ARISTOTLE. 159 



Callimachus and Nicander, 1 and he acutely remarks, that the reason 

 that the works on the Parts of Animals and the Generation of Animals 

 are not so often cited as the History, is that the latter furnished far 

 more materials for works that would possess a general interest, whereas 

 the former necessarily implied a certain knowledge of physiology in 

 the reader. But that they could not have remained unknown while 

 the latter was published, is evident from the circumstance that .in it 

 the author frequently refers to them. Nor were the writings which 

 related to physical phenomena the only ones which we are sure reached 

 Alexandria. Andronicus related, that in the great library there were 

 found forty books of * Analytics ' and two of ' Categories,' professedly 

 the work of Aristotle. Of the former of these four only, of the latter 

 one in both instances those which we have were decided upon by 

 the ancient critics to be genuine. 2 Besides which, the "Alexandrian 

 writers, who formed canons of classical poets, historians, and philoso- 

 phers, included Aristotle among the last, surely not on the strength 

 either of his mere reputation, or only of his exoteric works. 



But what, after all, was the nature of these exoteric w r ritings ; for Nature of the 

 we are now obviously come to a point at which the accurate determi- SingL 

 nation of this question, which the continuity of the narrative has hith- 

 erto prevented, becomes necessary. We shall endeavour to be as 

 brief as possible in our answer. 



If we apply to Aristotle himself for information, we shall find Aristotle's 

 nothing at all in his writings to confirm the popular opinion of a divi- dlvlslon - 

 sion of his doctrines into two classes, the one of which was communi- 

 cated freely, w r hile the other was carefully reserved for those disciples 

 whose previously-ascertained character and talents were a security for 

 their right appreciation of them. Wherever the term exoteric occurs, 

 it is with reference to a distinction, not of readers, or hearers, but of 

 questions treated on. It signifies little or nothing more than extrinsic, 

 separate, or insulated. That facility of comprehension as regards the 

 main subject-matter was not necessarily a characteristic of such works, 

 appears from a passage in the 'Metaphysics,' 3 in which the writer 

 excuses himself from touching upon the doctrine of ideas (or constitu- 

 ent forms) any more than the order of his work demanded, assigning 

 as a reason, that his views on this particular " were for the most part 

 familiar from the exoteric discourses" It is notorious that this was 

 one of the deepest and most difficult questions of the ancient philoso- 

 phy, being, in fact, the point where the schools of the Academy and 

 the Lyceum diverged, and, consequently, if any part of Aristotle's 

 views had been confined to a chosen few, if there had been such a 

 thing as an esoteric coterie, here would have been proper matter to 



1 Rheinisches Museum, vol. iii. pp. 95 98. He also says that Aratus, in his 

 Prognostics, made use of the meteorological works of Aristotle. 



2 Ammouius, Simplicius, and David the Armenian, cited by Brandis, p. 250. 



8 P. 1076, col. 1, line 28, Bekk. re9pv\\nrai ykp TO 7roAA& Kal UTTCJ rcDi/ ea>Te- 

 \6y<av. Metaph, xiii. init. 



