῳ καὶ κατὰ φύσιν τοῦ πράγματος καὶ ἀποδεικτικῷ.

We thus learn, from the example furnished by Aristotle himself, what he means by â€œexoteric discourses.â€� The epithet means literally,extraneous to,lying on the outside of; in the present case, on the outside of philosophy, considered in its special didactic and demonstrative march.41Yet what thus lies outside philosophy, is nevertheless useful as an accompaniment and preparation for philosophy. We shall find Aristotle insisting upon this in his Topica and Analytica; and we shall also find him introducing the exoteric treatment into his most abstruse philosophical treatises (the Physica is one of the most abstruse) as an accompaniment and auxiliary â€” a dialectic survey of opinions, puzzles, and controverted points, before he begins to lay down and follow out affirmative principles of his own. He does this not only throughout the Physica (in several otherpassages besides that which I have just cited),42but also in the Metaphysica, the treatises De AnimÃ¢, De Generatione et Corruptione, &c.

41We find the epithet ἐξωτερικὸς used once by Aristotle, not in conjunction with λόγοι, but with πράξεις, designating those acts which are performed with a view to some ulterior and extraneous end (τῶν ἀποβαινόντων χάριν, as contrasted with πράξεις αὐτοτελεῖς â€” οἰκεῖαι): Polit. vii. p. 1325, b. 22-29. σχολῇγὰρἂν ὁ θεὸς ἔχοι καλῶς καὶ πᾶς ὁ κόσμος, οἷς οὐκ εἰσὶν ἐξωτερικαὶ πράξεις παρὰ τὰς οἰκείας τὰς αὐτῶν. In the Eudemian Ethics the phraseτοῖς ἀλλοτρίοις λόγοιςσοφίζονται is used much in the same sense asτοῖς ἐξωτερικοῖςλόγοις:i.e.opposed to τοῖς οἰκείοις â€” to that which belongs specially to the scientific determination of the problem (Ethic. Eudem. i. p. 1218, b. 18).The phrase διὰ τῶν ἐξωτερικῶν λόγων, in Aristot. Physic. iv. 10, p. 217, b. 31, and the different phrase ἐκ τῶν εἰωθότων λόγων λέγεσθαι, in Phys. vi. 2, p. 233, a. 13, appear to have the same meaning and reference. Compare Prantl not. ad Arist. Phys. p. 501.

The phrase διὰ τῶν ἐξωτερικῶν λόγων, in Aristot. Physic. iv. 10, p. 217, b. 31, and the different phrase ἐκ τῶν εἰωθότων λόγων λέγεσθαι, in Phys. vi. 2, p. 233, a. 13, appear to have the same meaning and reference. Compare Prantl not. ad Arist. Phys. p. 501.

42If we turn to the beginning of book iv. of the Physica, where Aristotle undertakes to examine Τόπος,Place, we shall see that he begins by a dialectic handling of ἀπορίαι, exactly analogous to that which he himself calls ἐξωτερικοὶ λόγοι, when he proceeds to examine Χρόνος,Time: see Physica, iv. pp. 208, a. 32-35, 209, a. 30; 210, a. 12, b. 31. He does the like also about Κενόν,Vacuum, p. 213, a. 20, b. 28, and about Ἄπειρον,Infinitum, iii. p. 204, b. 4 (with the Scholia of Simplikius, p. 364, b. 20, Br.).Compare the Scholion of Simplikius ad Physica (i. p. 329, b. 1, Br.) â€”ἴσωςδὲ (Simplikius uses this indecisive word ἴσως) ὅτι ἡ ἐφâ€™ ἑκάτερα ἀπορία τοῦ λόγου ἐξωτερική τις ἦν, ὡς Εὔδημός φησι, διαλεκτικὴ μᾶλλον οὖσα, with this last Scholion, on p. 364, b. 20, which describes the same dialectic handling, though without directly calling itexoteric.

Compare the Scholion of Simplikius ad Physica (i. p. 329, b. 1, Br.) â€”ἴσωςδὲ (Simplikius uses this indecisive word ἴσως) ὅτι ἡ ἐφâ€™ ἑκάτερα ἀπορία τοῦ λόγου ἐξωτερική τις ἦν, ὡς Εὔδημός φησι, διαλεκτικὴ μᾶλλον οὖσα, with this last Scholion, on p. 364, b. 20, which describes the same dialectic handling, though without directly calling itexoteric.

Having thus learnt to understand, from one distinct passage of Aristotle himself, what he means by â€œexoteric discourses,â€� we must interpret by the light of this analogy the other indistinct passages in which the phrase occurs. We see clearly that in using the phrase, he does not of necessity intend to refer to any other writings of his own â€” nor even to any other writings at all. He may possibly mean this; but we cannot be sure of it. He means by the phrase, a dialectic process of turning over and criticizing diverse opinions and probabilities: whether in his own writings, or in those of others, or in no writings at all, but simply in those oral debates which his treatise called Topica presupposes â€” this is a point which the phrase itself does not determine. Hemaymean to allude, in some cases where he uses the phrase, to his own lost dialogues; but he may also allude to Platonic and other dialogues, or to colloquies carried on orally by himself with his pupils, or to oral debates on intellectual topics between other active-minded men. When Bernays refers â€œexoteric discourseâ€� to the lost Aristotelian Dialogues; when Madvig, Zeller, Torstrick, Forchhammer, and others, refer it to the contemporary oral dialectic43â€” I think thatneither of these explanations is in itself inadmissible. The context of each particular passage must decide which of the two is the more probable. We cannot go farther, in explaining the seven doubtful passages where Aristotle alludes to the â€œexoteric discourses,â€� than to understand the general character and scope of the reasonings which he thus designates. Extra-philosophical, double-sided, dialectic, is in general (he holds) insufficient by itself, and valuable only as a preparation and auxiliary to the didactic process. But there are some particular points on which such dialectic leaves a result sufficient and satisfactory, which can be safely accepted as the basis of future deduction. These points he indicates in the passages above cited; without informing us more particularly whether the dialectic was written or spoken, and whether by himself or by others.44

Back to Index Next