Aristotelian Practical Philosophy from Melanchthon to Eisenhart: Protestant Commentaries on the Nicomachean Ethics 1529-1682
The place of the Nicomachean Ethics as the standard textbook for the teaching of ethics remained unaltered during the Reformation and post-Reformation era. As a result, close to forty commentaries on this work were published in Protestant territories between 1529 and 1682. Most of these commentaries...
Auteur principal: | |
---|---|
Type de support: | Électronique Article |
Langue: | Anglais |
Vérifier la disponibilité: | HBZ Gateway |
Journals Online & Print: | |
Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
Publié: |
Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group
[2019]
|
Dans: |
Reformation & Renaissance review
Année: 2019, Volume: 21, Numéro: 3, Pages: 218-238 |
RelBib Classification: | KAG Réforme; humanisme; Renaissance KAH Époque moderne KDD Église protestante NCA Éthique VA Philosophie |
Sujets non-standardisés: | B
Nicomachean Ethics
B Moral Philosophy B Melanchthon B Protestant Aristotelianism B Aristotelian commentators B Aristotle |
Accès en ligne: |
Volltext (Resolving-System) |
Résumé: | The place of the Nicomachean Ethics as the standard textbook for the teaching of ethics remained unaltered during the Reformation and post-Reformation era. As a result, close to forty commentaries on this work were published in Protestant territories between 1529 and 1682. Most of these commentaries have previously been listed in studies of the history of Aristotle's reception, but only a very small number have been the object of more specific study. This article presents a survey of this tradition in both its Lutheran and Reformed trajectory, and it deals with the elements of the medieval and the Renaissance traditions of Aristotelian commentary that permeate Protestant Aristotelianism. Finally, it discusses the way in which the Aristotelian understanding of practical philosophy was received by these early modern Protestants. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1743-1727 |
Contient: | Enthalten in: Reformation & Renaissance review
|
Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1080/14622459.2019.1653539 |