ARISTOTLE. 155 



We have seen that, according to the authorities on which the story 

 rests, a very considerable impulse was given in the first century before 

 the Christian era to the study of the Peripatetic philosophy. Andro- Ancient 

 nicus the Rhodian is mentioned as the principal promoter of this toS^iVis- 

 revival, having rearranged the works of Aristotle in a way which was totl e- 

 generally received in the time of Strabo, and which formed the basis 

 of the present division. Contemporary with Andronicus, although 

 younger than him, was Athenodorus of Tarsus ; and in the next gene- 

 ration to Athenodorns, Boethus of Sidon, both celebrated for their 

 acquaintance with the doctrines of Aristotle, and for their investiga- 

 tions of the literary questions connected with them. Now, although 

 the works of all these writers have perished, 1 they were not lost until 

 they had furnished materials to Adrastus and Alexander of Aphro- 

 disias, in the second century, and the Eclectic philosophers, Ammo- 

 nius, Saccas, Porphyry, Ammonius the son of Hermias, Simplicius, 

 and David the Armenian, in the third, fourth, and fifth ; and of most 

 of these considerable remains have come down to the present time, 2 so 

 that we are enabled, with very great precision, to ascertain the views 

 of " the ancient commentators? (oi 7ra\aioi t^yT/T-cu), as Andronicus 

 and his contemporaries are called by their more modern followers, on 

 several particulars, and among others, on some having a direct bearing 

 upon the story of Strabo. 



We find, for instance, that a point which occupied much of the some of their 

 attention of the " ancients," was to determine between the claims of views still 



111-1 known. 



rival works, bearing the same name, and upon the same subject, to be 

 reputed the genuine productions of Aristotle. Andronicus questioned 

 the pretensions of the treatise Trepl epp/vaac, and those of the latter 

 part of the ' Categories. 3 Adrastus found two editions (if we may 

 use the expression) of the latter work, differing very considerably from 

 each other. The same was stated by him of the seventh book of the 

 * Physical Lectures.' 4 Cicero mentions it as a question which could 

 not be decided, as to whether a work on Ethics (apparently that which 

 has come down to us under the title of fiOcKa Nt/co/za^eta) w'as written 

 by Aristotle, or by his son Nicomachus. And that the only evidences 

 on the one side or the other were merely internal, is obvious from the 

 remark in which he expresses his inclination towards the latter opinion, 

 " that he does not see why the style of the son should not bear a close 

 resemblance to that of the father." 5 Another question which occa- 

 sioned considerable perplexity, was the arrangement of the several 

 works which were held to be genuine. The present distribution is Arran<re- 

 entirely based upon an arrangement which goes no further back than merit of the 



,1 ,. / A i i i TA- r writings of 



the time or Andronicus, and is entirely different from the one or more Aristotle. 



1 The Paraphrase of the Nicomachean Ethics, which has come down to us under 

 the name of Andronicus's, is generally considered to be of a later date. 



2 Adrastus, trepl TTJS rd^ecas rtav 'A-piffroreXovs ffvy^pa^^TtaVj is said still to 

 exist in an Arabic version. Brandis, loc. cit. p. 253. 



3 Brandis, p. 241. 4 Brandis, loc. cit. 5 De Fin. v. 5. 



