Conference Presentations by Matthieu Réal
beautiful women. There I myself crossed over into Calchis for the games of valorous Amphidamas-th... more beautiful women. There I myself crossed over into Calchis for the games of valorous Amphidamas-that great-hearted man's sons had announced and established many prizes-and there, I declare, I gained victory with a hymn, and carried off a tripod with handles. This I dedicated to the Heliconian Muses, where they first set me upon the path of clear-sounding song. (West) 2) Cert., 70-4 ἀμφοτέρων δὲ τῶν ποιητῶν θαυμαστῶς ἀγωνισαμένων νικῆσαί φασι τὸν Ἡσίοδον τὸν τρόπον τοῦτον• προελθόντα γὰρ εἰς τὸ μέσον πυνθάνεσθαι τοῦ Ὁμήρου καθ' ἓν ἕκαστον, τὸν δὲ Ὅμηρον ἀποκρίνασθαι. Although both poets competed admirably, they say that Hesiod won in this way: he took the center of the stage and challenged Homer with one question after another, and Homer answered each one. (Bassino) 3) Cert., 94-101 ὁ δὲ Ἡσίοδος ἀχθεσθεὶς ἐπὶ τῇ Ὁμήρου εὐημερίᾳ ἐπὶ τὴν τῶν ἀπόρων ὥρμησεν ἐπερώτησιν καί φησι τούσδε τοὺς στίχους• Μοῦσ' ἄγε μοι τά τ' ἐόντα τά τ' ἐσσόμενα πρό τ' ἐόντα τῶν μὲν μηδὲν ἄειδε, σὺ δ' ἄλλης μνῆσαι ἀοιδῆς. ὁ δὲ Ὅμηρος βουλόμενος ἀκολούθως τὸ ἄπορον λῦσαι φησίν• οὐδέ ποτ' ἀμφὶ Διὸς τύμβῳ <καναχήποδες ἵπποι> ἅρματα συντρίψουσιν ἐρίζοντες περὶ νίκης. Hesiod, annoyed by Homer's success. Turned to posing insoluble challenges and spoke these lines: "Come, Muse, the things that are, shall be and were-sing nothing to me of those: but remember another song." And Homer, desiring to solve the challenge in a fitting manner, said: "Never around the tomb of Zeus will loud-hoofed horses shatter chariots, striving for victory." (Bassino) 4) Cert., 138-146 πρὸς πάντα δὲ τοῦ Ὁμήρου καλῶς ἀπαντήσαντος πάλιν φησὶν ὁ Ἡσίοδος• τοῦτό τι δή μοι μοῦνον ἐειρομένῳ κατάλεξον, πόσσοι ἅμ' Ἀτρεΐδῃσιν ἐς Ἴλιον ἦλθον Ἀχαιοί;
SCS Annual Meeting, 2022
Zoilus of Amphipolis, known as the Homeromastix, the scourge of Homer, was a fourth-century rheto... more 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.
by Marco Sartor, Giovanni Pontolillo, Matteo Marcheschi, Aldo Baratta, Pierre Siegenthaler, Luca Torrente, Matthieu Réal, Cecilia Poletto, Alessandro De Blasi, stefania giroletti, Stefania Giroletti, Sara Moccia, and Benedetta Viscidi "«Dall’ombre al chiaro lume». L’enigma e le sue declinazioni nella letteratura" è un convegno int... more "«Dall’ombre al chiaro lume». L’enigma e le sue declinazioni nella letteratura" è un convegno internazionale organizzato dal Corso di dottorato in Scienze linguistiche, filologiche e letterarie dell'Università degli Studi di Padova.
Comitato scientifico: Gianluigi Baldo, Sergio Bozzola, Geneviève Henrot, Cecilia Poletto.
Comitato organizzativo: Federica Beghini, Francesca Benvenuti, Annalisa Chiodetti, Alessandro De Blasi, Stefano Fortin, Stefania Giroletti, Sara Moccia, Beatrice Righetti, Yangyu Sun, Benedetta Viscidi, Marianna Zarantonello, Fatma Zayet.
–
"«Dall’ombre al chiaro lume». The Enigma and its declensions in Literature" is an international conference organised by the Doctoral Programme in Linguistic, Philological and Literary Sciences of the University of Padua.
Scientific committee: Gianluigi Baldo, Sergio Bozzola, Geneviève Henrot, Cecilia Poletto.
Organizing committee: Federica Beghini, Francesca Benvenuti, Annalisa Chiodetti, Alessandro De Blasi, Stefano Fortin, Stefania Giroletti, Sara Moccia, Beatrice Righetti, Yangyu Sun, Benedetta Viscidi, Marianna Zarantonello, Fatma Zayet.
reviews by Matthieu Réal
Readers familiar with Zoilus of Amphipolis will most readily associate his name with the pedantic... more Readers familiar with Zoilus of Amphipolis will most readily associate his name with the pedantic fourth-century BCE grammarian famous for criticizing Homer's poems. Fogagnolo's newly commented edition of Zoilus' fragments successfully dispels this scholarly myth. It shows that generations of ancient critics (from Aristotle to Porphyry, to name but two) seriously engaged with Zoilus' work, that to this day modern Homerists still puzzle over many of the same interpretative issues as Zoilus uncovered, and that Zoilus' exegetical approach was, in many respects, ahead of his time.
Bryn Mawr Classical Review , 2019
Papers by Matthieu Réal
Dall’Ombre al chiaro lume: L’enigma e le sue declinazioni nella letteratura, ed. by F. Benvenuti, A. Chiodetti, A. De Blasi, M. Zarantonello. 69-90. Padova: Padova University Press , 2024
In this paper, I discuss the notion of ainigma as it appears in the Derveni Papyrus (~400 BCE). T... more In this paper, I discuss the notion of ainigma as it appears in the Derveni Papyrus (~400 BCE). The anonymous author employs this notion to justify his allegorical interpretation of an Orphic poem. I further demonstrate that the exegetical techniques used by the author in his interpretation of the poem would be subsequently sanctioned by Aristotle himself. I conclude that, contrary to what scholars have often claimed, the Derveni papyrus is not only a precious example of ancient allegoresis but is also a rare document of pre-Hellenistic “philology.
Mnemosyne, 2023
I offer a reconsideration of Zoilus’ treatise Against Homer’s Poetry. Two fragments of this work,... more I offer a reconsideration of Zoilus’ treatise Against Homer’s Poetry. Two fragments of this work, F9a and F14 Fogagnolo, especially showcase Zoilus’ significance in the context of ancient literary criticism. F9a is usually considered a sarcastic comment on Homer’s lack of realism. I propose instead that it is a critique of the way the poet crafted the bird omen of Il. 10.174-177: Zoilus regarded the omen as a symbolic device and focused on the details of the analogical relationship between interpretandum and the interpretamentum. I also suggest that Aristotle F369 Gigon may have originated as a defense of Homer against one of Zoilus’ criticisms. Through a new translation of F14, I show that Zoilus did not content himself with analyzing problematic lines of Homer in isolation, but also assessed passages of the poem in light of other relevant passages within the same poem. In short, he criticized Homer from Homer.
Filosofia, filologia e scienza in età ellenistica, a cura di M. Bergamo e R. Tondini. Milano: Ledizioni, 2022
Il presente saggio ricostruisce temi e funzione del catalogo delle opere di Aristotele e Teofrast... more Il presente saggio ricostruisce temi e funzione del catalogo delle opere di Aristotele e Teofrasto redatto da Andronico di Rodi nel primo secolo a.C. Nonostante Andronico venga ricordato perlopiù per la sua presunta “edizione” delle opere di Aristotele, fu in realtà il suo catalogo che portò al consolidamento del corpus aristotelico e facilitò l’avvento di una duratura tradizione di studio dei trattati cosiddetti “esoterici”. Originariamente una vasta e documentata opera in almeno 5 libri, del catalogo di Andronico ci rimangono solo pochi frammenti di tradizione indiretta. A partire dall’analisi di uno di questi frammenti, la Prefazione alla Vita di Aristotele di Tolomeo Lo Straniero, si sostiene che il catalogo androniceo vada inteso come un preambolo allo studio e al commento dei trattati aristotelici. Si riconduce inoltre al catalogo di Andronico l’origine delle sei questioni preliminari che i commentatori neoplatonici di Aristotele trattavano all’inizio dei loro commentari. In appendice al saggio si propone l’edizione, la traduzione (la prima in lingua italiana) e il commento al testo della prefazione di Tolomeo. Questo importante documento sopravvive unicamente in traduzione araba e solleva non pochi problemi interpretativi.
Thesis Chapters by Matthieu Réal
My dissertation studies how the Classical audience interpreted Archaic poetry.
Scholars usually r... more My dissertation studies how the Classical audience interpreted Archaic poetry.
Scholars usually regard literary criticism as a Hellenistic or Aristotelian product. Earlier exegesis, as a result, has received little and often misguided attention. By contrast, my project demonstrates that poetry was not merely utilized as a repository of moral and stylistic norms; rather, it emerged as an autonomous object of study.
Explaining The Poets is organized around two broad and historically productive modes of approaching literary texts: problems-and-solutions inquiries, ζητήματα, (chapters 1–3) and the practice of interpreting texts allegorically, “allegoresis” (chapters 4–6).
Zetematic texts first appear in the fourth century BCE, yet the origins of this mode of inquiry are much older. Literary challenges framed as problems and solutions were widespread, particularly in the archaic symposium, and their productive influences can be detected in such diverse works as the Contest of Homer and Hesiod (chapter 2) and Against Homer’s Poetry by Zoilus of Amphipolis (chapter 3).
The practice of interpreting texts allegorically is as old as the sixth century BCE. After a methodological introduction (chapter 4), in chapter 5 I focus on two forerunners of allegoresis: Theagenes of Rhegium and Pherekydes of Syrus. Finally, the bulk of chapter 6 deals with the oldest allegorical treatise preserved to a significant extent: the Derveni papyrus. In contrast to previous scholarship, I claim that there is strong continuity between the exegetical attempts of literalist and allegorist readers. Ancient allegorists, in fact, viewed their efforts as readings from within the text and employed the same exegetical techniques that will later be sanctioned by literalist critics such as Aristotle.
Overall, my work provides new insights on well-studied texts (the Contest and the Derveni Papyrus) and brings attention to neglected but influential grammarians such as Theagenes and Zoilus. By shifting the focus from the Hellenistic and later periods to the Classical Period, my dissertation re-imagines the “invention” of criticism in Greece and contributes to the recent scholarly interest in hermeneutics and exegetical texts.
Uploads
Conference Presentations by Matthieu Réal
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.
Comitato scientifico: Gianluigi Baldo, Sergio Bozzola, Geneviève Henrot, Cecilia Poletto.
Comitato organizzativo: Federica Beghini, Francesca Benvenuti, Annalisa Chiodetti, Alessandro De Blasi, Stefano Fortin, Stefania Giroletti, Sara Moccia, Beatrice Righetti, Yangyu Sun, Benedetta Viscidi, Marianna Zarantonello, Fatma Zayet.
–
"«Dall’ombre al chiaro lume». The Enigma and its declensions in Literature" is an international conference organised by the Doctoral Programme in Linguistic, Philological and Literary Sciences of the University of Padua.
Scientific committee: Gianluigi Baldo, Sergio Bozzola, Geneviève Henrot, Cecilia Poletto.
Organizing committee: Federica Beghini, Francesca Benvenuti, Annalisa Chiodetti, Alessandro De Blasi, Stefano Fortin, Stefania Giroletti, Sara Moccia, Beatrice Righetti, Yangyu Sun, Benedetta Viscidi, Marianna Zarantonello, Fatma Zayet.
reviews by Matthieu Réal
Papers by Matthieu Réal
Thesis Chapters by Matthieu Réal
Scholars usually regard literary criticism as a Hellenistic or Aristotelian product. Earlier exegesis, as a result, has received little and often misguided attention. By contrast, my project demonstrates that poetry was not merely utilized as a repository of moral and stylistic norms; rather, it emerged as an autonomous object of study.
Explaining The Poets is organized around two broad and historically productive modes of approaching literary texts: problems-and-solutions inquiries, ζητήματα, (chapters 1–3) and the practice of interpreting texts allegorically, “allegoresis” (chapters 4–6).
Zetematic texts first appear in the fourth century BCE, yet the origins of this mode of inquiry are much older. Literary challenges framed as problems and solutions were widespread, particularly in the archaic symposium, and their productive influences can be detected in such diverse works as the Contest of Homer and Hesiod (chapter 2) and Against Homer’s Poetry by Zoilus of Amphipolis (chapter 3).
The practice of interpreting texts allegorically is as old as the sixth century BCE. After a methodological introduction (chapter 4), in chapter 5 I focus on two forerunners of allegoresis: Theagenes of Rhegium and Pherekydes of Syrus. Finally, the bulk of chapter 6 deals with the oldest allegorical treatise preserved to a significant extent: the Derveni papyrus. In contrast to previous scholarship, I claim that there is strong continuity between the exegetical attempts of literalist and allegorist readers. Ancient allegorists, in fact, viewed their efforts as readings from within the text and employed the same exegetical techniques that will later be sanctioned by literalist critics such as Aristotle.
Overall, my work provides new insights on well-studied texts (the Contest and the Derveni Papyrus) and brings attention to neglected but influential grammarians such as Theagenes and Zoilus. By shifting the focus from the Hellenistic and later periods to the Classical Period, my dissertation re-imagines the “invention” of criticism in Greece and contributes to the recent scholarly interest in hermeneutics and exegetical texts.
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.
Comitato scientifico: Gianluigi Baldo, Sergio Bozzola, Geneviève Henrot, Cecilia Poletto.
Comitato organizzativo: Federica Beghini, Francesca Benvenuti, Annalisa Chiodetti, Alessandro De Blasi, Stefano Fortin, Stefania Giroletti, Sara Moccia, Beatrice Righetti, Yangyu Sun, Benedetta Viscidi, Marianna Zarantonello, Fatma Zayet.
–
"«Dall’ombre al chiaro lume». The Enigma and its declensions in Literature" is an international conference organised by the Doctoral Programme in Linguistic, Philological and Literary Sciences of the University of Padua.
Scientific committee: Gianluigi Baldo, Sergio Bozzola, Geneviève Henrot, Cecilia Poletto.
Organizing committee: Federica Beghini, Francesca Benvenuti, Annalisa Chiodetti, Alessandro De Blasi, Stefano Fortin, Stefania Giroletti, Sara Moccia, Beatrice Righetti, Yangyu Sun, Benedetta Viscidi, Marianna Zarantonello, Fatma Zayet.
Scholars usually regard literary criticism as a Hellenistic or Aristotelian product. Earlier exegesis, as a result, has received little and often misguided attention. By contrast, my project demonstrates that poetry was not merely utilized as a repository of moral and stylistic norms; rather, it emerged as an autonomous object of study.
Explaining The Poets is organized around two broad and historically productive modes of approaching literary texts: problems-and-solutions inquiries, ζητήματα, (chapters 1–3) and the practice of interpreting texts allegorically, “allegoresis” (chapters 4–6).
Zetematic texts first appear in the fourth century BCE, yet the origins of this mode of inquiry are much older. Literary challenges framed as problems and solutions were widespread, particularly in the archaic symposium, and their productive influences can be detected in such diverse works as the Contest of Homer and Hesiod (chapter 2) and Against Homer’s Poetry by Zoilus of Amphipolis (chapter 3).
The practice of interpreting texts allegorically is as old as the sixth century BCE. After a methodological introduction (chapter 4), in chapter 5 I focus on two forerunners of allegoresis: Theagenes of Rhegium and Pherekydes of Syrus. Finally, the bulk of chapter 6 deals with the oldest allegorical treatise preserved to a significant extent: the Derveni papyrus. In contrast to previous scholarship, I claim that there is strong continuity between the exegetical attempts of literalist and allegorist readers. Ancient allegorists, in fact, viewed their efforts as readings from within the text and employed the same exegetical techniques that will later be sanctioned by literalist critics such as Aristotle.
Overall, my work provides new insights on well-studied texts (the Contest and the Derveni Papyrus) and brings attention to neglected but influential grammarians such as Theagenes and Zoilus. By shifting the focus from the Hellenistic and later periods to the Classical Period, my dissertation re-imagines the “invention” of criticism in Greece and contributes to the recent scholarly interest in hermeneutics and exegetical texts.