The phrase ἐγχέλυές τε καὶ ἰχθύες (‘eels and fish’) appears twice in Iliad Book 21, in descriptions of actions involving the river Xanthus:
The context in which these verses appear is not that important here, as this combination of words itself raised an interpretative problem in the minds of some ancient Homeric scholars: why did Homer distinguish eels and fish when eels are a kind of fish? For instance, according to Aristonicus, Aristarchus flagged both passages ‘because Homer distinguished the eels from the fish’Footnote 3—and Homer would not have done that, is the implication, or it is puzzling that he did so, as he must have known that eels are a kind of fish.Footnote 4
My main interest is in a passage on Il. 21.203 in P.Oxy. 221, substantial papyrus remains of an anonymous commentary on Iliad Book 21, which passage has a close connection to the bT scholia.Footnote 5 This passage illustrates the use ancient Homeric scholars made of Aristotle's Historia animalium. But my aim here is to investigate whether it might also be evidence for a discussion by Aristotle in his lost Homeric Problems.Footnote 6 To this end, I also discuss a relevant passage in Ath. Deipn. Book 7.
I begin by presenting the text and translation of P.Oxy. 221, cols. IX 27 – X 18 (≈ schol. Il. 21.203 pap. XII Erbse).Footnote 7 I have inserted numbers and letters, after the lemma, for ease of reference. They mark what are (in my view) three different provisional explanations (with subdivisions) of why Homer wrote ἐγχέλυές τε καὶ ἰχθύες—or implicitly, I believe, three different solutions to a Homeric problem.
«τὸν μὲν [ἄρ’ ἐγ]|χέλυές τε καὶ ἰχθύες»<:> [1a] ἴσως ὅτι [μάλι]|στα σαρκοφαγοῦσιν αἱ ἐγχέλυες, [κατ’] ἐ|ξοχὴν εἴρηνται⋅ καὶ ἐλλείπε[ι] τὸ ἄ̣[λ]|λοι, ἵν’ ᾖ καὶ ο̣ἱ̣ ἄλλοι ἰχθύ[ε]ς, ὁμοί[ω]ς̣ | τῷ «τῇ μέν τ’ οὐδὲ ποτητὰ π[α]ρέρχ[ε]|ται οὐδὲ πέ[λ]εια[ι] / τρή[ρ]ω̣ν̣[ες]». [1b] ἴ̣[σως] | δ’ ὅτι ἐν ἰλ[ύ]ι̣ ε[ἰ]σὶ καὶ σαρ̣[κ]ὸ̣[ς ἀνθρωπεί]|ου λιχνεύονται. [2a] ἢ κεχώ[ρικεν αὐτὰς ἀπὸ] | τ[ῶ]ν ἰχθύων, ὅτ[ι ο]ὔτε [ἐξ ὀχείας γίνον]|τα[ι], καθά φησιν Ἀρ̣[ι]σ̣τ[οτέλης, οὔτε] | ζωοτοκοῦσινFootnote 8 οὔτε [σπερματικοὺς πόρους] || οὔτε ὑστερικοὺς ἔχουσιν, ἀλλ’ ἐκ τῶν | καλουμένων γῆς ἐντέρ⟦ι̣κ̣⟧ων {ης} α[ὐ]τό|μαται συνίστανταιFootnote 9 ἐν τῷ πηλῷ καὶ ἐν | τῇ γῇ τ[ῇ] ἐνίκμῳ. ζῶσι δὲ̣ [κ]αὶ τρέφον|τ[αι] ὀμβρ̣[ίῳ] ὕδατι⋅ ἐν [τ]αῖς γοῦν τελματώ|δεσι λίμ[ναι]ς τοῦ τε [ὕ]δατος παντὸς ἐ|ξαναλω[θ]έντος καὶ τοῦ πηλοῦ ἐξυσθέν|τ[ο]ςFootnote 10 γείνονται πάλιν, ὅταν ὕδωρ γένη|ται ὄμβριον. ἐν δὲ τοῖς αὐχμοῖς οὐ γεί|νονται, οὐδ’ ἐν ταῖς διαμενούσαις λί|μναις. [2b] ἐν δὲ τῷ ζʹ φησὶν αὐτὸν λέ|γειν Δί̣δ̣υ̣μος ἀμαρτύρως ὅτι καὶ ἀλ|ληλοφάγον ἐστὶν καὶ ὅτι ζῇ ζʹ καὶ ηʹ | ἔτ̣η. [2c] ἔστι δὲ καὶ μονογενὲς πάλιν, | οὐ τὸ μὲν ἄρσεν, τὸ δὲ θῆλυ. [3] καὶ ἐν τῷ | ἀγορανομικῷ δὲ νόμῳ Ἀθηναίων | διέσταλται ἐγχελύων τέλη καὶ ἰχθύ|ων.Footnote 11
‘The eels and fish [sc. dealt with] him’: [1a] Perhaps because the eels especially are meat-eaters, they are given prominence;Footnote 12 and ‘others’ is omitted, so that it is in fact ‘the other fish’, similar to ‘by this [route] no winged thing goes past not even the timid doves’Footnote 13 [Od. 12.62–3]. [1b] And perhaps [sc. they are given prominence] because they are in sedimentFootnote 14 and have a greedy desire for human flesh. [2a] Or [Homer] separated them from the fish, because they neither come to be from copulation, as Aristotle says, nor do they give birth to live young, nor do they have seminal passages nor wombs; rather [they come to be] out of the so-called earth-guts, formed spontaneously in the mud and in the humid earth. And they live and are nourished by rain water: for indeed in some standing pools, after all the water has been drawn off and the mud has been scraped away,Footnote 15 they appear again, when rain water comes; but they do not appear during droughts nor in the remaining pools.Footnote 16 [2b] And DidymusFootnote 17 claims without evidenceFootnote 18 that he [sc. Aristotle] in [Hist. an.] 7Footnote 19 said that they eat each other and live seven or eight years.Footnote 20 [2c] But again, [the eel] is indeed a unique kind,Footnote 21 not on the one hand male, on the other female. [3] And in the market-regulation laws of the Athenians, taxes on eels have been distinguished from those on fish.Footnote 22
I consider 1a and 1b to be two versions of the same explanation, namely that, when Homer writes ἐγχέλυές τε καὶ ἰχθύες, we should assume that an implied ‘other’ (ἄλλοι) has been omitted: ‘eels and other fish’. Further, there is said to be a reason why eels are singled out in this way: they especially are meat-eaters (which is relevant in Il. 21.203 but not in 21.353); and in the second version, they are singled out because they are in the mud (perhaps a reference to their surviving or coming to be in the mud has dropped out) and because they desire human flesh. The same meat-eating explanation is found in two scholia: the last line of schol. bT Il. 21.203b (Erbse) is ἢ ὅτι μάλιστα τῶν ἄλλων ἰχθύων σαρκοφαγοῦσιν (‘or because [the eels] above all of the other fish are meat-eaters’); and the second half of schol. A Il. 21.203a Ariston. (Erbse) is ἔστι δὲ πιθανεύσασθαι οὕτως δεχόμενον, ἐγχέλυες καὶ οἱ ἄλλοι ἰχθύες, ὡς «Ζεὺς δ’ ἐπεὶ οὖν Τρῶάς τε καὶ Ἕκτορα» [Il. 13.1] κατ’ ἐξοχήν (‘but it is possible to be persuasive, understanding [the words] in this way, “eels and the other fish”, just as “when Zeus [had brought] the Trojans, and Hector” above all’.)Footnote 23 So, according to this explanation, Homer is not in fact distinguishing eels and fish, he is rather emphasizing the eels. There is no evidence that this explanation came from Aristotle.
The second explanation, however, is clearly from Aristotle, and ultimately (that is, directly or indirectly) from his Historia animalium. This has three parts. The first (2a) was taken directly from Hist. an. 6.16 (which is on eel generation)Footnote 24 or indirectly from a collection of excerpts containing the entire passage (nearly) verbatim. Compare Hist. an. 6.16.570a3–17:Footnote 25
αἱ δ’ ἐγχέλεις οὔτ’ ὀχείας γίνονται οὔτ’ ᾠοτοκοῦσιν,Footnote 26 οὐδ’ ἐλήφθη πώποτε οὔτε θορὸν ἔχουσα οὐδεμία οὔτ’ ᾠόν, οὔτ’ ἀνασχισθεῖσαι ἐντὸς θορικοὺς πόρους οὔθ’ ὑστερικοὺς ἔχουσα⋅ ἀλλὰ τοῦτο ὅλον τὸ γένος τῶν ἐναίμων οὐ γίνεται οὔτ’ ἐξ ὀχείας οὔτ’ ἐξ ᾠῶν. φανερὸν δ’ ἐστὶν ὅτι οὕτως ἔχει⋅ ἐν ἐνίαις γὰρ τελματώδεσι λίμναις τοῦ τε ὕδατος παντὸς ἐξαντληθέντος καὶ τοῦ πηλοῦ ἐξοισθέντοςFootnote 27 γίνονται πάλιν, ὅταν ὕδωρ γένηται ὄμβριον⋅ ἐν δὲ τοῖς αὐχμοῖς οὐ γίνονται, οὐδ’ ἐν ταῖς διαμενούσαις λίμναις⋅ καὶ γὰρ ζῶσι καὶ τρέφονται ὀμβρίῳ ὕδατι. ὅτι μὲν οὖν οὔτ’ ἐξ ὀχείας οὔτ’ ἐξ ᾠῶν γίνονται, φανερόν ἐστιν. δοκοῦσι δέ τισι γεννᾶν, ὅτι ἐν ἐνίαις τῶν ἐγχέλεων ἑλμίνθια ἐγγίγνεσθαι⋅ ἐκ τούτων γὰρ οἴονται γίνεσθαι ἐγχέλυς. τοῦτο δὲ ἐστὶν οὐκ ἀληθές, ἀλλὰ γίγνονται ἐκ τῶν καλουμένων γῆς ἐντέρων, ἃ αὐτόματα συνίσταται ἐν τῷ πηλῷ καὶ ἐν τῇ γῇ τῇ ἐνίκμῳ.
Eels do not come to be from copulation, nor do they lay eggs, nor has any eel ever been captured having milt or eggs, nor when they are opened up do they have within seminal passages nor wombs; rather, this whole kind of blooded [animal] does not come to be from copulation nor from eggs. And it is clear that this is so: for in some standing pools, after all the water has been drawn off and the mud has been carried off, they appear again, when rain water comes; but they do not appear during droughts, nor in the remaining pools; for in fact they live and are nourished by rain water. Therefore, that they come to be neither from copulation nor from eggs is clear. But some think they do reproduce, because in some of the eels there are little worms, and they believe eels are born from these. But this is not true; rather they come to be out of the so-called earth-guts, which are formed spontaneously in the mud and in the humid earth.
That this is the source is clear, though the order of presentation has been changed, either by the compiler of excerpts from the Historia animalium or by the author of the commentary on Iliad Book 21: ‘they neither come to be from copulation’, etc. (570a3–5); they come to be ‘out of the so-called earth-guts’, etc. (15–17); ‘they live and are nourished by rain water’ (11–12); and ‘for in some standing pools’, etc. (7–11).
As for the line I have marked 2b, Didymus is clearly paraphrasing a couple of lines in Hist. an. 7(8).2. Compare Didymus’ terse καὶ ἀλληλοφάγον ἐστὶν καὶ ὅτι ζῇ ζʹ καὶ ηʹ ἔτη (‘they eat each other and live seven or eight years’) with Hist. an. 7(8).2.592a23–5:
ζῶσι δ’ ἔνιαι ἐγχέλεις καὶ ἑπτὰ καὶ ὀκτὼ ἔτη. τροφῇ δὲ καὶ οἱ ποτάμιοι χρῶνται ἀλλήλους τ’ ἐσθίοντες καὶ βοτάνας καὶ ῥίζας, κἄν τι ἐν τῷ βορβόρῳ λάβωσιν.
Some eels live even seven or eight years. Now, the river [sc. fish or eels] too get nourishment eating each other as well as plants and roots, and anything they might find in the mire.
This first sentence comes at the end of Aristotle's discussion of eels. He then moves briefly to river fish or river eels, depending on how one understands οἱ ποτάμιοι, though Didymus clearly understood it to be referring to a kind of eel.Footnote 28
The line marked 2c might have come from Didymus as well, though it could also be the case that the πάλιν indicates that our author is returning to the first Aristotle-source or to yet another work of Aristotle. In any case, the assertion in 2c (ἔστι δὲ καὶ μονογενὲς πάλιν, οὐ τὸ μὲν ἄρσεν, τὸ δὲ θῆλυ) might refer to, without quoting it directly, Hist. an. 4.11.538a3–4: οἷον ἔγχελυς οὔτε ἄρρεν ἐστὶν οὔτε θῆλυ.Footnote 29 But what precisely is this second explanation? That eels are a ‘unique kind’ (μονογενές)Footnote 30 of animal or fish, for the reasons given. (More on this shortly.)
The third explanation (so to speak) is the most surprising. For, even in antiquity, it could hardly have been a reasonable account of why Homer distinguished eels and fish, as market-regulators (ἀγορανόμοι) probably did not exist before the fifth century b.c.Footnote 31 I think it was probably included as a supplement to one or both of the other explanations. The main point must be something like this: it was not unreasonable for Homer to distinguish eels and fish, for in fact the Athenians do this as well, in their market-regulation laws. Whoever first made this point must have known about Athenian law and had an interest in Homeric scholarship. We may never know who this was. One genuine possibility, however, is that it was Aristotle himself. For the author of the Athenaion Politeia (Aristotle or one of his colleagues in the Lyceum)Footnote 32 writes (51.1):Footnote 33
κληροῦνται δὲ καὶ ἀγορανόμοι ⟨ῑ⟩, πέντε μὲν εἰς Πειραιέα, ε̄ δ’ εἰς ἄστυ. τούτοις δὲ ὑπὸ τῶν νόμων προστέτακται τῶν ὠνίων ἐπιμελεῖσθαι πάντων, ὅπως καθαρὰ καὶ ἀκίβδηλα πωλήσεται.
And also <10> market-regulators are appointed by lot, five in the Piraeus and 5 in the city. They have been directed by the laws to manage all goods for sale, so that what is to be sold is pure and unadulterated.
There can be little doubt that such offices and such laws existed, though it is unclear what precisely, in our P.Oxy. 221 passage, these taxes were, and why eels and fish were treated differently in Athenian market-regulation laws. If I had to speculate, I would say that it was owing to eels being considered a delicacy, compared to most other fish.Footnote 34 Fortunately, knowing the precise reason is not necessary here.
My purpose, as indicated earlier, is to investigate whether our P.Oxy. 221 passage might provide evidence for something Aristotle discussed in his lost Homeric Problems. In doing so, I am applying a method I used in three chapters of Aristotle's lost Homeric Problems, one of which (ch. 4) concerned the Historia animalium. In these chapters, I investigate whether passages in Aristotle's extant works quoting or citing the Homeric epics might provide a clue to some of the content of his Homeric Problems. In each case, I enquire whether the Homeric passage was a likely subject of debate or discussion in antiquity; I consider whether such debate over or discussion about a particular passage fits Aristotle's aims and methods in his lost Homeric Problems (especially as described in Poet. 25); and, finally, speculate about how Aristotle might have solved the Homeric problem.
In the present case, it is likely that there was a Homeric problem concerning Il. 21.203 and 21.353: why did Homer distinguish eels and fish when eels are a kind of fish? It is also obvious that the discussion of eels in Aristotle's Historia animalium could be used to provide a solution to that problem, because that is precisely what we find in our P.Oxy. 221 passage and the related bT scholia. What is missing, however, is any reference to Homer on eels and fish in the Historia animalium. Therefore, to justify even speculating about Aristotle having discussed Il. 21.203 and 21.353 in his lost Homeric Problems, I need to present evidence, from outside of the Historia animalium, supporting this possibility. Only then would it make sense to consider whether such a discussion fits the aims and methods of the Homeric Problems.
I first offer as such evidence the last two lines of our P.Oxy. 221 passage itself. I think it is possible that the line marked 2c (claiming that the eel is indeed a unique kind of animal, without gender, or on one interpretation of μονογενές with one gender) came from Aristotle but not from the Historia animalium or from any other extant work of his. I think it is also possible that the line marked 3 (on Athenian taxes on eels and fish) also came from Aristotle (for the reasons indicated earlier). Since the author of the commentary on Iliad Book 21 preserved in P.Oxy. 221 had access to Aristotle's Homeric Problems (directly or indirectly),Footnote 35 I find this source quite plausible, especially in the case of 3.
Further evidence comes from a passage in Athenaeus’ Deipnosophistae. In Book 7, which is devoted to fish, Athenaeus quotes from and paraphrases at least two Aristotelian sources, one being his lost Zoïka.Footnote 36 Athenaeus’ long discussion of eels (7.297c–300d) focusses on their being highly valued.Footnote 37 The specific passage that concerns me is 7.298b–d (≈ fr. 311 Rose3/198 Gigon),Footnote 38 which I divide into four parts for ease of reference:
[1] Ἀριστοτέλης δὲ χαίρειν φησὶ τὰς ἐγχέλεις καθαρωτάτῳ ὕδατι, ὅθεν τοὺς ἐγχελυοτρόφους καθαρὸν αὐταῖς ἐπιχεῖν⋅ πνίγεσθαι γὰρ ἐν τῷ θολερῷ. διὸ καὶ οἱ θηρεύοντες θολοῦσι τὸ ὕδωρ ἵνα ἀποπνίγωνται⋅ λεπτὰ γὰρ ἔχουσαι τὰ βράγχια αὐτίκα ὑπὸ τοῦ θολοῦ τοὺς πόρους ἐπιπωματίζονται. ὅθεν κἀν τοῖς χειμῶσιν ὑπὸ τῶν πνευμάτων ταραττομένου τοῦ ὕδατος ἀποπνίγονται. [2] ὀχεύονται δὲ συμπλεκόμεναι κᾆτ᾽ ἀφιᾶσι γλινῶδες ἐξ αὑτῶν, ὃ γενόμενον ἐν τῇ ἰλύι ζωογονεῖται. [3] λέγουσι δὲ οἱ ἐγχελυοτρόφοι καὶ ὡς νυκτὸς μὲν νέμονται, ἡμέρας δ᾽ ἐν τῇ ἰλύι ἀκινητίζουσι ζῶσί τε τὸ ἐπὶ πολὺ ἐπὶ ὀκτὼ ἔτη. [4a] ἐν ἄλλοις δὲ πάλιν ὁ Ἀριστοτέλης ἱστορεῖ γίνεσθαι αὐτὰς οὔτε ᾠοτοκούσας οὔτε ζωοτοκούσας ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ ἐξ ὀχείας, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν τῷ βορβόρῳ καὶ τῇ ἰλύι σήψεως γινομένης, καθάπερ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν καλουμένων τῆς γῆς ἐντέρων λέγεται. [4b] διὸ καὶ Ὅμηρον τῆς τῶν ἰχθύων φύσεως χωρίζοντα τάδε εἰπεῖν⋅ «τείροντ᾽ ἐγχέλυές τε καὶ ἰχθύες οἱ κατὰ δίνας».Footnote 39
[1] Aristotle claims that eels like the cleanest water, for which reason eel-breeders pour clean [water] over them; for they are suffocated in turbid [water]. And this is why those hunting [eels] make the water turbid in order to suffocate [them]: for having small gills, the [breathing] passages are immediately blocked by the turbid [water]. Consequently in storms, when the water is disturbed by the winds, they also suffocate. [2] And they copulate by winding around each other, and then they discharge a sticky [substance] which, after being in the sediment, produces their young. [3] And the eel-breeders also say that they feed by night, whereas by day they are motionless in the sediment, and in most cases live for eight years. [4a] And in another work, again, Aristotle reports that they come to be neither bearing eggs nor bearing live young, rather not from copulation [at all], but when decomposition occurs in the mire and sediment, just as is also said to happen in the case of the so-called earth-guts. [4b] And this is why [Aristotle claims] that Homer, separating [the eels] from the nature of the fish, said these [words]: ‘distressed were the eels and fish beneath the eddies’.Footnote 40
The material I have marked 1 is likely a paraphrase of Hist. an. 7(8).2.591b30–592a9,Footnote 41 though we cannot rule out it having come from a similar passage in the Zoïka. (I think that they are sufficiently different to support the latter possibility.) Similarly, 2 is either a prosaic paraphrase of Oppian's Halieutica 1.513–21,Footnote 42 or it too comes from a lost Aristotelian work, on which perhaps Oppian was drawing. (If both 1 and 3 come from the Zoïka, then I think that that is the likely source for 2 as well.)Footnote 43 I have not been able to identify the source of 3, but, since it refers to the same authority as Aristotle's in 1 (namely the ἐγχελυοτρόφοι; cf. Hist. an. 7[8].2.592a9–10), I am inclined to attribute it to the Zoïka.Footnote 44 Athenaeus’ formulation ἐν ἄλλοις δὲ πάλιν ὁ Ἀριστοτέλης ἱστορεῖ makes it clear that what follows 3 comes from Aristotle as well but from a different source. And it is also clear that Athenaeus is presenting this material (which I have marked 4) as a unit. (I have divided it into 4a and 4b to distinguish them in discussion.) If Athenaeus ended this passage with 4a, I would conclude that his source was Hist. an. 6.16.570a3–24 (quoted above). But he does not end here. 4b is of capital importance in the present context, as Athenaeus is stating that Aristotle explicitly mentioned Homer's separating the eels from the fish. If I am right, this is evidence that Aristotle quoted or referred to an ἐγχέλυές τε καὶ ἰχθύες verse in a work that is not extant. The most likely candidates are the Zoïka and the Homeric Problems. But given the nature of the Zoïka, as a catalogue of descriptions of animal attributes and behaviours,Footnote 45 I think that the Homeric Problems is much more likely. Therefore, it may well be the case that Athenaeus was relying on two lost works of Aristotle: the Zoïka (1–3) and the Homeric Problems (4), though my interest here is in the latter.
The hypothesis that the reference to Homer comes from the Homeric Problems is strengthened if it can be shown that Athenaeus had access to or was otherwise aware of that work. Although he never mentions this title by name, there are two passages in the Deipnosophistae that arguably represent ‘fragments’ from it. The most promising is 13.556d–e. The issue there is explaining Homer's (purportedly) different portrayals of Menelaus and Agamemnon, with respect to their relations with women: on the one hand, ‘one might wonder, Aristotle says, that nowhere in the Iliad did Homer portray a concubine sleeping with Menelaus, though he gives women to everyone [else].’Footnote 46 On the other hand, ‘Agamemnon is abused by Thersites as a womanizer’Footnote 47 (Il. 2.226–8). Aristotle offered an explanation of the former (Menelaus is probably respecting his wife Helen, on whose behalf this war is being fought),Footnote 48 and refuted the latter: ‘But it is not likely, Aristotle says, that the majority of [Agamemnon's] women were for use [sc. sexually], but for status; because neither did he supply himself with a lot of wine [see Il. 9.71–3] in order to get drunk.’Footnote 49 Rose3 (fr. 144) considered this a fragment from the Homeric Problems, as did Heitz (fr. 196),Footnote 50 whereas Gigon (fr. 42) included it in his section on Aristotle's works on erōs. I think that Rose and Heitz were right, though it is beyond the scope of this essay to make that case.Footnote 51
The second passage is Ath. Deipn. 5.178e–f, which concerns the importance of bathing properly before important occasions. Two sequences from the Odyssey are contrasted: the impropriety of Odysseus—covered in sea water—failing to bathe sufficiently before entering the palace of King Alcinous (6.211–22, 7.172–7 and 8.426–56); and Telemachus and Peisistratus—arriving at the palace of Menelaus while a feast is in progress—bathing before joining the feast (4.15–49). After contrasting these two, Athenaeus adds: ‘for it was inappropriate (ἀπρεπές), Aristotle says, to come to the symposium with a lot of sweat and dirt.’Footnote 52 In Rose's first two collections of Aristotle-fragments,Footnote 53 he included this under the Homeric Problems; but in his third collection (fr. 100 Rose3), he attributed it to Aristotle's Symposium, as did Heitz (fr. 60) and Gigon (fr. 50).Footnote 54 I think a case could be made for either. To mention one consideration only, language: ἀπρεπές (‘inappropriate’) would support attributing it to the Homeric Problems,Footnote 55 τὸ συμπόσιον would support attributing it to the Symposium. Again, it is beyond the scope of this paper to attempt to make the case for either.
If my speculations are correct, Aristotle, in his lost Homeric Problems, probably offered a solution to the problem: why did Homer separate eels and fish when eels are a kind of fish? And his solution, as indicated above, was that eels are a unique kind of animal or a unique kind of fish; and that, in either case, Homer was, if not right, justified in treating them differently. This is a successful solution, Aristotle could have claimed—whether or not Homer's knowledge of biology was accurate hereFootnote 56—because in Poet. 25 (1460b13–21) (a chapter devoted to solving Homeric problems), he wrote that one of the fundamental points to keep in mind in evaluating Homer or in solving Homeric problems was that
correctness for politics and for poetics is not the same, nor [is it the same] for any other art and for poetics. Now, error in poetics itself is twofold: on the one hand essential [to the art], on the other incidental [to it]. For if [a painter] chose to represent <a horse correctly, but erred owing to> inability, the error is in [the art of painting] itself; but if by choosing [to imitate it] incorrectly, he rather [imitated] the horse with both right [legs] thrown forward, the error is according to the particular art—for instance according to medicine or another art of whatever sort—not according to the art itself.Footnote 57
That is to say, even if Homer has committed an error, it is not necessarily an aesthetic error. At Poet. 25.1460b31–2, Aristotle gives the example of a beautiful painting of a doe with horns, though does do not in fact have horns. Such a factual error is not grounds for aesthetic criticism;Footnote 58 in the same way, neither is considering eels a different kind of animal from fish.
