For undergraduates, perhaps this passage describes the goal of academic writing, but I am surprised that a respected scholar would write so lazily about hermeneutics.
But when, for example, I turn to Sir David Ross's magnificent commentary on Aristotle's Physics I do not do so in order to cover what the learned Sir David thought -- I do so in order to cover what Aristotle thought[…] But I am not in a sense, reading Y: Y is transparent, and I read Aristotle through him.I suspect that the author Jonathan Barnes, in the introduction to the Cambridge Companion to Aristotle, does not mean to say that an interpreter of a text can achieve the goal of transparency, only that transparency is the goal. But it is a bit disingenuous for the editor of an introductory book of essays to suggest to his novice audience that the contents therein might be taken uncritically as the word of Aristotle himself. It is even more disingenuous after explicitly noting the many necessary omissions and, in my mind worse sin, of redefining philosophy as exclusively analytic.
Update: It's odd because the first chapter is a marvelous catalogue of the problems of reading a text of uncertain authorship and intent.