totle which cannot be strictly classed among his systematic treatises.

The contents of the "Problems" (Проßλhμαта, "Problemata "), in thirty-six sections, are varied, but chiefly physical. Without deciding as to the genuineness of certain sections, it is sufficient to say that the chief part of the work is Aristotle's, and it shows the method in which he proceeded in his investigations. He first collects observations as materials; and when the facts are ascertained, he inquires after their possible causes, which he places side by side as means or aids towards a theory of the phænomena, and he examines, compares and weighs one with another. The Problems show clearly with what wonderful versatility Aristotle directed his observation to every object. There are the Commentarii Julii Gustavini to the ten first sections, Lyon, 1608, fol., and those of Jul. Septalius, Frankfort, 1602, 1607. Kepler explains several of the problems relating to Optics in his treatise entitled "Paralipomena quibus Astronomiæ pars Optica illustratur;" and Schneider explains others in his "Ecloga Physicæ," p. 376, &c. Levesque has given the various readings and critical remarks in "Notices et Extraits de la Bibliothèque du Roi," tom. vii. p. 101, &c. See also Chabanon, "Trois Mémoires sur les Problèmes d'Aristote," in the "Mémoires de l'Académie des Inscriptions,” tom. xlvi.

66

We might consider the Wonderful stories (Θαυμάσια ἀκούσματα, “ De admirandis narrationibus"), which chiefly relate to matters of natural history, as an appendage to the Problems, if the genuineness of this treatise were not doubtful. Parts at least cannot be by Aristotle. There is an edition by Beckmann, Göttingen, 1786, 4to.; and an essay on this treatise by Camus in the " Mémoires de l'Institut National Littérat. et Beaux Arts," tom. ii. p. 195, &c.

Of the numerous separate treatises of Aristotle on the history of Philosophy, there remains a book which usually bears the title, “On Xenophanes, Zeno, and Gorgias" (Пepì Ξενοφάνους, περὶ Ζήνωνος, περὶ Γοργίου), but | this treatise may be by Theophrastus, the pupil of Aristotle, for the learned Simplicius (Ad Phys. fol. 6), while stating to the like effect with this treatise, refers on the occasion to Theophrastus. The subject is a condensed exhibition and criticism of the Eleatic doctrines, for Gorgias also adopted some principles of the Eleatic philosophy. The form of the treatise is curious: no names occur in the text, neither that of Xenophanes, nor Zeno, nor Gorgias, and it is only the headings of the chapters (Περὶ Ξενοφάνους, περὶ Ζήνωνος, περὶ Γοργίου) which show what they refer to. But the headings in the editions are in confusion; for instance, it is incorrect to entitle the first two chapters On Xenophanes, for according to Brandis (Commentationes Eleatica) they treat of Melissus.

|

The third and fourth chapters cannot be en titled On Zeno, as in the best editions, but On Xenophanes, as appears from Simplicius and other authorities. The fifth chapter is properly entitled On Gorgias. Accordingly the title of the work should be On Melissus, Xenophanes, and Gorgias. (Fülleborn, Commentatio qua liber de Xenophane illustratur, Halle, 1787; Spalding, Commentarius in primam partem libelli de Xenophane, Berlin, 1793.)

Some of the more important of the lost writings of Aristotle have been already mentioned in treating of the several parts of his System, and it is unnecessary to repeat the titles here. They are partly contained in the lists of Aristotle's writings already given; and they are partly mentioned incidentally by ancient writers. His "Didascalia" (didaσkaλíα), which would be very valuable for the history of the Greek Theatre, and his Letters, which would add greatly to our materials for his biography, are unfortunately lost. The letters which now pass under the name of Aristotle are not genuine (Stahr, Aristotelia, ii. p. 169, &c.). Aristotle was first known in Western Europe in the Middle Ages through the medium of translations, and several spurious Latin treatises were attributed to him, such as fourteen books “Mysticæ Ægyptiorum Philosophiæ ” (Classical Journal, xv. p. 279) the treatises, “ De Pomo" ("On Immortality"), "De Causis," "Secreta Secretorum," and others. There are passages cited by ancient writers, and also in the Greek commentators on Aristotle, which contain fragments of his lost writings. It would be a valuable addition to our knowledge of Aristotle, and to the history of Philosophy, if all these fragments were collected and edited with critical judgment. Such an undertaking would indeed require the persevering industry of an accomplished scholar; but what writer better deserves and would more richly repay such a toilsome task than the great Stagirite? The thoughts of such a man are worth preserving; and he who by collecting those fragments, which in their scattered state are dead, shall give them a new life, will thereby secure the remembrance of himself for generations to come. Here is a noble prize prepared for a man's ambition.

What Aristotle will be for future ages, may be collected from the past. The whole history of Philosophy shows his influence; more especially is it apparent in the history of philosophical language, where he silently exercises a power which is felt without being known. So far as a common philosophical terminology has been established among the nations of Europe, it is due to Aristotle. Aristotle's terms were translated into Latin, and they have been maintained pretty much in the form in which they were reproduced by Boethius at the close of the fifth and the commencement of the sixth century

of our æra. Recently, indeed, and particularly in Germany, they have been changed or perverted to other purposes, yet Aristotle is still the foundation of them. The Commentaries on Aristotle show that he has in all ages been the central point to which men's studies have been directed. But the sciences which he established, and the investigations which owe their origin to him, have been prosecuted independently of the study of his writings; and even in his opponents we may discern that powerful impulse to thought which originated with Aristotle.

It has been already stated how Andronicus of Rhodes, a contemporary of Cicero, arranged the writings of Aristotle. From that time the study and explanation of Aristotle were the chief employment of the Peripatetic School. But Aristotle was also studied beyond the limits of the School; and after Cicero had so often directed attention to the value of his writings, the Romans studied his works for special purposes; Seneca and the elder Pliny for the objects of natural science, and Quintilian for rhetoric; Gellius had read the Problems; and even Apuleius the Platonist was no stranger to Aristotle (Adolf Stahr, Aristoteles bei den Roemern, Leipzig, 1834). But the philosophical explanation of Aristotle was left to the Greeks. In mentioning the most important of the Greek commentators, we shall enumerate their extant writings which relate to Aristotle. In the first century of the Christian æra there were Boethus of Sidon, the pupil of Andronicus of Rhodes, the master of Strabo at Athens, Nicolaus of Damascus, and Alexander of Ægæ, the teacher of the Emperor Nero. To the second century belong Aspasius, who however is not the author of the Scholia to the Nicomachean Ethic which pass under his name, Adrastus of Aphrodisias in Caria, the physician Galen, Aristocles of Messene, who in his general treatise on philosophy founded himself on Aristotle, Herminus, and Alexander Aphrodisiensis, the most distinguished of all the old commentators, who was often called by those who followed him, simply the Expositor (ὁ ἐξηγητής). Besides his Peripatetic writings On the Soul (Пepì чuxs), and On Necesity and Freedom (Пepl eiuapuévns kaì Toû ép quiv, De Fato), there is extant a commentary by him On the Analytica Priora, in one book (Venice, 1520, fol., Florence, 1521, 4to.), on the Topica (Venice, 1513, 1526, fol. ap. Ald.), on the Sophistici Elenchi (Venice, 1520), on Meteorologica (Venice, 1527, fol. ed. Fr. Asulanus). There is also extant under his name a commentary on the first twelve books of the Metaphysic, which Sepulveda (Rome, 1527, &c.) translated into Latin; but of the original there have only yet been published the Excerpta Scholia (Scholia in Aristotelem, ed. Brandis, Berlin, 1836). It is disputed if Alexander Aphrodisiensis is the author of this commentary;

Brandis, with some probability, attributes to him the authorship of the first five books only. Spengel has recently published an edition (Munich, 1842) of the Questions and Solutions of Alexander ('Aπopíaι kal λúσeis, Quæstiones Naturales et Morales, in four books): this work, besides the general Peripatetic investigations, contains much that is valuable for the explanation of Aristotle, for instance, his Physic (physics), the three books on the Soul, and the Nicomachean Ethic. Alexander of Aphrodisias had great influence on the later commentators on Aristotle, who made much use of him.

In the third and fourth centuries the NeoPlatonists particularly occupied themselves with Aristotle, whom they viewed as a kind of more sober introduction and as a vestibule to the more imaginative edifice of the Platonic philosophy. In these writers there is a manifest tendency towards a union and reconcilement of the doctrines of Plato and Aristotle. Plotinus, among other things, has written a criticism on the Categories of Aristotle (Ennead. 6, lib. i.). His pupil Porphyry is the author of an Introduction (Eioaywyn) to the Categories, which was much used in the Middle Ages, and in the printed editions is generally prefixed to the Organon. There were also famblichus, the pupil of Porphyry, Dexippus (ad Categorias, in the Scholia in Aristotelem collecta, 1835), Themistius, who paraphrased many of Aristotle's writings, the Analytica Posteriora, the Physica, the treatises De Anima, and De Memoria, which were edited together by Trincavellus (Venice, 1534, ap. Ald.), De Caelo (Latin, Venice, 1474, fol.), the Metaphysica, Topica, and Categories, which are lost. In the fifth century, the commentators were Syrianus (Ad Metaphysica, see the Scholia Collecta), Olympiodorus (Ad Meteorologica, see Ideler's edition), Proclus, his pupil Ammonius the son of Hermias (Ad Categorias, Ad Librum de Interpretatione, Venice, 1503, fol. ap. Aldum, and 1546, 8vo.), and Damascius (Ad Physica, De Caelo, see the Scholia Collecta). were followed by David, the Armenian, who is an instance of the diffusion of Aristotle's doctrines. David, though a Christian, attended the school of Syrianus at Athens, and commented on Aristotle (for instance, the Categories, the book De Interpretatione) in Armenian and Greek (Mémoire sur la Vie et les Ouvrages de David, &c., par C. F. Neumann, Paris, 1829; see the Excerpts from David in the Scholia collected by Brandis, Berlin, 1836). In the sixth century Aristotle was commented on by Asclepius, bishop of Tralles (Metaphysica, according to the exposition of Ammonius; see the Scholia of Brandis), and Simplicius, the pupil of Ammonius, the most learned of the extant Greek commentators on Aristotle (Ad Categorias, Basel, 1551, fol.; in Physica, Venice, ap..

These

Ald., 1526, fol; in librum De Caelo, Venice, 1548, 1583, fol.; De Anima, Venice, 1527). The Scholia collected by Brandis are particularly important for the commentary on the books De Caelo, the Greek text of which up to that time was only a retranslation of a Latin version. The commentary on the first book of the Physica contains valuable fragments and information relating to the history of the oldest Greek philosophy. To this period belongs Joannes Philoponus of Alexandria (Ad Categorias, Ad librum De Interpretatione (?)); In Priora Analytica, Venice, 1536, fol.; In Posteriora Analytica, Venice, 1534, fol.; In Physica et librum de Anima, Venice, 1535, fol.; In librum De Generatione Animalium, Venice, 1527, fol.; In Meteorologica, Venice, 1551, fol.).

In order to give a connected view of the Greek commentators, we must pass over several centuries; for while a knowledge of Aristotle was introduced among the Arabs, and in the West, and gave an impulse to men's minds, he was neglected by the Greeks. We can only name Joannes Damascenus (Ad Categorias) in the eighth, and Photius in the ninth century. In the later Byzantine period there were Michael Psellus (De Interpretatione, Analytica Posteriora, Physica), and Michael Ephesius (De Interpretatione, Parva Naturalia) in the eleventh century; Georgius Pachymeres (Categor. Lineae Insec.), Eustratius (Analytica Posteriora, Ethica Nicomach.) in the twelfth century; Leo Magentinus (De Interpretatione, Analytica Priora) in the fourteenth century. As to the lastnamed commentators, the reader may consult the Scholia collected by Brandis, and Schleiermacher, "Ueber die Griechischen Scholien zur Nikomachischen Ethik des Aristoteles, in his Philosophische und Vermischte Schriften," 2er Band, p. 309, &c. The Greek Georgius Trapezuntius, an ardent defender of the Aristotelian philosophy, introduces us to the period when classical studies were revived in Italy, and began to stand in opposition to the Aristotelian Scholasticism of the Middle Ages.

Augustine, though a Platonist, was not a stranger to Aristotle. The treatise on the Categories, which is enumerated among his works, is not by him, yet we see from various passages in his works, that he was acquainted with the Categories of Aristotle. Boethius made a translation of the Organon, and commented on several of the books, for instance, on that On Interpretation. The study of those writings of Boethius became common, and the monk Notker of St. Gallen, who died A.D. 1022, translated the Categories and the treatise On Interpretation from the Latin into the Old German. But in the West the knowledge of Aristotle was for a long time limited to his Logical writings. It was the Arabs who gave a new impulse to the study of Aristotle.

The dynasty of the Abbasides made the Arabs acquainted with the literature of the Greeks. With the aid of Nestorian Christians many Greek writers, especially those on medicine, mathematics, and natural history, were translated into Arabic. [AL-MA'MU'N.] In this way Aristotle also became known, and he found among the Arabs the most zealous students and commentators. Alkindi in the ninth century commented on the Organon; Alfarabi wrote in the tenth century; and Avicenna, in the tenth and eleventh century, studied also the Metaphysic. These writers belonged to the East; but the impulse which had been given to the study of the Greeks in the East was extended to the West, to the Arabian schools of Spain, where Averroes lived, in the twelfth and the beginning of the thirteenth century, the most acute of the Arab commentators. (Aug. Schmoelders, "Documenta Philosophiæ Arabum," 1836, and his "Essai sur les Ecoles Philosophiques chez les Arabes," &c., Paris, 1842.)

The active intercourse between the Arabs and the Christians in Spain, Sicily, and the South of France made Aristotle better known to the people of the West. Learned Jews, as for instance Moses Maimonides, contributed to this result. Latin translations of Aristotle were made from the Arabic. About the same time the Emperor Frederic II. sent copies of Latin translations of the Logical, Physical, and Mathematical writings to the University of Bologna and to other Schools. To this period belongs the Latin version of Michael Scotus (1230). At first the Church forbade the study of the Physical and Metaphysical writings of Aristotle at Paris A.D. 1210. But the Church soon enlisted the new studies in her service, and on the basis of Aristotle was erected the edifice of the Scholastic Philosophy, with which from that time the Church resolved to stand or fall. In the thirteenth century two Dominicans particularly, Albertus Magnus and his pupil Thomas Aquinas, made it the chief object of their lives to incorporate the thought and the penetration of Aristotle with the science of the Middle Ages, and to amalgamate the philosophy of Aristotle with Theology. In their writings they commented on the whole of Aristotle. Thomas Aquinas paid attention also to the Greek text, and about the year 1270 he planned a new Latin version of Aristotle from the Greek, called "Translatio Vetus," which was made by William of Moerbeka (William of Brabant); and this was the version which was subsequently studied and commented on. Aristotle had at this time such power over men's minds that the opposing theological parties appealed to him as a common authority. But the Scholastic Philosophy added much extraneous matter to Aristotle, and his true meaning and spirit could not be discerned in this monkish version, or in the Scholastic commentaries. Two

events led to a new study of Aristotle, and to a right appreciation of his writings-the restoration of Greek Literature in Italy, and the Reformation. (Jourdain, Recherches Critiques sur l'Age et sur l'Origine des Traductions Latines d'Aristote, Paris, 1819; Joannis Launoii, Theologi Parisiensis De Varia Aristotelis in Academia Parisiensi Fortuna, Paris, 1653, 1662; Wittenberg, 1720.)

Politian directed attention to the bad state of the Latin translations, and scholars began to apply themselves to the study of the original. New Latin versions appeared by Argyropulus, Leonardo Aretino, and Laurentius Valla. The translations of Hermolaus Barbarus, who died in 1493, were characterized by a clear understanding of the original, and by purity of style. Georgius Gemistus and Georgius Trapezuntius led the way to the direct exposition of the Greek text. While these new studies were going on, there appeared the Editio Princeps of Aristotle by Aldus, Venice, 1495-1498. In Italy the philosophical schools were divided into two hostile parties. One party, to which belonged Pomponatius and others, called themselves Alexandrists, after Alexander of Aphrodisias; the other, to which belonged Zimara and Caesalpinus, called themselves Averroists. The former denied the immortality of the soul, and the other party had a pantheistic tendency. Leo X. condemned both. But the study of Aristotle still went on.

In Germany the movement of the Reformation began. Luther, who was educated in the Scholastic Philosophy, knew Aristotle only through this medium, and he confounded one with the other. Accordingly he called Aristotle "a godless weapon of the Roman Catholics, or the player who had for a long time befooled the Church with the Greek masque," till his great friend, Melanchthon, taught him better. Luther at last allowed Melanchthon, in his Apology for the Augsburg Confession, to speak of the Ethic of Aristotle in terms of high commendation. Melanchthon expounded Aristotle, and he wrote, conformably to the method of Aristotle, Compendiums of Dialectic, Physic (physics), Morals, and Psychology. Chytræus in Rostock, Schegk in Tübingen, Taurellus in Altdorf, and Sabinus, Melanchthon's son-in-law in Königsberg, laboured to diffuse through Germany the doctrines contained in these treatises, which were fundamentally Aristotelian. In this new form Aristotle passed into the Protestant Schools.

In the sixteenth century the study of Aristotle was vigorously prosecuted in most nations of Europe. In Italy there were Petrus Victorius, Robortellus, Felix Accoramboni, whose "Vera Mens Aristotelis" was published at Rome in 1590, and 1604, and Muretus : in France, Jacobus Faber Stapulensis, who aimed at a purer Peripatetic philosophy, Lambinus, the skilful translator, and Julius

But Aristotle was also an object of attack. In Italy Franciscus Patricius wrote not only against the philosophy but also against the life of Aristotle and his several works: his object was to drive Aristotle out of the Schools and to substitute for his system a kind of Platonic philosophy. In his learned work entitled "Discussiones Peripateticæ, Basel, 1581," there is a great collection of materials, but in place of criticism there is only passion. Petrus Ramus in France opposed the Aristotelian Logic, though with more boldness than sound judgment; and at a later period Gassendi declared himself hostile to the Aristotelian Philosophy in general (Exercitationes Paradoxica adversus Aristotelem, 1624). The Aristotelian philosophy lost greatly in general estimation when the ruling Aristotelian School resisted the progress of modern physical discovery, and instead of observing and experimenting, and studying the results of experience in the true spirit of their great master, stuck fast to the mere dogmas of Aristotle. Among other instances this was most strikingly exemplified in the opposition of the Schools to the Copernican system of the Universe, and in the life of Galilei. Accordingly it was not surprising if such thinkers as the bold Giordano Bruno detached themselves altogether from Aristotle. In England Lord Bacon was unfavourably disposed to Aristotle, and as an ardent investigator of nature he declared himself against the Scholastic formalism which he considered as originating in Aristotle. Thus it happened that the study of Aristotle was gradually neglected.

But the genius of Aristotle was again acknowledged. In England during the political commotions of the seventeenth century reference was often made to Aristotle's Politic; [and at present his Rhetoric and Ethic form a regular part of the course of study at the University of Oxford. James Harris, who died in 1780, the author of the Hermes, showed by his writings that he had formed a true conception and a just judgment of some of the theoretical writings of Aristotle. The Politic was translated into English from the Greek by William Ellis in 1776. The labours of Tyrwhitt and Twining were limited to the Poetic of Aristotle. Lord Monboddo, who died in 1799, endeavoured to explain the philosophy of Aristotle in his "Ancient Metaphysics," 6 vols. 4to. 1778, &c.