t ARISTOTELES. the philosopher continued his studies and lectures in Chuicis tor some time longer without molesta- tion. He died in the beginning of August, in the year b. c. 322, a short time before Demosthenes (who died in October of the same year), in the 6'3rd year of his age, from the effects, not of poison, but of a chronic disorder of the stomach. (Censorin. de Die Nat. 14, extr. ; ApoUod. ap. Diog. La'trt. v. 1 ; Dionys. /. c. 5.) The accounts of his having committed suicide belong to the region of fables and tales. One story (found in several of the Christian fathers) was, that he threw himself into the Euripus, from vexation at being unable to dis- cover the causes of the currents in it. On the other hand, we have the account, that his mortal remains were transported to his native city Stageira, and that his memory was honoured there, like that of a hero, by yearly festivals of remembrance. (Vet Intp. ap. Buhle, vol. i. p. 56; Ammon. p. 47.) Before his death, in compliance with the wish of his school, he had intimated in a symbolical manner that of his two most distinguished scholars, Menedemus of Rhodes and Theophrastus of Eresus (in Lesbos), he intended the latter to be his suc- cessor in the Lyceum. (Gellius, xiii. 5.)* He also bequeathed to Theophrastus his well-stored library and the originals of his own writings. From his will (in Diog. Laert. v. 21; Hermipp. a;?. Allien. xiii. p. 589, c), which attests the flourishing state of his worldly circumstances not less than his judicious and sympathetic care for his family and servants, we gather, that his adoptive son Nicanor, his daughter Pythias, the offspring of his first mar- riage, as well as Herpyllis and the son he had by her, survived him. He named his friend Antipater as the executor of his will. If we cast a glance at the character of Aristotle, we see a man of the highest intellectual powers, gifted with a piercing understanding, a compre- hensive and deep mind, practical and extensive views of the various relations of actual life, and the noblest moral sentiments. Such he appears in his life as well as in his writings. Such other in- formation as we possess respecting his character accords most completely with this view, if we estimate at their real value the manifest ill-will and exaggerations of the literary anecdotes which have come down to us. At Athens the fact of his being a foreigner was of itself a sufficient reason for his taking no part in politics. For the rest, he at any rate did not belong to the party of de- mocratical patriots, of whom Demosthenes may be regarded as the representative, but probably coincid- ed rather with the conciliatory politics of Phocion. A declared opponent of absoluiium {Polit. ii. 7. § 6), he everywhere insists on conformity to the law, for the law is " the only safe, rational standard to be guided by, while the will of the individual man cannot be depended on." He wished to form the beau ideal of a ruler in Alexander {Polit. iii. 8, extr.), and it is quite in accordance with the oriental mode of viewing things, when the Arabian philosophers, as Avicenna and Abu-1-faraj, some- times call Aristotle, Alexander's vizier. (Comp. Schmoelder's Docunmita Philosoph. Arab. p. 74.) The whole demeanour of Aristotle was mai-ked by a certain briskness and vivacity. His powers of eloquence were considerable, and of a kind
- He praised the wines of both islands, but
said he thought that of Lesbos the more agreeable. ARISTOTELES. 2-21 adapted to produce conviction in his hearers, a girt which Antipater praises higlily in a letter written after Aristotle's death. (Plut. Cat. Maj. p. 354, Coriol. p. 234.) He exhibited remarkable atten- tion to external appearance, and bestowed much care on his dress and person. (Timotheus, ap. Dio(j. L. v. 1; Aelian, V. II. iii. 19.) He is de- scribed as having been of weak health, which, con- sidering the astonishing extent of his studies, shews all the more the energy of his mind. (Cen- sor, de Dienat. 14.) He was short and of slender make, with small eyes and a lisp in his pronun- ciation, using L for R (jpavKos, Diog. L. v. 1), and with a sort of sarcastic expression in his countenance (fiwKla, Aelian, iii. 19), all which characteristics are introduced in a maliciously caricatured description of him in an ancient epi- gram. (Anth. 552, vol. iii. p. 176, ed. Jacobs.) The plastic works of antiquity, which pass as por- traits of Aristotle, are treated of by Visconti, {Iconographie Grecque, i. p. 230.) II. Aristotle's Writings. Before we proceed to enumerate, classify, and characterise the works of the philosopher, it is necessary to take a review of the history of their transmission to our times. A short account of this kind has at the same time the advantage of indi- cating the progress of the development and influ- ence of the Aristotelian philosophy itself. According to ancient accounts, even the large number of the works of Aristotle which are still preserved, comprises only the smallest part of the writings he is said to have composed. According to the Greek commentator David {ad Categ. Prooem. p. 24, 1. 40, Brand.), Andronicus the Rhodian stated their number at 1000 <rxryy()diijxara. The Anonym. Menagii (p. 61, ed. Buhle in Avist. 0pp. vol. 1) sets down their number at 400 fii€ia. Dio- genes Laertius (v. 27) gives 44 myriads as the number of lines. If we reckon about 10,000 lines to a quire, this gives us 44 quires, while the writ- ings extant amount to about the fourth part of this. (Hegel, Vorlesungcn iiUr die Gesch. der Philosophie, vol. ii. pp. 307, 308.) Still these statements are very indefinite. Nor do we get on much better with the three ancient catalogues of his writings which are still extant, those namely of Diogenes Laertius, the Anonym. Menag., and the Arabian writers in Casiri {Bild. Arab. Hisp. vol. i. p. 306), which may be found entire in the first vo- lume of Buhle's edition of Aristotle. They all three give a mere enumeration, without the least trace of arrangement, and without any critical remarks. They differ not only from each other, but from the quotations of other writers and from the titles of the extant works to such a degree, that all idea of reconciling them must be given up. The difficulty of doing so is further increased by the fact, that one and the same work is frequently quoted under different titles (Brandis, de perditis. Arist. libr de Ideis et de Bono, p. 7 ; Ravaisson, Miiaphysique d' Artstotc, vol. i. p. 48, Paris, 1837), and that sections and books appear as independent writhigs under distinct titles. From Aristotle's own quotations of his works criticism can here derive but little assistance, as the references for the most part are quite general, or have merely been supplied by later writers. (Ritter, Gesch. der Phil. vol. iii. p. 21, not. 1.) The most complete enumeration of the writings of Aristotle from those catalogues, as well Y
