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

;
;
ARISTOTLE'S WRITINGS 147
exoteric or hypomnematic, 1 are not here in point, but
also of the majority of the scientific treatises themselves.
In the case of the Analytics we show this by the
Catalogue of Diogenes and by the notices as to the use
made of them by Theophrastus and Eudemus. 2 For the
Categories and the
Tispl epprjvsias, we have the Catalogue.
3 As to the former, .Indronicus found in his
MS. the spurious ' Post-praadicamenta ' added to them,
and was acquainted with several recensions, having
varying titles and different readings. 4
It follows, therefore,
that the Categories must have been long before
his day in the hands of transcribers. 5 The Topics are
in the Catalogue of Diogenes, 6 and Theophrastus 7 and
1
The letters, vide supra
p. 54, n. 2. ; the four books, n.
Suctuoaimis (p. 56, n. 1), taken into
consideration by Chrysippus,
Teles, Demetrius (n. ip/iriv.'), probably
also by Carneades ; the
Protreptieus, which is known even
to Crates, Zeno, and Teles (p. 60,
n. 1), the Mademus (p. 56, n. 2),
which at any rate Cicero used
the discourses on Philosophy
(p. 55, n. 6) and on Wealth (p.
58, n. 1 end), which, before him,
Philodemus, and also Metrodorus,
pupil of Epicurus, made
use of ; the tywrticbs, which, according
to Athbn. xv. 674, b,
Aristo of Ceos knew ; the dialogue
n.iron;T(i5v(p.58, n. 1), which Eratosthenes
and Apollodorus seem
to have used ; the 'OAu/iirioyiKai,
which Eratosthenes (apud Diog.
viii. 51), quotes ; the lHdasdalics,
which Didymus quotes in the
Scholiasts to Aristoph. Av. 1379
(cf. Heitz, Verl. Selw. 56); the
Tlapoiplai, on account of which
Aristotle (according to Athen.
ii. 60, d) was attacked by Cephisodorus;
in short (as has been
shown at p. 48 sqq.), all the
compositions given in the Catalogue
of Diogenes, not to mention
the spurious but much-used
composition n. eiiyevelas (p. 59,
n. 2). The writings on ancient
philosophers, among which is included
our extant tract on Melissus,
&c, are found apud Diog.
No. 92-101 (see p. 62, n. 2, supra).
2
See p. 67, n. 1.
3
See pp. 64, n. 1, 66, n. 1.
4 Seepp.64and66;p.l41,n.l.
a
The same would follow
from the statement (Simpl.
Categ., Schol. 79, a, 1), that Andronicus
followed pretty closely
the Categories of Archytas, since
the latter at any rate are imitations
of the Aristotelian; Simplicius,
however, bases what
is here said merely on his false
supposition of their genuineness.
8 Cf. p. 68, n. 1, and 71, n. 2.
7
Of Theophrastus this is
148 ARISTOTLE
his follower Strabo ' had used them. The Rhetoric is
imitated and referred to in writings which in all likeli-
2
hood are themselves earlier than Andronicus and
the same is true of the Theodectine Rhetoric. 3 The
Physics were worked over by Theophrastus and
Eudemus, and the latter followed the text so closely
that he is actually cited in support of the correctness of
clear from Alexander In Top.
p. 5, m. (cf. 68, 72, 31), In Metaph.
342, 30, 373, 2 (705, b, 30,
719, b, 27). See Simpl. Categ.
Schol. in, Ar. 89, a, 15.
1
Cf. Alex. Top., infra
(Sohol. 281, b, 2). Among Strabo's
writings is found a/pud Diog. v.
59, a Ttfarcw irpooifiia.
2
The former in the Rhetoric
ad Alex, (vide svpra, p. 74,
n. 3), which Diogenes (No. 79)
knows (cf. p. 72, n. 2) as well
as cur Rhetoric (about which see
p. 72, n. 2, ad fin.) ;
the latter
apud Demetrius, De Elocutione ;
quotations from our Rhetoric are
found here, c. 38, 41 ( Rket. iii.
8, 1409, a, 1); c. 11, 34 (Rhet.
iii. 9, 1409, a, 35, b, 16); c. 81
(Rhet. iii. 11, i/nit.'); to it ibid.
c 34 refers, which is earlier than
the author Archedemus, who was
probably the Stoic of that name,
circa 140 B.C.
3
Which (as shown at p. 72,
n. 2) is likewise given in Diogenes,
and is named by the Rlwtoric
ad Alex.
4
We get these facts, apart
from other proof, from the exceedingly
numerous references to
the Physios in Simplicius; for
instance, about Theophrastus,
cf. Simpl. Phys. 141, a and b,
and 187, a, 201, b, and the
a various reading. 4 One of the scholars of Eudesame
author In Categ. Sohol. 92,
b, 20 sq., with Themist. Phys. 54,
b, 55, a, b {Sohol. 409, b, 8, 411,
a, 6, b, 28), and Beandis, Rhein.
Mus. i. 282 thereon ; about Eudemus,
Simpl. Phys.18, b(Arist.
Phys. i. 2, 185, b, 11); also 29,
a : o EtfS7jjUo$ rqj 'ApiffTOTeAei Trdvra
KaraKoKovSav; 120, b, where it
is remarked on Phys. ill. 8, 208,
b, 18 : KaWiov y&p, olfiai, to " e|aj
rov &(TTea>s " oifrats ctKot/etv, us b
EtiftTjfios iv(yfj(TG t&tov KaBityefiivos,
&o. ; so 121, b : %v riat 8e [sc.
kvTiypdtpois~] avrl tov " koivt)
"
" ltp&Tl\. " Kal ovtw ypdrpti Kal 6
ESStjmoi ; 128, b : EiSBn/ios Se roitois
irapaKoXovBuv, &c. ; 178, b :
Eudemus writes, in Phy*. iv.
13, 222, b, 18, not Tlapav but
iraptiv ; 201, b : ESS. ev toij
kavrov (pvaiKols irapcuppdfav t& tov
'ApiirTOTi\ovs ; 216, a: Eudemus
immediately connects with
what is found in Aristotle at the
end of the fifth book, the beginning
of the sixth ; 223,
a : in Aristotle an M rASe repeated
in a different context
(Phys. vi. 3, 234, a, 1) gives an
ambiguity in expression, and so
Eudemus puts " hreiceim " instead
of the second iirl rdSe; 242, a
(beginning of the seventh book) :
ESS. /i^xpt rovSe 8a.t)j