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

;
;
ARISTOTLE'S WRITINGS 113
works a form of exposition which must make them unintelligible
to any but his scholars ; ' while at the same
time it is said that it was here only that he disclosed his
views in their full logical connection. 2 On this theory
the ' exoteric ' writings were broadly distinguished from
the ' acroatic,' just by the fact that they were intended
for a wider public, and that they were therefore put in
a more popular form, did not cover the more difficult
classes of inquiry, and substituted for a severe and
scientific method of proof one more accommodated to
general comprehension. 3
1
This idea is expressed in
the answer of Aristotle to Alexander
(see Gell. ibid.'), when he
replies to the reproach of the
latter with regard totheaKpoanKol
\6yoi : XgQl oiv ainovs Kal iKtieBofievous
Kal fify 4KSe5ofievovs ' l-vverol
yap elffi fi6vots rots rifiav aKoiffaffiv.
See also Themist. Or. xxvi. 319,
A sq., where it is said that Aristotle
did not find the same discourses
suitable for the masses
as for the philosophers, and therefore
withdrew the highest secrets
of his teaching (the re'Aea Upa,
the fivvTitcbv) from the former by
using obscure language. Simpl.
Phys. 2, b, referring to the letters
just mentioned, says : ty toTs
anpoafiaTMois iurdtpeiav ^reT^Sevtre,
&c.
For the same view see Categ.
Schol. 27, a, 38, David, Categ.
Schol. 22, a,, 20 ; 27, a, 18 sq. In
the same sense Lucian, V. Auet.
c. 26, calls Aristotle SittAoSj, aWos
[lev d eKTOff&ev repiicd.
' Kal yap 4v tKelvots TrAettrra
Kal 7rcpl tSc tiSikHv Kal irepX tSiv
(pvaiKwv eV5fJ|a»s \4yerat.' But the
example of the Topics and the
MAetoric shows that this only
refers to the basis of the opinions
laid down in these writings, the
argument from the universally
acknowledged (the ft/$o|oi/), and
not to the teaching as such. The
later writers, as a rule, express
themselves in the same sense
thus Simpl. Pkys. 164, a: lfo>-
Tepuca Se ioTi ra xou/a Kal Si'
4v56£av irepaiv6fi€Pa aAAa [xt] airo-
SeiKTLKa fitjSh aKpoafmriicd. As to
Ammon. and David, see following
note ;
and cf. Philop. Phys.
p. 4. On the other hand David,
Schol. in Ar. 24, b, 33, changes
the statement of Alexander
(which he quotes in order to refute
it) into : 8ti iv fiiv roh ixpoafiariKois
to BoKovyra a&T$ \eyei Kal
ra oAtjOtj, iv Si toij SiaKoyucoh to
aWois tioicovirra, to i^cuSt}.
3
Besides the testimony already
adduced, the statements
found in the Neoplatonic com-
114 ARISTOTLE
The theory just mentioned can be traced as far back
as Andronicus, perhaps even farther ; ' but this does
not put its correctness beyond question.
It is, however,
confirmed in the main, even if it requires correction in
one point or another, by the utterances of Aristotle
himself as to the ' Exoteric Discourses.' It is true that
in a general sense he may describe as ' exoteric ' any
topic which does not belong to the inquiry immediately
mentators go to establish this
point. Thus the so-called Ammon.
in Categ. 6, b sqq. (see also Stahr,
AristoteMa, ii. 255 sqq.), who,
after some other divisions of the
the Aristotelian writings, among
'
syntagmatic ones distinguishes
'
aiiTOirp6ff(i)ira nal aKpoaparticb. and
8ia\oyiKh kuI i |aiTfpiica. The former
are written irpbs yvi\aiovs
aKpoaras, the latter irpbs riiv tusv
isoKKaiv ntyiXtiav; in the former
Aristotle expresses his own
opinion with a strictly scientific
argument, in the latter rcfc So-
Kovvra aoT6Taij/ l
Kal oh olol re
elo'tv ol iroWol iiraicoKovdeiv. Similarly,
only at greater length,
David, Schol. 24, a, 20 sqq., who
likewise divides the trvprayp-aTindi
into avTowpdo'ctnra or a/cpOajuccn/cct
and SiaXoyuch, & koX ^atrepiKa Aeyovrtu
and considers the former
to have been written itpbs robs
£iriT7]deiovs rf tptKotroQlq, the
latter irpbs cLveiriTT)Seiovs irpbs l\offotpiav,
and hence the former Si'
avayicaffTLK&v \6ycov, the latter
Sik iriBavav. Cf. p. 1 11, n. 4.
1
In proof of this statement
we cannot attach so much importance
to the passage just
given from David as Heitz does
(Verl. Selir. 25 sq.). The fact
that David (24, b, 5) expressly
appeals to Ammonius (n. epA"7"
veias) and to the commentary on
the Categories passing under Ammonius'
name (which, although in
its present form it does not
come from Ammonius, yet seems
to have originated in one written
by him), indicates that Ammonius
was David's proximate authority
and though he (Ammonius) certainly
made use of earlier writers
(and principally Alexander, whom
David at 24, b, 33 attacks, and
from whom his quotation of the
Aristotelian Evdemus is probably
taken, like that in Philop. De
An. 'E, 2 sq.; Ar. Fr. p. 3481,
No. 41), still we do not know
how much has been added to
their testimony. On the other
hand we must trace the statements
in Cicero, Strabo, and
Gellius(ra