The standard reference to it is by section and subsection numbers. These are not cited by Bekker numbers, however, but according to fragment numbers. As the title suggests, Rose considered these all to be spurious. The numeration of the fragments in a revised edition by Rose, published in the Teubner series, Aristotelis qui ferebantur librorum fragmenta , Leipzig, , is still commonly used indicated by R3 , although there is a more current edition with a different numeration by Olof Gigon published in as a new vol. For the dialogues, see also the editions of Richard Rudolf Walzer , Aristotelis Dialogorum fragmenta, in usum scholarum Florence , and Renato Laurenti, Aristotele: I frammenti dei dialoghi 2 vols. The authorship paradox[ edit ] According to Diogenes Laertius, The library of the Lyceum at its peak under Aristotle comprised many types of books: works authored by the elders under their names, works authored by elders and young men, signatures uncertain, copies of works written by other authors on research topics, and research results of unspecified form.
|Published (Last):||14 May 2013|
|PDF File Size:||18.74 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||1.97 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Overview of the extant works The extant works of Aristotle are broken down according to the five categories in the Corpus Aristotelicum. Not all of these works are considered genuine, but differ with respect to their connection to Aristotle, his associates and his views. The Constitution of the Athenians , the only major modern addition to the Corpus Aristotelicum, has also been so regarded. A final category, omitted here, includes medieval palmistries , astrological and magical texts whose connection to Aristotle is purely fanciful and self-promotional.
In several of the treatises, there are references to other works in the corpus. However, one classic scholar offers an alternative interpretation. Bekker numbers, the standard form of reference to works in the Corpus Aristotelicum, are based on the page numbers used in the Prussian Academy of Sciences edition of the complete works of Aristotle Aristotelis Opera edidit Academia Regia Borussica, Berlin, — They take their name from the editor of that edition, the classical philologist August Immanuel Bekker — The titles are given in accordance with the standard set by the Revised Oxford Translation.
The standard reference to it is by section and subsection numbers. These are not cited by Bekker numbers, however, but according to fragment numbers. As the title suggests, Rose considered these all to be spurious. The numeration of the fragments in a revised edition by Rose, published in the Teubner series, Aristotelis qui ferebantur librorum fragmenta , Leipzig, , is still commonly used indicated by R3 , although there is a more current edition with a different numeration by Olof Gigon published in as a new vol.
For the dialogues, see also the editions of Richard Rudolf Walzer , Aristotelis Dialogorum fragmenta, in usum scholarum Florence , and Renato Laurenti, Aristotele: I frammenti dei dialoghi 2 vols.
The authorship paradox According to Diogenes Laertius, The library of the Lyceum at its peak under Aristotle comprised many types of books: works authored by the elders under their names, works authored by elders and young men, signatures uncertain, copies of works written by other authors on research topics, and research results of unspecified form.
This same library continues under Theophrastus, acquiring more works of the same type, except that Aristotle is no longer a contributor. On the death of Theophrastus, we are led to believe, the library disappears for years, having been safely abscended by Neleus.
Just as suddenly it reappears, having been rescued, cared for by three editors and a powerful aristocrat, to be published in a new recension by Andronicus, and to descend to us this very day as Bekker pages. The paradox is that the recension that descends bears little resemblance to the library at Athens. It contains only books specifically authored by Aristotle with the inclusions of works later shown to be spurious.
There are no works of Theophrastus or anyone else and no explanation of what happened to all the other books. The library that was rescued cannot possibly be the one that needed rescuing. Study of the ancient sources reveals that, regardless of its legal status, whether owned, rented, or just occupied, an organization did reside there, which called itself "the friends" philoi and the establishment "the school diatribe of the friends.
This was its own name, or endonym. It meant that the relationship of belonging to the school was "completely informal. The friends lived in a "cooperative" koinonia. They dined together and together had responsibility for the facilities, including the library and the museum.
They paid no one and received no pay from anyone. The expenses for the establishment were assumed by wealthy patrons, one of whom was Aristotle; however, during the time that Alexander the Great was a friend, there were no financial worries. For all these informalities, they were nevertheless considered to be either "young men" neaniskoi or "elders" presbuteroi. Aristotle, moreover, did have some power, beginning with his position, described by English scholars as scholiarch , "ruler of the school.
The business of the friends was not merely education in existing knowledge. As is expressed in the first few paragraphs of Physics, they were interested in discovering the principles, or elements of the knowledge, which was an entirely new goal in Greek education.
This research was divided into specific "fields" methodoi. First they collected written works representing the existing knowledge. Subsequently, they collected field data through interviews and specimen-hunting.
Aristotle is the first known scientist to have sent out field workers, and to have sent them with military expeditions. His was the first known army to feature a military historian unit. He was said to have assigned thousands of men to the task of collecting specimens, presumably in addition to their military duties. The final step in a research project was analysis of all the information to ascertain "scientific knowledge" episteme of the "elements" stoicheia , the "causes" aitia , and the "first principles" archai of the topic.
These were written in a new type of document, which has survived in the corpus. The papers were then stored in the library. Their authors, analysts, contributors, whether or not they were emended, or corrected, and by whom, remain unknown for certain. Diogenes Laertius called these "notebooks" hypomnemata and said that Aristotle wrote "an unusual number.
Theophrastus was the first book collector, as far as Strabo knew. Apparently, the elders owned their own libraries and could dispose of them as they pleased.
There is not one word about a library. Moreover, Aristotle, a metic , or foreign resident of Athens, was not allowed to own property or bequeath it, so he could not have either owned the school with its library or have left it to anyone by legal process. Even if he were not a metic, he could not have disposed of the land and buildings, which were municipal property. According to the laws in effect on the day Aristotle died, no one could own or bequeath the school to anyone.
The city owned it. As to whether Aristotle and Theophrastus had additional personal libraries of their own, first, private ownership was not in the spirit of the school, and second, the fate of the school after Theophrastus suggests that the library was in fact the school library.
After the death of Alexander, Athens staged a brief revolt against the Macedonians. Turning their attention to the school, they went after Aristotle, who went into exile to escape the death penalty. He died in exile. Within a few years Athens was again under Macedon ruled by Cassander. Theophrastus returned in triumph to the school under the authority of the new vice-regent of Athens, Demetrius of Phalerum , a friend of the school and former student of Theophrastus.
The school became even greater than before, but Demetrius made some changes to the administration. The meaning was not "his friend. A "friend" is an associate of the school. There were not two gardens; Theophrastus was not a poor man in need of some property of his own.
His extensive will details the disposition of the assets of the school as his own property, including the garden. He names the friends and wants to make sure that they understand the ownership is to be treated as joint. Demetrius had simply instituted the legal convention prevalent at other schools of having the master own the school and its assets.
This is provisional ownership. If the provisions are not met, the property must revert to someone by law, probably the proprietor, or owner, of the school. The total property of Theophrastus as proprietor was much larger.
The family estate at Eresus and the Aristotelian property at Stagira went to individual friends. He also owned funds in trust managed by Hipparchus. The latter was enjoined to use them to rebuild the museum and other buildings. He also had slaves in his possession as had Aristotle. They were either set free or given to friends.
He had one freedman client, whom he rewarded richly for four more years of maintaining the buildings. Abscondence of the library by Neleus The will contains one more bequest that is rather peculiar. There is as yet no solution to the problem of authorship, or rather lack of it.
Ancient sources on the topic are inconsistent. There is no general scholarly consensus and no agreed preponderance of evidence. The will relates in translation "The whole of my library I give to Neleus. Without it the friends could not produce current or meaningful lectures about the topics for which the school was known physics, rhetoric, etc.
All the other school property was being redistributed to the friends in common except that the foreign estates were given individual owners, probably for their management, while the slaves and the minor received individual guardians , but the heart of the school, without which it could not pump knowledge, was not to be common property, an anomalous approach for the circumstances. No explanation at all is to be found in ancient sources.
The moderns almost universally retrieve one explanation, that Neleus was the intended heir of the archonship, although that, strangely, is nowhere suggested. The law still required an archon with property rights over the school.
He was given the library with the understanding that it would be shared as common property. Instead "Neleus took it to Skepsis and bequeathed it to his heirs, ordinary people, who kept the books locked up Speculations are rife. Athenaeus of Naucratis , in his work Deipnosophistae , "Dinner Sophists," an imaginary portrayal of a series of banquets at which the guests are famous literary figures of the past over , so that the reader is served up menus and snippets of sophistry together, has his main character, the host, Laurentius "Lawrence" possessing "such a library of ancient Greek books, as to exceed in that respect all those who are remarkable for such collections; such as The easiest solution would be to drop one in favor of the other, and many authors take it.
The remaining solution is to accept both as partially true, creating a window of opportunity for speculatory explanation of differences between the Alexandrian and Skepsian traditions.
The dual tradition of texts The ambiguous name, Corpus Aristotelicum The tradition best known to moderns is the Corpus Aristotelicum, New Latin for "Aristotelic body," a term not used by Bekker. The Prussian Academy published his edition under the name Aristoteles Graece, "Aristotle in Greek," where Aristoteles is the nominative case.
In most Latin and New Latin book titles the author is in the genitive case , such as Aristotelis Opera, "the works of Aristotle.
In the late 19th century the corpus phrase began to appear in the notes of the German historians of philosophy, such as Zeller and Windelband. It is in the "notebook" format. The content differs in that it is not an abstract treatise but is a history stating periods and dates.
Not being able to fit it into an idea of the corpus based on Bekker, many rejected it. The date being quite ancient, the majority view is to accept it as of Alexandrian provenience, the only instance of an Aristotelicum from the library and school there. If it is to be only the works in Bekker, then such misleading phrases as "the original corpus" are possible, as though the works in Bekker are more authentic than any works out of it.
Not even the works in Bekker are authentic beyond any doubt.
Corpus Aristotelicum Explained
Kajijind Surely, however, Demetrius was active in some way in the efforts of the first Ptolemy to create a collection. He was educated in Rhodes, an old centre of Aristotelian studies, and it cofpus not unlikely that he preserved the traditions of Eudemus and his school, see T 75 m [Simplicius In Phys. A vital philosophical community could have done more than the Peripatetics after Theophrastus did to offset the loss of the systematic collection which Theophrastus willed to Neleus. As to quotations from Plato it is, as everybody knows, quite the other way. But if he did not include a biography, why did he find it appropriate to present the text of the Will, which was well known through Hermippus?