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

94 ARISTOTLE
ARISTOTLE'S WRITINGS 93
Animals, 1 complete his zoological system. Later in
date, but earlier in their place in his teaching, were the
lost books On Plants? Other treatises touching this
'
Parva Naturalia, ' are to the Be
Anima. For summaries of the
contents of the Part. An. and
the Generat. Anim. see Meter,
Arist. Thierlt. 128 sq., and Lewes,
Ar. c. 16 sq. The tract Be Coitn
(Hadschi Khalfa, ap. Wenrich,
p. 159) was spurious : for it
cannot be referred, as Wenrich
refers it, to the title n. /n.i£eas in
Be Sensu, c. 3 (cf. p. 83, n. 1,
supra). As to the book n. rov
fii) yevvifv, v. p. 88, supra.
1
n. (tfnv iropeias, cited by
that name in Part. An. iv. 11,
690, b, 15 and 692, a, 17, as the
n. iropeias «al Kivftfrews tuv fypotv
in Part. An. iv. 13, 696, a, 12,
and as IT. t5>v £i$W Kiv^ffews in
the Be Ccelo, ii. 2, 284, b, 13, cf.
Ingr. An. c. 4, 5, c. 2, 704, b, 18;
yet it itself cites (c. 5, 706, b, 2)
the Part. An. iv. 9, 684, a, 14, 34,
as an earlier work. According
to its concluding words in c. 19
(which, as already suggested at
p. 89, n. 2, may be spurious) it is
later than the n. £4""' popiav, to
which also its introductory words
seem to refer back ; and yet it is
frequently cited in that work,
and at its close (Part. An. 697,
b, 29) there is no hint of an
essay on Movement as still to
come. Probably it was, in fact,
composed while the larger work
was in progress.—The tract n.
((pay xiviiatas can hardly be
authentic ; among other reasons,
because it cites the II. Tn/ei/iaros
(cf. p. 89, n. 3 Jin.). Rose (Ar.
Zibr. Ord. 163 sq.) and Brandis
(ii. b, 1, p. 1271, 482) declare it
spurious : Barthelemy St. Hilaire
(Psych. d'Arist. 237) accepts it
as genuine. Of the Indices, An.
App. No. 156, and Pt. No. 41,
have the n. (4UV mviiaeas, and
Pt. No. 45, n. fqW iropeias.
2 n. v 0' (D. 108, AN. 96,
Pt. 48). Promised by Aristotle
in Meteor, i. 1, 339, a, 7, Be Sensu
c. 4, 442, b, 25, Long. Vitce, 6,
467, b, 4, Be Vita 2, 468, a, 31,
Part. An. ii. 10, 656, a, 3, Gen.
An. i. 1, 716, a, 1, v. 3, 783, b, 20,
and cited in H. An. v. 1, 539, a,
20, Gen. An. i. 23, 731, a, 29 (in
the last, it is wrong to change
the perfect tense into the future
in the words of citation). Though
both these references must
have been inserted after the
books were complete, it is possible
that Aristotle may have
inserted them. Alex. p. 183, on
Be Sensu, I.e., remarks that a
book on Plants by Theophrastus
was extant, but none by Aristotle.
So Michael Bphbs. on
Be Vita et M. 175 b, Simplicius
Philop. &c. (apod Rosa, Ar. Ps.
261, Hbitz, Fr. Ar. 163) say the
contrary, but we need not suppose
they spoke from personal
knowledge of the n. tpvruv.
Quintil. (xii. 11, 22) proves nothing
for, and Cic. {Fin. v. 4, 10)
nothing against, their genuineness.
What Athen. (xiv. 652 a,
653 d, &c.) cites from them (Ar.
Fr. 250-4) may as probably be
taken from ' a false as from a
genuine book. The two Aristotelian
references mentioned make
it, however, overwhelmingly probable
that Aristotle did write
two books on Plants, which were
still extant in the time of
Hermippus, though they were
afterwards displaced by the more
elaborate work of Theophrastus
(so Hbitz, Ar. Fr. 250, and
Verl. Schrift. 61, though Rose,
Ar. Ps. 261, thinks the books by
Theophrastus were ascribed to
Aristotle). According to Antigonus
(Mirabil. c. 169, cf. 129,
ap. At. Fr. 253, Fr. Hz. 223)
Callimachus as well as Theophrastus
seems to have borrowed
from these two books. So did
the compiler of the *utikcL, as to
which Pollux, x. 170 (ap. Ar. Fr.
252, Fr. Hz. 224) could not say
whether they belonged to Theophrastus
or to Aristotle, but
which no doubt, like the fauKefc
mentioned at p. 88, supra, were
compiled by a later disciple for
lexicographical purposes. In like
manner, Athenseus and other
similar collectors also used these
books (cf. Eose and Hbitz,
ibid.') ; and they sometimes distinguish
between the phrases
used by Aristotle and by Theophrastrfs
(Ar. Fr. 254, Fr.
Hz. 225). — The two extant
books n.