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

'
.
ARISTOTLE'S WRITINGS 109
commentators we further learn that one of the points
thesisto 'published' is not ' later
published,' but 'not published;
and from the perfect eKtieSo/ievoi
to read ' such as had already been
published at the time of the
writing of the Poetics, and so were
earlier than that work,' is shown
to be impossible by the reflection
of Uebbbweg on this passage,
(Arist. iib. d. Dichtk., p. 75) that
every author puts himself, in
regard to the reader, in the time
at which his work will be in the
reader's hands. Hence, if the
Poetics were to be laid before the
whole reading world, i.e. published,
just like the \iyoi to which
they referred, they would not be
designated in contradistinction to
the latter, by the predicate &c5e-
Sofiivoi, since each of them would
be, in relation to their reader,
equally a \6yos 4K$e$Ofi4vos. Rose
wished to refer the \6yoi enSeS.,
first to former passages in the
Poetics (Ar. IAbi: Ord. 130),
and later (Ar. Pseud. 79) to the
Rhetoric, but he was subsequently
(Ar. Ps. 714) right in withdrawing
both, since the discussion for
which the Poetics refer to the
\6yot 4kScS. is found neither in
the Rhetoric nor in the Poetics
(cf. Bbbnays, ibid. 138) : and,
even apart from this, the latter
could never have been so
indicated. Nor can we on the
other hand (as Rose, Ar. Ps. 717,
maintains) refer the expression
to writings on Poetry by the Platonic
school, for we clearly must
confine it to Aristotelian writings:
and in the second passage, Be An.
i. 4, the \6yot iv koivQ ytyvS/ievoi
cannot be understood (as Tokstbik,
Arist. de An. 123 supposes,
he being perhaps preceded by the
authors of the variant Xeyo/j.4vois
instead of yiyvofi.) of conversations,
such as would occur in
educated circles, or (as Rose, Ar.
Ps. 717, thinks) of expressions of
opinion coming from the Platonic
school ; for the evSivas Setiaicvtu refers
to some criticism, known to
the reader, of the supposition that
the soul is the harmony of its
body, and cannot mean vague
conversations of third persons
(cf. also Bbbnays, ibid., 18 sq.).
Neither can one refer them to
oral statements made by Aristotle
to his pupils (Philop. : see
following note), partly because
Aristotle never elsewhere refers
to such statements, and in a
treatise which, though perhaps
primarily intended as a textbook
for his school, yet gives
no indication anywhere of being
meant only for his personal
pupils, he could not well appeal
to them ;
partly because the
Philosopher had really inserted
the criticism referred to in
one of his own writings (cf. following
note). The latter fact
indicates that it is wrong (as
Simpl. does ; see following note)
to refer the \6yoi iv koiv$ ytyv. to
the Platonic Pheedo, for which
this expression would not be a
sufficient indication, nor would
it correspond (cf. Bbbnays, p. 20)
with the manner in which it is
in other places mentioned (cf.
Meteorol. ii. 2, 355, b, 32).
Finally, though Ueberweg ( 6esch
d. Phil. i. 173, 5th ed.) understands
by the \6yot 4v k. ytyv.
(extending the explanation of
Philoponus) discussions which
occurred in actual conversations,
or in writings arranged in the
110 ARISTOTLE
to which he so refers was to be found in the JEudemus. 1
We find other and more frequent references of his to
the ' Exoteric Discourses ' as the place where he had
dealt with such and such a subject. 2 Opinions, however,
differ as to the meaning of that name and the
form of dialogues, it seems clear
that the latter could not be so
named, and that there was here
no reason for mentioning the
dialogue form of such discussions.
Prom the point of view of grammar,
owing to the present tense of
yiyvopevois (to which Bonitz, Iiid.
Arist. 105, a, 46, rightly calls
attention), they cannot be explained
as: 'the speeches submitted
(i.e. which have been
submitted) to publication,' for in
that case it would have been
yevof/.4vots. It can only mean, as
Bernays translates it in his
Dial. d. Arist. 29, 'the discourses
existing in a state of
publication, available for the use
of all,' taking the iv koivQ here in
the same sense as in the expressions
: tV Koivtp KaTaTlde&dai, 4v
koivu atpitvai (in medio relinquere,
Metapk. i. 6, 987, b, 11).
A similar meaning to that of the
\6yoi iv Kowif yiyvi^voi seems to
be attached to 4yKvK\ta or 4ynv-
Khm (pAoaocp^fuvra, of which
mention is made in Fth. i. 3, 1096,
a, 2 (leal trepl fiev to6tuv S.\is'
iKavws yap Kal ev rots 4yKvK\iots
elprjrai irepl abrSiv) and De Casio, i.
9, 279, a, 30 (ko! yap KaSd-irep iv
rols iyKUK\iois tpiAotroijyfifiaa'i irepl
Tct 0eia TroWiiKis irpo