The Problem the Genesis Aristotle's Text of of FELIX GRAYEFF

I

are informed by Strabo XIII, I, 54 and by Plutarch (Sulla 26.) at thatE the works of Aristotle disappeared for least i Eo years and were, for the first time, edited in Rome by Andronicus of Rhodes, a peripatetic philosopher, of the second half of the first century B.C., i.e. approx. 2 7 5 years after the death of Aristotle. Strabo's and Plutarch's accounts are essentially identical and there is no doubt that Plutarch drew on Strabo; however, it is Plutarch who gives us the name of Andronicus, whereas Strabo only mentions Andronicus' predecessor, the grammarian Tyrannion of Amisus in Pontus, as an editor of Aristotle's manuscripts. Strabo's and Plutarch's accounts of the disappearance and re-discovery of the works of Aristotle have been variously interpreted - believed and disbelieved in parts - and it will be necessary for us to look at some of the details, especially in Strabo's account. Strabo reports that Theophrastus bequeathed his library which included Aristotle's 1 to Neleus, son of Coriscus, who took the books to his native Scepsis in the Troad. There, in the hands of Neleus' heirs, the books were neglected and later, to escape discovery by the kings of Pergamon, were buried in the ground where they lay hidden for i So years or more, sufl'ering greatly through moisture and moths. About i oo B. C. or shortly afterwards, the books were taken to Athens by Apellicon of Teos and from there, after the fall of Athens in 86 B.C., to Rome by Sulla. In Rome, the grammarian Tyrannion of Pontus, a friend of Cicero's and a great collector of books, obtained possession of the manuscripts and published them. But, Strabo says, Tyrannion's edition was full of grave errors, because Tyrannion himself filled the lacunae in the severely damaged texts, and also because he employed inferior copyists. Besides, the booksellers got hold of them and produced faulty editions. All the same, Strabo says, the publication of the manuscripts made possible a great advance over previous Aristotelian studies; for until then the works of Aristotle had not been known and, especially, the earlier peripatetics possessed the exoteric writings only, and hence could not philosophise soundly (7tpCXY[.LexTLX&Ç)but were "spinning empty hypo- theses. " Finally - and this is Plutarch's additional information - Andro- nicus of Rhodes, an Aristotelian, and presumably disciple of Tyrannion,

105 published all the manuscripts, arranging the works of Aristotle in the order in which they have come down to us and it is this edition which rescued Aristotle for posterity, and which is our Corpus Aristotelicum. This strange story, involving so important a matter as Aristotle's manuscripts, has always aroused great interest, all the more so because Strabo, who tells the story, was Tyrannion's contemporary and pre- sumably his student at one time. So his story is likely, at least partly, to be based on direct information. On the other hand, there are aspects of it which conflict with what is known otherwise. Strabo's statement, that the knowledge of Aristotle's writings had been lost for a long time and that the early peripatetics did not possess the master's writings, manifestly conflicts with the many testimonies we possess of the widespread in- fluence of peripatetic teaching throughout the centuries during which the manuscripts were supposed to have disappeared; cf. Ed. Zeller 3 II, 2 pp. 1 +8 foll. Secondly, Zeller rightly remarks that the text of Aristotle as we read it by no means bears out Strabo's story of the severely damaged moth-eaten manuscripts with their many gaps. In fact, the state of the text is comparatively good. Nevertheless, Zeller believes that the story of the burial and re-discovery of the manuscripts is essentially true, and that Aristotle's writings were known throughout the centuries from copies. But W. Jaeger 2 only accepts as true the report of the first publication of Aristotle's (own) works by Andronicus, and remarks that nothing of any significance can be elicited from the rest of the story. I think that Walter Leaf 3 excellently sums up the main im- pression a reader receives from Strabo's account. "It is to be concluded that all the main parties of the transaction - the heirs of Neleus, Apellicon and Tyrannion, - had reasons for making the most of the new material which between them they brought before the world. " We are hardly going much further in saying that the whole story is likely to be a fabrication, designed to give authenticity to the new edition of Aristotle's works prepared in Rome at first by Tyrannion and then, by Andronicus of Rhodes. Of these two, it appears that Andronicus was the real editor of Aristotle. It was he who re-established the peri- patetic school after its long eclipse, and he is mentioned as the tenth scholarch (or the eleventh, if Aristotle himself is counted) 4 of the school,

106