CC BY
8
UDC 821.14
Philologia Classica. 2019. Vol. 14. Fasc. 1
Arist. Poet. 1461b1-3: a broad hint at Zoilus?*
Anastasija V. Pavlova
St Petersburg State University,
7-9 Universitetskaya nab., St Petersburg, 199034 Russia; a.v.pavlova@mail.ru
For citation: Anastasija V. Pavlova. Arist. Poet. 1461b1-3: a broad hint at Zoilus?. Philologia Classica 2019, 14(1), 149-154. https://doi.org/10.21638/11701/spbu20.2019.112
In Poetics 25 (1461b1-3), Aristotle mentions critics who tend to misunderstand the text or read it inaccurately and thus criticise not the actual work, but rather their ideas on it. Some of the extant fragments of Zoilus (4th c. BC), the best-known and the most notorious critic of all the Aristotle's contemporaries, imply that his critique was sometimes based on misreading and misinterpreting of the text so he could be one of those whom Aristotle meant. This article deals with three fragments attributed to Zoilus (two of them are found in the Scholia to the Iliad, the third one is quoted in Ps. Longinus' De Sublimitate), each containing criticism towards certain passages in Homer's poems. On closer examination it turns out that all the inconsistencies Zoilus postulated can be explained, should we read the text more carefully. Hence Zoilus dealt not with what is written but rather with what seemed to him to be convenient for his criticism.
Keywords: Aristotle, Poetics, literary criticism, rhetoric, Zoilus of Amphipolis.
Discussing critics and criticism in chapter 25 of the Poetics1 Aristotle demands, 1461b1-3:2
Kara t^v KaxavxiKpu ^ w; TAauKwv Ai-yei, oti svioi aAo-y«; npounoXa^Pavouai ti Kai autoi Kaxatyr|9iCT&|i£voi auAAo-yiZovtai, Kai w; ElpriKoto; o ti Soke! sniti^waiv, av urovavtiov fl tp autwv ol|aEi.
oti rec : ti vel ti H svioi codex (?) Victorii (Ar) : svia H ti B : om. n Elpr|K6toc B : -ec n
"[An interpreter should act in the way] opposite to those described by Glaucon, who says that certain [critics] presume some illogicality of their own beforehand and go on to infer censoriously as if what seemed to them had actually been said, should it only contradict their own notion."
An example of such reckless censure is provided further (1461b4-8),3 still without any particular reference. Alfred Gudeman hints at the possibility to refer this criticism
* This article was prepared within the framework of Russian Science Foundation research project № 18-18-00060.
1 It is generally believed that this chapter contains excerpts from Aristotle's Anopr||iata '0|ir|PlK&, see e. g. Bywater 1907, 323; Rostagni 1945, 134; Lucas 1968, 232.
2 The text quoted is Kassel 1965. The passage is included among the fragments of Glaucon of Teos by Pozdnev 2017, 20.
3 The critics erroneously suppose that Icarius was a Spartan and Telemachus should have met him there. But his name was, in fact, Icadius and he was from Kephallenia. The example must be taken from
© St. Petersburg State University, 2019
to "obstrectatores Homeri" like Zoilus of Amphipolis.4 Ingram Bywater mentions Zoilus as the most recognised critic of that time.5 I will try to prove that judging by the extant fragments, Zoilus' criticism sometimes was indeed based on misunderstanding and misinterpretation, whether intended or not, of Homer's text, so he probably was one of those whom Aristotle had in mind.6
Although Zoilus' name is proverbial for punitive criticism, the extant testimonies reveal almost nothing certain about his life and personality.7 He worked in ca. mid-4th c. BC., practiced rhetoric and wrote on grammar, history and Homer's poetry (Suda 5. v. ZwiXoc;);8 among his pupils was Anaximenes of Lampsakos (ibid. s. v. Ava^evn;). The most important of his works, Kara x^; O^pou not^aew; or Ka0' O^pou,9 consisted of nine books: conceivably, this is the main source of the extant fragments. Zoilus' fragments, preserved mostly in the homeric scholia, were first edited in the FGH;10 this collection was then revised and extended by Ulrich Friedländer,11 after whom and FGrHist12 these texts are cited below.
The fragments demonstrate a variety of grounds for censure13 suggesting that Zoilus' attacks on Homer formed no part of interpretative commentary or aesthetic treatise but rather a kind of rhetorical exercise, a criticism for criticism's sake. The intention to criticize instead of making an attempt to understand and explain is exemplified by Zoilus' critical remark, cited in Schol. ad Il. 23, 100-101. The soul of Patroclus leaves at the same moment when Achilles tries to embrace his friend:
tyuxn ös Kara xöovo; r|i>T£ Kanvö; wxeto TETpryuta: Ta9«v ö' ävöpouaev axiaaeü;.
"The soul like smoke went beneath the ground with a shrill cry: Achilles in astonishment sprang up."
Glaucon's treatise (o'l'ovTai yap). Lucas (1968, 247) thinks that it does not correspond well with what is said before, but see Pozdnev 2017, 22.
4 Gudeman 1934, 439.
5 Bywater 1909, 323; cf. Lucas 1968, 232. However, more up-to-date commentaries (Dupont-Roc/ Lallo 1980; Guastini 2010) ignore him. A. Schmitt mentions his name with no reference to the above cited lines: Zoilus goes together with Hippias from Thasos, to whose solving of Homeric problems Aristotle refers in 1461a22 (Schmitt 2008, 716).
6 Sometimes scholars mention Zoilius when commenting on the Poet. 1461a10 and a14-15 where Aristotle discussed who are oüprjat; in Il. 1, 50 and what means («pÖTspov in («pÖTCpov ÖS KepaiE (Il. 9, 202); see Bywater 190, 334; Gudeman 1934, 429; Rostagni 1945, 161; Lucas 1968, 241. There are Zoilus' remarks concerning these two passages of the Iliad (both seem to be widely discussed in antiquity): Friedl. 12 = FGrHist 71, 4 and Friedl. 6 = FGrHist 71, 5, but as interesting as they might be these examples of Zoilus' criticism and methodology are out of scope of the current article.
7 For the current state of research see Gärtner 1978.
8 Suida s. v. ZwiXo; (= Friedl. fr. 19).
9 Gärtner 1978, 1540, 60-1541, 45.
10 Müller 1848, 85.
11 Friedländer 1895. No new fragments have been added to his collection; later scholars just organized these fragments differently and commented on them.
12 Jacoby 1986 ('1926), 109-112.
13 In fact, all types of censure based on different grounds mentioned by Aristotle in ch. 25 of the Poetics might be found among Zoilus' fragments. Moreover, at least two issues commented on by Zoilus are also discussed in the Poetics (see above, note 6), both could belong to the Homeric questions discussed by the early critics.
Zw'i'Xo; ös 9nCTlv öti 'dW' o Kanvo; avw 9spETai'.
(Friedl. 36 = FGrHist 71, 16)
"But Zoilus says that smoke rises up."
Zoilus seems to find himself on the standpoint of hyperrealism,14 though he should have taken into account that smoke sometimes drifts low over the ground and thus the scene is not that fantastic. But even if the catachresis is there, |üte Kanvö; gives the idea of insubstantiality of the soul together with precipitancy and subtlety of its vanishing. This is supported by the words Achilles utters immediately after the soul of Patroclus has gone, 103-104:
w nönoi ^ pa Ti; saTi Kai e'iv A'i'öao öö|ioiai ^uxn Kai E'iöwXov, dTap 9psvE; oük svi nd|inav-
"Oh strange! there is some kind of soul and phantom even in the house of Hades,
though the heart (mind?) is not therein."
OpevE; hardly means reasonability (what Patroclus says is reasonable enough), but rather something that makes a living man differ from an insubstantial soul after death.15 Another parallel is Od. 11, 207-208. Odysseus tries to embrace the soul of his mother:
Tpi; ös |ioi £K xEipüv aKifl e'ikeAov ^ Kai övEipw EKTaT' s|oi ö' axo; ö^ü yEvsaKETo Kr|pö0i |idAAov.16
"Three times she slipped away from my hands like a shadow or dream; and pain grew in my heart
even sharper."
These texts might reflect speculations about the soul and its physical state after death.17 Smoke naturally rises up, but more important for the poet is the fact that it may go through something. And though in this case Zoilus condemns something not made up by him, but really present in Homer, he obviously does not try to interpret the text.
Closer to what Aristotle means is the fragment quoted in Ps. Longin's De Subl. 9, 14. To give just one example of many "fabulous and incredible things" found in the Odyssey, the author makes reference to men turned into swine:
Toü; sv KipKn; auo9opßou|svou;, ou; o ZwiXo; £9n xoipiöia KAaiovTa18
sv Faber sk P auo9opßou|svou; MSS auo|op9ou|svou; Valkenaer19
"Those who were at Circe's kept as swine, Zoilus called them piglets in tears."
14 Erbse 1977, 385.
15 The discussion on the meaning of cppevE; is summarised by Richardson 1996, 177-178. The scholar is convinced that the subject was debated in Homer's time. On Kai EiöwXov, cppevE; and the cited passage see also Nägelsbach 1861, 383-398 and 400-402; Rohde 1894, 42-43.
16 Here and onwards the text quoted is after von der Mühll 1967.
17 See above references to Rohde and to Richardson's commentary. It seems to be some kind of a general opinion that Homer's poetry reflects some insights inherent in his epoch.
18 Quoted after Russel 1964. See also FGrHist 71, 3 (= Friedl. 7).
19 Russel does not accept auo|op9ou|evou;, though the passage is quoted with this emendation in FGrHist 71, 3.
This commentary is given with regard to Od. 10, 239-241:
o'i ö£ auüv |i£v exov KE9a\ä^ 9«v|v te Tpixa; te Kai öE|ia;, aÜTap voü; ^v E|iTCEÖo;, w; to napo; nEp. w; o'i |£v KAaiovTE; ¿EpxaTo.
"And they had heads, voice, bristles and shape of a swine; but their minds were steadfast as before;
so they were shut there weeping."
Commenting on De Sublimitate Donald Russel asks, if KXaiovTEc; means weeping or squealing and if Zoilus was disappointed with "the vulgarity of the description or improbability of pigs shedding tears."20 It does not seem that Zoilus was interested in pure aesthetic items. His criticism is usually based on the lack of probability, inner logic or piety.21 Thus, Zoilus' remark most probably concerns pigs crying (whether K\aiovTE; means shedding tears, or weeping, or both). To be sure, K\aiw ("lament, weep, cry") never refers to animals except for this passage.22 But even here, does it really refer to animals? Despite being turned into swine, Odysseus' companions were still sane (voü; ^v E|nEÖo;, W; to napo; nEp). KXaiovTE; emphasizes it: they do not lose their mind and have natural human reactions, being aware of what is happening to them. Heubeck's commentary23 adds another detail: in Od. 10, 234-238 Circe's drink makes them completely forget their motherland, but, unlike in Lotus-eaters episode, this amnesia does not mean losing voi; and forgetting themselves. Moreover, when they were turned back into people, they started crying again, this time out of joy (10, 398: naatv ö' l|EpÖEt; ünEöu yoo;). This proves that in swine's bodies they remained men and shed tears like men do. Zoilus' remark thus turns out to be about Zoilus' own impressions of the text.
Zoilus' critical comment which is definitely based on substituting his own meanings for those of Homer is found in Schol. ad Il. 22, 210. Zeus weights fates of Achilles and Hector to find out which hero is going to die: ¿v ö' ¿tiöei öuo Kf|pE ("and put there two fates of death"). On this Schol. T comments as follows:
yex& öe tov |iü0ov o Z«iAo; noöanai -yap al Moipai ¿v Tai; nMaTryi;i, Ka6r||iEvai ^ saTr|Kuiai;
"Zoilus laughed at these words: what do Moirai look like in the scales of a balance, are they sitting
or standing?"
If someone would like to answer Zoilus in Zoilus' own manner, he would probably say that Zeus "put" them, so they should be lying. Yet, there is no need to do it, since the critic makes a mistake mixing up Moirai and Keres.24 Moira is one of the most complicated notions in Homer's poem.25 What matters for this passage is that although sometimes (especially when it is not an appellative) Keres and Moirai may signify similar or even the
20 Russel 1964, 98.
21 See Gärtner 1978; Spindler, 20-21; Blass 1874, 347-348; Apfel 1938, 250-251, etc.
22 According to Lexicon Homericum and LfgrE, see Ebeling 1987, 810-811; Beck 1982 and LSJ, s. v.
23 Heubeck 2006, 56-57.
24 One of the scholiasts also admitted that in this case Keres and Moirai represent the same notion. Some commentaries seem to agree with it (see Erbse 1977, 312), though the scholium may have been added when the difference had already become unnoticeable.
25 There is a great amount of literature dedicated to this concept, starting from Nägelsbach 1861, 120-148. See Eitrem 1932, 2453-2459; Nilsson 1992, 361-368 with references.
same notions,26 they are different creatures with different functions27 and this distinction is very present in Homer's poetry.28 While Moira is a more general idea of human fate (from the very beginning till the end), Keres may be referred only to death or the death lot.29 Hesiod mentions Keres as children of Night along with Moirai (Theog. 211, 217). Ker has its iconography: it is a female wearing dark clothes tinted with blood (as described in the Iliad (18, 538). The motive of Kerostasia was adopted in tragedy and gradually changed to Psychostasia.30 According to LIMC, the weighing is usually depicted as scales on which two little figures of heroes (or, rarely, two little winged figures) are set; Keres on scales should probably resemble those whose lots they signify.31 The Kerostasia of Achilles and Hector in Il. 22 has a parallel in Il. 8, 68-74: Zeus weights death lots of the Achaeans and the Trojans.32 Moirai are usually depicted with tools for spinning.33 In the Iliad this image occurs twice: 20, 127 (Aiaa spanned Achilles' fate) and 24, 209 (Hector's fate was spinned by Moipa). In fact, it must be hard to weigh somebody's Moira: there are just three of them for all people, and a fate they spin for smb. is never personified. Intending to satirize Homer's idea of gods, Zoilus eventually replaced it with his own.
As said above, Zoilus was probably not interested in explaining the text. What he does is focusing on inappropriate details and trying to mock them. Still, sometimes the assumed inconsistency results from wrong presupposition. Zoilus referred the smoke-comparison in Il. 23, 100 to a wrong notion, ignored the sense which crying has in Od. 10, 241 and laughed at weighing Moirai, i.e. something he made up himself instead of what stands in Il. 22, 210. In doing this he did exactly what Aristotle describes in Poetics 25 when talking of those who criticise not Homer's text, but rather their own ideas of it.
References
de Angeli S. Moirai, in: LIMC 1992, VI / 1, 636-648.
Apfel H. V. Homeric criticism in the fourth century BC. TAPA 1938, 69, 245-258.
Beck W. KXaiw in: LfgrE 1982, 10, 1432-1435.
Blass F. Die Attische Beredsamkeit. 2 Abteilung. Leipzig, Teubner, 1874.
Bywater I. (ed., comm.) Aristotle. Poetics. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1909.
Dupont-Roc R., Lallot J. (ed., transl., comm.) Aristote. La poétique. Paris, Seuil, 1980.
26 Apart from Keren, Homer uses also |iopot; and aiaa and derivatives when speaking about death (see Eitrem 1932, 2457, 49-51); there is also an expression |oipa 9avaroio (e. g. Od. XVII, 326 et al.) as well as Kip 9avaroio (Il. 2, 302; Od. 11, 171 et al.), but in this case |oipa is unpersonified. LfgrE evens Keres and Moirai, when both mean unpersonified faith or death (see Vlachodimitris 1982, Sp. 1404, 32-33)
27 On Keres specially see Malten 1924; Nilsson 1992, 222-225 with many references; a brief summary of recent works and analysis of iconography may also be found in LIMC (Vollkommer 1992, 14-23; for quite an extensive bibliography see p. 15-16).
28 Keres are mentioned in both poems several times, see Vollkommer 1992, 14.
29 When in Od. 11, 171 Odysseus asks his mother's soul which K^p 9avaroio conquered her, he wants to know how she died (see Heubeck 2006, 87).
30 Vollkommer (1992, 15) mentions a number of episodes of Kerostasia from epos and tragedy. The change from Kerostasia to Psychostasia (i.e. to weighing Psychai instead of Keres), happened in Aeschylos' tragedy, although the iconography remained the same.
31 See Vollkommer 1992, 19-20 with references to LIMC VI/2 (e. g. pictures on pp. 11-12. and a large amount of other examples).
32 Richardson 1996, 129-130. A detailed analysis is given in Kirk's commentary to the 8th book (Kirk 1995, 303-304).
33 Numerous examples in LIMC VI/2 on pp. 375-379; commentary and descriptions are in LIMC VI/2 (see de Angeli, 1992, brief summary and bibliography on pp. 636-338).
Ebeling H. Lexicon Homericum. Vol. I. Hildesheim — Zürich — New York, Olms 1987. Eitrem S. Moira, in: RE 1932, XV/2, 2449-2497.
Erbse H. (ed.) Scholia Graeca in Homeri Iliadem 5. Berlin, de Gruyter, 1977.
Friedlaender U. De Zoilo aliisque Homeri Obtrectatoribus. Diss. Königsberg, ex officina Leupoldiana, 1895. Gärtner H. Zoilos von Amphipolis, in: RE 1978, Supplementband XV, 1531-1554. Guastini D. (transl., comm.). Aristotele. Poetica. Roma, Carocci, 2010.
Gudeman A. (ed.) Aristotles nEPI nOIHTIKHZ mit Einleitung, Text und Adnotatio critica, exegetischem Kommentar, kritischem Anhang und Indices Nominum, Rerum, Locorum. Berlin — Leipzig, de Gruyter, 1934.
Heubeck A., Hoekstra A. A Commentary on Homer's Odyssey II. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 2006.
Jacoby F. Die Fragmente der Griechischen Historiker (Zweiter Teil). Leiden, Brill, 1986.
Kassel R. (ed.) Aristotelis De Arte Poetica Liber. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1965.
Kirk G. S. The Iliad: A Commentary. Vol. II: books 5-8. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1995.
Lucas D. W. (ed., comm.). Aristotle. Poetics. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1968.
Malten L. Ker, in: RE 1924, Suppl. IV, 883-899.
von der Mühll P. (ed.) Homeri Odyssea. Basel, Helbing & Lichtenhahn, 1967.
Müller K. (ed., comm.) Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum. Vol. 2. Paris, Didot, 1848.
von Nägelsbach K. F. Homerische Theologie. Nürnberg, Geiger'sche Verlagsbucchandlung, 1861.
Nilsson R. Geschichter der Griechischen Religion. Bd 1. München, Beck 1992.
Pozdnev M. M. Glaukon von Teos und die Anfänge des Wissenschaftliches Denkens, in: Christian Vassallo (ed.) Physiologia. Topics in Presocratic Philosophy and its Reception in Antiquity (AKAN-Einzelschrift-en 12) 2017, 9-27. Rostagni A. (ed., comm.). Aristotele. Poetica. Torino, Chiantore, 1945.
Richardson N. The Iliad: A Commentary VI: books 21-24. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1996. Rohde E. Psyche: Seelencult und Unsterblichkeitsglaube der Griechen. Freiburg — Leipzig, Akademische Verlagsbuchhandlung von J. C. B. Mohr, 1894. Russell D. A. (ed., comm.). On the Sublime. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1964. Schmitt Arb. (transl., comm.) Aristoteles. Poetik. Berlin, Akademie Verlag, 2008.
Spindler G. De Zoilo Homeromastige qui vocatur. Diss. Halle, Typis Ploetzianis (R. Nietschmann), 1889.
Taran L., Gutas D. (ed., comm.) Aristotle. Poetics. Leiden — Boston, Brill, 2012.
Vlachodimitris Th. K|p, in: LfgrE 1982, 10, 1403-1407.
Vollkommer R. Ker, in: LIMC 1992, VI/1, 14-23.
West M. (ed.) Homeri Ilias II. München — Leipzig, Saur, 2000.
Received: February 23, 2019 Accepted: April 22, 2019
