Aristotle's Lost Homeric Problems : Textual Studies

This volume takes as its focus an oft-neglected work of ancient philosophy: Aristotle's lost Homeric Problems. The evidence for this lost work consists mostly of 'fragments' surviving in the Homeric scholia - comments in the margins of the medieval manuscripts of the Homeric epics, mostly coming from lost commentaries on these epics - though the series of studies presented here puts forward a persuasive case that other sources have been overlooked. These studies focus on various aspects of the Homeric Problems and are grouped into three parts. The first deals with preliminary issues: the relationship of this lost work to the Homeric scholarship that came before it, and to Aristotle's comments on Homeric scholarship in his extant Poetics; the evidence concerning the possible titles of this work; and a neglected early edition of the fragments. Following on from this, the second part attempts to expand our knowledge of the Homeric Problems through an examination in context of quotations from (or allusions to) Homer in Aristotle's extant works, and specifically in the History of Animals, the Rhetoric, and Poetics 21, while Part Three consists of four studies on select (and in most cases disregarded) fragments. Collectively the chapters support the conclusion that Aristotle in the Homeric Problems aimed to defend Homer against his critics, but not slavishly and without employing allegorical interpretation; within the context of a renewed interest in Aristotle's lost works, the volume as a whole brings much needed illumination to a virtually unknown ancient work involving not one but two giants of the classical world.--Jaquette Cover 1 Aristotle’s Lost Homeric Problems: Textual Studies 4 Copyright 5 Dedication 6 Preface 8 Acknowledgments 12 Contents 14 List of Figures 18 List of Abbreviations 20 A Note on Sources 22 Copyright Acknowledgments 26 Part I: Preliminary Studies 28 1: Pre-Aristotelian Homeric Scholarship and Aristotle’s Poetics 25 30 1.1. HOMERIC SCHOLARSHIPBEFORE ARISTOTLE 30 1.2. POETICS 25 36 2: The Titles (and Subtitles) of Aristotle’s Lost Work on Homer 52 2.1. EVIDENCE FOR THE TITLES OF ARISTOTLE’S LOST WORK ON HOMER 52 2.2. POSSIBLE SUBTITLES 57 3: A Reappraisal of Heitz 62 3.1. THE ἈΧΕΡΩΙ ̈́Σ (HEITZ FR. 188) 62 3.2. ODYSSEUS’ SCAR (HEITZ FR. 208) 67 Part II: Studies Based on Aristotle’s Extant Works 74 4: The Evidence from the History of Animals 76 4.1. HOMERIC REFERENCES IN THE HISTORY OF ANIMALS 77 4.1.1. HA 3.3.513b24–8 and Il. 13.545–7 77 4.1.2. HA 3.12.519a18–20 and Il. 20.73–4 80 4.1.3. HA 6.20.574b29–575a1 and Od. 17.326–7 82 4.1.4. HA 6.21.575b4–7 and Il. 2.402–3 and 7.313–15, Od. 19.418–20 and 10.19–20 85 4.1.5. HA 6.28.578a32–b5 and Il. 9.538–9, Od. 9.190–1 86 4.1.6. HA 7(8).28.606a18–21 and Od. 4.85 89 4.1.7. HA 8(9).12.615b5–10 and Il. 14.289–91 91 4.1.8. HA 8(9).32.618b18–30 and Il. 24.315–16 93 4.1.9. HA 8(9).44.629b21–4 and Il. 11.552–4 and 17.661–3 96 4.2. THE HOMERIC PROBLEMS AND THE HISTORY OF ANIMALS 97 5: The Evidence from the Rhetoric 102 5.1. EMOTIONS 102 5.1.1. Lamentation 103 5.1.2. Anger 1 107 5.1.3. Anger 2 110 5.1.4. Indignation 113 5.2. LITERARY STYLE 116 5.2.1. Epithets 116 5.2.2. Asyndeton and Repetition 118 5.2.3. Metaphors 122 6: The Evidence from Poetics 21 132 6.1. STANDARD WORDS CONTRASTED WITH ‘FOREIGN’ WORDS (1457B3–6) 133 6.2. METAPHORS (1457B6–33) AND ORNAMENTS (1457B33?) 137 6.3. MADE UP WORDS (1457B33–5) 137 6.4. LENGTHENED AND SHORTENED WORDS (1457B35–1458A5) 138 6.5. ALTERED WORDS (1458A5–7) 140 6.6. THE EVIDENCE FROM STRABO 142 Part III: Studies on Select (and Usually Neglected) Fragments 148 7: Aristotle on the Meaning of τάλαντον in Iliad 23 150 7.1. THE SCHOLIA IN F (FOL. 197R), B* (FOL. 23R), AND B* (FOL. 175R) 152 7.2. THE SCHOLIA IN T (FOL. 255R) AND B (FOL. 308V) 157 7.3. THE SCHOLIUM IN B* (FOL. 74V) 161 7.4. CONCLUSIONS 163 APPENDIX: OVERVIEW OF THE ΤΆΛΑΝΤΟΝ TEXTS IN COLLECTIONS OF THE FRAGMENTS OF ARISTOTLE 167 8: Aristotle and Aristarchus on the Meaning of κέρας in the Iliad 170 8.1. FIVE TEXTS ON ILIAD 11.385 170 8.2. PLUTARCH, WHETHER LAND OR SEA ANIMALS ARE CLEVERER 24 AND ILIAD 24.80–2 175 9: Aristotle on the Theomachy in Iliad 21 180 9.1. ARISTOTLE ON ILIAD 21.284–6 IN POXY 221 180 9.2. ARISTOTLE, CHAMAELEON, AND ANONYMOUS IN THE MARGINS OF GENAVENSIS GR. 44 184 10: Aristotle’s Naturalistic Interpretation of Odyssey 12 196 10.1. THE SIRENS 197 10.2. THE AMBROSIA-BEARING DOVES 204 10.3. THE CATTLE OF THE SUN 215 10.3.1. The Number of the Cattle 215 10.3.2. The Sun’s Omniscience 218 References 222 Index Locorum 234 Index Nominum 244 General Index 250 Presentación del editor: "This volume consists of a set of studies focused on various aspects of a relatively neglected subject: a lost work of Aristotle entitled Homeric Problems. Most of the evidence for this lost work consists mainly of 'fragments' surviving in the Homeric scholia (comments in the margins of the medieval manuscripts of the Homeric epics, mostly coming from lost commentaries on these epics). But other sources have been neglected. The book has three parts. The first deals with preliminary issues: the relationship of this lost work to the Homeric scholarship that came before it, and to Aristotle's comments on the Homeric epics in his extant Poetics; the evidence concerning the possible titles of this work; a neglected early edition of these fragments. In the second part, our knowledge of the Homeric Problems is expanded through an examination in context of quotations from (or allusions to) Homer in Aristotle's extant works, and specifically in the History of Animals, the Rhetoric, and Poetics 21 (to each of which a chapter is devoted). Part III consists of four studies on select (and in most cases neglected) fragments. The volume intends to show (inter alia) that Aristotle in the Homeric Problems aimed to defend Homer against his critics, but not slavishly and without employing allegorical interpretation." This series of studies focuses on various aspects of Aristotle's 'Homeric Problems', an oft-neglected work for which the evidence consists mostly of fragments surviving in the margins of medieval manuscripts. Aiming to expand our knowledge of the lost work, it argues persuasively that other sources do exist but have been overlooked