| Title | The Earliest Aristotelian Commentators |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2016 |
| Published in | Aristotle Transformed. The ancient commentators and their influence |
| Pages | 61-88 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Gottschalk, Hans B. |
| Editor(s) | Sorabji, Richard |
| Translator(s) |
| In Chapter 3, Hans Gottschalk surveys the commentators on Aristotle from the fi rst century bc to late in the second century ad , and some of their Platonist opponents. He gives the most space to the fi rst of them, Andronicus, persuasively rguing that he worked in Athens without going to Rome, and telling something of Andronicus’ philosophical comments on Aristotle and of his editorial work on Aristotle’s school writings (as opposed to his works then better known, but now largely lost, for publication outside the school). He rightly says that Andronicus presented Aristotle as a system. As I indicated in commenting on Chapter 1 above, his younger contemporary in Athens, Boethus, stimulated enormous reaction from later commentators by his detailed and idiosyncratic interpretation of Aristotle, fragments of which they recorded. So the description ‘scholasticism’, insofar as it suggests to us something rather dry, is not a description we should now be likely to use, especially aft er the recent discovery of new fragments of Boethus. But Aristotle Re-Interpreted will include a contribution on some of Boethus’ achievement and further detail on the commentators aft er him is supplied in other recent works listed above in note 6. Th e only big matter of controversy concerns the two words ‘critical edition’ at the opening of Gottschalk’s chapter, which could be taken for granted in 1990. It was challenged by Jonathan Barnes in 1997. 9 A critical edition is produced by comparing diff erent copies of the original in order to discover more closely what the original may have said. Barnes argued powerfully that this is not what Andronicus did. Indeed, if he did not go to Rome to examine the manuscript there, it is even less likely that he did. One reaction was to think that this greatly reduced the importance of Andronicus. But a contribution in Aristotle Re- Interpreted will take up the other editorial activity including the presentation of Aristotle’s school writings as a system. It was far more valuable, according to this argument, to create a coherent canon of Aristotle’s voluminous school writings, by joining or separating pieces and arranging them in a coherent order for reading, than to seek the original wording in a critical edition. [Sorabji: Introduction to the Second Edition, p. xii] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/nJ4WSAlewntt7lZ |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"535","_score":null,"_source":{"id":535,"authors_free":[{"id":756,"entry_id":535,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":135,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gottschalk, Hans B.","free_first_name":"Hans B.","free_last_name":"Gottschalk","norm_person":{"id":135,"first_name":"Hans B.","last_name":"Gottschalk","full_name":"Gottschalk, Hans B.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1161498559","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":757,"entry_id":535,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Sorabji","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Earliest Aristotelian Commentators","main_title":{"title":"The Earliest Aristotelian Commentators"},"abstract":" In Chapter 3, Hans Gottschalk surveys the commentators on Aristotle from the \r\nfi rst century bc to late in the second century ad , and some of their Platonist \r\nopponents. He gives the most space to the fi rst of them, Andronicus, persuasively rguing that he worked in Athens without going to Rome, and telling something \r\nof Andronicus\u2019 philosophical comments on Aristotle and of his editorial work \r\non Aristotle\u2019s school writings (as opposed to his works then better known, but \r\nnow largely lost, for publication outside the school). He rightly says that \r\nAndronicus presented Aristotle as a system. As I indicated in commenting on \r\nChapter 1 above, his younger contemporary in Athens, Boethus, stimulated \r\nenormous reaction from later commentators by his detailed and idiosyncratic \r\ninterpretation of Aristotle, fragments of which they recorded. So the description \r\n\u2018scholasticism\u2019, insofar as it suggests to us something rather dry, is not a \r\ndescription we should now be likely to use, especially aft er the recent discovery \r\nof new fragments of Boethus. But Aristotle Re-Interpreted will include a \r\ncontribution on some of Boethus\u2019 achievement and further detail on the \r\ncommentators aft er him is supplied in other recent works listed above in note 6. \r\nTh e only big matter of controversy concerns the two words \u2018critical edition\u2019 at the \r\nopening of Gottschalk\u2019s chapter, which could be taken for granted in 1990. It was \r\nchallenged by Jonathan Barnes in 1997. 9 A critical edition is produced by \r\ncomparing diff erent copies of the original in order to discover more closely what \r\nthe original may have said. Barnes argued powerfully that this is not what \r\nAndronicus did. Indeed, if he did not go to Rome to examine the manuscript \r\nthere, it is even less likely that he did. One reaction was to think that this greatly \r\nreduced the importance of Andronicus. But a contribution in Aristotle Re-\r\nInterpreted will take up the other editorial activity including the presentation of \r\nAristotle\u2019s school writings as a system. It was far more valuable, according to this \r\nargument, to create a coherent canon of Aristotle\u2019s voluminous school writings, \r\nby joining or separating pieces and arranging them in a coherent order for \r\nreading, than to seek the original wording in a critical edition. [Sorabji: Introduction to the Second Edition, p. xii]","btype":2,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/nJ4WSAlewntt7lZ","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":135,"full_name":"Gottschalk, Hans B.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":535,"section_of":200,"pages":"61-88","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":200,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle Transformed. The ancient commentators and their influence","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sorabji1990","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1990","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1990","abstract":"The story of the ancient commentators on Aristotle has not previously been told \r\nat book length. Here it is assembled for the fi rst time by drawing both on some \r\nof the classic articles translated into English or revised and on the very latest \r\nresearch. Some of the chapters will be making revisionary suggestions unfamiliar \r\neven to specialists in the fi eld. Th e philosophical interest of the commentators \r\nhas been illustrated elsewhere. 1 Th e aim here is not so much to do this again as \r\nto set out the background of the commentary tradition against which further \r\nphilosophical discussion and discussions of other kinds can take place. \r\n Th e importance of the commentators lies partly in their representing the \r\nthought and classroom teaching of the Aristotelian and Neoplatonist schools, \r\npartly in the panorama they provide of the 1100 years of Ancient Greek \r\nphilosophy, preserving as they do many original quotations from lost philosophical \r\nworks. Still more signifi cant is their profound infl uence, uncovered in some of the \r\nchapters below, on subsequent philosophy, Islamic and European. Th is was due \r\npartly to their preserving anti-Aristotelian material which helped to inspire \r\nmedieval and Renaissance science, but still more to their presenting an Aristotle \r\ntransformed in ways which happened to make him acceptable to the Christian \r\nChurch. It is not just Aristotle, but this Aristotle transformed and embedded in \r\nthe philosophy of the commentators, that lies behind the views of later thinkers. [authors abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/b7EaNXJNckqKKqB","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":200,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Bloomsbury Academic","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"2","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2016]}
| Title | Aristotelian philosophy in the Roman world from the time of Cicero to the end of the second century AD |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1987 |
| Published in | Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt. Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. Teil II: Principat, Philosophie, Wissenschaften, Technik. 2. Teilband: Philosophie |
| Pages | 1079-1174 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Gottschalk, Hans B. |
| Editor(s) | Haase, Wolfgang , Temporini, Hildegard |
| Translator(s) |
| It is time to place our findings in a wider perspective. The propagation of Aristotelianism in the first two centuries AD seems to have taken place at several levels. For the committed student, there was the study and exposition of Aristotle’s school treatises. Much sound and lasting work was done in this field, but it seems to have been confined to a fairly restricted circle, although some contributions were made by members of other schools or by those, like Galen, who did not tie themselves to any school at all, as well as by professed Aristotelians. For a wider audience, there were compilations and handbooks purveying Aristotle’s doctrines in a more accessible form and the 'exoteric’ writings of Aristotle and his pupils, which continued to circulate in this period; the impression sometimes given that they were driven out of circulation as soon as Andronicus made the school treatises available is seriously misleading. Lastly, there was an immense production of sub-philosophical tracts, like the pseudo-Pythagorean writings, which might include some Aristotelian ideas but always diluted and heavily contaminated with others of a different origin. We may ignore the third of these, which contributed little or nothing to the development of Aristotelianism as such. Historians naturally concentrate on the first, which so profoundly influenced the subsequent tradition, but it would be a mistake to neglect the second entirely. The eminent men of affairs who professed themselves followers of Aristotle will not have been motivated by a passionate belief in the priority of the categorical over the hypothetical syllogism or the eternity of the physical universe. What Aristotelianism had to offer them was a view of the world and a reasoned set of ethical beliefs that avoided the mechanism and hedonism of the Epicureans, the determinism and rigorism of the Stoics, and the other-worldliness of Platonism; and this is more or less what we find in the popular writings influenced by Aristotle’s philosophy, whether composed by members of the school or by outsiders like Plutarch. However we rate the philosophical value of this side of the school’s activity, it undoubtedly helped to establish its position in society and the claim of its members to publicly funded teaching posts and the other privileges accorded to philosophers. This dualism entered into the popular image of the school and was believed to go back to its very beginnings. Lucian, in a well-known passage, describes the Peripatetic as the thinker with two philosophies, the 'exoteric’ and the 'esoteric,’ to offer, and according to Aulus Gellius, Aristotle used to give rigorous courses for specialists in the morning and more popular ones in the afternoon. The diffusion of this view in the literature of the second century AD suggests that it accurately reflected the conditions of the time, but this does not mean that we need doubt its historical truth. Gellius’ source was probably Andronicus, who is quoted later in the same chapter; the distinction between 'esoteric’ (or 'acroamatic’) and 'exoteric’ writings is already found in Cicero, who probably had it from Antiochus of Ascalon, and Aristotle himself refers to the 'exoteric’ works in the extant treatises. The history of the Hellenistic Peripatos is, to a large extent, one of the tension between these tendencies in the work of the school. The same continuity is found in the school’s teaching, especially at the popular level. The dialogues and handbooks read in the Hellenistic age continued in use, and the opinions about the school and its beliefs current among outsiders in the first two centuries AD hardly differed from those of the Ciceronian age. At the more specialized level, Andronicus’ edition made a new start in the study of Aristotle’s writings, but his way of presenting Aristotle’s philosophy was a legitimate extension of the work of Theophrastus and Eudemus. Even the freedom with which he and his immediate followers suggested the need for changes in details imitated the practice of the first generation of Peripatetics. There is one difference, however. The early Peripatetics not only expounded Aristotle’s philosophy but tried to extend its scope by independent study of the natural world and human behavior. The absence of this element from the work of Andronicus and those who came after him resulted in the growth of the book-centered scholasticism we meet in the Imperial age. All this is not to say that the popular and scholarly traditions were isolated from one another. The popular books and lectures of professed Peripatetics were meant to give a true outline of the philosophy developed fully in the school treatises, and even some of the pseudo-Pythagorean books contain material clearly derived from the extant pragmateiai, at however many removes; a few of them, notably the pseudo-Archytean reworkings of the Categories, reflect a stage in their understanding that can be clearly defined and connected with the names of known commentators. On the other hand, some of the commentaries on Aristotle’s pragmateiai seem to have originated in elementary lecture courses, and this may account for the superficiality of some of their contents. The specialized work of the school was based on the exegesis of Aristotle’s writings. In this field, its members developed a high degree of competence, and its influence is not exhausted even today, but the thrust of their interpretation was very different from that of the modern historian of philosophy. Their aim was to present Aristotle’s philosophy as a system and to elucidate his doctrines; they were less interested in the character of his arguments and not at all in the origin and growth of his ideas. New developments of his teaching took one of two directions. On the one hand, real or apparent discrepancies in Aristotle’s writings had to be explained. This was part of exegesis and subordinated to the systematic tendency of the school (we find no genetic explanations); some of the difficulties raised were of a kind that would only be felt by elementary students, and clearly much attention was paid to their needs. But there are real loose ends in Aristotle’s work, which his followers tried to tie up as best they could. Secondly, new problems had arisen in the course of philosophical debate in the period since Aristotle’s death, which Aristotle had not discussed or only in a marginal way; the question of Fate and Providence is the most notable instance. Here there was a constant tension between the implications of the problem and the requirements of orthodoxy, and progress was limited. On the whole, orthodoxy prevailed, backed up by polemics against rival viewpoints. At this point, we can observe a rigidity that inhibited the further development of Aristotelianism and may explain its failure to resist the encroachment of Platonism. We have already seen that many Aristotelian ideas, including the whole of his logic and a good part of his metaphysics, natural philosophy, and ethics, were taken over by Platonists from the first century onwards. In spite of some opposition, from Plotinus as well as lesser figures, this process continued until all Aristotelian doctrines that could be brought into conformity with Platonic principles were incorporated into the developed Neoplatonic systems. As this happened, Aristotelianism ceased to exist as an independent philosophy. There is a Protean quality about Platonism that has allowed it at various times to absorb alien ideas without losing its essential character, perhaps precisely because its fundamental insights were not tied to a fixed system. Aristotelianism, in the systematic form it had acquired, lacked this flexibility. It was well suited to the enlightened atmosphere of the first two centuries AD but could no longer meet the needs, especially the religious aspirations, of the centuries that followed. But it could offer the Platonists something they lacked—a ready-made set of components for building their own system. Many of the parts proved more durable than the whole; they constituted the Erkenntnisse, in N. Hartmann’s sense of the word, of Aristotle’s thinking. Within the new framework, Aristotle’s leading ideas retained their vigor, and Aristotle became what, by and large, he has remained ever since: the philosopher’s philosopher. [conclusion p. 1172-1174] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/FPwm868kRTy5Ier |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1332","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1332,"authors_free":[{"id":1965,"entry_id":1332,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":135,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gottschalk, Hans B.","free_first_name":"Hans B.","free_last_name":"Gottschalk","norm_person":{"id":135,"first_name":"Hans B.","last_name":"Gottschalk","full_name":"Gottschalk, Hans B.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1161498559","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2382,"entry_id":1332,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":325,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Haase, Wolfgang","free_first_name":"Wolfgang","free_last_name":"Haase","norm_person":{"id":325,"first_name":"Wolfgang","last_name":"Haase","full_name":"Haase, Wolfgang","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/117757527","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2383,"entry_id":1332,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":453,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Temporini, Hildegard","free_first_name":"Hildegard","free_last_name":"Temporini","norm_person":{"id":453,"first_name":"Hildegard","last_name":"Temporini","full_name":"Temporini, Hildegard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/117754013","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Aristotelian philosophy in the Roman world from the time of Cicero to the end of the second century AD","main_title":{"title":"Aristotelian philosophy in the Roman world from the time of Cicero to the end of the second century AD"},"abstract":"It is time to place our findings in a wider perspective. The propagation of Aristotelianism in the first two centuries AD seems to have taken place at several levels. For the committed student, there was the study and exposition of Aristotle\u2019s school treatises. Much sound and lasting work was done in this field, but it seems to have been confined to a fairly restricted circle, although some contributions were made by members of other schools or by those, like Galen, who did not tie themselves to any school at all, as well as by professed Aristotelians. For a wider audience, there were compilations and handbooks purveying Aristotle\u2019s doctrines in a more accessible form and the 'exoteric\u2019 writings of Aristotle and his pupils, which continued to circulate in this period; the impression sometimes given that they were driven out of circulation as soon as Andronicus made the school treatises available is seriously misleading. Lastly, there was an immense production of sub-philosophical tracts, like the pseudo-Pythagorean writings, which might include some Aristotelian ideas but always diluted and heavily contaminated with others of a different origin.\r\n\r\nWe may ignore the third of these, which contributed little or nothing to the development of Aristotelianism as such. Historians naturally concentrate on the first, which so profoundly influenced the subsequent tradition, but it would be a mistake to neglect the second entirely. The eminent men of affairs who professed themselves followers of Aristotle will not have been motivated by a passionate belief in the priority of the categorical over the hypothetical syllogism or the eternity of the physical universe. What Aristotelianism had to offer them was a view of the world and a reasoned set of ethical beliefs that avoided the mechanism and hedonism of the Epicureans, the determinism and rigorism of the Stoics, and the other-worldliness of Platonism; and this is more or less what we find in the popular writings influenced by Aristotle\u2019s philosophy, whether composed by members of the school or by outsiders like Plutarch. However we rate the philosophical value of this side of the school\u2019s activity, it undoubtedly helped to establish its position in society and the claim of its members to publicly funded teaching posts and the other privileges accorded to philosophers.\r\n\r\nThis dualism entered into the popular image of the school and was believed to go back to its very beginnings. Lucian, in a well-known passage, describes the Peripatetic as the thinker with two philosophies, the 'exoteric\u2019 and the 'esoteric,\u2019 to offer, and according to Aulus Gellius, Aristotle used to give rigorous courses for specialists in the morning and more popular ones in the afternoon. The diffusion of this view in the literature of the second century AD suggests that it accurately reflected the conditions of the time, but this does not mean that we need doubt its historical truth. Gellius\u2019 source was probably Andronicus, who is quoted later in the same chapter; the distinction between 'esoteric\u2019 (or 'acroamatic\u2019) and 'exoteric\u2019 writings is already found in Cicero, who probably had it from Antiochus of Ascalon, and Aristotle himself refers to the 'exoteric\u2019 works in the extant treatises. The history of the Hellenistic Peripatos is, to a large extent, one of the tension between these tendencies in the work of the school.\r\n\r\nThe same continuity is found in the school\u2019s teaching, especially at the popular level. The dialogues and handbooks read in the Hellenistic age continued in use, and the opinions about the school and its beliefs current among outsiders in the first two centuries AD hardly differed from those of the Ciceronian age. At the more specialized level, Andronicus\u2019 edition made a new start in the study of Aristotle\u2019s writings, but his way of presenting Aristotle\u2019s philosophy was a legitimate extension of the work of Theophrastus and Eudemus. Even the freedom with which he and his immediate followers suggested the need for changes in details imitated the practice of the first generation of Peripatetics.\r\n\r\nThere is one difference, however. The early Peripatetics not only expounded Aristotle\u2019s philosophy but tried to extend its scope by independent study of the natural world and human behavior. The absence of this element from the work of Andronicus and those who came after him resulted in the growth of the book-centered scholasticism we meet in the Imperial age.\r\n\r\nAll this is not to say that the popular and scholarly traditions were isolated from one another. The popular books and lectures of professed Peripatetics were meant to give a true outline of the philosophy developed fully in the school treatises, and even some of the pseudo-Pythagorean books contain material clearly derived from the extant pragmateiai, at however many removes; a few of them, notably the pseudo-Archytean reworkings of the Categories, reflect a stage in their understanding that can be clearly defined and connected with the names of known commentators. On the other hand, some of the commentaries on Aristotle\u2019s pragmateiai seem to have originated in elementary lecture courses, and this may account for the superficiality of some of their contents.\r\n\r\nThe specialized work of the school was based on the exegesis of Aristotle\u2019s writings. In this field, its members developed a high degree of competence, and its influence is not exhausted even today, but the thrust of their interpretation was very different from that of the modern historian of philosophy. Their aim was to present Aristotle\u2019s philosophy as a system and to elucidate his doctrines; they were less interested in the character of his arguments and not at all in the origin and growth of his ideas.\r\n\r\nNew developments of his teaching took one of two directions. On the one hand, real or apparent discrepancies in Aristotle\u2019s writings had to be explained. This was part of exegesis and subordinated to the systematic tendency of the school (we find no genetic explanations); some of the difficulties raised were of a kind that would only be felt by elementary students, and clearly much attention was paid to their needs. But there are real loose ends in Aristotle\u2019s work, which his followers tried to tie up as best they could. Secondly, new problems had arisen in the course of philosophical debate in the period since Aristotle\u2019s death, which Aristotle had not discussed or only in a marginal way; the question of Fate and Providence is the most notable instance. Here there was a constant tension between the implications of the problem and the requirements of orthodoxy, and progress was limited. On the whole, orthodoxy prevailed, backed up by polemics against rival viewpoints.\r\n\r\nAt this point, we can observe a rigidity that inhibited the further development of Aristotelianism and may explain its failure to resist the encroachment of Platonism. We have already seen that many Aristotelian ideas, including the whole of his logic and a good part of his metaphysics, natural philosophy, and ethics, were taken over by Platonists from the first century onwards. In spite of some opposition, from Plotinus as well as lesser figures, this process continued until all Aristotelian doctrines that could be brought into conformity with Platonic principles were incorporated into the developed Neoplatonic systems. As this happened, Aristotelianism ceased to exist as an independent philosophy.\r\n\r\nThere is a Protean quality about Platonism that has allowed it at various times to absorb alien ideas without losing its essential character, perhaps precisely because its fundamental insights were not tied to a fixed system. Aristotelianism, in the systematic form it had acquired, lacked this flexibility. It was well suited to the enlightened atmosphere of the first two centuries AD but could no longer meet the needs, especially the religious aspirations, of the centuries that followed. But it could offer the Platonists something they lacked\u2014a ready-made set of components for building their own system. Many of the parts proved more durable than the whole; they constituted the Erkenntnisse, in N. Hartmann\u2019s sense of the word, of Aristotle\u2019s thinking. Within the new framework, Aristotle\u2019s leading ideas retained their vigor, and Aristotle became what, by and large, he has remained ever since: the philosopher\u2019s philosopher.\r\n[conclusion p. 1172-1174]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/FPwm868kRTy5Ier","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":135,"full_name":"Gottschalk, Hans B.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":325,"full_name":"Haase, Wolfgang","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":453,"full_name":"Temporini, Hildegard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1332,"section_of":335,"pages":"1079-1174","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":335,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Aufstieg und Niedergang der r\u00f6mischen Welt. Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. Teil II: Principat, Philosophie, Wissenschaften, Technik. 2. Teilband: Philosophie","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Haase1987","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"AUFSTIEG UND NIEDERGANG DER R\u00d6MISCHEN WELT (ANRW) ist ein internationales Gemeinschaftswerk historischer Wissenschaften. Seine Aufgabe besteht darin, alle wichtigen Aspekte der antiken r\u00f6mischen Welt sowie ihres Fortwirkens und Nachlebens in Mittelalter und Neuzeit nach dem gegenw\u00e4rtigen Stand der Forschung in Einzelbeitr\u00e4gen zu behandeln. Das Werk ist in 3 Teile gegliedert:\r\nI. Von den Anf\u00e4ngen Roms bis zum Ausgang der Republik\r\nII. Principat\r\nIII. Sp\u00e4tantike\r\nJeder der drei Teile umfa\u00dft sechs systematische Rubriken, zwischen denen es vielfache \u00dcberschneidungen gibt: 1. Politische Geschichte, 2. Recht, 3. Religion, 4. Sprache und Literatur, 5. Philosophie und Wissenschaften, 6. K\u00fcnste.\r\n\r\nANRW ist ein handbuchartiges \u00dcbersichtswerk zu den r\u00f6mischen Studien im weitesten Sinne, mit Einschlu\u00df der Rezeptions- und Wirkungsgeschichte bis in die Gegenwart. Bei den Beitr\u00e4gen handelt es sich entweder um zusammenfassende Darstellungen mit Bibliographie oder um Problem- und Forschungsberichte bzw. thematisch breit angelegte exemplarische Untersuchungen. Die Artikel erscheinen in deutscher, englischer, franz\u00f6sischer oder italienischer Sprache.\r\n\r\nZum Mitarbeiterstab geh\u00f6ren rund 1000 Gelehrte aus 35 L\u00e4ndern. Der Vielfalt der Themen entsprechend geh\u00f6ren die Autoren haupts\u00e4chlich folgenden Fachrichtungen an: Alte, Mittelalterliche und Neue Geschichte; Byzantinistik, Slavistik; Klassische, Mittellateinische, Romanische und Orientalische Philologie; Klassische, Orientalische und Christliche Arch\u00e4ologie und Kunstgeschichte; Rechtswissenschaft; Religionswissenschaft und Theologie, besonders Kirchengeschichte und Patristik.\r\n\r\nIn Vorbereitung sind:\r\nTeil II, Bd. 26,4: Religion - Vorkonstantinisches Christentum: Neues Testament - Sachthemen, Fortsetzung\r\nTeil II, Bd. 37,4: Wissenschaften: Medizin und Biologie, Fortsetzung. [official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/vkva8h1vt1Po53c","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":335,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"De Gruyter","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1987]}
| Title | Aristotelian philosophy in the Roman world from the time of Cicero to the end of the second century AD |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1987 |
| Published in | Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt. Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. Teil II: Principat, Philosophie, Wissenschaften, Technik. 2. Teilband: Philosophie |
| Pages | 1079-1174 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Gottschalk, Hans B. |
| Editor(s) | Haase, Wolfgang , Temporini, Hildegard |
| Translator(s) |
It is time to place our findings in a wider perspective. The propagation of Aristotelianism in the first two centuries AD seems to have taken place at several levels. For the committed student, there was the study and exposition of Aristotle’s school treatises. Much sound and lasting work was done in this field, but it seems to have been confined to a fairly restricted circle, although some contributions were made by members of other schools or by those, like Galen, who did not tie themselves to any school at all, as well as by professed Aristotelians. For a wider audience, there were compilations and handbooks purveying Aristotle’s doctrines in a more accessible form and the 'exoteric’ writings of Aristotle and his pupils, which continued to circulate in this period; the impression sometimes given that they were driven out of circulation as soon as Andronicus made the school treatises available is seriously misleading. Lastly, there was an immense production of sub-philosophical tracts, like the pseudo-Pythagorean writings, which might include some Aristotelian ideas but always diluted and heavily contaminated with others of a different origin. We may ignore the third of these, which contributed little or nothing to the development of Aristotelianism as such. Historians naturally concentrate on the first, which so profoundly influenced the subsequent tradition, but it would be a mistake to neglect the second entirely. The eminent men of affairs who professed themselves followers of Aristotle will not have been motivated by a passionate belief in the priority of the categorical over the hypothetical syllogism or the eternity of the physical universe. What Aristotelianism had to offer them was a view of the world and a reasoned set of ethical beliefs that avoided the mechanism and hedonism of the Epicureans, the determinism and rigorism of the Stoics, and the other-worldliness of Platonism; and this is more or less what we find in the popular writings influenced by Aristotle’s philosophy, whether composed by members of the school or by outsiders like Plutarch. However we rate the philosophical value of this side of the school’s activity, it undoubtedly helped to establish its position in society and the claim of its members to publicly funded teaching posts and the other privileges accorded to philosophers. This dualism entered into the popular image of the school and was believed to go back to its very beginnings. Lucian, in a well-known passage, describes the Peripatetic as the thinker with two philosophies, the 'exoteric’ and the 'esoteric,’ to offer, and according to Aulus Gellius, Aristotle used to give rigorous courses for specialists in the morning and more popular ones in the afternoon. The diffusion of this view in the literature of the second century AD suggests that it accurately reflected the conditions of the time, but this does not mean that we need doubt its historical truth. Gellius’ source was probably Andronicus, who is quoted later in the same chapter; the distinction between 'esoteric’ (or 'acroamatic’) and 'exoteric’ writings is already found in Cicero, who probably had it from Antiochus of Ascalon, and Aristotle himself refers to the 'exoteric’ works in the extant treatises. The history of the Hellenistic Peripatos is, to a large extent, one of the tension between these tendencies in the work of the school. The same continuity is found in the school’s teaching, especially at the popular level. The dialogues and handbooks read in the Hellenistic age continued in use, and the opinions about the school and its beliefs current among outsiders in the first two centuries AD hardly differed from those of the Ciceronian age. At the more specialized level, Andronicus’ edition made a new start in the study of Aristotle’s writings, but his way of presenting Aristotle’s philosophy was a legitimate extension of the work of Theophrastus and Eudemus. Even the freedom with which he and his immediate followers suggested the need for changes in details imitated the practice of the first generation of Peripatetics. There is one difference, however. The early Peripatetics not only expounded Aristotle’s philosophy but tried to extend its scope by independent study of the natural world and human behavior. The absence of this element from the work of Andronicus and those who came after him resulted in the growth of the book-centered scholasticism we meet in the Imperial age. All this is not to say that the popular and scholarly traditions were isolated from one another. The popular books and lectures of professed Peripatetics were meant to give a true outline of the philosophy developed fully in the school treatises, and even some of the pseudo-Pythagorean books contain material clearly derived from the extant pragmateiai, at however many removes; a few of them, notably the pseudo-Archytean reworkings of the Categories, reflect a stage in their understanding that can be clearly defined and connected with the names of known commentators. On the other hand, some of the commentaries on Aristotle’s pragmateiai seem to have originated in elementary lecture courses, and this may account for the superficiality of some of their contents. The specialized work of the school was based on the exegesis of Aristotle’s writings. In this field, its members developed a high degree of competence, and its influence is not exhausted even today, but the thrust of their interpretation was very different from that of the modern historian of philosophy. Their aim was to present Aristotle’s philosophy as a system and to elucidate his doctrines; they were less interested in the character of his arguments and not at all in the origin and growth of his ideas. New developments of his teaching took one of two directions. On the one hand, real or apparent discrepancies in Aristotle’s writings had to be explained. This was part of exegesis and subordinated to the systematic tendency of the school (we find no genetic explanations); some of the difficulties raised were of a kind that would only be felt by elementary students, and clearly much attention was paid to their needs. But there are real loose ends in Aristotle’s work, which his followers tried to tie up as best they could. Secondly, new problems had arisen in the course of philosophical debate in the period since Aristotle’s death, which Aristotle had not discussed or only in a marginal way; the question of Fate and Providence is the most notable instance. Here there was a constant tension between the implications of the problem and the requirements of orthodoxy, and progress was limited. On the whole, orthodoxy prevailed, backed up by polemics against rival viewpoints. At this point, we can observe a rigidity that inhibited the further development of Aristotelianism and may explain its failure to resist the encroachment of Platonism. We have already seen that many Aristotelian ideas, including the whole of his logic and a good part of his metaphysics, natural philosophy, and ethics, were taken over by Platonists from the first century onwards. In spite of some opposition, from Plotinus as well as lesser figures, this process continued until all Aristotelian doctrines that could be brought into conformity with Platonic principles were incorporated into the developed Neoplatonic systems. As this happened, Aristotelianism ceased to exist as an independent philosophy. There is a Protean quality about Platonism that has allowed it at various times to absorb alien ideas without losing its essential character, perhaps precisely because its fundamental insights were not tied to a fixed system. Aristotelianism, in the systematic form it had acquired, lacked this flexibility. It was well suited to the enlightened atmosphere of the first two centuries AD but could no longer meet the needs, especially the religious aspirations, of the centuries that followed. But it could offer the Platonists something they lacked—a ready-made set of components for building their own system. Many of the parts proved more durable than the whole; they constituted the Erkenntnisse, in N. Hartmann’s sense of the word, of Aristotle’s thinking. Within the new framework, Aristotle’s leading ideas retained their vigor, and Aristotle became what, by and large, he has remained ever since: the philosopher’s philosopher. [conclusion p. 1172-1174] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/FPwm868kRTy5Ier |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1332","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1332,"authors_free":[{"id":1965,"entry_id":1332,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":135,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gottschalk, Hans B.","free_first_name":"Hans B.","free_last_name":"Gottschalk","norm_person":{"id":135,"first_name":"Hans B.","last_name":"Gottschalk","full_name":"Gottschalk, Hans B.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1161498559","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2382,"entry_id":1332,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":325,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Haase, Wolfgang","free_first_name":"Wolfgang","free_last_name":"Haase","norm_person":{"id":325,"first_name":"Wolfgang","last_name":"Haase","full_name":"Haase, Wolfgang","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/117757527","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2383,"entry_id":1332,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":453,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Temporini, Hildegard","free_first_name":"Hildegard","free_last_name":"Temporini","norm_person":{"id":453,"first_name":"Hildegard","last_name":"Temporini","full_name":"Temporini, Hildegard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/117754013","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Aristotelian philosophy in the Roman world from the time of Cicero to the end of the second century AD","main_title":{"title":"Aristotelian philosophy in the Roman world from the time of Cicero to the end of the second century AD"},"abstract":"It is time to place our findings in a wider perspective. The propagation of Aristotelianism in the first two centuries AD seems to have taken place at several levels. For the committed student, there was the study and exposition of Aristotle\u2019s school treatises. Much sound and lasting work was done in this field, but it seems to have been confined to a fairly restricted circle, although some contributions were made by members of other schools or by those, like Galen, who did not tie themselves to any school at all, as well as by professed Aristotelians. For a wider audience, there were compilations and handbooks purveying Aristotle\u2019s doctrines in a more accessible form and the 'exoteric\u2019 writings of Aristotle and his pupils, which continued to circulate in this period; the impression sometimes given that they were driven out of circulation as soon as Andronicus made the school treatises available is seriously misleading. Lastly, there was an immense production of sub-philosophical tracts, like the pseudo-Pythagorean writings, which might include some Aristotelian ideas but always diluted and heavily contaminated with others of a different origin.\r\n\r\nWe may ignore the third of these, which contributed little or nothing to the development of Aristotelianism as such. Historians naturally concentrate on the first, which so profoundly influenced the subsequent tradition, but it would be a mistake to neglect the second entirely. The eminent men of affairs who professed themselves followers of Aristotle will not have been motivated by a passionate belief in the priority of the categorical over the hypothetical syllogism or the eternity of the physical universe. What Aristotelianism had to offer them was a view of the world and a reasoned set of ethical beliefs that avoided the mechanism and hedonism of the Epicureans, the determinism and rigorism of the Stoics, and the other-worldliness of Platonism; and this is more or less what we find in the popular writings influenced by Aristotle\u2019s philosophy, whether composed by members of the school or by outsiders like Plutarch. However we rate the philosophical value of this side of the school\u2019s activity, it undoubtedly helped to establish its position in society and the claim of its members to publicly funded teaching posts and the other privileges accorded to philosophers.\r\n\r\nThis dualism entered into the popular image of the school and was believed to go back to its very beginnings. Lucian, in a well-known passage, describes the Peripatetic as the thinker with two philosophies, the 'exoteric\u2019 and the 'esoteric,\u2019 to offer, and according to Aulus Gellius, Aristotle used to give rigorous courses for specialists in the morning and more popular ones in the afternoon. The diffusion of this view in the literature of the second century AD suggests that it accurately reflected the conditions of the time, but this does not mean that we need doubt its historical truth. Gellius\u2019 source was probably Andronicus, who is quoted later in the same chapter; the distinction between 'esoteric\u2019 (or 'acroamatic\u2019) and 'exoteric\u2019 writings is already found in Cicero, who probably had it from Antiochus of Ascalon, and Aristotle himself refers to the 'exoteric\u2019 works in the extant treatises. The history of the Hellenistic Peripatos is, to a large extent, one of the tension between these tendencies in the work of the school.\r\n\r\nThe same continuity is found in the school\u2019s teaching, especially at the popular level. The dialogues and handbooks read in the Hellenistic age continued in use, and the opinions about the school and its beliefs current among outsiders in the first two centuries AD hardly differed from those of the Ciceronian age. At the more specialized level, Andronicus\u2019 edition made a new start in the study of Aristotle\u2019s writings, but his way of presenting Aristotle\u2019s philosophy was a legitimate extension of the work of Theophrastus and Eudemus. Even the freedom with which he and his immediate followers suggested the need for changes in details imitated the practice of the first generation of Peripatetics.\r\n\r\nThere is one difference, however. The early Peripatetics not only expounded Aristotle\u2019s philosophy but tried to extend its scope by independent study of the natural world and human behavior. The absence of this element from the work of Andronicus and those who came after him resulted in the growth of the book-centered scholasticism we meet in the Imperial age.\r\n\r\nAll this is not to say that the popular and scholarly traditions were isolated from one another. The popular books and lectures of professed Peripatetics were meant to give a true outline of the philosophy developed fully in the school treatises, and even some of the pseudo-Pythagorean books contain material clearly derived from the extant pragmateiai, at however many removes; a few of them, notably the pseudo-Archytean reworkings of the Categories, reflect a stage in their understanding that can be clearly defined and connected with the names of known commentators. On the other hand, some of the commentaries on Aristotle\u2019s pragmateiai seem to have originated in elementary lecture courses, and this may account for the superficiality of some of their contents.\r\n\r\nThe specialized work of the school was based on the exegesis of Aristotle\u2019s writings. In this field, its members developed a high degree of competence, and its influence is not exhausted even today, but the thrust of their interpretation was very different from that of the modern historian of philosophy. Their aim was to present Aristotle\u2019s philosophy as a system and to elucidate his doctrines; they were less interested in the character of his arguments and not at all in the origin and growth of his ideas.\r\n\r\nNew developments of his teaching took one of two directions. On the one hand, real or apparent discrepancies in Aristotle\u2019s writings had to be explained. This was part of exegesis and subordinated to the systematic tendency of the school (we find no genetic explanations); some of the difficulties raised were of a kind that would only be felt by elementary students, and clearly much attention was paid to their needs. But there are real loose ends in Aristotle\u2019s work, which his followers tried to tie up as best they could. Secondly, new problems had arisen in the course of philosophical debate in the period since Aristotle\u2019s death, which Aristotle had not discussed or only in a marginal way; the question of Fate and Providence is the most notable instance. Here there was a constant tension between the implications of the problem and the requirements of orthodoxy, and progress was limited. On the whole, orthodoxy prevailed, backed up by polemics against rival viewpoints.\r\n\r\nAt this point, we can observe a rigidity that inhibited the further development of Aristotelianism and may explain its failure to resist the encroachment of Platonism. We have already seen that many Aristotelian ideas, including the whole of his logic and a good part of his metaphysics, natural philosophy, and ethics, were taken over by Platonists from the first century onwards. In spite of some opposition, from Plotinus as well as lesser figures, this process continued until all Aristotelian doctrines that could be brought into conformity with Platonic principles were incorporated into the developed Neoplatonic systems. As this happened, Aristotelianism ceased to exist as an independent philosophy.\r\n\r\nThere is a Protean quality about Platonism that has allowed it at various times to absorb alien ideas without losing its essential character, perhaps precisely because its fundamental insights were not tied to a fixed system. Aristotelianism, in the systematic form it had acquired, lacked this flexibility. It was well suited to the enlightened atmosphere of the first two centuries AD but could no longer meet the needs, especially the religious aspirations, of the centuries that followed. But it could offer the Platonists something they lacked\u2014a ready-made set of components for building their own system. Many of the parts proved more durable than the whole; they constituted the Erkenntnisse, in N. Hartmann\u2019s sense of the word, of Aristotle\u2019s thinking. Within the new framework, Aristotle\u2019s leading ideas retained their vigor, and Aristotle became what, by and large, he has remained ever since: the philosopher\u2019s philosopher.\r\n[conclusion p. 1172-1174]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/FPwm868kRTy5Ier","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":135,"full_name":"Gottschalk, Hans B.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":325,"full_name":"Haase, Wolfgang","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":453,"full_name":"Temporini, Hildegard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1332,"section_of":335,"pages":"1079-1174","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":335,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Aufstieg und Niedergang der r\u00f6mischen Welt. Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. Teil II: Principat, Philosophie, Wissenschaften, Technik. 2. Teilband: Philosophie","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Haase1987","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"AUFSTIEG UND NIEDERGANG DER R\u00d6MISCHEN WELT (ANRW) ist ein internationales Gemeinschaftswerk historischer Wissenschaften. Seine Aufgabe besteht darin, alle wichtigen Aspekte der antiken r\u00f6mischen Welt sowie ihres Fortwirkens und Nachlebens in Mittelalter und Neuzeit nach dem gegenw\u00e4rtigen Stand der Forschung in Einzelbeitr\u00e4gen zu behandeln. Das Werk ist in 3 Teile gegliedert:\r\nI. Von den Anf\u00e4ngen Roms bis zum Ausgang der Republik\r\nII. Principat\r\nIII. Sp\u00e4tantike\r\nJeder der drei Teile umfa\u00dft sechs systematische Rubriken, zwischen denen es vielfache \u00dcberschneidungen gibt: 1. Politische Geschichte, 2. Recht, 3. Religion, 4. Sprache und Literatur, 5. Philosophie und Wissenschaften, 6. K\u00fcnste.\r\n\r\nANRW ist ein handbuchartiges \u00dcbersichtswerk zu den r\u00f6mischen Studien im weitesten Sinne, mit Einschlu\u00df der Rezeptions- und Wirkungsgeschichte bis in die Gegenwart. Bei den Beitr\u00e4gen handelt es sich entweder um zusammenfassende Darstellungen mit Bibliographie oder um Problem- und Forschungsberichte bzw. thematisch breit angelegte exemplarische Untersuchungen. Die Artikel erscheinen in deutscher, englischer, franz\u00f6sischer oder italienischer Sprache.\r\n\r\nZum Mitarbeiterstab geh\u00f6ren rund 1000 Gelehrte aus 35 L\u00e4ndern. Der Vielfalt der Themen entsprechend geh\u00f6ren die Autoren haupts\u00e4chlich folgenden Fachrichtungen an: Alte, Mittelalterliche und Neue Geschichte; Byzantinistik, Slavistik; Klassische, Mittellateinische, Romanische und Orientalische Philologie; Klassische, Orientalische und Christliche Arch\u00e4ologie und Kunstgeschichte; Rechtswissenschaft; Religionswissenschaft und Theologie, besonders Kirchengeschichte und Patristik.\r\n\r\nIn Vorbereitung sind:\r\nTeil II, Bd. 26,4: Religion - Vorkonstantinisches Christentum: Neues Testament - Sachthemen, Fortsetzung\r\nTeil II, Bd. 37,4: Wissenschaften: Medizin und Biologie, Fortsetzung. [official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/vkva8h1vt1Po53c","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":335,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"De Gruyter","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Aristotelian philosophy in the Roman world from the time of Cicero to the end of the second century AD"]}
| Title | The Earliest Aristotelian Commentators |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2016 |
| Published in | Aristotle Transformed. The ancient commentators and their influence |
| Pages | 61-88 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Gottschalk, Hans B. |
| Editor(s) | Sorabji, Richard |
| Translator(s) |
In Chapter 3, Hans Gottschalk surveys the commentators on Aristotle from the fi rst century bc to late in the second century ad , and some of their Platonist opponents. He gives the most space to the fi rst of them, Andronicus, persuasively rguing that he worked in Athens without going to Rome, and telling something of Andronicus’ philosophical comments on Aristotle and of his editorial work on Aristotle’s school writings (as opposed to his works then better known, but now largely lost, for publication outside the school). He rightly says that Andronicus presented Aristotle as a system. As I indicated in commenting on Chapter 1 above, his younger contemporary in Athens, Boethus, stimulated enormous reaction from later commentators by his detailed and idiosyncratic interpretation of Aristotle, fragments of which they recorded. So the description ‘scholasticism’, insofar as it suggests to us something rather dry, is not a description we should now be likely to use, especially aft er the recent discovery of new fragments of Boethus. But Aristotle Re-Interpreted will include a contribution on some of Boethus’ achievement and further detail on the commentators aft er him is supplied in other recent works listed above in note 6. Th e only big matter of controversy concerns the two words ‘critical edition’ at the opening of Gottschalk’s chapter, which could be taken for granted in 1990. It was challenged by Jonathan Barnes in 1997. 9 A critical edition is produced by comparing diff erent copies of the original in order to discover more closely what the original may have said. Barnes argued powerfully that this is not what Andronicus did. Indeed, if he did not go to Rome to examine the manuscript there, it is even less likely that he did. One reaction was to think that this greatly reduced the importance of Andronicus. But a contribution in Aristotle Re- Interpreted will take up the other editorial activity including the presentation of Aristotle’s school writings as a system. It was far more valuable, according to this argument, to create a coherent canon of Aristotle’s voluminous school writings, by joining or separating pieces and arranging them in a coherent order for reading, than to seek the original wording in a critical edition. [Sorabji: Introduction to the Second Edition, p. xii] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/nJ4WSAlewntt7lZ |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"535","_score":null,"_source":{"id":535,"authors_free":[{"id":756,"entry_id":535,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":135,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gottschalk, Hans B.","free_first_name":"Hans B.","free_last_name":"Gottschalk","norm_person":{"id":135,"first_name":"Hans B.","last_name":"Gottschalk","full_name":"Gottschalk, Hans B.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1161498559","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":757,"entry_id":535,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Sorabji","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Earliest Aristotelian Commentators","main_title":{"title":"The Earliest Aristotelian Commentators"},"abstract":" In Chapter 3, Hans Gottschalk surveys the commentators on Aristotle from the \r\nfi rst century bc to late in the second century ad , and some of their Platonist \r\nopponents. He gives the most space to the fi rst of them, Andronicus, persuasively rguing that he worked in Athens without going to Rome, and telling something \r\nof Andronicus\u2019 philosophical comments on Aristotle and of his editorial work \r\non Aristotle\u2019s school writings (as opposed to his works then better known, but \r\nnow largely lost, for publication outside the school). He rightly says that \r\nAndronicus presented Aristotle as a system. As I indicated in commenting on \r\nChapter 1 above, his younger contemporary in Athens, Boethus, stimulated \r\nenormous reaction from later commentators by his detailed and idiosyncratic \r\ninterpretation of Aristotle, fragments of which they recorded. So the description \r\n\u2018scholasticism\u2019, insofar as it suggests to us something rather dry, is not a \r\ndescription we should now be likely to use, especially aft er the recent discovery \r\nof new fragments of Boethus. But Aristotle Re-Interpreted will include a \r\ncontribution on some of Boethus\u2019 achievement and further detail on the \r\ncommentators aft er him is supplied in other recent works listed above in note 6. \r\nTh e only big matter of controversy concerns the two words \u2018critical edition\u2019 at the \r\nopening of Gottschalk\u2019s chapter, which could be taken for granted in 1990. It was \r\nchallenged by Jonathan Barnes in 1997. 9 A critical edition is produced by \r\ncomparing diff erent copies of the original in order to discover more closely what \r\nthe original may have said. Barnes argued powerfully that this is not what \r\nAndronicus did. Indeed, if he did not go to Rome to examine the manuscript \r\nthere, it is even less likely that he did. One reaction was to think that this greatly \r\nreduced the importance of Andronicus. But a contribution in Aristotle Re-\r\nInterpreted will take up the other editorial activity including the presentation of \r\nAristotle\u2019s school writings as a system. It was far more valuable, according to this \r\nargument, to create a coherent canon of Aristotle\u2019s voluminous school writings, \r\nby joining or separating pieces and arranging them in a coherent order for \r\nreading, than to seek the original wording in a critical edition. [Sorabji: Introduction to the Second Edition, p. xii]","btype":2,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/nJ4WSAlewntt7lZ","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":135,"full_name":"Gottschalk, Hans B.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":535,"section_of":200,"pages":"61-88","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":200,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle Transformed. The ancient commentators and their influence","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sorabji1990","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1990","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1990","abstract":"The story of the ancient commentators on Aristotle has not previously been told \r\nat book length. Here it is assembled for the fi rst time by drawing both on some \r\nof the classic articles translated into English or revised and on the very latest \r\nresearch. Some of the chapters will be making revisionary suggestions unfamiliar \r\neven to specialists in the fi eld. Th e philosophical interest of the commentators \r\nhas been illustrated elsewhere. 1 Th e aim here is not so much to do this again as \r\nto set out the background of the commentary tradition against which further \r\nphilosophical discussion and discussions of other kinds can take place. \r\n Th e importance of the commentators lies partly in their representing the \r\nthought and classroom teaching of the Aristotelian and Neoplatonist schools, \r\npartly in the panorama they provide of the 1100 years of Ancient Greek \r\nphilosophy, preserving as they do many original quotations from lost philosophical \r\nworks. Still more signifi cant is their profound infl uence, uncovered in some of the \r\nchapters below, on subsequent philosophy, Islamic and European. Th is was due \r\npartly to their preserving anti-Aristotelian material which helped to inspire \r\nmedieval and Renaissance science, but still more to their presenting an Aristotle \r\ntransformed in ways which happened to make him acceptable to the Christian \r\nChurch. It is not just Aristotle, but this Aristotle transformed and embedded in \r\nthe philosophy of the commentators, that lies behind the views of later thinkers. [authors abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/b7EaNXJNckqKKqB","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":200,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Bloomsbury Academic","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"2","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["The Earliest Aristotelian Commentators"]}