The Reception of Aristotle’s Biology in Late Antiquity and Beyond

doi:10.1017/9781108181792.016

Chapter 15 - The Reception of Aristotle’s Biology in Late Antiquity and Beyond

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 14 May 2021

Andrea Falcon

Edited by

Sophia M. Connell

Show author details

Sophia M. Connell: Affiliation:
Birkbeck College, University of London

Book contents

Get access

Summary

This chapter offers an overview of the reception of Aristotle’s biology in antiquity and beyond. It argues that Aristotle’s biology remained largely at the margins of the philosophical tradition even after the so-called return to Aristotle in the first century BC. The relative lack of engagement with Aristotle’s biological works reflects a change in the philosophical agenda. While Aristotle placed great emphasis on the philosophical dimension of his biology, his immediate successors considered biology an expendable part of their agenda. For a full appreciation of what Aristotle achieved in the field of biology, we have to go beyond antiquity. The reappropriation of Aristotle’s biological writings was a gradual process that began in the Arabic world and continued in the Latin world.

Keywords

Alexander of Aphrodisias Aristotelian Hellenistic post-Hellenistic late antiquity Peripatetic Posidonius of Apamea Galen of Pergamum Michael Scotus William of Moerbeke physics biology ancient medicine

Type: Chapter
Information: The Cambridge Companion to Aristotle's Biology , pp. 246 - 260

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108181792.016 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Guide to Further Reading

Cerami, C. and Falcon, A. 2014. “Continuity and Discontinuity in the Reception of Aristotle’s Study of Animals,” Philosophia Antiquorum 8: 35–56.Google Scholar

Sassi, M. M., Coda, E., and Feola, G. (eds.) 2017. La zoologia di Aristotele e la sua ricezione dall’età ellenistica e romana alle culture medievali (Pisa University Press).Google Scholar

van der Eijk, P. and Hulskamp, M. 2010. “Stages in the Reception of Aristotle’s Works on Sleep and Dreams in Hellenistic and Imperial Philosophical and Medical Thought,” in Grellard, C. and Morel, P.-M. (eds.), Les Parva naturalia d’Aristote. Fortune antique et médiévale (Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne), 47–75.Google Scholar

Blumenthal, H. J. 1996. Aristotle and Neoplatonism in Late Antiquity: Interpretations of the De Anima (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press).Google Scholar

Hankinson, H. J . 2016. “Galen on Aristotle,” in Falcon, A. (ed.), Brill’s Companion to the Reception of Aristotle in Antiquity (Leiden: Brill), 238–257.Google Scholar

Moraux, P. 1985. “Galen and Aristotle’s De Partibus Animalium,” in Gotthelf, A. (ed.), Aristotle on Nature and Living Things. Philosophical and Historical Studies Presented to David M. Balme (Pittsburgh, PA: Mathesis Publications), 327–344.Google Scholar

van der Eijk, P. 2009. “Aristotle: What a Thing for You to Say! Galen’s Engagement with Aristotle and Aristotelians,” in Gill, C., Whitmarsh, T., and Wilkins, J. (eds.), Galen and the World of Knowledge (Cambridge University Press), 261–281.Google Scholar

van der Eijk, P. 2013. “Quelques observations sur la réception d’Aristote dans la médicine gréco-romaine de l’epoque impériale,” in Lehman, Y. (ed.), Aristoteles Romanus: la réception de la science aristotélicienne dans l’empire gréco-romain (Brussels: Brepols), 183–193.CrossRef Google Scholar

van der Eijk, P. and Hulskamp, M. 2010. “Stages in the Reception of Aristotle’s Works on Sleep and Dreams in Hellenistic and Imperial Philosophical and Medical Thought,” in Grellard, C. and Morel, P.-M. (eds.), Les Parva naturalia d’Aristote. Fortune antique et médiévale (Paris. Publications de la Sorbonne), 47–75.Google Scholar

Wilberding, J. 2016. Forms, Soul, and Embryos: Neoplatonists on Human Reproduction (Abingdon: Routledge).Google Scholar