Aristotle: New Light on His Life and On Some of His Lost Works, Volume 2: Observations on Some of Aristotle's Lost Works (Routledge Library Editions: Aristotle) by Chroust Anton-Hermann

Author:Chroust, Anton-Hermann [Chroust, Anton-Hermann]
Language: eng
Format: epub
ISBN: 978-1-317-38064-1
Publisher: Taylor and Francis
Published: 2015-08-14T04:00:00+00:00

Notes

INTRODUCTION

* In a different form, part of this introduction appeared under the title of ‘The problems of the Aristotelis Librorum Fragmenta,’ Classical Journal , vol. 62, no. 2 (1966), pp. 71–4.

1 As early as 1581, to be sure, F. Patrizzi made a feeble and not altogether successful attempt to collate some of the fragments ascribed to Aristotle’s lost works. F. Patrizzi, Discursiones Peripateticae (Basle, 1581), vol. I, part 7, pp. 74 ff. See also G. Mazonii Caesenatis, In Universum Platonis et Aristotelis Philosophiam Praeludia, Sive de Comparatione Platonis et Aristotelis (Venice, 1597), passim .

2 Diogenes Laertius V. 23 (DL V. 23), no. 51; Vita Aristotelis Hesychii 10 (VH 10), no. 48; Ptolemy (-el-Garib), no. 24.

3 V. Rose could not anticipate that of this Collection of 138 Constitutions , the Constitution of Athens would soon be discovered (in 1890).

4 V. Rose, De Aristotelis Librorum Ordine et Auctoritate Commentano (Berlin, 1854), pp. 104–17. Rose also insists that Aristotle was never a true disciple of Plato, but merely a ‘casual auditor’ who from the very beginning rejected Plato’s teachings without compromise. See A.-H. Chroust, ‘The lost works of Aristotle in pre-Jaegerian scholarship,’ Classica et Mediaevalia , vol. 25, fasc. 1–2 (1964–5), pp. 77–80.

5 Teubner edition, Leipzig, 1886. It should be noted that in this edition and, as a matter of fact, until the very end of his life, Rose maintained that all the fragments and excerpts credited to Aristotle are spurious. Hence, the title of Aristoteles Pseudepigraphus still applies to Rose’s last and most authoritative collection.

6 Only in relatively few instances does an excerpt or fragment make specific reference to a specific work of Aristotle. See, for instance, frags 3, 6, 7, 9, 13 and 26 (Rose), to the On Philosophy ; frags 37 and 44–5 (Rose), to the Eudemus or On the Soul ; frag. 49 (Rose), to the On Prayer ; frags 50–1 (Rose), to the Protrepticus ; frag. 63 (Rose), to the On Education ; frag. 65 (Rose), to the Sophist ; frags 70 and 72 (Rose), to the On Poets ; frags 75–6 (Rose), to the On Poetry ; frag. 79 (Rose), to the Politicus ; frags 82 and 87 (Rose), to the On Justice ; frags 91 and 93–4 (Rose), to the On Noble Birth ; and frag. 101 (Rose), to the Symposium ; etc.

7 DL V. 22 (no. 13); VH 10 (no. 13).

8 In this Rose seems to follow the suggestions made by I. Bywater in his ‘On a lost dialogue of Aristotle,’ Journal of Philology , vol. 2 (1869), pp. 55–69.

9 One remarkable exception is O. Gigon, ‘Prolegomena to an edition of the Eudemus,’ Aristotle and Plato in the Mid-Fourth Century (Göteborg, 1960), pp. 19–33, who in a most scholarly manner takes issue with Rose’s assignments and arrangements. Gigon’s example has been followed by other scholars.

10 This is particularly true of certain Neo-Platonic authors who in their syncretist efforts wished to reconcile Plato and Aristotle and, accordingly, often did violence to both.

11 W. Jaeger, Aristoteles: Grundlegung einer Geschichte seiner Entwicklung , first published in Germany (Berlin) in 1923.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.