## A POSSIBLE ARISTOTLE-FRAGMENT IN THE b-SCHOLION ON ILIAD 22.94

By Robert Mayhew

Summary: The	bscholion on Iliad 22.94	attributes	a	claim	about	a	venomous	snake (δράκων)	to	Aristotle's On	Animals .	Likely	because	there	is	no	obvious	parallel	text in	Aristotle's	extant	works	on	animals,	the	reference	tends	nowadays	to	be	dismissed as	inauthentic	(though	it	was	taken	much	more	seriously	in	the	19th	century).	Further,	the	Aristotle	reference	has	been	consigned	to	a	footnote	in	the	standard	edition of	 the Iliad scholia.	 This	 essay	 reassesses	 the	 scholion	 and	 considers	 as	 possible sources	a	few	different	works	of	Aristotle.	It	also	suggests	that	the	Aristotelian	material	-	whatever	its	source	-	was	brought	in	by	Homeric	scholars	to	support	one	side of	a	debate	over	the	meaning	of	κακὰ	φάρμακα.

Early in Iliad 22, Hector is described as waiting for Achilles,

ὡς δὲ δράκων ἐπὶ χειῇ ὀρέστερος ἄνδρα μένῃσιν βεβρωκὼς κακὰ φάρμακ᾽ , ἔδυ δέ τέ μιν χόλος αἰνός , σμερδαλέον δὲ δέδορκεν ἑλισσόμενος περὶ χειῇ · 1

As a drak ō n 2 by its hole in the mountains waits for a man,

- 1 The text is West 2000: 272-73.
- 2 The drak ō n also appears in Il . 2.308, 3.33, 6.181, 11.26, 11.39, Od . 4.457. Note LfGrE s.v. δράκων (M. Harder): 'Charact. and behaviour ... neither recall the types of snake familiar to Greece and Asia Minor nor suggest a 'dragon'. ... No clear dist. between δ . and ὄφις poss.' But see van der Mije 2011: 364-66 for an attempt at identification. On Aristotle on the drak ō n , see below note 22.

having eaten evil pharmaka , 3 and a dreadful cholos enters it, 4 and it shoots a stinging glance, coiled by its hole (93-95).

The  ancient  scholars'  main  concern  here  was  the  use  of χειή for  the snake's  abode. 5 (More  on  this  shortly.)  There  was  also  some  curiosity about the idea of a snake eating poisonous things ( κακὰ φάρμακα ), and what precisely these things were. It is this latter issue that interests me most, though the bT-scholia 6 that  are  the  focus  of  this  paper  concern both χειή and κακὰ φάρμακα .

I begin by presenting transcriptions with translations of the two most relevant (sets of) scholia:

## 1. schol. T Iliad 22.93 & 94 ( Burney MS 86 [fol. 242r]) 7

ǀǀǀ⁰ ἐπὶ χειῇ : ἐπὶ μὲν τῶν ἄλλων ζῴων ξυλόχους τε καὶ εὐνάς φησι · δύναται γὰρ καὶ ἕτερα ζῷα χωρῆσαι · νῦν δὲ χειάν , τὴν αὐτὸν μόνον χωροῦσαν καὶ τρόπον τινὰ ἔλυτρον αὐτοῦ οὖσαν ·  « οὐδὸς δ ' ἀμφοτέρους ὅδε χείσεται ». ἢ ὅτι δίκην ὕδατος ἐκχεῖται εἰς αὐτὴν τὸ θηρίον · ἀγριώτερα δὲ τὰ ἐν ἐρήμῳ γεννώμενα : -

- 3 See LfGrE s.v. φάρμακα (V. Langholf). I leave φάρμακα untranslated, as its nature is disputed in the scholia that interest me here.
- 4 de Jong 2012: 82: ' χόλος is a psychological force, anger, as well as a substance in the body, bile, which is produced by the organ known as χολάδες (4.526 = 21.181) ... Here it is uniquely used to refer to the poison of a snake ...' See also van der Mije 2011: 368-69.
- 5 Though rare (in the Homeric epics, it appears only in Il . 22.93 and 95), this concern is not shared by modern scholars; see e.g. LfGrE s.v. χειή (W. Beck) and Richardson 1993: 116.
- 6 The scholia preserved in the b family of manuscripts (i.e. Venetus B [B], Escorial Y 1.1 [E3], and Escorial Ω 1.12 [E4]) and in manuscript T ( Burney MS 86). The source of both is a lost archetype (known as 'c'), the sources of which in turn are in large part ancient  exegetical  commentaries.  See  Erbse  1969:  xvii-xxi  and  xxvi-xxviii  (with  a stemma on lviii), and for briefer overviews Dickey 2007: 19-20 and Schironi 2018: 911.
- 7 This manuscript can be accessed here: http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/Viewer.aspx ?ref=burney\_ms\_86\_fs001r. ǀǀǀ⁰ is written above χειῇ in the text of the Iliad , ⊕ over βεβρωκὼς .

̇

- ⊕ βεβρωκὼς κακὰ φάρμακα : φασὶν αὐτὸν ἐσθίοντα μύρμηκας καὶ κανθαρίδας μετὰ τὴν φώλευσιν , ἰοῦ πληροῦσθαι καὶ ἐρεθίζεσθαι λυσσᾶν τε τοῦ ἀπομάξασθαι τὸν ἐνοχλοῦντα ἰόν · ⁕
- ǀǀǀ⁰ 'by its hole': In the case of the other animals he says 'copse' and 'lair'; for it [i.e. a copse or lair] can 8 make room for other animals, too; but here [he says] 'hole', [because] it only has room for the [ drak ō n ] itself, and is in a way its case; 'this threshold will be room enough ( χείσεται ) for both of us' [ Od . 18.17]. 9 Or [Homer uses χειή ] because in the manner of water the beast pours ( ἐκχεῖται ) into it. And the [animals] that are brought forth in solitude are wilder [sc. than other animals]. 10
- ⊕ 'having eaten evil pharmaka ': They claim that it [sc. the drak ō n ], eating ants and beetles after hiding, 11 is filled with venom and is provoked to go into a frenzy wiping off the irritating venom.
- 8 The journal's referee suggested correcting δύναται to δύνανται , which would make the translation more natural: 'for they [i.e. a copse and a lair] can' etc.
- 9 This Odyssey -quotation, here and in the following b-scholion, seems a bit out of place, and I suspect something may have dropped out at this point. It arguably makes a bit more sense in the context of an etymological explanation of (and objection to) χειή , of the sort found in an Aristonicus-scholion on Il . 22.93 in Venetus A (fol. 284r):

« ὡς δὲ δράκων ἐπὶ χειῇ »· ὅτι τὴν τῶν ὄφεων κατάδυσιν χειὰν εἴρηκεν , ἀπὸ τοῦ χεῖσθαι ὅ ἐστι χωρῆσαι ...

'As a drak ō n by  its  hole':  Because he called the secret place of the snakes χειά , which is from 'to pour' ( χεῖσθαι ), which is 'to make room for'....

Aristonicus is explaining why Aristarchus athetized this verse. See Schironi 2018: 349-50.

- 10  I am grateful to the journal's referee for help in translating and understanding this passage (which also appears in the following b-scholion), as it gave me a great deal of trouble. The last line of this text is a further explanation of why Homer made the drak ō n (a wild animal) dwell in a hole rather than in a copse or a lair.
- 11  Balme 1991: 147 points out that Aristotle uses φωλεύω , φωλεία , and their cognates, for both hibernation and estivation.

2. schol. b Iliad 22.93 ( Venetus B [fol. 294r], Escorial Y 1.1 [fol. 285r], Escorial Ω 1.12 [fol. 189r]) 12

- κζ̄ ἐπὶ μὲν τῶν ἄλλων ζῴων ξυλόχους τε καὶ εὐνάς φησι · δύναται γὰρ καὶ ἕτερα ζῷα χωρῆσαι . νῦν δὲ χειάν , τὴν αὐτὸν μόνον χωροῦσαν καὶ τρόπον τινὰ ἔλυτρον αὐτοῦ οὖσαν ·  « οὐδὸς δ ' ἀμφοτέρους ὅδε χείσεται ». ἢ ὅτι δίκην ὕδατος ἐκχεῖται εἰς αὐτὴν τὸ θηρίον . ἀγριώτερα δὲ τὰ ἐν ἐρήμῳ γεννώμενα . φησὶ δὲ ἐν τῷ ς̄ περὶ ζῴων Ἀριστοτέλης ἐσθίοντα αὐτὸν μύρμηκας καὶ κανθαρίδας ἰοῦ πληροῦσθαι πλείονος τοῦ ἐμφύτου καὶ ἐρεθίζεσθαι καὶ λυσσᾶν ἐπιθυμοῦντά που ἀπομάξασθαι τὸν ἐνοχλοῦντα ἰόν : ~
- κζ̄ [= χειῇ ] In the case of the other animals he says 'copse' and 'lair'; for it [i.e. a copse or lair] can make room for other animals, too; but here [he says] 'hole', [because] it only has room for the [ drak ō n ] itself, and is in a way its case: 'This threshold will be room enough ( χείσεται ) for both of us' [ Od . 18.17]. Or [Homer uses χειή ] because in the manner of water the beast pours ( ἐκχεῖται ) into it. And the [animals] that are brought forth in solitude are wilder [sc. than other animals]. Now Aristotle claims in On Animals 6 that it [sc. the drak ō n ],  eating ants and beetles, is filled with venom, more than the natural amount, and so is provoked and goes into a frenzy, desiring somehow to wipe off the irritating venom.

I think T is superior to b in this respect: these are clearly two separate scholia on two different verses. For further evidence that these are separate comments, note that in Lipsiensis gr. 32, the 'ants and beetles' comment is virtually identical to the one in T, but is preceded by an entirely different  comment  that  notes  an  etymological  connection  between δράκων in Il . 22.93, and δέδορκεν in 95; 13 and that Eustathius (in a passage

- 12  These manuscripts can all be accessed here: https://amphoreus.hpcc.uh.edu/. In Venetus B and Escorial Y 1.1 (but not in Escorial Ω 1.12), κζ̄ is written over χειῇ in the text of the Iliad . Otherwise, this scholion is identical in all three manuscripts. Although this is presented as a scholion on χειῇ in Il . 22.93, as I make clear it is in fact two scholia, one on χειῇ in 93, the other on κακὰ φάρμακα in 94.
- 13  « ὡς δὲ δράκων »: δράκων εἴρηται παρὰ τὸ δεδορκέναι · καὶ γὰρ δράκων ἀπὸ τούτου εἴρηται · τὸ γὰρ βλέμμα δεινὸν ἔχει . καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ ἰδίου οἴκου ἱστάμενος δεινότερος ἐστιν . φασὶ δὲ αὐτὸν ἐσθίοντα μύρμηκας καὶ κανθαρίδας , μετὰ τὴν φώλευσιν ἰοῦ πληροῦσθαι καὶ ἐρεθίζεσθαι , καὶ λυσσᾶν που ἐναπομάξασθαι τὸν ἐνοχλοῦντα ἰόν . (I

quoted below) couples a clearly related 'ants and beetles' comment with a different interpretation of κακὰ φάρμακα , which precedes it.

I pass over for the moment the first comment - identical in T and b which concerns why (or whether) Homer chose to use χειή to refer to the abode of the snake, when he elsewhere uses ξύλοχος ('copse', see e.g. Il . 5.162) or εὐνή ('lair', see e.g. Il . 11.115). Here again are the passages that concern me (on κακὰ φάρμακα in Il .  22.94),  with  the  differences  highlighted:

T: φασὶν αὐτὸν ἐσθίοντα μύρμηκας καὶ κανθαρίδας μετὰ τὴν φώλευσιν ἰοῦ πληροῦσθαι καὶ ἐρεθίζεσθαι λυσσᾶν τε τοῦ ἀπομάξασθαι τὸν ἐνοχλοῦντα ἰόν .

b: φησὶ δὲ ἐν τῷ ϛ̄ περὶ ζῴων Ἀριστοτέλης ἐσθίοντα αὐτὸν μύρμηκας καὶ κανθαρίδας ἰοῦ πληροῦσθαι πλείονος τοῦ ἐμφύτου καὶ ἐρεθίζεσθαι καὶ λυσσᾶν ἐπιθυμοῦντά που ἀπομάξασθαι τὸν ἐνοχλοῦντα ἰόν .

The  major  differences  are φασίν (T)  in  place  of φησὶ δὲ ἐν τῷ ϛ̄ περὶ ζῴων Ἀριστοτέλης (b), and μετὰ τὴν φώλευσιν (T) which is absent in b. This latter aside, T seems like a slightly more condensed version of the same material. The difference between these two texts with respect to the Aristotle-citation is hard to explain, given that we should expect the comments on κακὰ φάρμακα in b and T to have the same source. My aim in what follows is to speculate about the source of the reference to Aristotle.

Erbse 1972: 288 edits and presents these bT scholia together, as follows:

βεβρωκὼς κακὰ φάρμακα : φασὶν αὐτὸν ἐσθίοντα μύρμηκας καὶ κανθαρίδας μετὰ τὴν φώλευσιν ἰοῦ πληροῦσθαι , b(BE3E4)T

̥

was unable to consult this manuscript and so relied on Bachmann 1835: 682-83.) Cf. schol. D Il . 22.94/U m & 22.95/Z s (van Thiel 2 ). The etymological connection is sound; see Colvin 2007: 194: ' δράκων : < * dr k ō n (root * derk, 'look'): poetic term derived from the unnerving eyes of a reptile. A play with δέδορκεν 95.'

πλείονος < ἢ > τοῦ ἐμφύτου b(BE3E4) καὶ ἐρεθίζεσθαι λυσσᾶν τε τοῦ ἀπομάξασθαι τὸν ἐνοχλοῦντα ἰόν . b(BE3E4)T.

As presented, this is misleading, as mss. B, E3, and E4 all contain the Aristotle-reference. Erbse does, however, print this reference in his apparatus, where he explains why he omitted it: mentionem Aristotelis ... ab auctore hyparchetypi b fictam et interpolatam esse demonstravit Valk I 175 . Here is the relevant passage in van der Valk 1963: part 1, 175:

bT  X  94  offers  information  about  dragons  that  were  filled  with venom by eating ants. b takes over the notice and ascribes it to Aristotle: φησὶν ἐν τῷ ζ ´ [sic] 14 περὶ ζῴων Ἀριστοτέλης κτε . This time the notice of b seems quite trustworthy, since he refers to a definite passage of Aristotle. If we consult Aristt. HA VI, we see that it begins with the words αἱ μὲν οὖν τῶν ὄφεων καὶ τῶν ἐντόμων γενέσεις κτε . 15 The book itself, however, does not discuss serpents, but  treats  fishes,  birds  and  mammals.  Fortunately,  we  are  acquainted with the unreliability of b, for otherwise we might have thought that originally the sixth book of Aristt. HA had presented a text which differed from that which is offered by our mss. The behavior of b is understandable, for he was interested in dragons (see [p. 151] note 90) and, therefore, he tried to make the notice of bT interesting by ascribing it to Aristotle. 16

Although I cannot dismiss this as impossible, I do find dubious the idea that b would insert Aristotle's name into the text to make it more interesting, even adding a title and book number. Moreover, this would be particularly  sloppy  of  b,  as αἱ μὲν οὖν τῶν ὄφεων καὶ τῶν ἐντόμων

- 14  Mss. B, E3, and E4 all have ϛ̄ , but as van der Valk goes on to refer to HA 6, his printing ζ ´ creates no problems in interpretation. (In one book-numbering system 6, 7, and 8 are represented by ϛ̄ , ζ̄ , and η̄ , in another by ζ , η , and θ . See Primavesi 2007: 63-64 and Dickey 2007: 131-32.)
- 15  'So much for the generations of snakes and of insects etc.,' which would include the drak ō n , and ants and beetles.
- 16  van der Valk adds in a footnote: 'We may imagine that b, when looking through the HA of Aristotle, saw that the sixth book began by mentioning dragons. The beginnings of new books are most easily discernible in the mss.'

γενέσεις does not announce the subject to be discussed in Book 6, but briefly describes the subject that Aristotle had just discussed in the previous book: HA 5.19-32 is on the generation of insects, HA 5.34 (the last chapter of HA 5) on the generation of snakes. I therefore think it worthwhile to explore other possibilities.

Rose included this scholion (or rather, something like it) in all three of his collections of Aristotle fragments (1863, 1870, 1886). In each case he combined material from an A-scholion with the B-scholion (based on Dindorf's edition). 17 In  his  first  collection  (titled Aristoteles Pseudepigraphus , as he thought all of this material was spurious) he sees a connection between this 'fragment' and HA 7(8), 18 the source or identity of which he considers Theophrastus' Περὶ τῶν φωλευόντων (see DL 5.44 [124 Dorandi], and frs. 366-370 FHS&G) - recall the μετὰ τὴν φώλευσιν in T, which Rose and other editors 'restore' to b. 19 I cannot here discuss the ongoing debate over the authenticity of HA 7(8),  a  text I will return to shortly. (I believe HA 7(8) is authentic, but cannot make that case here, nor is it important in the present context. 20 ) Setting aside HA 7(8), I suppose it is just

- 17  For instance, Rose 3 fr. 372 is presented as follows (the ellipses and parentheses are his):

Schol. in Hom. Il. χ , 93 (Dind.): ( ὡς δὲ δράκων ἐπὶ ) χειῇ ( ὀρέστερος ἄνδρα μένῃσιν , βεβρωκὼς κακὰ φάρμακ '· ἔδυ δέ τέ μιν χόλος αἰνός ): ἡ διπλῆ ὅτι τὴν τῶν ὄφεων κατάδυσιν χειὰν εἴρηκεν ἀπὸ τοῦ χεῖσθαι (A) . . .

.  .  . ἢ ὅτι δίκην ὕδατος ἐκχεῖται εἰς αὐτὴν τὸ θηρίον . ἀγριώτερα δὲ τὰ ἐν ἐρήμῳ γεννώμενα . φησὶ δὲ καὶ ἐν τῷ ϛˊ περὶ ζῴων Ἀριστοτέλης ἐσθίοντα αὐτὸν μύρμηκας καὶ κανθαρίδας < μετὰ τὴν φώλευσιν > ἰοῦ πληροῦσθαι πλείονος τοῦ ἐμφύτου καὶ ἐρεθίζεσθαι καὶ λυσσᾶν ἐπιθυμοῦντά που ἀπομάξασθαι τὸν ἐνοχλοῦντα ἰόν (B int.).

See Venetus A (fol. 284r), quoted above in note 9. ἡ διπλῆ should be in pointed brackets.

- 18  Following the notation in Balme 1991: '7(8)' = Book 7 according to the paradosis, Book 8 according to Theodore Gaza's rearrangement (in his fifteenth-century Latin translation). This rearrangement, which was accepted by Bekker and became standard, was a consequence of Gaza having concluded that the tradition's Book 9 in fact belonged after Book 6.
- 19  His text in this collection alone includes ' ἐν τῷ ϛˊ (corr. ζ ´) περὶ ζῴων ' κτλ .  Rose refers to 'Ar. h.a. 8, 13, 15' (i.e. HA 7(8).13 & 15). More recently, Huby 1985: 318-19 has argued that HA 7(8) is an inauthentic compilation making use of the works of Theophrastus, including Περὶ τῶν φωλευόντων .
- 20  On the authenticity of HA 7(8), see Balme 1991: 1-13 and Schnieders 2019: 97-108.

possible (but unlikely) that the scholar responsible for the Aristotle comment had access to Theophrastus' Περὶ τῶν φωλευόντων , which discussed this behavior of snakes and which he mistook for a work of Aristotle's or which was being circulated as such. But I do not consider this possibility a serious alternative to van der Valk's explanation.

In his other two collections, Rose attributes the text to a lost work of Aristotle on animals (which he labels Zoica ). Heitz 1869: fr. 301, who presents a much more accurate edition of our text, also takes it to be from a lost work on animals (though he does not mention a title). 21 In Mayhew 2020, I argue that the lost Zoïka was a collection of data concerning animal  coloration,  anatomy,  and  behavior.  And  I  believe  I  have  demonstrated in Mayhew forthcoming the probability that at least one Homeric scholar had access to the Zoïka (or a compilation including excerpts from it).  So  I  think one genuine possibility is that the Zoïka contained a description  of  snakes  eating  poisonous  animals,  and  that  this  was  the source of the reference in the b-scholia.

I turn now to the Historia animalium . HA 7(8).13-17 is devoted to animals that hide - i.e. that hibernate or avoid the sun - and in 7(8).15, Aristotle (for I think he is the author) says that 'while the other snakes hide in the ground, the vipers conceal themselves under rocks' ( οἱ μὲν οὖν ἄλλοι ὄφεις ἐν τῇ γῇ φωλεύσουσιν , αἱ δ ' ἔχιδναι ὑπὸ τὰς πέτρας κατακρύπτουσιν ἑαυτάς )  (599a33-b2).  Later,  in  7(8).29,  he  attempts  to show how differences in location can make a difference in the bites or stings of various animals, including snakes (see 607a21-34). He says that 'snake  bites  too  differ  greatly'  ( τά τε τῶν ὄφεων δήγματα πολὺ διαφέρουσιν ) (607a21). After providing a couple of examples, he writes (607a27-29):

πάντων δὲ χαλεπώτερά ἐστι τὰ δήγματα τῶν ἰοβόλων , ἐὰν τύχῃ ἀλλήλων ἐδηδοκότα , οἷον σκορπίον ἔχις .

But more dangerous than any are the bites of the venomous animals after one happens to have eaten another, for example a viper that has eaten a scorpion.

- 21  In his apparatus, however, he refers to HA 8(9).6, which describes the δράκων -  a promising lead which I return to shortly.

There is, however, no mention (here or elsewhere) of snakes eating ants and beetles. Perhaps the most relevant passage, noted by Heitz, is HA 8(9).6.612a30-31:

ὁ δὲ δράκων ὅταν ὀπωρίζῃ τὸν ὀπὸν τῆς πικρίδος ἐκροφεῖ , καὶ τοῦθ ' ἑώραται ποιῶν .

The drak ō n , when it eats fruit, drinks down the juice of the pikris , and it has been seen doing this. 22

Aristotle is referring to a snake extracting liquid from the pikris , a kind of bitter plant or herb, 23 prior to eating fruit.

This last Aristotle-passage is worth exploring in greater detail. In HA 8(9).6, Aristotle presents an array of endoxa illustrating the intelligence of animals - eating things that protect them or otherwise promote their lives: For instance, a weasel eats the herb rue before fighting snakes, as the odor of rue is inimical to snakes; and, a hound feeling pain eats a certain kind of grass to make itself vomit. 24 In the case of the drak ō n eating pikris , however, no such reason is given to explain this behavior, the explanation in my view likely having dropped out of the text. But judging by the evidence in Pliny and Aelian, the drak ō n does this as a remedy of some kind, and not to acquire venom. Pliny NA 8.99 claims that the snake ( anguis ), after hibernating in winter, rubs its eyes against fennel to restore its sight; and, that the drak ō n ( draco ) cures its nausea by eating wild

- 22  Aristotle refers to the drak ō n three times in the Historia animalium , the other two being 7(8).20.602b24-26 and 8(9).1.609a4-5. The mention in HA 7(8).20 suggests a water snake, the other two a land snake. See Schnieders 2019: 593-94. I doubt this snake can be identified.
- 23  Theophrastus says it is 'bitter in taste, and this is why it received its name' ( τῇ γεύσει δὲ πικρά , διὸ καὶ τοὔνομα εἴληφε ) ( HP 7.11.4). According to Amigues 2006: 324, this is Crepis zacintha (English 'Striped hawksbeard'). See Schnieders 2019: 738-39 for other suggestions.
- 24 HA 8(9).6.612a28-30 and 31-32: ἡ δὲ γαλὴ ὅταν ὄφει μάχηται ἐπεσθίει τὸ πήγανον · πολεμία γὰρ ἡ ὀσμὴ τοῖς ὄφεσιν . ... αἱ δὲ κύνες ὅταν ἑλμινθιῶσιν ἐσθίουσι τοῦ σίτου τὸ λήϊον . These two endoxa appear on either side of the reference to the drak ō n .

lettuce. 25 Similarly, but in more detail, Aelian in NA 9.16 describes ( inter alia )  how  a  snake  ( ὄφις ),  after  hibernating  in  winter  ( τοῦ χειμῶνος φωλεύσας ), improves its eyesight by rubbing against fennel. 26 He has a separate discussion of the drak ō n , which I think is of capital importance in the present context. I present NA 6.4 in full:

οἱ δράκοντες ὅταν ὀπώρας μέλλωσι γεύεσθαι , τῆς πικρίδος καλουμένης ῥοφοῦσι τὸν ὀπόν · ὀνίνησι δὲ ἄρα αὐτοὺς αὕτη πρὸς τὸ μὴ φύσης τινὸς ὑποπίμπλασθαι . μέλλοντες δέ τινα ἐλλοχᾶν ἢ ἄνθρωπον ἢ θῆρα , τὰς θανατηφόρους ῥίζας ἐσθίουσι καὶ τὰς πόας μέντοι τὰς τοιαύτας . οὐκ ἦν δὲ ἄρα οὐδὲ Ὅμηρος αὐτῶν τῆς τροφῆς ἀμαθής . λέγει γοῦν ὅπως ἀναμένει περὶ τὸν φωλεὸν εἱλούμενος , προεμπλησθεὶς σιτίων πολλῶν φαρμακωδῶν καὶ κακῶν .

The drakontes , when they are about to eat fruit, drink the juice of the so-called pikris ; it seems to help them against being filled with wind. But when they are about to lie in wait for either a human or a beast, they eat death-bringing roots and herbs of the same sort. In that case, Homer was not ignorant of their diet. For at any rate he describes how it waits, coiled up near its hiding-place, having filled up beforehand on a lot of poisonous and evil food.

So according to Aelian, sometimes the drak ō n eats a certain plant for medicinal reasons, and other times it eats different plants to produce or improve its venom, and this latter (he thinks) is what Homer is describing.

- 25 idem (sc. anguis) hiberna latebra visu obscurato maratho herbae se adfricans oculos inunguit ac refovet ... draco vernam nausiam silvestris lactucae suco restinguit. Plut. De soll. an . 20 ( Mor . 974b) seems to conflate these two, writing that the drak ō n improves its eyesight with fennel: ὁ δὲ δράκων τῷ μαράθρῳ τὸν ὀφθαλμὸν ἀμβλυώττοντα λεπτύνων καὶ διαχαράττων . (He does not mention hibernation.)
- 26 ὅταν ἀποδύσηται τὸ γῆρας ὁ ὄφις ῾ὑπαρχομένου δὲ τοῦ ἦρος δρᾷ τοῦτὀ , ἐνταῦθά τοι καὶ τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν τὴν ἀχλὺν καὶ τὸ ἀμβλὺ τῆς ὄψεως ῥύπτεται καὶ ἐκεῖνο ὡς γῆρας ὀφθαλμῶν , τῷ δὲ μαράθῳ ὑποθήγων τε καὶ παραψήχων τὸ ὄμμα ἑκάτερον , εἶτα ἐξάντης τοῦδε τοῦ πάθους γίνεται . ἀμβλυώττει δὲ ἄρα διὰ τοῦ χειμῶνος φωλεύσας ἐν μυχῷ καὶ σκότῳ . οὐκοῦν μαλκίουσαν ἐκ τῶν κρυμῶν τοῦ ζῴου τὴν ὄψιν ὑποθερμαῖνον τὸ μάραθον καθαίρει , καὶ ὀξυωπέστερον ἀποφαίνει .

I believe we have enough evidence to support a reasonable hypothesis (or hypotheses) about the source of the Aristotle-reference in schol. b Il. 22.93-94. First, it is clear that Aristotle collected a number of 'facts' or endoxa about various kinds of snakes, which hibernate or hide from the heat, and which eat certain plants (e.g. pikris ) and animals (e.g. scorpions) for reasons other than normal nutrition. Perhaps something about ants and beetles dropped out of the snakes-eating-venomous-animals passage in 7(8).29 or the drak ō n -passage in 8(9).6, though this would have to have happened very early on. I think it somewhat more likely that the reference originally came from a collection of such data in the Zoïka , perhaps in a book or section titled Περὶ ὄφεων . 27 The Περὶ ζῴων in our b-scholion would then refer either to the Historia animalium or (more likely) to the Zoïka , with the book number ( ϛ̄ ) a scribal error (e.g. a later erroneous addition), unless per chance Περὶ ὄφεων was the sixth 'book' or subsection of the Zoïka . It is also just possible that the source was one of the six books of  Aristotle's  lost Homeric Problems ,  which  might  have  been  titled Περὶ ζῴων ; 28 though  I  doubt  this  hypothesis  has  more  merit  than  van  der Valk's explanation. 29 But I do find both of the other hypotheses Historia animalium and Zoïka - more likely, and no more speculative, than van der Valk's, and this despite the fact that I cannot explain how the reference to Aristotle dropped out of T.

If the reference in b is accurate, then Homeric scholars made use of what Aristotle wrote in his biological writings about snakes eating ants and beetles. What more might we say about the issue or debate concerning Iliad 22.93-94 and involving Aristotle's views on snakes? I believe a passage in Eustathius is illuminating in this context. This is from his discussion of Iliad 22.94 (vol. 4, p. 581.7-10 van der Valk):

27  Athenaeus 7, our best source for information on Aristotle's Zoïka , variously refers to it - with the title of its subsection - as Ζωϊκὰ ἢ περὶ ἰχθύων , Περὶ ζωϊκῶν καὶ ἰχθύων , Περὶ ζῴων καὶ ἰχθύων , etc. See Mayhew 2020: 110.

28  See Mayhew 2019: 33.

29  Even setting aside this possibility, however, if Aristotle discussed elsewhere snakes eating ants and beetles, one can speculate about how he might have interpreted βεβρωκὼς κακὰ φάρμακα in Il. 22.94.

κακὰ δὲ φάρμακα οἱ μὲν πόαν τινά φασι χολῆς γεννητικήν , ἣν ἐσθίων ὄφις εἰς χολὴν ἐρεθίζεται . ἕτεροι δὲ ὅτι δράκων ἐσθίων μύρμηκας καὶ κανθαρίδας ἰοῦ πληροῦται καὶ εἰς λύσσαν ἄγεται , καὶ ταῦτά ἐστιν ἅπερ ὁ ποιητὴς λέγει κακὰ φάρμακα πρὸς διαστολὴν τῶν ἀγαθῶν .

Some claim 'evil pharmaka '  are  a  certain  herb  productive of bile ( chol ē s ),  which  the  snake  eats  and  so  is  provoked  into  anger ( chol ē n ). But others [claim] that the drak ō n , eating ants and beetles, is filled with venom and brought to a frenzy, and these are what the poet calls evil pharmaka in opposition to the good ones. 30

So on one view, κακὰ φάρμακα refers to certain plants (according to Aelian, 'deadly roots and herbs'). On another, κακὰ φάρμακα refers to ants and beetles, with certain plants (e.g. the pikris ) in fact being ἀγαθὰ (not κακὰ ) φάρμακα .  Modern  scholars  for  the  most  part  favor  the  former view, 31 and Roemer 1924, 73 is right that Od . 2.328-29 and 4.229-30 do in fact support this reading. 32 But the Homeric scholar(s) who cited Aristotle on ants and beetles defended the latter position 33 - as Aristotle too might well have done, had he discussed Iliad 22.93-94 in his Homeric Problems .

- 30  I.e. to good pharmaka , likely herbs with medicinal properties.
- 31  See Leaf 1902, 2: 437; Ameis & Hentze 1906; 10; Cunliffe 1924 s.v. φάρμακον , 2; van der Mije 2011. Richardson 1993: 116 and de Jong 2012: 82, however, leave open the nature of the snake's diet.
- 32  Roemer 1924 contrasts this with the ancient interpretation found in our b-scholion -an interpretation he attributes (erroneously, in my view) to Aristarchus: 'Anders die antike Exegese, die Exegese Aristarchs, am besten erhalten in [Venetus] B: φησὶ δὲ ἐν τῷ ς̄ περὶ ζῴων Ἀριστοτέλης etc.' Unlike van der Valk and Erbse, he does not dismiss the attribution ('Also sehen wir hier mit vollem Recht die Autorität des Aristoteles angerufen und ausgespielt gegen eine falsche Volksvorstellung ...'), though he recognizes that it has no parallel in the extant corpus. He mentions in a footnote, however,  that  Dittmeyer  drew  his  attention  to  the  scorpion-passage  in HA 7(8).29.607a27-29 (quoted above), which Dittmeyer 1907: 350-51 considers an excerpt from Theophrastus' Περὶ δακέτων καὶ βλητικῶν .
- 33  As did Eustathius, immediately following the above quoted passage (vol. 4, p. 581.1012 van der Valk): τὸ δὲ ἐκ τῶν μυρμήκων κακὸν δηλοῦται καὶ ἐν τῷ μυρμηκιᾶν , κτλ .

## BIBLIOGRAPHY

- Ameis, K.F. & C. Hentze. 1906. Homers Ilias , vol. 2.1: Gesang XXII-XXIV . Leipzig.
- Amigues, S. 2006. Recherches sur les plantes . Tome V: Livre IX . Paris.
- Bachmann, L. 1835. Scholia in Homeri Iliadem quae in codice bibl. Paull. Acad. Lips. leguntur post Villoisonum et Imm. Bekkerum nunc primum ex ipso codice integra edidit ac recensuit . Leipzig.

Balme, D. 1991. Aristotle: History of Animals: Books VII-X . Cambridge, MA.

Colvin, S. 2007. A Historical Greek Reader: Mycenaean to the Koiné . Oxford.

Cunliffe, R. 1924. A Lexicon of the Homeric Dialect . London.

- de Jong, I.J.F. 2012. Homer Iliad: Book XXII . Cambridge.
- Dickey, E. 2007. Ancient Greek Scholarship: A Guide to Finding, Reading, and Understanding Scholia, Commentaries, Lexica, and Grammatical Treatises, from Their Beginning to the Byzantine Period . Oxford.
- Dindorf, W. 1875-1878. Scholia Graeca in Homeri Iliadem , 4 vols. Oxford.
- Dittmeyer, L. 1907. Aristotelis De animalibus historia . Leipzig.
- Erbse, H. 1969. Scholia Graeca in Homeri Iliadem (scholia vetera) . Vol. 1: Praefationem et scholia ad libros Α -Δ continens . Berlin.
- Erbse,  H.  1972. Scholia  Graeca  in  Homeri  Iliadem  (scholia  vetera) .  Vol.  5: Scholia ad Libros Υ -Ω continens . Berlin.
- Heitz, E. 1869. Fragmenta Aristotelis . Paris.
- Huby, P. 1985. 'Theophrastus in the Aristotelian Corpus, with particular reference to Biological Problems' in A. Gotthelf (ed.) Aristotle on Nature and Living Things . Pittsburgh, 313-25.
- Leaf, W. 1902. The Iliad. Edited, with apparatus criticus, prolegomena, notes, and appendices . 2nd ed. London.
- Mayhew, R. 2019. Aristotle's Lost Homeric Problems :  Textual Studies .  Oxford.
- Mayhew, R. 2020. 'Athenaeus' Deipnosophistae 7 and Aristotle's lost Zoïka or On Fish ' in A.P. Mesquita, S. Noriega-Olmos & C. Shields (eds.) Revisiting Aristotle's Fragments: New Essays on the Fragments of Aristotle's Lost Works . Berlin, 109-39.
- Mayhew, R. forthcoming. 'Aristotle on Homer on eels and fish in Iliad 21' Classical Quarterly .

- Primavesi, O. 2007. 'Ein Blick in den Stollen von Skepsis: Vier Kapitel zur frühen Überlieferung des Corpus Aristotelicum' Philologus 151, 51-77.
- Richardson,  N.  1993. The  Iliad:  A  Commentary ,  vol.  6: Books  21-24 .  Cambridge.
- Roemer, A. 1924. Die Homerexegese Aristarchs in ihren Grundzügen dargestellt . Paderborn.
- Rose, V. 1863. Aristoteles Pseudepigraphus, Pars Prima: Fragmenta Aristotelis philosophica . Leipzig.
- Rose, V. 1870. Aristotelis qui ferebantur librorum fragmenta . Aristotelis opera , vol. 5. Berlin.
- Rose, V. 1886. Aristotelis qui ferebantur librorum fragmenta . Leipzig.
- Schironi, F. 2018. The Best of the Grammarians: Aristarchus of Samothrace on the Iliad . Ann Arbor, MI.
- Schnieders, S. 2019. Aristoteles. Historia animalium: Buch VIII und IX . Berlin. van der Mije, S.R. 2011. 'Bad Herbs - the Snake Simile in Iliad 22' Mnemosyne 64.3, 359-82.
- van der Valk, M. 1963-1964. Researches on the Text and Scholia of the Iliad , 2 vols. Leiden.
- van der Valk, M. 1987. Eustathii archiepiscopi Thessalonicensis commentarii ad  Homeri  Iliadem  pertinentes ,  vol.  4: Commentarios  ad  libros Ρ -Ω complectens . Brill.
- van Thiel, H. 2014. Scholia D in Iliadem . Proecdosis aucta et correctior 2014. Secundum codices manu scriptos. Cologne.
- West, M.L. 2000. Homerus Ilias. Volumen alterum rhapsodias XIII-XXIV et indicem nominum continens . Munich & Leipzig.

Robert Mayhew Seton Hall University robert.mayhew@shu.edu