AEISTOTLE. 171 



occur was an interleaved draught of a future treatise, itself never 

 published (nor yet intended for publication) by the author. In such 

 a case we should expect to find what we do find here, and certainly 

 not, to the same extent, in any other work, scholia containing 

 archaeological or historical notes inserted in the midst of metaphysical 

 divisions, imperfect analyses, defective enumerations, tacit references 

 to writings of others or to opinions current at the time, allusions to 

 questions treated on by the author in the work, which are nowhere 

 to be found, gaps where obviously something was to be inserted, and 

 expressions so slovenly as to be almost or wholly ungrammatical. 

 To give instances of all these incongruities would extend this article 

 to a much greater length ; and therefore we must oblige our readers 

 to take the assertion on our credit, assuring them that an attentive 

 perusal of the works will supply them with several instances of each. 1 

 And if we suppose them to be note-books devoted to the particular 

 subjects on which they treat, kept by the author until the materials 

 they contained had been worked up and published in a complete form, 

 and then discarded by him, we shall see in what relation they pro- 

 bably stood to the works read by Cicero, 2 and named in the catalogues 

 of Diogenes Laertius and the anonymous biographer, 3 and understand 

 what kind of writings those in all probability were, which descended 

 with the rest of Aristotle's library to Theophrastus, and from Theo- 

 phrastus to INeleus, which were neglected by the librarians of Ptolemy 

 Philadelphus, and emerged from their obscurity in the vault of 

 Scepsis to be purchased by the antiquarian Apellicon. Only in 

 making this estimate we must not forget the different importance 

 which such writings possess for us, deprived for ever of those which 

 were formed out of them, and for their author and his immediate 

 successors, to whom they would appear in no other light than the 

 scaffold, by the aid of which the cathedral has been erected, does to 

 the architect. And perhaps we may properly imagine that the greater 



1 We must stipulate, however, that the investigator shall not make use of any 

 text previous to that of Bekker for this purpose. The former editors, partly from 

 the want of MSS., and partly from ignorance of the style of thought and language 

 peculiar to their author, have made strange havoc with these writings. 



2 De Legg. iii. 6 ; De Divin. ii. 1 ; Epp. ad Quint. Frat. iii. 5. 



3 Diogenes quotes irepl TTOITITUV in three books, Trpcry^uareia rexvns TTOI^TIK^S in 

 two books, TronjTt/ca in one book (perhaps the treatise we have), Trepl rpaywSitov in 

 one book all of which had some relation to the Poetics ; and TTO\ITIKOS in two 

 books, inrfp a-roiKoav in one book, irepl j8o(TtAeias in one book, Trepl irajSetas in one 

 book, olKovop.iKbs in one book, TroAmwa in two books, iroAmKT? a/cp<Weis wv rj 

 fO(f>pd<Trov in eight books, Trepl SiKaitav in two books, St/ccuco/^ara in one book, 

 and one hundred and fifty-eight constitutions of democratic, oligarchal, aristocratic, 

 and monarchical states, all having some bearing on the Politics. To these, perhaps, 

 may be added, from the anonymous writer, irepl ewyej/ei'as in one book, Trept avff- 

 airiuv i) (Tv^troffiuv in one book, 6e<reis TroAm/ccu in two books, iroAm/cr/ a/cp<Wis 

 in twenty books, TpvAAos in three books, Si/ccuaJjUara ir^Aeai/ in one book. How- 

 ever these writings may have been confused by the unskilful epitomizers of Her- 

 mippus, it is quite plain that Aristotle wrote a great deal more on both these 

 subjects than has come down to us. 



