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

.
ARISTOTLE'S WRITINGS 123
and it may be very true that the matter of the former was
less advanced than the systematic doctrine of the Master,
as we have it from his riper years ; but it is entirely
beside the mark to
suggest that he sought in either the
one case or the other to conceal his opinions or to withdraw
them from the reader's eye.
It is not only, however, the distinction noted between
these ' published ' or 'exoteric' books and the others,
which points to the conclusion that the extant, closely
reasoned writings of Aristotle were written primarily for
his scholars, as classbooks only. In the texts themselves
there are many indications which it is hard to
reconcile with the idea that
they were really published,
in the full sense of the word, during Aristotle's lifetime.
In the first place there is the remarkable circumstance
1 that a book which is cited in another nevertheless
stands such lectures chiefly, the philosophical writings, such
Heitz (Verl. Selvr. d. Ar. 122 as the Dialogues, partly a special
sqq.), though agreeing with him manner of philosophising ; the
in substance, prefers to give the latter broadly identifying the
expression (with reference to exoteric writings with the popu-
Phys. iv. 10 init.') the broader lar ones, but abstaining from
meaning, and to make it imply a further definition of tiem or
point of view farther removed of the expression " exoteric
from true science. Bonitz (Ind. discourses." Thomas (De Arist.
Arist. 104, b, 44 sqq. ; Zeitsehrif- ^ot. \6yois) stands quite isolated
ten fur ostr. Gyrnn. 1866, 776 with his strange whim of looking
sq.) takes a similar view. Stahe for Aristotle's exoteric discourses
(AristoteHa, ii. 239 sqq., cf in the greater Ethics. Space does
especially.275 sq.), and Brandis not permit me a more searching
(Gr.-rom. Phil. ii. b, 101 sqq.) examination of these various
express themselves less decidedly suppositions ; the principles on
—the former believing that by which it would be based are
the exoteric writings are meant contained in what has been said
partly those in which something above. Stahe, Hid., gives all
was treated merely in passing, the earlier references which bear
partly and principally those upon the question.'
which did not essentially belong ' Ritter (iii. 29) and Branto
the systematic connection of dis (ii. b, 113) have already
124 ARISTOTLE
cites that other book itself: or that an earlier treatise
speaks of an inquiry as
already completed, and yet a
later treatise says it is in contemplation only. These
cases are not rare.
The Topics is frequently cited in the
Analytics, 1 and yet cites the latter four times. 2 All four
may belong to a later- written portion of the Topics, but
at any rate they cannot be later than the Analytics, in
which these same books are cited as well as the earlier
ones. 3
"When the Physics refers us back to discussions
which, as we know them, exist only in the Metaphysics,
it might be said that the reference is to a section which
existed as a separate treatise before the Metaphysics was
compiled ;
4
but it cannot be doubted that the zoological
noted this and explained in a
similar way.
1
Cf. p. 67, n. 1 . Bonitz
{Ind. Arist. 102 sq.) gives the
passages on which the following
explanation is based, so far as
they have not been expressly
cited here.
2 VII. 3, 153, a, 24 : U rtvav
Se Sei icaTiuricevdfciv [sc. irvWoyurfxhv
bpov~\ SiwpuTTai fxiv iv eripois
&Kpi$4irrepov (cf. Anal. Post. ii.
13), viii. 11, 162, a, 11: ipavephv
5' eK t5>v ava\vrtKuv (Anal. Pr. ii.
2), viii. 13, 162, b, 32 : t!> 8' iv
apxjl . . . trfe atreirai b kpaTuv,
lear' a\ii6etav fihv iv rots ava\vrtKo7s
[Anal. Pr. ii. 16] rfpjjToi, Kara
S6£av 8e vvv Xenriov, ix. 2 (Soph.
EL), 165, b, 8 : irspl pitv oZv rav
airoHeiKT iku>v [sc.
,
tTv\\oyio/xwv~\ iv
Tots ava\vrtKOis tlprrrai.
3
Anal. Pr. ii. 15, 64, a, 36
(!