Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

‘Aristoteles imperator noster…’? J. C. Scaliger and Aristotle on poetic theory

  • Published:
International Journal of the Classical Tradition Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Aristotle'sPoetics was virtually unknown in the West before the publication of theeditio princeps of the Greek text in 1508. After this date its fame grew steadily. In the decades that followed it was repeatedly translated and commented upon; it also began to be used in theoretical treatises on the art of poetry in general. This article focuses on the most comprehensive of these treatises to appear in the sixteenth century, Julius Caesar Scaliger'sPoetices libri septem (1561). It analyzes the claim, repeated countless times throughout the centuries, that thePoetices libri septem are an ‘Aristotelian’ treatise and tries to show that this claim is borne out neither by such references to the Aristotelian corpus as can be identified in Scaliger's work, nor by its internal structure and economy, nor indeed by its most important doctrinal tenets, such as the definition and purpose of poetry, the relationship of poetry to rhetoric and historiography, or the concept ofmimesis. Despite Scaliger's paying lip-service to Aristotle hisPoetices libri septem cannot thus be adequately interpreted and understood with exclusive reference to an Aristotelian framework.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. G. Valla,Nicephori Logica… Aristotelis Ars Poetica…, Venice: per Simonem Papiensem dictum Bevilaquam 1498. Other editions appeared in 1504 and in 1515.

  2. The quotation is taken from S. Halliwell,Aristotle's Poetics, London 1986, p. 291, who gives the best general overview of “theNachleben of thePoetics” in the final chapter of his book (pp. 286–323). Equally indispensable are B. Weinberg,A History of Literary Criticism in the Italian Renaissance, vol. 1, Chicago 1961, pp. 329–423 (“The Tradition of Aristotle'sPoetics: I. Discovery and Exegesis”), and E. N. Tigerstedt, “Observations on the Reception of the AristotelianPoetics in the Latin West,” in:Studies in the Renaissance 15, 1968, pp. 7–24. An English translation of Averroes' paraphrase has been made available by C. E. Butterworth,Averroes' Middle Commentary on Aristotle's Poetics, Princeton 1986. For the general background to the Arabic transmission of thePoetics see I. M. Dahiyat,Avicenna's Commentary on the Poeticsof Aristotle. A Critical Study with an Annotated Translation of the Text, Leiden 1974, pp. 1–12. Hermannus Alemannus' paraphrase was first printed in Venice in 1481 (and thus predated the printed translation of G. Valla by seventeen years); a critical edition of this text, together with William of Moerbeke's translation, can be found in the 2nd edition ofAristoteles Latinus, vol. 33, ed. by L. Minio-Paluello Brussels-Paris 1968. The quotations of the Hermannus paraphrase in the works of Thomas Aquinas and of Albertino Mussato are discussed by E. N. Tigerstedt “Luther och Aritoteles' Poetik,” in:Lychnos 1960–61, pp. 142–62. Coluccio Salutati's acquaintance with it is pointed out by B. L. Ullman,The Humanism of Coluccio Salutati, Padua 1963, p. 59, n. 3 (referred to in Tigerstedt, “Observations…,” p. 9, n. 16).

  3. In:Rhetores in hoc volumine habentur hi. Aphthonii Sophistae Progymnasmata… Aristotelis…ars Poetica, Venice 1508, pp. 269–86.

  4. On the most important of these treatises, and their relationship to Aristotle, see M. Magnien,Aristote: Poétique. Introduction, traduction nouvelle et annotation, Paris 1990, pp. 53–72.

  5. A. Baillet,Jugements des sçavans sur les principaux ouvrages des auteurs, vol. 2.2, Paris 1685, § 362, pp. 184, 185, and vol. 2.1, § 168, p. 196. Baillet gives references to C. Colerus,De studio politico ordinando epistola (first published in 1682 in Copenhagen; I have not seen this edition), to G. Naudé,Jugement de tout ce qui a esté imprimé contre le cardinal Mazarin depuis le 6 janvier jusqu'à la déclaration du 1er avril 1649 (n.p. n. d.), and to H. Alstedt,Encyclopaedia (Herborn 1630) respectively. For the fullest (though by no means complete) list ofcensurae current in the 17th century see T. P. Blount,Censurae celebriorum authorum, London 1690, pp. 423–425.

    Google Scholar 

  6. It is perhaps not without interest to note that thePoetices libri were published again in 1581, 1586, 1594, 1607, and 1617.

  7. For examples see L. Deitz, “Einführung,” in: vol. 1 (as in n. 17), pp. XXXII–LXIII, esp. p. LXI.

  8. J. E. Spingarn,A History of Literary Criticism in the Renaissance, New York 1899 (Italian translation, with a preface by B. Croce, Bari 1905), p. 177: “Scaliger's work […] marks the introduction of the Aristotelian canons into French criticism;” G. Saintsbury,A History of Criticism and Literary Taste in Europe, vol. 2, Edinburgh/London 1902, p. 79: “He has practically come back to the safe way which Aristotle entered [sc. on the subjects of history and comparison].”

  9. See for example G. Fun[aioli], art. “Scaligero, Giulio Cesare,” in:Enciclopedia Italiana, vol. 30, Rome 1936, col. 1000 a: “[…]la Poetica(1561), un'interpretazione ortodosso-classicistica di Aristotele.”

  10. The most recent example is G. J[äger], art. “Julius Caesar Scaliger,” in: W. Jens (ed.),Kindlers Neues Literatur-Lexikon, vol. 14, Munich 1991, cols. 843 a—844 b: 844 a: “Das gesamte Begriffssystem dieser Poetik ist weitgehend an aristotelisch-scholastischer Philosophie orientiert;” col. 843 b: “Die Kompositionskriterien sind in Anlehnung an Aristoteles […] nach Gattungen differenziert.”

  11. E. Brinkschulte,Julius Caesar Scaligers kunsttheoretische Anschauungen und deren Hauptquellen (Renaissance und Philosophie. Beihefte zur Geschichte der Philosophie 10), Bonn 1914, 43–82. Although Brinkschulte occasionally notes that Scaliger is at variance with Aristotle, he fails to look further afield for other authors whom he might have known (besides Horace [pp. 82–88] and G. Vida [88–98], that is, those whom Scaliger mentions in the preface to thePoetices libri).

  12. A. Michel, “Scaliger entre Aristote et Virgile,” in: J. Cubelier de Beynac and M. Magnien (eds.),Acta Scaligeriana. Actes du Colloque International organisé pour le cinquième centenaire de la naissance de Jules-César Scaliger (Agen, 14–16 septembre 1984) (Recueils des Travaux de la Société Académique d'Agen, 3e série, tome VI), Agen 1986, pp. 63–73: 63.

  13. R. Marcel, “Scaliger et la Poétique d'Aristote,” in:Revue de l'Agenais 1951 2, pp. 145–155, in his otherwise excellent paper, falls into the same trap as E. Brinkschulte (as in n. 11) by relying on Scaliger's misleading declarations about his alleged masters in the preface to thePoetices libri. Although he notes a few discrepancies between the tenets of Aristotle and those of Scaliger (p. 154), Marcel tries to play down their significance rather than question the veracity of Scaliger's statements.

  14. There is now a French translation of book 5: J. Chomarat,Jules-César Scaliger: La Poétique. Livre V: Le Critique (Travaux d'Humanisme et de Renaissance 284), Geneva 1994.

  15. Epinomis was the title given to Plato's last work that followed upon theNomoi. (Some scholars consider Philip of Opus to be the author of theEpinomis, but this question is of no importance in the present context.)

  16. I. C. Scaliger,Liber de comicis dimensionibus, Lyons 1539.

  17. It goes without saying that the figures mentioned below may vary slightly according to how large or how narrow a view one takes of what precisely constitutes a paraphrase or an allusion. However, I believe that the overall picture, if not complete, is at least sufficiently correct to give an adequate impression of the kind of Aristotelian texts quoted as well as of the relative frequency with which these quotations, paraphrases, and allusions occur. References to Scaliger, bks 1–4, are in the following to the critical edition (Iulius Caesar Scaliger: Poetices libri septem—Sieben Bücher über die Dichtkunst. Unter Mitwirkung von Manfred Fuhrmann herausgegeben von Luc Deitz und Gregor Vogt-Spira. Vol. 1: bks 1 and 2; vol. 2: bk. 3, chapters 1–94; vol. 3: bk. 3, chapters 95–126, and bk. 4, Stuttgart 1994–95; all three volumes edited by L. D.), indicating book, chapter, volume, page, and line; references to bks 5–7 still are to theeditio princeps of 1561 (repr. Stuttgart 1964 and 1987), indicating book, chapter, page, and column.

  18. 1, 1: 1, 80, 9 (Po. 17, 1455 a 32f); 1, 2: 1, 82, 16 (ib.); 1, 2: 1, 90, 9–10 (Po. 1, 1447 a 16ff); 1, 3: 1, 92, 12 (Po. 5, 1449 b 7–9); 1, 5: 1, 118, 10–14 (Po. 3, 1448 a 29–34); 1, 5: 1, 118, 14–18 (Po. 5, 1449 b 5–7); 1, 5: 1, 118, 18–21 (Po. 3, 1448 a 35-b 2); 1, 5: 1, 124, 25 (Po. 15, 1454 a 37-b 1); 1, 5: 1, 124, 26 (Po. 23, 1459 a 35–37); 1, 5: 1, 126, 22 (Po. 4, 1449 a 13–15); 1, 5: 1, 128, 19 (Po. 5, 1449 b 7–9); 1, 6: 1, 132, 6–10 (Po. 6, 1449 b 24–28); 1, 6: 1, 132, 13 (Po. 6, 1449 b 29); 1, 9: 1, 160, 26 (Po. 5, 1449 b 1–2); 1, 9: 1, 170, 12 (Po. 26, 1461 b 32); 1, 10: 1, 178, 10 (Po. 4, 1449 a 10–12); 1, 11: 1, 180, 9 (Po. 6, 1450 a 9f); 1, 11: 1, 180, 16 (Po. 6, 1449 b 32f); 1, 11: 1, 182, 7 (Po. 12, 1452 b 14–25); 1, 12: 1, 190, 7 (Po. 4, 1448 b 31f); 1, 42: 1, 372, 14 (Po. 2, 1448 a 12); 1, 46: 1, 398, 9 (Po. 22, 1459 a 9); 3, 96: 3, 32, 23–27 (Po. 6, 1450 a 32–34); 3, 96: 3, 48, 8 (Po. 12, 1452 b 20f).

  19. 1, 1: 1, 64, 11 (Rh. 1, 2, 1355 b 25f); 1, 1: 1, 66, 3–5 (Rh. 1,1, 1355 b 12–14); 1, 2: 1, 88, 15 (Rh. 3, 5, 1407 a 33–35); 1, 19: 1, 270, 2 (Rh. 3, 14, 1414 b 20); 1, 22: 1, 314, 9 (Rh. 1, 5, 1361 b 21–26); 1, 46: 1, 398, 9 (Rh. 3, 3, 1406 b 1f); 3, 26: 2, 348, 24 (Rh. 3, 2, 1405 b 20); 3, 83: 2, 540, 25 (Rh. 3, 14, 1414 b 19f); 4, 1: 3, 318, 5 (Rh. 2, 17, 1391 a 27–28); 4, 25: 3, 484, 19 (Rh. 3, 19, 409 a 35f).

  20. 1, 3: 1, 92, 7 (fr. 15 Gigon apAth. 11, 505 c); 1, 4: 1, 116, 27 (fr. 520, 1 Gigon ap.Ath. 14, 618 ef); 1, 14: 1, 214, 8 (fr. 562 Gigon ap.Ath. 6, 235 e); 1, 18: 1, 244, 25 (fr. 534, 1 Gigon ap. schol. Pi. P. 2, 127); 1, 20: 1, 272, 21 (fr. 705, 1 Gigon ap.Poll. 4, 56); 1, 44: 1, 388, 17 (fr. 675 Rose=test. 1 Gigon ap.Ath. 15, 696 b-d); 3, 1: 2, 76, 9 (fr. 210 Gigon ap.Ath. 7, 305 f).

  21. 1, 50: 1, 416, 7 (HA 8, 3, 592 b 11); 1, 55: 1, 426, 7 (HA 3, 21, 522 b 12); 3, 12: 2, 188, 24 (HA 9, 1, 608 b 10); 3, 110: 3, 148, 7 (HA 5, 19, 552 b 10–17); 4, 29: 3, 498, 13–17 (HA 2, 13, 504 b 35–505 a 12).

  22. 1, 48: 1, 404, 16 (Pr. 19, 25, 919 b 20–23); 1, 48: 1, 408, 8 (Pr. 19, 23, 919 b 12–14); 3, 73: 2, 502, 13 (Pr. 1, 1, 859 a 2f); 3, 96: 3, 38, 22 (Pr. 19, 48, 922 b 2); 3, 116: 3, 164, 9 (Pr. 19, 15, 918 b 19). Scaliger considered theProblemata to be a genuine work by Aristotle.

  23. 4, 29: 3, 498, 21–23 (Sens. 5, 443 b 17–19); 4, 34: 3, 520, 21 (Sens. 2, 438 a 5–7); 4, 41: 3, 552, 19–20 (Sens. 1, 436 a 21-b 1); 4, 41: 3, 552, 22 (Sens. 5, 443 b 2); 4, 41: 3, 554, 10 (Sens. 5, 444 b 30).

  24. 1, 14: 1, 208, 3 (Mete. 2, 8, 366 b 13); 1, 19: 1, 262, 9 (Mete. 1, 14, 352 b 3); 3, 18: 2, 236, 27 (Mete. 2, 5, 361 b 19); 4, 16: 3, 364, 11 (Mete. 1, 4, 341 b 19).

  25. 2, 29: 1, 578, 23 (de An. 2, 8, 419 b 25–33); 3, 19: 2, 242, 3 (de An. 2, 5, 417 b 2) 4, 41: 3, 552, 14–15 (de An. 3, 13, 435 b 24–25).

  26. 1, 19: 1, 266, 22 (Pol. 8, 1340 a 42-b 5); 1, 19: 1, 268, 8 (Pol. 8, 1342 b 12–14); 3, 116: 3, 164, 3 (Pol. 8, 7, 1342 b 7).

  27. 3, 1: 2, 72, 4 (EN 6, 3, 1139 b 15–17); 3, 1: 2, 76, 9 (EN 1, 9, 1099 b 4).

  28. 2, 3: 1, 454, 7 (Int. 1, 16, a 1–18); 4, 46: 3, 578, 11 (Int. 2, 16 a 27).

  29. 1, 18: 1, 236, 16 (MA 2, 704 b 23f); 1, 22: 1, 316, 1 (MA 3, 705 a 16f).

  30. 3, 1: 2, 68, 22 (APo 1, 16, 79 b 23–40).

  31. 4, 1: 3, 266, 11 (Cat. 8, 8 b 25)

  32. 3, 100: 3, 72, 15 (GA 3, 6, 756 b 13ff).

  33. 1, 21: 1, 296, 15 (Metaph, 4, 5, 1010 b 11).

  34. 1, 14: 1, 212, 8 (Phgn. 811 a 33–37).

  35. 4, 48: 3, 636, 21 (Rh. Al, 25, 1435 a 33—b 17). Scaliger considered Anaximenes'Rhetoric to be a work by Aristotle.

  36. 3, 63: 2, 482, 9 (Top. 9, 14, 164 b 3).

  37. 1, 30: 1, 358, 7.

  38. 1, 21: 1, 294, 11; 1, 44: 1, 392, 29; 2, 25: 1, 444, 25; 2, 42: 1, 632, 15; 3, 1: 2, 70, 16; 3, 1: 2, 78, 1; 3, 2: 2, 80, 23; 3, 29: 2, 274, 21; 3, 96: 3, 38, 2. 7; 3, 109: 3, 144, 13; 3, 109: 3, 146, 17; 3, 126: 3, 218, 29; 4, 1: 3, 252, 2; 4, 1: 3, 256, 16; 4, 1 3, 288, 22; 4, 48: 3, 636, 19.

  39. To be precise, 306 pages out of a total of 364 in the edition of 1561.

  40. Arist.Po. 6, 1449 b. 24–29 quoted by Scaliger 1, 6: 1, 132, 7–10; the translation is by T. S. Dorsch,Classical Literary Criticism. Aristotle: On the Art of Poetry…, London 1965, p. 38f.

  41. Loc. cit. 1, G. Valla,Nicephori Logica… Aristotelis Ars Poetica…, Venice: per Simonem Papiensem dictum Bevilaquam 1498. Other editions appeared in 1504 and in 1515. 132, 10–11. 18–19.

  42. Arist.Po. 6, 1450 a 9f quoted by Scaliger 1, 11: 1, 180, 9f; translation by Dorsch (as in n. 40), p. 39.

  43. Loc. cit. 1, G. Valla,Nicephori Logica… Aristotelis Ars Poetica…, Venice: per Simonem Papiensem dictum ωεω read Bevilaquam 1498. Other editions appeared in 1504 and in 1515, 180, 10–18, There is a misprint in line 16 of the critical edition: for ψεω.

  44. See for example, 1, 10: 1, 178, 10–11: “Aristoteles ait ϕαλλικά esse comoediae sobolem;” the reference is to Arist.Po 4, 1449 a 10–12 where Aristotle maintains exactly the opposite.

  45. 1, 10: 1, 179, 16.

  46. Book 7 [1], G. Valla,Nicephori Logica… Aristotelis Ars Poetica…, Venice: per Simonem Papiensem dictum Bevilaquam 1498. Other editions appeared in 1504 and in 1515, chapter 7, p. 349 A′.

  47. Arist.Po. 4, 1449 a 10–11.

  48. Arist.Po. 6, 1450 a 23–25; translation by Dorsch (as in n. 40), p. 40.

  49. Book 7 [1], G. Valla,Nicephori Logica… Aristotelis Ars Poetica…, Venice: per Simonem Papiensem dictum Bevilaquam 1498. Other editions appeared in 1504 and in 1515, chapter 3, p. 348 B.

  50. Ibid. Book 7 [1], G. Valla,Nicephori Logica… Aristotelis Ars Poetica…, Venice: per Simonem Papiensem dictum Bevilaquam 1498. Other editions appeared in 1504 and in 1515, chapter 3, 384 B.

  51. For theepitheton ornans see e.g. 1, 18: 1, 236, 16; 1, 21: 1, 296, 15; 4, 1: 3, 318, 5.

  52. Conclusions similar to those set out above were already reached by B. Weinberg, “Scaliger versus Aristotle on Poetics,” in:Modern Philology 39 (1942), pp. 337-60: 337-41. I do differ from Weinberg, however, when it comes to spelling out the reasons for Scaliger's disagreement with Aristotle; see below, p. 63 with note 61 (against Weinberg's claim that it is a consequence of “the unity, the consistency, and the general integrity of Scaliger's system” [p. 360]). In fairness to Scaliger it should be pointed out that other theoreticians of the first half of the sixteenth century misunderstood Aristotle as well: see G. Zonta, “Rinascimento, aristotelismo e barocco,” in:Giornale storico della letteratura italiana 104 (1934), pp. 1–63 and 185–240, esp. pp. 18–48.

  53. J. Jehasse, “L'Architecture de la Poétique de J.-C. Scaliger et les limitations de l'aristotélisme,” in: C. Balavoine and P. Laurens (eds.),La statue et l'empreinte. La Poétique de Scaliger Paris 1986, pp. 59–73, is not very helpful.

  54. 3, 1: 2, 60, 5–8.

  55. Ibid. 3, 1: 2, 60, 5–8. 2, 60, 10–11: “ut…humana vita compositior fiat.”

  56. Ibid. 3, 1: 2, 60, 5–8. 2, 60, 8: “sic enim etiam acutius quam Aristoteles.”

  57. Arist.Po. 1, 1447 a 17–18; translation by Dorsch (as in n. 40), p. 31.

  58. It is true that he also allows inspiration (either by a supernatural agent or in the form of inebriating drink) as a source of poetic activity (1, 2: 1, 82, 30–84, 9), but this only plays a very minor role and is mentioned by Scaliger more for the sake of historical completeness than out of any sympathy with it.

  59. See esp. 1, 2: 1, 88, 22–90, 16; 2, 1: 1, 446, 15–17; 3, 1: 2, 60,5–14; 4, 1: 3, 248, 5–7.

  60. See p. 60.

  61. L. Deitz, “Julius Caesar Scaliger'sPoetices libri septem (1561) and his Sources,” in:Studi Umanistici Piceni 14 (1994), pp. 91–101. The main thrust of this article is to showex negativo that Scaliger did not rely on Aristotle a great deal for hisPoetices libri, by giving an account of the writers that he really drew upon and whose material he used far more frequently, consistently, and correctly than Aristotle's. It can thus usefully be read in conjunction with what is said here, where I attempt to prove the same pointpositively by pointing out the rarity, inconsistency, and incorrectness of Scaliger's use of Aristotelian material.

  62. 1, 2: 1, 88, 1 (quoting Serv.A. 1, 382).

  63. Ibid. 1, 2: 1, 88, 1 (quoting Serv.A. 1, 382). 1,88, 2–5. 10–11.

  64. Arist,Po. 9, 1451 a 38-b 4; translation by Dorsch (as in n. 40), p. 43. It should be noted that at the end of his discussion of the essence of poetry Scaligerdoes make a passing reference to Aristotle, but only to slight him by pointing out an inconsistency (1, 2: 1, 88, 15–19).

  65. Arist.Po. 9, 1451 b 4–5.

  66. 3, 96: 3, 28, 23.

  67. The criterion of “proximity to truth” also seems to be at the bottom of the scolding Scaliger reserves for Sallust in 4,24: 3, 476, 29–478, 6 (on the face of it, Sallust's lack ofbrevitas).

  68. 3, 96: 3, 30, 12.

  69. This has been done with a greater degree of subtlety, accuracy, and comprehensiveness than the present writer could ever hope to achieve by S. Halliwell (as in n. 2), chapter 4 (pp. 109–37).

  70. For what follows see L. Deitz,1. Buch: Einleitung, in: vol. 1 (as in n. 17), pp. 47–48 with n. 8.

  71. 2, 1: 1, 144, 13–14.

  72. 3, 24: 2, 310, 6–13.

  73. In: J. L. Borges,Ficciones, Madrid 1987, pp. 47–59.

  74. 1, 2: 1, 90, 7. See also 1: 1, 60 22–23; ibid. 1, 62, 5, 8; 3, 24: 2, 312, 5–7; 3, 96: 3, 28, 25–26; book 7 [1] G. Valla,Nicephori Logica… Aristotelis Ars Poetica…, Venice: per Simonem Papiensem dictum Bevilaquam 1498. Other editions appeared in 1504 and in 1515, chapter 2, p. 347 C. A'. D'.

  75. Hor.Ars 333.

  76. For examples preceding the publication of Scaliger'sPoetices libri see M. T. Herrick,The Fusion of Horatian and Aristotelian Literary Criticism, 1531–1555 (Illinois Studies in Language and Literature 32, 1), Urbana, Ill., 1946, esp. chapter 4 (“The function of Poetry”), pp. 39–47, and the standard treatment of the question by B. Weinberg,A History of Literary Criticism in the Italian Renaissance, Vol. 1, Chicago 1961, 71–155, esp. pp. 134–145 on what Weinberg terms “the Horatian mode” in documents on poetic theory in the 1550s.

  77. See book 7 [1], G. Valla,Nicephori Logica… Aristotelis Ars Poetica…, Venice: per Simonem Papiensem dictum Bevilaquam 1498. Other editions appeared in 1504 and in 1515, chapter 2, p. 347 A'-B'.

  78. 3, 9: 2, 134, 14 and, in general, 3, 27.

  79. Book 3, chapters 28–94 (more than half of the book); book 4, chapters 25–43 (approximately one third of the book).

  80. Book 4, 49: 3, 624, 21–23.

  81. A summary of Scaliger's real sources of inspiration can be found in L. Deitz, “Julius Caesar Scaliger'sPoetices libri septem” (as in n. 61), (1561) and his Sources”, in:Studi Umanistici Piceni 14 (1994), esp. pp. 97–98; fuller discussions in the introductions preceding each of the seven books in the critical edition (as in n. 17) It would seem that, apart from the few scattered references to the Aristotelian corpus listed above (pp. 57–59), Scaliger was mainly indebted to the following works (the list is not complete): for book 1, to Alessandro d'Alessandro,Geniales dies; Athenaeus,Deipnosophistae; Diomedes,Ars grammatica; Euanthius,De comoedia; Pollux,Onomasticon; Pausanias,Descriptio Graeciae; ps.-Plutarch,De musica; quintilian,Institutio oratoria; scholia to Pindar and Theocritus; for book 2, to Hephaestion,Encheiridion; J. Murmellius,Tabulae in artis componendorum versuum rudimenta; Servius,Centimetrum; for book 3, to Alessandro d'Alessandro,Geniales dies; Aquila Romanus,De figuris; Chirius Fortunatianus,Ars rhetorica; Menander Rhetor,Opuscula rhetorica; Quintilian,Institutio oratoria; Rutilius Lupus,De figuris; for book 4, to Alexander Rhetor,De figuris; George of Trebizond,Rhetorica; Hermogenes,De ideis; quintilian,Institutio oratoria; for book 5, to Macrobius,Saturnalia; for book 7, to P. Bembo,De Terentii fabulis and Erasmus's edition of the plays of Terence. (Book 6 contains applied literary criticism and does not rely on any known source.)

  82. See above A summary of Scaliger's real sources of inspiration can be found in L. Deitz, “Julius Caesar Scaliger'sPoetices libri septem” (as in n. 61), (1561) and his Sources”, in:Studi Umanistici Piceni 14 (1994), esp. pp. 97–98; fuller discussions in the introductions preceding each of the seven books in the critical edition (as in n. 17) It would seem that, apart from the few scattered references to the Aristotelian corpus listed above (pp. 57–59), Scaliger was mainly indebted to the following works (the list is not complete): for book 1, to Alessandro d'Alessandro,Geniales dies; Athenaeus,Deipnosophistae; Diomedes,Ars grammatica; Euanthius,De comoedia; Pollux,Onomasticon; Pausanias,Descriptio Graeciae; ps.-Plutarch,De musica; quintilian,Institutio oratoria; scholia to Pindar and Theocritus; for book 2, to Hephaestion,Encheiridion; J. Murmellius,Tabulae in artis componendorum versuum rudimenta; Servius,Centimetrum; for book 3, to Alessandro d'Alessandro,Geniales dies; Aquila Romanus,De figuris; Chirius Fortunatianus,Ars rhetorica; Menander Rhetor,Opuscula rhetorica; Quintilian,Institutio oratoria; Rutilius Lupus,De figuris; for book 4, to Alexander Rhetor,De figuris; George of Trebizond,Rhetorica; Hermogenes,De ideis; quintilian,Institutio oratoria; for book 5, to Macrobius,Saturnalia; for book 7, to P. Bembo,De Terentii fabulis and Erasmus's edition of the plays of Terence. (Book 6 contains applied literary criticism and does not rely on any known source.) pp. 55–57.

  83. Book 7 [2], The quotation is taken from S. Halliwell,Aristotle's Poetics, London 1986, p. 291, who gives the best general overview of “theNachleben of thePoetics” in the final chapter of his book (pp. 286–323). Equally indispensable are B. Weinberg,A History of Literary Criticism in the Italian Renaissance, vol. 1, Chicago 1961, pp. 329–423 (“The Tradition of Aristotle'sPoetics: I. Discovery and Exegesis”), and E. N. Tigerstedt, “Observations on the Reception of the AristotelianPoetics in the Latin West,” in:Studies in the Renaissance 15, 1968, pp. 7–24. An English translation of Averroes' paraphrase has been made available by C. E. Butterworth,Averroes' Middle Commentary on Aristotle's Poetics, Princeton 1986. For the general background to the Arabic transmission of thePoetics see I. M. Dahiyat,Avicenna's Commentary on the Poeticsof Aristotle. A Critical Study with an Annotated Translation of the Text, Leiden 1974, pp. 1–12. Hermannus Alemannus' paraphrase was first printed in Venice in 1481 (and thus predated the printed translation of G. Valla by seventeen years); a critical edition of this text, together with William of Moerbeke's translation, can be found in the 2nd edition ofAristoteles Latinus, vol. 33, ed. by L. Minio-Paluello Brussels-Paris 1968. The quotations of the Hermannus paraphrase in the works of Thomas Aquinas and of Albertino Mussato are discussed by E. N. Tigerstedt “Luther och Aritoteles' Poetik,” in:Lychnos 1960–61, pp. 142–62. Coluccio Salutati's acquaintance with it is pointed out by B. L. Ullman,The Humanism of Coluccio Salutati, Padua 1963, p. 59, n. 3 (referred to in Tigerstedt, “Observations…,” p. 9, n. 16), chapter 1, p. 359 B': “Aristoteles imperator noster, omnium bonarum artium dictator perpertuus.”

  84. See on this issue S. Halliwell (as in n. 2),, p. 294, n. 15.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Thus C. Nisard,Les gladiateurs de la République des Lettres aux XVe, XVIe et XVIIe siècles, vol.1, Paris 1860 (on Scaliger see pp. 305–400).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Warburg Institute, University of London, Woburn Square, WC1H 0AB, London, UK

    Luc Deitz

Authors
  1. Luc Deitz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

This article was written during my tenure of a British Academy Postdoctoral Research Fellow-ship at the Warburg Institute, University of London. An earlier version of it was read at the Third Meeting of the International Society for the Classical Tradition held at Boston University from 8 to 12 March 1995. I gratefully acknowledge the receipt of a travel grant awarded by the Research Committee of the Humanities Research Board of the British Academy, which made my attendance at the conference possible. My thanks also go to Peter Kingsley and to Paul Nelles who devoted a great deal of their time and energy to correcting my English, and above all to Wolfgang Haase, who encouraged me to write the paper in the first place.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Deitz, L. ‘Aristoteles imperator noster…’? J. C. Scaliger and Aristotle on poetic theory. International Journal of the Classical Tradition 2, 54–67 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02678170

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02678170

Keywords

Search

Navigation