亚里士多德和反身艺术。在国外消息来源的支持下,亚里士多德对于民主民权大礼服,亚略巴格和诺莫西西亚的演讲

Q2 Arts and Humanities
Gertrud Dietze-Mager
{"title":"亚里士多德和反身艺术。在国外消息来源的支持下,亚里士多德对于民主民权大礼服,亚略巴格和诺莫西西亚的演讲","authors":"Gertrud Dietze-Mager","doi":"10.7358/erga-2022-002-gdie","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article discusses the discrepancy between Aristotle’s representation of the Athenian politeia and the information contained in external sources. First we examine his statement that the demagogues manipulate the size and structure of the citizen body by admitting persons of doubtful background in order to broaden their power base. The external sources show no such practice in Athens in the 5th nor in the 4th century: they prove that the three mass citizenship grants in Athenian history were not due to demagogic manipulation but to situations of need, and that on top citizenship criteria became increasingly strict. Next his picture of the 4th century Areopagus as an institution stripped of political and constitutional powers is critically assessed against external sources which show that Aristotle’s description does not match the facts. The article finally tries to clarify why Aristotle chose to never mention the Athenian nomothesia in his writings. It concludes that not only the way in which he presents information about the Athenian state, but also, and more importantly, his decision to exclude information from his narrative are influenced by his conservative views and seem to be guided by his wish to paint a dark picture of the contemporary Athenian politeia.","PeriodicalId":37877,"journal":{"name":"Erga-Logoi","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Aristoteles und die Kunst des Verschweigens. Die aristotelische Darstellung von demokratischer Bürgerrechtsverleihung, Areopag und nomothesia im Licht externer Quellen\",\"authors\":\"Gertrud Dietze-Mager\",\"doi\":\"10.7358/erga-2022-002-gdie\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The article discusses the discrepancy between Aristotle’s representation of the Athenian politeia and the information contained in external sources. First we examine his statement that the demagogues manipulate the size and structure of the citizen body by admitting persons of doubtful background in order to broaden their power base. The external sources show no such practice in Athens in the 5th nor in the 4th century: they prove that the three mass citizenship grants in Athenian history were not due to demagogic manipulation but to situations of need, and that on top citizenship criteria became increasingly strict. Next his picture of the 4th century Areopagus as an institution stripped of political and constitutional powers is critically assessed against external sources which show that Aristotle’s description does not match the facts. The article finally tries to clarify why Aristotle chose to never mention the Athenian nomothesia in his writings. It concludes that not only the way in which he presents information about the Athenian state, but also, and more importantly, his decision to exclude information from his narrative are influenced by his conservative views and seem to be guided by his wish to paint a dark picture of the contemporary Athenian politeia.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37877,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Erga-Logoi\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Erga-Logoi\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7358/erga-2022-002-gdie\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Erga-Logoi","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7358/erga-2022-002-gdie","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本文讨论了亚里士多德对雅典政治的描述与外部来源所包含的信息之间的差异。首先,我们考察他的说法,即煽动家通过接纳背景可疑的人来操纵公民机构的规模和结构,以扩大他们的权力基础。外部资料显示,5世纪和4世纪的雅典都没有这种做法:它们证明,雅典历史上的三次大规模公民权授予不是由于蛊惑人心的操纵,而是由于需要的情况,而且最高的公民权标准变得越来越严格。接下来,他将4世纪的亚略巴古描绘为一个被剥夺了政治和宪法权力的机构,并对外部资料进行了批判性评估,这表明亚里士多德的描述与事实不符。文章最后试图澄清为什么亚里士多德选择在他的著作中从不提及雅典的无觉。结论是,不仅他呈现雅典国家信息的方式,更重要的是,他将信息排除在叙述之外的决定,受到他保守观点的影响,似乎是受他希望描绘当代雅典政治黑暗图景的愿望所引导。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Aristoteles und die Kunst des Verschweigens. Die aristotelische Darstellung von demokratischer Bürgerrechtsverleihung, Areopag und nomothesia im Licht externer Quellen
The article discusses the discrepancy between Aristotle’s representation of the Athenian politeia and the information contained in external sources. First we examine his statement that the demagogues manipulate the size and structure of the citizen body by admitting persons of doubtful background in order to broaden their power base. The external sources show no such practice in Athens in the 5th nor in the 4th century: they prove that the three mass citizenship grants in Athenian history were not due to demagogic manipulation but to situations of need, and that on top citizenship criteria became increasingly strict. Next his picture of the 4th century Areopagus as an institution stripped of political and constitutional powers is critically assessed against external sources which show that Aristotle’s description does not match the facts. The article finally tries to clarify why Aristotle chose to never mention the Athenian nomothesia in his writings. It concludes that not only the way in which he presents information about the Athenian state, but also, and more importantly, his decision to exclude information from his narrative are influenced by his conservative views and seem to be guided by his wish to paint a dark picture of the contemporary Athenian politeia.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Erga-Logoi
Erga-Logoi Arts and Humanities-Literature and Literary Theory
CiteScore
0.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
8
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊介绍: Erga-Logoi is a peer-reviewed open-access journal of ancient history, literature, law and culture, as broadly conceived in geographical and chronological terms. Evoking Thucydides'' methodological exordium (although in that context the opposition obviously has a different value), the name of the Journal was chosen to reflect its intention of looking at the ancient world paying attention to both “facts” (historical events, artistic production, material culture) and “words” (literary, historical, legal production in its oral and written forms). On these bases, the Journal embraces a unified approach to the ancient world, rejecting sectional perspectives for an interdisciplinary focus, reflecting these complex articulated civilizations. The Journal, published every six months, is open to contributions of a historical, philological, literary, archaeological, artistic, and legal nature. It is multilingual, thereby aiming to foster the development of international debate on the ancient world and its legacy.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信