Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-npj9w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-08T14:43:46.924Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

NEGLECTED EVIDENCE FOR ARISTOTLE, HISTORIA ANIMALIVM 7(8) IN THE WORKS OF ANCIENT HOMERIC SCHOLARS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 March 2021

Robert Mayhew
Robert Mayhew*
Affiliation:
Seton Hall University
*
robert.mayhew@shu.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This brief article aims to supplement Stefan Schnieders's presentation of the evidence for Historia animalium 7(8)—that is, Book 7 according to the manuscript tradition, Book 8 according to Theodore Gaza's rearrangement—having been considered the seventh book of this work in antiquity. This is accomplished through the discussion of two texts not considered by Schnieders, both of them passages commenting on Iliad Book 21: P.Oxy. 221 (col. X 11–14) and Porphyry, Homeric Questions Book 1 (§8, page 43.8–14 Sodano).

Keywords

AristotleHistoria animaliumPorphyryP.Oxy. 221Iliad Book 21Theodore Gaza

Information

Type
Shorter Notes
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 71 , Issue 1 , May 2021 , pp. 442 - 446
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical Association

In the introduction to his magisterial commentary on Historia animalium Books 8–9,Footnote 1 in the Aristoteles Werke in deutscher Übersetzung series, Stefan Schnieders presents ancient (that is, Hellenistic and Alexandrian) evidence for Historia animalium 7(8) having been considered the seventh book of this work.Footnote 2 He goes on to argue, however, in agreement with Kullmann and against Balme, that nevertheless Theodore Gaza was right to change the order.Footnote 3 The nature of these arguments, and whether they succeed, will not concern me here. Rather, I want to point to two texts that provide further evidence for Historia animalium 7(8) being considered the seventh book in antiquity—texts which Schnieders does not mention and which have not been discussed in connection with the order of the books of the Historia animalium. They both come from discussions of a word or set of words in Iliad Book 21.Footnote 4

I. P.OXY. 221, COL. X 11–14

The first text is a passage in P.Oxy. 221 (c. a.d. 100), the papyrus remains of an anonymous commentary on Iliad Book 21.Footnote 5 It concerns the phrase ἐγχέλυές τε καὶ ἰχθύες, which appears twice in Iliad Book 21 (203 and 353), and which troubled ancient Homeric scholars.Footnote 6 Why, they wondered, did Homer distinguish eels and fish given that eels are a kind of fish?Footnote 7 The author of the commentary presents a number of solutions to the problem, one set of them from Aristotle. The first of these (which mentions Aristotle's name but not the work from which it comes) is a near verbatim quotation of Hist. an. 6.16.570a3–17, on eel generation. (The author considers this relevant, because he believes that, if eels are the product of spontaneous generation, as Aristotle claims, this would justify Homer having distinguished them from fish.) The second solution comes from Aristotle's Historia animalium Book 7(8) by way of Didymus of Alexandria (second half of the first century b.c.) (P.Oxy. 221, col. X 11–14):Footnote 8

ἐν δὲ τῷ ζʹ φησὶν αὐτὸν λέ|γειν Δί̣δ̣υ̣μος ἀμαρτύρως ὅτι καὶ ἀλ|ληλοφάγον ἐστὶν καὶ ὅτι ζῇ ζʹ καὶ ηʹ | ἔτ̣η.

And Didymus claims without evidenceFootnote 9 that he [sc. Aristotle]Footnote 10 in [Historia animalium Book] 7 said that [eels] eat each other and live seven or eight years.

Now one could render this: ‘In [Book] 7, Didymus claims without evidence that he [sc. Aristotle] said’, etc., in which case the reference is to Book 7 of a lost work of Didymus (for instance his commentary on the Iliad). But I agree with Grenfell and Hunt, Van der Valk, Keaney and Montanari,Footnote 11 who take the ζʹ to be referring to Historia animalium Book 7(8).Footnote 12 Specifically—and this supports taking ζʹ to refer to the Historia animalium—Didymus is paraphrasing 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 animals [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. οἱ ποτάμιοι in the second sentence likely refers to river fish, though Didymus clearly took it to be a kind of eel.Footnote 13 But the important point is that he identified the passage as coming from Book 7.Footnote 14 Separate papyrus rolls of some of the books of the Historia animalium were likely circulating at this time, as well as collected excerpts of Aristotle's works on animals.Footnote 15 The author of the commentary on Iliad Book 21 was likely relying on two sources here: (1) for the quotation from Hist. an. 6.16 a papyrus roll of that entire book, or a compilation of excerpts from Aristotle's writings on animals that contained that passage; (2) a work of Didymus which quoted or more likely paraphrased Historia animalium Book 7(8) and which he identified as coming from Book 7.

II. PORPHYRY, HOMERIC QUESTIONS BOOK 1 (§8, PAGE 43.8–14 SODANO)Footnote 16

The relevant Homeric passage is Il. 21.126–7, which describes fish eating the corpse of Lycaon (who was killed by Achilles and tossed into the river Xanthus). Porphyry (third century a.d.) is discussing whether a disputed word in verse 126 should be ὑπαΐξει or ὑπαλύξει (and so whether a fish will dart or escape beneath the waves).Footnote 17 While appraising the case for ὑπαλύξει, and why a fish might escape beneath the waves, Porphyry remarks:

πολλοὺς δὲ αὐτῶν καὶ φωλεύειν κατὰ τοῦ βάθους διὰ τὴν αὐτὴν αἰτίαν ἱστορεῖ γὰρ καὶ ὁ Ἀριστοτέλης ἐν τῷ ζʹ Περὶ ζώων φύσεως⋅ ψυχροτάτη δ’ ἡ φρίκη, καὶ μάλιστα ἂν βόρειος ᾖ. γενόμενος δ’ ἐν τῷ βάθει τοῦ Λυκάονος ἔδεται τὸ λίπος.Footnote 18

Aristotle, in Book 7 of On the Nature of Animals, also reports that many of them [sc. fish] hide in the depths for the same reason [sc. mentioned earlier]: the rippling-water is quite cold, especially if it is northern. And while in the depths [the fish] will eat the fat of Lycaon.

This is almost certainly a reference to (but not a quotation from or even a paraphrase of) Hist. an. 7(8).15, which includes a lengthy discussion of fish hiding or hibernating, especially in winter (see 599b2–600a10). A couple of lines will suffice: ‘Many of the fish hide as well, most noticeably hippouros and korakinos in winter’ (φωλοῦσι δὲ πολλοὶ καὶ τῶν ἰχθύων, ἐπιφανέστατα δ’ ἵππουρος καὶ κορακῖνος τοῦ χειμῶνος, 599b2–3); and ‘most of them [sc. fish] hide in winter’ (τὰ μὲν οὖν πλεῖστα φωλεῖ τοῦ χειμῶνος, 599b27–8). Note too that this is an ancient variant of the title of the Historia animalium not mentioned by Schnieder in his discussion of titles attributed to the work in antiquity (n. 2), 99–102: Περὶ ζώων φύσεως.

***

My aim in this note was not to level a criticism against Schnieder for a serious omission but to supplement and support his excellent discussion by adding these two obscure texts to the evidence he presents.

References

1 Books 8–9 according to the numbering imposed by Theodore Gaza (in his fifteenth-century Latin translation), which has become standard; Books 7–8, according to ancient accounts as well as the manuscript tradition. The latter order was restored in Balme, D., Aristotle: History of Animals: Books VII–X (Cambridge, MA., 1991)Google Scholar and Balme, D., Aristotle: Historia animalium, Vol. 1: Books I–X: Text, Prepared for Publication by A. Gotthelf (Cambridge, 2002)Google Scholar. I follow Balme's notation and refer throughout to Historia animalium Book 7(8), i.e. Book 7 according to the paradosis, Book 8 according to Theodore Gaza's rearrangement. (These alterations were a consequence of Gaza having concluded that the tradition's Book 9 in fact belonged after Book 6.)

2 Schnieders, S., Aristoteles. Historia animalium: Buch VIII und IX (Berlin, 2020), 99–102Google Scholar, which includes references to earlier discussions of the relevant texts.

3 Schnieders (n. 2), 102–3, Balme (n. 1 [2002]), 1–6, Kullmann, W., Aristoteles als Naturwissenschaftler (Berlin, 2014), 291–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 I have discussed both of these texts before in The Classical Quarterly, though not in connection with the order of the books of the Historia animalium. See below, notes 6 and 17.

5 First published in Grenfell, B. and Hunt, A., The Oxyrhynchus Papyrus Part II (London, 1899), 52–85Google Scholar. See also Erbse, H., Scholia Graeca in Homeri Iliadem (scholia vetera), vol. 5 (Berlin, 1977), 78Google Scholar and Montanari, F., ‘24. Aristoteles 30T’, in Adorno, F. et al. (edd.), Corpus dei papiri filosofici Greci e Latini. Parte I: Autori noti 1* (Firenze, 1989), 319–26Google Scholar.

6 Mayhew, R., ‘Aristotle on Homer on eels and fish in Iliad 21’, CQ 70 (2020), 639–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 For instance, according to Aristonicus, Aristarchus athetized both passages, ‘because Homer distinguished the eels from the fish’ (ὅτι διέστειλε τὰς ἐγχέλεις ἀπὸ τῶν ἰχθύων, schol. AT Il. 21.353a Ariston. [Erbse]).

8 I consulted a digital photograph of P.Oxy. 221, but rely on Grenfell and Hunt (n. 5) and on Montanari (n. 5) for its transcription. Here and elsewhere, translation from the Greek is my own.

9 Grenfell and Hunt (n. 5), 80: ‘ἀμαρτύρως = “without quoting him in full”’. Montanari (n. 5), 321, however, takes this to refer to Aristotle's claim about eels: Aristotele afferma senza prove …

10 Aristotle's name is mentioned thirteen lines earlier in the papyrus.

11 Grenfell and Hunt (n. 5), 80; van der Valk, M., Researches on the Text and Scholia of the Iliad, Part One (Leiden, 1963), 439Google Scholar; Keaney, J.J., ‘Two notes on the tradition of Aristotle's writings’, AJPh 84 (1963), 52–63Google Scholar, at 54 n. 5; Montanari (n. 5), 321. Keaney writes (without further discussion, and unrelated to the order of the books): ‘In P. Oxy., II, 221, col. 10, lines 11–12, Aristotle εν τω ζ is cited: the reference is to H. A., VIII, 2, 592a23.’

12 In the case of Aristotle's multi-book works, ζ can refer to Book 6 or to Book 7, depending on whether the pre-Hellenistic or the Hellenistic numbering system is used. See Primavesi, O., ‘Ein Blick in den Stollen von Skepsis: vier Kapitel zur frühen Überlieferung des Corpus Aristotelicum’, Philologus 151 (2007), 51–77, especially 63–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar. But Historia animalium Book 6 does not make sense in this context—unless there was confusion stemming from the quotation from Historia animalium Book 6 much earlier in this passage.

13 It likely refers to river fish, as ἰχθῦς, like οἱ ποτάμιοι, is masculine, whereas ἔγχελυς is feminine. On both possibilities, see Schnieders (n. 2), 400–1.

14 Berger, F., Die Textgeschichte der Historia animalium des Aristoteles (Wiesbaden, 2005), 39–42Google Scholar briefly discusses this text in her account of ancient references to the Historia animalium and considers its possible textual variants; but she does not refer to it in connection with the order of the books in the Historia animalium. Further, she quotes from P.Oxy. 221 as follows: ‘… τῶν ἰχθύων, ὅτι οὔτε ἐξ ὀχείας γίνονται, καθά φησιν Ἀριστοτέλης, … ἐν δὲ τῷ ζʹ (Hist. an. 592a23–4) φησὶν αὐτὸν λέγειν Δίδυμος ἀμαρτύρως ὅτι καὶ ἀλληλοφάγον ἐστὶν καὶ ὅτι ζῇ ζʹ καὶ ηʹ ἔτ̣η. […]’ But this misleadingly implies that all of this material has Didymus as its source (see also Van der Valk [n. 11], 439.) Although I cannot rule out that possibility, I rather doubt it: first, because thirteen lines in the papyrus separate Aristotle's name from Didymus’; second, because of the contrast between the long near-verbatim quotation of Hist. an. 6.16.570a3–17 and the brief paraphrase of Hist. an. 7(8).2.592a23–5.

15 See Keaney (n. 11), 54–5 and Schnieder (n. 2), 99–102.

16 Of Porphyry’s Homeric Questions, the first book is the only part extant in the manuscript tradition (in one manuscript: Vat. gr. 305). See Sodano, A.R., Porphyrii Quaestionum Homericum liber I (Naples, 1970)Google Scholar. For the rest, what survives are fragments found in the Homeric scholia. Where the material preserved in Vat. gr. 305 overlaps with what is in the scholia, Sodano prints both in parallel columns. On Porphyry's Homeric questions, see Pontani, F., ‘Les “Questions homériques” de Porphyre’, in Dorandi, T. (ed.), Porphyre. L'Antre des Nymphes dans l'Odyssée. Introduction, édition du text grec, traduction et notes (Paris, 2019), 41–58Google Scholar.

17 See Mayhew, R., ‘Aristotle's biology and his lost Homeric Puzzles’, CQ 65 (2015), 109–33, at 132–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18 This passage appears both in Vat. gr. 305 (fol. 176r) and in schol. *B Il. 21.126–7 (fol. 282r) (above, n. 16). The only difference between them (in the material quoted) is that the former has ζʹ, the latter ἑβδόμῳ. (See also Erbse [n. 5], 150, who prints this text [with ζʹ] in the apparatus criticus.) In Mayhew (n. 17), 133, I rendered ζʹ ‘Book 6 [or 7]’ (cf. R. Schlunk, Porphyry: The Homeric Questions [Frankfurt, 1993], 35: ‘Book VI’). I also mistakenly attributed ἑβδόμῳ (for ζʹ) to Rose, V., Aristoteles Pseudepigraphus (Leipzig, 1863), 367Google Scholar. I am glad to have here the opportunity to correct what I wrote there.