ARISTOTLE AND THE EARLIER PERIPATETICS vol.I by Eduard Zeller, B.F.C.Costelloe 1897

14
.;
;
ARISTOTLE'S WRITINGS 79
after Aristotle's death. 1 Of the other Writings mentioned
which would have stood in close relation with
to iii. 2, 998, a, 7 sq., xiii. 2, 1076,
b, 39, to iii. 2, 997, b, 12 sq.,
xiii. 10, 1086, b, . to iii. 6.
1003, a, 6 sq., and in viii. i. 1062,
a, 22 he contemplates a treatment
of Mathematics and the
Ideas, which, as appears by xiii.
init., was intended to serve as an
introduction to Theology (cf.
Bbandis, 542, 413 a). On the
other hand, in xiv. 1, the obvious
reference to x. 1 is not noticed,
and vii. and viii. are not referred
to at all in xiii. and xiv. (Bonitz,
p. 26). It is inconceivable that
Aristotle would have repeated a
considerable section almost word
for word, as is the case with the
present text of i. 6, 9, and xiii.
4, 5. But book i., as a whole,
must, as well as book iii., which
cites it (iii. 2, 996, b, 8, cf. i. 2,
982, a, 16, b, 4, and 997, b, 3,
cf. i. 6 sq.) be older than book
xiii. It seems to me, therefore,
the most probable conjecture
that the argument in i. 9, which
is apparently more mature than
that in book xiii., was inserted
on a second revision of book i.,
after Aristotle had decided to
exclude books xiii. and xiv. from
the scope of his main work on
Metaphysics. Book ii. (a), a
collection of three small essays,
written as an introduction to Physics
rather than to Metaphysics
(v. c. 3 Schol.), is certainly not by
Aristotle. The majority of the
ancient commentators (of irAefous)
attributed it to a nephew of
Eudemus, Pasicles of Rhodes Melissus, &c.
(Schol. ap. A r. Opp. 993, a, 29 ;
Schol. in Ar. 589, a. 41 ; the socalled
Philoponus [Bekkeh's
Aiwn. Urbin.~\ in the Introd. to
u, where the name is Pasicrates
;
and Asclep. Sclwl. 520 a, 6, except
that he has erroneously
transferred the story from a to
A). That it was inserted after
the other books were collected is
clear, not only from its designation,
but from the way in which
it breaks the connection of the
closely consecutive books A and
B, for which reason many of the
ancients wished to make it a
preface to the Physics, or at least
to book i. of the Metaph. (Schol.
589, b, 1 sq.) SYRIAN (ap.
Schol. 849, a, 3) mentions that
some critics proposed to reject A.
These, like Asclepius, probably
confused it with o : if not, Syrian
was right in thinking their suggestion
laughable.
1
This seems probable (cf.
Zellbk, Abh. d. Berl. Altad.
1877, Hist. Phil. Kl. 145) because
of the circumstance that most of
the genuine books of our Metaphysics
were in use at the date
of the oldest peripatetic books or
fragments which we possess, and
that they seem to have been
gathered together in the same
series of books with the rest at a
very early date. Book i., as
above stated, was not only the
model for Theophrastus in book
i. of his History of Physics, but
has also left clear traces in what
we know of Eudemus, and is the
source of the point of view taken
by the author of the treatise on
Books iii. (B) and
iv. are referred to by Eudemus,
the fourth by Theophrastus also ;
book vi. by Theophrastus ; book
80 ARISTOTLE
the Metaphysics, only a few can be considered to be
vii. by Eudemus; book ix. by
Theophrastus ; book xii. by Theopbrastus,
Eudemus, tbe writer of
the Magna MoraMa, and the
writer of the n. £ijW Kiviiceins ;
book xiii. by Eudemus ; book xiv.
apparently by Theophrastus ; and
the fifth, the tract n. toS
. Ttoffa%ws \€y6/i.ei>ov, by Strato ; cf
the following: (1) Metaph. 1,
981, a, 12 sq., Eudbm. Fr. 2,
Speng. ; (2) i. 3, 983, b, 20,
Theophr. Fr. 40; (3) ibid. 1.
30, Eud. Fr. 117 ; (4) i. 5, 986,
b, 18 ; Be Melisso, Xenoph.
etc., see vol. i. 468, 484; (5) ibid.
1. 21 sq., THEOPHR. Fr. 45 ; (6)
ibid,. 1. 27, Theophr. Fr. 43,
44, Eud. Fr. 11, S. 21, 7 ; (7) i, 6,
Theophr. Fr. 48 ; (8) i. 6, 987,
b, 32, Eud. Fr. 11, S. 22, 7, Sp.
(9) i. 8, 989, a, 30, Theophr.
Fr. 46 ; (10) iii. 2, 996, b, 26, iv.
3, 1005, a, 19, Eud. Fr. 4; (11)
iii. 3, 999, a, 6, Eth. Eud. i. 8,
1218, a, 1 ; (12) iv. 2, 1009, b, 12,
21, Theophr. Fr. 42; (13) iv.
6, 1011, a, 12, c. 7, 1012, a, 20,
Theophr. Fr. 12, 26 ; (14) v. 11,
Strato apud Simpl. Categ. Schol.
in Arist. 90, a, 12-46 ;
(i5) vi. 1,
1026, a, 13-16, Theophr. Fr. 12,
1; (16) vii. .1, 1028, a, 10, 20,
Eud. Fr. 5 ; (17) ix. 9, 1051, b,
24, Theophr. Fr. 12, 25; (18)
xii. 7 init., cf. c. 8, 1073, a, 22,
BeMotn An. 6, 700, b, 7; (19)
xii. 7. 1072, a, 20, Theophr. Fr.
12,5; (20) xii. 7, 1072, b, 24, c.
9, 1074, b, 21, 33, Eth. Eud. vii.
12, 1245, b, 16, M. Mor. ii. 15,
1213, a, 1 ; (21) xii. 10, 1075, b,
34, Theophr. Fr. 12, 2; (22)
xiii. 1, 1076, a, 28, Eth. End. i. 8,
1217, b, 22; (23) xiv. 3, 1090,
b, 13, Theophr. Fr. 12, 2. Since,
therefore, the parts of our
Metaph., like book xii., which
did not in fact belong to the
main treatise, are in use as commonly
and at as early a date as
those parts which did, it must be
conjectured that the whole was
put together in the period immediately
following Aristotle's
death. This theory receives remarkable
confirmation from the
fact that already in the n. &W
Kiviiaews (c. 6, 700, b. 8), which
belongs undoubtedly to the third
century B.C., book xii. itself is
quoted by the title reserved by
Aristotle for his main treatise on
Metaph. : i.e. iv rois irepl T*js
irpi&Tlls (piKo