Poikile Physis: Biological Literature in Greek during the Roman Empire: Genres, Scopes, and Problems PDF
Preview Poikile Physis: Biological Literature in Greek during the Roman Empire: Genres, Scopes, and Problems
Poikile Physis Science, Technology, and Medicine in Ancient Cultures Edited by Markus Asper Philip van der Eijk Mark Geller Heinrich von Staden Liba Taub Volume 12 Poikile Physis Biological Literature in Greek during the Roman Empire: Genres, Scopes, and Problems Edited by Diego De Brasi and Francesco Fronterotta ISBN 978-3-11-079673-5 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-079685-8 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-079692-6 ISSN 2194-976X Library of Congress Control Number: 2022939604 Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2022 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Printing and binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck www.degruyter.com Contents Diego De Brasi, Francesco Fronterotta Poikile Physis: A Short Introduction 1 Steven D. Smith A Question of Breeding? Aelian, Aristotle, And Alexander In India (NA 8.1) 13 Katarzyna Jażdżewska Animal Exemplarity in Imperial Greek Prose 33 Dominik Berrens “A Small Mirror of Greater and Nobler Enterprises” – Ants in Greek Imperial Literature 53 Diego De Brasi Biology Between Scientific Education and Ethical Paraenesis: The Physiologus 73 Sabine Föllinger Biology and Theology: Zoological Systematics in Basil of Caesarea’s Hexaemeron 101 Laurence Totelin Aelian’s Fabulous Trees 115 Maximilian Haars Galen as Phytotomist – His Study on the Fruit of Citrus Medica L. 131 R. J. Hankinson A Hymn to Nature: Structure, Function, Design and Beauty in Galen’s Biology 145 Francesco Fronterotta Biological Metaphor and Cosmology The Rejection of Plato’s Artificialism by the Middle Platonists and Plotinus 167 Claudia Lo Casto Biology and Life in Plotinus’ Philosophy 183 VI Contents Notes on Contributors 199 Index locorum 201 Index rerum 211 Index codicum 217 Diego De Brasi, Francesco Fronterotta Poikile Physis: A Short Introduction Imperial Greek Biological Literature: A Twofold Poikilia Intheepiloguetohisextensivecollectionofanimalstories,Aelian,aRomanrhetor writing in Greek in the 2nd–3rd century CE, defends his procedure of not having im- posed a systematic arrangement on the various tales: οἶδαδὲὅτικαὶἐκεῖναοὐκἐπαινέσονταίτινες,εἰμὴκαθ’ἕκαστοντῶνζῴωνἀπέκρινάμοιτὸν λόγον,μηδὲἰδίᾳτὰἑκάστουεἶπονἀθρόα,ἀνέμιξαδὲκαὶτὰποικίλαποικίλως,καὶὑπὲρπολλῶν διεξῆλθον,καὶπῇμὲνἀπέλιποντὸνπερὶτῶνδελόγοντῶνζῴων,πῇδὲὑπέστρεψαὑπὲρτῆς αὐτῶνφύσεωςἕτεραεἴρων.ἐγὼδὲπρῶτονμὲντὸἐμὸνἴδιονοὔκεἰμιτῆςἄλλουκρίσεώςτε καὶβουλήσεωςδοῦλος,οὐδέφημιδεῖνἕπεσθαιἑτέρῳ,ὅποιμ’ἂνἀπάγῃ·δεύτερονδὲτῷποι- κίλῳτῆςἀναγνώσεωςτὸἐφολκὸνθηρῶνκαὶτὴνἐκτῶνὁμοίωνβδελυγμίανἀποδιδράσκων,οἱο- νεὶλειμῶνάτιναἢστέφανονὡραῖονἐκτῆςπολυχροίας,ὡςἀνθεσφόρωντῶνζῴωντῶνπολ- λῶν, ᾠήθην δεῖν τήνδε ὑφᾶναί τε καὶ διαπλέξαι τὴν συγγραφήν. εἰ δὲ τοῖς θηρατικοῖς καὶ ἓν ζῷονεὑρεῖνδοκεῖπωςεὐερμία,ἀλλὰτόγετῶντοσούτωνοὐτὰἴχνη,οὐδὲτὰμέλησυλλαβεῖν ἐγώφημιγενναῖον,ἀλλ’ὁπόσαἡφύσιςἔδωκέτεαὐτοῖςκαὶὅσωνἠξίωσενἀνιχνεῦσαι. IamawaretoothatsomewillexpressdisapprovalbecauseIhavenotinmydiscoursekepteach creatureseparatebyitself,andhavenotsaidinitsownplaceallthatistobesaidabouteach, buthavemixedthevariouskindslikeavariedpatterninthecourseofdescribingagreatnum- ber,atonepointdroppingthenarrativeaboutsuch-and-suchanimals,atanothergoingback andstringingtogetherotherfactsabouttheirnature.Nowinthefirstplace,speakingformyself, Iamnoslavetoanother’sjudgmentandwill:Imaintainthatitisnotmydutytofollowanother’s leadwhereveritmaytakeme.Andinthesecondplace,sinceIwasaimingtoattractthroughthe varietyofmyreadingmatter,andsinceIfleefromthetediumarisingfrommonotony,IfeltthatI ought to weavethe tissueof thisnarrativeof mine soastoresemblea meadowor a chaplet beautiful with its many colours, the many creatures, as it were, contributing their flowers. And although hunters regard the finding of even one animal as a piece of luck, I maintain thatthereisnothingsplendidinfindingthetracksorcapturingthebodiesofsuchamultitude ofanimals,whereastotrackdownthefacultieswhichnaturehasseenfittobestowuponthem– thatissplendid(transl.A.F.Scholfield). Acknowledgement: We express our gratitude to the German Research Foundation (DFG) that financially supported the conference (Marburg, December 2017), from which this volume arises. We also would like to thank Sophie Kröner and Sarah Lauer for their help in compiling the indices. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110796858-001 2 DiegoDeBrasi,FrancescoFronterotta Admittedly,Aelianisreferringwiththisstatementtohisowncompositionalchoices, and thus positioning himself in a specific literary tradition.¹ In particular, Aelian’s accountreflectsaninteresttypicalofimperialGreekliterature:thedesiretodescribe the variety of observable phenomena in all its fullness,² including, especially, phe- nomena that we would nowadays label as biological – e.g., zoological, botanical, and embryological – but that, in antiquity,were objects of investigation within the broader context of natural philosophy (philosophia physike).³ Oddlyenough, however, it is quite difficult to delineate the precise characteris- ticsof“biological”Greekliteratureintheimperialage.Indeed,whileaphilosophical andtheoreticalinterestinbiologicalphenomenacanbeobservedintheGreekliter- atureoftheso-calledclassicalperiod–ascientificinterestthatreachesitsmethodo- logicalandsystematicapexinAristotleandhisdisciples–theappealof “pure”bio- logicalinquiryseemstogivewaytootherconcerns duringtheimperialperiod.This doesnotmean,however,thatbiologicalproblemswerenotdiscussedatallinworks composedduringtheimperialera.Suchquestionsare,ofcourse,dealtwithin“tech- nical”writings,suchasGalen’smedicaltreatises,orinphilosophicalworks,suchas Plotinus’sEnneadsorPorphyry’sDeabstinentiaorAdGaurum.Withtheexceptionof Galen and other physicians,⁴ however, the basic attitude towards these problems seems to be different. On the one hand, imperial Greek literature continues and, at the same time, is based on a trend that began during the Hellenistic period and consisted in a“turningaway” from biological research aristotelico more: i.e., a ten- dencytodismissempiricalresearchandbiologicalanalysisinfavorofsecuring,epit- omizing, and disseminating knowledge that had already been acquired (mainly by Peripatetic scholars),⁵ paired with specific attention to exceptional and marvelous events.⁶Ontheotherhand,weobserveinimperialGreekliteraturewhatSabineFöl- lingerhascalleda“LiterarisierungderBiologie”(literarizationofbiology).⁷According to this view, authors writing within the “boundaries” of various literary genres in- cluded biological knowledge preserved and transmitted by Hellenistic compendia in their works,while pursuing other aims. As Föllinger argues, those authors who dealt with biological knowledge in the imperial era usually wished to cater to theiraudience’staste,and,consequently,soughtmainlytoentertainand/oreducate their readers,bothingeneraland fromamorenarrowly philosophicalperspective.⁸ OnAelian’spoikilíawithinitsbroaderliteraryandculturalcontext,seeSmith2014,47–66;Hinder- mann2016. Onthis,see,forinstance,Oikonomopoulou2017. Cf.,e.g.,Longo2006,8–13;Föllinger2014,557f. Cf.interaliaRicciardetto2021;Salas2021. On this, see,e.g., Lennox 1994; for an overview on Hellenisticcompendia, see,e.g., Kullmann 1999. Onthis,seeinparticularPajónLeyra2011. Föllinger2003,72. Föllinger2003. PoikilePhysis:AShortIntroduction 3 Hence,althoughwedonotfindinimperialGreekliteratureanythingcomparable to Aristotle’s De generatione animalium and Historia animalium or Theophrastus’s Historia plantarum (once again with the possible exception of medical treatises), the term “Greek biological literature” may be used to describe a variety of texts fromtheimperialperiod,rangingfromphilosophicaldialoguestoexamplesofpara- doxographical literature, didactic poems, and Christian homiletic writings, which have in common that they “reuse” biological knowledge within the framework of their specific rhetorical and argumentative strategies. Thus, while it may well be true that,under the RomanEmpire,biologicalknowledgewas essentiallyderivative andthatbiology was not a specific “subgenre”of scientific literature,it is still pos- sibletoconsiderworksasdisparateasthedialogueAlexanderbytheJewishphilos- opher Philo of Alexandria,writingslikePlutarch’s De sollertia animalium and Bruta ratione uti(alongwith Aelian’sDeNaturaAnimalium),didacticpoemslikeOppian’s Halieutika and Pseudo-Oppian’sCynegetika, and Basil of Caesarea’s Homilieson the Creation as examples of imperial Greek biological literature (a full list would be much longer). Fromthispointofview,then,imperialGreek“biological”literatureispoikileina twofoldsense,sotospeak:First,itisvariegatedinthesensethatitmanifestsitselfin avarietyofgenres,which,exceptformedicalandphilosophicaltreatises,donotpur- sueanexplicitlyanalyticorinvestigativeintention.Second,thoseworksthatcanbe labeled as examples of biological literature deal with, describe, and adapt to their rhetorical and argumentative aims the variety of observable zoological, botanical, andembryologicalphenomena,amongothersi.e.,theytrytodepicthowpoikilena- ture (physis) is. Modern Scholarship on Imperial Greek Biological Literature: A Very Brief and Selective Overview This twofoldpoikiliahasledtoageneraldisinterestinimperialGreekbiologicallit- erature,⁹asituationthathasnotchanged–or,atleastnotuntilveryrecently–even with the surge and development of scholarship on Aristotle’s biology.¹⁰ Only since the beginning of the 21st century, contemporaneous with a general increase in re- searchonimperialliterature,haveaconsiderablenumberofprojectsfocusedonvar- iousaspectsofthetechnicalandscientificwritingsfromtheimperialperiod.¹¹How- ThissectionisanEnglishadaptationofDeBrasi(forthcoming):“Forschungsstand.” Scholarly interest in Aristotle’sbiologicalworks andtheir literary form has, in fact,witnessed somethingofarenaissancesincethe1970s,thanksespeciallytotheseminalworkofscholarslike JimLennoxandWolfgangKullmann(aswellastheirpupils),andhassteadilygrownoverthelast decades.Cf.,e.g.,Kullmann1974;Kullmann1998;Lennox2001;Althoff1992.Seealsoe.g.Lefevbre &Falcon2018;Connell2015;Connell2021. Cf.,e.g.,König&Whitmarsh2007;König&Woolf2017. 4 DiegoDeBrasi,FrancescoFronterotta ever, even within this research area, interest in imperial Greek biological literature has been relatively modest, at least insofar as we leave aside Galenic medicine.¹² TheheterogeneityofliterarygenresandtopicsinimperialGreekbiologicalliter- aturehasaclearcounterpartinanequallysignificantdisparitybetweendifferentre- search approaches.Thus, since a major reason for the development of scholarly in- terest in imperial Greek biological literature has been the growing cultural importance of Human-Animal Studies and philosophy of mind, as disciplines on the boundary between the natural sciences and the humanities, some studies have focusedontopicsconnectedtothesedisciplines.Forinstance,scholarshavefocused on the interaction between animals and humans, examining not only biological or moral-psychologicalquestions,but,atthesametime,concentratingonritualandre- ligiousaspects.¹³Monographsandcollectivevolumeshaveaddressedtheproblemof how and to what extent biological and medical knowledge have been adapted and reusedfromaliteraryandmoregenerallyculturalpointofview.¹⁴Inafewcases,an- cient textshave been readin lightof modern debatesabout animal rights,vegetari- anism,andsoon.¹⁵Onoccasion,scholarshavealsopursuedthequestionofhowbi- ologicalknowledgewastransmittedanddisseminated.¹⁶Asfarastheexplorationof philosophicaltextsisconcerned,ahandfulofvolumeshavedealtwithmoregeneral issues connected to natural philosophy,¹⁷ but the major focus thus far has been on embryology, as this topic is most closely related to problems of (meta)physics and psychology.¹⁸ Hence, ageneral increase in interest in the Greek biological literature oftheimperialperiodcanbeobserved,¹⁹aninterestwhich,however,hasyettolead to a systematic and comprehensive examination of the topic. The Scope and Content of this Volume FollowingthesuggestionmadebyJasonKönigandTimWhitmarsh,whorecognizein imperialscientificwritings“thepotentialforinnovativenessincompilatorystylesof composition,”²⁰thisvolume,whichpresentsaselectionofpaperspresentedatacon- OnGalenandmedicalliterature,see,e.g.,Gill,Whitmarsh&Wilkins2009;Adamson,Hansberger &Wilberding2014;Petit2018;Thumiger&Singer2018. Cf.,e.g.,Gilhus2006. Cf.,e.g.,Henke2000;Bartley2003;Smith2014;Lhermitte2015;Lazaris2016;Kneebone2020a. Cf.,e.g.,Newmyer2006;Newmyer2017. Cf.,e.g.,Zucker2020;Zucker&Hellmann(forthcoming). Cf.,e.g.,Wagner2002;Wilberding&Horn2012. Cf.,e.g.,Congourdeau2007;Wilberding2017. Anevidentincreaseinthenumberofpublicationsoftexteditions,translations,andcommenta- riesconfirmsthatareversalinscholarlytrendshasindeedtakenplace.Cf.,e.g.,Fajen1999;Papa- thomopoulos2003;GarcíaValdésetal.2009;Bouffartigue2012;Giebel2015;Brodersen2018;Renker 2021;Newmyer2021. König&Whitmarsh2007a,9.
The list of books you might like
