Aristotle for all? The work of Walter Mooney Hatch
This article considers the publication in 1879 of the Moral Philosophy of Aristotle, a book aimed at Oxford University undergraduates studying for the Classics degree course known as Literae Humaniores. This book is of contemporary interest. It takes us to the heart of the question of whether the wo...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Cambridge University Press
|
| Series: | The Journal of Classics Teaching |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S2058631024001375/type/journal_article |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1832590049103839232 |
|---|---|
| author | Alan Towey |
| author_facet | Alan Towey |
| author_sort | Alan Towey |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | This article considers the publication in 1879 of the Moral Philosophy of Aristotle, a book aimed at Oxford University undergraduates studying for the Classics degree course known as Literae Humaniores. This book is of contemporary interest. It takes us to the heart of the question of whether the work of Aristotle is meant for everyone or just for a select few. In principle, whatever we have inherited from Antiquity (whether materially or intellectually) belongs to us all. Therefore, there is an educational requirement to make it accessible to everyone and this should apply to Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics. But Aristotle is famously obscure and so in practice the study of Aristotle is confined to a small elite. Hatch’s The Moral Philosophy of Aristotle tries to overcome the problem of Aristotle’s obscurity by paraphrasing the Nicomachean Ethics in a popularising fashion and in sharp contrast to the way Aristotle is usually presented. To bring out the distinctive qualities of the Hatch approach this article compares The Moral Philosophy of Aristotle with the translations published in the modern Clarendon Aristotle series, which are intended for a readership made up largely of professionals working in universities. The article contrasts Hatch’s goals of readability and dogmatic clarity with the insistence on semantic fidelity which is the hallmark of the Clarendon series. The article concludes that there is a greater risk of distorting Aristotle’s meaning on the Hatch approach, but that this is compensated for by its pedagogic merits, and suggests that ideally teachers will use both Hatch and Clarendon together. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-5ca6cb7753aa4209b6c53c1133f174aa |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2058-6310 |
| language | English |
| publisher | Cambridge University Press |
| record_format | Article |
| series | The Journal of Classics Teaching |
| spelling | doaj-art-5ca6cb7753aa4209b6c53c1133f174aa2025-01-24T04:36:22ZengCambridge University PressThe Journal of Classics Teaching2058-63101510.1017/S2058631024001375Aristotle for all? The work of Walter Mooney HatchAlan Towey0Independent scholar, UKThis article considers the publication in 1879 of the Moral Philosophy of Aristotle, a book aimed at Oxford University undergraduates studying for the Classics degree course known as Literae Humaniores. This book is of contemporary interest. It takes us to the heart of the question of whether the work of Aristotle is meant for everyone or just for a select few. In principle, whatever we have inherited from Antiquity (whether materially or intellectually) belongs to us all. Therefore, there is an educational requirement to make it accessible to everyone and this should apply to Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics. But Aristotle is famously obscure and so in practice the study of Aristotle is confined to a small elite. Hatch’s The Moral Philosophy of Aristotle tries to overcome the problem of Aristotle’s obscurity by paraphrasing the Nicomachean Ethics in a popularising fashion and in sharp contrast to the way Aristotle is usually presented. To bring out the distinctive qualities of the Hatch approach this article compares The Moral Philosophy of Aristotle with the translations published in the modern Clarendon Aristotle series, which are intended for a readership made up largely of professionals working in universities. The article contrasts Hatch’s goals of readability and dogmatic clarity with the insistence on semantic fidelity which is the hallmark of the Clarendon series. The article concludes that there is a greater risk of distorting Aristotle’s meaning on the Hatch approach, but that this is compensated for by its pedagogic merits, and suggests that ideally teachers will use both Hatch and Clarendon together.https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S2058631024001375/type/journal_articleOxfordHatchAristotleobscurityEthicscommentarytranslation |
| spellingShingle | Alan Towey Aristotle for all? The work of Walter Mooney Hatch The Journal of Classics Teaching Oxford Hatch Aristotle obscurity Ethics commentary translation |
| title | Aristotle for all? The work of Walter Mooney Hatch |
| title_full | Aristotle for all? The work of Walter Mooney Hatch |
| title_fullStr | Aristotle for all? The work of Walter Mooney Hatch |
| title_full_unstemmed | Aristotle for all? The work of Walter Mooney Hatch |
| title_short | Aristotle for all? The work of Walter Mooney Hatch |
| title_sort | aristotle for all the work of walter mooney hatch |
| topic | Oxford Hatch Aristotle obscurity Ethics commentary translation |
| url | https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S2058631024001375/type/journal_article |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT alantowey aristotleforalltheworkofwaltermooneyhatch |