Mayhew ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 64 (2024) 21–36 ISSN 2159-3159 Article copyright held by the author(s) and made available under the Creative Commons Attribution License CC-BY https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Evidence for Aristotle’s Lost Zoïka in Apuleius’ Apologia 36–40 Robert Mayhew N 158/9 A.D., in Roman North Africa, Apuleius (ca. 124– 170), author of Metamorphoses (or Asinus aureus), went to trial to defend himself against the charge of using magic.1 He presents his defense speech in Pro se de magia (also known as Apologia).2 One of the so-called magical practices involved his interest in and use of fish, and especially exotic fish. For instance, it was claimed in this connection that he obtained his wife through magical arts and sea charms (magicis artibus, marinis illecebris) (41.5). He defends himself at length against any such wrong- doing (29–41).3 This is the section that interests me, in particular Apuleius’ references to the works of Aristotle on animals and his own interest in fish, which he says was the product of his having 1 magicorum maleficiorum (Apol. 1.5), calumnia magiae (2.2). There were also some frankly strange subsidiary charges: e.g., writing poems about toothpaste (6.1–8.7) and possessing mirrors (13.5–16.13), to name just two. A more serious charge of murder had been withdrawn (1.5–2.6). In citing the Apologia, I refer to the sections and subsections (e.g. 1.5) of P. Vallette, Apulée: Apologie. Florides (Paris 1924). 2 Most of the facts of the case, and the accuracy of Apuleius’ account, will not concern me. But see V. Hunink, Apuleius of Madauros, Pro se de magia. A New Edition with Commentary (Amsterdam 1997) I 11–20, and S. J. Harrison, Apuleius: A Latin Sophist (Oxford 2000) ch. 2. 3 For an overview of this part of the speech see Harrison, Apuleius 65–69. I 22 EVIDENCE FOR ARISTOTLE’S LOST ZOÏKA IN APULEIUS ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 64 (2024) 21–36 been influenced and inspired by Aristotle.4 Previous compilers of Aristotle-fragments have included some of this material, assigning it to the lost Ἀνατοµαί.5 I wish to reassess this material, and determine what if anything it might tell us about another lost work of his on animals, the Zoïka (Animal Matters), a work at- tributed to Aristotle in Athenaeus Deipn. 7 and Apollonius Para- doxographus Historiae Mirabiles 27–28.6 4 At the end of the speech, Apuleius summarizes both the charges against him and his replies, limiting himself to two words for each charge and reply (numera an binis verbis respondeam). The relevant pair (103.2): “pisces exploras”: Aristoteles docet (“ ‘you study fish’: Aristotle teaches [sc. this]”). 5 V. Rose, in all three of his collections of fragments, considers the Ἀνατοµαί and the Ζωϊκά (see the following note) the same work: Aristoteles Pseudepigraphus I Fragmenta Aristotelis Philosophica (Leipzig 1863); Aristotelis qui ferebantur librorum fragmenta, Aristotelis opera V (Berlin 1870); Aristotelis qui ferebantur librorum fragmenta (Leipzig 1886). See F 295.3 Rose1 (Apol. 36 and 40); F 307.5 Rose2 (Apol. 40); no F Rose3 (but he quotes from Apol. 36 and 40). E. Heitz, Fragmenta Aristotelis (Paris 1869) 171, includes no fragments under his heading Ἀνατοµῶν, rather he lists passages, including Apol. 36 and 40; cf. Heitz, Die verlorenen Schriften des Aristoteles (Leipzig 1865) 75–76, which includes a brief but on target criticism of Rose’s view that the Ζωϊκά and Ἀνατοµαί are the same. More recently, in O. Gigon, Aristotelis Opera (ex recensione I. Bekkeri) III2 Librorum Deper- ditorum Fragmenta (Berlin 1987) 493–494, F 295, under the heading Ἀνατοµῶν, includes Apol. 36, 40–41, and 103. 6 On the nature of the Zoïka, and the fragments from it in these two works, see R. Mayhew, “Athenaeus’ Deipnosophistae 7 and Aristotle’s lost Zoïka or On Fish,” in A. Mesquita et al. (eds.), Revisiting Aristotle’s Fragments: New Essays on the Fragments of Aristotle’s Lost Works (Berlin 2020) 109–139. I should mention that my operating hypothesis (which it is beyond the scope of this brief essay to explain or defend in full) is that the work called Zoïka and attributed to Aristotle by Athenaeus and Apollonius was a genuine work of Aristotle (per- haps in collaboration with others) and that one should be able to discern its nature and recover some of its content by considering not only what these two say or imply about such a work, but also what other ancient authors who discuss Aristotle on animals (e.g. Apuleius) have to say, even though they omit a reference to any title. I believe this hypothesis gets further support from the fact that the Zoïka (judging from the evidence in Athenaeus) appears to be the kind of work that had a distinct role to play in Aristotle’s biological enterprise ROBERT MAYHEW 23 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 64 (2024) 21–36 In Apol. 36.3–4 Apuleius explains his (entirely proper) interest in fish:7 Legat veterum philosophorum monumenta, tandem ut intellegat non me primum haec requisisse, sed iam pridem maiores meos, Aristotelem dico et Theophrastum et Eudemum et Lyconem ceterosque Platonis minores, qui plurimos libros de genitu animalium deque victu deque particulis deque omni differentia reliquerunt. Bene quod apud te, Maxime, causa agitur, qui pro tua eruditione legisti profecto Aristotelis περὶ ζῴων γενέσεως, †περὶ ζῴων ἀνατομῆς†,8 περὶ ζῴων ἱστορίας multiiuga volumina, praeterea proble- mata innumera eiusdem, tum ex eadem secta ceterorum, in quibus id genus varia tractantur. Let him [sc. his accuser Aemilianus] read the works of the ancient philosophers, so he can at last learn that I was not the first to have investigated these matters, but that my predecessors did so long ago—I mean Aristotle, Theophrastus, Eudemus, Lyco, and the rest of Plato’s successors, who have left behind very many books on the generation of animals, on their manner of living,9 on their parts, and on every differentiating characteristic. It is a good thing, Maximus, that this trial is being held before you, who in light of your learning have certainly read Aristotle’s multiple volumes On Generation of Animals, †On Dissections of Animals†, and On History of Animals, besides innumerable Problemata by the same author, as well as works by others of the same school, treating of various subjects of this kind. but is not represented by any extant work. See A. Gotthelf, Teleology, First Principles, and Scientific Method in Aristotle’s Biology (Oxford 2012) 383–387, and J. G. Lennox, Aristotle on Inquiry: Erotetic Frameworks and Domain-Specific Norms (Cambridge 2021) 2 and 159 n.34. More below on the notebook or collection- of-data stage of Aristotelian biological inquiry. 7 I have used the text of R. Helm, Apulei Platonici Madaurensis Pro se de Magia liber (Leipzig 1912), though I follow C. P. Jones, Apuleius: Apologia, Florida, De Deo Socratis (Cambridge [Mass.] 2017), in matters of orthography (e.g. victu not uictu) and in his practice of not indicating obvious corrections (e.g. Eudemum not [t]Eudemum). In translating the text, I have freely made use of Jones and H. E. Butler, Apuleius. The Apologia and Florida of Apuleius of Madaura (Oxford 1909). 8 I explain below my addition of the obeli. 9 Or “on their diet” (de victu). 24 EVIDENCE FOR ARISTOTLE’S LOST ZOÏKA IN APULEIUS ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 64 (2024) 21–36 It is not entirely clear whether Apuleius intended the topics he mentions (reproduction, manner of living, animal parts, and differentiating characteristics) to line up with the Aristotle-titles that follow, as he may be claiming that these topics were covered by all four Peripatetics (and so by Theophrastus, Eudemus, and Lyco as well), but he might have.10 There are a couple of pretty clear matches: generation and περὶ ζῴων γενέσεως, differentiating characteristics and περὶ ζῴων ἱστορίας. The latter includes man- ner of living as well, and the lost work on dissections might be intended as a match with the reference to the parts of animals (though Aristotle’s De partibus animalium, not mentioned by Apu- leius, would be a better match).11 10 On Theophrastus on animals see R. W. Sharples, Theophrastus of Eresus. Sources for His Life, Writings, Thought and Influence. Commentary V Sources of Biology (Human Physiology, Living Creatures, Botany) (Leiden 1995) 32–123. On Theo- phrastus’ De piscibus see R. W. Sharples, “Theophrastus: On Fish,” in W. W. Fortenbaugh et al. (eds.), Theophrastus: His Psychological, Doxographical, and Scientific Writings (New Brunswick 1992) 347–361, and R. Mayhew, “Pseudo- Aristotle, De mirabilibus auscultationibus 71–74 and Theophrastus’ De piscibus,” in A. Zucker et al. (eds.), The Aristotelian Mirabilia and Peripatetic Natural Science (New York 2024). In Apol. 41.6 Apuleius mentions having read Theophrastus’ (now lost) Περὶ δακετῶν καὶ βλητικῶν (On [Animals] that Bite and Sting), on which work see A. Zucker, “Théophraste à mots découverts: sur les animaux qui mordent ou piquent selon Priscien,” in D. Auger et al. (eds.), Culture classique et christianisme. Mélanges offerts à Jean Bouffartigue (Paris 2008) 341–350, and G. Verhasselt, “Pseudo-Aristotle’s De mirabilibus auscultationibus 139–151: Theo- phrastus’ On Animals that Bite and Sting and Aristotle’s Nomima Barbarica,” in The Aristotelian Mirabilia. On Eudemus on animals see S. A White, “Eudemus the Naturalist,” in W. W. Fortenbaugh et al. (eds.), Eudemus of Rhodes (New Brunswick 2002). As for Lyco, P. Stork, “Lyco of Troas: The Sources, Text and Translation,” in W. W. Fortenbaugh et al. (eds.), Lyco of Troas and Hierony- mus of Rhodes: Text, Translation, and Discussion (New Brunswick 2004) 56, places Apol. 36 (F 15) under Dubious. 11 H. E. Butler and A. S. Owen, Apulei apologia sive Pro se de magia liber (Oxford 1914) 88, take plurimos libros de genitu animalium etc. to refer to “the Historia animalium, de generatione animalium, de partibus animalium, de incessu animalium, and the lost work on anatomy.” I think White, Eudemus of Rhodes 210, is more accurate: “His summary descriptions in the preceding lines not only evoke ROBERT MAYHEW 25 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 64 (2024) 21–36 Before continuing, I want to discuss a possible problem with the text, specifically περὶ ζῴων ἀνατοµῆς, a title found nowhere else (attributed to no other author). According to Helm (Apulei Platonici, app. crit. ad loc.), Laurentianus plut. 68.2, the primary manuscript for the Apologia, has “ΠΕΡΙ ΖωωΝ ΓΕΝΕCΕΙ⊔ (sic) ΠΕΡΙ ΖωωΝ αΝαΤΟμΟΙϲ,” so something has gone wrong with the text as it comes down to us. I suggest that περὶ ζῴων ἀνατοµοιϲ (n.b.: -οιϲ is impossible) may not be one title but rather an error for either pair of these titles: περὶ ζῴων, ἀνατοµῶν or περὶ ζῴων, περὶ ἀνατοµῶν. There are other possibilities;12 but I favor these two, because in the lists of Aristotle’s works in two ancient biographies of him, the title appears as Ἀνατοµῶν and Περὶ ἀνατοµῶν.13 And of the two, I favor περὶ ζῴων, ἀνατοµῶν, as it is the closest to περὶ ζῴων ἀνατοµοιϲ. This suggestion gets further support from Apol. 40.5, where Apuleius refers to the work as libros ἀνατομῶν Aristoteli.14 If I am right, then περὶ ζῴων would refer to another work on animals besides περὶ ζῴων ἱστορίας, and the most likely explanations would be that this is a reference to the Zoïka15 or to the modern titles for two works (de genitu for De generatione, de particulis for De partibus); they also specify both the three main topics of HA (reproduction, habitat and behavior, morphology: HA 5–6, 8–9 [i.e. 7–8], 1–4) and the focus of the work as a whole (de omni differentia).” 12 ἀνατοµαί in place of ἀνατοµῶν or περὶ ἀνατοµῶν is another possibility, as is περὶ ζῴων µορίων in place of περὶ ζῴων. 13 Ἀνατοµῶν αʹ βʹ γʹ δʹ εʹ ϛʹ ζʹ (Diog. Laert. 5.25), Περὶ ἀνατοµῶν ϛʹ (Hesychius). In both lists, the title is immediately followed by a related title: Ἐκλογὴ ἀνατοµῶν αʹ. On the nature of the Ἀνατοµῶν, and on Aristotle on dissection more generally, see O. Hellmann, “ ‘Multimedia’ im Lykeion? Zu Funktionen der Anatomai in der aristotelischen Biologie,” Antike Natur- wissenschaft und ihre Rezeption 14 (2004) 65–86, and C. Bubb, Dissection in Classical Antiquity: A Social and Medical History (Cambridge 2022) 26–33 and 183–193. 14 The best argument for reading περὶ ζῴων ἀνατοµῆς with the editors of Apuleius is a stylistic one: he desired to refer to each of the three works as περὶ ζῴων … (γενέσεως, ἀνατοµῆς, ἱστορίας). 15 Mayhew, in Revisiting Aristotle’s Fragments 120–121 and 134–136, shows 26 EVIDENCE FOR ARISTOTLE’S LOST ZOÏKA IN APULEIUS ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 64 (2024) 21–36 a later compilation of Peripatetic material on animals (for in- stance, the Epitome of Aristotle’s On Animals by Aristophanes of Byzantium, part of which survives in the Byzantine Sylloge de historia animalium; more on this work below).16 In what follows, however, not much hangs on this speculation. There is other evidence that the Zoïka was among the books Apuleius possessed. In Apol. 36.8, he addresses a servant of the court: Prome tu librum e Graecis meis, quos forte hic amici habuere sed utique17 naturalium quaestionum atque eum maxime, in quo plura de piscium genere tractata sunt. You, bring forth one of my Greek books, which my friends might happen to have here—especially one of my Natural Questions18— and in particular the one in which more was said about the genus of fish. It is natural to take this to refer to books written by Apuleius in Greek. But I think it possible that this is a reference specifically to those Greek books that he used to produce collections of excerpts and/or that he translated into Latin, having sup- plemented the original Greek source with other material, as suggested in Apol. 38.2–319 (addressing Maximus): that in Athenaeus, Περὶ ζῴων is sometimes used to refer to the Zoïka (more often in fact than it is used for the Historia animalium). 16 On this work see O. Hellmann, “Peripatetic Biology and the Epitome of Aristophanes of Byzantium,” in W. W. Fortenbaugh and S. White, Aristo of Ceos. Text, Translation and Discussion (New Brunswick 2006). Rose3 215 con- sidered the Epitome of Aristotle’s Historia animalium and Zoïka the same work. Against this view see A. Zucker, “Proof with Peacock: Reappraising the Relationship between Zōika and Aristophanes’ Epitome,” in K. Epstein and G. Verhasselt (eds.), Der fragmentierte Aristoteles (Berlin forthcoming). See n.30 below. 17 With Jones, Apuleius: Apologia, I accept Lipsius’ sed utique over the manu- scripts’ sedulique. 18 On naturalium quaestionum see Harrison, Apuleius 29–30. 19 Shortly after referring to Aristotle’s περὶ ζῴων γενέσεως, περὶ ζῴων ἀνατομῆς, περὶ ζῴων ἱστορίας (in the passage quoted above), Apuleius writes ROBERT MAYHEW 27 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 64 (2024) 21–36 Et memento de solis piscibus haec volumina a me conscripta, qui eorum coitu progignantur, qui ex limo coalescant, quotiens et quid anni cuiusque eorum generis feminae subent, mares suriant, quibus membris et causis discrerit natura viviparos eorum et oviparos—ita enim Latine appello quae Graeci ζῳοτόκα et ᾠοτόκα (etc.) Remember too that these volumes of mine concern fish only: which are produced from coitus, and which congeal from mud;20 how often and at what time of year the female of each species is in heat, and the male is aroused; by what organs and causes nature distinguishes the viviparous and the oviparous—for that is what I call in Latin what the Greeks call ζῳοτόκα and ᾠοτόκα (etc.)21 It is noteworthy that ζῳοτόκα and ᾠοτόκα are standard ter- minology, and a standard distinction, in Aristotle’s extant biological works.22 And it is also significant that Athenaeus’ Deipnosophistae 7 (which is devoted entirely to fish and other aquatic animals) is the source of most of the fragments from the Zoïka. Over seventy times Athenaeus refers to what Aristotle said about various kinds of fish. Many of these are probable or certain references to the Historia animalium, but sixteen others are explicit references to the Zoïka and/or On Fish (Περὶ ἰχθύων), in some version of the title and/or subtitle.23 Perhaps On Fish was the title (36.6): ordinatius et cohibilius eadem Graece et Latine adnitar conscribere et in omnibus aut omissa adquirere aut defecta supplere (“I struggle to write the same things in Greek and Latin more systematically and concisely, and in all these works to add what has been omitted or replace what is defective”). So it may be that distinguishing books written by Apuleius in Greek and these works of Aristotle is not as straightforward as one might think. 20 The latter referring to spontaneous generation. 21 Hunink, Apuleius of Madauros II 117, on 38.3 (viviparos and oviparos): “Apuleius appears indeed to have coined the Latin terms for Greek ζῳοτόκα and ᾠοτόκα, as used in Aristotle.” 22 See e.g. the index in D. M Balme, Aristotle: Historia Animalium I (Cam- bridge 2002) s.vv. ζῳοτόκα and ᾠοτόκα. 23 Περὶ ζωϊκῶν (9 times: 300F, 305C, 313D, 315E, 318E, 319C, 327F, 328F, 330A). The following each appear once: Ζωϊκὰ ἢ Περὶ ἰχθύων (286F), Περὶ 28 EVIDENCE FOR ARISTOTLE’S LOST ZOÏKA IN APULEIUS ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 64 (2024) 21–36 or label given to one book of the Zoïka (a separate papyrus scroll), and that was one of the Aristotelian works that Apuleius trans- lated and supplemented.24 I have argued elsewhere that a passage from Athenaeus’ long discussion of eels (297C–300D) contained a fragment from either the Zoïka or the Homeric Problems.25 But I think Apol. 38.2–3 tips the balance in favor of the Zoïka, and in fact find Apol. 38.2–3 and Athenaeus 298C–D mutually reenforcing:26 ἐν ἄλλοις δὲ πάλιν ὁ Ἀριστοτέλης ἱστορεῖ γίνεσθαι αὐτὰς οὔτε ᾠοτοκούσας οὔτε ζωοτοκούσας ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ ἐξ ὀχείας, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν τῷ βορβόρῳ καὶ τῇ ἰλύι σήψεως γινοµένης. In another work again, Aristotle reports that they come to be not from copulation—neither bearing eggs nor bearing live young— but when decomposition occurs in the mire and sediment. Here we find cognates of ᾠοτόκα and ζῳοτόκα, as well as a refer- ence to spontaneous generation in mud, just as in Apol. 38. A bit later, Apuleius writes (38.5): Pauca etiam de Latinis scriptis meis ad eandem peritiam pertinentibus legi iubebo, in quibus animadvertes cum res27 cognitu raras, tum nomina etiam Romanis inusitata et in hodiernum quod sciam infecta, ea tamen nomina labore meo et studio ita de Graecis provenire, ut tamen Latina moneta percussa sint. ἰχθύων (303D), Περὶ [ζωϊκῶν] ζῴων ἢ Περὶ ἰχθύων (305F), Περὶ ζωϊκῶν καὶ ἰχθύων (318B), Περὶ ζωϊκῶν ἢ ἰχθύων (319D), Περὶ ἰχθύων ⟨ἢ⟩ ζωϊκῶν (320E), Περὶ ζῴων καὶ ἰχθύων (328D). I use the edition of S. D. Olson, Athenaeus Naucra- tites Deipnosophistae II.A (Berlin 2021) (but on Περὶ [ζωϊκῶν] ζῴων ἢ Περὶ ἰχθύων see n.37 below). 24 Hunink, Apuleius of Madauros II 115, on Apol. 36.5: “In addition to the three works named here, Apuleius may also have known Aristotle’s book ‘On fish’, now also lost; cf. Fr. 294ff (Rose).” 25 R. Mayhew, “Aristotle on Homer on Eels and Fish in Iliad 21,” CQ 70 (2020) 639–649. 26 Athen. 298B–D ≈ F 311 Rose3/198 Gigon. 27 With Hunink, Apuleius of Madauros I (ad loc.), I accept Bosscha’s cor- rection res over Helm’s me for the manuscripts’ me (see Helm, Apulei Platonici, app. crit. ad loc.). ROBERT MAYHEW 29 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 64 (2024) 21–36 I will order a few of my Latin writings be read dealing with the same science, in which you will notice things rarely known, and also names unfamiliar even to the Romans and never coined before to my knowledge. But thanks to my effort and study those names have been obtained from the Greek, so that they are none- theless of Latin mintage. He says he will discuss aquatic animals alone, mentioning others only by way of contrast.28 Apuleius then lists what he says might seem to his accuser to be the language of Egyptian or Babylonian magic (magica nomina Aegyptio vel Babylonico ritu), though they are in fact Greek terms that he has translated into Latin (38.7–9): σελάχεια (cartilaginous fish), µαλάκεια (soft-bodied animals, i.e. cephalopods), µαλα- κόστρακα (soft-shelled animals, i.e. crustaceans), χονδράκανθα (cartilage-spined, a characteristic of σελάχεια), ὀστρακόδερµα (hard-shelled animals, e.g. oysters), καρχαρόδοντα (saw-toothed animals, e.g. bonitos),29 ἀµφίβια (amphibious), λεπιδωτά (with scales, referring to fish), φολιδωτά (with scales, referring to reptiles), δερµόπτερα (with skin-like wings, referring to bats), στεγανόποδα (web-footed, referring to certain water birds), µονήρη (solitary), and συναγελαστικά (gregarious, travelling in shoals). He adds that these do not exhaust the list (possum etiam pergere). Apuleius’ main source here seems to be the Epitome of Aristotle’s On Animals of Aristophanes of Byzantium (3rd cent. B.C.), unless some other source is responsible for the opening of the extant Sylloge de historia animalium 1.1 (p.1.12–20 Lambros):30 28 Apol. 38.6: De solis aquatilibus dicam nec cetera animalia nisi in communibus differentis attingam. 29 This is also used to describe lobster claws (HA 4.2, 526a19). 30 Or unless Apuleius and Aristophanes had a common source. There is no standard scholarly way of referring to the Συλλογὴ τῆς περὶ ζῴων ἱστορίας compiled for Constantine VII (10th cent.), one major source of which is Ἀρι- στοφάνους τῶν Ἀριστοτέλους περὶ ζῴων ἐπιτοµή. I refer to it as Sylloge de historia animalium (or Sylloge for short). 30 EVIDENCE FOR ARISTOTLE’S LOST ZOÏKA IN APULEIUS ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 64 (2024) 21–36 Ταῦτά ἐστιν ἐν τῇ νῦν γραφοµένῃ ὑφ’ ἡµῶν συντάξει ἃ δεήσει σε ἐπιγνῶναι, τίνα λέγει ὁ Ἀριστοτέλης ἐν τῇ Περὶ ζῴων πραγµατείᾳ σελάχια ζῷα καὶ τίνα µαλάκια, ὁµοίως δὲ καὶ τίνα µαλακό- στρακα κατονοµάζει καὶ τίνα ὀστρακόδερµα, ποῖά τε λέγει τῶν ζῴων καρχαρόδοντα καὶ τίνα χαυλιόδοντα καὶ ἀµφόδοντα καὶ συνόδοντα, ποῖά τε ἔντοµα πέφυκε καὶ τίνα ἐστὶν ἀµφίβια καὶ λεπιδωτὰ καὶ φολιδωτά, καὶ ποῖα µώνυχα καὶ διχηλὰ καὶ πολυ- σχιδῆ καὶ στεγανόποδα καὶ δερµόπτερα καὶ κολεόπτερα καὶ πτι- λωτὰ καὶ πτερωτὰ καὶ γαµψώνυχα καὶ λοφοῦρα.31 This information in the collection written by us is what you will have to get to know: what Aristotle means in his treatise On Animals when he names some animals σελάχια or µαλάκια, and similarly µαλακόστρακα or ὀστρακόδερµα; and what are the ani- mals that he calls καρχαρόδοντα and χαυλιόδοντα and ἀµφόδοντα and συνόδοντα; and what animals are by nature ἔντοµα, and which are ἀµφίβια and λεπιδωτά and φολιδωτά; and what animals are µώ- νυχα and διχηλά and πολυσχιδῆ and στεγανόποδα and δερµόπτερα and κολεόπτερα and πτιλωτά and πτερωτά and γαµψώνυχα and λοφοῦρα.32 Ten of the thirteen terms Apuleius mentions are included in this passage from the Sylloge, mostly in the same order. Three are not (χονδράκανθα, µονήρη, συναγελαστικά); but two of these (µονήρη and συναγελαστικά) appear together twice later in the Sylloge.33 The dozen terms in the Sylloge not mentioned by Apuleius are all inapplicable to aquatic animals: χαυλιόδοντα (with tusks), ἀµ- φόδοντα (with two rows of teeth), συνόδοντα (with joined teeth), 31 I accept the conjecture λοφοῦρα of A. Zucker, Sylloge Zoologique de Con- stantin (Paris forthcoming), over the manuscripts’ ὁλόσφυρα. He comments: “il s’agit sans doute d’une erreur de graphie pour λοφοῦρα (cf. ὁλόσφυρα Pg). Beaucoup d’autres termes classificatoires sont mal orthographiés.” He goes on to provides a number of examples. (I am grateful to Arnaud Zucker for making available to me, prior to its publication, his translation of this work.) 32 Cf. Aelian NA 11.37 (= F 281 Rose3), though Aelian does not mention Aristotle’s name. 33 Sylloge. 1.25 (p.5.12–15 Lambros) and 2.37 (p.42.17–18). In the latter, they appear together with both ἀµφίβια and ἐπαµφοτερίζειν: Ἔστι δὲ ὁ ἄνθρωπος καὶ µονήρης καὶ συναγελαστικός· ἐπαµφοτερίζειν γὰρ δύναται. λέγοι δ’ ἄν τις καὶ αὐτὸν ἀµφίβιον εἶναι. (On ἐπαµφοτερίζειν see n.40 below.) ROBERT MAYHEW 31 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 64 (2024) 21–36 ἔντοµα (insects), µώνυχα (single-hooved), διχηλά (cloven-hooved), πολυσχιδῆ (many-splits, i.e. with toes), κολεόπτερα (sheath- winged, said of beetles), πτιλωτά (membrane-winged, e.g. flies), πτερωτά (winged, with feathers), γαµψώνυχα (with crooked talons), and λοφοῦρα (with a mane, said of equine animals). The one word mentioned by Apuleius but not in the Sylloge is χονδράκανθα. Like most of the terms Apuleius mentions, this one can be found in the extant works of Aristotle (including in the Historia animalium).34 The others are: τὰ σέλαχη, µαλάκια, µαλα- κόστρακα, ὀστρακόδερµα, καρχαρόδοντα, λεπιδωτά, φολιδωτά, δερ- µόπτερα, στεγανόποδα.35 Three of these terms (σέλαχη, µαλάκια, καρχαρόδοντα) also appear in passages attributed to Aristotle’s Zoïka (all from Athenaeus 7, on aquatic animals): ἐν δὲ τῷ Περὶ ζωϊκῶν, σελάχη, φησί, βοῦς, τρυγών, νάρκη, βατίς, βάτραχος, ⟨…⟩ βούγλωττος, ψῆττα, µῦς. (330A) In his On Zoïka, he claims that selachia are: horned-ray, sting-ray, electric ray, skate, ⟨…⟩ angler, sole, flounder, mouse-fish.36 ἐν δὲ τῷ Περὶ ζωϊκῶν Ἀριστοτέλης μαλάκιά φησιν εἶναι που- λύποδας, ὀσµύλην, ἑλεδώνην, σηπίαν, τευθίδα. (318E) In his On Zoïka, Aristotle claims that the soft-bodied animals are octopuses, osmulê, heledônê, cuttlefish, and squid. Ἀριστοτέλης ἐν τῷ Περὶ [ζωικῶν] ζῴων ἢ Περὶ Ἰχθύων,37 ὁ 34 Again see e.g. the index in Balme, Aristotle: Historia Animalium s.vv. 35 Aristotle contrasts στεγανόποδα with σχιζόπους (split-footed). Judging by the evidence in Athenaeus 9, however, σχιδανόπους, not σχιζόπους, was the preferred term in Zoïka; see R. Mayhew, “Evidence for Aristotle’s Lost Zoïka in Athenaeus’ Deipnosophistae 9,” in Der fragmentierte Aristoteles (forthcoming). 36 The last three fish are not selachia. A. Andrews, “Greek and Latin Mouse- Fishes and Pig-Fishes,” TAPA 79 (1948) 233, argues, on these grounds: “It can therefore safely be assumed that something has dropped out after βάτραχος in this mutilated passage and that originally the last three fish were not characterized as selachians.” I have therefore inserted a lacuna. 37 Olson, Athenaeus 433, prints Περὶ ζωικῶν ζῴων ἢ Περὶ ἰχθύων, but that cannot be right. One must delete either ζωικῶν or ζῴων, and as our epitome of Athenaeus’ Deipnosophistae omits ζωικῶν I bracket that. 32 EVIDENCE FOR ARISTOTLE’S LOST ZOÏKA IN APULEIUS ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 64 (2024) 21–36 κίθαρος, φησί, καρχαρόδους, μονήρης, φυκοφάγος, τὴν γλῶτταν ἀπολελυµένος, καρδίαν λευκὴν ἔχων καὶ πλατεῖαν. (305F) Aristotle in his On Animals or On Fish claims that the kitharos is saw- toothed, solitary, feeds on seaweed, has a detached tongue, and has a heart white and flat. Three other terms (µονήρη, συναγελαστικά, ἀµφίβια) appear in Zoïka-fragments and in the Sylloge but not in Aristotle’s extant works. First the related pair: µονήρη appears in four fragments from Athenaeus 7, for instance in 305F (just quoted);38 and συναγελαστικά appears twice in Zoïka-fragments, one of them discussed below and significant in the present context (315E).39 As for ἀµφίβια, it appears in a passage that I have argued elsewhere likely comes from the Zoïka, though a title is not mentioned (306B–C): Kορδύλος. τοῦτον Ἀριστοτέλης φησὶν ἀμφίβιον εἶναι καὶ τελευ- τᾶν ὑπὸ τοῦ ἡλίου αὐανθέντα. Κordulos. Aristotle states that this is amphibious and dies when it is dried by the sun.40 It has been argued that the difference in terminology between the Historia animalium and the Zoïka shows that the Zoïka was not by Aristotle. But I do not think that follows, especially if the Zoïka 38 See also Athen. 301C, 321D–E, and 327C. In extant works, Aristotle pre- fers µοναδικός: see HA 1.1, 487b33–488a14 and 8(9).40, 623b10. 39 See also Athen. 310E. Aristotle prefers ἀγελαῖα to συναγελαστική: see HA 1.1, 487b33–488a14 (contrasted with µοναδικός) and 8(9).2, 610b1–14— this latter on fish, in which he also uses συναγελάζοµαι, a verb cognate to συναγελαστική. 40 The kordulos is generally held to be some kind of salamander or newt (or the larvae of such), and I assume that is correct. See e.g. S. Zierlein, Aristoteles. Historia Animalium Buch I und II (Berlin 2013) 140–141, and Lennox, Aristotle on Inquiry 280 n.26. In Revisiting Aristotle’s Fragments 116–117, I argued that Athen. 306B–C is likely not a fragment from the Zoïka, but in The Aristotelian Mirabilia 189–191, I make the case that it probably is. Another possible fragment with ἀµφίβια is Athen. 353F. Theophrastus uses ἀµφίβια in Pisc. 12 and Hist.pl. 1.4.3. In his extant works, Aristotle uses the verb ἐπαµφοτερίζειν to refer to animals that ‘tend to both ways’ of life, i.e., on land and sea (see e.g. HA 7(8).2, 589a20–22). ROBERT MAYHEW 33 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 64 (2024) 21–36 was (as I believe) a notebook from the collection-of-data stage of biological inquiry, compiled under his direction but in collabora- tion with others in the Lyceum.41 In Apol. 40.5, Apuleius changes the (ichthyological) subject from his general knowledge (including relevant terminology) of a wide variety of fish, to his actual dissection of them: “At enim,” inquit, “piscem cui rei nisi malae proscidisti, quem tibi Themison seruus attulit?” Quasi vero non paulo prius dixerim me de particulis omnium animalium, de situ earum deque numero deque causa conscribere ac libros ἀνατομῶν Aristoteli et explorare studio et augere. “But,” he says, “for what purpose, if not an evil one, did you dissect the fish brought to you by your slave Themison?” As if I had not said a little while ago that I write about [even] the small parts of all animals—about their location, number, and purpose— and that I studiously investigate and add to the books [called] Dissections by Aristotle. As an example of his originality—and presumably of how he supplements Aristotle—Apuleius describes a small aquatic ani- mal (called a sea hare, leporem marinum),42 which neither Aristotle nor any other ancient philosopher had knowledge of (40.8–10). He then adds (40.11): Quod Aristoteles numquam43 profecto omisisset scripto prodere, qui aselli piscis solius omnium in medio alvo corculum situm pro maximo memoravit. Aristotle would certainly never have failed to convey this in writing [sc. had he known of it], he who mentions as quite important that the ‘donkey’ alone of all fish44 has its heart located in the middle of the stomach. 41 See Mayhew, in Revisiting Aristotle’s Fragments 136–138. 42 This could be any of a number of species in the genus Aplysia, which consists of large sea slugs. See Butler and Owen, Apulei apologia 98, for details; they claim that “Apuleius’ description is sufficiently accurate.” 43 With Butler and Owen, Apulei apologia 98–99, I accept Goldbacher’s correction numquam for the manuscripts’ si umquam; Helm, Apulei Platonici 47, prints si ⟨scisset n⟩umquam. 44 aselli, from asellus, the diminutive of asinus (‘ass’ or ‘donkey’), can refer to 34 EVIDENCE FOR ARISTOTLE’S LOST ZOÏKA IN APULEIUS ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 64 (2024) 21–36 This is comparable to Athenaeus 315E, and to three other texts from roughly the same period:45 ὄνος, φησὶν Ἀριστοτέλης ἐν τῷ Περὶ ζωϊκῶν, ἔχει στόµα ἀνερ- ρωγὸς ὁµοίως τοῖς γαλεοῖς, καὶ οὐ συναγελαστικός. καὶ µόνος οὗτος ἰχθύων τὴν καρδίαν ἐν τῇ κοιλίᾳ ἔχει καὶ ἐν τῷ ἐγκεφάλῳ λίθους ἐµφερεῖς µύλαις. The donkey (fish),46 Aristotle claims in the On Zoïka, has a widely gaping mouth, like the galeos (a small shark), and is not gregarious. Moreover, this is the only fish to have the heart in its stomach, and in its brain there are stones resembling millstones. Clement of Alexandria confirms that according to Aristotle the donkey fish is the only fish that has its heart in its stomach (Paed. 2.1.18): τῷ ἰχθύι τῷ καλουµένῳ ὄνῳ τὰ µάλιστα ἐοικώς, ὃν δή φησιν Ἀριστοτέλης µόνον τῶν ἄλλων ζῴων ἐν τῇ γαστρὶ τὴν καρδίαν ἔχειν. very much like the fish called donkey, which, Aristotle claims, alone of all other animals, has its heart in its belly. Aelian repeats this claim in NA 5.20 (referring to ‘the sea donkey’, ὄνος ὁ θαλάττιος), while in 6.30 he claims ‘the donkey fish’ (ὁ ἰχθὺς ὁ ὄνος) has its heart in its belly, and also that it is solitary and has stones like millstones in its brain, as Athenaeus claims. But neither text mentions Aristotle. a fish (cf. ὄνος). See Butler and Owen, Apulei apologia 99, and Hunink, Apuleius of Madauros II 124, and n.46 below. (I expect ‘donkey fish’ is less open to misunderstanding than ‘ass fish’.) 45 All of the relevant authors are from the Roman Imperial period (from the second and third centuries A.D.), their dates overlapping somewhat: Apuleius is the earliest (ca. 125 to 170), then Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150 to 211/216), and then Aelian (165/170 to 230/235). With Athenaeus, we can merely say that he flourished around 200. It is difficult, if not impossible, to determine any direction of influence. 46 The primary meaning of ὄνος is ‘ass’ and ‘donkey’. But as D. W. Thompson, A Glossary of Greek Fishes (London 1947) 182, writes of the ὄνος: “A fish of the Cod family, especially the Hake.” It is noteworthy that the fish called ὄνος never appears in the Sylloge de historia animalium (though the equine mammal with that name does). ROBERT MAYHEW 35 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 64 (2024) 21–36 These two passages, from Apuleius and Athenaeus, might lead one to equate the Zoïka and the Dissections. I find that unlikely, however, given the differences in the other fragments for each work and the fact that most Zoïka-fragments do not report on the internal organs of animals or features of the parts of animals requiring dissection.47 I think a much more likely explanation is that the Zoïka (a notebook collection of data about animals, organized according to kind) sometimes made use of Aristotle’s findings in his Dissections—noting rare features, for instance— although information that can be gained only through dissection does not seem to have been a main concern of the Zoïka. In conclusion, I think the best explanation of the passages from Pro se de magia (Apologia) that I have discussed is that Apuleius read a number of Aristotle’s biological works—not only (some of) the extant ones, but also the lost Zoïka and Dissections (as well as the Epitome of Aristotle’s On Animals by Aristophanes of Byzantium)— that he had a special interest in fish, and translated the relevant passages, supplementing them with his own observations, ad- ditions, and corrections.48 In doing so, he created a Latin com- pilation on fish.49 In any case, I think it quite possible that two 47 See n.5 above. In addition, based on the references to the Dissections in Aristotle’s extant works, it is very likely that the Dissections included diagrams, whereas there is no reason to think the Zoïka did. (I am grateful to the journal’s referee for this point.) 48 See n.19 above. 49 Perhaps Apuleius translated and expanded some of Aristotle’s works on animals, and the results have roughly the same relationship to the original that his extant De mundo has to the Greek pseudo-Aristotle, Περὶ κόσµου. Hunink, Apuleius of Madauros II 115, commenting on Apol. 36.6, writes: “imitatio and aemulatio are combined: the authority of the philosophers is pre- sented as a valid precedent, but the speaker has also added something of his own. His achievement, so he claims, is threefold: he has systemized and sum- marized their results, he has written about them in both Greek and Latin, and he has made some additions and corrections.” On Apuleius as a trans- lator of Greek philosophical texts, see (inter alia) R. Fletcher, “Platonizing Latin: Apuleius’s Phaedo,” in G. D. Williams et al. (eds.), Roman Reflections: 36 EVIDENCE FOR ARISTOTLE’S LOST ZOÏKA IN APULEIUS ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 64 (2024) 21–36 of the texts that I have discussed are ‘fragments’ from the Zoïka: Apol. 40.11, on the hake, which, in editing a collection of Zoïka- fragments, I plan to present alongside Athenaeus 315E; and (with a bit less confidence) Apol. 38.2–3, on the spontaneous generation of eels, which I plan to present alongside Athenaeus 298C–D.50 January, 2024 Department of Philosophy Seton Hall University South Orange, NJ 07079 robert.mayhew@shu.edu Studies in Latin Philosophy (Oxford 2015); T. Slabon, “Et cum sit unus, pluribus nominibus cietur: Apuleius’ Latin Additions to Greek Theology,” and M. Watton, “Reading de Mundo: Didactic, Polemic, Appropriation,” both in G. Boys-Stones (ed.), Apuleius on the Cosmos (Oxford forthcoming). And note the following, from the same volume, G. Boys-Stones, “Apuleius on the Cosmos: Introduction”: “it has been calculated that the Latin text [of De mundo] translates only four-fifths of the Greek, yet expands the rest so much that it is almost one-and-a-half times as long (Müller 1939, esp. 133).” This last reference is to S. Müller, Das Verhältnis von Apuleius De mundo zu seiner Vorlage (Leipzig 1939). (I am grateful to George Boys-Stones for making available to me, prior to its publication, material from Apuleius on the Cosmos.) 50 I would like to thank Gertjan Verhasselt, for his comments on an earlier draft of this essay, and Claire Bubb, for sharing with me her unpublished paper “The Roman Resurgence of Aristotle’s Biology.”