Protreoptik

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The beginning of the protrepticos of the philosopher Iamblichus in the oldest and most important manuscript: Florence, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana , Plut. 86.3, fol. 46v (14th century)

Protreptik (from ancient Greek προτρεπτικός protreptikós , here in the sense of 'convincing') is the modern name for the ancient art of advertising for a goal. In the narrower sense, the literature produced specifically for this purpose is meant. This includes the texts that aim to convince the audience reading or listening to a speaker of the value of a subject or an activity, way of life or religion. A protreptic work (ancient Greek προτρεπτικὸς [λόγος] protreptikós [lógos] , convincing [speech] 'in the sense of "advertising speech" or "advertising pamphlet", Latin protrepticus ) should inspire the reader and encourage them to turn to the relevant field of knowledge and goal.

The protreptic writings of antiquity mostly promoted the turn to philosophy . This meant both the philosophical search for truth and the acquisition of knowledge as well as the corresponding attitude and way of life. The philosophical protreptic usually emphasized the demands of ethics and encouraged the acquisition and cultivation of arete , virtue or mental efficiency. The main goal and greatest good, however, was not presented to the audience as aptitude and probation in social life, but as a rule the achievement of the balanced and happy state of mind of eudaimonia . This was seen as a result of the insight into the actual world context, which is hidden from the philosophical people. The religious protreptic of the ancient Christians, which propagated their worldview and value system, served a different purpose.

The philosophical protreptic continued in the 5th century BC. And flourished in late antiquity . Distinguished authors in this field were Aristotle and Cicero , but only fragments of their relevant works have survived. Modern research has dealt intensively with the sifting through of the material handed down and attempts at reconstruction. The question of whether protreptic should be considered an independent genre of literature alongside parenesis is controversial and today mostly denied.

Concept, characteristics and goals

The modern expression ultimately goes back to the Greek verb προτρέπειν protrépein , which means “to turn someone towards something”, “to draw attention”, “to stimulate”, “to encourage”. The associated adjective προτρεπτικός protreptikós - related to lógos (speech, treatise) or substantivated - was used in antiquity to denote the relevant works, the protreptikoi . A number of writings, mostly from the field of philosophy or religion, bore the title Protreptikos , with or without a more detailed definition. Since the most important sources have not been preserved, a precise definition and description of the Protreptik is difficult and problematic.

The demarcation of the related concept of exhortation or Paränetik (admonition, advice) is blurred. While protreptic writings are primarily aimed at gaining new followers, parenetic writings mainly admonish a meaningful lifestyle and establish rules for it. However, because of the similar issues, there are contacts and overlaps between them. The terminology varies in the specialist literature as well as in the ancient sources: either protreptic and parenesis are distinguished as two separate areas, or the term protreptic serves as a comprehensive term for all inviting, encouraging and admonishing works, with parenesis appearing as a special form. The latter language can draw out that in some sources, the terms are interchangeable and in titles Protreptikos more common than parainesis . However, other sources offer clues for a clear conceptual separation. If both aspects exist in a work, a distinction must be made between the protreptic and the parenetic function.

The main difference is that Protreptik is primarily aimed at outsiders who are still distant or ignorant of the field of knowledge, field of activity and goal in question, while parenesis calls on those who already belong to perseverance in their efforts, thus on an often difficult path that has already been taken Progress is being made. Accordingly, protreptic is introductory and tends to be extensive in argument, while parenetic literature often offers a listing of advice.

In ancient practice, however, the overlap was considerable because the audience that read or heard encouraging works was likely to be overwhelmingly mixed. It showed a broad spectrum, ranging from committed supporters to skeptics and opponents who first had to be convinced of the usefulness and superiority of the recommended path. Authors who wanted to reach a wide range of recipients were aware of the need to pursue protreptic and parenetic goals at the same time. This was particularly true in view of the competitive situations in which it was important to assert oneself with arguments against rival teachings and at the same time to ensure truthfulness and credibility in the practice of one's own followers.

In the dispute with competing offers of lifestyle, the Protreptics endeavored to justify their position and discredit opposing views. This showed a pronounced aggressiveness towards other opinions, which were polemicized against.

Rivalry shaped the apologetic literature of the ancient Christians in particular . The aim there was to defend Christianity against the criticism of pagan opponents, with the aim of winning back apostates, keeping the wavering in their own camp and giving support to the insecure. In addition, the own followers should be reminded with a wake-up call to intensify their efforts on their way or, if necessary, encouraged to repent and turn back. There was a frontal position between Christians and non-Christians as well as between the “big church” and “heretical” currents within Christianity. Thus there was considerable overlap between protreptic, parenetic and apologetic goals.

The inconsistency of protreptic literature makes the classification and description of structural features difficult. A two- or three-part structure is only recognizable in individual cases, with one section of the work praising the advantages of the recommended way of life, another addressing the opponents and their objections and, if necessary, a third directly exhorting the audience.

In general, two approaches came into consideration for a philosophical protreptian: the positive one, which consisted of praising virtue and describing role models and recommending them for imitation, and the negative, the starting point of which was a fundamental criticism of the contradictions and flawedness of the unphilosophical way of life of the person being addressed Audience was. Opinions differed on the question of which method should be preferred. A well-known spokesman for the negative direction was the imperial ethicist Epictetus . He strongly opposed speakers who understood protreptic to be mere eulogies and encouragement. Epictetus said that the task of the Protreptic was only to shake things up: it should show those addressed that they were on a wrong track if they tried to achieve eudaimonia, that is, to lead a successful life, but to achieve this goal with unsuitable means pursued instead of turning to philosophy and striving for virtue. In the sense of this concept, Epictetus defined the protreptic way of philosophizing as that which shows the addressee the contradiction in which he lives, in order to then attach the call for its elimination to the demonstration of the evil. The use of medical metaphors was widespread ; the Protreptic acted as a therapist who had to cure the addressee, who was mentally “ill” as a result of his ignorance, whereby he first administered the medicine of Protreptic.

A substantive feature of protreptic literature that it shares with the diatribe , a related type of text, is the discussion of the value of various goods. The external and physical goods such as noble origins, friendships, wealth, good and numerous offspring, health, beauty, strength, reputation and favorable fortunes are devalued as relatively insignificant. From the point of view of the Protreptics, they are inherently problematic and turn out to be questionable goals in life, since they cannot guarantee a permanent, completely satisfactory state. Inner goods - usually the basic virtues and wisdom - are portrayed as crucial to a successful life, and philosophy is touted as the way to achieve this goal.

In Protreptics, wisdom, the insight into fundamental facts obtained through scientific endeavors, is considered to be the highest of the inner goods. It is more important than all other matters in life, including the basic virtues. Research and knowledge as an end in itself are not only far more valuable than any practical use and external gain, but also take precedence over ethical qualities. It is not the knowledge that has to be useful for something else, rather the useful has to serve the acquisition and enjoyment of knowledge. Aristotle and the later Protreptians who followed him were of the opinion that the highest form of life was the " contemplative life " (bíos theōrētikós) of the philosopher, which was called vita contemplativa in Latin . It is to be valued more highly than the practically active life (bíos Praktikós, vita activa) , the political and social activity. This claim is made plausible in the protreptic literature on the basis of a thought experiment that originally came from Aristotle and is passed down in a detailed version by Cicero. One should imagine that there is the possibility of living on the paradisiacal " Islands of the Blessed ", where , according to Greek mythology , immortal people favored by the gods enjoy a carefree existence in perfect bliss. There is no need for eloquence there as there are no trials; there is no need for bravery because life is free from toil and danger, no justice because conflicts over property are ruled out, and no self-discipline because harmful desires cannot occur. Not even cleverness is required, because one no longer has to choose between good and bad. When virtues and virtuous activities become superfluous, there is only one great good left as a source of happiness: thought and spiritual contemplation, that is, wisdom or science. Free will turns to it when all compulsion of necessity has ceased. So the cognition and knowledge is the highest good and the real goal of life and philosophy.

history

The history of Protreptik begins - as far as recognizable - in the 5th century BC. And ends in late antiquity. Since only a small part of the relevant works has been preserved and precisely the relevant ones have been lost, any attempt to identify a line of development is fraught with considerable uncertainty. In view of the unfavorable source situation, the possibility of a distorted picture is to be expected. After all, the use of the work title Protreptikos , first attested in the Greek Classical period and most recently in late antiquity , shows that this designation was associated with a clear idea that was also adopted by the Jewish thinker Philon of Alexandria and by Christian authors. It is difficult to see, however, to what extent this concept has changed over the centuries. Apparently in the beginning the endeavor was in the foreground to call on readers or listeners who were not committed to a certain teaching or orientation to change their way of life. In the Christian world, on the other hand, the target audience consisted primarily of people whose fundamental decision for their religious life had already been made and who should now be encouraged to take further steps.

Greek philosophy and education

Classic

The starting point for the emergence of Protreptik was the appearance of the Sophists , the representatives of a controversial educational movement that began in the late 5th century BC. BC caused a sensation in Athens. The sophists offered training outside the traditional curriculum for which they asked for payment. Some of them dealt with questions that later became important subjects of philosophy. Since almost all sophists were wandering strangers without civil rights, they had to advertise their offer of teaching useful skills in order to be able to make a living as traveling teachers. This happened both in face-to-face interviews and in public speeches in which they extolled the value of the knowledge they promised to teach the students. Little is known about this. At least some surviving texts - the Dissoi logoi and the one between 340 and 323 BC . Chr resulting Erotikos logos of Pseudo-Demosthenes as a late modification of the sophistic advertising speech - protreptische motives. More emerges from the parodying representation in Plato's dialogues . The essential elements of this protreptic included the promotion of a learnable competence such as rhetorical skills, the demonstration of samples of the sophistic rhetoric and the demonstration of the practical benefits, which consist in an increase in productivity and the resulting well-being. Associated with this was the warning that one would be helpless without the knowledge offered. In addition, there was the defense against negative or competing opinions.

When recommending their teaching program, the sophists were able to fall back on motifs they found in older poetry, especially in aristocratic poetry, which glorified exemplary engagement in situations of struggle and competition and thus spurred youth who were hungry for glory to imitate them. This approach appealed to the highly developed competitive spirit. He aimed to show the addressee that he was lagging behind the vaunted ideal of efficiency and thus to show him a need for action. The sophists modified the method of motivation used by the poets by making the achievement of the goal in life of gaining fame through ability dependent on the possession of the rhetorical technique in their advertising. In this way they managed to arouse the need for special training.

Socrates , who was a distinguished opponent of sophistry, took up its protreptic elements and redesigned them. Although he did not write any writings himself, the dialogue literature of his pupils, the Socratics, shows that he verbally protreptic for his philosophy. As a goal he promised the achievement of the Arete , a proficiency understood in the sense of virtue. Opponents accused him that his protreptic was successful, but that he was unable to lead his students to the promised goal. The well-known Socratic students Antisthenes and Aristippus of Cyrene , who initiated new directions themselves, wrote protreptikoi.

Plato, Socrates' best-known student, wrote numerous literary dialogues in which his teacher often appears as the dominant figure. These works are not explicitly protreptic, but conceived for the purpose of spreading the Platonic philosophy ; only an implicit protreoptic that indirectly strives for its goal can be determined there. Only the dialogue of Alcibiades I, ascribed to Plato, but possibly not authentic, has a clearly protreptic character . In Euthydemos protreptisches thought is present: Socrates proves that all goods are worthless without wisdom, and encourages his young interlocutor Clinias to search for this good at. The goal is not to create a need, rather an existing need should be connected to its object. The famous orator Isocrates , an opponent of Plato, also wrote advisory speeches, which some researchers count as protreptic literature, others as paranetic literature. In any case, Isocrates pursued a protreptic goal among other things. However, he did not want to win his audience over to a philosophical theory, but rather to his educational concept, which was based on recognized norms and aimed at practically usable skills, especially political practice.

The best known and most influential introduction to philosophy was the Protrepticos of Aristotle . This work, which is now only available in fragments , an early writing by the author, had a significant impact. It seems to have been the model for later texts of this kind. What is certain is that it was a typical philosophical protreptic that asked the reader to decide on the recommended way of life. The author was primarily concerned with turning to philosophy in general, not the specificity of his own system. The opinion widespread in older research that the Aristotelian protrepticos was a dialogue is probably not true; it was rather a letter that Aristotle addressed to a Cypriot ruler named Themison in the 1940s. The philosopher proposed to the ruler that his considerable external goods should be placed at the service of philosophy. Aristotle not only turned to his Cypriot addressees, but also had a broader reading public of philosophical laypeople in mind, which he wanted to reach with the publication of the work, especially the Athenian youth. That is why he wrote it in stylistically sophisticated art prose, in contrast to his sober scientific writings.

In research, the view is widespread that one could reconstruct the structure and content of this protrepticos from alleged quotations from the late antique author Iamblichos . Against the attempts at reconstruction, however, it is asserted that they are unprovable hypotheses. In any case, a central idea of ​​the letter was the thesis that the human spirit, as the most important part of the soul , is called to recognize the truth and that the truth is to be sought for its own sake. It was particularly emphasized that the philosophical life shaped by the striving for such knowledge is connected with the greatest joy. In addition, the philosophical insight is quite beneficial for practical life. Other works by Aristotle, especially his Nicomachean Ethics , have been ascribed a protreptic aim.

Hellenism

A considerable number of protreptikoi emerged during the Hellenistic period , none of which survived the end of antiquity. The philosophical historian Diogenes Laertios names the Peripatetics Theophrast and Demetrios of Phaleron , the Stoics Kleanthes , Persaios of Kition and Ariston of Chios , the Cynic Monimos and Epicurus , the founder of the Epicurean school, as authors of such works . With Epicurus the protreptic letter literature also began. The Stoics Chrysippus and Poseidonios wrote treatises on wooing (Peri tou protrepesthai) , few fragments of which have survived. The Peripatetic Chamaileon wrote a Protreptikos in which he emphasized the ethical value of music.

Two well-known late Hellenistic thinkers in the tradition of Platonism , Philo of Larisa and Eudorus of Alexandria , expressed themselves on the theory of protrepticism . Philo was the last scholarch in the Platonic Academy . He compared the task of the philosopher, whom he saw as a doctor of the soul, with that of the doctor. Both have healing activities in their respective areas of responsibility, and both have to do some persuasive work first, because the philosophy student as well as the patient must first be made aware of the advisability of the recommended procedure and its superiority over possible alternatives before concrete steps can be taken. The Middle Platonist Eudoros of Alexandria determined the task of protreptic as a representation of virtue and vice from a holistic point of view, in contrast to the discussion of the individual virtues. In addition, Eudoros reported a use of the term according to which practical ethics is divided into three areas, one of which is the protreptic.

Imperial times

Four Greek texts by non-Christian authors with the title Protreptikos have survived in whole or in part from the Roman imperial period including late antiquity : the first part of an advertisement for the healing art written by the famous doctor Galen , the rest of which has been lost, serving as a general introduction , the philosophical Protreptikos des Neo-Platonist Iamblichus and two speeches by the late antique philosopher and rhetorician Themistius . The work of Iamblichus was written in the early 4th century as the second of ten books in his complete account of Pythagoreanism , the original title of which is unknown. It provides a general introduction to philosophy and specifically deals with the specific Pythagorean doctrine and way of life. This protrepticos consists largely of paraphrases and quotations. The two speeches by Themistius are marked as protreptics in the title; one is addressed to the heir to the throne Valentinianus Galates , the other to the inhabitants of the city of Nicomedia . A number of other works are also marked by a protreptic intention, including the thirteenth speech of Dion Chrysostom , several of Plutarch's writings , Epictet's doctrinal conversations and Marcus Aurelius' self-reflections .

However, the self-confident advertising of the Protreptics also met with criticism. In the 2nd century the satirist and philosophy critic Lukian dealt with the philosophy of teaching and the self-image of philosophers. He particularly disliked the absurd, grotesque and miserable way of life, which was touted in the ascetic currents, and the charlatanry of some supposed wisdom teachers. So he targeted the protreptic, which he saw as questionable propaganda for eccentric ideals and pointless endeavors. In the dialogues of Hermotimos and Nigrino , he mocked the emphatic turn to philosophy with its emotional side effects, which the Protreptians were striving for. In Hermotimos the skeptic Lykinos succeeds in dissuading the stoic Hermotimos from philosophy. Thus, a reverse conversion takes place, which, like the conversions brought about by the protreptic, is perceived by the person concerned as redemption and healing: At the end Hermotimos professes his change, deeply moved. He is now thoroughly and forever cured of the gossip of the philosophers. In Nigrinos , the narrator enthusiastically describes to a conversation partner his conversion to philosophy when he met the Platonist Nigrinos in Rome. He describes the overwhelming effect of the Nigrino's words, which aroused a lasting emotion in him. The process is similar to a religious awakening experience. The power of this protreptic is so tremendous that the narrator's dialogue partner is infected by the enthusiasm while simply listening to the conversation and is also won over to the philosophy. This astonishing effect, however, does not correspond to what one learns about the content of the statements of the vaunted philosopher in the dialogue, because in reality Nigrinos only presented platitudes. In addition, his promotional discourse is saturated with self-glorifying self-praise. Due to the contrast between the modest level of protreptic statements and their disproportionate effect on the reporter and his audience, the satirical author achieves a parodic effect: The experience of conversion as a turning point in life gives the impression of a ridiculous, theatrical enthusiasm. Finally, the contagious enthusiasm of the philosophers' disciples is compared to rabies, which is always reproduced through bites. Philosophy thus appears to be a disease. Lukian, who did not differentiate between the different schools in this regard, wanted to warn his readers of the danger of falling victim to the seduction of Protreptics. In the dialogue The Sale of the Philosophers' Lives, too , he mocked the self-promotion of the philosophers.

Roman philosophy and education

Republican time

During the time of the Roman Republic, several Latin works were created whose authors wanted to encourage a philosophical attitude and way of life. The poet Ennius , who in the late 3rd and early 2nd centuries BC Lived, wrote a Protrepticus in poetry, from which a small fragment has survived. Lucretius , who lived in the 1st century BC , also had a protreptic intention . BC in his didactic poem De rerum natura promoted the Epicurean doctrine. He emphasized the contrast between the fear and worry life of the unphilosophical man and the superior attitude of the wise man. The last and best-known protreptic of the republican era in Latin, the Dialogue Hortensius, was written by Cicero . This famous work, which still had a strong influence on the young Augustine in the 4th century , has been lost as a whole, but numerous quotations have handed down fragments that give an impression of the content.

Cicero wrote the Hortensius 46/45 BC Under the impression of the political upheavals of that time. The current background is the personal situation of the author after the final establishment of Caesar's sole rule in the Roman Empire. This development was a defeat for Cicero, which destroyed his statesmanlike life's work and drove him out of politics. The forced inactivity gave him the impetus to turn to philosophy, in which he found consolation. The dialogue should make this new, seemingly un-Roman attitude to life of the prominent politician plausible to a skeptical audience. In the fictional, literary dispute, the author himself appeared as the protagonist. He described how he succeeded in winning over the orator Hortensius, who initially appeared as a critic and after whom the dialogue is named, for philosophy. What was meant was philosophy, not a specific school.

The criticism of the dialogue figure Hortensius of philosophy was extremely sharp and passionate. He claimed that this field of activity was useless, contrary to the rhetoric that he himself had cultivated all his life. As a teacher, philosophy is superfluous, because nature is sufficient for teaching man; one need only pay attention to what human nature requires. The late appearance of philosophy in history shows that man is not dependent on it. Thus it is dispensable. The claims of philosophical ethics are unclear and unworldly, and there is a gap between theory and practice. The thought processes of the Stoic dialectic and the classical Aristotelian logic are contradicting, paradoxical and inconclusive. On the other hand, Cicero - taking up an idea of ​​Aristotle - submitted that the thesis that one should not philosophize is itself a philosophical statement as a position on the question of what one should do. Cicero also asserted that the criticism of logic makes use of its own methods. He found that the search for the truth is valuable even if it does not lead to the goal. Only philosophy can free man from the fear of death and lead him to the happiness that is according to his nature. Its allegedly late creation is not a valid objection, because only its name came up late; In essence, it had existed much earlier, and it was the driving force behind human cultural development.

Cicero took over from Aristotle not only the basic idea that life devoted to science was the highest form of existence, but also details, arguments and rhetorical comparisons. His own contribution consisted mainly of presenting the protreptic material in dialogue form. A very personal concern was decisive for this: dealing with the question of whether rhetoric or philosophy took the higher rank. Cicero had risen to the consulate through the superiority of his eloquence and owed his fame to it; after his failure and political resignation, he decided in favor of the philosophical way of life and tried to give this personal decision in Hortensius an objective justification. Significantly, he left the fictional conversation in 62 or 61 BC. Take place at the time when he was at the height of his fame, could be considered the undisputed savior of the fatherland and was free from external pressure. So his 46/45 BC He gave the impression that he gave preference to philosophical contemplation over power and fame, not out of a lack of alternatives, but out of deep conviction.

Imperial times

The Roman imperial era also produced a series of Latin writings whose purpose was to advertise a philosophical life or which at least have protreptic features. The historian Suetonius reports that Emperor Augustus wrote requests for philosophy (Hortationes ad philosophiam) . The lost exhortations (exhortations) of the Stoic Seneca propagated a philosophical life in the sense of the Stoa, and this topic is also present in many of Seneca's letters to his friend Lucilius . In the ninetieth letter he deals with Poseidonios' conception.

The most important late antique work with a protreptic orientation is the consolation of the philosophy of the politician, scholar and Neoplatonic philosopher Boethius , written in the twenties of the sixth century . This prosimetrum , which became one of the most widely read and most commented texts in the Middle Ages, is a dialogue between the author and the personified philosophy that comforts and teaches him. Boethius was a Christian, but largely dispensed with Christian references in this philosophical work.

In nichtphilosophischem context, the term appears protreptisch of the poem in the title Liber Protrepticus ad nepotem (encouraging book to the grandchildren) , the poet Ausonius wrote in the period 379-383. In the Hundred Hexameters , Ausonius turned to his grandson of the same name, a schoolboy, in a playful tone, to encourage him to make educational efforts.

Christianity

In early Christian literature, efforts to convert pagan readers to Christianity or to encourage parishioners to adopt a consistently Christian attitude and way of life were among the main motives of church writers. As in philosophy, it was important to motivate the reading public to decide on a new path in life or to encourage them to make such a decision. Therefore, the literary means of missionary activity and teaching about belief were often based on the model of philosophical protrepticism. The educated church fathers were familiar with the protreptic tradition, especially Cicero's dialogue with Hortensius . Protreptic elements occur in a considerable number of the products of ancient Christian literature, particularly apologetics, which are often interwoven with parenetic ones.

The imitation of Cicero in the apologist Minucius Felix , who probably wrote the dialogue Octavius in the first half of the 3rd century, is clearly recognizable . Here the pagan Caecilius and the Christian Octavius ​​have a dispute about the Christian religion, in which a statement by the pagan is followed by a Christian opinion that is more than twice as long. Epistemologically, the pagan takes a skeptical position; he considers it presumptuous to claim a certain judgment about God and creation, and considers the possibility of a world entirely subject to chance. In metaphysical questions, the philosophically appropriate attitude is doubt. But since Caecilius is a conservative Roman, he wants to stick to the religious doctrine and practice of his ancestors. His image of Christians is shaped by unfounded rumors. Octavius ​​responds by sketching a Christian metaphysics based on a rationally proceeding theology. To refute the assumption that living beings are accidental compositions of elements, he puts forward a teleological proof of God . He claims that from the order in nature and the regularity of natural processes as well as from the cognitive powers of man, perfect reason can be inferred as the cause of these facts. Against the justification of the traditional cult practice with reference to the Roman world power, which can be traced back to the favor of the gods, he argues historically that the political and military successes of the Romans are the result of the injustices committed by them. Octavius ​​succeeds in convincing his interlocutor that philosophical insight and Christian doctrine converge. - With this work, Minucius Felix addressed readers from the educated upper class in order to win them over to Christianity. Therefore, he orientated himself on the traditional philosophical discourse and refrained from invoking the authority of Christian revelation, because he did not want to offend his pagan target audience. For this reason the basis of his remarks was narrow; essential contents and concerns of Christianity could not be discussed.

Some church writers adopted the term protreptikos or its Latin equivalent exhortatio (encouragement, admonition) in the titles of their works . Tertullian wrote a work on the exhortation to chastity (De exhortatione castitatis) and Origen an invitation to martyrdom (Eis martýrion protreptikós) . With his advertising pamphlet to the Greeks (Protreptikós pros héllēnas) , the church father, Clement of Alexandria , endeavored to reach addressees who were rooted in classical pagan education but who were receptive to Christian ideas. In this missionary work, Clemens polemicized against the pagan cults and dealt with the various philosophical directions to which he opposed the Christian claim to a superior world interpretation. He criticized the teachings of the pagan philosophers as inadequate. Although he admitted that some of these thinkers - especially Plato - had recognized traces and elements of the truth, he regarded their theories as outdated and declared that one no longer had to deal with them since, thanks to divine revelation in Christ, the absolute truth is revealed. Like Philo of Larisa and Epictetus, Clemens saw the Protreptic as a therapist and compared him to a doctor because he was a healer of the soul.

research

The reconstruction efforts

Modern research initially focused its attention primarily on the lost works of Aristotle and Cicero. Ingram Bywater discovered Aristotelian ideas and word material in the Protreptic of Iamblichos and in 1869 put forward the hypothesis that the Protreptic of Aristotle was the source of an extensive part of the Neoplatonist's writing. This assumption was well received and caused the collections of Aristotle fragments to swell. Werner Jaeger followed up on Bywater's results in 1923 . From the fragments of the Aristotelian protrepticus in Iamblichus he thought he could get a picture of an early phase in the development of Aristotle's philosophy. On the other hand, Hans-Georg Gadamer raised the objection from a hermeneutical point of view in 1927 that a protrepticos is not an ethic, "not even the original form of one". One should not look for a philosophical position in it, “but rather the position of philosophy itself”. Aristotle did not want to suggest a preliminary decision for a certain doctrine to his readers. Rather, he saw his task in praising what was common to the various directions in a generally understandable way.

In the research that followed Jaeger, the text of Iamblichus was largely equated with that of Aristotle, and on this basis the philosophy of the Aristotelian Protepticos was hypothetically developed. The work of Ingemar Düring , who in 1961 tried to reconstruct the structure of the lost work, was influential .

In more recent studies it is still assumed that Iamblichos used the Aristotelian script extensively and often adopted its word material, but opinions differ widely on the question of reconstructability. The results of new reconstruction attempts by Anton-Hermann Chroust (1964) and Gerhart Schneeweiß (1966, 2005) differ significantly both from one another and from Düring's findings. Hellmut Flashar (2006) concludes from this that a skeptical assessment of the value of such hypotheses is appropriate. Douglas S. Hutchinson and Monte Ransome Johnson (2005) are much more optimistic, who consider Bywater's assessment to be essentially correct and believe that the order of the text blocks and thus also of the themes in Iamblichos corresponds to that of the Aristotelian protrepticos . They believe that one can extract more than five hundred lines of this work from the writing of the Neoplatonist. Flashar thinks this is “a beautiful illusion”.

The tracing of the layout and line of thought by Ciceros Hortensius began in 1892 with Otto Plasberg's dissertation , who tried to reconstruct the structure of the dialogue from the fragments. Klaus Bringmann judged in 1971 that Plasberg's work was “still” the best attempt at reconstruction. In 1990 Laila Straume-Zimmermann and Olof Gigon published the result of a new attempt to develop the structure of the plant.

The genre-theoretical debate

In addition to researching the individual sources, the genre-theoretical debate began as early as the late 19th century and is still ongoing. The question of the definition and the demarcation of protreptic and parenesis is controversial. Paul Hartlich made the start. In his dissertation in 1889, he presented the first study of protreptics and parenesis as separate forms of discourse with specific functions and different target audiences. Hartlich's distinction between the two genres became decisive for the subsequent period. It has an effect well into the 21st century, but has met with contradiction in more recent research, particularly in Diana Swancutt (2004), and has been criticized as an inadequate simplification. The view that there is an independent protreptic genre is a minority position today. The opposite view is widespread, according to which protreptic should not be viewed as a literary genre, but rather as a type, style or function. According to this understanding, it appears as a communicative goal of literary works of various kinds.

Simon Roelof Slings (1981) advocates a moderate variant of the generic hypothesis. He assumes the existence of a separate literary genre Protreptic for the 4th century BC. Chr. And thinks that it can be defined more by the content than formally. Slings counts texts that are intended to stimulate a certain study - such as philosophy or rhetoric - to protreptics in the narrower sense; In a broader sense, he calls all texts protreptic that aim at a change in the behavior of the reader, for example a change in political attitude.

Mark D. Jordan (1986), on the other hand, does not believe that there is a literary genre Protreptik that can be defined according to form or subject. For him, the only common feature of all philosophical protreptic texts is a certain "rhetorical situation". This arose - according to Jordan - through the competition between different life paths and schools for the favor of the public. It was always about the attempt to evoke a certain state of will or knowledge in the listener or reader at the moment of his decision about the choice of a way of life. It should be noted, however, that not every means could be used to achieve the desired result; rhetorical persuasion, which deliberately generates and manipulates feelings, was frowned upon by most philosophers.

In addition to these approaches, further definitions are discussed in the research discourse. Most of the definitions have in common that protreptics is described as a communicative process, the aim of which is to move someone to repentance or to convince them of a certain course of action.

Sophie Van der Meeren (2002) defends the view that there is a protreptic genre. In their opinion, their unity is based on both formal and content-related features. Van der Meeren defines protreptics as introductions to philosophy, which serve personal practice or theoretical instruction and call the listener or reader to conversion, whereby philosophy is presented from the point of view of its purpose, the attainment of eudaimonia. The background is the concept of philosophy, which was common in antiquity, as a way of life that can be consistently implemented.

Diana Swancutt presented a new interpretation of the relationship between protreptic and parenesis in 2004. She considers Hartlich's distinction between two genres to be wrong. Swancutt associates parenesis with traditional, established, practice-oriented education and with the striving of groups and individuals to consolidate or improve their own status in a conservative milieu. According to this understanding, the target audience of parenesis is ready to seek advice in order to be successful within the framework of a conventional value system. In contrast, protreptic is the unconventional rhetoric of socially rising outsiders and innovators who put theoretical knowledge in the foreground and criticize common social norms. This is linked to the belief in the superiority of one's own way of life over that of the ruling elite. A striking example of this is the Cynical Protreptic, which is aimed at the target audience of an extreme group of outsiders, the Cynics, and takes on the function of a rhetoric of cultural resistance.

Text output, translations, comments

  • Véronique Boudon (ed.): Galien: Exhortation à l'étude de la médecine. Art médical (= Galien , Volume 2). 2nd edition, Les Belles Lettres, Paris 2002, ISBN 2-251-00483-1 , pp. 1–146 (critical edition with French translation)
  • Hellmut Flashar et al. (Translator): Aristotle: Fragments on philosophy, rhetoric, poetics, poetry (= Aristotle: works in German translation , volume 20, part 1). Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt 2006, pp. 50–72 (text) and 167–197 (commentary)
  • Alberto Grilli (Ed.): Marco Tullio Cicerone: Ortensio. Pàtron, Bologna 2010, ISBN 978-88-555-3086-6 (critical edition of the fragments with introduction, Italian translation and commentary)
  • Claude Mondésert (ed.): Clément d'Alexandrie: Le Protreptique (= Sources Chrétiennes , No. 2 bis). 2nd, revised edition, Les Éditions du Cerf, Paris 2004, ISBN 2-204-07625-2 (critical edition with French translation; reprint)
  • Édouard des Places (Ed.): Jamblique: Protreptique. Les Belles Lettres, Paris 1989, ISBN 2-251-00397-5 (critical edition with French translation)
  • Gerhart Schneeweiß (Ed.): Aristoteles: Protreptikos. Introduction to philosophy. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt 2005, ISBN 3-534-16472-5 (critical edition of the fragments with introduction, translation and commentary)
  • Otto Schönberger (translator): Iamblichos: Call to Philosophy. First complete German translation. With a bilingual edition of Cicero's »Hortensius«. Königshausen + Neumann, Würzburg 1984, ISBN 3-88479-143-5
  • Laila Straume-Zimmermann, Ferdinand Broemser , Olof Gigon (eds.): Marcus Tullius Cicero: Hortensius. Lucullus. Academici libri. Artemis, Munich / Zurich 1990, ISBN 3-7608-1657-6 , pp. 6–111 (non-critical text edition and translation) and 327–370 (investigation)
  • Sophie Van der Meeren (Ed.): Exhortation à la philosophie. Le dossier grec. Aristote. Les Belles Lettres, Paris 2011, ISBN 978-2-251-74210-6 (introduction, Greek text of the fragments, French translation and commentary)

literature

Overview representations in manuals

Investigations

  • Konrad Gaiser : Protreptic and Pareneesis in Plato. Investigations into the form of the platonic dialogue. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart 1959
  • Mark D. Jordan: Ancient Philosophic Protreptic and the Problem of Persuasive Genres. In: Rhetorica 4, 1986, pp. 309-333
  • Simon Roelof Slings : Protreptic in Ancient Theories of Philosophical Literature. In: Jelle GJ Abbenes et al. (Ed.): Greek Literary Theory after Aristotle. VU University Press, Amsterdam 1995, ISBN 90-5383-365-X , pp. 173-192
  • Diana M. Swancutt: Paraenesis in Light of Protrepsis. Troubling the Typical Dichotomy. In: James Starr, Troels Engberg-Pedersen (Ed.): Early Christian Paraenesis in Context. De Gruyter, Berlin / New York 2004, ISBN 3-11-018130-4 , pp. 113-153
  • Sophie Van der Meeren: Le protreptique en philosophie: essai de définition d'un genre. In: Revue des Études grecques 115, 2002, pp. 591–621

Remarks

  1. ↑ Annemaré Kotzé: Protreptik. In: Reallexikon für Antike und Christianentum , Volume 28, Stuttgart 2018, Sp. 372–393, here: 373–375.
  2. ↑ Annemaré Kotzé: Protreptik. In: Reallexikon für Antike und Christianentum , Volume 28, Stuttgart 2018, Sp. 372–393, here: 374 f., 378–380; Jean-Pierre Wils: Protreptic. In: Gert Ueding (Ed.): Historical Dictionary of Rhetoric , Volume 7, Tübingen 2005, Sp. 376–380, here: 376 f.
  3. ↑ Annemaré Kotzé: Protreptik. In: Reallexikon für Antike und Christianentum , Volume 28, Stuttgart 2018, Sp. 372–393, here: 378–380; Jean-Pierre Wils: Protreptic. In: Gert Ueding (Ed.): Historical Dictionary of Rhetoric , Volume 7, Tübingen 2005, Sp. 376–380, here: 376 f.
  4. ↑ Annemaré Kotzé: Protreptik. In: Reallexikon für Antike und Christianentum , Volume 28, Stuttgart 2018, Sp. 372–393, here: 374, 379.
  5. ↑ Thomas Lechner: Bittersweet arrows. Protreptic rhetoric and Platonic philosophy in Lukians Nigrinus. In: Millennium 12, 2015, pp. 1–40 and 13, 2016, pp. 67–140, here: 76, 85–89.
  6. ↑ Annemaré Kotzé: Protreptik. In: Reallexikon für Antike und Christianentum , Volume 28, Stuttgart 2018, Sp. 372–393, here: 385–391.
  7. ↑ Annemaré Kotzé: Protreptik. In: Reallexikon für Antike und Christianentum , Volume 28, Stuttgart 2018, Sp. 372–393, here: 375.
  8. ↑ Simon R. Slings: Protreptic in Ancient Theories of Philosophical Literature. In: Jelle GJ Abbenes et al. (Ed.): Greek Literary Theory after Aristotle , Amsterdam 1995, pp. 173-192, here: 174-176.
  9. ↑ Ernst Günther Schmidt : The three types of philosophizing. In: Philologus 106, 1962, pp. 14-28, here: 15 f., 19-21. See Diana M. Swancutt: Paraenesis in Light of Protrepsis. Troubling the Typical Dichotomy. In: James Starr, Troels Engberg-Pedersen (ed.): Early Christian Paraenesis in Context , Berlin 2004, pp. 113–153, here: 124 f.
  10. ↑ Thomas Lechner: Bittersweet arrows. Protreptic rhetoric and Platonic philosophy in Lukians Nigrinus. In: Millennium 13, 2016, pp. 67–140, here: 76–78.
  11. ↑ Joachim Gruber : Boethius. An introduction , Stuttgart 2011, pp. 90–93; Erich Feldmann : The influence of Hortensius and Manichaeism on the thinking of the young Augustine from 373 , Volume 1, Münster 1975, pp. 371-375, 425.
  12. ↑ Laila Straume-Zimmermann, Ferdinand Broemser, Olof Gigon (eds.): Marcus Tullius Cicero: Hortensius. Lucullus. Academici libri , Munich / Zurich 1990, pp. 106 f., 366; Hellmut Flashar: Dialogues, Philosophy, Rhetoric. In: Hellmut Flashar et al. (Translator): Aristoteles: Fragments on philosophy, rhetoric, poetics, poetry (= Aristotle: Works in German Translation , Volume 20, Part 1), Darmstadt 2006, pp. 21–245, here: 67, 193 f .; Erich Feldmann: The influence of Hortensius and Manichaeism on the thinking of the young Augustine from 373 , Volume 1, Münster 1975, p. 95 f.
  13. ↑ Annemaré Kotzé: Protreptik. In: Reallexikon für Antike und Christianentum , Volume 28, Stuttgart 2018, Sp. 372–393, here: 380 f., 384.
  14. ↑ See Konrad Gaiser: Protreptik und Paränese in Platon , Stuttgart 1959, pp. 52–57, 59.
  15. ^ Konrad Gaiser: Protreptik und Paränese bei Plato , Stuttgart 1959, p. 67 f.
  16. ↑ See Konrad Gaiser: Protreptik und Paränese in Platon , Stuttgart 1959, pp. 36–47.
  17. ↑ Herwig Görgemanns: Protreptik. In: Der Neue Pauly , Volume 10, Stuttgart / Weimar 2001, Sp. 468–471, here: 468; Simon R. Slings: A Commentary on the Platonic Clitophon , Amsterdam 1981, pp. 74-76.
  18. ↑ Konrad Gaiser: Protreptik und Paränese bei Plato , Stuttgart 1959, pp. 25 f., 68 f.
  19. ↑ Konrad Gaiser: Protreptik und Paränese bei Plato , Stuttgart 1959, pp. 103 f., 131 f .; Herwig Görgemanns: Protreptik. In: Der Neue Pauly , Volume 10, Stuttgart / Weimar 2001, Sp. 468–471, here: 468 f.
  20. ↑ Simon R. Slings: A Commentary on the Platonic Clitophon , Amsterdam 1981, pp. 80-82, 148 f., 168-172, 175, 179 f.
  21. ↑ Mark D. Jordan: Ancient Philosophic Protreptic and the Problem of Persuasive Genres. In: Rhetorica 4, 1986, pp. 309-333, here: 320; Vittorio Hösle : Plato's 'Protreptikos'. In: Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 147, 2004, pp. 247–275, here: 247–249; André Jean Festugière : Les trois «Protreptiques» de Platon , Paris 1973, pp. 22–31. See, however, the skeptical considerations of Michel Narcy: Le philosophe et son double , Paris 1984, pp. 17–34.
  22. ↑ Annemaré Kotzé: Protreptik. In: Reallexikon für Antike und Christianentum , Volume 28, Stuttgart 2018, Sp. 372–393, here: 381 f .; Diana M. Swancutt: Paraenesis in Light of Protrepsis. Troubling the Typical Dichotomy. In: James Starr, Troels Engberg-Pedersen (ed.): Early Christian Paraenesis in Context , Berlin 2004, pp. 113–153, here: 135–139.
  23. ↑ See on the dating Hellmut Flashar: Dialoge, Philosophie, Rhetorik. In: Hellmut Flashar et al. (Translator): Aristoteles: Fragments for philosophy, rhetoric, poetics, poetry (= Aristotle: Works in German Translation , Volume 20, Part 1), Darmstadt 2006, pp. 21–245, here: 168–171 .
  24. ↑ Gerhart Schneeweiß (ed.): Aristoteles: Protreptikos. Introduction to Philosophy , Darmstadt 2005, pp. 10–12, 14 f., 18 f., 36; Hellmut Flashar: Dialogues, Philosophy, Rhetoric. In: Hellmut Flashar et al. (Translator): Aristoteles: Fragments on philosophy, rhetoric, poetics, poetry (= Aristotle: Works in German Translation , Volume 20, Part 1), Darmstadt 2006, pp. 21–245, here: 167 f. ; Annemaré Kotzé: Protreptik. In: Reallexikon für Antike und Christianentum , Volume 28, Stuttgart 2018, Sp. 372–393, here: 382.
  25. ↑ Hellmut Flashar: Dialogues, Philosophy, Rhetoric. In: Hellmut Flashar et al. (Translator): Aristoteles: Fragments for philosophy, rhetoric, poetics, poetry (= Aristotle: Works in German Translation , Volume 20, Part 1), Darmstadt 2006, pp. 21–245, here: 171–175 , 186; Gerhart Schneeweiß (Ed.): Aristoteles: Protreptikos. Introduction to Philosophy , Darmstadt 2005, pp. 20–23, 41–50, 54; Annemaré Kotzé: Protreptik. In: Reallexikon für Antike und Christianentum , Volume 28, Stuttgart 2018, Sp. 372–393, here: 382.
  26. ↑ Herwig Görgemanns: Protreptik. In: Der Neue Pauly , Volume 10, Stuttgart / Weimar 2001, Sp. 468–471, here: 469; Annemaré Kotzé: Protreptik. In: Reallexikon für Antike und Christianentum , Volume 28, Stuttgart 2018, Sp. 372–393, here: 382.
  27. ↑ John Dillon : Protreptic Epistolography, Hellenic and Christian. In: Studia Patristica 62, 2013, pp. 29–40, here: 30, 40; Annemaré Kotzé: Protreptik. In: Reallexikon für Antike und Christianentum , Volume 28, Stuttgart 2018, Sp. 372–393, here: 382.
  28. ↑ Hans von Arnim (Ed.): Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta , Volume 3, Stuttgart 1968, pp. 188, 203; Peter Steinmetz : The Stoa . In: Hellmut Flashar (ed.): The Hellenistic Philosophy (= Outline of the History of Philosophy . The Philosophy of Antiquity , Volume 4/2), Basel 1994, pp. 491–716, here: 674. Cf. Christoph Schäublin : Conversions in ancient dialogues? In: Christoph Schäublin (Ed.): Catalepton. Festschrift for Bernhard Wyss on his 80th birthday , Basel 1985, pp. 117–131, here: p. 125, note 28.
  29. ^ Jean-Pierre Schneider: Chamailéon d'Héraclée. In: Richard Goulet (ed.): Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques , Volume 2, Paris 1994, pp. 287–289, here: 288.
  30. ↑ Sophie Van der Meeren: Le protreptique en philosophie: essai de définition d'un genre. In: Revue des Études grecques 115, 2002, pp. 591–621, here: 598–600; Sophie Van der Meeren: Exhortation à la philosophie , Paris 2011, pp. XIX – XXII; Diana M. Swancutt: Paraenesis in Light of Protrepsis. Troubling the Typical Dichotomy. In: James Starr, Troels Engberg-Pedersen (ed.): Early Christian Paraenesis in Context , Berlin 2004, pp. 113–153, here: 123 f.
  31. ↑ Sophie Van der Meeren: Le protreptique en philosophie: essai de définition d'un genre. In: Revue des Études grecques 115, 2002, pp. 591–621, here: 620; Diana M. Swancutt: Paraenesis in Light of Protrepsis. Troubling the Typical Dichotomy. In: James Starr, Troels Engberg-Pedersen (ed.): Early Christian Paraenesis in Context , Berlin 2004, pp. 113–153, here: 127 f.
  32. ↑ See on this work Thomas Lechner: Bittersweet arrows. Protreptic rhetoric and Platonic philosophy in Lukians Nigrinus. In: Millennium 13, 2016, pp. 67–140, here: 79 f., 83–86.
  33. ^ For details, see Sophie Van der Meeren: Exhortation à la philosophie , Paris 2011, pp. 9–53.
  34. ^ Themistios, speeches 9 and 24.
  35. ↑ Annemaré Kotzé: Protreptik. In: Reallexikon für Antike und Christianentum , Volume 28, Stuttgart 2018, Sp. 372–393, here: 383.
  36. ↑ Christoph Schäublin: Conversions in ancient dialogues? In: Christoph Schäublin (Ed.): Catalepton. Festschrift for Bernhard Wyss on his 80th birthday , Basel 1985, pp. 117–131, here: 126–129, 131; Thomas Lechner: Bittersweet arrows. Protreptic rhetoric and Platonic philosophy in Lukians Nigrinus. In: Millennium 12, 2015, pp. 1–40 and 13, 2016, pp. 67–140; Mark D. Jordan: Ancient Philosophic Protreptic and the Problem of Persuasive Genres. In: Rhetorica 4, 1986, pp. 309-333, here: 309.
  37. ↑ Otto Schönberger (ed.): Quintus Ennius: Fragments (selection) , Stuttgart 2009, p. 88.
  38. ↑ On the Protreptik in Lucretius see Don Fowler : Lucretius on Atomic Motion , Oxford 2002, pp. 18-20.
  39. ↑ See the outline in Erich Feldmann: The Influence of Hortensius and Manichaeism on the Thinking of the Young Augustine from 373 , Volume 1, Münster 1975, pp. 77-100 and Goulven Madec: Hortensius. In: Richard Goulet (ed.): Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques , Volume Supplément , Paris 2003, pp. 716–719.
  40. ↑ Laila Straume-Zimmermann, Ferdinand Broemser, Olof Gigon (eds.): Marcus Tullius Cicero: Hortensius. Lucullus. Academici libri , Munich / Zurich 1990, pp. 317 f., 334-338; Goulven Madec: Hortensius. In: Richard Goulet (ed.): Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques , Volume Supplément , Paris 2003, pp. 716–719; Erich Feldmann: The influence of Hortensius and Manichaeism on the thinking of the young Augustine from 373 , Volume 1, Münster 1975, pp. 77-80.
  41. ↑ Laila Straume-Zimmermann, Ferdinand Broemser, Olof Gigon (eds.): Marcus Tullius Cicero: Hortensius. Lucullus. Academici libri , Munich / Zurich 1990, pp. 344-370; Klaus Bringmann: Investigations on the late Cicero , Göttingen 1971, pp. 117–123; Günter Gawlick , Woldemar Görler : Cicero. In: Hellmut Flashar (ed.): The Hellenistic Philosophy (= Outline of the History of Philosophy. The Philosophy of Antiquity , Volume 4/2), Basel 1994, pp. 991–1168, here: 1050. Cf. Christoph Schäublin: Conversions in ancient dialogues? In: Christoph Schäublin (Ed.): Catalepton. Festschrift for Bernhard Wyss on his 80th birthday , Basel 1985, pp. 117–131, here: 123–125.
  42. ↑ Klaus Bringmann: Studies on the late Cicero , Göttingen 1971, pp. 112–116.
  43. ^ Suetonius, De vita Caesarum , Augustus 85.1. See David Wardle: Suetonius: Life of Augustus. Vita Divi Augusti , Oxford 2014, p. 484.
  44. ↑ On the Exhortationes see Marion Lausberg : Senecae operum fragmenta: overview and research report. In: Rise and Decline of the Roman World (ANRW) , Volume II.36.3, Berlin / New York 1989, pp. 1879–1961, here: 1885–1888, on the ninetieth letter Mark D. Jordan: Ancient Philosophic Protreptic and the Problem of Persuasive genres. In: Rhetorica 4, 1986, pp. 309-333, here: 324 f.
  45. ↑ On the protreptic character of the work see Joachim Gruber: Boethius. An introduction , Stuttgart 2011, p. 92 f.
  46. ^ Peter L. Schmidt : D. Magnus Ausonius. In: Reinhart Herzog (ed.): Restoration and renewal. The Latin literature from 284 to 374 AD , Munich 1989, pp. 268–308, here: 286 f.
  47. ↑ Annemaré Kotzé: Protreptik. In: Reallexikon für Antike und Christianentum , Volume 28, Stuttgart 2018, Sp. 372–393, here: 385–391.
  48. ↑ Christoph Schäublin: Conversions in ancient dialogues? In: Christoph Schäublin (Ed.): Catalepton. Festschrift for Bernhard Wyss on his 80th birthday , Basel 1985, pp. 117–131, here: 119–121; Marc-Aeilko Aris , Stefan Müller: Minucius Felix. In: Christoph Riedweg et al. (Ed.): Philosophy of the Imperial Era and Late Antiquity (= Outline of the History of Philosophy. The Philosophy of Antiquity , Volume 5/1), Basel 2018, pp. 1035-1040.
  49. ↑ Annemaré Kotzé: Protreptik. In: Reallexikon für Antike und Christianentum , Volume 28, Stuttgart 2018, Sp. 372–393, here: 385–389; Dietmar Wyrwa : Clement of Alexandria. In: Christoph Riedweg et al. (Ed.): Philosophy of the Imperial Era and Late Antiquity (= Outline of the History of Philosophy. The Philosophy of Antiquity , Volume 5/1), Basel 2018, pp. 927–957, here: 929; Annewies van den Hoek: Apologetic and Protreptic Discourse in Clement of Alexandria. In: L'apologétique chrétienne gréco-latine à l'époque prénicénienne (= Entretiens sur l'Antiquité classique , Volume 51), Vandœuvres 2004, pp. 69–93, here: 81 f .; Annette von Stockhausen: A "new" song? The Protrepticus of Clement of Alexandria. In: Christoph Schubert , Annette von Stockhausen (eds.): Ad veram religionem reformare , Erlangen 2006, pp. 75–93, here: 87–90.
  50. ^ Diana M. Swancutt: Paraenesis in Light of Protrepsis. Troubling the Typical Dichotomy. In: James Starr, Troels Engberg-Pedersen (ed.): Early Christian Paraenesis in Context , Berlin 2004, pp. 113–153, here: 125–127.
  51. ↑ Ingram Bywater: On a Lost Dialogues of Aristotle. In: The Journal of Philology 2, 1869, pp. 55-69.
  52. ↑ Werner Jaeger: Aristotle. Foundation of a history of its development , Berlin 1923, pp. 60-102.
  53. ↑ Hans-Georg Gadamer: The Aristotelian ›Protreptikos‹ and the historical consideration of Aristotelian ethics. In: Gadamer: Gesammelte Werke , Volume 5, Tübingen 1985, pp. 164–186, here: 170.
  54. ↑ Ingemar Düring: Aristotle's Protrepticus. An Attempt at Reconstruction , Stockholm 1961.
  55. ^ Anton-Hermann Chroust: Protrepticus. A Reconstruction , Notre Dame 1964.
  56. ↑ Gerhart Schneeweiß: Der Protreptikos des Aristoteles , Munich 1966, pp. 91–228; Gerhart Schneeweiß (Ed.): Aristoteles: Protreptikos. Introduction to philosophy , Darmstadt 2005, pp. 32–36.
  57. ↑ Hellmut Flashar: Dialogues, Philosophy, Rhetoric. In: Hellmut Flashar et al. (Translator): Aristoteles: Fragments for philosophy, rhetoric, poetics, poetry (= Aristotle: Works in German Translation , Volume 20, Part 1), Darmstadt 2006, pp. 21–245, here: 171–175 .
  58. ^ Douglas S. Hutchinson, Monte Ransome Johnson: Authenticating Aristotle's Protrepticus. In: Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 29, 2005, pp. 193-294, here: 281-291.
  59. ↑ Hellmut Flashar: Dialogues, Philosophy, Rhetoric. In: Hellmut Flashar et al. (Translator): Aristoteles: Fragments for philosophy, rhetoric, poetics, poetry (= Aristotle: Works in German Translation , Volume 20, Part 1), Darmstadt 2006, pp. 21–245, here: 175.
  60. ^ Otto Plasberg: De M. Tullii Ciceronis Hortensio dialogo , Leipzig 1892.
  61. ↑ Klaus Bringmann: Investigations on the late Cicero , Göttingen 1971, p. 111, note 2.
  62. ↑ Laila Straume-Zimmermann, Ferdinand Broemser, Olof Gigon (eds.): Marcus Tullius Cicero: Hortensius. Lucullus. Academici libri , Munich / Zurich 1990, pp. 327-370.
  63. ↑ Paul Hartlich: Exhortationum (Προτρεπτικῶν) a Graecis Romanisque scriptarum historia et indoles , Leipzig 1889.
  64. ^ Diana M. Swancutt: Paraenesis in Light of Protrepsis. Troubling the Typical Dichotomy. In: James Starr, Troels Engberg-Pedersen (ed.): Early Christian Paraenesis in Context , Berlin 2004, pp. 113–153, here: 114–123, 151 f .; Annemaré Kotzé: Protreptik. In: Reallexikon für Antike und Christianentum , Volume 28, Stuttgart 2018, Sp. 372–393, here: 375–380.
  65. ↑ Simon R. Slings: A Commentary on the Platonic Clitophon , Amsterdam 1981, pp. 70 f., 83 f.
  66. ↑ Mark D. Jordan: Ancient Philosophic Protreptic and the Problem of Persuasive Genres. In: Rhetorica 4, 1986, pp. 309-333, here: 327-333.
  67. ↑ Annemaré Kotzé: Protreptik. In: Reallexikon für Antike und Christianentum , Volume 28, Stuttgart 2018, Sp. 372–393, here: 375.
  68. ↑ Sophie Van der Meeren: Le protreptique en philosophie: essai de définition d'un genre. In: Revue des Études grecques 115, 2002, pp. 591–621, here: 591, 593.
  69. ^ Diana M. Swancutt: Paraenesis in Light of Protrepsis. Troubling the Typical Dichotomy. In: James Starr, Troels Engberg-Pedersen (ed.): Early Christian Paraenesis in Context , Berlin 2004, pp. 113–153, here: 114, 122, 135, 142 f., 147–149.
This article was added to the list of excellent articles in this version on March 9, 2019 .