Aristotle on the Meaning of τάλαντον‎ in Iliad 23

Unlike most of the chapters in this volume, the present chapter is focused on a set of related Homeric scholia that have received a fair amount of attention. They contain Aristotle’s solution to a problem concerning the value of a talent in Iliad 23, specifically: Why does Achilles give the greatest prize (two talents of gold) to the fourth-place contestant in the chariot race? But though these texts have received scholarly attention, their presentation—in editions of the scholia and in the collections of the fragments of Aristotle—is not always clear or complete, and the discussion of this material not always or entirely satisfactory. So this is a fresh look at the available evidence, going back to the manuscripts themselves.

The Evidence from the History of Animals

This chapter attempts to expand our knowledge of Aristotle’s Homeric Problems through an examination in context of the nine references to Homer in Aristotle’s History of Animals. Topics include: the unusual anatomical description in the account of the death of Thoön in Iliad 13; the longevity of Odyssey’s dog Argos; the two names of a bird in Iliad 14 (chalkis and kumindis); and the powerful eagle of Iliad 24. It is argued that, taken together, they likely provide additional evidence about the content of the Homeric Problems, and how Aristotle approached some of the debates engaged in by Homeric scholars in antiquity.

Pre-Aristotelian Homeric Scholarship and Aristotle’s Poetics 25

This chapter has two parts, each of which discusses an aspect of the context necessary for understanding the Homeric Problems. The first surveys the ancient Homeric scholarship that came before Aristotle: early critics of Homer on moral grounds, defenses of Homer through allegorical interpretation, the critiques of Plato and Zoilus. The second part discusses Aristotle’s recommendations for responding to objections to Homer, through a close study of Poetics 25, which specifically deals with providing solutions to Homeric problems.

Aristotle’s Naturalistic Interpretation of Odyssey 12

This final chapter considers the textual evidence for Aristotle’s (possible or probable) discussions of three episodes in Odyssey 12, namely, concerning the Sirens, the ambrosia-bearing doves, and the Cattle of the Sun. All three have historically been treated allegorically. Further, as some contemporary scholars take the fragments on these doves and cattle to be evidence for Aristotle interpreting Homer allegorically, this is an appropriate place to return to the issue of whether Aristotle ever employs allegorical interpretation, and as such it serves as an appropriate conclusion to the volume. The essential nature of what Aristotle is doing in his Homeric Problems is to defend Homer (where possible) according to rational principles of literary criticism, but without relying on allegorical interpretation.

Aristotle on the Theomachy in Iliad 21

The focus of this chapter is the Theomachy of Iliad 21. In this connection, two relatively neglected texts are examined: One is from an Oxyrhynchus papyrus containing a commentary on Iliad 21 (the Homeric problem discussed is: Why did Poseidon and Athena encourage Achilles, but not help him, in his battle with the river Scamander?). The other is from a lengthy scholium (the Homeric problem discussed is: Why, in Iliad 5, does Zeus chastise Ares, as being always fond of war, whereas in Iliad 21, Zeus watches with pleasure as the gods take sides in the war and fight each other?). These are important fragments in their own right, but also in connection with the question of whether Aristotle ever engaged in allegorical interpretation.

A Reappraisal of Heitz

As part of my appeal to scholars not to limit themselves to the standard collections of fragments (i.e. Rose and Gigon) when studying the Homeric Problems, I argue that Heitz’s 1869 edition of Aristotle’s fragments is a too often overlooked collection (at least with respect to the Homeric Problems). I do this by examining two fragments in Heitz’s collection that were not included in those of Rose and Gigon. One comes from the Etymologicum genuinum, and concerns the identity of a tree (the ἀχερωΐς‎) that appears twice in the Iliad; the other comes from Eustathius’ Commentary on the Odyssey, and concerns the recognition scenes in the Odyssey involving Odysseus’ scar.

The Titles (and Subtitles) of Aristotle’s Lost Work on Homer

I examine four types of evidence for the titles of the lost work that is the focus of this book: (1) the three most reliable ancient biographies of Aristotle, which contain lists of Aristotle’s works; (2) passages from three other, less reliable, ancient biographies of Aristotle; (3) the only three fragments from the Homeric Problems which refer to a title; (4) the incipit (i.e. opening words) of Poetics 25. Of the two most likely titles (Προβλήματα Ὁμηρικά‎ and Ἀπορήματα Ὁμηρικά‎), I have a preference for the latter. I also discuss the possible explanations for the variation in the number of books attributed to this work (six and ten), and I speculate about the possibility of subtitles (that is, separate titles for each of its six or ten books).

Aristotle and Aristarchus on the Meaning of κέρας‎ in the Iliad

This chapter examines numerous texts—Homeric scholia and Eustathius’ commentary on Iliad 11.385, and Plutarch’s Whether Land or Sea Animals Are Cleverer 24—in which Aristotle and/or Aristarchus are said to offer an interpretation on the specific meaning in context (in the Iliad) of κέρας‎ (‘horn’). The two authors are treated together, because one reason that these Aristotle fragments have been neglected is that earlier scholars have argued that the references to Aristotle are in fact, in most cases, mistakes for Aristarchus. This conclusion is rejected in almost every instance. The Aristotle fragments, properly identified, provide further evidence for Aristotle’s views on metaphor in Homer.

The Evidence from Poetics 21

This chapter attempts to expand our knowledge of Aristotle’s Homeric Problems through an examination in context of a select number of references to Homer in Aristotle’s Poetics 21. This chapter consists of a classification of the kinds of names or words, with a view to analyzing tragedy and epic poetry. The focus is particularly on the longest and most important section, words classified according to usage or form (that is, words that are foreign, made-up, lengthened, shortened, or altered). The chapter shows that there can be little doubt that the content of Poetics 21 reflects material that also appeared in the Homeric Problems.

The Evidence from the Rhetoric

This chapter attempts to expand our knowledge of Aristotle’s Homeric Problems through an examination in context of a select number of references to Homer in Aristotle’s Rhetoric. The first half of the chapter deals with Homeric problems involving emotions (namely lamentation, anger, and indignation). Odysseus’ interaction with the Cyclops Polyphemus receives special attention. The second half deals with literary style, specifically problems concerning epithets, asyndeton and repetition, and metaphors. It is argued that references to Homer in Aristotle’s Rhetoric likely provide additional evidence about the content of the Homeric Problems. Or at the very least, they give us a better idea of how Aristotle would have approached some of the debates engaged in by Homeric scholars in antiquity.