Demetrius of Phalerum (c. 355-280BCE) of Phalerum was a philosopher-statesman. He studied in the Peripatos under Theophrastus and subsequently used his political influence to help his teacher acquire property for the Peripatetic school. As overseer of Athens, his governance was characterized by a decade of domestic peace. Exiled to Alexandria in Egypt, he became the adviser of Ptolemy. He is said to have been in charge of legislation, and it is likely that he influenced the founding of the Museum and (...) the Library. This edition of the fragments of Demetrius of Phalerum reflects the growing interest in the Hellenistic period and the philosophical schools of that age. As a philosopher-statesman, Demetrius appears to have combined theory and practice. For example, in the work On Behalf of the Politeia, he almost certainly explained his own legislation and governance by appealing to the Aristotelian notion of politeia, that is, a constitution in which democratic and oligarchic elements are combined. In On Peace, he may have defended his subservience to Macedon by appealing to Aristotle, who repeatedly recognized the importance of peace over war; and in On Fortune, he will have followed Theophrastus, emphasizing the way fortune can determine the success or failure of sound policy. Whatever the case concerning any one title, we can well understand why Cicero regarded Demetrius as a unique individual: the educated statesman who was able to bring learning out of the shadows of erudition into the light of political conflict, and that despite an oratorical style more suited to the shadows of the Peripatos then to political combat. The new edition of secondary reports by Stork, van Ophuijsen, and Dorandi brings together the evidence for these and other judgments. The facing translation which accompanies the Greek and Latin texts opens up the material to readers who lack the ancient languages, and the accompanying essays introduce us to important issues. The volume will be of interest to those interested in Greek literature, Hellenistic philosophy, Hellenistic history, and generally to persons captivated by the notion of philosopher-statesman. (shrink)

Polis ist einer der Grundbegriffe der aristotelischen Politik. So beginnt dieses Werk damit, dass Aristoteles einmal die polis als die höchste Gemeinschaft bestimmt, die nach dem höchsten Gut strebt und alle anderen in sich einschließt, und zweitens eine Gleichsetzung etwa von Staatsmann und Hausverwalter zurückweist, da sie den Unterschied von großem Haushalt und kleiner polis verkenne. Aus anthropologischer Sicht kann der Mensch, der ohne Gesetz und Recht das wildeste ›Tier‹ ist, erst in der polis seinen Sinn für Recht und Unrecht (...) und die Fähigkeit, dieses anderen mitzuteilen, verwirklichen. (shrink)

Dieses Buch präsentiert eine Auswahl von 25 auf Deutsch bzw. Englisch verfassten Studien des Autors, der sich durch seinen vierbändigen Kommentar zu Aristoteles Politik einen Namen gemacht hat. Die Bandbreite der abgedruckten Aufsätze reicht von einem Beitrag über ein Gedicht des frühen griechischen Lyrikers Simonides bis zur Erklärung der neuplatonischen Klassifizierung der Werke des Aristoteles. Der Themenschwerpunkt liegt bei den Gebieten antiker politischer Theorie und Rhetorik. Ausgewählt wurden Arbeiten, die zentral für die hier behandelten antiken Autoren sind, wie Gerechtigkeit in (...) Platons Staat, Sklaverei in Aristoteles' Politik und "tragische Schuld" in seiner Poetik. This book presents a collection of 25 scholarly papers by the author who is best known for his commentary on Aristotle's Politics. While the works included here range from an article on the Greek lyric poet Simonides to the neo-Platonic classification of Aristotle's works, the focus is on the areas of ancient political theory and rhetoric. Selected for this volume are studies that are central to the authors represented in these fields, such as justice in Plato's Republic, slavery in Aristotle's Politics, or 'tragic guilt" in his Poetics. (shrink)

E. Barker twice wrote essays entitled ‘The composition and structure of Aristotle’s Politics’, first as a journal article in 1931, and later in 1946 as part of the introduction to his translation of the Politics. In these two essays, he came to exactly the opposite conclusions. In the first paper, he distinguished three periods in Aristotle’s life and assigned to each of them three ‘blocks’ in the Politics, based on the criterion of how closely these blocks were related to, or (...) are removed from, Plato’s political theory. In doing so, he not only followed W. Jaeger’s genetic approach, but also went beyond it by assuming that there were three different strata of Aristotle’s political philosophy. In 1946, however, Barker rejected not only Jaeger’s approach, but his own method of reading Aristotle’s Politics. This paper evaluates the merit of Barker’s arguments and comes to the conclusion not only that Barker’s essay from 1946 ignored the intellectual context of the Politics, but also that his view of the Politics as unitary in composition and structure overlooks many problems this work poses. (shrink)

This paper addresses the scholarly controversies surrounding the succinct remark Thucydides makes at Hist. 1. 22. 1 on composing speeches. It argues for the understanding of the “ἂν εἰπεῖν” expression not as contrary-to-fact, as most scholars assume, but as potential of the past, to be translated: “as in his judgment the speakers most likely might have spoken.” The paper proposes that Thucydides indicates a historical method similar to the strategy used in contemporary rhetoric in order to show on the basis (...) of probability considering all the conditions given that certain things were said. The paper scrutinizes every important term used by Thucydides at 1. 22. 1 and the various modern interpretations and translations proposed. (shrink)

In Vorbereitung der eigenen Untersuchungen über den besten Staat unterzieht Aristoteles in Buch II staatstheoretische Entwürfe (des Platon, des Phaleas von Chalkedon, des Hippodamos von Milet) und historische Verfassungen (Sparta, Kreta, Karthago) einer kritischen Betrachtung. Buch III bietet nach grundsätzlichen Bestimmungen zur Verfassung und zum Bürger als dem Teil, aus dem die polis zusammengesetzt ist, eine Übersicht über die Gesamtzahl der Verfassungen, von denen eine, das Königtum, genauer behandelt wird.

Im hellenistischen Schriftenverzeichnis der Werke des Aristoteles, das bei Diogenes Laertios V 22–27 erhalten ist, wird etwa ein Dutzend von Titeln zitiert, die auf eine philosophische Auseinandersetzung mit politischen Themen hindeuten. In den wenigen sicher überlieferten Fragmenten des Dialogs Über Gerechtigkeit, in vier Büchern, behandelte Aristoteles auch das Schicksal einer polis. In dem Dialog Staatsmann, in zwei Büchern, dessen Thema Cicero mit »Über den Staat und den herausragenden Mann« angibt, war Aristoteles selber einer der Sprecher.

Nach den wenigen sicher überlieferten Fragmenten des Dialogs Über Gerechtigkeit behandelte Aristoteles dort sowohl das Schicksal einer polis als auch das Verhältnis von Gerechtigkeit und Lust. In Politik I 2 formuliert Aristoteles seine Annahmen über die zentrale Bedeutung von Recht und Gerechtigkeit, die hier nicht in unterschiedliche Arten aufgespalten sind, wobei er zwei anthropologische Annahmen macht: Auf der einen Seite ist der Mensch ohne Gesetz und Recht das wildeste ›Tier‹, auf der anderen Seite besitzt nur er einen Sinn für Recht (...) und Unrecht und die Fähigkeit, dieses anderen mitzuteilen. Recht ist die Ordnung der politischen Gemeinschaft, es macht damit das gute Leben, um dessentwillen die polis existiert, erst möglich. Rechtlosigkeit setzt dagegen die schlimmsten zerstörerischen Energien frei. Aristoteles kritisiert Platon, der schon von einer polis gesprochen hatte, obwohl Organe des Rechtsvollzugs noch fehlten. (shrink)

Aristoteles verrät in Politik auf Schritt und Tritt, dass sich schon andere Autoren zu den von ihm behandelten Themen geäußert hatten. Besonders wichtig ist für ihn der Einfluss Platons, dessen Auffassungen er häufig kritisiert, obwohl er ihm doch in so vielem verpflichtet ist.

Politeia bezeichnet in Aristoteles’ Politik einmal Verfassung als die je verschieden ausgeprägte politische Ordnung einer polis. Besonders in Politik IV und V stellt Aristoteles häufig politeia monarchischen Staatsformen gegenüber – die poleis unter diesen Verfassungen wären damit etwa ›Gemeindestaaten‹. Normativ kann die Geltung von politeia eingeengt sein, wenn gesetzlosen bzw. autokratischen Regierungsformen die Kennzeichnung politeia bestritten wird.

Dicaearchus of Messana (fl. c. 320 b.c.) was a peripatetic philosopher. Like Theophrastus of Eresus, he was a pupil of Aristotle. Dicaearchus's life is not well documented. There is no biography by Diogenes Laertius, and what the Suda offers is meager. However, it can be ascertained that a close friendship existed between Aristoxenus and Dicaearchus as both are mentioned as personal students of Aristotle. Dicaearchus lived for a time in the Peleponnesus, and in his pursuit of geographical studies and measuring (...) mountains, he is said to have enjoyed the patronage of kings. Dicaearchus's interests were in certain respects narrower than Aristotle's. There is no evidence that Dicaearchus worked in logic, physics, or metaphysics. To the contrary, his work On the Soul recalls the Aristotelian treatise of the same title, but Dicaearchus's work was not an esoteric treatise. Instead, it was a dialogue in two parts. His interest in good and bad lifestyles also found expression in works such as On the Sacrifice at Ilium, and On the Destruction of Human Beings, in which he presented man himself as the greatest threat to mankind. In On Lives, a work of at least two books, he considered philosophers and others noted for their wisdom, with his main thesis being the superiority of the active life over that of quiet contemplation. Cicero speaks of controversy between Dicaearchus and Theophrastus the former championing the active life and the latter that of contemplation. Circuit of the Earth was a work of descriptive geography in which Dicaearchus said that the earth has the shape of a globe. This interest in earth's sphericity led him to make maps and discuss other phenomena like the cause of ebb- and flood-tides and the source of the Nile River. The largest number of texts in the collection deal with cultural history, most of which stem or appear to stem from his Life of Greece, while the smallest section deals with politics. This tenth volume in the series Rutgers Studies in Classical Humanities includes a facing translation of the Greek and Latin texts, making the material accessible to readers who lack the ancient languages, and the accompanying essays introduce important issues beyond the scope of the text. "[Dicaerchus of Messana] is a beautifully produced book...highly recommended, not only as a very full and useful treatment, meeting the highest standards, of one of Aristotle's more important pupils, but also as a model of methodology in the attempt to reconstruct from few remains something of an achievement which has been largely lost." -Dominic O'Meara, The Classical Bulletin William W. Fortenbaugh is professor of classics at Rutgers University. In addition to the other books in this series and his many articles, he has written Aristotle on Emotion and Quellen zur Ethik Theophrasts. Eckart Sch³trumpf is professor of classics at the University of Colorado at Boulder. His interests include ancient literary criticism, rhetoric and political theory. His extensive commentary on Aristotle's Politics now extends to three volumes. A fourth and final volume is forthcoming. (shrink)

In the field of philosophy, Plato's view of rhetoric as a potentially treacherous craft has long overshadowed Aristotle's view, which focuses on rhetoric as an independent discipline that relates in complex ways to dialectic and logic and to ethics and moral psychology. This volume, composed of essays by internationally renowned philosophers and classicists, provides the first extensive examination of Aristotle's Rhetoric and its subject matter in many years. One aim is to locate both Aristotle's treatise and its subject within the (...) more general context of his philosophical treatment of other disciplines, including moral and political theory as well as poetics. The contributors also seek to illuminate the structure of Aristotle's own conception of rhetoric as presented in his treatise. The first section of the book, which deals with the arguments of rhetoric, contains essays by M. F. Burnyeat and Jacques Brunschwig. A section treating the status of the art of rhetoric features pieces by Eckart Schütrumpf, Jürgen Sprute, M. M. McCabe, and Glenn W. Most. Essays by John M. Cooper, Stephen Halliwell, and Jean-Louis Labarrière address topics related to rhetoric, ethics, and politics. The final section, on rhetoric and literary art, comprises essays by Alexander Nehamas and André Laks. Originally published in 1994. The Princeton Legacy Library uses the latest print-on-demand technology to again make available previously out-of-print books from the distinguished backlist of Princeton University Press. These editions preserve the original texts of these important books while presenting them in durable paperback and hardcover editions. The goal of the Princeton Legacy Library is to vastly increase access to the rich scholarly heritage found in the thousands of books published by Princeton University Press since its founding in 1905. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Aristotle’s Rhetoric: Philosophical EssaysCarol PosterAristotle’s Rhetoric: Philosophical Essays, edited by David J. Furley and Alexander Nehamas; xv & 322 pp. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994, $45.00.Scholars will find Aristotle’s Rhetoric, Philosophical Essays fascinating both for what is present and what is absent. As Alexander Nehamas states (pp. xi–xiv), this volume attempts to rectify the neglect by philosophers of Aristotle’s Rhetoric in particular and rhetoric in general. While the (...) volume’s introduction and eleven essays are erudite, readable, and well-argued within their own logical and philosophical disciplinary traditions, the absence of reference both to contemporary rhetorical scholarship and ancient rhetorical traditions is somewhat disappointing.M. F. Burnyeat’s essay typifies both the strengths and weaknesses of the collection. Burnyeat presents a reception history of the Aristotelean enthymeme [End Page 361] in the logical tradition, and argues convincingly for reading the enthymeme as a relaxed rather than truncated syllogism. Missing, however, is a sense of how the enthymeme changed in response to large scale movements in ancient rhetorical theory and reference to contemporary rhetorical scholarship on the enthymeme, which covers much territory Burnyeat treats as unexplored.Several contributors compare the Rhetoric with Aristotle’s other works. Jacques Brunschwig claims that the Rhetoric and the Topics contextualize rhetoric differently and address different audiences. Glenn Most argues quite persuasively that Aristotle constructs a hierarchy of argumentative precision, with logic using the most precise, ethics and politics somewhat less precise, and rhetoric the least precise arguments. He shows that Aristotle’s treatment of endoxa (opinions) in the Rhetoric, Nichomachean Ethics, and Politics reflects this hierarchy. John Cooper points out that rhetoric looks to ethics/politics for its subject matter, but his argument applies only to one of the three genres of oratory and overlooks the heuristic potential of the topoi. Both Most and Cooper, though providing solid philosophical analyses of endoxa, do not discuss the rhetorical use of endoxa as gnômai, and thus useful premises for enthymemes. Stephen Halliwell also reconciles the Rhetoric with Aristotle’s ethical works by showing how the advantageous tends to, rather than opposes, the good.Alexander Nehamas builds a coherent theory of the emotions as amenable to reason by investigating fear and pity in the Rhetoric and Poetics. André Laks, drawing on the work of Paul Ricoeur, discusses two traditions of metaphor, ornamental and transformative, in the Poetics and Rhetoric. Jean-Louis Labarrière contributes a solid and highly original comparison of painting and oratory in Plato and Aristotle.Jürgen Sprute sees rhetoric not only as a solution to a Platonic impasse, but as a necessary and effective tool for Aristotelian political philosophy. Mary McCabe argues that Aristotle refutes both Phaedrus and Gorgias by showing that rhetoric is a technê and consequently a legitimate political tool. Eckart Schütrumpf presents the compelling and original suggestion that Aristotle’s Rhetoric should be read as extending the framework of the late Platonic Laws rather than as refuting earlier Platonic dialogues.Many of these essays share two serious flaws. The first is an unstated tendency to read the Aristotelian corpus as unproblematically systematic and polished, and all apparent contradictions as susceptible to reconciliation. More explicit attention to interpretative assumptions, as is commonplace in Platonic scholarship but rare in Aristotelian, might be desirable. The second flaw is disciplinary insularity. As Nehamas points out (pp. xi-xiv), rhetoric and philosophy were not clearly demarcated in antiquity. To respond to Aristotle’s Rhetoric adequately, scholars need to transcend contemporary disciplinary divisions, and attempt to synthesize rhetorical, logical, philosophical, and literary scholarship, something this volume, despite its many strengths, fails to do.Carol PosterUniversity of Northern IowaCopyright © 1995 The Johns Hopkins University Press... (shrink)

Kant declared that philosophy began in 1781 with his Critique of Pure Reason. In 1806 Hegel announced that it had been completed. Förster assesses the steps that led from Kant’s “beginning” to Hegel’s “end” and concludes that both Kant and Hegel were indeed right. His study reveals Goethe’s significant contribution to post-Kantian thinking.