Matthiue Réal (Cornell University)
Attacking and Defending Homer: Zoilus’ Against Homer’s Poetry
Zoilus of Amphipolis, known as the Homeromastix, the scourge of Homer, was a fourth-century rhetorician and critic renowned for his treatise Against Homer’s Poetry, a fragmentary collection of criticisms of Homer. Modern scholars consistently take his critiques of Homer at face value. They explain them either as a polemical exercise conducted in a sophistic fashion (Buffière), or as an attempt at alerting Homer’s readers against the moral and technical shortcomings of his poetry (Bishop). I argue, instead, that Zoilus’ “attacks” are best understood as a hermeneutical fiction characteristic of zetematic literature.
Originally sympotic pastimes (Slater; Jacob), zetemata were literary investigations framed as questions and answers. Heraclides of Pontus and Aristotle, each of whom compiled a collection of zetemata on Homer, provide guides for understanding the genre. Particular to the zetematic genre, I demonstrate, is its agonistic framework. Interlocutor A plays the part of the prosecution and accuses the poet of a series of poetical flaws. Interlocutor B plays the part of the defense, and tries to invalidate the arguments of the prosecution. Ultimately, this framework, I contend, is a fiction: there are neither actual “detractors” nor “defenders” of poetry, prompted by consistently different agendas. The roles are part of the genre, they are interchangeable, and zetematic critics typically plays them both. Even Heraclides and Aristotle, who are consistently considered as defenders of Homer, often lend their voices to the prosecution (see F 99; 100; 101 Schütrumpf and F 384; 390; 391; 394; 395 Gigon).
Zoilus’ attacks of Homer, I argue, should be approached in a similar way. First, I note that the sources (especially the scholia to Homer) present Zoilus’ attacks as part of a zetematic framework. They match Zoilus’ criticisms with corresponding solutions, and introduce them with the same expressions with which they stage the voice of the prosecution in other known zetematic works (see e.g. γελοῖος, it is ludicrous, at F 26; 28; 35; 38 Friedlaender, αἰτιάομαι, to accuse, at F 32 Fried., or ἄτοπον, it is awkward, at F 31; 38; 39 Fried.). Moreover, the sheer length of Zoilus’ work, a collection in 9 books, suggests that he was animated by a genuine exegetical effort, rather than polemical intent. Finally, although scholars unanimously agree that Zoilus only devised critiques of Homer, I discuss fragments such as F 33 Friedlaender, where Zoilus suggests an emendation to a problematic passage of Homer, proving that his work also contributed to the “defense” of the poet.
Often seen as an anti-Homer manifesto, Zoilus’ treatise, I conclude, was, instead, an exegetical guide to Homeric poetry, and played a significant role in shaping ancient discussions of the epics. With it, Zoilus entered the zetematic arena. Soon after the publication of his treatise, critics, including Megaclides (see F11 Janko) and Aristotle (Ar. Poet. 1461a9 and 1461a15), rose to the challenges he posed: they acknowledged the critiques devised by the famous Homeromastix and advanced their own solutions to them.