Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T21:05:45.825Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the Aristotelian paragraph

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2013

Reviel Netz
Reviel Netz
Affiliation:
Stanford University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This article takes its starting-point from the intuition that, in some sense, the extant Aristotelian corpus was written in paragraphs. I hasten to explain. First – almost needless to say this explicitly – I do not suggest that the Aristotelian corpus was set out in the indented form we are familiar with from modern editions. Second, and more to the point, I do not have anything to say about the question, whether the text was formally set out divided by the paragraphē mark (a horizontal line used to signal divisions in ancient papyrus rolls). The paragraphē was certainly in use in Aristotle's time – he himself refers to it in Rhet. 1409a20 – although how widespread its use was, we do not know. Nor do we know with any certainty how the ancients themselves conceptualised this mark and its significance. It does seem, however, to have corresponded more to our concept of a full stop than to our concept of a paragraph. Be that as it may, my argument is not about how the text was set out on the space of the page, but about how the text was conceived: in the most general sense, how it was written and read. The Aristotelian corpus may well have been originally, in appearance, just a constant stream of undivided columns on papyri. Yet it had a certain discursive structure which, I suggest, is best approached as that of a paragraph. It is upon this discursive structure of Aristotle's works that I focus in this article.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society (Second Series) , Volume 47 , 2001 , pp. 211 - 232
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s). Published online by Cambridge University Press 2001

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

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Barnes, J. 1975. Aristotle's Posterior Analytics. Oxford.Google Scholar
Dane, J.A. 1993. ‘The Notion of Ring Composition in Classical and Medieval Studies’, Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 94: 61–9.Google Scholar
Denniston, J.D. 1950. The Greek Particles. Oxford.Google Scholar
Givon, T. (ed.). 1979. Discourse and Syntax. New York.Google Scholar
Gotthelf, A. and Lennox, J.G. 1987. Philosophical Issues in Aristotle's Biology. Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammond, N.G.L. 1952. ‘The Arrangement of Thought in the Proem and in other Parts of Thucydides I’, Classical Quarterly 2: 127–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hazan, M. 1973. The Classic Italian Cookbook. New York.Google Scholar
Herrnstein-Smith, B. 1968. Poetic Closure. Chicago.Google Scholar
Jackson, H. 1920. ‘Aristotle's Lecture-Room and Lectures’, The Journal of Philology 35: 191–200.Google Scholar
Johnson, W.A. 1994. ‘The Function of the Paragraphus in Greek Literary Prose Texts’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphie 100: 65–8.Google Scholar
Keaney, J.J. 1992. The Composition of Aristotle's Athenaion Politeia. Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lloyd, G.E.R. 1979. Magic, Reason and Experience. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Lloyd, G.E.R. 1990. Demystifying Mentalities. Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kermode, F. 1967. The Sense of an Ending. Oxford.Google Scholar
Netz, R. 1999. The Shaping of Deduction in Greek Mathematics. Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newton, I. 1952 (1730). Opticks. New York.Google Scholar
Orsini, G.N.G. 1975. Organic Unity in Ancient and Later Poetics. Carbondale.Google Scholar
van Otterlo, W.A.A. 1944. ‘Untersuchungen über Begriff, Anwendung und Enstehung der griechischen Ringkomposition’. Mededelingen der Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, Afdeling Letterkunde 7: 1–46.Google Scholar
Roberts, D.H. et al. Classical Closure. Princeton.Google Scholar
Shapin, S. and Schaffer, S. 1985. Leviathan and the Air-Pump. Princeton.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. and Sperber, D. 1995. Relevance. Oxford.Google ScholarPubMed