Littera Antiqua. nr 10-11(2015) w w w. l i t a n t. e u. Littera Antiqua. Greek Manuscript of 1st Corinthians 13 ISSN

Transcript

1 nr 10-11(2015) Greek Manuscript of 1st Corinthians 13 ISSN

2 Instytut Filologii Klasycznej Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski Jana Pawła II Al. Racławickie Lublin tel. 81/ Redaktor naczelny dr Katarzyna Kołakowska tel Zastępca redaktora naczelnego dr Iwona Wieżel tel Sekretarz redakcji dr Lesław Łesyk tel Redaktor językowy dr Lech Giemza Sylwia Wilczewska Redaktor tematyczny dr hab. Ewa Osek 2

3 S P I S T R E Ś C I ARTYKUŁY Katarzyna Kołakowska The John Paul II Catholic University Greek manuscripts in Poland. Part I: Kraków, Toruń, Elbląg Ewa Osek The John Paul II Catholic University The Orphic Diet Dariusz Piasecki Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski Jana Pawła II Modlitwa Chrystusa w Centonach homeryckich Apostolos Athanassakis - The University of California, Santa Barbara Who sang the Orphic Hymns? Edyta Gryksa - Uniwersytet Śląski w Katowicach Śmierć jako pietas erga patriam w historiografii starożytnego Rzymu Łukasz Halida Uniwersytet Jagielloński Color affectus jako źródło semantycznej ewolucji terminu pietas Dannu Hütwohl The Ohio State University Pindar of Thebes: The Orphic Mystagogue Dariusz Kubok University of Silesia in Katowice Allocriticism and Autocriticism in the Views of Xenophanes of Colophon Patrycja Matusiak Uniwersytet Śląski w Katowicach Devotio Decjuszy jako exemplum republikańskiej pietas RECENZJE Spetsialnyie istoricheskiie distsipliny, vyp. 1, otvestv. red. B.L. Fonkich, Rossiiskaia Akademia nauk. Institut vseobshchei istorii. Otdel spetsialnykh istoricheskikh distsiplin, Moskva: IVI RAN 2014, ss. 612 (Lesław Łesyk) Andrzej Gillmeister, The Point of View. Tadeusz Zieliński on Ancient Religions, Akme. Studia Historica: nr 11/2013, Warszawa, 67 pp. (Mariola Sobolewska) Irene J.F. de Jong, Narratology and Classics. A Practical Guide, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2014, ss. 230 (Iwona Wieżel)

4 10-11 (2015) KATARZYNA KOŁAKOWSKA (The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin) Greek manuscripts in Poland. Part I: Kraków, Toruń, Elbląg 1 The issue of Greek manuscript collections in Poland is highly complicated and, unlike other European collections, very dynamic. Due to historical reasons, the fortunes of Polish collections cause information chaos among foreign researchers, albeit not only. Consequently, catalogues and directories prepared by them contain a lot of wrong information concerning places of storage and number of manuscripts. The largest catalogue of Greek manuscripts is Repertoire des Bibliotheques et des Catalogues de Manuscrits Grecs de Marcel Richard by Jean-Marie Olivier, 2 who, researching manuscripts in Poland, based his information on three others (already outdated) catalogues of Kurt Aland, 3 Paul Canart 4 and Yaroslav N. Ščapov. 5 Unfortunately, due to the aforementioned historical turbulence, the majority of information contained therein is either incomplete or out-of-date, although the catalogue certainly provides a starting point for detailed surveys and studies on Greek manuscripts in Poland. Furthermore, data in catalogues and inventories of particular libraries also contain mistakes: mainly in descriptions and dating of particular volumes, as well as their contents, not to mention proper classification of palimpsests (obviously, without the use of suitable equipment, the most serious problem is distinguishing between Old Serbian and Old Church Slavonic palimpsests and between Greek and Old Church Slavonic ones). Most probably, this is due to the lack of specialists in Greek palaeography because no Polish university educates in this field. 1 Research on Greek manuscripts in Poland is conducted in the Department of Greek Studies in The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin under the guidance of Katarzyna Kołakowska, PhD, in cooperation with Lesław Łesyk, PhD. The author wishes to thank Professor Boris L. Fonkich, PhD h.c., for introduction into the world of Greek palaeography and manuscripts, scientific guidance and friendship. 2 Olivier Aland Canart Щапов

5 10-11 (2015) I Kraków 1. Jagiellonian Library By far the biggest collection of Greek manuscripts is stored in the Jagiellonian University Library. According to Olivier, the Library possesses 16 manuscripts of which three are palimpsests. In Eduard Gollob s catalogue 6 information can be found about thirteen Greek manuscripts but it is supplemented with a handwritten note about the fourteenth manuscript from 1589 with a text: lek.-teolog. medical-theological 7 (Olivier s catalogue includes this information). This manuscript (or rather a document) contains notes about: faith, Holy Trinity, fasting, two journeys to Jerusalem and Sinai, as well as Apocyphra about Jesus and medical notes. 8 This small collection was developed throughout the whole period of existence of the Kraków Academy and then the Jagiellonian University, frequently with personal and financial involvement of librarians who allocated their own funds to buy or repurchase lost items. 9 The vast majority of the manuscripts were written on paper (12). They contain works of classical authors (3), theological (7) and philosophical writings (4), one lexicon and one text difficult to classify (Ms. 2731). The time span is between the 14 th (Ms. 788) and 18 th (Ms. 2731, Illustr. 1 st ) c. It is worth verifying dates of the manuscripts with double dating, e.g. 16 th -17 th c., and these with no specific date of origin (Illustr. 2 nd ). Currently, the science of palaeography has developed well enough so that it is not only possible to specify dates much more precisely (with approximation to half a century or even a decade), but also to try and match handwriting to a given scribe, using the method devised by one of the most eminent palaeographers Boris L. Fonkich. Of course, these methods were not known at the time when the abovementioned catalogues were compiled. Apart from the manuscripts which the Jagiellonian Library owns, it also stores a huge collection of Greek manuscripts from the Berlin State Library (Preußische Staatsbibliothek), popularly called Stabi, in the deposit of the Polish State Treasury. The collection contains 140 Greek manuscripts. A detailed description of them can be found in the catalogue: Die Handchriften-Verzeichnisse der Königlichen Bibliothek ze Berlin by Carl de Boor (Berlin 1897). It is 6 Verzeichnis der Griechischen Handschriften in Osterreich Auszerhalb Wiens von Eduard Gollob, Wien Gollob 1903: Щапов 1973: The remarkable and fascinating history of the collection of manuscripts in the Jagiellonian Library is described in: Wisłocki : I-XXXV. 5

6 10-11 (2015) not possible to discuss each manuscript here, even though the majority of them are worth verifying. These are mostly palimpsests which, due to the lack of special non-invasive equipment, were destroyed by the use of chemical agents that dyed parchment blue but did not bring expected results (for instance, Graec. Fol. 28 described by de Boor under no. 266). The oldest and most damaged manuscripts should also be verified, as exemplified by the manuscripts no. Graec. Fol , written with Greek capital letters in two columns. They are very worn and require immediate cleaning and restoration. One of them, namely Graec. Fol. 45 (de Boor 281, Illustr. 3 rd ), is dated to the 11 th -13 th c. However, a detailed analysis including comparative material enables to specify its date of origin at the 10 th c. Moreover, it is possible to identify the origin of the manuscript at the first half of the 10 th c. or mid-century at the latest. The aforementioned comparative material (Ms. Harley 5694, Paris. gr. 451, Berlin, Staatsbibliothek, Phillipps 1538) 10 made it possible to find out that the manuscript was created in the circle of writers gathered around a Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos (905-59). Moreover, comparing the handwriting of one of the authors it is possible to find considerable similarity to a great writer Baanes 11 who wrote for Arethas of Caesarea. 12 Thus, it is clear that de Boor s mistake can reach even three hundred (!) years. The manuscript contains the Evangelion consisting of 8 parts. The first part comprises John Chrysostom s homilies on the Book of Genesis, parts second to fifth contain homilies of St Basil the Great, the sixth part presents fragments of the Gospel divided into weeks and St Theodore s holidays, the seventh part includes fragments of works by Ephraim the Syrian, while the eight part contains mostly works of Pseudo-Epiphanius. Some of them are unedited and in the case of two cards it is impossible to determine what text it is. 13 Therefore, the whole collection of Greek manuscripts is worth further research, while the majority of manuscripts need a separate and in-depth study in monographic publications. Among the Greek manuscripts there are also palimpsests. An example can be a Slavonic manuscript no. 932 (according to Wisłocki: Old Slavonic-Serbian, Illustr. 4 th ) with a 10 See: Lefort Cochez Gamillscheg Harlfinger Hunger 1981: See: Fonkich 2014: The author wishes to thank Marina A. Kurysheva, PhD, for scientific assistance in specification of proper dating and comparative material. 13 See: K. Kołakowska Manuskrypty greckie w zbiorach krakowskich (in press). 6

7 10-11 (2015) washed-off Greek text. 14 Information about it can be found in an article of Eugenia E. Granstrem who writes that under the top layer there is a liturgical text written with Greek miniscule in the 13 th /14 th c. 15 This manuscript was previously stored in a monastery in Macedonia (St Demetrius Monastery). 16 Unfortunately, similarly as other libraries in possession of Greek manuscripts, the Jagiellonian Library also suffered some losses, described in Wisłocki s catalogue. The Kraków librarian notes that: The manuscripts previously marked as DD VII 1, DD X 11 and DD X 13 have been lost. Bandtkie did not include them in his register of lacking manuscripts. On the other hand, due to their character, it is impossible that he threw them away to scrap paper in The Register from 1777 enumerates these manuscripts, listed there between Anonymous works on page 60, in the following way: Liber Graecus, codex cartaceus in fol. DD VII 1 and Liber Graecus, cod. Cartaceus in 4to, DD X 11 and Liber Graecus, cod. Pergameneus (sic!) in4to DD X The Princes Czartoryski Library Similarly as in the aforementioned cases, the current shape of this collection was significantly influenced by history of the whole library founded by the Princes Czartoryski family. According to the Library s guidebook, history of the book collection began in 1770 when the first catalogue of books and the private library of Prince Adam Kazimierz Czartoryski was compiled. The library was housed in the Blue Palace in Warszawa. At that time, the book collection comprised 1645 works, including several manuscripts. When the library was moved to the palace in Puławy in 1784, the collection had already 7010 volumes of foreign books and an unknown number of Polish works. As a repressive measure due to involvement in the Kościuszko Uprising of 1794, the major part of the collection was taken over by Russians. However, Prince Adam Kazimierz, who resided in Vienna and Sieniawa, managed to reconstruct it, purchasing the lacking items on the antiquarian market. 18 A continuator of Adam Kazimierz work, his son Prince Adam Jerzy, whose wish was to create 14 Wisłocki : XVIII and Dating needs to be verified. 16 Гранстрем 1964: Wisłocki : XXXIII. 18 See: Lenkiewiczowa 2004:

8 10-11 (2015) a national library, ordered a search through monastic libraries and regularly supplemented the resources, purchasing even the whole collections (for example so-called Poryck Library which enlarged the Czartoryski collection with 8000 prints and 1550 manuscripts). Moreover, in 1810 he regained possession of 102 rare Polish prints and 48 manuscripts from Sweden: from the Royal Library in Stockholm and the University Library in Uppsala, mostly originating from the Chapter of Warmia and taken away from Poland during the Swedish Deluge and the Second Northern War. 19 The collection was made available to the public in Next repressive measures and considerable depletion of the collection occurred after the collapse of the November Uprising. In 1831 Russians took away 47 cases with precious prints and manuscripts to Petersburg. Some of them were given back pursuant to the Treaty of Riga (1921) shortly before the World War II. The salvaged items were stored outside the borders of the Russian rule in Sieniawa, Kórnik, Kraków and Krasiczyn. A part of the collection was moved to Hôtel Lambert in Paris, and when it became endangered also there (e.g. due to the Franco-Prussian War of 1870 and the Paris Commune), Jerzy s son Władysław secured the collection by moving it to Kraków. Thanks to the municipal authorities, he gathered the collection there in 1876 in rooms given by the city. In accordance with the statute established by Władysław, the library and the museum were supported by the Szaniawski Fee Tail ( ). During the World War II the Library was officially closed but many Polish scientists used it secretly. In 1961 the library was moved to 17 Św. Marka Street where it exists until today. Since 1971 it has the status of a scientific library with a humanist profile. Prince Adam Karol, a legal successor of the Czartoryski family from the line of Adam Jerzy, established a family foundation in 1991 and made the private collection available to the public, leaving it under supervision of the National Museum in Kraków. Currently, the library consists of two departments: 1) Archive and Collection of Manuscripts of the Czartoryski Family and 2) Book Collection of the Czartoryski Family. 20 In Olivier s Repertoir, the Princes Czartoryski Library is mistakenly identified with the National Library. 21 The French catalogue mentions three manuscripts, among them: no See: Pezda 2011: See: Lenkiewiczowa 2004: Olivier, p Of course, distinguishing between the collections of both institutions, that is the Princes Czartoryski Library and the National Library in Kraków, is problematic even to Poles, and the more so to foreigners. Therefore, the mistake of J.M. Olivier can be 8

9 10-11 (2015) containing hagiographic texts (i.a. Vita Constantini et Helenae, Illustr. 5 th ) and texts of John Chrysostom, Symeon Metaphrastes and Alexander of Cyprus, dated to the 14 th -15 th c., and no (Illustr. 6 th ) with fragments of Plutarch s work (Regum et imperatorum apophtegmata, Apophtegmata Laconica, Instituta Laconica, Lacaenarum apophtegmata) dated to the 15 th -16 th c. 22 While the latter manuscript does not arise doubt, information concerning no is more puzzling. According to the Library s inventory, the codex comes from the 12 th -13 th c., so it is much earlier than Olivier claims. Thus, what is the origin of this divergence? It is possible that the authors of the descriptions were misled by renovation works during which the manuscript was trimmed and folded again without keeping the original and proper sequence of folios, which escaped attention of all those who were dealing with the discussed manuscript. Moreover, on its initial and final pages the manuscript is a palimpsest, according to the inventory a Greek one, 23 although there is a high probability that the bottom text was written in an old Slavonic language. Another doubtful issue is identification of the text but this will be discussed in a separate article. As it has been mentioned above, Repertoir gives information about three manuscripts. The last preserved codex in the Czartoryski collection is The Gospels (Ms. 1870, Illustr. 7). Information about it can be found in the inventory available in situ. It dates the codex to the 13 th c. (although this must be examined in detail). There is also information that the manuscript lacks the illumination with the image of St Matthew the Evangelist (before p. 1 according to the top pagination and p. 7 according to the bottom pagination), but there is no data about the lack of the whole folio volume (4 pages) with the beginning of the Gospel of St John (no pagination, top or bottom, takes into account this lack). Most probably, the abovementioned manuscripts (apart from The Gospels) were purchased together with others: Turkish, Coptic, Malayan, Japanese, Hebrew and Armenian, through political agents of Hôtel Lambert in the East and on the developing antiquarian market. 24 An excellent catalogue Zbiory rękopisów w Polsce 25 in the section Theology understood. Both institutions are housed in the same place and have the same personnel, but different catalogues. Nevertheless, all Greek manuscripts belong to the Princes Czartoryski Library, not to the National Library. 23 Olivier 1995: Most probably, this is a suggestion of Dieter Harlfinger, who according to the inventory worked on this manuscript. 24 Lenkiewiczowa 2004: 23. 9

10 10-11 (2015) mentions that the collection of manuscripts, theological and philosophical treatises, sermons and church chronicles decreased from 100 to 38, while the remaining ones got lost in the 19 th c. Among them there could probably be Greek manuscripts, as well. Their lack is also noted in another register which enumerates four Greek manuscripts that got lost. These are the following (in original catalogue notation): a) No. 1222, Greek manuscript, St Chrysostom s commentaries on Epistles to the Corinthians In 1831 taken away by Russians to Petersburg, currently in the National Library in Warszawa. Catalogue number: Sygn. Grec. 145 (BCzart. Rkps ). It burnt down in Warszawa. b) 1274 Greek homilies on parchment [no other information K.K.] c) Greek gospels Greek book on parchment. 4 Evangelists (BCzart. Rkps. 2855, p. 442) d) De humana felicitate, in Hebrew, Greek and Latin Manuscript on parchment with paintings and gilding. About Human Happiness in Hebrew, Greek and Latin. These are adages of famous people and cited examples. (BCzart. 2855, p. 443) Taken away to Petersburg Archive of the Polish Province of the Congregation of the Mission A short information about the Archive s collection states that it contains a Greek manuscript Vita Apolloni Tyanensis by Flavius Philostratus. This is a codex of Italian origin, written on paper, dated to the 15 th c., inside there is information about Thomas Rehdiger s supralibros. 27 II The Cyprian Norwid Library in Elbląg Nowadays, Elbląg is a town not associated with education or universities. However, it did not use to be like that. The Gymnasium established in the 1530s educated young 25 Kamolowa Sieniatecka 2004: Pezda 2011: Makowski Sapała 2014:

11 10-11 (2015) people from Prussia, Kingdom of Poland, Lithuania and Silesia. An important role in the Gymnasium was played by the Library founded in It originated from the book collection of Thomas Rothus, Gymnasium s rector at that time, and numerous gifts from Elbląg townsmen. In 1710 the remains of the book collection of Elbląg Dominican Friars were incorporated into the Library. In 1846 the Gymnasium Library became a property of the town. 28 According to Repertoire, Greek manuscripts can be found in the C.K. Norwid Regional and Municipal Public Library, called today The Cyprian Norwid Library in Elbląg. The French researcher informs that the Library should possess three manuscripts with the catalogue numbers: F.1 (Dionysius of Halicarnassus), O.2 (Aristophanes, Cicero), O.10 (Aristophanes, Hesiod, Theocritus). 29 All of them are dated to the 15 th -16 th c. Unfortunately, this information has been long outdated. None of these codices can be found there today. The history of these and many other precious manuscripts and antique books from the Elbląg library is both sensational and dramatic. After the war it was decided that the collection of the most valuable manuscripts and antique books should be deposited with the University Library of Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń. The whole deposit comprised books and magazines, while volumes were taken by the Baltic Institute to Gdynia. Unfortunately, the night before the scheduled transport to Toruń, 18 cases with best manuscripts and antique books, as well as the remains of the card catalogue, were stolen and taken away in an unknown direction. The salvaged items were taken to Toruń and incorporated into the catalogue, but the stolen cases have never been found. The deposit returned to Elbląg in On the basis of the information from the Head of the Antique Collection Department it was found that out of volumes (the condition as at 1938) volumes returned to Elbląg. Of numerous manuscripts only 388 returned, among them there were 2 medieval Latin manuscripts, the rest was the library documentation and catalogues. Employees of the Elbląg Library say that even today it is possible to come across lost manuscripts with the Library s stamps at auctions. However, due to the lack of a catalogue or an inventory confirming their provenance, it is not possible to request their return. 28 Kamolowa Sieniatecka 2004: Olivier quotes after: Neubaur 1894: See: Czyżak, 2000:

12 10-11 (2015) III Toruń 1. The Copernicus Regional Public Library in Toruń Another place from Olivier s list is abovementioned Toruń, the Nicolaus Copernicus Regional and Municipal Public Library, today: the Copernicus Regional Public Library in Toruń. According to Repertoir, the Library should possess a manuscript from the 15 th c. containing Hermias Scholia to Plato s Phaedrus. This manuscript (catalogue no. Rps KM 106) was studied in detail in the Polish literature on the subject by Sławomir Wyszomirski who in his article moved the dating of the manuscript to the years on the basis of identification of the filigree (no. 761) of the paper manufacturer in Udine (in the former Republic of Venice) Nicolaus Copernicus University Library The Repertoire contains no mention of the other Greek manuscript stored in the Nicolaus Copernicus University Library in Toruń, with catalogue no. Rps 93/II of 1568, namely: Carmen Graecum de coelestis doctrine studio omnibus aliis disciplinis et praestantia et utilitate longe anteferendo inscriptum Illustrissimo principi ac domino domino Alberto Marchioni Brandenburgico, duci Prussiae / Autore Gregorio Kregero Mesylaeo [Gregorius Cregerus Mesylaeus], written in the mid-16 th c. It comes from the State and University Library in Königsberg. 32 More information will be contained in the catalogue of modern-era manuscripts prepared by the Library. 33 History of the Nicolaus Copernicus University Library is connected with several attempts to establish a university in Pomerania and dates back to the 15 th c. However, the official date of founding the Library is Its collection of manuscripts was based on the so-called protected collection from West Pomerania, East Pomerania, Warmia and Masuria, including a precious collection from Königsberg with the abovementioned Greek manuscript. Manuscripts from Königsberg were obtained by the Library after the World War II. They come from the former Castle Library in Königsberg established in 1534 on the 31 See: Wyszomirski 2004: See: Jähnig 2004: 223, The author of the record to this manuscript is Barbara Bibik, PhD, thanks to whom I received the necessary data. 12

13 10-11 (2015) initiative of Polyphemus a Königsberg exile and thanks to donations of Prince Albrecht. Before the World War II, the so-called Castle Library was housed in the University Library in Königsberg together with other collections. Currently, the Nicolaus Copernicus University Library contains ca. 100 manuscripts from Königsberg, 34 including at least one Greek manuscript. J.M. Olivier s Repertoir is the most complete catalogue containing a uniform list of Greek manuscripts in Poland. However, due to historical reasons (three partitions, two World Wars and post-war events) and unverified second-hand data (from previous catalogues), it contains a number of mistakes and outdated information. In the near future, information from particular catalogues and library inventories ought to be ordered and corrected, all Greek manuscripts in Poland should be catalogued and the system of their catalogue numbers needs to be standardized. The information concerning selected libraries, presented above, demonstrates complexity of the problem. While further works in public libraries should go on uninterrupted thanks to kindliness of people responsible for manuscripts, there is still the issue of access to Greek manuscripts in private collections, including church and monastic ones. 34 Kamolowa Sieniatecka 2004:

14 10-11 (2015) Illustrations: Illustr. 1st Ms

15 10-11 (2015) Illustr. 2 nd Ms

16 Illustr. 3rd Graec. Fol (2015)

17 10-11 (2015) Illustr. 4 th Ms

18 (2015) Illustr. 5th Ms

19 10-11 (2015) Illustr. 6 th Ms

20 Illustr. 7th Ms (2015)

21 10-11 (2015) Index of Greek manuscripts in Poland under the sources: J.-M. Olivier E. Gollob K. Aland P. Canart Y. Ščapov (1995) (1903) (1956) (1970) (1973) The Princes Czartoryski Library 2852 (p. 438) i.a. Vita (p. 27) 2852 (p. 32) Constantini et (p. 556) Helenae 2853 (p. 438) (p (p. 28) 2853 (p. 32) Plutarch 557) 1870 (p. 438) other 1870 (p. 32) Four pressmark Gospels 1801 Jagiellonian Library 156 (p. 439) 156 Bbb.II.17 Ephraim (p. 26-7) 156 (p. 559) 620 (p. 439) 620 (F.F.V.4) Boethius (p. 21-2) 620 (p. 559) 932 (p. 439) 932 (p ) 932 (p. 560) 2363 (p. 439) 2363 (A.A.XIII.20) 2363 John the Priest (p. 23) (p. 560) 2526 (p. 439) 2526 (F.F.VI.5; and: B.2.) Περὶ φύσεως (p ) (p. 23-5) 2528 (p. 439) 2528 (p. 29) 2528 (p ) 940 (p. 439) 940 i.a. Proclus (p. 22-3) 2852 (p ) 2853 (p. 260) 1870 (p. 260) Gospel Book 932 (p. 260) - euchologion 940 commentary on Aristotle and Proclus; end of 17 th c. (p. 259) 21

22 10-11 (2015) Akc. 33/64 (p. 439) Akc. 33/64 with notation: 1589 yr (liturgical texts) Two copies of the letter of patriarch Dionysius I from 24 (p. 439) 543 (p. 439) 544 (p. 439) 2731 (p. 439) 3206 (p. 439) 3246 (p. 439) 495 (p. 439) 788 (p. 439) 24 (D.D.IV.92) Collectanea politica (p. 18) 543 (D.D.VII.6) Odyssey (p. 19) 544 (F.F.15) Arithmetica of Diophantus of Alexandria (p ) 2731 single folium (p. 25) difficult to say what kind of text it is 3206 prayers (p. 25-6) 3246 (D.D.XII.18) Florilegium Graecorum poetarum (p. 26) 495 (D.D.III.40) the fragment of the Gospel of St John 23 (p. 27) 788 (D.D.III.5) lexicon / dictionary 1467 (today we have only Ukrainian translation, Greek version is today unknown) p. 260 (p. 27) BIBLIOGRAPHY 22

23 10-11 (2015) Aland K. 1956: Die Handschriftenbestände der polnischen Bibliotheken insbesondere an griechischen und lateinischen Handschriften von Autoren und Werken der klassischen bis zum Ende der patristischen Zeit, Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, Boor de C. 1897: Verzeichniss der griechischen Handschriften der Königlichen Bibliothek zu Berlin. Bd. 11., Berlin: A. Asher, Canart P. 1974: Notes sur quelques manuscrits grecs des bibliothèques de Pologne, in Serta Turyniana. Studies in Greek Literature and Palaeography in honor of Alexander Turyn, eds. John L. Heller John K. Newman, Urbana Chicago London: University of Illinois Press, Czyżak D. 2000: Zanim księgozbiór elbląski do Torunia dotarł, Horyzont 1, Czyżak D. 2002: Zanim księgozbiór elbląski do Torunia dotarł..., Rocznik Elbląski 18, 141- Fonkich B.L. 2014: Scriptoria bizantini: risultati e prospettive della ricerca, in Б.Л. Фонкич, Исследование по греческой палеографии и кодикологии IV-XIX вв., отв. ред. М. Курышева. Монфокон 3, Москва: Рукописные Памятники Древней Руси, Gamillscheg E. D. Harlfinger H. Hunger 1981: Repertorium der griechischen Kopisten Teil: Handschriften aus Bibliotheken Großbritanniens. Fasz. A: Verzeichnis der Kopisten, Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Gollob E. 1903: Verzeichnis der griechischen Handschriften in Österreich auszerhalb Wiens, Wien: C. Gerold's Sohn, Jähning B. 2004: Katalog der Handschriften der landesherrlichen Bibliothek in Königsberg 1700/1720, in A.E. Walter, Königsberger Buch- und Bibliothekgeschichte, Köln: Böhlau Verlag, Kamolowa D. T. Sieniatecka red. 2004: Zbiory rękopisów w Polsce. T. I. Zbiory rękopisów w bibliotekach i muzeach w Polsce, Warszawa: Biblioteka Narodowa. Kołakowska K., Manuskrypty greckie w zbiorach krakowskich (in press). Lefort L. Th. J. Cochez 1932: Album palaeographicum codicum Graecorum minusculis litteris saec. IX et X certo tempore scriptorum, accedunt quaedam exempla codicum saec. XI-XVI, Leuven, beheer van Philologische Studiën. Lenkiewiczowa J. red. 2004: Biblioteka Książąt Czartoryskich. Informator o zbiorach, Kraków: Fundacja Książąt Czartoryskich. 23

24 10-11 (2015) Makowski T. Sapała P. red. 2014: Zbiory rękopisów w Polsce. T. II. Rękopisy w zbiorach kościelnych, Warszawa: Biblioteka Narodowa. Neubaur L. 1894: Katalog der Stadtbibliothek zu Elbing. Bd. 2., Elbing: Reinhold Kühn. Olivier J.-M : Répertoire des bibliothèques et des catalogues de manuscrits grecs de Marcel Richard, Turnhout: Brepols. Pezda J. 2011: Volumen hoc deest. Volument hoc desideratur. O brakach w zasobie rękopisów Biblioteki Książąt Czartoryskich, Rozprawy Muzeum Narodowego w Krakowie. Seria Nowa TB, Kraków, Wisłocki W : Katalog rękopisów Biblijoteki Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego. Część I. Wstęp. Rękopisy , Kraków: Drukarnia Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego. Wyszomirski S. 2004: O toruńskim rękopisie «Scholiów» Hermiasza do «Fajdrosa» Platona, in I. Mikołajczyk red., Sapere aude. Księga pamiątkowa ofiarowana profesorowi dr. hab. Marianowi Szarmachowi z okazji 65. rocznicy urodzin, Toruń: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UMK 2004, Гранстрем Е.Э. 1964: Славяно-русские палимпсесты, in Археографический ежегодник за 1963 год. Академия Наук СССР. Отделение Истории. Археографическая Коммиссия. Москва, Щапов Я.Н. 1973: Греческие рукописи в собраниях Варшавы и Кракова, Византийский временик 34, Katarzyna Kołakowska, PhD - assistant professor in Faculty of Classical Studies at the John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin. Her researches base upon Greek classical and Hellenistic literature, ancient philosophy (Presocratics, especially Empedocles), Greek religion, especially Orphism (since 2009 Kolakowska have organized Colloquia Orphica in Nieborów Palace) and Derveni Papyrus, papyrology and palaeography (project: Greek manuscripts in Poland). 24

25 10-11 (2015) EWA OSEK (The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin) The Orphic Diet Having discussed the Orphic dietary prescriptions, we meet a series of questions and impediments. First of them comes the unsolved problem of chronology. When did the legendary Orpheus, who gave the regimen to the Thracian people, live? Should we trust the so-called Parian Marble (erected in 264 BC) that indicates the date 1398 BC, 1 or 189 years before the Trojan war? Besides, the related sources (collected in part six of the present paper) are ranged from ca. 444 BC to ca. AD It amounts to over one and a half millennium! If someone says that the Orphic way of life was known to Euripides and Plato ( BC), how to define the Orpheomania of the later neo-platonists (AD )? The 800 years make a difference that can shift the Orphic phenomenon on another level. The second problem is the close interrelation between the Orphic asceticism and the Pythagoreans. Pythagoras, who flourished between 540 and 525 BC, migrated from the island of Samos to Croton in the southern Italy where he founded the influential school that lasted until the late 360s BC. 2 The philosopher of Samos was to ascribe some of his own writings to Orpheus, 3 and to compose the hexametric poem under the Orphic title: ἹƂξὸο ιόγνο. 4 Was it true what is said by Pythagoras in his poem that Aglaophamus in Thrace had initiated him into the Orphic mysteries? 5 It would be a good reason why the Pythagorean brotherhood adopted the Orphic lifestyle including some Orphic dietary taboos. But do we really believe that Pythagoras came to Thrace to be initiated into the Orphic mysteries and described his mystic experience in the Sacred Tale the same that the neo-platonists kept in their libraries? Are we sure that Pythagoras himself composed the Sacred Tale which was, otherwise, present paper. 1 OF 1018ii = FGrHist 239 F14. The list of bibliographic abbreviations is found in part seven of the 2 Pythagoras no. 8 Cardini = Pseudo-Iamblichus, Theology of Arithmetics 40 (52 53 Falco); Pythagoras no. 10 Cardini = Aristoxenus fr. 19 Wehrli qtd. in Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers 8.46 (626 Dorandi); Iamblichus of Chalcis, On the Pythagorean Way of Life ( Deubner). 3 Ion of Chios, Triagmoi fr. 116 Leurini = FGrHist 392 F25a = OF 506 = Pythagoras fr. F Cardini. 4 Sotion of Alexandria ( BC) qtd. in Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers 8.7 (604 Dorandi) = Pseudo-Pythagoras, Hieros Logos fr. 2 Thesleff = Pythagoras fr. 19 Cardini. 5 OF 1144iii = Iamblichus of Chalcis, On the Pythagorean Way of Life (82 Deubner); OF 1144iv = Iamblichus of Chalcis, Commentary on Plato s Timaeus fr. 74 Dillon. 25

26 10-11 (2015) attributed to Cercops the Pythagorean? 6 Actually, the question concerns the unexplored channels of transmission between the early Pythagoreanism that died out in 360s BC and its neo-pythagorean revival in Rome 300 years later (Kingsley ). The third problem is of no less importance. We are told that Orpheus composed a number of hymns that were sung during the Eleusinian Mysteries since ca. 300 BC or even earlier. 7 Moreover, we are informed about the dietetic regulations at Eleusis, obligatory for the initiated and aimed at their purity, which were very similar to the Orphic ones. 8 The question is either the initiated into the Eleusinian Mysteries had to be practicing Orphics all their lives long or only during eight days of the Eleusinia held between the 15 th and 22 th of Boedromion. Euripides represented Hippolytus as a young Athenian keeping the Orphic diet after he was initiated at Eleusis, against his father, Theseus, who imputed a hypocrisy to him. 9 Who was right, then, the father or his son? If Euripides Theseus was, the Eleusinian fasting would be a weekly abstinence from some foods like poultry, fish, eggs, beans, etc. identical with the dietetic restrictions during the Attic festivals of Demeter: Thesmophoria, held from 11 th to 13 th of Pyanopsion, and Haloa on the 26 th of Poseideion 10 whereas the extraordinary diet Orpheus propagated in Thrace was to be a lifelong practice. So, was the Orphic diet observed permanently like Buddhist vegetarianism or temporarily, in analogy to Christian Lenten fasting? The question is very important because it involves the next one. The fourth problem concerns the participation in traditional bloody sacrifices. Could the Orphics (i.e. the people who lived the Orphic lives) ever sacrifice animals to the gods if they refused to eat meat? We know that Proclus (AD ), a rigorous vegetarian who used to observe the Orphic purifications, sometimes tasted a meat. Proclus did it from piety, as his biographer remarks, to have a sacrificial meal which was demanded by a given cult. 11 Besides, Proclus must have 6 OF 406 = Epigenes of Alexandria (before 278 BC) qtd. in Clement of Alexandria, Stromata (1: 81 Stählin). 7 OF OF 531ii = Pausanias, Description of Greece (3: 59 Rocha-Pereira). 8 Xenocrates of Chalcedon, fr. F170 Parente; Porphyry of Tyre, On Abstinence from Living Animals (26 27 Pattilon). 9 OF 627 = Euripides, Hippolytus (2: 216 Kovacs); Euripides, Hippolytus 25 (2: 126 Kovacs). 10 Scholia on Lucian s Dialogues of the Courtesans 7.4 s.v. Haloa ( Rabe); Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Greeks (28 Marcovich). 11 Marinus of Neapolis, Life of Proclus (75 Masullo). 26

27 10-11 (2015) remembered that his master Plutarch of Athens enjoined him not to abstain from meat completely, 12 having pointed at semi-vegetarianism (Taormina 40 42). Seneca the Younger tells a story that happened in his early years. He says that he had to abandon the vegetarian regimen he used to keep for one year, under the influence of his Pythagorean teacher, because the emperor Tiberius in AD 19 persecuted all celebrants of foreign cults, and a young vegetarian, as was he, would looked like one of them. 13 We ask, then, if the vegetarian diet was merely the Orphic dream that had never been realized in Graeco-Roman world, even by so devoted partisans as Seneca and Proclus? Now, after pointing these essential problems, I am going to do the only thing I can: to trace the ancient sources and to follow them closely. Maybe the ancient testimonies, written in Greek and Latin, will bring some answers to the questions I asked. I. Orphic Lives, Orphic Taboos Whereas the ancient sources leave us unsure if the Orphic sect ever existed (Burkert 1982, ), there is no room for doubt that the Orphic lifestyle was something real. In the times of Plato, the so-called Orphic lives (ξƅηθνί ƄηλƂο ιƃγόκƃλνη βίνη) became proverbial to characterize the people who completely abstained from meat, having sacrificed no living animal to the gods, and never polluted the altars with sacrificial blood. Their offerings were pure (ἁγλὰ ζύκƀƅƀ), for they used to sacrifice only cakes, honey, and fruit (T.1). 14 Plato seems to summarize the longer tradition. So far as we know, the first historically attested man who lived the Orphic life was Empedocles, the Italian man of aristocratic Greek pedigree, born in Acragas, Sicily, ca. 490 BC and hosted at Thurii, Calabria, since 444 BC. 15 He was an eclectic philosopher, both Pythagorean and Orphic (T.2), or an unorthodox Pythagorean (T.3). Empedocles was notorious for sacrificing no living thing to the gods and credited with offering the animal-shaped cake, made of meal and honey, instead of living ox (T.4a); the same anecdote, however, has been told on Pythagoras (T.4b). Empedocles cake was to be a symbolic refusal of animal sacrifice and meat-eating. The Sicilian philosopher explained, in his inspired poem, the reason why he has gone out of these bloody practices. In 12 Plutarch of Athens fr. 2 Taormina qtd. in Marinus of Neapolis, Life of Proclus 12 (69 Masullo). 13 Seneca the Younger, Ad Lucilium epistulae morales ( Reynolds). 14 For references to the ancient testimonies see part six of the present paper. 15 Apollodorus of Athens, Chronica, FGrHist 244 F32. 27

28 10-11 (2015) very emotional verses ( Alas that the pitiless day ) he repented that fatal day on which he polluted his lips with flesh for the first time (T.5). Empedocles disgust with meat-eating foreshadows an Orphic-like inclination of the giant figure of the Athenian theatre: Euripides. In his Hippolytus, he patterned a character of young Hippolytus, Theseus son, after a contemporary Athenian youth, just initiated into the Eleusinian Mysteries (line 25: ƃƃκλλ ἐο ὄςηλ θƀὶ Ƅέιε κπƃƅεξίσλ). Hippolytus is said to be a puritan to whom his father imputed to make a show with keeping a vegetarian diet under the guidance of Orpheus as his new in-style authority and inhaling smokes of many books in honor of his master (T.6). Theseus disapproval would mean that no one in Athens including a candidate for an initiate into the Eleusinian Mysteries observed the meatless diet; otherwise, if someone did, the alleged Orphism might be imputed to him (Bernabé 2016: the vegetarian diet, characteristic of both Orphics and Pythagoreans was very shocking to the Athenians of the time ). The Hippolytus was produced in 428 BC, in the beginning of the Peloponnesian war, about 16 years after Empedocles moved in Thurii. Jan N. Bremmer may be right in his opinion that the Orphic movement was an Italian import which came to Athens from Magna Graecia, to infiltrate into higher classes of the Athenian society (Bremmer 65 66). After Euripides died in Macedon in 406 BC, his fellow-citizen Aristophanes composed the Frogs to mock on the Euripidean tragedies. The play-writer charged Euripides with a crime of feeding his art only on a sea beet and a decoct from some books (T.7). Saying of his diet, Aristophanes probably meant Euripides interest in some esoteric writings signed with Orpheus seal, which propagated the Orphic lifestyle (including vegetarianism) that seemed something bizarre to the contemporary Athenians (Scodel 79 81). In the Frogs, too, Aristophanes mentions Orpheus teaching on abstinence from killing that must be nothing else than a meatless diet in connection to some mystic rites as revealed by Orpheus (T.8). Should we assume, then, that the Orphic abstinence from meat to which Aristophanes refers is the same as the vegetarianism of Euripides Hippolytus? Perhaps we should because both of them appear in the same period and the context of the mysteries (the Eleusinian ones in the Hippolytus; some unspecified ones in the Frogs). Anyway, we can be sure that Aristophanes words reflect the boom of the Orphic literature which propagated vegetarianism in Athens during and after the Peloponnesian war. In addition, we have a number of late ancient testimonies that can be related to Aristophanes Frogs. Firstly, Plutarch of Chaeronea, who wrote half a millennium after Aristophanes and used to echo the classical Greek authors, having added nothing else, says 28

29 10-11 (2015) that Orpheus, the ancient poet, was credited with eating no meat (T.9). One can interpret the Plutarchean passage in the sense that the Orphic poetry, which was believed to be the oldest poetic tradition transmitted in Greece, implied a vegetarian inclination. Next, we meet an interesting testimony in Porphyry of Tyre who claims, in his work on vegetarianism, that the Theologian (viz. Orpheus 16 ) prohibited the people from sacrificing animals and recommended to them only bloodless offerings, like grains, honey, fruit, flowers. Porphyry quoted only one line from the Theologian in question: κεɓὲ ἀƅ ᾑκƀγκέλεο ἐƃράξƀο ἔƃƅσ Ƅὸ πῦξ ( Let not the fire burn on a bloodstained altar! ) and stopped speaking as the one who is not allowed to recite the sacred text in full (T.10). It is worth of noting that Porphyry in the same work referred a vegetarian song by Orpheus with no title (T.11). Because the Porphyrian text has been transmitted only in Latin, it is difficult to say either Orpheus song was originally titleless or the translator failed. Marinus of Neapolis, who provides us with very interesting material concerning Proclus the head of neo-platonic school at Athens in AD and an expert in the Orphic poetry, 17 represents his master as the one who rigorously observed the abstinence from animal meat, except the occasions when he sacrificed animals to the gods (T.12a), and who used to practice the Orphic purifications (T.12b). The Greek name of these practices: ξƅηθνὶ θƀζƀξκνί sounds like the title of lost Orphic poem on prohibited foods known to a Hellenistic author of the Pythagorean Golden Verses (Thesleff 1961, 19; Thom 90) (T.13) and Oenomaus of Gadara who composed his ŽνήƄσλ ƅώξƀ ca. AD 119 (T.14). Besides, one of Empedocles works might be entitled Κƀζƀξκνί, too (Wright 85 86). My conclusion is that the conjectural title of Orpheus song, known to Porphyry, was The Orphic Purifications (ξƅηθνὶ θƀζƀξκνί) (contra: Bernabé in OF vol. 2, p. 207; Jiménez 427). Apart from a meat, the sources attest two other dietary taboos, which were considered as Orphic or Orphic-and-Pythagorean. They concern the broad bean and eggs. We have a problem with identifying the former one because the plant, which the ancient puritans used to avoid, evolved ca. AD 500 and has not existed anymore (Prance 142). The Greek bean (θύƀκνο ιιεληθόο) to use the term applied by Dioscorides (De materia medica [1: 179 Wellmann]) had smaller and more orbiculate seeds than our broad beans that grow today (Andrews 274). The image of the Greek bean, found in the so-called Vienna 16 For the discussion on identity of the Theologian see Bernabé 2013, Marinus of Neapolis, Life of Proclus 20, (77, Masullo). 29

30 10-11 (2015) Dioscorides an illuminated manuscript created ca. AD 515 is to reproduce a Hellenistic pattern (fig. 1). Fig.1. The θύƀκνο (fava beans) in the Juliana Anicia Codex, 189v. Source of illustration: < Empedocles, whose emphatic lines on meat-eating have been recalled just before, was notorious for his abomination to fava beans and composing the manifesto: ƁƂηινί, πάλɓƃηινη, θπάκσλ ἄπν ρƃξƀο ἔρƃƃζƀη ( Fools, withhold your hands from beans! ) (T.15). The famous line, however, despite of being wide-spread and over-quoted in Hellenistic literature (T.16), may be an antique pastiche (Wright 289). Didymus of Alexandria, the late ancient author of the Georgics (T.17a), excerpted two lines from Orpheus, as he claims, on the abstinence from 30

31 10-11 (2015) beans (T.17b). Of these lines, the former one is identical with the Empedoclean verse, while the latter one: Ἶƃόλ Ƅνη θπάκνπο ƅƀγέƃηλ, θƃƅƀιάο ƄƂ Ƅνθήσλ ( To eat beans is as much as to eat your parents heads ) is attributed to Pythagoras Hieros Logos by Holger Thesleff (Thesleff 159). On the other hand, the same line was attributed to the poet, or Orpheus (Borgeaud 277), by Heraclides Ponticus, the Hellenistic writer (ca. 339 BC), who composed the special work on the Pythagoreans (T.18). Heraclides is the first to quote the verse in question (Detienne 1970, 154 note 84). Likewise, the Orphic Hymns a late ancient compilation of older material of unknown provenance banned on beans during the nocturnal fumigation of grains and aromatic herbs to Gaia, the earth goddess (T.19). Similarly, Gregory of Nazianzus, the well-informed Church father contemporary to Didymus of Alexandria, mentions the Orphic beans (T.20). To sum up, the ancient sources recognized the bean taboo as a dietary prescription of Orphic origin. Plutarch of Chaeronea knew another Orphic taboo: eggs (T.21a), which were interdicted by the Orphic sacred tale that had been kept in top secrecy against all profane (T.21b). In the first-century Rome, where Plutarch placed a dramatic setting of his Table Talks, the dietary restriction concerning eggs must have seemed something eccentric because the chicken eggs belonged to everyday menu. Therefore, Plutarch explains, if someone abstained from eating eggs, the Romans used to recognized him as an Orphic or Pythagorean sectarian (T.22). The sectarians in question associated eggs with beans and, in turn, beans with animal reproduction because θύƀκνη, the Greek word for beans, sounded like θύεƃηο ( procreation ) to their ears. Besides, these men thought that eating eggs does not differ from eating the egg-born animals (T.23). To summarize, vegetarianism was the most recognizable feature of the Orphic asceticism in Graeco-Roman antiquity (Bernabé 2015, 29 31). The Orphic lives, then, meant nothing but abstinence from meat-eating (ἀπέρƃƃζƀη ƃƀξθλ ἐɓσɓο) the term which can be substituted with a modern vegetarianism or veganism. The abstinence from eggs and beans, as associated with procreation of animals, could be a logical, or quasi-logical, consequence of the Orphic veganism. The Orphic Hymns that recommended the initiated to sacrifice nothing animated and displayed an obsessive fear of fava bean, horror fabae, seem to be the most representative of the Orphic diet (Morand ). 31

32 10-11 (2015) II. What Foods Did Pythagoras Used to Eat? The Pythagorean Diet in a False Mirror The question: what foods did Pythagoras used to eat?, was seriously asked by many imitators of the Pythagorean lifestyle who sympathized with the Pythagoreans still living in diasporas in Greek cities. They were styled Pythagorists (ΠπζƀγνξηƃƄƀί), as opposed to Pythagoras personal friends, the so-called Pythagorics (Ππζƀγνξηθνί), and to their disciples: the Pythagoreans (ΠπζƀγόξƂηνη) (T.24). While the latter ones used to live the genuine Pythagorean life (ΠπζƀγόξƂηνο Ƅξόπνο Ƅνῦ βίνπ), to use Plato s own words (T.25), the Pythagorists did nothing but fed on a bizarre diet. The middle Attic comedy mocks on these strange men and women who ate no meat and drank no wine (T.26). What a severe fare, of prisoners or beggars! (T.27). The quotations come from the fragments of comedy Tarentines (The Men from Tarentum) by Alexis, a native of Thurii, that was inspired by Plato s third visit to Sicily (361 BC) and a circle of his Italian friends who resided in the Academy after they emigrated, or were exiled, from their native cities. It was Dion of Syracuse, Plato s student in the years BC, and companions of Archytas, the Pythagorean king of Tarentum who lost his throne ca. 360 BC (Edmonds 2: 479 note d; contra: Burkert 1972, 201 notes 49 and 51). In common opinion of many, the Pythagorists never ate meat or sacrificed any living things to the gods (T.28). They satisfied themselves only with bread, greens, and pure water (T.29, T.30). Alexis, in his another comedy entitled Pythagorizousa (The Pythagorean Woman), remarks that they sometimes consumed something else, like dried figs, olive-mush, and cheese (T.31). The ordinary Athenians in the mid-fourth century BC like the slave who is speaking in Aristophon s comedy The Pythagorist did not believe that the reason why the Pythagorists ate neither meat or fish would be different from a poverty they actually lived in (T.32). The poets of the middle comedy represent the Pythagorists as keeping the ascetic diet similar to the Orphic one. Aristoxenus Dementi Aristoxenus of Tarentum, Aristotle s disciple and successor, who lived in Athens contemporaneously with Aristophon (T.33), refuted this satirical image as a pure fiction. He 32

33 10-11 (2015) published the first biography of Pythagoras under the title On Pythagoras and His Circle (T.34), of which some fragments are extant. 18 Aristoxenus intended to represent Pythagoras as a sage absolutely free from any superstitious beliefs and, then, to contrast an ideal figure, as was he, to his grotesque caricature a Pythagorist. He aimed at demonstrating that the genuine Pythagoreanism never focused on the question of diet. Especially, the biographer fought against the erroneous opinions of most people that Pythagoras abstained from meat and the Greek beans (T.35). What a nonsense, he says, Pythagoras never abstained from animal flesh (T.36); moreover, the Samian philosopher both sacrificed and ate cocks, sucking goats and piglets (T.37). It follows, from Aristoxenus argumentation, that Pythagoras could have pork and beans for dinner! According to the biographer, Pythagoras abstained from ploughing oxen and lambs only (T.38, T.39). What about the alleged bean taboo? Aristoxenus argued that Pythagoras loved to eat beans that were his favorite vegetables (T.40), and that the anti-bean line: ƁƂηινί, πάλɓƃηινη, θπάκσλ ἄπν ρƃξƀο ἔρƃƃζƀη has been originally composed by Empedocles, the Pythagorean (T.41); note that Callimachus attributed the same verse to Pythagoras (T.16). The next legend Aristoxenus discredited was that Pythagoras neither drunk wine or ate fish. It is true, he says, that the philosopher of Samos never drunk wine but only during daytime when drinking wine is incorrect and rarely ate fish (T.42). Aristoxenus gave an insight into the Pythagorean menu. He reports that the Pythagoreans used to eat for lunch bread with honey or honey-comb (T.43), because these foods are healthy (T.44). For dinner, he continues, they regularly consumed bread made of millet and vegetables, both raw and boiled, and sometimes ate sacrificial meat except these parts of flesh that were prohibited (T.45). During dinners, which they always had before the sunset, they used to drink wine but rarely tasted fish (T.46). At last, they poured a libation of wine and swore not destroying any cultivated plant or harmless animal (T.47). Nevertheless, Aristoxenus dementi awakes some suspicions. How did he know what foods did Pythagoras used to eat? Why did he ignore the tradition transmitted through the generations since Pythagoras death (ca. 500 BC) and written down after the persecution of the Pythagoreans in Italy (ca. 450 BC)? For, as Charles H. Kahn suggested, Aristoxenus an ex-pythagorean conflicted with Plato and his Italian friends showed the Pythagorean diet in 18 The fragments of Aristoxenus, to the best of my knowledge, have been edited twice, by Fritz Wehrli (1967) and Maria Cardini (2010, rpt ). In my opinion, none of these two editions is complete: the several fragments, evidently taken from Aristoxenus work, are lacking both in Wehrli and Cardini. These are our T.35, T.37, T.42, and perhaps T.45. The editors distribute the extant fragments of Aristoxenus work into three distinct titles: On Pythagoras and His Circle, Pythagorean Maxims, and On the Pythagorean Life. 33

34 10-11 (2015) equally tendentious light as did the middle comedy (Kahn 70 71). To sum up, Aristoxenus dementi has nothing to do with the genuine Pythagoreanism. The Pythagorean Symbols The Pythagorean tradition transmitted a collection of Pythagoras sayings that were named acousmata after acousmatics the most genuine heirs of Pythagoras philosophy (T.48), whom we can identify with the Pythagorics and the Pythagoreans (cf. T.24). The acousmata ( things heard ) note that the name suggest an oral transmission contained, among others, the simple instructions what is to do or what is not to do (T.49). They were believed to be commandments and laws given by Pythagoras himself (T.50). The acousmata have been also called symbols the term that means things done in the context by the early Pythagoreans, especially those who lived in diasporas (T.51). For, doing what Pythagoras said signified that a person either was one of them or wanted to enter a Pythagorean club (T.52). The Pythagorean Symbols became a secret code that had to be done but never spoken in the presence of people from outside the Pythagorean brotherhood (T.53) (Berra; Struck ; Zhmud , 196; Parker ). The collection of the Pythagorean Symbols transmitted by the acousmatic tradition contains a list of 75 precepts 19 that are formulated in a brief imperative: do or do not, of which ten items concern the food regulations (Delatte 1915, ). These are prohibitions on beans, sacred fish, white chickens, animal hearts and brains, non-sacrificial meat, and meat in general (T.54). Despite of their name things heard, the acousmata have been written down, to trust Nicomachus of Gerasa (T.55), after the political catastrophe that decimated the Pythagorean population in the southern Italy in the mid-fifth century BC (Baron 138 note 2). Nevertheless, they were kept in secrecy for the next 100 years. The first man to publish them was according to Timaeus of Tauromenium Diodorus of Aspendus (T.56), a shaggyhaired Pythagorean poser who flourished ca. 350 BC (Burkert 1972, ; Baron ). During the same period (approximately BC), the Symbols were incorporated into the 19 Iamblichus transmitted the list of 39 Pythagorean Symbols (Exhortation to the Study of Philosophy 21 [ Places]). The modern editions, by Fridericus Boehm (1905) and Kenneth S. Guthrie (1920, only in English translation), complete Iamblichus list to enumerate 75 Pythagorean Symbols. They give the same number of them but differ in numeration and contents. The entire list of the acousmata can be enlarged to 120 or even 200 items (Thom 2013, 77 note 2). 34

35 10-11 (2015) Pythagorean Memoirs (lost), which have been excerpted by Alexander Polyhistor between 80 and 60 year BC (T.57). 20 Since the first publication of the Pythagorean Symbols ca. 350 BC, the ancient readers required some clues to solve Pythagoras puzzles. The fourth-century writings, which dealt with the topic, are known only by their titles: Explanation of the Pythagorean Symbols by Anaximander Junior (T.58a) and On the Symbols by Androcydes (T.58b). Both of them might be referred by Alexander Polyhistor in his lost work On the Pythagorean Symbols (T.58c). The most valuable, however, seems to be Aristotle s lost work On the Pythagoreans, transmitted by several authors of the imperial period, which must have been known to his disciple Aristoxenus of Tarentum who wrote the first biography of Pythagoras. So far as we know, Aristotle utilized the Pythagorean Memoirs (the same as Alexander Polyhistor excerpted 300 years after) and referred the Pythagorean Symbols too. It is worth noting that all the works: by Anaximander, Androcydes, and Aristotle, were composed in the mid-fourth century when the early Pythagoreanism was dead. Because of the loss, the most important texts to throw the light on the Pythagorean Symbols are two treatises by Iamblichus of Chalcis composed in the AD 290s, especially On the Pythagorean Way of Life. The particular sections of the work stem directly from the acousmatic tradition via Aristotle s On the Pythagoreans (Huffmann 61) and Androcydes On Symbols (Haussleiter 108). Iamblichus informs, after Aristotle, that some of the Pythagorean Symbols had the reasons why someone should do something, or do not, attached to them from the beginning (i.e. by Pythagoras himself or his disciples) and the other have not; the reasons that have been added later seem more probable than the genuine ones that used to focus on religious matters (T.59). He also relates, after Nicomachus of Gerasa (or Androcydes), the Pythagorean Symbols concerning the food prohibitions and the reasons for them: the ban on hearts and brains because they are the ruling organs of body; the abstinence from mallow that is to symbolize the cosmic sympathy; the prohibition on blacktail and pandora for they are fish sacred to the underworld gods; and, finally, the taboo on beans as they figuratively pertain to the soul (T.60). 20 The passage on ritual purity belongs to the important testimonies on the Pythagoreans, recorded by Alexander Polyhistor in his Successions of Philosophers and transmitted by Diogenes Laertius (Lives of Eminent Philosophers [ Dorandi]). Alexander claims that he excerpted the material from the Pythagorean Memoirs (T.57). The Pythagorean Memoirs have been an object of scholarly discussion. Charles H. Kahn believes that Alexander referred a Hellenistic document dating from BC (Kahn 82 83), but A. A. Long does not accept his opinion (Long , 158). 35

36 10-11 (2015) Iamblichus, in the final chapter of his another work: Exhortation to the Study of Philosophy, enumerates the list of 39 Pythagorean Symbols to interpret them in an allegorical way through symbols (T.61). The source of which he derived the list and the interpretation is unknown. Arnaud Delatte suggested a neo-pythagorean source that went back to Androcydes (Delatte 1915, 286), which seems very convincing to me. The reason why I discuss the Pythagorean Symbols in the paper on the Orphic diet is following. As we have seen in part one, the Orphic taboos on meat, beans, and eggs were enrooted in Orpheus ἹƂξὸο ιόγνο, subtitled Κƀζƀξκνί (unless they were two different works), that was the top secret in antiquity and has been lost. Of which, there are extant two original lines: on the blood taboo (T.10 κεɓὲ ἀƅ ᾑκƀγκέλεο ἐƃράξƀο ἔƃƅσ Ƅὸ πῦξ) and the famous ban on beans (T.18 ἶƃόλ Ƅνη θπάκνπο ƄƂ ƅƀγƃλ θƃƅƀιάο ƄƂ Ƅνθήσλ); the verse on the sanctity of eggs is alluded but never quoted (T.21b ἀƃίƃσ μπλƃƅνƃη). Likewise, some of the Pythagorean Symbols recur in the Hieros Logos attributed to Pythagoras. For example, the Pythagorean Symbol 14 ( Abstain from any living animals ) is paired by the quotations from Pythagoras Hieros Logos that prohibit from bloody sacrifices to the gods: βσκὸλ ἐξƃύζνλƅƀο κƀθάξσλ ζƃξκνƃη ƅόλνηƃηλ (T.62) and from injuring any fruit trees or killing harmless animals (T.63). The latter quotation can be linked to Aristoxenus report on the Pythagorean suppers after which the oath of not harming fruitful plants and tame animals was proclaimed (T.47). Similarly, the Pythagorean Symbol 15 ( Eat not the heart ) corresponds to the hexametric line from the Hieros Logos quoted in Stobaeus (Delatte 1915, 35): ſƃίɓƃν Ƅο δσο, κή κηλ θƀƅƀζπκνβνξήƃῃο (T.64). Finally, we find in Herodotus the mention about the ἱξὸο ιόγνο that prohibited from using woolen wrappings in the burial rituals (T.65). This is the earliest reference to the Sacred Tale we have, but it occurs in unclear context, being Orphic, Bacchic, Egyptian, and Pythagorean as well (Parker 290). Presumably, Herodotus alluded to the Italiotic beliefs (note that he was a citizen of Thurii since 443 BC) and to the Pythagorean Symbol 14 ( Abstain from any living animals ), because a wool, as Flavius Philostratus explains, belongs to the animals that are virtually dead (T.66). Besides, Iamblichus of Chalcis mentions Pythagoras Hieros Logos that was recited aloud amid the initiated of the southern Italy (T.67). The sacred text he summarized contains, among others, the Pythagorean Symbol 28 ( Honor the gods with cedar, laurel, cypress, oak, and myrtle ) and the Symbol 39 ( Roast what not is boiled ). Above all, the Pythagorean Symbol 11 ( Abstain from beans ) is linked to the famous line: ἶƃόλ Ƅνη θπάκνπο ƄƂ ƅƀγƃλ θƃƅƀιάο ƄƂ Ƅνθήσλ (T.68), which is attributed both to Pythagoras and Orpheus. From these, 36

37 10-11 (2015) one can infer that the relation between these two Hieroi Logoi the Orphic one and the Pythagorean one that included the Pythagorean Symbols (Thesleff 1961, 18 19) were very close. Symbol 12: Abstain from the Sacred Fish The Pythagorean Symbols concerning particular foods are well documented. Aristotle informs that Pythagoras banned on the fish that were sacred (ἱƃξνί) note that ἱƃξνί was a Greek word for tabooed (Parker 328) and dedicated to the gods (T.69). According to Aristotle, the sacred fish were four in number: ἐξπζ(ξ)λνο, Ƅξίγιε, κƃιάλνπξνο, and ἀθƀιήƅε (T.70a c). The first three can be identified as follows: ἐξπζλνο pandora (Thompson 65 67), Ƅξίγιε red mullet (Thompson ), and κƃιάλνπξνο melanure that means blacktail (Thompson ). All of them are tasty and popular in the Sicilian cookery until today. The pandora is of brilliant red, whence Ovid says of rubens erythinus (Halietica 104 [78 Mikołajczak]) and the Italian name of the fish is fragolino ( strawberry ) (Thompson 65; Hoffman 264) (fig. 2). Fig. 2. The pandora, Pagellus erythrinus L (ἐξπζλνο). Source of illustration: < The red mullet has an intensive red flesh (fig. 3); the melanure, or blacktail, is marked with a characteristic black spot on its tail according to its Greek and English names (fig. 4). 37

38 10-11 (2015) Fig. 3. The red mullet (Ƅξίγιε). Source of illustration: < blacktail, Oblada melanura L (κƃιάλνπξνο). Source of illustration: < Fig. 4. The The ἀθƀιήƅε is a marine creature. D Arcy Wentworth Thompson and Andrew Dalby identify it with a sea-anemone (Thompson 5 6; Dalby 2003, 296). The identification, though being compatible with Aristotle (History of Animals 531a b, 590a), is failing because seaanemones are not tasty. It would make the prohibition from them an absurd (why prohibit from something uneatable?); besides, it does not explain the link that Aristotle made between ἀθƀιήƅε and κήƅξƀ ( uterus, womb, pork belly ) in his work on the Pythagoreans (T.70a c). Three ancient authors bring the solution of the problem. Athenaeus of Naucratis, in his article on the ἀθƀιήƅε, refers Aristophanes Lysistrata 549 and remarks that the poet in a comic way jumbled ἀθƀιήƅε and κήƅξƀ (T.71). We are not told why Aristophanes associated these two. The cue is given by the physician Dioscorides who informs that the seed of plant ἀθƀιήƅε, called also θλίɓε, is an aphrodisiac that opens the uterus when drunk with grape syrup (T.72). The plant in question is stinging nettle, otherwise known as urtica Romana vel urtica Graeca, that has globular thorny seeds (fig. 5). 38

39 10-11 (2015) Fig. 5a (left). Urtica Graeca in the Codex Neapolitanus 57. Source of illustration: < Fig. 5b (right). The stinging nettle (Urtica pillulifera) found in the neighborhood of Plato s Academy, Athens. Photo by E. O. The stinging seed of urtica Graeca resembles the sea urchin, called also urtica in Latin (cf. T.70b), which is a globular creature endowed with long black thorns (fig. 6). The edible sea urchin, il riccio di mare, has inside a coral-colored roe of which the delicious Sicilian sauce for pasta is prepared. Fig. 6. The Sicilian sea urchin (ἀθƀιήƅε). Source of illustration: < 39

40 10-11 (2015) My point is the ἀθƀιήƅε was a popular (not technical) term applied for one of edible species of sea urchin that is similar to the seed of stinging nettle, of which an aphrodisiac for women was produced. It explains the association, otherwise unexplained, between ἀθƀιήƅε and κήƅξƀ in Aristophanes and Aristotle. With these four sea animals, the most popular delicacies were excluded from the Pythagorean menu. What was the reason of ban on them? Androcydes delivered two alternative explanations as concerns the blacktail. First of them was that the blacktail has been prohibited because it is sacred to the underworld gods (T.73), who are opposite to the heavenly ones (T.74). The second explanation concerns the black color (the fish has a dark spot on its tail) that is to symbolize the obscurity of lies (T.75a), or the black characters of bad people (T.75b). Let us turn to the red fish. The pandora was prohibited from the same reasons as the blacktail: for it belongs to the earth gods (cf. T.73). Besides, the name of pandora, ἐξπζ(ξ)λνο in Greek, was etymologized as ἐξπζξόο that means red and linked to the cognate verb ἐξπζξηάσ that is to blush, 21 so the coloristic interpretation suggested by Androcydes goes thus: receive not an unblushing and impudent man (T.76). As concerns the red mullet, we have no strictly Pythagorean commentary on the prohibition on it. However, some texts of classical and Hellenistic periods mention the ritual prohibition on the red mullet. Melanthius of Athens, the well-informed author of the book on the Eleusinian Mysteries, says that the red mullet was sacred to Hecate, the sea goddess (T.77). Apollodorus of Athens, an expert in the Athenian cults, reports that the red mullet, which is Ƅξίγιε in Greek, was sacrificed to Hecate because it bears her name (T.78). What it actually means is clear from the fragment of a lost comedy by Charicleides that enumerates three cultic epithets of Hecate: ΤξηνƁƄεο ( of threeway ), Ƅξίκνξƅνο ( three-formed ), and Ƅξηπξόƃσπνο ( three-faced ) (T.79). The reason, then, why the Ƅξη- fish is sacred to Hecate needs no comment (see, however, Delatte 1915, 224). Certainly, Nicomachus is right in his observation that some animals were excluded, in the Pythagorean circles, from a common consumption because of honor of the gods to whom they were devoted (T.80). Iamblichus remark perfectly agrees with Aristotle s statement that Pythagoras prohibited the sacred fish for it is not right that gods and men should be allotted the same things, any more than free men and slaves (T.69). 21 LSJ 692 s.v. erythriaō, 693 s.v. erythros. 40

41 10-11 (2015) Let us return, now, to the contradictory statements that appear in two quotations from Aristotle s work on the Pythagoreans (compare T.70b and T.70c). There is no doubt that the contradiction is due to the transmission of the text. The former quotation (T.70b ρξƃζƀη Ɓὲ Ƅνο ἄιινηο, they ate the other kinds [of fish] ) appears in Aulus Gellius, the AD secondcentury author who was well-versed in the early Pythagorean writings. His point is that only some species of marine creatures were excluded from the Pythagorean menu whereas the other were not. The latter fragment (T.70c ἀπέρƃƃζƀη ƃρƃɓὸλ Ɓὲ θƀὶ Ƅλ ἄιισλ ζƀιƀƃƃίσλ μπκπάλƅσλ, he recommended abstinence from all seafood ) means quite different thing: that all seafood had been prohibited. The fragment has been transmitted by Porphyry of Tyre who derived from Antonius Diogenes who, in his turn, used the second-hand quotation from Aristotle. The quotation has been distorted by a neo-pythagorean source with its vegetarian ideology that can be seen also in Plutarch s Table Talks. According to Plutarch (T.81), the Pythagoreans were credited with abstaining from any fish on the base of the funny wordplay on the ἔιινς, 22 a poetic epithet of fish ( mute, dumb ), which corresponds to silence that the Pythagoreans had to maintain during the five-year novitiate (Teodorsson 3: ; Gemelli 144). The neo-pythagorean ideology, however, vegetarianism, and absolute abstinence from any fish have nothing to do with the early Pythagorean taboo on the so-called sacred fish: pandora, red mullet, blacktail, and sea urchin. The more representative for the fish taboo of the early Pythagoreans seems to be the quotation from Cratinus comic play on Trophonius, the hero worshipped at Lebadea (ca. 430 BC). Cratinus explains that the worshippers of the Boeotian Trophonius used to avoid eating red mullet because of its intensive red flesh and were afraid of melanure due to its black tail looking like a bad omen (T.82). The question of color (black and red) might be a decisive reason why the early Pythagoreans considered these fish: blacktail and red mullet, as sacred to the underground gods (T.73, T.74) and Hecate (T.77 T.79). Symbol 13: Not to Sacrifice a White Chicken The Pythagorean taboo on black and red marine creatures can be completed by the prohibition on white chickens, which seemed to Plutarch as ridiculous as the Egyptian book of superstitions (T.83). By the way, the Symbol 13 might originate the late ancient legend on 22 The ἔιινς, a word of uncertain etymology (either mute or scaled ), was a common poetic epithet of fish, see LSJ 537 s.v. ellops; Beekes s.v. ellops. 41

42 10-11 (2015) Pythagoras as a rooster (Marcovich 1988). Iamblichus, after his anonymous neo-pythagorean source, quotes the Symbol 13: nourish a cock, but do not sacrifice it, together with an explanation that was originally added to it: for it is sacred to the Moon and the Sun (T.84). The Iamblichean explanation is paralleled by two other testimonies, however, none of them contains both Moon and Sun. The entry on Pythagoras in the Suda lexicon mentions only the latter one: Pythagoras also recommended not eating a white rooster, as it is sacred to the Sun (T.85). Aristotle, in turn, knew the former one: not to eat white cocks, as being sacred to the Month (T.86). It does not matter that Alexander Polyhistor who has transmitted Aristotle s text replaced the Moon (T.84 κήλῃ ) with the Hellenistic deity Men (T.86 Μελὸο), associated with the moon goddess Selene (Mene) and the sun god Helios (CMRDM 86 87). Nevertheless, a remark on symbolic meanings of the colors: black to represent the evil and white to symbolize the good, is derived from the genuine Pythagorean tradition, like the Pythagorean Memoirs. The Symbols 12 and 13 did not exclude from the Pythagorean menu fish and fowl at all but only the particular species. The cause of the exclusion was nothing else but the color: black, red, and white. The blacktail was banned because of its blackness that represents the evil and makes the fish sacred to the underground gods (T.73, T.74). The white roosters were prohibited from sacrificing for their whiteness that made the white birds sacred to the heavenly gods: Helios and Mene (or Men), and was to symbolize the good (T.86). It is worth of noting that the Pythagoreans were notorious of wearing white clothes (Tigchelaar). What about the other prohibited creatures: pandora, red mullet, and sea urchin? Both pandora and red mullet have intensive red color, and the sea urchin is red inside, what follows that the cause of the ban on them was the redness. Why the redness had been prohibited among the Pythagoreans is clear from the link made between the red mullet and Hecate (T.77 T.79). Since the goddess of gates and crossroads, according to the Orphic Hymn to Prothyraia (Orphic Hymns 2 [29 Fayant]), patronized births and was responsible for generation of the human race. Symbol 18: Transplant but Do Not Eat Mallow The prohibition against eating mallows belonged to the most essential Pythagorean Symbols (T.54). Damascius reports that the neo-platonist Proclus refused to feed on mallow leaves as contradicting the Pythagorean law when his doctor Iacobus recommended mallow instead of indigestible cabbage (T.87). Dioscorides, the famous physician, informs 42

43 10-11 (2015) that the mallow leaves were good for intestines and were believed to be an antidote against many internal diseases and venomous animals (T.88). The plant in question is Malva silvestris L., a common mallow, called κƀιάρε in Attic dialect and κνιόρε in vernacular Greek (LSJ 1077 s.v. malache; Beekes 896 s.v. malache ). The illustrated codex of Dioscorides, produced ca. AD 515, offers an adequate image of the sacred plant: it had deep purple flowers, an orange-colored root, and the extraordinary leaves shaped as the seven-pointed stars (fig. 7). The mallows that are found in Greece nowadays, with pink flowers and five-pointed leaves, must be of some different kind. Juliana Anicia Codex, 228v. Source of illustration: < Fig. 7. The mallow (κƀιάρε) in the Aristotle, in his valuable work On the Pythagoreans, makes clear what part of the plant was the object of worship: it was the mallow leaf (T.89). Furthermore, Androcydes interprets the mallow as a symbol of the sympathy between heavenly and earthly things 43

44 10-11 (2015) (T.90a). In the same vein, an unknown neo-pythagorean quoted by Iamblichus comments on the meaning of the Pythagorean commandment: the mallow, because of its turning with the sun, is to symbolize the cosmic sympathy of all beings centered in Helios (T.90b). Both authorities presumably refer a seven-pointed mallow leaf because the interpretation they suggest (mallow as a symbol of the cosmic sympathy) resembles the neo-pythagorean arithmology of seven, the sacred number (Theology of Arithmetics 43 [57 58 Falco]). We have also a puzzling fragment, derived from the Chaldean Oracles, that indicates that the abstention from mallow concerned the month of August alone (T.91). Because of incompleteness of the Chaldean Oracles, it is difficult to say if the restriction on mallow had anything to do with Pythagoreanism. If it really had, it might imply a periodical (monthly) abstinence from mallow leaves in the Pythagorean circles of late antiquity. Symbol 17: Eat of Sacrificial Animals Only The Pythagorean Symbol: eat of sacrificial animals only, attested by the best of our sources since 350 BC, denies the alleged vegetarianism of the early Pythagoreans. Plutarch informs in his Table Talks that the Pythagorics (i.e. personal pupils of Pythagoras) were allowed tasting only sacrificial meat (T.92). The rule implied, he continues, the prohibition on fish of all kinds because no fish was sacrificed to the gods. Likewise Porphyry explains the question of Pythagorean vegetarianism : the Pythagoreans, he says, abstained from flesheating all their lives except the occasions of offering animals in place of themselves (ἀλζ ἑƀπƅλ), while the non-sacrificial meat was absolutely prohibited (T.93). The early Pythagorean regimen evidently was imitated by the neo-platonist Proclus, a radical vegetarian, who sometimes used to taste a sacrificial meat (T.12a). Aristotle, quoted by Iamblichus, gives a good reason for the Symbol 17. He says that the Pythagoreans believed that the human soul never enter the sacrificial animals whereas it can incarnate into the other living things (T.94). The Aristotelian explanation can be linked to the earliest source on Pythagoras doctrine of transmigration of the souls, that is, an anecdote told by Xenophanes of Colophon: when Pythagoras heard a puppy dog, beaten by someone, he recognized the soul of his friend whining in it (T.95). The story seems to agree with the explanation of the Symbol 17 as transmitted by Aristotle: the soul of Pythagoras friend could incarnate into a dog because dogs were not sacrificed in regular rites. We have also a fragment from Empedocles who claims that some human souls incarnate into lions and laurel trees (T.96). No-one ever sacrificed lions, so a special prohibition was not needed, but the 44

45 10-11 (2015) laurel leaves were and still are used as a spice in the Greek cookery (fig. 8). Unsurprisingly, among the extant fragments from Empedocles there is the prohibition from picking bay leaves: keep completely from leaves of laurel (T.97). The verse could also allude to the Symbol 28: Honor the gods with cedar, laurel, cypress, oak, and myrtle (T.54). a Fig. 8a. The Ɓάƅλε (bay laurel) in the Morgan Dioscorides, 37r. Source of illustration: < Fig. 8b. The laurel branch, Laurus nobilis. Source of illustration: < It has not been said clearly what animals were sacrificial and consumed during the Pythagorean banquets. We can assume that pork and beef, the most popular sacrificial meat, were allowed and considered as, to say, kosher. The sources highlight the special prohibitions on working oxen, rams, and the pork belly 23 (T.37 T.39, T.70a c). What there is left are piglets and calves, kids and sheep, domestic fowl and chickens except the whitefeathered ones. b 23 Andrew Dalby claims that the Greek κήƅξƀ was not a pork belly but a swine womb after miscarriage (Dalby 2003, 360 s.v. womb ). However, the recipe for preparing the latter one (e.g. Athenaeus of Naucratis, Learned Banqueters 3.101A B [1: 548 Olson]) was more typical of the Roman kitchen than the Sicilian cookery. 45

46 10-11 (2015) Symbols 15 16: Eat Not the Heart & Brain The prohibition against eating hearts and brains has to be connected to the previous one ( eat of sacrificial animals only ). It means the Pythagoreans could consume flesh of some sacrificial animals except their hearts and brains. Why? The answers diverge in a few directions. The most obvious reason is that given by Androcydes: heart and brain of every animal are ruling parts and seats of its thinking and living, and it is why they are excluded from any sacrificial feasts (T.98). The Pythagorean Memoirs, quoted by Alexander Polyhistor, may also be helpful in explaining that particular parts of soul are located in the heart and brain, between which there is found the ἀξρή of the soul that draws nourishment from the blood (T.99). As concerns the ἀξρή, Timaeus of Locri considered a brain as the ἀξρή of body (T.100); likewise, Philolaus of Croton thought that the brain and heart constitute, respectively, the ἀξρƀί of human and animal life (T.101). The quoted passages on the Pythagorean psychology explains the Pythagorean prohibition on these organs (eating hearts and brains would be as much as to consume the soul itself) and the Jewish law against eating blood of sacrificial animals (for blood is equal to animal s life) (T.102). Another reason is less evident. Aristotle, the best of our sources, links the ban on heart to the taboos on pork belly and beans (T.103). At the first glance, it seems curious because beans (vegetable) and heart (a part of animal) have nothing to do with each other. We can quote, however, Athenaeus short entry on pigs brains, probably based on Aristotle, that informs that the ancient philosophers do not permitted to eat the swine brain because it contains almost all senses of the animal, and, moreover, brains are comparable with beans, for, according to the well-known verse, eating beans is like devouring one s parents heads (T.104). We find, again, a ruling part of animal body (brain) linked to the beans. Why the beans were associated with the hearts and brains? Perhaps, the answer has been suggested by Empedocles (transmitted by Aristoxenus of Tarentum) who etymologized the beans (θπάκνπο) as the testicles responsible for reproduction (ƀἴƅηνη Ƅνῦ θπƃλ) of the human race (T.105). There is no doubt that the testicles, as reproductive organs, are responsible for procreation but the brains and the hearts are not. However, we find in Plutarch the clear statement that brains and hearts are the first principle of generation (ἀξρὴλ γƃλέƃƃσο), which makes them responsible exactly for procreation (T.106) (Teodorsson 1: 212). If the beans were identified with the testicles, and, in turn, the genitals were associated with hearts and brains, it follows that the latter ones would be linked to the beans. The 46

47 10-11 (2015) association between these three: beans, sexual intercourses, and hearts, is also attested by the first-century temple inscription from Rhodes (T.107) (Robertson 231). The Pythagorean taboo on hearts and beans belonged to the more general prohibition on the particular parts of sacrificial animals. We have very interesting passage derived from the acousmatic tradition and transmitted, via Androcydes (or Aristotle) and Antonius Diogenes, by Porphyry of Tyre (T.108). To trust them all, some parts of sacrificial animals, namely loins, testicles, genitals, marrow, feet, and heads were believed to symbolize four universal principles: γέλƃƃηο, ƀὔμεƃηο, ἀξρή, ƄƂιƂπƄή or, in another version, preserved in Plutarch: δσή, θίλεƃηο, γέλƃƃηο, ƅζνξά (T.109) that constitute together the fifth: ὑπόζƃƃηο, the fundament of all beings. Porphyry provides us with the following examples: testicles and genitals belong to the cathegory of γέλƃƃηο ( generation ); marrow is responsible for ƀὔμεƃηο ( growth ); legs and heads are to represent, respectively, ἀξρή ( beginning ) and ƄƂιƂπƄή ( end ); and, finally, the loins symbolize ὑπόζƃƃηο ( fundament ). It is clear that both hearts and brains (unmentioned here) must belong to the category of γέλƃƃηο, as being identical with testicles and genitals. The discussed passages lead to the conclusion that the acousmatics imposed the further restrictions on the consumption of sacrificial meat, namely the prohibitions against eating the vital parts of animals: legs, heads, genitals, hearts, brains, marrow, and loins, what must have resulted in ban on loin chops, roast beef, and pig s trotters. On the other hand, the ancient sources since Aristotle preserved another explanation of the Pythagorean Symbol 15. They claim that the prohibition against heart-eating means nothing else but do not worry (T.110, T.111) or do not give yourself up to melancholy (T.112). It looks like an allegorical explanation of something else, perhaps the verse from the lost Sacred Tale we have already quoted: ſƃίɓƃν Ƅο δσο, κή κηλ θƀƅƀζπκνβνξήƃῃο (T.64). The context of the extant verse is not given. We can only imagine what it was and accept, if we want to, the speculations of the modern scholars that the Pythagorean taboo on hearts refers the Orphic myth according to which the Titans devoured Dionysus, the baby god, but left his heart untouched (Burkert 1972, ; Bernabé in OF , vol. 2, pp ). The proposal, however, is not supported directly by any ancient testimonies. Symbol 39: Roast What Not Is Boiled The ordinance: roast what not is boiled (T.54, T.67) looks like an instruction for preparing the sacrificial meat that had to be grilled before cooking. The sequence is important 47

48 10-11 (2015) here, because meat boiled before roasting is tasteless. Iamblichus, however, interpreted the Symbol 39 in a moral way: gentleness does not need anger, which brings no one informative thing in understanding the instruction (T.113). Another explanation seems to be more tempting. There is a comment, preserved in book three of the Physical Problems, which refers the prohibition against roasting a boiled meat to the sacred text recited during the initiation, ƄƂιƂƄή (T.114). No one knows what the initiation was because the rituals like that were wrapped with the veil of secrecy. It might be even some late ancient mysteries because the text that mentioned ƄƂιƂƄή the Physical Problems incorporated into the Corpus Aristotelicum dates from the AD third century (Sharples). The hypothesis by Marcel Detienne (Detienne 1979, 69, 74), Martin L. West (West 1983, ), and Alberto Bernabé (OF vol. 2, p. 203) is that the ἑƅζὸλ κὴ ὀπƅλ reflects the myth on the young Dionysus, killed and torn into seven pieces by the Titans who first boiled their victim in a cauldron, and next skewered his boiled limbs on spits to grill them with fire (T.115). Were there any connections between the early Pythagorean instruction on preparing sacrificial meat and the mystic crime of Titans referred since the AD second century onward? I do not know the answer yet. Symbol 14: Abstain from Any Living Things The Pythagorean Symbol 14 makes a confusion. What was the need for the other commandments of the Pythagorean catechism ( eat of sacrificial meat only, do not sacrifice a white chicken, do not consume the heart and brain, do not eat the sacred fish ) if the orthodox Pythagoreans had to eat no living animal? The later neo-platonist Hierocles of Alexandria, who composed a Commentary on the Golden Verses of the Pythagoreans, must have felt the same confusion when he wrote: The precept to abstain from the heart opposes that of abstaining from animals For partial abstinence is superfluous for those to whom the entire animal has been forbidden (T.116). What for, then, or for whom the partial abstinence was? Hierocles supposes, in the quoted passage, that abstaining from the heart is prescribed for beginners, whereas abstinence from living animals is for those already perfect. Hierocles speculation seems to be based on the earlier sources, especially Nicomachus of Gerasa (ca. AD 151) whose work on Pythagoras has been extensively quoted by Iamblichus in his On the Pythagorean Way of Life (Radicke 125 note 13). Nicomachus, then, claims that Pythagoras forbade the theoretical philosophers (Ƅνο ζƃσξεƅηθσƅάƅνηο Ƅλ ƅηινƃόƅσλ) to eat, sacrifice, or harm anything animate (T.117). At the same time, he says, 48

49 10-11 (2015) Pythagoras permitted the others, as having being not purified yet, to consume certain animals except a period of absolute abstinence from meat they had to observe (T.118). The next section is more informative. Nicomachus explains the others as acousmatics or politics, and certain animals as the sacrificial victims: a cock, a lamb or another newborn animal, but never an ox. He also specifies what offerings the theoretical philosophers sacrificed: cakes, flour, honey, frankincense, and fragrant stuffs (T.119). Perhaps the mention on the meateating acousmatics, as opposed to the contemplative philosophers, has something to do with another passage from Nicomachus where he comments on the schism inside the Pythagoreans that took place in the second half of the fifth century BC (Burkert 1972, ; Zhmud ). The Pythagorean movement had split up there and divided into two competitive factions: the acousmatics who preserved Pythagoras authentic teachings and the mathematicians who followed Hippasus 24 (T.120). Moreover, Nicomachus claims that the law-givers of the politics like the theoretical philosophers (T.119) had to abstain from animals because all living beings, both humans and animals, belong to the one great family as sharing the similar life and consisting of the same elements (T.121). The argument from justice appears in Iamblichus Exhortation to the Study of Philosophy where he gives the explanation for the Symbol 14: abstain from the use of living creatures, exhorts to justice, with a due regard for what is of a kindred nature, and a sympathetic treatment of life which is similar to our own (T.122). The argument for vegetarianism from justice goes back to Pseudo-Pythagoras Hieros Logos that links justice to the restrictions against destroying fruit-trees and injuring tame animals (T.123a). Almost the same text recurs in the Pythagorean oath: not to destroy any cultivated plants and not to harm any harmless animals (T.123b). It is known from Aristoxenus that the Pythagoreans recited the oath after every dinner (T.47). The Pythagorean law was obligatory also for the animals that lived in the Pythagorean communities. Nicomachus of Gerasa told a story about an ox of Tarentum that grazed in the bean field. Pythagoras persuaded the animal not to taste the beans again because beans were prohibited among the Pythagoreans and feed only on a human food, which the temple 24 Iamblichus informs that Hippasus of Metapontum (ca BC) was a great mathematician: On the matter of Hippasus: he was a Pythagorean, but because of having disclosed and given a diagram for the first time of the sphere from the twelve pentagons, he perished in the sea since he committed impiety. He acquired fame as having made the discovery, but all the discoveries were of that man, for so they refer to Pythagoras, and do not call him by his name. (Iamblichus, On the Pythagorean Way of Life [52 Deubner] = Hippasus no. 4 Cardini, trans. Dillon Hershbell ). Walter Burkert claims that Hippasus is the oldest Pythagorean we know who worked at mathematics and music theory and was one of the mathematici (Burkert 1972, ). For more detailed treatment of Hippasus see: Horky

50 10-11 (2015) visitors offered to him (T.124a b). Marcel Detienne, in his La cuisine de Pythagore, speculates that if the ox did not stop feeding on beans, it would be punished and killed for transgressing the Pythagorean law, by analogy to the ancient Athenian custom (Detienne 1970, ). For, the ancient Athenians since the sixth century BC used to sacrifice the criminal bull for the alleged crime of tasting an offertory cake during the annual festival of Bouphonia held on the 14 th day of Skirophorion (Simon 8 12). There is nothing in the Greek sources to support the hypothesis of Detienne, unless the Evangelical story on the fruitless fig tree, punished by Jesus, hinted at it (T.125). The ploughing oxen were under the special protection in the Pythagorean communities, as being excluded from the number of animals the acousmatics could sacrificed to the gods, because killing the animal that works for the people was against the Pythagorean law (T.38, T.119). By analogy, the Jewish law contains a prescription against muzzling a threshing ox (T.126). Besides, the Pythagorean Symbols include a special number 40 on justice: always put salt on the table, for salt that arises from the purest sources: sun and sea, is to remind of what is right (T.127). The prescription, attested already by Aristotle, is alluded by the Gospel of Matthew, in saying: You are the salt of the earth (T.128). Anyway, another tradition prevailed. The Hellenistic sources ignored the differentiations inside the early Pythagoreanism and the complicated code of prohibited foods observed by the conservative acousmatics, to highlight the pure vegetarian faction. The sources, since Timaeus of Tauromenium, cite a line from Pseudo-Pythagors Hieros Logos on worshipping before altars unstained with blood, to support a view that the Pythagoreans never sacrificed living animals to the gods (T.129a c). The Hellenistic authors, one by one, say that Pythagoras, having been a strict vegetarian and a blood-hater, introduced a vegetarian lifestyle that was imitated by the Pythagoreans and the other philosophers, like Socrates, Diogenes, and others. Eudoxus of Cnidus who must have been close to the tradition of the mathematicians via his teacher, Archytas of Tarentum (Burkert 1972, 200) was convinced that the historical Pythagoras was so shocked at every killing and blood-shedding that even approached no butcher or hunter (T.130). The same legend on Pythagoras, a spokesman of vegetarianism, recurs in Onesicritus of Astypalaia (T.131) and Callimachus of Cyrene (T.132). Vegetarianism became the most recognizable feature of the neo-pythagorean way of life. Seneca the Younger relates his own vegetarian experiment he took up place in his early years. Having been influenced by a certain Sotion, a Pythagorean, the young Seneca went to keeping the abstinence from animals, to use his words: abstinere animalibus, during a one 50

51 10-11 (2015) year period until AD 19 when his father forced him to abandon the vegetarian diet, from a fear of the imperial persecution (T.133). Diogenes Laertios tried to persuade that Pythagoras, as the historical figure, fed only on uncooked foods and drank pure water, and never sacrificed any animals to the gods, what follows that the only one altar on which he could make offerings was the altar of Apollo at Delos where flour, meal, and cakes, with no fire or blood, used to be sacrificed. Pythagoras point was, as he says, to practice people and accustom them to simplicity of life (T.134). Likewise, Iamblichus saw in the Symbol 14 an attempt of promoting peace by accustoming the people to save life (T.135). None of these reasons, albeit they sound reasonable, is derived from the genuine Pythagoreanism. A Quest for Purity The basic question: what for Pythagoras ordained these dietetic regulations, has been answered in antiquity. Androcydes thought that Pythagoras pointed at moral excellence, ἀξƃƅή, of his followers (T.136). The answer, given by Hierocles of Alexandria, is that the aim of the Pythagorean Symbols was to be the moral progress that leads the human beings through the partial abstinence from some foods (like the sacred fish, heads, hearts) to the absolute abstention from animals, expressed in the Symbol 14, which is very close to the absolute purification, θάζƀξƃηο, of the human soul from passion (T.137). The Pythagoreans themselves would answer, as did the Pythagorean Memoirs, that the scope they had in mind was ἁγλƃίƀ, the ritual purity achieved not only by means of ablutions with water but also by abstaining from meat, red mullets, blacktails, eggs, egg-laying animals, and beans (T.138). As concerns the origin of the Pythagorean taboos, the Greek authors are essentially congenial with the modern scholarly view that food interdictions are mostly non-greek (Robertson 231) and that the Pytagorean lifestyle was related to the priesthood regulation in ancient Egypt (Gemelli ). Isocrates, in his speech entitled Busiris, represents Pythagoras as the Samian sage who was especially interested in sacrificial rites and temple rituals that were practiced in Egypt where he ventured to (T.139). Hermippus of Smyrna made a remark on affinity between the Pythagorean Symbols and the Jewish and Thracian beliefs (T.140). The interesting comment has been provided by the neo-platonist Iamblichus who saw in Pythagoras a zealous admirer of Orpheus and the religious reformer who mingled the Orphic books, the ancient Egyptian cult regulations, some barbarian religions of the 51

52 10-11 (2015) Chaldeans and of the Magi (perhaps he meant here Judaism and Zoroastrianism), and innumerous Greek mystic rites from Eleusis, Imbros, Samothrace, and Lemnos (T.141). The Iamblichean representation of Pythagoras, as the inventor of syncretistic religion, seems to be quite convincing. It is true that the Pythagorean Symbols were convergent with the sacred law of Eleusis that reads: γνλƃο Ƅηκλ, ζƃνὺο θƀξπνο ἀγάιιƃηλ, δῶƀ κὴ ƃίλƃƃζƀη ( to honor one s parents, to worship the gods with fruit, never to hurt animals ) (T.142). Moreover, if Iamblichus actually had Judaism in mind, the Pythagorean Symbols can be compared to the Holiness Code of the Jewish religion in the Bible: the sacred law that divides all animals into clean and unclean (T.143), that recommends or prohibits from eating the animals with the (νὐ) ƅάγƃƃζƃ formula (T.144), to make the Jewish people a holy nation, ιƀὸο ἅγηνο (T.145) (Houston). Making the holy race was the point at which Pythagoras aimed too. Iamblichus was also right in attributing to Pythagoras teachings an Orphic contribution. Pythagoras indebtedness in Orpheus will be discussed in the next chapter. In the previous chapters, the Orphic and Pythagorean taboos on some foods have been discussed. The collected testimonies lead to the conclusion that the adherents of Orphic movement were strict vegetarians, having consumed no animals or eggs, observed the taboo on beans, and sacrificed only pure offerings with no blood, which agrees with the remark made by Leonid Zhmud on three Orphic taboos: meat, beans, and eggs (Zhmud 205 note 136), but diverges from the opinion by Gábor Betegh on pluralism in the Orphic diet (Betegh ). On the other hand, the sources on the Pythagorean dietary regulations are abundant and often misleading, to make difficult the navigation through the mire of dietary perplexity, to use the words by Michael Beer (Beer 36). The analysis of the Pythagorean material shows the differentiation between the dietary regulations of the acousmatics, with the taboos on black, white, and red things (for they symbolize, respectively, evil, goodness, and birth), and the strict vegetarian regimen observed by the theoretical philosophers and the law-givers of the politics who reduced the system of the Pythagorean prohibitions to the only one Symbol 14: abstain from any living things. My conclusions at this point do not agree with any scholarly experts in Pythagoreanism. What were the points of convergence between the Orphic and Pythagorean diets? I think that the most reasonable is to accept the simplified view that the Pythagoreans shared with the Orphics the taboos on meat (cf. T.54 Symbol 14 and T.6, T.8 T.11), on beans (cf. T.54 Symbol 11 and T.15 T.20), and on eggs (cf. T.138 and T.21 T.22). 52

53 10-11 (2015) III. Why Abstain from Meat? Let us start with the question why the ancient Orphics and Pythagoreans the sources often make no distinction between them abstained from meat. Two reasons are given in the anonymous neo-pythagorean Life of Pythagoras excerpted by Photius. The Pythagoreans ate no flesh of animals, he says, because they blindly believed in reincarnation of the human soul and were convinced that the carnivorous diet, too nutritive and heavy, dulls of mind (T.146). The latter reason seems to appeal to the common sense but probably was so mystical as the former one. The ancient authority, namely Xenocrates of Chalcedon (fl BC), who wrote a special treatise on food derived from animals, argued that meat-eating makes the humans similar to the irrational creatures they devoure; to say: you are what you eat (T.147). Likewise, Diodorus of Sicily claims that the belief in reincarnation of the human soul in animal bodies underlaid Pythagoras rejection of meat-eating (T.148). It is the most probable that the excerpt from Eubulus dissertation on Mithras, preserved in Porphyry, concerned the Pythagorean (or the neo-pythagorean) dietary regulations and had nothing to do with the Persian adherents of Zoroastrianism. The author associated abstinence from meat, both temporal and permanent, with the belief in κƃƅƃκςύρσƃηο (T.149). Now, let the ancient Orphic-and-Pythagorean speak for himself to explain why he has abhorred an animal flesh: There is a decree of Necessity, ratified long ago by the gods, eternal and sealed by broad oaths, that whenever one in error, from fear, defiles his own limbs, having by his error made false the oath he swore daimons to whom life long-lasting is apportioned he wanders from the blessed ones for three times ten-thousand years, being born throughout the time as all kinds of mortal forms, exchanging one hard way of life for another. For the force of air pursues him into sea, and sea spits him out onto earth s surface, earth casts him into the rays of blazing sun, and sun into the eddies of air; one takes him from another, and all abhor him. I too am now one of these, an exile from the gods and a wanderer, having put my trust in raving strife. (T.150) The poet, who makes himself a Ɓƀίκσλ, says that the cycle of lives he passed by was abnormally long (30,000 years!) because in one of his previous incarnations he had tasted an animal flesh. The gods punished him and exiled from the happy netherland and now he is here, in this body, to suffer and hate. Plutarch of Chaeronea interprets Empedocles confession as acknowledgment of murder and cannibalism. (T.151). Why cannibalism? Because Empedocles believed that both humans and animals belong to the same family of living beings and are related to each others (T.152), to constitute the world soul (T.153). It 53

54 10-11 (2015) follows that feeding on animal flesh is like cannibalism (eating kindred persons) or even selfeating (eating bodies that could be your own). Let us dwell, for awhile, on the origin of the doctrine of metempsychosis. Aristoxenus of Tarentum claimed that Pythagoras was the first to declare that the immortal soul used to move away from one body to another until it fulfills the cycle of Necessity (T.154); note that the same divine agent, ἀλάγθε in Greek, has been mentioned by Empedocles (T.150). Dicaearchus of Messana, transmitted by Porphyry of Tyre, is more precise when he says that Pythagoras was the first philosopher who transplanted the doctrine of reincarnation into Greek soil (T.155). Herodotus speculated that the tenet in question had been invented by the ancient Egyptians, and then it has been borrowed by some Greeks whose names were too famous to spell them (T.156); he could hint at Empedocles, his co-citizen in Thurii. Herodotus is mistaken in attributing the idea of rebirth to the Egyptians (Lloyd 3: 59 60); perhaps he meant only that the Greek inventors of reincarnation doctrine have been indebted in someone else. In whom? The Hellenistic pseudepigraph Hieros Logos, allegedly authored by Pythagoras and son (his name was Telauges), tells a story on the initiation of Pythagoras into the Orphic mysteries that took place at Libethra, Thrace, with Aglaophamus the prophet of Orpheus (T.157); otherwise we know that Orpheus was to study the Egyptian theology. 25 We are free to suppose that the mystery teachings by Aglaophamus concerned, to some extent, the doctrine of reincarnation which was probably Orphic but not Pythagorean or Egypian invention (Zhmud 229). It is really hard to agree with the opinion by Walter Burkert, based on Ulrich von Wilamovitz-Moellendorf, that metempsychosis is not attested directly for Orphism in any ancient source (Burkert 1972, 126). Alberto Bernabé has demonstrated the groundlessness of this standpoint (Bernabé 2011). The most striking examples he showed are: the fragment of Pindar s threnody (T.158); the inscribed gold tablet from Thurii that had belonged to the grave goods of the fourth century BC (T.159); the fragment of the Epicurean inscription by Diogenes of Oenoanda (T.160); and last but not least some extant remains from the Orphic Rhapsodies quoted by the neo-platonist Proclus (T.161, T.162). The Orphic Rhapsodies, a lost cosmogonic poem in 24 books, were attributed to Theognetus of Thessaly or Cercops the Pythagorean (OF 1120; OF 1101; Cardini 167); the provenance and date of the poem are unknown. Anyway, the author Orpheus, Theognetus, 25 OF 48iii + OF 55 + OF 61 + OF 293 Kern = Pseudo-Hecataeus, On Abraham and the Egyptians, FGrHist 264 F25. 54

55 10-11 (2015) Cercops or whoever he was explains why every human soul, after the 300-year stay in Hades, must enter the next body. The reason, according to the Rhapsodies, is that the human souls, made out of Titans ashes, must suffer for Titans crime. This is why the souls change the mortal bodies, again and again, and migrate from one life to another, which is either human or animal: of a horse, a ram, a bird, a dog, a snake. The mystic crime and punishment of the Titans seem to be what has activized the process of reincarnation. For what crime the Titans have been punished? Plutarch of Chaeronea explains it was when the Titans murdered the mystic baby Dionysus, dismembered his body, and tasted his blood; for Plutarch, that myth is nothing else than an allegory of rebirth, πƀιηγγƃλƃƃίƀ (T.163). Besides, Nonnus of Panopolis, the learned poet who collected all pieces of Dionysian myth that were current in the AD mid-fifth century, informs that Dionysus, styled Zagreus, metamorphosed eight times before the Titans killed him: into a young man, a monster child, a girl, a lion, a horse, a snake, a tiger, and a bull, so the Titans slaughtered him as the bull (T.164). The murder of Zagreus, as represented by Nonnus, looks like a standard Greek sacrifice of bull or ox, from which the Pythagorean acousmatics were prohibited. The Dionysus story known from the Orphic sources would be a piece of evidence for the Orphic origin of the doctrine of reincarnation and abstinence from animal flesh (Bernabé 2015, 35 38). In Pythagoreanism, on the other hand, the reason for metempsychosis is not given, and this is why Pythagorean metempsychosis looks like a borrowed doctrine, to quote the opinion by Leonid Zhmud (Zhmud ). Anyway, Empedocles, who enjoys describing bloody sacrifices of animals that are incarnated humans (T.165), never refers the first sacrifice of Zagreus. While the Orphic poems taught that the human soul incarnates into a human or animal body (T.161, T.162), the Pythagoreans believed that the rational soul can enter any body, to quote Aristotle (T.166). Any body means here also vegetative forms of life, e.g. trees, shrubs, plants. Pythagoras himself was credited with incarnating into heroes, humans, animals, and plants (T.167). Empedocles declared that he himself was, in his previous incarnations, a man, a woman, a bush, a bird, and a fish (T.168). It explains why Empedocles recommended the abstention from the laurel leaves (T.97). Two Platonic passages from the Timaeus on recycling or descending degradation of the soul stuff (man, woman, bird, quadruped, fish), probably reflect the Empedoclean doctrine, albeit the plants are not included (T.169a b). The Orphics had another motive quite different from belief in metempsychosis for abstention from meat. There was Orpheus song (or songs) on the kidnapping of Cora, the 55

56 10-11 (2015) wandering of Demeter in search of her, the invention of agriculture and law, and perhaps the foundation of the Eleusinian Mysteries. From the fact that the same, or related, song is referred in the Parian Marble (T.170), we can infer that the literary motif like that circulated before 264 BC when the monument was erected. The song has been lost and its reconstruction out of some fragments, scattered in ancient literature since the fourth century BC onwards, is almost impossible. Alberto Bernabé places the fragments under the headline Carmen Orphicum de agri culturae et legum origine (OF ), albeit Otto Kern suggested the title Κƀζƀξκνί (OF Kern). Some passages from Empedocles and Plato may mirror the story (Parker 299 note 93). Empedocles describes the golden age of Love when the people used to offer to the goddess of Love only pure sacrifices with no bloodshed, like honey, frankincense, and the painted figurines of animals instead of living ones 26 that had not be killed (T.171). Plato s Laws and Statesman have almost identical story on the golden age of Cronus (who replaced Empedocles Love) and provide us with further details: the happy existence of the first people, defined as Orphic lives, has been followed by the episode of cannibalism and, next, Triptolenus mission to propagate the gift of Demeter and Core, viz. cultivated cereals (T.172a c). The story transmitted by Plato in the Laws 713a 728d, and allegorized in his Statesman 269a 273e (Horn; Vidal-Naquet), perfectly agrees with two lines from Orpheus song on cannibalism of ancient people, preserved in Sextus Empiricus, and the summary of the rest of the poem: the lawless cannibalism has been stopped by twain goddesses described as ζƃƃκνƅόξνη, the law-bearing ones (T.173); the Orphic Argonautics, in recapitulation of the Orphic Rhapsodies, apply the epithet ζƃƃκνƅόξνο to Phersephone alone (T.174). Finally, Themistius commented on the myth in his speech On Husbandry and interpreted the agricultural mission of Orpheus (not Triptolemus) as the progress of civilization that has replaced the previous barbarity (T.175). To answer the question: why abstain from meat?, we should say that the traces lead to two Orphic myths: the Zagreus myth and the story on the origin of agriculture. From both of them, one conclusion can be drawn: meat-eating has been prohibited because it was reputed to be absolutely lawless, like theophagy (because Titans boiled, grilled, and ate Dionysus flesh), murder (the people used to kill the kindred animals to eat them), and cannibalism (for, the men in ancient times devoured each others). To use again the voice of divine-inspired 26 Empedocles himself, in the later tradition, was credited with sacrificing an ox-shaped cake, cf. T.4a. 56

57 10-11 (2015) Empedocles: Will you not cease the din of slaughter? Do you not see that you are devouring one another because of your careless way of thinking? (T.176). Beans? We used to think that the Pythagorean Symbol 11: abstain from beans (T.54) refers exceptionally to the edible seeds of the plant. It is a mistake. Aristotle who is the most reliable authority for the history of early Pythagoreanism enumerates five reasons for the Pythagorean ban on beans: (1) beans (both flowers and seeds) look like the male genitals; (2) beans (stems), as unjointed, are similar to the gates of Hades; (3) beans (seeds) are injurious; (4) beans (seeds) are like the form of the universe; (5) beans (seeds) belong to oligarchy because they are used in election by lot (T.177). The explanations given by Aristotle were widespread in ancient literature (Delatte 1915, ). The second reason, concerning similarity of the bean stems to the gates of Hades, is found both in Androcydes (T.178) and Porphyry (T.179). The Tyrian philosopher argues that the unjointed or hollow stems of this plant symbolize a passage way between Hades and generation, therefore the bees that are symbols of pure souls never light on the bean flowers. The bean flowers were commented on by Varro, who says as regards a number of the bizarre taboos kept by flamen Dialis, the high priest of Jupiter 27 that there are seen some omen-like letters (litterae lugubres) inscribed on the bean flowers (T.180a). The same piece of information is found in Didymus of Alexandria who translated litterae lugubres into Greek as πέλζηκƀ γξάκκƀƅƀ and replaced flamen Dialis with Pythagoras (T.180b). We have the ancient illustration of the fava bean plant with no black splotch but something like ʘ on the flowers (see fig. 1). I suppose that the ʘ-like sign might be deciphered as the Greek letter ž with which begins the word ζάλƀƅνο ( death ). Plutarch of Chaeronea, in the context of the Roman rituals of Lemuria, etymologized the name of pulse as Lethe (ιάζπξνο ιήζε) and chickpea as Erebus (ἐξέβηλζνο ἔξƃβνο), to show the relation between Hades and the other legumes, too (T.181). The Hellenistic and Byzantine scholia on the Iliad, in referring to the black color of the bean seeds θύƀκνη κƃιƀλόρξνƃο mentioned by Homer, quote two lines from the titleless poem on beans: they are the way out from the house of Hades and the ladder of 27 The flamen Dialis labored under a remarkable number of taboos, among others, he had to keep away from goats, raw meat, ivy, and beans. See Aulus Gellius, Attic Nights (317 Marshall); Plutarch of Chaeronea, Roman Questions , 289F 290A (172 Boulogne); Pötscher

58 10-11 (2015) ascent for the souls of strong men when they return to the rays of light (T.182a b). These verses are evidently related to the Pythagorean explanation of the bean stems as the path from Hades, and belong to Pseudo-Pythagoras Hieros Logos rather than to the Orphic poems. I suppose the stories on the Pythagorean martyrs who preferred to die rather than cross the bean field, which was blooming, and tread on the beans (T.183a c) refer exactly to the quoted verses. The most striking in these relations is that Timycha, the Pythagorean heroine (died in?365 BC), refused not only to eat beans but also to reveal the reason of abhorring them, and she bit off her own tongue to not disclose the mysteries (T.183c ἐμνξρήƃƀƃζƀη Ƅὰ ἀπόξξεƅƀ). The Pythagorean fear of touching beans (T.183b θπάκσλ κὴ ζηγγάλƃηλ) might result from the fear of reincarnation they wanted to avoid. To quote the Pythagoreaninfluenced couplets: 28 Best is for mortals never to have been born at all, nor seen the rays of the bright sun (T.184). The third reason for the bean taboo concerns corruption which prevents the divine prophecy (T.185). The simplest explanation is that eating beans causes bad dreams because of flatulence (T.186); in general, beans were recognized as flatulent (T.187, T.188). The Pseudo-Pythagorean Hieros Logos, however, understands flatulence of beans in a special way: flatulent (πλƃπκƀƅώɓƃηο) is to mean partaking of soul (κƃƅέρƃηλ Ƅνῦ ςπρηθνῦ) (T.189). How come beans partake of soul? Varro explains that the souls of the dead are contained in a bean, and this is why beans were used in the memorial sacrifices to dead relatives (T.190) (cf. T.181). John the Lydian reports that the beans were thrown into the graves for salvation of the human race (T.191). It would mean that throwing the beans into graves was to cause the reincarnation of the souls. Anyway, the reason given by Pliny (souls of the dead are contained in a bean seed) seems to coincide with the Orphic concept of soul, as the breath, or wind, attested by Aristotle (T.192). The fifth question: beans as the symbol of democracy, political corruption, and bribes (T.193 T.195), is closely connected to the oligarchic, and then anti-democratic, orientation of the early Pythagoreans who were involved into the southern-italian politics (Andrews 278 note 38). Another reason for abstaining from beans, different from these five adduced by Aristotle, is more complicated, to say: mystic. There is the oft-quoted verse: To eat beans is as much as to eat your parents heads (T.196), attributed by Heraclides Ponticus to the 28 Arnaud Delatte argues that the couplets, albeit belonging to the Corpus Theognideum, has been influenced by early Pythagoreanism (Delatte 1915, 42). 58

59 10-11 (2015) poet (Orpheus) (T.18) and by Holger Thesleff to Pseudo-Pythagoras (Thesleff 159). The line in question was understood in the sense that beans are literally a human flesh (T.197), which evoked the horror similar to the one of cannibalism (Borgeaud ). The beans were believed, in the Orphic circles, to be not out of the earth, like the other vegetables, but from something else (Morand ). Heraclides Ponticus described a bizarre experiment with a bean, thrown into a coffin and covered with earth, which after 40 days becomes a full-grown human form (T.198). The number of 40 days had a special meaning for the Pythagoreans because of their belief that a human embryo is formed in about 40 days (T.199). A bit different story is told by Antonius Diogenes (T.200) and Porphyry (T.201), who derived from a common source. They say that a bean homunculus can be produced from a buried bean flower in 90 days, and they claim that a crushed bean seed smells like a male sperm (Antionius Diogenes) or a human blood (Porphyry). To explain these curious phenomena, they tell the myth on the common origin of the beans and the mankind that both are said to sprout out of the same putrefaction (ƃεπƃɓόλνο), whatever it means. John the Lydian etymologized the word bean as blood (θύƀκνο ἀπὸ Ƅνῦ ƀἵκƀƅνο), and claimed that both bean and the so-called ρξπƃνιάρƀλνλ grew out of women s menstrual blood (T.202). The chrysolachanon is an alternative name for the red orach (Artiplex hortensis rubra L.) that has edible bloody-colored leaves (fig. 9). Fig. 9a (left). The ἀλɓξάƅƀμηο, or ρξπƃνιάρƀλνλ, in the Juliana Anicia Codex, 50v. Source of illustration: < Fig. 9b (right). The leaves of red orach, Artiplex hortensis rubra L. Source of illustration: < 59

60 10-11 (2015) There is a very interesting inscription from the second-century Smyrna that contains the purity regulations for the precinct of Dionysios Bromios (T.203). The text is recognized as influenced by Orphism, or both by Orphism and Pythagoreanism (Nock; Nilsson ; Robertson ). There are found here, among others, the prohibitions on non-sacrificial meat, eggs, hearts, mint, and beans. The following reason is given: beans, being the most hateful root, are out of the sperm of the Titans. We can compare to it the myth told by Dio Chrysostom in his speech Charidemos on the origin of miserable human race out of the blood of Titans (T.204). Both versions of the myth on the origin of humans: from Titans sperm (the Smyrna inscription) and Titans blood (Dio Chrysostom) may be linked to the curious stories on the growth of mankind and of bean from the same putrefaction (Antonius Diogenes, Porphyry) or from menstrual blood (John the Lydian). Perhaps all these stories are some jigsaw pieces of Orpheus Hieros Logos, the top secret but mentioned by Pausanias twice in the context of Eleusinian prohibition on beans (T.205, T.206). The text of the sacred tale, ἱƃξὸο ιόγνο, attributed by Pausanias to the socalled ξƅηθά, had not to be revealed to the uninitiated and must have remain unspoken. The hero Cyamites mentioned in the latter passage (T.206) is a great unknown. Pausanias says only that Cyamites, the eponym of beans (ΚπƀκίƄεο θύƀκνο), had his temple on Cerameicus, Athens, next to the exit of the Sacred Way to Eleusis. The speculations of Photius on the subject who Cyamites was are highly uninformative (T.207). There is no evidence for accepting the proposal of Francois Lenormant that Cyamites was the same as Iacchus, an Eleusinian god (Lenormant ). It is possible that Cyamites, as belonging to the Eleusinian mythology, might have something to do with the bean homunculus from the Orphic tales quoted just before (T.198 T.202). Some Greek testimonies: by Herodotus, Aristagoras, and Plutarch, refer the allegedly Egyptian origin of the bean taboo (T.208 T.210). It is a pure literary fiction, according to the well-known rule that all Pythagorean institutions were rooted at Egypt, because the meals made of beans like the ful medames were and still are very popular in Egyptian kitchen (Lloyd 2: ; Griffiths 272). I have almost nothing to say about what the gloss on the Homeric black beans informs: under the reign of Cronos the people used a bread made of bean meal which was to be prohibited in the later times to save no memory of Cronos (T.182b). The Roman sources note the use of bean porridge (pulsa fabata) in religious rites (T.190), especially in sacrifice to the goddess Carna on the first of June, called Kalendae fabariae after faba (T.211). On the other hand, we hear from Dicaearchus of Messana that the golden generation that lived in the 60

61 10-11 (2015) Cronian times made the food out of greens that the earth produced spontaneously (T.212a b). I have, however, some objections against combining the Greek testimony with the Latin one, to interpret the puzzling bread of bean eaten by the Cronian people. The problem of favism (the genetic condition called G6PD deficiency), as a possible reason for the Orphic and Pythagorean taboo on fava beans (Scarborough), falls ouside the scope of my paper. Eggs? The reasons for abstaining from eggs have been deduced from Aristotle s explanations of the bean taboo, number one: beans look like the male genitals, and number four: beans are like the form of the universe (T.213). Plutarch says, in his talk on What Came First: A Chicken or an Egg, that in Orphic and Pythagorean circles eggs were denominated θύƀκνη ( beans ) because of being responsible for procreation, θύεƃηο (T.214), in the same degree as the beans, according to Empedocles, were (T.215). The eggs, then, belong in the opinion of Plutarch to the category of γέλƃƃηο, the same as hearts and brains do (T.216) (cf. chapter two, Symbols 15 16). Besides, Plutarch adds, the egg, as producing an animal, is a potential living thing, so eating it in no way differs from devouring the egg-born animals (T.217). Aristotle says that a bean is like the form of the universe (T.213), having in mind either a globular shape of a bean seed or a leathery involucre that encloses the edible content. What Aristotle said about a bean, Plutarch tells on an egg that imitates the world enclosing and engendering everything within itself. Therefore, he says, the egg is sacred to Dionysus and adored during the Dionysiac mysteries (T.218). The adoration of the egg excluded a consumption. We know from the sacred law from Smyrna that eggs were prohibited from eating during the Bacchic festivals celebrated in the local precinct of Dionysus Bromios (T.219). Macrobius, in his paraphrase of Plutarch s text (T.218), applied the Latin term mundi simulacrum for describing an egg as an image of the world (T.220). Macrobius wording brings to mind the Pindaric expression: ƀἰλνο ƂἴƁσινλ that refers the immortal human soul (T.221). It comes out that the identification of a spherical egg as well as an orbicular bean with the world would be another rationale for defining eggs as beans. The most interesting thing is that Plutarch links the taboo on eggs, which was kept by the contemporary Orphics and the neo-pythagoreans, to the Orphic Sacred Tale (Ƅὸλ ξƅηθὸλ θƀὶ ἱƃξὸλ ιόγνλ), of which no one was allowed to quote anything except the opening ἀƃίƃσ μπλƃƅνƃη (T.222). The Orphic Hieros Logos Plutarch referred to has been lost. I want to 61

62 10-11 (2015) believe that Aristophanes line on the cosmic egg, windy, deposited by dark-winged Night at the beginning of the world, reveals something of the lost poem (T.223). In the quotation, the windy (ὑπελέκηνλ) could mean empty or unfertilized, like the chicken eggs often are (Christopoulos 209). The more convincing seems to me another explanation of windy, as suggested by the Hippocratic treatise On Diet: an egg is windy because from small bulk it expands to a great one (T.224). To summarize the chapter: since the early classical period, the Orphics and the Pythagoreans shared the taboos on meat, beans, and eggs. The Orphic regimen that was nothing but a vegan diet must have been much simpler than the Pythagorean regulations transmitted by the acousmatic tradition. The Pythagoreans could consume, during the sacrificial meals, the meat of sacrificial animals in their number: piglets, kids, lambs, calves, and fowls but had to avoid the vital parts of them: heads, brains, hearts, loins, genitals, and feet. Besides, they were prohibited from some black, red, and white things like the black and red fish, white chickens, black-colored beans because of the symbolic meaning of the colors. Of the Pythagoreans, the theoretical mathematicians and the lawgivers of the acousmatics were on a strict vegetarian diet in which they approached to the Orphics. The sources, from Empedocles to Byzantine empire period, give us too many explanations why both Pythagoreans and Orphics kept the taboos on meat, beans, and eggs. However, there is a path seen among the forest of numerous reports. The Pythagorean prohibitions seem to focus on the question of reincarnation: keep away from beans because the stem of this plant, as being soul s passage way from Hades to the upper world, can cause the unwanted comeback to a body; eat of sacrificial animals only because human souls never enter into them; abstain from laurel leaves because human soul may incarnate into the bay tree; never consume eggs because an egg is similar to a bean seed that contains the soul which is spherical-shaped like the world itself. The belief in reincarnation is attested for the Orphics as well as to the Pythagoreans. Nevertheless, the sources do not link the Orphic doctrine of metempsychosis to the Orphic diet, but refer the particular Orphic dietary taboos to the esoteric poem by Orpheus. The date, provenance, and title of the composition are highly problematic. Some pieces of the sacred tale, ἹƂξὸο ιόγνο, can be traced so far as the five-century Magna Graecia (Empedocles) and the post-periclean Athens (Aristophanes, Euripides, Plato). The allusions to it in classical Greek literature and some damaged quotations, which appear only in late ancient and 62

63 10-11 (2015) Byzantine sources, seem to be accidental and often mixed with the verses of the ἹƂξὸο ιόγνο by Pseudo-Pythagoras composed in Hellenistic times (Delatte 1915, ). The material analyzed above allows to infer that the Orphic ἹƂξὸο ιόγνο suggested some reasons for prohibitions from meat, beans, and eggs. There were the myths on the cosmic egg and the golden generation that fed on fruit of the earth; the stories about the mystic crime and punishment of Titans who cooked and devoured the bull-shaped Zagreus, and how out of their blood the new human race together with the bean plant arose; and a quasi-historical narration concerning the first people who were committing cannibalism and carnivorous practices until the Twain Goddesses brought them bread the civilized food. On the other hand, the late ancient sources refer another song by Orpheus, devoted especially to the food prohibitions (T.11 T.14). The conjectural title of the song would be the ξƅηθνὶ θƀζƀξκνί. Apart from the food prohibitions announced in the ξƅηθνὶ θƀζƀξκνί and the particular reasons for them expounded in the ἹƂξὸο ιόγνο, the more general questions remain: what was the aim of holding the vegan diet? what for did the Orphics have to abstain from some foods? The question has been already answered by the Orphic poems, Purifications and Deliverance of the Soul, attributed to Pythagoras: Keep away from food that we have mentioned Then, if you leave the body behind and go to the free ether, you will be immortal, an undying god, no longer mortal (T.13). IV. Δεῖπνον ἄδειπνον. Trying to Restore the Orphic Menu Recipes for Preparing a Pure Meal Let us leave, now, the negative way of taboos and prohibitions to find something constructive. If the Orphics used to avoid every kind of meat, and eggs, and beans, the question is: what did they eat? It is a high time to examine a number of testimonies that can reflect, more or less, the everyday Orphic menu. First of them, in chronological order, is Aristophanes Birds, performed in 414 BC. There is a saying, here, put in the mouth of Epops (actually, Tereus incarnated in a hoopoe), which concerns the birdfeed consisting of white sesame (ιƃπθὰ ƃήƃƀκƀ), myrtle berries (κύξƅƀ), poppies (κήθσλ), and water mint (ƃηƃύκβξηƀ) (T.225). Menelaos Christopoulos thinks that the lines on the birdfeed can mirror the vegetarian diet of the Orphics (Christopoulos 212). He also remarks that Aristophanes birds that abolished animal sacrifices to the Olympian gods are costumes and masks for the sect of Orpheus whose 63

64 10-11 (2015) theogony has been travestied in the parabasis of the same play (Aristophanes, Birds = OF 64). Franciszek Sokolowski was of different opinion when he associated the seeds of Aristophanes birds with the sacred menu of the Thesmophoria (LSS p. 209 note 11). It was the autumn festival, celebrated by Attic women from the 11 th day of Pyanopsion to 13 th, during which the special diet consisting of grains and seeds had being observed. There is an Attic inscription of the fourth century BC that specifies the alimentary products needed to prepare the sacred menu: barley, wheat, barley-groats, wheat-flour, dried figs, wine, olive oil, honey, white and black sesame seeds, poppy seeds, cheese, and garlic (T.226). Euelpides comment in the Birds: you are all living the life of honeymooners! (T.225) seems to support the view of Sokolowski. By κήθσλ, they meant seed of the opium poppy (fig. 10), that was applied also in cookery: there is one kind that is cultivated and that is grown in gardens; its seed is baked into bread to use in a health-inducing diet; they also use it with honey instead of sesame (Dioscorides, De materia medica [2: 218 Wellmann], trans. Beck 273). L., opium poppy) in the Juliana Anicia Codex, 221v. Source of illustrations: < Fig. 10. The κήθσλ (Papaver somniferum 64

65 10-11 (2015) The grains, seeds, flour, dried fruit, and olive oil enumerated in the Attic inscription, were to be ingredients needed for preparing the festive cakes. Harpocration of Alexandria, in commentary on Demosthenes word λƃήιƀƅƀ (a kind of cakes), quotes a recipe for preparing the cakes made of barley-flour, rolled out, soaked in honey, and stuffed with raisins and green chickpeas (T.227a b). The recipe is similar to the popular dessert which is called kataifi in moden Greek. Let us try something else: vegetables. The Attic middle comedy brings another set of foods that were to be consumed by the contemporary vegetarians: Orphics and Pythagoreans; unfortunately, the plays are poorly preserved. The only extant phrase from Antiphanes Orpheus mentions a loaf made of certain leaves (T.228); we can infer from the title Orpheus that the verse concerned the Orphic diet. What leaves did he mean? Another comedy by Antiphanes, entitled The Monuments, represents the Pythagoreans as looking for leaves of tree purslane (T.229). Dioscorides of Anazarbus informs that the boiled leaves of this plant were used as vegetables for eating (T.230). The illustrated codex of Dioscorides, produced for the princess Juliana Anicia in AD 515, shows the plant in question (fig. 11) L., tree-purslane, sea orach) in the Juliana Anicia Codex, 34v. Source: < Fig. 11. The ἅιηκνο (Atriplex halimus 65

66 10-11 (2015) The cycle of comedies on Plato s friends gives the list of other vegetarian delicacies that only Pythagoreans were able to eat. Alexis Pythagoreaness praises dried figs (ἰƃράɓƃο), olive-mush (ƃƅέκƅπιƀ), and cheese (Ƅπξόο), as the most suitable for sacrificing to the gods (T.231); Antiphanes Bumblebee recommends garlic (ƃθνξόɓηƀ), cheese, onions (θξόκκπƀ), and capers (θάππƀξηο), that are tasty and cheap (T.232); Aristophon enumerates capers, pennyroyal (βιήρσλ), thyme (ζύκνο), and asparagus (ἀƃπάξƀγνο) (T.233). Of these, pennyroyal, an aromatic herb with lilac flowers, was a spice ingredient of the Eleusinian θπθƃώλ (Homeric Hymn to Demeter 209 [48 West]) (fig. 12). a Fig. 12a. The βιήρσλ (γιήρσλ) in the Juliana Anicia Codex, 087r. Source of illustration: < Fig. 12b. Pennyroyal, or Mentha pulegium L Source of illustration: < 007e613d5439c0b2945d31d8492e8918.> b Capers, shown in fig. 13, were and still are very popular in the Mediterranean cookery; the ancient people, however, preferred capers fruit and stems, brine-cured, to the buds (Dioscorides, De materia medica [1: 240 Wellmann]). 66

67 Fig. 13a (left). The θάππƀξηο in the Juliana Anicia Codex, 172v. Source of illustration: < Fig. 13b (right). The caper bush (Capparis spinosa L.) in Siracuse, Italy. Photo by E. O. There is an interesting passage, transmitted by Antonius Diogenes (?AD second (2015) century), that concerns, at first glance, the diet of Pythagoras (T.234). The passage in question contains two special recipes for preparing the anti-hunger and anti-thirst foods (ἀιίκνηο θƀὶ ἀɓίςνηο Ƅξνƅƀ ο), that Pythagoras was to prepare every time when he visited the sacred places. The former one, for pastry against hunger, enumerates nine ingredients: (1) poppy seed, (2) sesame, (3) skin of the sea-onion, (4) the asphodelus flowers, (5) leaves of mallows, (6) barley, (7) barley-groats, (8) chickpeas, and (9) honey of Hymettus. The latter recipe, for mixture against thirst, specifies following ingredients, which are also nine in number: (1*) seed of cucumbers, (2*) raisins, (3*) flowers of coriander (θόξηνλ), (4*) seeds of mallows, (5*) common purslane (ἀλɓξάρλε), (6*) scraped cheese, (7*) wheat-meal, (8*) cream, and (9*) wild island honey. As concerns the anti-hunger recipe, we have already met the most of them like poppy, sesame, barley, chickpeas, and honey in the sacred menu for celebrating the Thesmophoria (T.226). The medical applications of the sea-onion (ƃθίιιƀ) and the asphodelus (ἀƃƅόɓƃινο) have been described by Pedanius Dioscorides (De materia medica 2.169; [1: Wellmann]); the late ancient images of these plants come from his work (figs ). Besides, we know from Diogenes Laertios (The Lives of Eminent 67

68 10-11 (2015) Philosophers 8.47) about the dietetic treatise On the Sea-Onion (ΠƂξὶ ƃθίιιεο), attributed to Pythagoras the Physician (Pseudo-Pythagoras, On the Effect of Plants fr. 6 Thesleff [p. 176]). Fig. 14 (left). The ƃθίιιƀ (Scilla maritima L., squill, sea-onion) in the Juliana Anicia Codex, 297v. Source of illustration: < Fig. 15 (right). The ἀƃƅόɓƃινο (Asphodelus ramosus L., asphodelus) in the Juliana Anicia Codex, 26v. Source of illustration: < Of nine ingredients of each recipe (T.234), none recurs except the mallow (fig. 7), which appears in both recipes: the mallow leaves in (5) and the mallow seeds in (4*). Albeit the medical applications of this plant were well-known (T.88), the use of mallow leaves (κƀιάρεο ƅύιισλ) by Pythagoras himself arises some suspicions. For the Pythagoreans, the mallow leaf was the most sacred thing (T.89), so eating leaves of mallow contradicted the Pythagorean law (T.87) and the Pythagorean Symbol 18: never eat mallow (T.54). 68

69 10-11 (2015) Therefore, it is hard to believe that the recipes in question could stem from the Pythagorean tradition. There is an evidence for the non-pythagorean provenance of both recipes. Michael Psellus makes clear that the recipe for preparing the ἄιηκνο of asphodel, a root of mallow, sesame, white opium poppy, and raw sea-onion has been invented by Epimenides (T.235). The same is stated by Plutarch of Chaeronea: that Epimenides magic brew to neutralize hunger and thirst (ἄιηκƀ ƄƀῦƄƀ θƀὶ ἄɓηςƀ ƅάξκƀθƀ), made of mallow, asphodelus flowers, seeds, cheese, and honey was contrived when Epimenides, a wise, tried to understand the line from Hesiod (Works and Days 41): what a great profit mallow and asphodel have (T.236) (Haussleiter 79 82). Who was Epimenides of Crete? There is an essential disagreement between two ancient testimonies, by Plato (FGrHist 457 T4a) and Aristotle (FGrHist 457 T4b), on the chronology of Epimenides. Plato says that he was born yesterday (T.237a), to purify Athens ten years before the Persian attack, in 500 BC (T.237b), whereas the tradition going back to Aristotle locates his activity at ca. 630 BC (T.238). Presumably, Plato was right (Arrighetti ). Epimenides is said to compose the Purifications in verses (T.239) note that the poetry book under the same title was attributed also to Orpheus (T.14) and the major poems On the Birth of the Curetes and Corybantes and the Theogony (T.240). Timaeus of Tauromenium and Demetrius of Magnesia show a disbelief in the story on Epimenides invention, in saying that Epimenides just received his magic cure for hunger from some Nymphs (T.241). Herodorus of Heraclea, the author of Story of Heracles, had another idea (Detienne 1970, 150 note 60). According to Herodorus, the magic brew of asphodelus and mallow has been used, for the first time, by Heracles when he went to waterless desert during his Libyan adventures (T.242). The hero, in turn, was to learn the recipe from Demeter (T.243). It follows that the origin of the Epimenidean recipes and the Epimenidean Κƀζƀξκνί may be traced back not only on the island of Crete but also in Athens and Eleusis. Omophagy: What the Hell It Means? Porphyry of Tyre is to whom we owe the important excerpt which is reputed to be the oldest extant testimony concerning the Orphic diet. There is a famous fragment from the lost tragedy Cretans composed by Euripides and performed on the Athenian stage between 438 and 431 BC. The Tyrian philosopher quoted 20 lines from it to support his argumentation for 69

70 10-11 (2015) the superiority of the meatless diet in his work On Abstinence from Living Animals. He says that the lines, which come from chorus address to Minos, concern the abstinence of the prophets of Zeus in Crete (T.244). The quotation from the Cretans contains a number of extremely interesting topics. The coryphaeus who is speaking here introduces himself as an initiate of Idaean Zeus, a herdsman of nocturnal Zagreus, a (Corybant) performing the rites of Curetes to the Mountain Mother, and a bacchus, who just left the temple (of Rhea) built of the local cypress wood. His life is pure, he says, because he used to abstain from eating the living food and wear white cloths, having approached neither dead bodies or childbirth. The text implies the cults of following deities: the Idaean Zeus, Zagreus, and the Mountain Mother who was identified with Rhea (T.245). The most puzzling is chorus declaration: I became a servitor of night-ranging Zagreus, after performing the feast on raw food (T.245 lines 11 12). The phrase Ƅὰο ὠκνƅάγνπο ƁƀƄƀο ƄƂιέƃƀο has been controversial since late antiquity. Jerome of Stridonium ratiocinated, in a logical way, that Euripides speaking of ὠκνƅάγνπο ƁƀƄƀο had in mind nothing but abstention from cooked meals, coctis cibis (T.246). On the other hand, the lexicographer Hesychius of Alexandria commented on the same line: the ones who divide raw meat, and eat (T.247), as if the Ƅὰο ƁƀƄƀο were derived from ὁ ƁƀίƄεο ( the one who divides meat, LSJ 366 s.v. daites ), not from Ɓƀίο ( feast ). The grammatical confusion of two homonyms, ƁƀƄƀο (Euripides) and ƁƀίƄƀο (Hesychius), resulted in over-interpretation of the Euripidean passage in the modern scholarship and never-ending discussions on omophagy, defined as the cultic feast on raw flesh (Cook ; Haussleiter 88 96; Kern 1916; Parker 302; Casadio; Bernabé 2004; Jiménez 2009; Herrero; Bernabé 2016). Let us take a closer look at the context in which the ὠκνƅάγνπο ƁƀƄƀο appears. The play has been lost and there are left only the ancient recapitulations that are highly unsatisfactory. The complementary texts are: one poetic fragment attributed to Euripides Cretans, Antonius Diogenes narration on the mysteries of the Idaean Dactyls, and Diodorus of Sicily who derived from the earlier historians of Hellenistic period. The Euripidean fragment, attributed to the Cretans, depicts the offering without fire, ζπƃίƀ ἄππξνο, explained as some greens and πόπƀλƀ offertory cakes made of fruit. The offering is devoted to the god, being both Zeus and Hades, who sends the souls of the dead to prophesy (T.248). The syncretistic Zeus-Hades might be the same as the night-ranging Zagreus mentioned by Euripides (T.245), because Aeschylus in his lost play The Egyptians bestowed the name of Zagreus upon Pluto, the god of the underworld (T.249). 70

71 10-11 (2015) We are not told who were to deal with the necromancy like that; Porphyry presumed they were the prophets of Zeus (T.244). Antonius Diogenes (?AD second century) is who reports Pythagoras initiation into the mysteries of Idaean Zeus. The bizarre ritual, which was believed to come down from the Idaean Dactyls, entailed a series of purification (with a meteoric thunderstone, with a sea water, with a river water), wearing black cap and black wool dress, and descending into the Idaean cave where Zeus throne and tomb were placed to stay there for 27 days. The ritual involved also some unspecified offering to Zeus who was called Zan in the Cretan dialect 29 (T.250). The cave and temple of Zeus near Cnossos, which must have been the same as the Idaean one, is referred by Plato in his Laws (T.251). The grave and the strange name Zan (?Zanes in plural, see Rose 1921) might also refer to the people who were consecrated to Zeus and killed in honor of him (T.252). It is difficult to say if the prophesying ghosts of Zeus-Hades (T.248) can be included into the category of Zanes (T.252), and if they were consulted in the Idaean cave or somewhere else. Anyway, I do not think that the Cretan Zan can be linked to the bull-shaped Zagreus, killed by the Titans, as Arthur B. Cook proposed (Cook ). Let us turn, now, to Diodorus of Sicily who summarized the plot of the Cretans. He says that Minos (the future king of Cnossos and Crete), was punished by Poseidon for sacrificing to him another bull than the chosen one. The wrath of Poseidon was the reason why Minos wife Pasiphae fell in love with the not-sacrificed bull and subsequently gave birth to Minotaur, the hybrid bull-headed baby (T.253). One may speculate that the plot of the Cretans begins at the moment when Minos summoned Zeus prophets to consult with them the omen, as the ones who used to ask the questions to prophesying ghosts, but they refused under the cover of their purity, symbolized by white garments and vegetarian lifestyle. Diodorus also relates the local Cretan legends on the mythical events that preceded the birth of Minotaur. He starts with the quotation from Ephorus of Cyme who narrated that the Idaean Dactyls, born in Phrygia, were credited with inventing mysteries and initiatory rites, and with instructing Orpheus how to perform them (T.254). Next, Diodorus continues with The History of Crete by Epimenides the Genealogist, who is different from Epimenides of Crete mentioned in the previous section. After them, he says, the nine Curetes have been born from the earth (T.255). At that time, there were still living six Titans and five Titanids, the children of Heaven and Earth, that had been dwelling near Cnossos where Rhea, one of the 29 In Doric, Zan means Zeus, see LSJ 753 s.v. Zan. I have no idea if this Zan had something to do with Zas (Zeus) who played the crucial part in cosmogony of Pythagoras teacher Pherecydes, frs. 14, 66, Schibli. 71

72 10-11 (2015) Titanids, had a house in the cypress grove 30 (T.256). When she delivered Zeus, the Curetes took care of her baby (T.257). Zeus, on his native island, raped Phersephone and fathered Dionysus who was torn into pieces by the Titans, his own uncles. The story is said to be told by Orpheus and related to some mystery rites (T.258). Diodorus version, which is derived from Epimenides, lacks in the well-known sequel of the story, namely the myth on creation of the mankind out of ashes of the Titans, burnt with Zeus thunderbolt, that occurs half a millennium later in Olympiodorus of Alexandria (T.259). Finally, there is found in Diodorus also Corybant, the first priest of the Mother of Gods, after whom all priests performing her sacred rites (ἱƃξὰ) were called Corybantes (T.260). The sacred rites of the same goddess, Mountain Mother, accompanied by the Curetes, has been mentioned by Euripides in the Cretans (T.245 line 14). Theophrastus of Eresus and the Hellenistic historians knew the transcriptions of the Corybantic rites from Crete, inscribed on the special tablets called θύξβƃηο, that concerned the festivals and sacrifices (T.261, T.262). Theophrastus mentioned these kyrbeis in the context of bloodless sacrifices and wineless libations. The connection between the vegetarian diet and Corybantic rites is attested by Nonnus of Panopolis who describes ƁƂπλνλ ἄɓƃηπλνλ ( the supper no supper ), hosted by a certain countryman Brongus who inhabited νἶθνλ ἄνηθνλ ( the house no house ) 31 in the Homeric land Alybe, 32 which would be located in Bithynia or the northern Phrygia (T.263). The hospitable shepherd invited the travelling Dionysus to his cave, treated with milk, and tried to sacrifice one of his sheep but the god stopped him. Brongus, then, served some olive fruit in brine and curdled cheese in wickerwork baskets, which Francis Vian interprets as fresh cheese mixed with herbs that was called moretum in Latin (Vian 1991, 593). After Dionysus satisfied himself with the meatless banquet, ƁƂπλνλ ἄɓƃηπλνλ, he was reminded of the frugal feast and the bloodless table of Cybele, the Mountain Mother. From the epithet γεγƃλέσλ ( giant ), applied by Nonnus to Brongus cave, Enrico Livrea infers that the Nonnian passage on Brongus hospitality might be patterned after the Gigantias by Dionysius (Livrea). The poem is lost except a few damaged fragments of which 30 The cypress forests on Crete have disappeared in the Middle Ages, after AD 1414 (Baumann 35). 31 For the wording used here see very similar passage on the riddles in Trypho of Alexandria, On the Tropes 4 (194 Spengel): man not man is an eunuch; bird not bird is a bat; wood not wood is a giant fennel (Ferula communis L.). 32 Alybe is a Homeric toponym (Homer, Iliad 2.857). Its localization has been problematic since antiquity (Gerlaud ). 72

73 10-11 (2015) one concerns the preparations to a feast and a meatless menu which consists of beans, cereals, grains of wheat, and a potion with meal (T.264). It would mean that Brongus was a giant, the earth-born one. We know from Pseudo-Epimenides (cf. T.255), that Curetes were also reputed to be generated from the earth. Perhaps Brongus whom Dionysus met in Alybe was one of them. My conclusion is that the Euripidean phrase ὠκνƅάγνπο ƁƀƄƀο, interrelated with the cults of Zeus-Hades and the Mountain Mother, means nothing but feeding on uncooked vegetarian food, or performing bloodless sacrifices without fire. In my conclusion, I agree with the constatation made by Juan I. González in his paper on the subject of omophagy (González). Among a number of the testimonies adduced by González, there is the one of special importance. It is the passage from Palladius of Helenopolis on the lifespan diet kept by the Egyptian monk Ammonius. His regimen from early youth until death was the ὠκνƅƀγίƀ, as Palladius says, what is explained as eating nothing that had passed through the fire: νὐɓὲλ γὰξ ὃ Ɓηὰ ππξὸο ƁηήξρƂƄν (T.265). I think that also Euripides had in mind such an omophagy: eating uncooked foods. We have a number of testimonies on another kind of omophagy, that is devouring a raw flesh of still living animals by the worshippers of Dionysus 33 (T.266 T.271). The testimonies in question concern, in my opinion, the ecstatic cult of Dionysus Omadios ( the raw-eater one ) the epithet attested, among others, by the Orphic hymn to the Biennial God (T.272a) and some aberrations of the Dionysiac cult, including a human sacrifice, that are unattested for the Orphic movement (T.272b). Milk: Not Good for You? There is left a question of drinks. Presumably every kind of potion was allowed with exception of milk. Why milk? The column six of the Derveni Papyrus deals with the offerings usually made to the countless souls of the dead that are identified here with the Eumenides. The offerings to the Eumenides were to be sacred cakes called πόπƀλƀ and wineless libations of ὕɓσξ θƀὶ γάιƀ, water and milk, poured to them before the regular sacrifices to the gods (T.273). The later sources link the libations of milk to the special ceramic vessels, ἄγγƃƃη θƃξƀκƃίνηο (T.274). 33 In the cult of Dionysus with epiclesis Omestes or Omadios ( Raw-Eater ), the living animals were torn into pieces but probably not eaten by the worshippers of the god (Ekroth 101). 73

74 10-11 (2015) Albert Henrichs (Henrichs) supposes that the vessels in question would be the same as the Eleusinian πιεκνρόƀη (fig. 16), used on Boedromion 22 th, or the final day of the Great Mysteries at Eleusis 34 (T.275). Edward L. Ochsenschlager speculated that the scope of the Eleusinian libations was aimed at the cosmic rebirth and recycling of the souls (Ochsenschlager). Fig. 16. The Athenian black-figured plemochoe, BC, attributed to Lysiades Potter. The Metropolitan Museum, inv Beazley Source of illustration: < Finally, Numenius of Apamea remarks that the libations of honey and milk were poured to the souls, because milk the first nourishment of newborn babies used to attract the souls that enter the next bodies (T.276). As we have seen in the previous chapter, the Orphics and the Pythagoreans abstained from some kinds of foods (meat, eggs, beans) in order to avoid rebirth or to reduce a number of incarnations. If they believed that drinking milk result in subsequent generation in the body, it comes out that they must have to abstain from it. September). 34 It was the eight day of the Great Mysteries celebrated at Eleusis on Boedromion 22 th (the end of 74

75 10-11 (2015) Cheers! Wine Is Allowed There is no reason to suppose that the Orphics drunk only water all their lives, like the so-called Pythagorists of late classical and early Hellenistic period (T.277). The ὑɓξνπνƃίƀ ( drinking pure water ) could not be a hallmark of the ancient Orphism. Apart from the disgust of ancient Mediterranean people at a pure water, attested among others by Aelius Aristides (T.278), it is hard to imagine the Orphic lives without wine, the gift of Dionysus whose mysteries were to be invented by Orpheus (T.279a) and referred in the Orphic Initiations by Onomacritus (T.279b). Orpheus was who persuaded the ancient inhabitants of Greece that the afterlife in Hades would be κέζε ƀἰώληνο, or drunkenness forever (T.280). The drunkenness, an eschatological hope of the Orphics, implies drinking wine as acceptable in the Orphic circles since classical antiquity. A City of Pigs? To close the chapter on the Orphic menu, we can quote the passage from the Republic where Plato, through his mouthpiece, Socrates, discusses the question of diet in the ideal city Callipolis (T.281). What will the people eat in the ideal city? Socrates says that they will feed on bread and cakes made of wheat and barley, and they will drink wine; next, he adds salt, olives, cheese, boiled roots, local vegetables, figs, lentils, roast myrtle, and acorns. The simple menu, which would be convergent with the Orphic diet and the Corybantic ƁƂπλνλ ἄɓƃηπλνλ, is commented on by Glaucon, Socrates interloculor, in the following way: If you were founding a city for pigs, Socrates, he replied, wouldn t you fatten them on the same diet?. We can ask, then, if the ὑλ πόιηο was to express Plato s actual attitude to the Orphic lives he glorified in his Laws (T.1)? To summarize, we can use Philostratus words, put in the mouth of Apollonius of Tyana, that concern the impure and pure foods. He says that the meat of animals is impure, whereas pure is everything which the earth itself produces, so, as he argues, fruit and vegetables belong to pure foods and wine is a θƀζƀξὸλ πκƀ (T.282). The dietetic regulation, formulated by the neo-pythagorean Apollonius, could be representative of the Orphic regimen too. On the other hand, the strict diet kept by the Pythagoreans of the Hellenistic period, which consists of uncooked foods and water only (T.277), cannot be considered as Orphic. Anyway, the Orphics were allowed to consume raw vegetables. What about a raw animal meat? The bizarre idea that the Orphics who had to eat no meat were occasionally 75

76 10-11 (2015) allowed to consume a raw flesh has been suggested by the only one phrase: Ƅὰο ὠκνƅάγνπο ƁƀƄƀο ƄƂιέƃƀο from Euripides Cretans (T.245). I have argued that the phrase concerns eating raw food rather than a raw flesh and appears in the double context of the bloodless fireless offerings to the Idaean Zeus-Hades (T.248) as well as the Corybantic rites from Crete that were credited with sacrificing no living animal (T.261 T.263). There is no connection here to the sanguinary frenzy of Dionysus Omadios or the ritual dismemberment of living animals in honor of him (T.266 T.272). Besides, the tradition transmitted two recipes, descended from Epimenides of Crete (ca. 500 BC), for preparing the pastries out of raw greens, seeds, vegetables, fruit, grains, honey etc. (T.234). The small portions of the pastries were used against hunger and thirst when the person who prepared them (Epimenides and Pythagoras are mentioned in the context) visited some sacred places and stayed there a number of days. Antonius Diogenes informs that the initiation into the mysteries of the Idaean Zeus took 27 days and that an initiated had to inhabit the Idaean cave, Crete, during the period (T.250). The same initiation is probably alluded in Euripides Cretans (T.245 lines 9 20). I cannot find any reasons for maintaining that Euripides, in saying of ὠκνƅάγνπο ƁƀƄƀο, referred the bloody feast on a raw flesh rather than a vegetarian pastry prepared out of raw ingredients according to Epimenides recipe. V. Conclusions To conclude the problem of the Orphic diet, I should return to the beginning of my paper where I have asked four essential questions concerning (i.) the chronology of related sources; (ii.) the relation between the Orphic food taboos and the Pythagorean Symbols; (iii.) the attitude of the Orphic puritans to an animal sacrifice; and (iv.) the difference between the Orphic diet and ritual fasting during some festivals, initiations into mysteries and so on. i. The question of sources is an awkward problem. For, of 282 fragments discussed above, only several items pertain exactly the Orphic diet. All of them, about 20 in number, are the second-hand quotations and none is derived directly from the so-called Orphica ( Orphic writings ) of classical period. The collected sources do not clarify where and when the Orphic sect begun. Of them, the earliest testimonies come from the Athenian play-writers who not only were tendentious but also addressed the hardheaded auditorium that used to display a hostility 76

77 10-11 (2015) towards any religious novelties including the Orphic movement. The poetic verses by Euripides, Aristophanes, and Antiphanes on the meatless diet propagated by the Orphic books date from the years BC (T.6 T.8, T.228). Above all, Empedocles of Acragas, well acquainted with the religious traditions of the Magna Graecia, has transformed both Orphic and Pythagorean food regulations into his personal dietary code (Kołakowska 103). The Sicilian philosopher seems to be the first to comment on the Orphic diet (ca. 444 BC). Plato, in his Laws written ca. 350 BC, refers the Orphic lives characterized by the meatless menu and bloodless sacrifices to the unidentified non-hesiodic story on the golden generation that lived under Cronus (T.1, T.172a c), which had been known to Empedocles too (T.171). In the Republic, Plato introduces the vegetarian utopia to his ideal city and represents the people of Callipolis as feeding on greens, vegetables, lentils, bread, cheese etc., which he calls the pig menu (T.281). A number of authors of Roman imperial period (AD ) either refer Orpheus poetry book on the prohibitions from meat, eggs, and beans (T.9, T.11, T.206) or quote some isolated verses from it (T.10, T.18, T.21b, T.173). Some writers paraphrase or allude to the Orphic tale (T.175, T.200, T.201, T.216, T.218). The most valuable is the passage quoted by John the Lydian (AD 554) after Heraclides Ponticus (339 BC) who excerpted an authentic anti-bean line from the poet himself, viz. Orpheus (T.198). Plutarch of Chaeronea, Pausanias Periegeta, and Porphyry inform that Orpheus poem on the prohibited foods had been forbidden to every uninitiated person (T.10, T.21b, T.206). It explains the surprisingly small dossier of sources concerning the Orphic diet that date from classical and Hellenistic periods (Borgeaud 262 and note 6). There is no literary evidence for practicing the Orphic life before 444 BC by anyone except Epimenides of Crete who can be recognized as a Corybant but hardly as an Orphic. ii. The Orphics shared the taboos on meat, beans, and eggs with the early Pythagoreans who flourished in the southern Italy between ca. 520 BC and 360 BC. The sources on the history of early Pythagoreanism are abundant. Despite the Pythagorean tenets had to be kept in top secrecy, there were some unorthodox Pythagoreans to betray them to everyone: Empedocles of Acragas (444 BC), Plato of Athens (385 BC), and Diodorus os Aspendus (ca. 350 BC). Moreover, the authentic Pythagoreans Memoirs have been collected and written down since 450 BC, to leak out through Aristotle and Alexander Polyhistor between 350 BC and 80 BC. The work in question referred the so-called Pythagorean Symbols that contained, among others, the list of prohibited foods. After the genuine Pythagoreans died out 77

78 10-11 (2015) in Magna Graecia (ca. 360 BC), the Pythagorean lifestyle became an Athenian phenomenon. The sources (the Attic middle comedy, Aristoxenus of Tarentum) often refer the diet of the contemporary Pythagorists, but they are misleading. The Pythagorean Symbols include the prohibitions against eating beans and animals (T.54 Symbols 11 and 14), whereas the Pythagorean Memoirs point at eggs as forbidden food (T.138). Nevertheless, the Pythagorean dietary restrictions cannot be identified with the Orphic diet. Why? The detailed analysis of related sources in part two of the present paper shows that the genuine Pythagoreans before they disappeared in the late 360s BC were allowed to sacrifice select animals and eat some parts of them, and to consume fish except the black and red ones. It was semi-vegetarianism, to use a modern term, which permitted to make an animal sacrifice demanded by most ancient cults. The example of the later neo- Platonist Proclus is the best illustration of the Pythagorean cult practice (T.12a). iii. On contrary, the Orphics were prohibited from any bloody sacrifices with no exception. The most representative of the Orphic custom seems to be the corpus of 87 Orphic Hymns (?AD 200), of which 78 hymns specify what type of fumigation was needed to honor each deity. There are found here frankincense, myrrh, potpourri, resin, storax, saffron, grains of all kinds, poppy-seeds, smoke of a torch, and milk, whereas beans and any animal products have been excluded from the list of offerings (Morand ). iv. The Pythagorean Symbols stem from the ritual texts that were used during initiations only (T.114 Ƅὰ ιƃγόκƃλƀ ἐλ Ƅῆ ƄƂιƂƄῆ; T.138 νἱ Ƅὰο ƄƂιƂƄὰο ἐλ Ƅνο ἱƃξνο ἐπηƅƃινῦλƅƃο), having been prohibited from the Greek public (T.67, T.183b c). The sacred books in question have been lost and are known only by their titles: ἹƂξὸο ιόγνο (Sacred Tale) and Κƀζƀξκνί (Purifications). Because the ancient Greek tradition knew double ἹƂξὸο ιόγνο (both Orphic and Pythagorean) and a few different Κƀζƀξκνί (Epimenidean, Orphic, Empedoclean), the scholars have a serious difficulty with discerning them from each other. Anyway, the texts revealed, among others, the mystic reasons why some foods like meat, beans, eggs have been forbidden. The oldest of them seems to be the Purifications by Epimenides of Crete (ca. 500 BC), whereas the Orphic Purifications and the Orphic Sacred Tale that were reputed to date from classical period antedate the Pythagorean Sacred Tale, which is a Hellenistic composition. In fact, the Pythagorean dietary regulations resemble the so-called sacred law concerning some Attic festivals. During the Great Mysteries at Eleusis (Boedromion 15 th 78

79 10-11 (2015) 22 th ), there was a ban on birds, fish, beans, pomegranates, and apples (T.283), and, similarly, the celebrants of Haloa (held on Poseideion 26 th ) were prohibited from pomegranates, apples, domestic fowl, eggs, and of seafood from red mullet, pandora, blacktail, crayfish, and dogfish (T.284). Likewise, during the Dionysiac festivals celebrated at Smyrna, it was a rule to abstain from eggs, beans, hearts, and wild mint (T.203). The same prohibitions on beans, eggs, hearts, red mullet, pandora, and blacktail have been attested for the early Pythagorean communities. Anyway, the sacred law concerning the prohibited foods during the Eleusinia, Haloa, and Dionysia cannot be linked to the Orphic diet. While the ritual fasting was temporary, i.e. obligatory during a few festive days, the Orphic diet was to be observed permanently to become the Orphic life (T.1). After all, what was permitted to a pious initiate into the Eleusinian Mysteries: sacrificing the mystic pig (T.285a) (Parker ) and eating a sausage made of it (T.285b), would be impossible, as being unholy, for a puritan Orphic. VI. Corpus of Related Texts in Greek and Latin 35 A. Orphic Lifes, Orphic Taboos T.1 Plato, Laws 782c d Burnet 350 BC OF 625i; Orfismo E6 Scarpi; no. 53 Harden ὅƅƃ νὐɓὲ βνὸο ἐƅόικσλ κὲλ γƃύƃƃζƀη, ζύκƀƅά ƄƂ νὐθ ἤλ Ƅνο ζƃνƃη δῶƀ, πέιƀλνη Ɓὲ θƀὶ κέιηƅη θƀξπνὶ ƁƂƁƂπκέλνη θƀὶ ƄνηƀῦƄƀ ἄιιƀ ἁγλὰ ζύκƀƅƀ, ƃƀξθλ Ɓ ἀπƃίρνλƅν ὡο νὐρ ὅƃηνλ ὂλ ἐƃζίƃηλ νὐɓὲ Ƅνὺο Ƅλ ζƃλ βσκνὺο ƀἵκƀƅη κηƀίλƃηλ, ἀιιὰ ξƅηθνί ƄηλƂο ιƃγόκƃλνη βίνη ἐγίγλνλƅν κλ Ƅνο ƄόƄƂ, ἀςύρσλ κὲλ ἐρόκƃλνη πάλƅσλ, ἐκςύρσλ Ɓὲ ƄνὐλƀλƄίνλ πάλƅσλ ἀπƃρόκƃλνη. there was a time when we didn t even dare to eat beef, and the sacrifices offered to the gods were not animals, but cakes and meal soaked in honey and other pure offerings like that. People kept off meat on the grounds that it was an act of impiety to eat it, or to pollute the altars of the gods with blood. So at that time men lived a sort of Orphic life, keeping exclusively to inanimate food and entirely abstaining from eating the flesh of animals. (trans. Cooper ) 35 The choice of texts collected here diverges from the Orphic fragments by Alberto Bernabé (OF 625 OF 649, vol. 2, pp ) and the loci discussed by Johannes Haussleiter (Haussleiter : Begründer und Vollender des griechischen Vegetarismus). 79

80 10-11 (2015) T.2 Syrianus, Commentary on the Metaphysics 1000a19 (43 Kroll) AD OF 1108iii ἀιιὰ γὰξ ΠπζƀγόξƂηνλ ὄλƅƀ θƀὶ ξƅηθὸλ [sc. κπƃɓνθιέƀ Bernabé] Since [Empedocles] is an Orphic and a Pythagorean. (trans. Bernabé 2013, 129) T.3 Timaeus of Tauromenium, History of Sicily, book nine, FGrHist 566 F14 qtd. in Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers 8.54 (632 Dorandi) BC T.4a Ἀθνῦƃƀη Ɓ ƀὐƅὸλ Ππζƀγόξνπ Τίκƀηνο Ɓηὰ Ƅο ἐλάƅεο ἱƃƅνξƃ ιέγσλ ὅƅη θƀƅƀγλσƃζƃὶο ἐπὶ ινγνθινπίᾳ ƄόƄƂ, θƀζὰ θƀὶ ΠιάƄσλ, Ƅλ ιόγσλ ἐθσιύζε κƃƅέρƃηλ. Timaeus in the ninth book of his Histories says he (sc. Empedocles) was a pupil of Pythagoras, 36 adding that, having been convicted at that time of stealing his discourses, he was, like Plato, excluded from taking part in the discussions of the school. (trans. Hicks 2: ) Favorinus of Arelate, Memorabilia fr. F56 Amato qtd. in Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers 8.53 (631 Dorandi) AD OF 1108i ἐγὼ Ɓ Ƃὗξνλ ἐλ Ƅνο πνκλήκƀƃη ſƀβσξίλνπ ὅƅη θƀὶ βνῦλ ἔζπƃƃ Ƅνο ζƃσξνο ὁ κπƃɓνθιο ἐθ κέιηƅνο θƀὶ ἀιƅίƅσλ I found in the Memorabilia of Favorinus a statement that Empedocles feasted the sacred envoys on a sacrificial ox made of honey and barley-meal (trans. Hicks 2: 369) T.4b Dicaearchus of Messana qtd. in Porphyry of Tyre, Life of Pythagoras 36 (52 53 Places) fl. 320 BC ἐβνπζύƅεƃƃλ Ɓέ πνƅƃ ƃƅƀίƅηλνλ, ὡο ƅƀƃὶ βνῦλ νἱ ἀθξηβέƃƅƃξνη, ἐμƃπξὼλ Ƅνῦ ὀξζνγσλίνπ Ƅὴλ ὑπνƅƃίλνπƃƀλ ἴƃνλ Ɓπλƀκέλελ Ƅƀο πƃξηƃρνύƃƀηο. When he [sc. Pythagoras] discovered the proposition that the square of the hypotenuse of a right-angled triangle was equal to the squares on the sides containing the right angle, he is said to have sacrificed an ox, 37 although the more accurate 38 say that this ox was made of flour. (trans. Guthrie 130) 36 The chronology given in the text is a little suspicious. Pythagoras died between 500 and 495 BC, Empedocles was born in 490 BC. How come, then, could Empedocles be a pupil of Pythagoras? 37 Apollodorus of Cyzicus (the fourth century BC) claimed, in his Life of Pythagoras, that Pythagoras sacrificed an ox or even a hecatomb (100 oxen) after he discovered a right-angled triangle (FGrHist 1097 F1b c). 80

81 10-11 (2015) T.5 Empedocles of Acragas, Katharmoi fr. 120 Wright 444 BC OF 637 νἴκ ὅƅη νὐ πξόƃζƃλ κƃ ƁηώιƂƃƂ λειƃὲο ἤκƀξ, πξὶλ ƃρέƅιη' ἔξγƀ βνξο πƃξὶ ρƃίιƃƃη κεƅίƃƀƃζƀη. Alas that the pitiless day did not destroy me first, before I devised for my lips the cruel deed of eating flesh. (trans. Wright 284) T.6 Euripides, Hippolytus (2: 216 Kovacs) 428 BC OF 627; Orfismo E5 Scarpi; no. 52 Harden ἢɓε λπλ ƀὔρƃη θƀὶ Ɓη ἀςύρνπ βνξο ƃίƅνηο θƀπήιƃπ ξƅέƀ Ƅ ἄλƀθƅ ἔρσλ βάθρƃπƃ πνιιλ γξƀκκάƅσλ Ƅηκλ θƀπλνύο Continue then your confident boasting, adopt a meatless diet and play the showman with your food, make Orpheus your lord and engage in mystic rites, holding the vaporings of many books in honor! (trans. Kovacs 2: 217) T.7 Aristophanes, Frogs (2: 177 Wilson) BC ἀιι ὡο πƀξέιƀβνλ Ƅὴλ Ƅέρλελ πƀξὰ ƃνῦ Ƅὸ πξƅνλ Ƃὐζὺο νἰɓνῦƃƀλ ὑπὸ θνκπƀƃκάƅσλ θƀὶ ῥεκάƅσλ ἐπƀρζλ, ἴƃρλƀλƀ κὲλ πξώƅηƃƅνλ ƀὐƅὴλ θƀὶ Ƅὸ βάξνο ἀƅƃινλ ἐππιιίνηο θƀὶ πƃξηπάƅνηο θƀὶ ƄƂπƄιίνηƃη ιƃπθνο, ρπιὸλ ƁηƁνὺο ƃƅσκπικάƅσλ ἀπὸ βηβιίσλ ἀπεζλ {Euripides soul is speaking} No, as soon as I first inherited the art from you, bloated with bombast and obese vocabulary, I immediately put in on a diet and took off the weight with a regimen of wordlets and strolls and little white beets [Beta vulgaris maritima L.], administering chatter-juice pressed from books (trans. Henderson 4: 153) T.8 Aristophanes, Frogs 1032 (2: 181 Wilson) BC OF 547i; OF 626i; Orfismo E4 Scarpi ξƅƃὺο κὲλ γὰξ ƄƂιƂƄάο ζ κλ θƀƅέɓƃημƃ ƅόλσλ Ƅ ἀπέρƃƃζƀη {Aeschylus soul is speaking} Orpheus revealed mystic rites to us, and taught us to abstain from killings (trans. Henderson 4: 165) T.9 Plutarch of Chaeronea, Dinner of the Seven Sages 16, 159C (327 Gärtner). AD J. Radicke infers from the phrase of Porphyry (Life of Pythagoras 56): Γηθƀίƀξρνο θƀὶ νἱ ἀθξηβέƃƅƃξνη that he meant here Dicaearchus of Messana (Radicke 372). On the other hand, Walter Burkert was of opinion that the text in question is derived from Antonius Diogenes Wonders beyond Thoule (Burkert 1972, 180 note 110). 81

82 10-11 (2015) OF 629; Orfismo E7 Scarpi Ƅὸ Ɓ ἀπέρƃƃζƀη ƃƀξθλ ἐɓσɓο, ὥƃπƃξ ξƅέƀ Ƅὸλ πƀιƀηὸλ ἱƃƅνξνῦƃη, ƃόƅηƃκƀ κιινλ ἠ ƅπγὴ Ƅλ πƃξὶ Ƅὴλ Ƅξνƅὴλ ἀɓηθεκάƅσλ ἐƃƅί. But to refrain entirely from eating meat, as they record of Orpheus of old, is rather a quibble than a way of avoiding wrong in regard to food. (trans. Babbitt 2: 421) T.10 Porphyry of Tyre, On Abstinence from Living Animals ( Bouffartigue). AD 263 OF 635 ſεƃὶ Ɓὲ ἔκςρνλ νὗƅνο ζύƃηλ κεɓὲ ἕλ, ἀιι ἄρξηο ἀιƅίƅσλ θƀὶ κέιηƅνο θƀὶ Ƅλ ἐθ γο ἀθξνɓξύσλ Ƅλ ƄƂ ἄιισλ ἀλζέσλ ἀπάξρƃƃζƀη κεɓὲ ἀƅ ᾑκƀγκέλεο ἐƃράξƀο ἔƃƅσ Ƅὸ πῦξ, θƀὶ ὄƃƀ ƅεƃὶ ἐθƃλνο. Ƅί γὰξ ƁƂ κƃƅƀγξάƅƃηλ ƄƀῦƄƀ; νἶɓƃ Ɓὲ ὁ Ƅο ƂὐƃƂβƂίƀο ƅξνλƅίδσλ ὡο ζƃνο κὲλ νὐ ζύƃƅƀη νὐɓὲλ ἔκςπρνλ, Ɓƀίκνƃη Ɓὲ θƀὶ ἄιινηο ἢƅνη ἀγƀζνο ἠ θƀὶ ƅƀύινηο, θƀὶ Ƅίλσλ ἐƃƅὶ Ƅὸ ζύƃηλ ƄνύƄνηο θƀὶ ƄνύƄσλ ἄρξη Ƅίλνο ƀὐƅνῦ ƁƂνκέλσλ. ἐκνὶ Ɓὲ Ƅὰ κὲλ Ƅἄιιƀ ƂὔƃƄνκƀ θƃίƃζσ. He [sc. the Theologian] says that not a single animate creature should be sacrificed, but offerings should not go beyond barley-grains and honey and the fruits of the earth, including flowers. Let not the fire burn on a bloodstained altar, and the rest of what he says, for what need is there to copy out the words? Someone concerned for piety knows that no animate creature is sacrificed to the gods, but to other daimones, either good or bad, and knows whose practice it is to sacrifice to them and to what extent these people need to do so. For the rest, let it remain unsaid [Herodotus, Histories 2.171] by me. (trans. Clark 70) T.11 Porphyry of Tyre, On Abstinence from Living Animals 269 qtd. in Jerome of Stridonium, Against Jovinian (40 Patillon) AD 263 OF 630 Orpheus in carmine suo esum carnium penitus detestatur. Orpheus in his hymn utterly rejects the eating of meat. (trans. Clark 194 note 687) T.12a Marinus of Neapolis, Life of Proclus 19 (75 Masullo) AD Ƅὰ πνιιὰ Ɓὲ Ƅὴλ Ƅλ ἐκςύρσλ ἀπνρὴλ ƃπάδƃƅν Ƃἰ Ɓέ πνƅƃ θƀηξόο Ƅηο ἰƃρπξόƅƃξνο ἐπὶ Ƅὴλ ƄνύƄσλ ρξƃηλ ἐθάιƃη, κόλνλ ἀπƃγƃύƃƀƅν, θƀὶ ƄνῦƄν ὁƃίƀο ράξηλ. For the most part he made it a rule to abstain from living creatures, and if some pressing occasion called on him to eat them, he merely tasted them, and then only for the sake of piety. (trans. Edwards 86) T.12b Marinus of Neapolis, Life of Proclus 18 (75 Masullo) AD OF

83 10-11 (2015) λύθƅσξ ƄƂ θƀὶ κƃζ κέξƀλ ἀπνƅξνπƀο θƀὶ πƃξηξξƀλƅεξίνηο θƀὶ Ƅνο ἄιινηο θƀζƀξκνο ρξώκƃλνο, ὁƅὲ κὲλ ξƅηθνο ὁƅὲ Ɓὲ ΧƀιƁƀτθνο Day and night he made use of apotropaic, lustratory and other purifications, sometimes the Orphic, sometimes the Chaldean (trans. Edwards 85) T.13 Pseudo-Pythagoras, Golden Verses (98 Thom) Hellenistic period Hieros Logos fr. 10 Thesleff (p. 162) ἀιι Ƃἴξγνπ βξσƅλ ὧλ ƂἴπνκƂλ ἔλ ƄƂ Κƀζƀξκνο ἔλ ƄƂ ΛύƃƂη ςπρο, θξίλσλ θƀὶ ƅξάδƃπ ἕθƀƃƅƀ λίνρνλ γλώκελ ƃƅήƃƀο θƀζύπƃξζƃλ ἀξίƃƅελ. ἠλ Ɓ ἀπνιƃίςƀο ƃκƀ ἐο ƀἰζέξ ἐιƃύζƃξνλ ἔιζῃο, ἔƃƃƃƀη ἀζάλƀƅνο ζƃὸο ἄκβξνƅνο, νὐθέƅη ζλεƅόο. But keep away from food that we have mentioned in Purifications and in Deliverance of the Soul, with discernment, and consider each thing by putting the excellent faculty of judgment in control as charioteer. Then, if you leave the body behind and go to the free ether, you will be immortal, an undying god, no longer mortal. (trans. Thom 99) T.14 Oenomaus of Gadara, Charlatans Exposed fr. 11C Hammerstaedt qtd. in Eusebius of Caesarea, Praeparatio Evangelica (280 Mras) AD 119 OF 607; Epimenides fr. 12ii (PEG 2.3: 121); FGrHist 1070 F3 ὡο κὴ κιινλ Ƅο ΚξήƄεο ƃὺ θƀζƀξκνῦ πξνƃɓέεη, ξƅηθνύο Ƅηλƀο ἠ πηκƃληɓƃίνπο θƀζƀξκνὺο ƅƀλƅƀδόκƃλνο. Beware lest thou need lustration more than Crete, for inventing lustrations such as those of Orpheus and Epimenides. (trans. Gifford 244) T.15 Pseudo-Empedocles, Katharmoi fr. 128 Wright 444 BC ƁƂηινί, πάλɓƃηινη, θπάκσλ ἄπν ρƃξƀο ἔρƃƃζƀη. Wretches, utter wretches, keep your hands from beans! (trans. Wright 289) T.16 Callimachus of Cyrene fr. 553 Pfeiffer BC θƀὶ θπάκσλ ἄπν ρƃξƀο ἔρƃηλ, ἀληλƅνο ἐɓƃƃƅνῦ, θγώ, Ππζƀγόξεο ὡο ἐθέιƃπƃ, ιέγσ. I tell you too, as did Pythagoras, withhold your hands from beans, a hurtful food. (trans. Rolfe 347) T.17a Suda Lexicon, Γ 876 (2: 81 Adler) after AD 1028 ΓίƁπκνο, ἈιƂμƀλƁξƂύο ŽƂσξγηθὰ ἐλ βηβιίνηο ηƃʹ. 83

84 10-11 (2015) Didymus, of Alexandria. [He wrote] Georgics in 15 books. (the SOL translation) T.17b Didymus of Alexandria, Georgics qtd. in Geoponica (73 Beckh) AD 400 OF 648xi; Orfismo E9 Scarpi ΠξƄνο Ɓὲ ἀπέƃρƃƅν θπάκσλ Ἀκƅηάξƀνο, Ɓηὰ Ƅὴλ Ɓη ὀλƃίξσλ κƀλƅƃίƀλ. ƅέξƃƅƀη Ɓὲ θƀὶ ξƅέσο ƄνηάƁƂ ἔπε ΓƂηινί, θπάκσλ ἄπν ρƃξƀο ἔρƃƃζƃ, θƀὶ Ἶƃόλ Ƅνη θπάκνπο ƅƀγέƃηλ, θƃƅƀιάο ƄƂ Ƅνθήσλ. The first to abstain from beans was Amphiaraos, owing to the practice of foretelling the future from dreams. Verses such as these are quoted from Orpheus: Fools! Withhold your hands from beans! [Pseudo-Empedocles, Katharmoi fr. 128 Wright], and: To eat beans is as much as to eat your parents heads. [OF 648 = Pseudo- Pythagoras, Hieros Logos fr. 5 Thesleff] (trans. Dalby 93) T.18 Heraclides of Pontus, On the Pythagoreans fr. 129 Schütrumpf qtd. in John the Lydian, On Months 4.42 (99 Wuensch) 339 BC OF 648iii + OF 648 θƀὶ Ɓηὰ ƄνῦƄν Ƅὸλ πνηεƅὴλ ƅάλƀη ἶƃόλ Ƅνη θπάκνπο ƄƂ ƅƀγƃλ θƃƅƀιάο ƄƂ Ƅνθήσλ. And (he continues) this is why the poet said: It is the same, you see, whether you eat beans or the heads of your parents. [Pseudo-Pythagoras, Hieros Logos fr. 5 Thesleff] (trans. Schütrumpf 239) T.19 Orphic Hymns 26 proem (231 Fayant)?AD 200 Žο ζπκίƀκƀ πλ ƃπέξκƀ πιὴλ θπάκσλ θƀὶ ἀξσκάƅσλ. To Earth: incense, any grains save beans and aromatic herbs. (trans. Athanassakis 24) T.20 Gregory of Nazianzus, Theological Orations (94 Gallay) AD 380 OF 648xiii Ƅνὺο θπάκνπο Ƅνὺο ξƅηθνύο the Orphic beans (trans. E. O.) T.21a Plutarch of Chaeronea, Table Talks 2.3.1, 635E (57 Hubert) AD OF 645 μ ἐλππλίνπ Ƅηλὸο ἀπƃ<ηρό>κελ ᾠλ πνιὺλ ἢɓ. πƀξὰ ƄνῦƄν πνηνύκƃλνο, ἐλ ᾠῶ θƀζάπƃξ ἐλ Κƀξὶ ƁηάπƂηξƀλ ιƀβƃλ Ƅο ὄςƃσο ἐλƀξγο κνη πνιιάθηο γƃλνκέλεο 84

85 10-11 (2015) Because of a dream, I had for a long time now been avoiding eggs, and I was acting so for this reason, that I might test by an egg, as by a Carian, the vision which came to me clearly and frequently. (trans. Clement 145) T.21b Plutarch of Chaeronea, Table Talk 2.3.2, 636D (60 Hubert) AD OF 646i ἀƃίƃσ μπλƃƅνƃη Ƅὸλ ξƅηθὸλ θƀὶ ἱƃξὸλ ιόγνλ, ὃο νὐθ ὄξληζνο κόλνλ Ƅὸ ᾠὸλ ἀπνƅƀίλƃη πξƃƃβύƅƃξνλ, ἀιιὰ θƀὶ ƃπιιƀβὼλ ἅπƀƃƀλ ƀὐƅῶ Ƅὴλ ἁπάλƅσλ ὁκνῦ πξƃƃβπγέλƃηƀλ ἀλƀƅίζεƃηλ. θƀὶ Ƅἄιιƀ κὲλ ƂὔƃƄνκƀ θƃίƃζσ θƀζ ἧξόɓνƅνλ, ἔƃƅη γὰξ κπƃƅηθώƅƃξƀ What is more, he added with a laugh, I shall recite for men of understanding [OF 101] the Orphic sacred tale which not only declares the egg older than the hen, but also attributes to it the absolute primordiality over all things together without exception. As for the rest of the doctrine, let reverent silence prevail, as Herodotus says [Histories 2.171]; for it is very much of a mystical secret. (trans. Clement ) T.22 Plutarch of Chaeronea, Table Talks 2.3.1, 635E (58 Hubert) AD OF 647i; Orfismo E8 Scarpi ὑπόλνηƀλ κέλƅνη πƀξέƃρνλ, ἑƃƅηλƅνο κο Σνƃƃίνπ ΣƂλƂθίσλνο, ἐλέρƃƃζƀη Ɓόγκƀƃηλ ξƅηθνο ἠ Ππζƀγνξηθνο, θƀὶ Ƅὸ ᾠόλ, ὥƃπƃξ ἔληνη θƀξɓίƀλ θƀὶ ἐγθέƅƀινλ, ἀξρὴλ γνύκƃλνο γƃλέƃƃσο ἀƅνƃηνῦƃζƀη But my companions at one of Sossius Senecio s dinners suspected me of being committed to beliefs of the Orphics or the Pythagoreans and holding the egg taboo, as some hold the heart and brain, because I thought it to be the first principle of creation. (trans. Clement 145) T.23 Plutarch of Chaeronea, Table Talks 2.3.1, 635E F (58 Hubert) AD OF 645; OF 648v; Orfismo E8 Scarpi ὡο Ɓὴ θπάκνπο Ƅὰ ᾠὰ Ɓηὰ Ƅὴλ θύεƃηλ ƀἰληƅƅνκέλσλ Ƅλ ἀλɓξλ, ƁηƀƅέξƂηλ Ɓὲ κεɓὲλ νἰνκέλσλ Ƅὸ ἐƃζίƃηλ ᾠὰ Ƅνῦ ρξƃζƀη Ƅνο ƄίθƄνπƃη Ƅὰ ᾠὰ δῴνηο. For these people call eggs beans (θύƀκνη), punning on the word conception (θύεƃηο), and they think that eating eggs in no way differs from using the creatures which produce the eggs. (trans. Clement 145) B. What Foods Did Pythagoras Used to Eat? The Pythagorean Diet in a False Mirror T.24 Life of Pythagoras qtd. in Photius, Bibliotheca cod. 249 (126 Henry).?AD first century 85

86 10-11 (2015) Κƀὶ νἱ κὲλ ƀὐƅῶ Ƅῶ Ππζƀγόξᾳ ƃπγγƃλόκƃλνη ἐθƀινῦλƅν Ππζƀγνξηθνί, νἱ Ɓὲ ƄνύƄσλ κƀζεƅƀὶ ΠπζƀγόξƂηνη, νἱ Ɓὲ ἄιισο ἔμσζƃλ δεισƅƀὶ ΠπζƀγνξηƃƄƀί. Those who had been personal companions of Pythagoras were known as Pythagorics, their pupils as Pythagoreans, and various external followers as Pythagorists. (trans. Wilson 219) 39 T.25 Plato, Republic 600b Burnet 371 BC Ππζƀγόξƀο ƀὐƅόο ƄƂ ƁηƀƅƂξόλƄσο ἐπὶ ƄνύƄῳ γƀπήζε, θƀὶ νἱ ὕƃƅƃξνη ἔƅη θƀὶ λῦλ ΠπζƀγόξƂηνλ Ƅξόπνλ ἐπνλνκάδνλƅƃο Ƅνῦ βίνπ ƁηƀƅƀλƂο πῃ Ɓνθνῦƃηλ Ƃἶλƀη ἐλ Ƅνο ἄιινηο Pythagoras is particularly loved for this, and even today his followers are conspicuous for what they call the Pythagorean way of life. (trans. Cooper 1204) T.26 Alexis of Thurii, Tarentines frs Edmonds 360 BC Pitagoristi nella commedia di mezzo no. 1 Cardini νἱ ΠπζƀγνξίδνλƄƂο γάξ, ὡο ἀθνύνκƃλ, νὔƅ ὄςνλ ἐƃζίνπƃηλ νὔƅ ἄιι νὐɓὲ ἓλ ἔκςπρνλ, νἶλόλ Ƅ νὐρὶ πίλνπƃηλ κόλνη. Pythagoreans eat no fish, they say, nor any living thing, and only they never drink wine. (trans. Edmonds 2: 481) T.27 Alexis of Thurii, Tarentines frs Edmonds 360 BC Pitagoristi nella commedia di mezzo no. 1 Cardini A. Ππζƀγνξηƃκνὶ θƀὶ ιόγνη ιƃπƅνὶ ƁηƂƃκηιƂπκέλƀη ƄƂ ƅξνλƅίɓƃο Ƅξέƅνπƃ ἐθƃίλνπο, Ƅὰ Ɓὲ θƀζ κέξƀλ ƄάƁƂ ἄξƅνο θƀζƀξὸο Ƃἷο ἑθƀƅέξῳ, πνƅήξηνλ ὕɓƀƅνο ƄνƃƀῦƄƀ ƄƀῦƄƀ. Β. ƁƂƃκσƄεξίνπ ιέγƃηο ƁίƀηƄƀλ: πάλƅƃο νὕƅσο νἱ ƃνƅνὶ Ɓηάγνπƃη θƀὶ ƄνηƀῦƄƀ θƀθνπƀζνῦƃί πνπ; Α. Ƅξπƅƃηλ νὗƅνη πξὸο ἑƅέξνπο. ἆξ νἶƃζ ὅƅη ΜƂιƀληππίƁεο ἑƅƀξόο ἐƃƅη θƀὶ ſάσλ θƀὶ ſπξόκƀρνο θƀὶ ſλνο, νἳ Ɓη κέξƀο ƁƂηπλνῦƃη πέκπƅεο ἀιƅίƅσλ θνƅύιελ κίƀλ. 39 Cf. Iamblichus of Chalcis, On the Pythagorean Way of Life (46 Deubner): According to this rule, then, he called some Pythagoreans, other Pythagorists (just as we name some Attics, but others Atticists ) and after suitably distinguishing the names, he identified the former as his true followers, and decreed that the latter show themselves emulators of these (trans. Dillon Hershbell 105). 86

87 10-11 (2015) A. What keeps em is Pythagorisms and quirks and ideas as smooth-cut as a sculptor s works; but their one meal s two dry loaves between two with a cup of water. B. According then to you it s prison fare, theirs. Do all the devotees live in such misery? A. No; they have degrees of luxury. Think; Melanippides, Phaon, Phyromachus, Phanus of that clique eat half a pint of barley twice a week. (trans. Edmonds 2: 481) T.28 Mnesimachus, Alcmaeon fr. 1 Edmonds ca. 340 BC Pitagoristi nella commedia di mezzo no. 2 Cardini ὡο ΠπζƀγνξηƃƄὶ ζύνκƃλ Ƅῶ Λνμίᾳ, ἔκςπρνλ νὐɓὲλ ἐƃζίνλƅƃο πƀλƅƃιο. For when we sacrifice to Loxias [viz. Apollo], we eschew what is living, à la Pythagoras. (trans. Edmonds 2: 361) T.29 Antiphanes, Bag fr. 135 Edmonds 359 BC Pitagoristi nella commedia di mezzo no. 1 Cardini πξƅνλ κὲλ ὥƃπƃξ ππζƀγνξίδσλ ἐƃζίƃη ἔκςπρνλ νὐɓέλ, Ƅο Ɓὲ πιƃίƃƅεο Ƅνὐβνινῦ κάδεο κƃιƀγρξ κƃξίɓƀ ιƀκβάλσλ ιέπƃη. First, like one of Pythagoras following, he never eats a single living thing takes a black helping of the barley-duff you get most of for a penny, and that s enough. (trans. Edmonds 2: 227) T.30 Aristophon, Pythagorist fr. 13 Edmonds 338 BC OF 432iii; Pitagoristi nella commedia di mezzo no. 2 Cardini ἐƃζίνπƃί ƄƂ ιάρƀλά ƄƂ θƀὶ πίλνπƃηλ ἐπὶ ƄνύƄνηο ὕɓσξ Greens are their food and water is their drink (trans. Edmonds 2: 527) T.31 Alexis of Thurii, Pythagoreaness frs Edmonds? BC Pitagoristi nella commedia di mezzo no. 1 Cardini A. Ɓ ἑƃƅίƀƃηο ἰƃράɓƃο θƀὶ ƃƅέκƅπιƀ θƀὶ Ƅπξὸο ἔƃƅƀη: ƄƀῦƄƀ γὰξ ζύƃηλ λόκνο Ƅνο ΠπζƀγνξƂίνηο. Β. λὴ Γί, ἱƃξƃνλ κὲλ νὖλ ὁπννλ ἂλ θάιιηƃƅνλ, ὦ βέιƅηƃƅ, ἔρῃ. A. They ll give me dried figs, olive-mush, and cheese; reg lar Pythagorean offering, that. B. You couldn t have a better, man; that s flat. (trans. Edmonds 2: 469) T.32 Aristophon, Pythagorist fr. 9 Edmonds 338 BC 87

88 10-11 (2015) Pitagoristi nella commedia di mezzo no. 2 Cardini πξὸο Ƅλ ζƃλ, νἰόκƃζƀ Ƅνὺο πάιƀη πνƅὲ Ƅνὺο ΠπζƀγνξηƃƄὰο γηλνκέλνπο ὄλƅσο ῥππλ ἑθόλƅƀο ἠ ƅνξƃλ Ƅξίβσλƀο Ɓέσο; νὐθ ἔƃƅη ƄνύƄσλ νὐɓέλ, ὡο ἐκνὶ ƁνθƂ ἀιι ἐμ ἀλάγθεο, νὐθ ἔρνλƅƃο νὐɓὲ ἕλ, Ƅο ƂὐƄƂιƂίƀο πξόƅƀƃηλ ƂὑξόλƄƂο θƀιὴλ ὅξνπο ἔπεμƀλ Ƅνο πέλεƃη ρξεƃίκνπο. ἐπƃὶ πƀξάζƃο ƀὐƅνƃηλ ἰρζῦο ἠ θξέƀο, θἂλ κὴ θƀƅƃƃζίσƃη θƀὶ Ƅνὺο ƁƀθƄύινπο, ἐζέισ θξέκƀƃζƀη ƁƂθάθηο. {Slave is speaking} Can we agree the old Pythagoreaners willingly went dirty or wore frieze cloaks just for fun? No fear; smartness needs cash, and having none, they found a good excuse for living cheap, and fixed a standard for poor folks to keep. What I say is, just give em fish or meat, and they ll bite their fingers in their haste to eat, or I ll be blogged ten times. (trans. Edmonds 2: 525) Aristoxenus Dementi T.33 Aristoxenus of Tarentum fr. 1 Wehrli qtd. in Suda Lexicon, Α 3927 (1: 357 Adler) BC ἈξηƃƄόμƂλνο, πἱὸο Μλεƃίνπ, Ƅνῦ θƀὶ Σπηλζάξνπ, κνπƃηθνῦ, ἀπὸ ΤάξƀλƄνο Ƅο ἸƄƀιίƀο. ƁηƀƄξίςƀο Ɓὲ ἐλ ΜƀλƄηλƂίᾳ ƅηιόƃνƅνο γέγνλƃ θƀὶ κνπƃηθῆ ἐπηζέκƃλνο νὐθ ƃƅόρεƃƃλ, ἀθνπƃƅὴο Ƅνῦ ƄƂ πƀƅξὸο θƀὶ Λάκπξνπ Ƅνῦ ξπζξƀίνπ, ƂἶƄƀ ΞƂλνƅίινπ Ƅνῦ ΠπζƀγνξƂίνπ θƀὶ Ƅέινο ἈξηƃƄνƄέινπο Ƃἰο ὃλ ἀπνζƀλόλƅƀ ὕβξηƃƃ, ƁηόƄη θƀƅέιηπƃ Ƅο ƃρνιο ƁηάƁνρνλ žƃόƅξƀƃƅνλ, ƀὐƅνῦ Ɓόμƀλ κƃγάιελ ἐλ Ƅνο ἀθξνƀƅƀο Ƅνο ἈξηƃƄνƄέινπο ἔρνλƅνο. γέγνλƃ Ɓὲ ἐπὶ Ƅλ ἈιƂμάλƁξνπ θƀὶ Ƅλ κƃƅέπƃηƅƀ ρξόλσλ ὡο Ƃἶλƀη ἀπὸ Ƅο ξηƀ ιπκπηάɓνο, ƃύγρξνλνο Γηθƀηάξρῳ Ƅῶ ΜƂƃƃελίῳ. ƃπλƃƅάμƀƅν Ɓὲ κνπƃηθά ƄƂ θƀὶ ƅηιόƃνƅƀ, θƀὶ ἱƃƅνξίƀο θƀὶ πƀλƅὸο ƂἴƁνπο πƀηɓƃίƀο θƀὶ ἀξηζκνῦ ƀὐƅνῦ Ƅὰ βηβιίƀ Ƃἰο πλγ. Aristoxenus, Son of Mnesias (also known as Spintharos), who was an authority on music, from Taras in Italy. Having taken up residence at Mantinea he became a philosopher, and on applying himself to music showed great talent for it, as a student of his father and of Lampros the Erythraian, then of Xenophilos the Pythagorean and finally of Aristotle. He heaped insults on the lattermost after his death, because he left Theophrastus as head of the school, although Aristoxenos himself had achieved great distinction among the students of Aristotle. And he flourished in the time of Alexander and the years following, so as to be around the 111 th Olympiad a contemporary of Dicaearchus of Messana. He composed works on music and philosophy and history, and every aspect of culture. His books number 453. (the SOL translation) T.34 Aristoxenus of Tarentum, On Pythagoras and His Circle fr. 14 Wehrli qtd. in Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers (145 Dorandi) BC ἈξηƃƄόμƂλνο Ɓ ἐλ Ƅῶ ΠƂξὶ Ππζƀγόξνπ θƀὶ Ƅλ γλσξίκσλ ƀὐƅνῦ ƅεƃη λνƃήƃƀλƅƀ ƀὐƅὸλ ὑπὸ Ππζƀγόξνπ Ƅƀƅλƀη ἐλ Γήιῳ. 88

89 10-11 (2015) But Aristoxenus in his work On Pythagoras and His Circle affirms that he [sc. Pherecydes Wehrli] died a natural death and was buried by Pythagoras in Delos (trans. Hicks 1: 125, modified) T.35?Aristoxenus of Tarentum qtd. in Aulus Gellius, Attic Nights (177 Marshall). Before AD 150 Opinio vetus falsa occupavit et convaluit Pythagoram philosophum non esitavisse ex animalibus item abstinuisse fabulo, quem Graeci θύƀκνο appellant. An erroneous belief of long standing has established itself and become current, that the philosopher Pythagoras did not eat of animals: also that he abstained from the bean, which the Greeks call θύƀκνο. (trans. Rolfe 347) T.36 Aristoxenus of Tarentum, On the Pythagorean Life fr. 28 Wehrli qtd. in Athenaeus of Naucratis, Learned Banqueters E (4: 464 Olson) BC θƀὶ Ππζƀγόξƀο Ɓ ὁ Σάκηνο κƃƅξίᾳ Ƅξνƅῆ ἐρξƅν, ὡο ἱƃƅνξƃ Λύθσλ ὁ ἸƀƃƂὺο ἐλ Ƅῶ πƃξὶ ΠπζƀγνξƂίνπ <βίνπ>. νὐθ ἀπƃίρƃƅν Ɓὲ ἐκςύρσλ, ὡο ἈξηƃƄόμƂλνο ƂἴξεθƂλ. Pythagoras of Samos also ate moderately, according to Lycon of Iasos in his On the Pythagorean Lifestyle [D-K 57.3, vol. 1, p. 445]; but he did not avoid meat, according to Aristoxenus. (trans. Olson 4: 465) T.37?Aristoxenus of Tarentum qtd. in Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers 8.20 (611 Dorandi) before AD 200 ζπƃίƀηο ƄƂ ἐρξƅν ἀςύρνηο, νἱ Ɓέ ƅƀƃηλ, ὅƅη ἀιέθƅνξƃη κόλνλ θƀὶ ἐξίƅνηο γƀιƀζελνο θƀὶ Ƅνο ιƃγνκέλνηο ἁπƀιίƀηο, 40 ἣθηƃƅƀ Ɓὲ ἄξλƀƃηλ. The offerings he made were always inanimate; though some say that he would offer cocks, sucking goats and porkers, as they are called, but lambs never. (trans. Hicks 2: 339) T.38 Aristoxenus of Tarentum, On the Pythagorean Life fr. 29a Wehrli qtd. in Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers 8.20 ( Dorandi) BC ὅ γƃ κὴλ ἈξηƃƄόμƂλνο πάλƅƀ κὲλ Ƅἄιιƀ ƃπγρσξƃλ ƀὐƅὸλ ἐƃζίƃηλ ἔκςπρƀ, κόλνλ Ɓ ἀπέρƃƃζƀη βνὸο ἀξνƅξνο θƀὶ θξηνῦ. However, Aristoxenus has it that he consented to the eating of all other animals, and only abstained from ploughing oxen and rams. (trans. Hicks 2: 339) T.39 Aristoxenus of Tarentum, On the Pythagorean Life fr. 25 Wehrli qtd. in Aulus Gellius, Attic Nights ( Marshall) BC Pythagoras fr. 9 Cardini 40 The ἁπƀιίƀο means a sucking pig, see LSJ 176 s.v. hapalia. 89

90 10-11 (2015) Porculis quoque minusculis et haedis tenerioribus victitasse idem Aristoxenus refert. Quem rem videtur cognovisse e Xenophilo Pythagorico, familiari suo, et ex quibusdam aliis natu maioribus, qui ab aetate Pythagorae <minus diu aberrant.> Aristoxenus also relates that Pythagoras ate very young pigs and tender kids. This fact he seems to have learned from his intimate friend Xenophilus the Pythagorean and from some other older men, who lived not long after the time of Pythagoras. (trans. Rolfe 350) T.40 Aristoxenus of Tarentum, On the Pythagorean Life fr. 25 Wehrli qtd. in Aulus Gellius, Attic Nights (177 Marshall) BC Pythagoras fr. 9 Cardini Sed Aristoxenus musicus, vir litterarum veterum diligentissimus, Aristoteli philosophi auditor, in libro, quem de Pythagora reliquit, nullo saepius legumento Pythagoram dicit usum quam fabis, quoniam is cibus et subduceret sensim alvum et levigaret. Verba ipsa Aristoxeni subscripsi: Ππζάγνξƀο Ɓὲ Ƅλ ὀƃπξίσλ κάιηƃƅƀ Ƅὸλ θύƀκνλ ἐɓνθίκƀƃƃλ. ιƃηƀλƅηθόλ ƄƂ γὰξ Ƃἶλƀη θƀὶ ƁηƀρσξεƄηθόλ, Ɓηὸ θƀὶ κάιηƃƅƀ θέρξεƅƀη ƀὐƅῶ. But Aristoxenus the musician, a man thoroughly versed in early literature, a pupil of the philosopher Aristotle, in the book On Pythagoras which he has left us, says that Pythagoras used no vegetable more often than beans, since that food gently loosened the bowels and relieved them. I add Aristoxenus own words: Pythagoras among vegetables especially recommended the bean, saying that it was both digestible and loosening; and therefore he most frequently made use of it. (trans. Rolfe 350) T.41 Aristoxenus of Tarentum, On Pythagoras and His Circle fr. 25 Wehrli qtd. in Aulus Gellius, Attic Nights (178 Marshall) BC Videtur autem de θπάκῳ non esitato causam erroris fuisse, quia in Empedocli carmine, qui disciplinas Pythagorae secutus est, versus hic invenitur: ƁƂηινί, πάλɓƃηινη, θπάκσλ ἄπν ρƃξƀο ἔρƃƃζƀη. Furthermore, the reason for the mistaken idea about abstaining from beans seems to be, that in a poem of Empedocles, who was a follower of Pythagoras, this line is found: O wretches, utter wretches, from beans withhold your hands. (Pseudo- Empedocles, Katharmoi fr. 128 Wright) (trans. Rolfe 349) T.42?Aristoxenus of Tarentum qtd. in Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers 8.19 (611 Dorandi) before AD 200 ἐλίνƅƃ Ɓὲ ƀὐƅὸλ ἀξθƃƃζƀη κέιηƅη κόλῳ ƅƀƃί ƄηλƂο ἠ θεξίῳ ἠ ἄξƅῳ, νἴλνπ Ɓὲ κƃζ κέξƀλ κὴ γƃύƃƃζƀη ὄςῳ ƄƂ Ƅὰ πνιιὰ ιƀράλνηο ἑƅζνο ƄƂ θƀὶ ὠκνο, Ƅνο Ɓὲ ζƀιƀƅƅίνηο ƃπƀλίσο. 90

91 10-11 (2015) Some say that he contented himself with just some honey or a honeycomb or bread, never touching wine in the daytime, and with greens boiled or raw for dainties, and fish but rarely. (trans. Hicks 2: 337, modified) T.43 Aristoxenus of Tarentum, Pythagorean Maxims & On the Pythagorean Life fr. 1a Cardini qtd. in Iamblichus of Chalcis, On the Pythagorean Way of Life (56 Deubner) BC ἀξίƃƅῳ Ɓὲ ἐρξλƅν ἄξƅῳ θƀὶ κέιηƅη ἠ θεξίῳ, νἴλνπ Ɓὲ κƃζ κέξƀλ νὐ κƃƅƃρνλ. For lunch they ate bread and honey and honey-comb, but during the day they did not drink wine. (trans. Dillon Hershbell 121) T.44 Aristoxenus of Tarentum, On the Pythagorean Life fr. 27 Wehrli qtd. in Athenaeus of Naucratis, Learned Banqueters 2.47A (1: 262 Olson) BC θƀὶ Ƅλ Ππζƀγνξηθλ Ɓὲ Ƅξνƅὴ ἤλ ἄξƅνο κƃƅὰ κέιηƅνο, ὥο ƅεƃηλ ἈξηƃƄόμƂλνο, Ƅνὺο πξνƃƅƃξνκέλνπο ƀὐƅὰ ἀƃὶ ἐπ ἀξίƃƅῳ ιέγσλ ἀλόƃνπο ƁηƀƄƂιƂλ. According to Aristoxenus, the Pythagorean diet consisted of bread and honey; he claims that anyone who regularly eats this for lunch never gets sick. (trans. Olson 1: 263) T.45?Aristoxenus of Tarentum qtd. in Antonius Diogenes, Wonders beyond Thoule fr. 2b Stephens before AD second century Transmitted by Porphyry of Tyre, Life of Pythagoras 34 (51 52 Places) Το Ɓὲ ƁηƀίƄεο Ƅὸ κὲλ ἄξηƃƅνλ ἤλ θεξίνλ ἠ κέιη, ƁƂπλνλ Ɓ ἄξƅνο ἐθ θέγρξσλ ἠ κδƀ θƀὶ ιάρƀλƀ ἑƅζὰ θƀὶ ὠκά, ƃπƀλίσο Ɓὲ θξέƀο ἱƃξƃίσλ ζπƃίκσλ θƀὶ ƄνῦƄν νὐɓ ἐθ πƀλƅὸο κέξνπο. As to his diet, his breakfast was honeycomb or honey; his dinner was millet bread or barley bread and vegetables, cooked and raw, rarely meat from sacrificed animals, and not from every part of the animal. (trans. Stephens 139) T.46 Aristoxenus of Tarentum, Pythagorean Maxims & On the Pythagorean Life fr. 1a Cardini qtd. in Iamblichus of Chalcis, On the Pythagorean Way of Life (57 Deubner) BC ἔπƃηƅƀ ἐπὶ Ƅὸ ƁƂπλνλ ρσξƃλ, ὡο πξὸ ιίνπ ƁύƃƂσο ἀπνɓƃɓƃηπλεθέλƀη. ρξƃζƀη Ɓὲ θƀὶ νἴλῳ θƀὶ κάδῃ θƀὶ ἄξƅῳ θƀὶ ὄςῳ θƀὶ ιƀράλνηο ἑƅζνο ƄƂ θƀὶ ὠκνο. πƀξƀƅίζƃƃζƀη Ɓὲ θξέƀ δῴσλ ζπƃίκσλ [ἱƃξƃίσλ], Ƅλ Ɓὲ ζƀιƀƃƃίσλ ὄςσλ ƃπƀλίσο [ρξƃζƀη] Ƃἶλƀη γάξ Ƅηλƀ ƀὐƅλ Ɓη ƀἰƅίƀο Ƅηλὰο νὐ ρξήƃηκƀ πξὸο Ƅὸ ρξƃζƀη. Then they went to dinner, so as to finish dinning before the sun s setting. And they consumed wine, barley-cake, bread, relishes, boiled and raw vegetables. Meat of sacrificial animals was set before them, but they rarely ate fish: for certain reasons, some of these were not proper for consumption. (trans. Dillon Hershbell 123) 91

92 10-11 (2015) T.47 Aristoxenus of Tarentum, Pythagorean Maxims & On the Pythagorean Life fr. 1a Cardini qtd. in Iamblichus of Chalcis, On the Pythagorean Way of Life (57 Deubner) BC Cf. Porhyry of Tyre, Life of Pythagoras 39 (53 Places) ἐπƃὶ Ɓὲ κέιινηƃλ ἀπηέλƀη, ƃπνλɓὴλ ƀὐƅνο ἐλέρƃη ὁ νἰλνρόνο, ƃπƃηƃάλƅσλ Ɓὲ ὁ πξƃƃβύƅƀƅνο πƀξήγγƃιιƃ ƄάƁƂ ἣκƃξνλ ƅπƅὸλ θƀὶ ἔγθƀξπνλ κήƅƃ βιάπƅƃηλ κήƅƃ ƅζƃίξƃηλ, ὡƃƀύƅσο Ɓὲ θƀὶ δῶνλ, ὃ κὴ πέƅπθƃ βιƀβƃξὸλ Ƅῶ ἀλζξσπίλῳ γέλƃη, κήƅƃ βιάπƅƃηλ κήƅƃ ƅζƃίξƃηλ. And when they were about to leave, the cup-bearer poured out a libation for them, and when the libations were made, the oldest proclaimed these things: not to harm or destroy a cultivated and fruitful plant, and in like manner, not to harm or destroy a living being harmless by nature to the human race. (trans. Dillon Hershbell 123) The Pythagorean Symbols T.48 Aristotle, On the Pythagoreans qtd. in Nicomachus of Gerasa 350 BC Transmitted by Iamblichus of Chalcis, On the Pythagorean Way of Life (47 Deubner) Akousmata & Symbola no. 4 Cardini ἔƃƅη Ɓὲ κὲλ Ƅλ ἀθνπƃκƀƅηθλ ƅηινƃνƅίƀ ἀθνύƃκƀƅƀ ἀλƀπόɓƃηθƅƀ θƀὶ ἄλƃπ ιόγνπ, ὅƅη νὕƅσο πξƀθƅένλ, θƀὶ Ƅἆιιƀ, ὅƃƀ πƀξ ἐθƃίλνπ ἐξξέζε, ƄƀῦƄƀ πƃηξλƅƀη ƁηƀƅπιάƄƄƂηλ ὡο ζƃƀ ƁόγκƀƄƀ, ƀὐƅνὶ Ɓὲ πƀξ ƀὑƅλ νὔƅƃ ιέγƃηλ πξνƃπνηνῦλƅƀη νὔƅƃ ιƃθƅένλ Ƃἶλƀη, ἀιιὰ θƀὶ ƀὑƅλ ὑπνιƀκβάλνπƃη ƄνύƄνπο ἔρƃηλ βέιƅηƃƅƀ πξὸο ƅξόλεƃηλ, νἵƅηλƃο πιƃƃƅƀ ἀθνύƃκƀƅƀ ἔƃρνλ. πάλƅƀ Ɓὲ Ƅὰ νὕƅσο <θƀινύκƃλƀ> ἀθνύƃκƀƅƀ ƁηῄξεƄƀη Ƃἰο Ƅξίƀ ƂἴƁε Ƅὰ κὲλ γὰξ ƀὐƅλ Ƅί ἐƃƅη ƃεκƀίλƃη, Ƅὰ Ɓὲ Ƅί κάιηƃƅƀ, Ƅὰ Ɓὲ Ƅί ƁƂ πξάƅƅƃηλ ἠ κὴ πξάƅƅƃηλ. The philosophy of the acousmatics consists of oral instructions without demonstration and without argument: e.g. in this way one must act. And the other things said by that one [Pythagoras], these they try to preserve as divine teachings. They do not claim to speak for themselves; nor must one so speak, but even among themselves they suppose those have made best progress towards practical wisdom who have absorbed the fullest oral instructions. All these so-called oral instructions are divided into three kinds: for some indicate what a thing is; others, what is the most; and others, what is necessary to do or not to do. (trans. Dillon Hershbell 107, modified) T.49 Aristotle, On the Pythagoreans qtd. in Nicomachus of Gerasa 350 BC Transmitted by Iamblichus of Chalcis, On the Pythagorean Way of Life (48 Deubner) Akousmata & Symbola no. 4 Cardini 92

93 10-11 (2015) Ƅὰ Ɓὲ Ƅί πξƀθƅένλ ἠ νὐ πξƀθƅένλ Ƅλ ἀθνπƃκάƅσλ ƄνηƀῦƄά ἐƃƅηλ The oral instructions about what must be done or what must not be done were of this sort: for example (trans. Dillon Hershbell 107) T.50 Aristotle, On the Pythagoreans qtd. in Aelian, Historical Miscellany 4.17 ( Wilson) 350 BC ΠξνƃέƄƀƄƄƂ Ɓὲ ὁ ƀὐƅὸο Ππζƀγόξƀο θƀξɓίƀο ἀπέρƃƃζƀη θƀὶ ἀιƃθƅξπόλνο ιƃπθνῦ θƀὶ Ƅλ ζλεƃƃηɓίσλ πƀλƅὸο κιινλ The same Pythagoras gave instructions not to eat heart or white chicken, and above all to avoid eating dead animals (trans. Wilson ) T.51 Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers 8.17 (609 Dorandi) AD 200 OF 647iii Ἦλ Ɓ ƀὐƅῶ Ƅὰ ƃύκβνιƀ ƄάƁƂ The following were his watchwords or precepts: (trans. Hicks 2: 335) T.52 Aristoxenus of Tarentum, Rules of Pedagogy, book ten fr. 43 Wehrli qtd. Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers (609 Dorandi) BC ἔιƃγόλ ƄƂ θƀὶ νἱ ἄιινη ΠπζƀγόξƂηνη κὴ Ƃἶλƀη πξὸο πάλƅƀο πάλƅƀ ῥεƅά, ὥο ƅεƃηλ ἈξηƃƄόμƂλνο ἐλ ƁƂθάƄῃ ΠƀηƁƂπƄηθλ λόκσλ ἱθƀλόο ƄƂ γὰξ ἤλ ƅηιίƀο ἐξγάƅεο Ƅά Ƅ ἄιιƀ θƀὶ Ƃἴ Ƅηλƀ πύζνηƅν Ƅλ ƃπκβόισλ ƀὐƅνῦ θƃθνηλσλεθόƅƀ, Ƃὐζύο ƄƂ πξνƃεƅƀηξίδƃƅν θƀὶ ƅίινλ θƀƅƃƃθƃύƀδƃλ. And the rest of the Pythagoreans used to say that not all his doctrines were for all men to hear, our authority for this being Aristoxenus in the tenth book of his Rules of Pedagogy Whenever he [Pythagoras] heard a person who was making use of his symbols, he immediately took him into his circle, and made him a friend. (Hicks 2: Struck 100) T.53 Timaeus of Tauromenium qtd. in Iamblichus of Chalcis, On the Pythagorean Way of Life ( Deubner) BC Ƅο Ɓὲ ƀὐƅο ἰɓέƀο Ƅλ ζλ ζƃƅένλ θƀὶ ὅƅη Ƅὰ θπξηώƅƀƅƀ θƀὶ ƃπλƃθƅηθώƅƀƅƀ Ƅλ ἑƀπƅλ ƁνγκάƄσλ ἀπόξξεƅƀ ἐλ ἑƀπƅνο ƁηƂƅύιƀƄƄνλ ἅπƀλƅƃο ἀƃί, κƃƅὰ ἀθξηβνῦο ἐρƃκπζίƀο πξὸο Ƅνὺο ἐμσƅƃξηθνὺο ἀλέθƅνξƀ ƁηƀƄεξνῦλƄƂο ἀγξάƅσο ἐλ κλήκῃ, Ƅνο ƁηƀƁόρνηο ἅπƃξ κπƃƅήξηƀ ζƃλ κƃƅƀπƀξƀɓηɓόλƅƃο. ƁηόπƂξ νὐɓὲλ ἐμƃƅνίƅεƃƃ Ƅλ γƃ ιόγνπ ἀμίσλ κέρξη πνιινῦ, ƁηƁƀƃθόκƂλά ƄƂ θƀὶ κƀλζƀλόκƃλƀ ἐλƅὸο Ƅνίρσλ κόλνλ ἐγλσξίδƃƅν. ἐπὶ Ɓὲ Ƅλ ζπξƀίσλ θƀὶ ὡο ƂἰπƂλ βƃβήισλ, Ƃἰ θƀὶ πνƅƃ Ƅύρνη, Ɓηὰ ƃπκβόισλ ἀιιήινηο νἱ ἄλɓξƃο ᾐλίƅƅνλƅν, ὧλ ἴρλνο ἔƅη λῦλ [ὧλ] πƃξηƅέξνλƅƀη To the same quality of character must also be attributed the fact that they all always kept secret among themselves their own principal and most essential beliefs. Maintaining strict reserve toward those outside their fellowship, they kept these 93

94 10-11 (2015) hidden, unwritten, in their memory, and handed them down to their successors as mysteries of the gods. Hence for a long time nothing worth mentioning spread abroad, and what was taught and learned was known only within their walls. But in the presence of those outside the doorsand, so to speak, profane, if ever one were present, these men spoke obscurely to one another by means of symbols, of which the ones now commonly quoted still bear a trace (trans. Dillon Hershbell 223) T.54 Pythagorean Symbols (Acousmata) classical period Symbol 11 Boehm (no. 17 Guthrie): Κπάκσλ ἀπέρνπ = No. 37 Iamblichus Symbol 12 Boehm (nos Guthrie): Ƅλ ἰρζύσλ κὴ ἅπƃƃζƀη ὅƃνη ἱƃξνί = Symbol 5(6) + no. 33 Iamblichus Symbol 13 Boehm (no. 27 Guthrie): ἈιƂθƄξπόλƀ κὴ ἅπƅƃƃζƀη ιƃπθνῦ = No. 17(18) Iamblichus Symbol 14 Boehm (nos Guthrie): κςύρσλ ἀπέρνπ = No. 39 Iamblichus Symbol 15 Boehm (no. 4 Guthrie): ΚƀξƁίƀλ κὴ ἐƃζίƃηλ = No. 30 Iamblichus (OF 647iv) Symbol 16 Boehm (no. 57 Guthrie): γθέƅƀινλ κὴ ἐƃζίƃηλ = No. 31 Iamblichus Symbol 17 Boehm (no. 45 Guthrie): žπƃίκσλ ρξὴ ἐƃζίƃηλ κόλνλ Symbol 18 Boehm (no. 13 Guthrie): Μƀιάρελ κƃƅƀƅύƅƃπƃ κὲλ κὴ ἔƃζηƃ Ɓέ = Symbol 38 Iamblichus Symbol 28 Boehm: θέɓξῳ Ɓὲ ιέγƃη θƀὶ Ɓάƅλῃ θƀὶ θππƀξίƅƅῳ θƀὶ Ɓξπῒ θƀὶ κπξξίλῃ Ƅνὺο ζƃνὺο Ƅηκλ = Pseudo-Pythagoras, Hieros Logos in Latin Thesleff p. 167 Symbol 39 Guthrie: Ƅὸ ἑƅζὸλ ὀπƅλ νὐ λόκνο = Pseudo-Pythagoras, Hieros Logos in Latin Thesleff p. 167 Symbol 40 Boehm (no. 23 Guthrie): πƃξὶ Ƅλ ἁιλ, ὅƅη ƁƂ πƀξƀƅίζƃƃζƀη Symbol 11 Boehm: Abstain from beans. Symbol 12 Boehm: Not to touch the fish that are sacred. Symbol 13 Boehm: Not to touch white chicken. Symbol 14 Boehm: Abstain from any living animals. Symbol 15 Boehm: Eat not the heart. Symbol 16 Boehm: Eat not the brain. Symbol 17 Boehm: One may eat of sacrificial animals only. Symbol 18 Boehm: Sow mallows, but do not eat them. Symbol 28 Boehm: Honor the gods with cedar, laurel, cypress, oak, and myrtle. Symbol 39 Guthrie: Roast what not is boiled. Symbol 40 Boehm: Always put salt on the table. (trans. Guthrie Dillon Hershbell 169, modified) T.55 Nicomachus of Gerasa,?Life of Pythagoras, FGrHist 1063 F2 qtd. in Iamblichus of Chalcis, On the Pythagorean Way of Life (136 Deubner) ca. AD 151 ὑπνκλήκƀƅά Ƅηλƀ θƃƅƀιƀηώɓε θƀὶ ƃπκβνιηθὰ ƃπλƅƀμάκƃλνη Ƅά ƄƂ Ƅλ πξƃƃβπƅέξσλ ƃπγγξάκκƀƅƀ θƀὶ ὧλ ƁηƂκέκλελƄν ƃπλƀιίƃƀλƅƃο They put together some works containing their teaching in summary and symbolic form. And they collected treatises of the older Pythagoreans and such sayings of theirs as they remembered. (trans. Dillon Hershbell ) 94

95 10-11 (2015) T.56 Timaeus of Tauromenium qtd. in Iamblichus of Chalcis, On the Pythagorean Way of Life (143 Deubner) BC Diodoros p. 70 Thesleff πξὸο ὃλ ἀƅηθέƃζƀη ΓηόƁσξνλ Ƅὸλ ἈƃπέλƁηνλ, ὃλ πƀξƀɓƃρζλƀη Ɓηὰ Ƅὴλ ƃπάληλ Ƅλ ἐλ Ƅῶ ƃπƃƅήκƀƅη ἀλɓξλ. νὗƅνο Ɓὲ Ƃἰο Ƅὴλ ιιάɓƀ ἐπƀλƃιζὼλ ƁηέƁσθƂ Ƅὰο ΠπζƀγνξƂίνπο ƅσλάο. to him [sc. Aresas from Lucania] came Diodorus of Aspendus, whom he received because of the scarcity of men in the community. This man, on returning to Hellas, spread abroad the Pythagorean sayings. (trans. Dillon Hershbell 255) T.57 Alexander Polyhistor of Miletus, Successions of Philosophers, FGrHist 273 F93 qtd. in Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers ( Dorandi) BC [24] ſεƃὶ Ɓ ὁ ἈιέμƀλƁξνο ἐλ Τƀο Ƅλ ƅηινƃόƅσλ ƁηƀƁνρƀο θƀὶ ƄƀῦƄƀ Ƃὑξεθέλƀη ἐλ Ππζƀγνξηθνο ὑπνκλήκƀƃηλ [36] Κƀὶ ƄƀῦƄƀ κέλ ƅεƃηλ ὁ ἈιέμƀλƁξνο ἐλ Ƅνο Ππζƀγνξηθνο ὑπνκλήκƀƃηλ Ƃὑξεθέλƀη, θƀὶ Ƅὰ ἐθƃίλσλ ἐρόκƃλƀ ὁ ἈξηƃƄνƄέιεο. [24] Alexander in his Successions of Philosophers says that he found in the Pythagorean Memoirs the following tenets as well. [36] This is what Alexander says that he found in the Pythagorean Memoirs. What follows is Aristotle s. (trans. Hicks 2: ) T.58a Anaximander Junior of Miletus, Explanation of the Pythagorean Symbols, FGrHist 9 T1 qtd. in Suda Lexicon, Α 1987 (1: 179 Adler) after 359 BC Akousmata & Symbola no. 6 Cardini ἈλƀμίκƀλƁξνο, ἈλƀμηκάλƁξνπ, Μηιήƃηνο, ὁ λƃώƅƃξνο, ἱƃƅνξηθόο. γέγνλƃ Ɓὲ θƀƅὰ Ƅνὺο ἈξƄƀμέξμνπ ρξόλνπο Ƅνῦ Μλήκνλνο θιεζέλƅνο. ἔγξƀςƃ ƃπκβόισλ ΠπζƀγνξƂίσλ ἐμήγεƃηλ Son of Anaximander, a Milesian, the younger, a historian. He was born in the time of Artaxerxes who was called Mnemon [ BC]. He wrote an Explanation of the Pythagorean Symbols (the SOL translation) T.58b Androcydes, On the Symbols qtd. in Pseudo-Iamblichus, Theology of Arithmetics 40 (52 Falco) fl BC Pythagoras fr. 8 Cardini ἈλƁξνθύƁεο ƄƂ ὁ Ππζƀγνξηθὸο ὁ ΠƂξὶ Ƅλ ƃπκβόισλ γξάςƀο νἱ Ƅὰ θƀƅὰ Ƅὸλ ἄλɓξƀ ἀλƀγξάςƀλƅƃο ƃηο ἔƅƃƃη Ƅὰο κƃƅƃκςπρώƃƃηο Ƅὰο ƀὐƅῶ ƃπκβƃβεθπίƀο ἔƅƀƃƀλ γƃγνλέλƀη. 95

96 10-11 (2015) Androcydes the Pythagorean, who wrote On the Symbols who all recorded Pythagoras deeds, said that the transmigrations of soul which he [sc. Pythagoras] underwent occurred at 216-intervals (trans. Waterfield 84) T.58c Alexander Polyhistor of Miletus, On the Pythagorean Symbols, FGrHist 273 F94 qtd. in Clement of Alexandria, Stromata (1: 44 Stählin) BC ἈιέμƀλƁξνο Ɓὲ ἐλ Ƅῶ ΠƂξὶ Ππζƀγνξηθλ ƃπκβόισλ Alexander, in his book On the Pythagorean Symbols (trans. ANF 2: 316) T.59 Aristotle, On the Pythagoreans qtd. in Nicomachus of Gerasa 350 BC Transmitted by Iamblichus of Chalcis, On the Pythagorean Way of Life (50 Deubner) Akousmata & Symbola no. 4 Cardini ἐπ ἐλίσλ κὲλ νὖλ ἐπηιέγƃƅƀη Ƅί ƁƂ, νἷνλ ὅƅη ƁƂ ƄƂθλνπνηƂƃζƀη ἕλƃθƀ Ƅνῦ θƀƅƀιηπƃλ ἕƅƃξνλ ἀλζ ἑƀπƅνῦ ζƃλ ζƃξƀπƃπƅὴλ, Ƅνο Ɓὲ νὐɓƃὶο ιόγνο πξόƃƃƃƅη. θƀὶ ἔληƀ κὲλ Ƅλ ἐπηιƃγνκέλσλ ƁόμƂη πξνƃπƃƅπθέλƀη ἀπ ἀξρο, ἔληƀ Ɓὲ πόξξσ νἷνλ πƃξὶ Ƅνῦ Ƅὸλ ἄξƅνλ κὴ θƀƅƀγλύλƀη, ὅƅη πξὸο Ƅὴλ ἐλ ᾅɓνπ θξίƃηλ νὐ ƃπκƅέξƃη. ƀἱ Ɓὲ πξνƃƅηζέκƃλƀη ƂἰθνƄνινγίƀη πƃξὶ Ƅλ ƄνηνύƄσλ νὐθ Ƃἰƃὶ Ππζƀγνξηθƀί, ἀιι ἐλίσλ ἔμσζƃλ ἐπηƃνƅηδνκέλσλ θƀὶ πƃηξσκέλσλ πξνƃάπƅƃηλ ƂἰθόƄƀ ιόγνλ, νἷνλ θƀὶ πƃξὶ Ƅνῦ ιƃρζέλƅνο, Ɓηὰ Ƅί νὐ ƁƂ θƀƅƀγλύλƀη Ƅὸλ ἄξƅνλ νἳ κὲλ γάξ ƅƀƃη ὅƅη νὐ ƁƂ Ƅὸλ ƃπλάγνλƅƀ ƁηƀιύƂηλ (Ƅὸ Ɓὲ ἀξρƀνλ βƀξβƀξηθο πάλƅƃο ἐπὶ ἕλƀ ἄξƅνλ ƃπλῄƃƃƀλ νἱ ƅίινη) In the case of some [instructions], a reason why is added; for example, one must bear children in order to leave behind another in the place of oneself for worship of the gods. But for other [ones], no reason is added. And some of the reasons given seem to have been attached from the beginning and others later; for example, not to break bread, because it is not advantageous for judgment in Hades. The probable reasons given about such matters are not Pythagorean, but were devised by some outside the school trying to give a likely reason, as, for example, that now mentioned: why one ought not break bread means not to dissolve the congregation (for in the past, all who were friends came together in foreign fashion for one loaf of bread). (trans. Dillon Hershbell 109, modified) T.60?Androcydes, On the Symbols qtd. in Nicomachus of Gerasa? BC Transmitted by Iamblichus of Chalcis, On the Pythagorean Way of Life (63 Deubner) ἐλνκνζέƅεƃƃ Ɓὲ Ƅνο ƀὐƅνο θƀξɓίƀλ κὴ ƄξώγƂηλ, ἐγθέƅƀινλ κὴ ἐƃζίƃηλ, θƀὶ ƄνύƄσλ ƂἴξγƂƃζƀη πάλƅƀο Ƅνὺο Ππζƀγνξηθνύο γƃκνλίƀη γάξ Ƃἰƃη θƀὶ ὡƃƀλƃὶ ἐπηβάζξƀη θƀὶ ἕɓξƀη Ƅηλὲο Ƅνῦ ƅξνλƃλ θƀὶ Ƅνῦ δλ. ἀƅσƃηνῦƅν Ɓὲ ƀὐƅὰ Ɓηὰ Ƅὴλ Ƅνῦ ζƃίνπ ιόγνπ ƅύƃηλ. νὕƅσο θƀὶ κƀιάρεο ƂἴξγƂƃζƀη ἐθέιƃπƃλ, ὅƅη πξώƅε ἄγγƃινο θƀὶ ƃεκάλƅξηƀ ƃπκπƀζƃίƀο νὐξƀλίσλ πξὸο ἐπίγƃηƀ. θƀὶ κƃιƀλνύξνπ Ɓὲ ἀπέρƃƃζƀη πƀξήγγƃιιƃ ρζνλίσλ γάξ ἐƃƅη ζƃλ. θƀὶ ἐξπζξλνλ κὴ πξνƃιƀκβάλƃηλ Ɓη ἕƅƃξƀ 96

97 10-11 (2015) ƄνηƀῦƄƀ ƀἴƅηƀ. θƀὶ θπάκσλ ἀπέρνπ Ɓηὰ πνιιὰο ἱƃξάο ƄƂ θƀὶ ƅπƃηθὰο θƀὶ Ƃἰο Ƅὴλ ςπρὴλ ἀλεθνύƃƀο ƀἰƅίƀο. θƀὶ ἄιιƀ ƄνηƀῦƄƀ ƁηƂζƂƃκνζέƄεƃƂ ƄνύƄνηο ὅκνηƀ, θƀὶ Ɓηὰ Ƅο Ƅξνƅο ἀξρόκƃλνο Ƃἰο ἀξƃƅὴλ ὁɓεγƃλ Ƅνὺο ἀλζξώπνπο. He decreed that they not munch on the heart nor eat brain, and from these all Pythagoreans are banned; for these organs are the ruling parts and, as it were, stepping-stones and seats of practical thinking and living. And these same things he eschewed on religious grounds because of the nature of the divine reason. Se also he commanded them to abstain from mallow, because it is the first messenger and indicator of an affinity of heavenly things with things earthly. And he ordered them to abstain from blacktail, for it belongs to the earth gods; and do not eat pandora for similar reasons. And to abstain from beans because of many sacred and physical reasons, and reasons pertaining to the soul. He prescribed other rules like these, and thus, beginning with food, he led human beings to moral excellence. (trans. Dillon Hershbell 133) T.61 Anonymus qtd. in Iamblichus of Chalcis, Exhortation to the Study of Philosophy 21 ( Places) before AD 290s Akousmata & Symbola no. 6 Cardini ἔƃƅσ Ɓὲ Ƅὰ ƅξƀƃζεƃόκƃλƀ Σύκβνιƀ ƄƀῦƄƀ. Γηὰ πάλƅσλ Ɓὴ νὖλ ƄνύƄσλ ƅƀλƃξὸο γέγνλƃ θƀὶ ὁ Ɓηὰ Ƅλ ƃπκβόισλ πξνƅξƃπƅηθὸο Ƅύπνο ἔρσλ πνιὺ Ƅὸ ἀξρƀηόƅξνπνλ θƀὶ Ππζƀγνξηθόλ. The following are the Symbols which will be elucidated:.. Through all the foregoing explanations, therefore, appears the mode of exhortation through symbols containing much of the ancient and Pythagoric method. (trans. Johnson ) T.62 Pseudo-Pythagoras, Hieros Logos fr. 8 Thesleff (p. 159) qtd. in Sextus Empiricus, Against the Physicists (AM 9) 128 (243 Mutschmann) classical period ἔλζƃλ θƀὶ πƀξῄλνπλ νὗƅνη νἱ ƅηιόƃνƅνη ἀπέρƃƃζƀη Ƅλ ἐκςύρσλ, θƀὶ ἀƃƃβƃλ ἔƅƀƃθνλ Ƅνὺο ἀλζξσπνπο βσκὸλ ἐξƃύζνλƅƀο κƀθάξσλ ζƃξκνƃη ƅόλνηƃηλ. Hence, too, these philosophers [viz. Pythagoras, Empedocles et consortes] advised abstinence from animal food, and declared that those men were impious who Reddened the Blessed Ones altars with warm blood pouring from victims. (trans. Bury 3: 69) T.63 Pseudo-Pythagoras, Hieros Logos fr. 11 Thesleff (p. 162) qtd. in Timaeus of Tauromenium classical period Transmitted by Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers 8.23 (613 Dorandi) λόκῳ βνεζƃλ, ἀλνκίᾳ πνιƃκƃλ ƅπƅὸλ ἣκƃξνλ κήƅƃ ƅζίλƃηλ κήƅƃ ƃίλƃƃζƀη, ἀιιὰ κεɓὲ δῶνλ ὃ κὴ βιάπƅƃη ἀλζξώπνπο. 97

98 10-11 (2015) To support the law, to wage war on lawlessness. Never to kill or injure trees that are not wild, nor even any animal that does not injure man. (trans. Hicks 2: 341) T.64 Pseudo-Pythagoras, Hieros Logos qtd. in Stobaeus, Anthology (5: 1128 Wachsmuth) classical period ſƃίɓƃν Ƅο δσο, κή κηλ θƀƅƀζπκνβνξήƃῃο. Save the life, do not eat [i.e. vex E. O.] the heart. (trans. E. O.) T.65 Herodotus of Halicarnassus, Histories (187 Rosén) 443 BC OF OF 43; Pseudo-Pythagoras, Hieros Logos fr. 1 Thesleff; Pythagoras no. 1 Cardini; Orfismo C7 Scarpi νὐ κέλƅνη ἔο γƃ Ƅὰ ἱξὰ ἐƃƅέξƃƅƀη ƂἰξίλƂƀ νὐɓὲ ƃπγθƀƅƀζάπƅƃƅƀί ƃƅη νὐ γὰξ ὅƃηνλ. ὁκνινγένπƃη Ɓὲ ƄƀῦƄƀ Ƅνƃη ξƅηθνƃη θƀιƃνκέλνηƃη θƀὶ Βƀθρηθνƃη, ἐνῦƃη Ɓὲ ΑἰγππƄίνηƃη θƀὶ ΠπζƀγνξƂίνηƃη νὐɓὲ γὰξ ƄνύƄσλ Ƅλ ὀξγίσλ κƃƅέρνλƅƀ ὅƃηνλ ἐƃƅὶ ἐλ Ƃἰξηλένηƃη Ƃἵκƀƃη ζƀƅζλƀη. ἔƃƅη Ɓὲ πƃξὶ ƀὐƅλ ἱξὸο ιόγνο ιƃγόκƃλνο. But nothing of wool is brought into temples, or buried with them; that is forbidden. In this they follow the same rule as the so-called Orphic and Bacchic [?rituals,?books], but which is in truth Egyptian and Pythagorean [ones]; for neither may those initiated into these rites be buried in woolen wrappings. There is a sacred legend about this. (trans. Godley 367, modified) T.66 Flavius Philostratus, Life of Apollonius of Tyana (2: 122 Jones) AD OF 636 βσκλ ƄƂ ὡο θƀζƀξὸο ἅςƀηƅν θƀὶ ὡο ἀρξάλƅῳ κὲλ ἐκςύρνπ βξώƃƃσο γƀƃƅξὶ ρξήƃƀηƅν, θƀζƀξῶ Ɓὲ ƃώκƀƅη πάλƅσλ ἐƃζεκάƅσλ, ὁπόƃƀ ζλεƃƃηɓίσλ μύγθƃηƅƀη He [viz. Pythagoras] approached altars in purity, he kept his stomach undefiled by the flesh of living things, and his body uncontamined by all clothes made from dead creatures. (trans. Jones 2: 123) T.67 (cf. T.54) Iamblichus of Chalcis, On the Pythagorean Way of Life (85 87 Deubner) AD 300 Pseudo-Pythagoras, Hieros Logos in Latin (Thesleff p. 167) 41 ἐλ Ɓὲ Ƅνο ΛƀƄίλνηο ἀλƀγηλώƃθƃƃζƀη Ƅνῦ Ππζƀγόξνπ Ƅὸλ ἹƂξὸλ ιόγνλ, νὐθ Ƃἰο Ƅλ πάλƅƀο νὐɓ ὑπὸ πάλƅσλ, ἀιι ὑπὸ Ƅλ κƃƅƃρόλƅσλ ἑƅνίκσο πξὸο Ƅὴλ Ƅλ ἀγƀζλ ƁηƁƀƃθƀιίƀλ θƀὶ κεɓὲλ ƀἰƃρξὸλ ἐπηƅεɓƃπόλƅσλ θέɓξῳ Ɓὲ ιέγƃη θƀὶ Ɓάƅλῃ θƀὶ 41 Holger Thesleff infers, from the Iamblichean phrase: ἐλ Ɓὲ Ƅνο ΛƀƄίλνηο, that the Hieros Logos in question was composed in Latin (Thesleff 1961, 19). Iamblichus, however, tells a different story: that the text was read to the Latins, by whom he meant the Italiotes, i.e. the Greek-speaking inhabitants of Magna Graecia. 98

99 10-11 (2015) θππƀξίƅƅῳ θƀὶ Ɓξπῒ θƀὶ κπξξίλῃ Ƅνὺο ζƃνὺο Ƅηκλ ἑƅζὸλ Ɓὲ πƀξƀγγέιιƃη κὴ ὀπƅλ Among the Latins the Sacred Discourse of Pythagoras is read aloud, not to all or by all, but by those favorably disposed to the teaching of good things, and who indulge in no shameful practices. Honor the gods with cedar, laurel, cypress, oak, and myrtle He forbade roasting the boiled (trans. Dillon Hershbell 169) T.68 (cf. T.18) Pseudo-Pythagoras, Hieros Logos fr. 5 Thesleff classical period OF 648 ἶƃόλ Ƅνη θπάκνπο ƄƂ ƅƀγƃλ θƃƅƀιάο ƄƂ Ƅνθήσλ. It is the same, you see, whether you eat beans or the heads of your parents. (trans. Schütrumpf 239) Symbol 12: Abstain from the Sacred Fish T.69 Aristotle, On the Pythagoreans fr. 195 Rose qtd. in Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers 8.34 (618 Dorandi) 350 BC Ƅλ ἰρζύσλ κὴ ἅπƅƃƃζƀη, ὅƃνη ἱƃξνί κὴ γὰξ ƁƂλ Ƅὰ ƀὐƅὰ ƄƂƄάρζƀη ζƃνο θƀὶ ἀλζξώπνηο, ὥƃπƃξ νὐɓ ἐιƃπζέξνηο θƀὶ Ɓνύινηο. Not to touch such fish as were sacred; for it is not right that gods and men should be allotted the same things, any more than free men and slaves. (trans. Hicks 2: 351) T.70a Aristotle, On the Pythagoreans fr. 194 Rose qtd. in Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers 8.19 ( Dorandi) 350 BC ΠƀλƄὸο Ɓὲ κιινλ ἀπεγόξƃπƃ κήƅƃ ἐξπζλνλ ἐƃζίƃηλ κήƅƃ κƃιάλνπξνλ, θƀξɓίƀο Ƅ ἀπέρƃƃζƀη θƀὶ θπάκσλ ἈξηƃƄνƄέιεο Ɓέ ƅεƃη θƀὶ κήƅξƀο θƀὶ Ƅξίγιεο ἐλίνƅƃ. Above all, he forbade pandora and blacktail as food, and he enjoined abstinence from the hearts of animals and from beans, and sometimes, according to Aristotle, from pork belly and red mullet too. (trans. Hicks 2: 337, modified) T.70b Aristotle, On the Pythagoreans fr. 194 Rose qtd. in Aulus Gellius, Attic Nights (178 Marshall) 350 BC OF 647v; Pythagoras fr. 9 Cardini Plutarchus quoque, homo in disciplinis gravi auctoritate, in primo librorum, quos de Homero composuit, Aristotelem philosophum scripsit eadem ipsa de Pythagoricis scripsisse, quod non abstinuerint edundis animalibus, nisi pauca carne quadam. Verba ipsa Plutarchi, quoniam res inopinata est, subscripsi: ἈξηƃƄνƄέιεο Ɓὲ κήƅξƀο θƀὶ θƀξɓίƀο θƀὶ ἀθƀιήƅεο θƀὶ ƄνηνύƄσλ Ƅηλλ ἄιισλ ἀπέρƃƃζƀί ƅεƃη Ƅνὺο Ππζƀγνξηθνύο, ρξƃζƀη Ɓὲ Ƅνο ἄιινηο. Ἀθƀιήƅεο autem est animal marinum, quod urtica appellatur. Sed et piscibus mullis abstinere Pythagoricos Plutarchus in Symposiacis dicit. 99

100 10-11 (2015) Plutarch too, a weighty authority in matters of scholarship, wrote in the first book of his books On Homer [fr. 122 Sandbach] that the philosopher Aristotle made the same statement about the Pythagoreans, namely that they did not abstain from eating animals, except for a few particular meats. As this is unexpected, I add Plutarch s own words: Aristotle says that the Pythagoreans abstained from the pig s paunch, the heart, the ἀθƀιήƅε and some other things of the sort, but ate everything else. Now the ἀθƀιήƅε is a marine creature which is called the sea-nettle. But Plutarch in his Table Talks [670D] says that the Pythagoreans also abstained from mullets. (trans. Sandbach Rolfe 351) T.70c Aristotle, On the Pythagoreans fr. 194 Rose qtd. in Antonius Diogenes, Wonders beyond Thoule, fr. 2b Stephens 350 BC Transmitted by Porphyry of Tyre, Life of Pythagoras 45 (57 Places) Akousmata & Symbola no. 6 Cardini ἀπέρƃƃζƀη Ɓὲ θƀὶ ἄιισλ πƀξῄλƃη, νἷνλ κήƅξƀο ƄƂ θƀὶ ƄξηγιίƁνο θƀὶ ἀθƀιήƅεο, ƃρƃɓὸλ Ɓὲ θƀὶ Ƅλ ἄιισλ ζƀιƀƃƃίσλ μπκπάλƅσλ. He also recommended abstinence from other foods, such as pork belly, red mullet and sea urchin, and practically all seafood. (trans. Stephens 145, modified) T.71 Athenaeus of Naucratis, Learned Banqueters 3.90B C (1: 492 Olson). AD Ƅὸ Ɓ ἐλ ΛπƃηƃƄξάƄῃ ἈξηƃƄνƅάλνπο πέπƀηθƅƀη ἀιι ὦ Ƅεζλ ἀλɓξƃηνƅάƅε θƀὶ κεƅξηɓίσλ ἀθƀιεƅλ. ἐπƃὶ ƄήζƂƀ Ƅὰ ὄƃƅξƃƀ. κέκηθƅƀη γὰξ θσκῳɓηθο πξὸο Ƅὴλ Ƅήζελ θƀὶ κεƅέξƀ. The passage in Aristophanes Lysistrata (549) represents a play on words: O most manly of sea-squirts (tēthea) and nettle-mommies (mētridia); Since sea-squirts are a type of shellfish, and he has created a comic jumble involving the words tēthē ( grandmother ) and mētēr ( mother ). (trans. Olson 1: 493) T.72 Dioscorides of Anazarbus, De materia medica (2: 252 Wellmann). AD [ 1 ] ἀ θ ƀ ι ή ƅ ε νἱ Ɓὲ θλίɓελ [2] Ƅὸ Ɓὲ ƃπέξκƀ ἐπὶ ƃπλνπƃίƀλ πƀξνξκᾶ πηλόκƃλνλ κƃƅὰ γιπθένο θƀὶ ὑƃƅέξƀλ ἀλƀƃƅνκν [1] The stinging nettle, but some call it knide [2] The seed is aphrodisiac and opens the uterus when drunk with grape syrup. (trans. Beck 288) T.73 (cf. T.60)?Androcydes, On the Symbols qtd. in Nicomachus of Gerasa.? BC Transmitted by Iamblichus of Chalcis, On the Pythagorean Way of Life (63 Deubner) θƀὶ κƃιƀλνύξνπ Ɓὲ ἀπέρƃƃζƀη πƀξήγγƃιιƃ ρζνλίσλ γάξ ἐƃƅη ζƃλ. θƀὶ ἐξπζξλνλ κὴ πξνƃιƀκβάλƃηλ Ɓη ἕƅƃξƀ ƄνηƀῦƄƀ ƀἴƅηƀ. 100

101 10-11 (2015) And he ordered them to abstain from blacktail, for it belongs to the earth gods; and do not eat pandora for similar reasons. (trans. Dillon Hershbell 133) T.74 Anonymus qtd. in Iamblichus of Chalcis, Exhortation to the Study of Philosophy 21 (138 Places) before AD 290s Akousmata & Symbola no. 6 Cardini κ Ƃ ι ƀ λ ν ύ ξ ν π ἀ π έ ρ ν π ρ ζ ν λ ί σ λ γ ά ξ ἐ ƃ Ƅ η ζ Ƃ λ. Ƅὰ κὲλ νὖλ ἄιιƀ πƃξὶ ƀὐƅνῦ ἐλ Ƅῶ ΠƂξὶ ƃπκβόισλ ἐξνῦκƃλ, ὅƃƀ Ɓὲ Ƃἰο πξνƅξνπὴλ ἁξκόδƃη, πƀξƀγγέιιƃη Ƅο νὐξƀλίƀο πνξƃίƀο ἀλƅέρƃƃζƀη θƀὶ Ƅνο λνƃξνο ζƃνο ƃπλάπƅƃƃζƀη, Ƅο ƄƂ ἐλύινπ ƅύƃƃσο ρσξίδƃƃζƀη θƀὶ πƃξηάγƃƃζƀη πξὸο Ƅὴλ ἄπινλ θƀὶ θƀζƀξὰλ δσήλ, ζƃλ ƄƂ ζƃξƀπƃίᾳ ρξƃζƀη Ƅῆ ἀξίƃƅῃ θƀὶ κάιηƃƅƀ Ƅνο πξσƅίƃƅνηο ζƃνο πξνƃεθνύƃῃ. Cognate to the preceding is the sixth symbol, abstain from blacktail, for it belongs to the terrestrial Gods. This admonishes us to enter upon the celestial journey, to unite ourselves to the intellectual Gods, to become separate from the material nature, and to be led as it were in circular progression to an immaterial and pure life. It further exhorts us to adopt the most excellent worship to the Gods, and especially that which pertains to the primary Gods. (trans. Johnson 97, modified) T.75a Trypho of Alexandria, On Tropes 4 ( Spengel) first century BC ἈλƁξνθύƁεο ὁ Ππζƀγνξηθὸο ἔιƃγƃ κƃιάλνπξνλ κὴ ἐƃζίƃηλ ἀλƅὶ Ƅνῦ ςƃπɓ ιόγνλ κὴ πξνΐƃƃζƀη Ƅὸ γὰξ ςƃῦɓνο ἐλ Ƅνο ἐƃράƅνηο κέξƃƃη κƃιƀίλƃƅƀη θƀὶ ἀκƀπξνῦƅƀη. Androcydes the Pythagorean said: Do not eat the blacktail; that is, Do not speak lying word, for every lie, as it turns out, becomes dark and obscure. (trans. E. O.) T.75b Pseudo-Plutarch, Education of Children 17, 12D (24 Gärtner) after AD 120 κὴ γƃύƃƃζƀη κƃιƀλνύξσλ ƄνπƄέƃƄη κὴ ƃπλɓηƀƅξίβƃηλ κέιƀƃηλ ἀλζξώπνηο Ɓηὰ θƀθνήζƃηƀλ. Do not taste of blacktails; that is, Do not spend your time with men of black character, because of their malevolence. (Babbitt 1: 59) T.76 Anonymus qtd. in Iamblichus of Chalcis, Exhortation to the Study of Philosophy 21 (149 Places) before AD 290s Akousmata & Symbola no. 6 Cardini Τὸ Ɓὲ ἐ ξ π ζ λ ν λ κὴ π ξ ν ƃ ι ƀ κ β ά λ ν π ƅƀίλƃƅƀη πξὸο Ƅὴλ Ƅνῦ ὀλόκƀƅνο ἐƅπκνινγίƀλ ςηιὴλ ƃπκβƃβιƃζƀη. ἀπεξπζξηƀθόƅƀ γὰξ θƀὶ ἀλƀίƃρπλƅνλ κὴ ἐπηɓέρνπ ἄλζξσπνλ, ἠ ἐθ Ƅνῦ ἐλƀλƅίνπ θƀƅƀπιγƀ θƀὶ ἐλ πƀλƅὶ θƀζ ὑπƃξβνιὴλ ἐξπζξηλƅƀ θƀὶ ƄƀπƂηλνύκƂλνλ ὑπό ƄƂ λνῦ θƀὶ ἀƃζƃλνῦο Ɓηƀλνίƀο. Ɓηὰ Ɓὲ ƄνύƄνπ λνƃƅƀη Ƅὸ κὴ ƀὐƅὸο ƄνηνῦƄνο ἴƃζη. This, Do not receive the fish erythrinus, seems to merely refer to the etymology of the word. For it signifies: receive not an unblushing and impudent man; nor, on the 101

102 10-11 (2015) contrary, one who is stupidly astonished and who blushes at everything; and is humble in the extreme, through the imbecility of his intellect and reasoning power. Hence this also is understood: Be not yourself such a one. (trans. Johnson 110) T.77 Melanthius of Athens, On the Mysteries at Eleusis, FGrHist 326 F2 qtd. in Athenaeus of Naucratis, Learned Banqueters 7.325C (3: 532 Olson) BC ΜƂιάλζηνο Ɓ ἐλ Ƅῶ πƃξὶ Ƅλ ἐλ ιƃπƃλη κπƃƅεξίσλ θƀὶ Ƅξίγιελ θƀὶ κƀηλίɓƀ, ὅƅη θƀὶ ζƀιάƅƅηνο θάƅε. But Melanthius in his On the Mysteries at Eleusis says that both the red mullet and the sprat are [sc. sacrificed to Hecate], because Hecate is a sea goddess. (trans. Olson 3: 533) T.78 Apollodorus of Athens, On Gods, FGrHist 244 F109a qtd. in Athenaeus of Naucratis, Learned Banqueters 7.325B (3: 532 Olson) ca. 146 BC ἈπνιιόƁσξνο Ɓ ἐλ Ƅνο πƃξὶ ζƃλ Ƅῆ θάƅῃ ƅεƃὶ ζύƃƃζƀη Ƅξίγιελ Ɓηὰ Ƅὴλ Ƅνῦ ὀλόκƀƅνο νἰθƃηόƅεƅƀ Ƅξίκνξƅνο γὰξ ζƃόο. Apollodorus in his On Gods claims that the red mullet is sacrificed to Hecate because it has an appropriate name; for the goddess takes three forms. (trans. Olson 3: 533) T.79 Chariclides, Chain fr. 1, CAF 3: 394 qtd. in Athenaeus of Naucratis, Learned Banqueters 7.325D (3: 534 Olson) after 327 BC Ɓέƃπνηλ θάƅε ΤξηνƁƄη, ƄξίκνξƅƂ, ƄξηπξόƃσπƂ, Ƅξίγιƀηο θεɓƃπκέλƀ. Mistress Hecate of the Crossroads, with three forms and three faces, attended by red mullets. (trans. Olson 3: 535) T.80 Nicomachus of Gerasa qtd. in Iamblichus of Chalcis, On the Pythagorean Way of Life (61 Deubner) ca. AD 151 θƀζόινπ Ɓὲ ἀπƃɓνθίκƀδƃ θƀὶ Ƅὰ Ƅνο ζƃνο ἀιιόƅξηƀ ὡο ἀπάγνλƅƀ κο Ƅο πξὸο Ƅνὺο ζƃνὺο νἰθƃηώƃƃσο. θƀƅ ἄιινλ Ɓὲ ƀὖ Ƅξόπνλ θƀὶ Ƅλ λνκηδνκέλσλ Ƃἶλƀη ἱƃξλ ƃƅόɓξƀ ἀπέρƃƃζƀη πƀξήγγƃιιƃλ ὡο Ƅηκο ἀμίσλ ὄλƅσλ, ἀιι νὐρὶ Ƅο θνηλο θƀὶ ἀλζξσπίλεο ρξήƃƃσο He entirely rejected foods which are foreign to the gods because they divert us from kinship with the gods. Again, on another basis, he emphatically commended abstention from foods believed sacred since they are worthy of honor, and not for common and human consumption. (trans. Dillon Hershbell 131) T.81 Plutarch of Chaeronea, Table Talks 8.8.1, 728D E (286 Hubert) AD ὅƅη Ɓὴ κάιηƃƅƀ Ƅλ ἰρζύσλ ἀπƃίρνλƅν θƀὶ γὰξ ἱƃƅνξƃƅƀη ƄνῦƄν πƃξὶ Ƅλ πƀιƀηλ Ππζƀγνξηθλ, θƀὶ Ƅνῦ θƀζ κο ἈιƂμηθξάƄνπο ἐλέƅπρνλ κƀζεƅƀο ἄιιƀ κὲλ 102

103 10-11 (2015) <ἔκςπρ > ἔƃƅηλ ὅƅƃ κƃƅξίσο πξνƃƅƃξνκέλνηο θƀὶ λὴ Γίƀ ζύνπƃηλ, ἰρζύνο Ɓὲ κὴ γƃύƃƀƃζƀη Ƅὸ πƀξάπƀλ ὑπνκέλνπƃηλ. ἡλ Ɓὲ ΤπλƁάξεο ὁ ΛƀθƂƁƀηκόληνο ƀἰƅίƀλ *** ἔιƃγƃ Ɓὲ Ƅο ἐρƃκπζίƀο ƄνῦƄν γέξƀο Ƃἶλƀη, Ƅνὺο ἰρζῦο θƀιƃλ <ἔιινπƀο>, νἷνλ ἰιινκέλελ Ƅὴλ ὄπƀ θƀὶ θƀζƃηξγνκέλελ ἔρνλƅƀο that they used to abstain especially from fish. Not only is this reported of the ancient Pythagoreans, but I have also met pupils of Alexicrates, our contemporary, who sometimes used the flesh of other living creatures in moderation, and even offered it in sacrifice, but who could not bear to taste fish at all. The reason advanced by the Lacedaemonian Tyndares I cannot accept, that this abstention is out of regard for their silence, and that they call fish ellops ( silent ) because they keep their mouths shut and under restraint. (trans. Minar 175) T.82 Cratinus, Trophonius fr. 221 Edmonds before 430 BC νὐɓ ΑἰμσλίƁ ἐξπζξόρξσλ ἐƃζίƃηλ ἔƅη Ƅξίγιελ νὐɓὲ Ƅξπγόλνο νὐɓὲ ƁƂηλνῦ ƅπὴλ κƃιƀλνύξνπ. Nor any more the red-fleshed Aexonian mullet to eat, not yet of trygon to taste nor the queer-natured melanure s meat. (trans. Edmonds 1: 103) Symbol 13: Not to Sacrifice a White Chicken T.83 Plutarch of Chaeronea, Table Talks 4.5.2, 670C D (144 Hubert) AD θƀὶ Ƅί ἄλ Ƅηο ΑἰγππƄίνπο ƀἰƅηῶƅν Ƅο ƄνƃƀύƄεο ἀινγίƀο, ὅπνπ θƀὶ Ƅνὺο Ππζƀγνξηθνὺο ἱƃƅνξνῦƃη θƀὶ ἀιƃθƅξπόλƀ ιƃπθὸλ ƃέβƃƃζƀη θƀὶ Ƅλ ζƀιƀƅƅίσλ κάιηƃƅƀ Ƅξίγιεο θƀὶ ἀθƀιήƅεο ἀπέρƃƃζƀη How could anyone blame the Egyptians for such irrationality when it is recorded that the Pythagoreans respect even a white cock, and that they abstain particularly from the red mullet and the sea urchin among the marine animals? (trans. Clement 355) T.84 Anonymus qtd. in Iamblichus of Chalcis, Exhortation to the Study of Philosophy 21 (142 Places) before AD 290s Akousmata & Symbola no. 6 Cardini Τὸ Ɓὲ ἀ ι Ƃ θ Ƅ ξ π ό λ ƀ Ƅ ξ έ ƅ Ƃ κ έ λ, κὴ ζ ῦ Ƃ Ɓέ κ ή λ ῃ γ ὰ ξ θ ƀ ὶ ι ί ῳ θ ƀ ζ η έ ξ σ Ƅ ƀ η ƃπκβνπιƃύƃη κλ ὑπνƅξέƅƃηλ θƀὶ ƃσκƀƅνπνηƃλ θƀὶ κὴ πƀξνξλ ἀπνιιύκƃλƀ θƀὶ ƁηƀƅζƂηξόκƂλƀ Ƅὰ Ƅο Ƅνῦ θόƃκνπ ἑλώƃƃσο θƀὶ ἀιιεινπρίƀο ƃπκπƀζƃίƀο ƄƂ θƀὶ ƃπκπλνίƀο κƃγάιƀ ƄƂθκήξηƀ. ὥƃƅƃ πξνƅξέπƃη Ƅο Ƅνῦ πƀλƅὸο ζƃσξίƀο θƀὶ ƅηινƃνƅίƀο ἀλƅηιƀκβάλƃƃζƀη. ἐπƃὶ γὰξ ἀπόθξπƅνο ƅύƃƃη πƃξὶ Ƅνῦ πƀλƅὸο ἀιήζƃηƀ, θƀὶ ƁπƃζήξƀƄνο ἱθƀλο δεƅεƅέƀ Ɓὲ ὅκσο ἀλζξώπῳ θƀὶ ἐμηρλƃπƅέƀ κάιηƃƅƀ Ɓηὰ ƅηινƃνƅίƀο. Ɓηὰ γὰξ ἄιινπ Ƅηλὸο ἐπηƅεɓƃύκƀƅνο νὕƅσο ἀɓύλƀƅνλ ƀὕƅε Ɓὲ κηθξά Ƅηλƀ ἐλƀύƃκƀƅƀ πƀξὰ Ƅο ƅύƃƃσο ιƀκβάλνπƃƀ θƀὶ ὡƃƀλƃὶ ἐƅνɓηƀδνκέλε δσƅο ƅύƃƃσο ιƀκβάλνπƃƀ θƀὶ ὡƃƀλƃὶ ἐƅνɓηƀδνκέλε δσππξƃ ƄƂ ƀὐƅὰ θƀὶ κƃγƃζύλƃη θƀὶ ἐλƃξγέƃƅƃξƀ Ɓηὰ Ƅλ πƀξ ƀὐƅο κƀζεκάƅσλ ἀπƃξγάδƃƅƀη. ƅηινƃνƅεƅένλ ἄξƀ ἂλ Ƃἴε. 103

104 10-11 (2015) This, nourish a cock, but do not sacrifice it, for it is sacred to the sun and the moon, advises us to nourish and not neglect those things which perish and are destroyed because they are mighty proofs of the union, connection, sympathy and consent of the world. So that it exhorts us to apprehend the theory and philosophy of the universe. For though the truth concerning the universe is naturally recondite, and sufficiently difficult of investigation, it must nevertheless be sought and investigated by man, and chiefly through Philosophy. For it is truly impossible to discover it through any other study or pursuit. But philosophy receiving certain sparks from nature blows them up into a great flame, making them more active through the disciplines or sciences which she possesses. Wherefore we should philosophize. (trans. Johnson 102) T.85 Suda Lexicon, Π 3124 (4: 266 Adler) after AD 1028 κήƅƃ ιƃπθὸλ ἀιƃθƅξπόλƀ ἐƃζίƃηλ, ὡο ἱƃξὸλ Ƅνῦ ιίνπ θƀὶ Ƅὰο ὥξƀο κελύνλƅƀ. Pythagoras also recommended not eating a white rooster, as it is sacred to the Sun and indicates the hours. (the SOL translation) T.86 Aristotle, On the Pythagoreans fr. 195 Rose qtd. in Alexander Polyhistor of Miletus. 350 BC Transmitted by Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers 8.34 ( Dorandi) CMRDM T.7 (p. 116); Akousmata & Symbola no. 3 Cardini ἈιƂθƄξπόλνο κὴ ἅπƅƃƃζƀη ιƃπθνῦ, ὅƅη ἱƃξὸο Ƅνῦ Μελὸο θƀὶ ἱθέƅεο Ƅὸ Ɓ ἤλ Ƅλ ἀγƀζλ Ƅῶ ƄƂ Μελὶ ἱƃξόο ƃεκƀίλƃη γὰξ Ƅὰο ὥξƀο. θƀὶ Ƅὸ κὲλ ιƃπθὸλ Ƅο Ƅἀγƀζνῦ ƅύƃƃσο, Ƅὸ Ɓὲ κέιƀλ Ƅνῦ θƀθνῦ. Another of his precepts was not to eat white cocks, as being sacred to the Month and wearing suppliant garb now supplication ranked with things good sacred to the Month because they announce the time of day; and again white represents the nature of the good, black the nature of evil. (trans. Hicks 2: 351) Symbol 18: Transplant but Do Not Eat Mallow T.87 Damascius, Philosophical History fr. 84J Athanassiadi AD ΟὗƄνο Ɓὲ ὁ Ἰάθσβνο Πξόθιῳ λνƃνῦλƅη, ἐλ Ἀζήλƀηο ƁηƀƄξίβσλ θƀὶ ζƀπκƀδόκƃλνο, πξνƃέƅƀμƃλ ἀπέρƃƃζƀη κὲλ θξάκβεο, ἐκƅνξƃƃζƀη Ɓὲ Ƅλ κƀιƀρλ ὁ Ɓὲ θƀƅὰ Ƅὸλ ΠπζƀγόξƂηνλ λόκνλ νὐθ λέƃρƃƅν κƀιάρεο ἐƃζίƃηλ. At the time when this Iacobus lived in Athens and was held in high esteem, he told the sick Proclus to abstain from cabbage and take his fill of mallow instead. Proclus however could not bring himself to eat mallow following the Pythagorean law. (trans. Athanassiadi 213) T.88 Dioscorides of Anazarbus, De materia medica (1: Wellmann). AD

105 10-11 (2015) [1] κνιόρε ἐɓσɓηκσƅέξƀ θεπƃπƅὴ κιινλ Ƅο ρƃξƃƀίƀο, θƀθνƃƅόκƀρνο Ɓὲ θƀὶ Ƃὐθνίιηνο, θƀὶ κιινλ νἱ θƀπινί, ἐλƅέξνηο Ɓὲ θƀὶ θύƃƅƃη ὠƅέιηκνο. Ɓύλƀκηλ Ɓὲ ἔρƃη Ƅὰ ƅύιιƀ ὠκὰ κƀƃεζέλƅƀ θƀὶ ἐπηπιƀƃζέλƅƀ κƃƅ ὀιίγσλ ἁιλ ƀἰγηιώπηƀ ἀλƀƃθƃπάδƃηλ πξὸο κέλƅνη Ƅὴλ ἀπνύισƃηλ Ɓίρƀ Ƅλ ἁιλ ρξεƃƅένλ ƀὐƅῆ. πνηƃ Ɓὲ θƀὶ πξὸο ƃϕεθλ θƀὶ κƃιηƃƃλ πιεγὰο θƀƅƀπιƀƃνκέλε θἂλ πƃξηρξίƃεƅƀη Ɓέ Ƅηο ƀὐƅνο ὠκνο ιƃίνηο ƃὺλ ἐιƀίῳ, ἄπιεθƅνο ƁηƀκέλƂη κƃƅὰ Ɓὲ νὔξνπ θƀƅƀπιƀƃζέλƅƀ ἀρξƀο θƀὶ πίƅπξƀ ἰƅƀη. [2] ἑƅζὰ Ɓὲ ιƃƀ Ƅὰ ƅύιιƀ ƃὺλ ἐιƀίῳ ἐπηƅηζέκƃλƀ ππξίθƀπƅƀ θƀὶ ἐξπƃηπέιƀƅƀ ὠƅƃιƃ. Ƅὸ Ɓὲ ἀƅέςεκƀ ƀὐƅο κƀιƀθƅηθὸλ ἐγθάζηƃκƀ ὑƃƅέξƀο, Ƃἴο ƄƂ ἐλέκƀƅƀ πξὸο Ɓεγκνὺο ἐλƅξέσλ θƀὶ κήƅξƀο θƀὶ ƁƀθƄπιίνπ ἁξκόɓηνλ. [1] The mallow: the cultivated mallow is more edible than the wild. It is bad for the stomach, it eases the bowel, especially its stems, and it is beneficial to the intestines and the bladder. Its leaves, chewed raw and used as a poultice with a small amount of salt, can remove lachrymal fistulas, but to cicatrize them, one must use the mallow without salt. It is also good to plaster on wasp and bee stings, and if a person smeared himself with raw leaves ground up with olive oil, he will be immune to stings. Plastered on with urine, they cure scurf and dandruff. [2] Boiled, ground up, and applied with olive oil, the leaves benefit burns and erysipelas. The decoction of this plant is an emollient sitz bath for the uterus and an appropriate clyster for gnawing pains of the intestines, uterus, and anus. (trans. Beck 142) T.89 Aristotle, On the Pythagoreans qtd. in Aelian, Historical Miscellany 4.17 (200 Wilson) 350 BC Akousmata & Symbola no. 2 Cardini ἜιƂγƂ Ɓὲ ἱƃξώƅƀƅνλ Ƃἶλƀη Ƅὸ Ƅο κƀιάρεο ƅύιινλ. He said that the most sacred object is the mallow leaf. (trans. Wilson 201) T.90a (cf. T.60)?Androcydes, On the Symbols qtd. in Nicomachus of Gerasa.? BC Transmitted by Iamblichus of Chalcis, On the Pythagorean Way of Life (63 Deubner) νὕƅσο θƀὶ κƀιάρεο ƂἴξγƂƃζƀη ἐθέιƃπƃλ, ὅƅη πξώƅε ἄγγƃινο θƀὶ ƃεκάλƅξηƀ ƃπκπƀζƃίƀο νὐξƀλίσλ πξὸο ἐπίγƃηƀ. So also he commanded them to abstain from mallow, because it is the first messenger and indicator of an affinity of heavenly things with things earthly. (trans. Dillon Hershbell 133) T.90b Anonymus qtd. in Iamblichus of Chalcis, Exhortation to the Study of Philosophy 21 ( Places) before AD 290s Akousmata & Symbola no. 6 Cardini Τὸ Ɓὲ κ ν ι ό ρ ε λ κ Ƃ Ƅ ƀ ƅ ύ Ƅ Ƃ πƃ κ έ λ, κὴ ἔ ƃ ζ η Ƃ Ɓέ, ƀἰλίƅƅƃƅƀη κὲλ ὅƅη ƃπλƅξέπƃƅƀη Ƅῶ ιίῳ Ƅὰ ƄνηƀῦƄƀ ƅπƅὰ θƀὶ πƀξƀƅεξƃλ ἀμην ƄνῦƄν, πξόƃθƃηƅƀη Ɓὲ Ƅὸ κ Ƃ Ƅ ƀ ƅ ύ Ƅ Ƃ π Ƃ, ƄνπƄέƃƄηλ ἐπηƃƅὰο Ƅῆ ƀὐƅνῦ ƅύƃƃη θƀὶ Ƅῆ πξὸο Ƅὸλ ἣιηνλ ƁηƀƄάƃƂη θƀὶ 105

106 10-11 (2015) ƃπκπƀζƃίᾳ κὴ ἀξθνῦ κεɓὲ ἐπίκƃλƃ κόλῳ ƄνύƄῳ, ἀιιὰ Ƅὴλ Ɓηάλνηƀλ κƃƅƀβίβƀδƃ θƀὶ ὡƃƀλƃὶ κƃƅƀƅύƅƃπƃ θƀὶ ἐπὶ Ƅὰ ὁκνγƃλ ƅπƅὰ θƀὶ ιάρƀλƀ θƀὶ ἐπὶ Ƅὰ κὴ ὁκνγƃλ [Ɓὲ] δῶƀ ἢɓε θƀὶ ιίζνπο θƀὶ πνƅƀκνὺο θƀὶ πάƃƀο ἁπιο ƅύƃƃηο πνιύρνπλ γὰξ ƂὑξήƃƂηο θƀὶ πνιύƅξνπνλ ζƀπκƀƃίσο Ɓὲ Ɓƀςηιὲο Ƅὸ Ƅο Ƅνῦ θόƃκνπ ἑλώƃƃσο θƀὶ ƃπκπλνίƀο ƃεκƀλƅηθόλ, ὥƃπƃξ ἀπὸ ῥίδεο θƀὶ ἀƅƃƅξνο Ƅο κνιόρεο ὡξκεκέλνο. νὐ κόλνλ νὖλ κὴ ἔƃζηƃ κεɓὲ ἀƅάληδƃ Ƅὰο ƄνηƀύƄƀο πƀξƀƅεξήƃƃηο, ἀιιὰ θƀὶ ƀὖμƃ θƀὶ πιεζνπνίƃη Ɓίθελ κƃƅƀƅπƅƃύνλƅνο. This, transplant mallows in your garden, but eat them not, obscurely signifies that plants of this kind turn with the sun, and directs that this should be noticed by us. The symbol also adds, transplant, that is to say, observe its nature, its tendency towards, and sympathy with, the sun; but rest not satisfied, nor dwell upon this, but transfer and as it were transplant your conception to kindred plants and herbs, and also to animals which are not kindred, to stones and rivers, and in brief, to natures of every kind. For you will find them to be prolific and multiform, and admirably abundant; and this to one who begins from the mallows, as from a root and principle, is significant of the union and consent of the world. Not only, therefore, do not destroy or obliterate observations of this kind, but increase and multiply them as it were by transplantation. (trans. Johnson ) T.91 Chaldean Oracles fr. 210a Majercik qtd. in John the Lydian, On Months (158 Wuensch) AD 173 κƀιάρεο ἀπέρƃƃζƀη θƀƅὰ Ɓὲ Ƅὸλ ΑὔγνπƃƄνλ κλƀ κƀιάρεο ἀπέρƃƃζƀη Ƅνο γƃ βνπινκέλνηο ὑγηƀίλƃηλ Ƅὰ ἄξζξƀ Ƅὸ ιόγηνλ ζƃƃπίδƃη. To refrain from mallow: The oracle advises those who wish keep their joints healthy to refrain from mallow during the month of August. (trans. Majercik 129) Symbol 17: Eat of Sacrificial Animals Only T.92 Plutarch of Chaeronea, Table Talks 8.8.3, 729D (288 Hubert) AD ΤƀῦƄ ἐπƀηλέƃƀο ὁ Σύιιƀο πξνƃƃπƃ πƃξὶ Ƅλ Ππζƀγνξηθλ, ὡο κάιηƃƅƀ κὲλ ἐγƃύνλƅν Ƅλ ἱƃξνζύƅσλ ἀπƀξμάκƃλνη Ƅνο ζƃνο ἰρζύσλ Ɓὲ ζύƃηκνο νὐɓƃὶο νὐɓ ἱƃξƃύƃηκόο ἐƃƅηλ. Agreeing with this, Sulla added, concerning the Pythagoreans, that if they tasted flesh it was most often that of sacrificial animals, and after a preliminary offering to the gods, but that no fish is fit for dedication or sacrifice. (trans. Minar 179) T.93 Porphyry of Tyre, On Abstinence from Living Animals (95 Bouffartigue). AD 263 ΓηόπƂξ νἱ ΠπζƀγόξƂηνη ƄνῦƄν πƀξƀɓƃμάκƃλνη θƀƅὰ κὲλ Ƅὸλ πάλƅƀ βίνλ ἀπƃίρνλƅν Ƅο δῳνƅƀγίƀο, ὅƅƃ Ɓὲ Ƃἰο ἀπƀξρήλ Ƅη Ƅλ δῴσλ ἀλζ ἑƀπƅλ κƃξίƃƃηƀλ Ƅνο ζƃνο, ƄνύƄνπ γƃπƃάκƃλνη κόλνλ, πξὸο ἀιήζƃηƀλ ἄƅηθƅνη Ƅλ ινηπλ ὄλƅƃο ἔδσλ. The Pythagoreans, following this tradition, abstained from animal-eating all their lives, and when they did assign some animal to the gods as an offering in place of 106

107 10-11 (2015) themselves, they ate only that, but continued to live for truth, not touching the others. (trans. Clark 66) T.94 Aristotle, On the Pythagoreans qtd. in Nicomachus of Gerasa 350 BC Transmitted by Iamblichus of Chalcis, On the Pythagorean Way of Life (49 Deubner) Akousmata & Symbola no. 4 Cardini Ƃἰο κόλƀ Ƅλ δῴσλ νὐθ ƂἰƃέξρƂƄƀη ἀλζξώπνπ ςπρή, νἷο ζέκηο ἐƃƅὶ Ƅπζλƀη Ɓηὰ ƄνῦƄν Ƅλ ζπƃίκσλ ρξὴ ἐƃζίƃηλ κόλνλ, νἷο ἂλ Ƅὸ ἐƃζίƃηλ θƀζήθῃ, ἄιινπ Ɓὲ κεɓƃλὸο δῴνπ. Ƅὰ κὲλ νὖλ ƄνηƀῦƄƀ Ƅλ ἀθνπƃκάƅσλ ἐƃƅί, Ƅὰ Ɓὲ πιƃƃƅνλ ἔρνλƅƀ κθνο πƃξί ƄƂ ζπƃίƀο θƀζ ἑθάƃƅνπο Ƅνὺο θƀηξνὺο πο ρξὴ πνηƃƃζƀη Ƅάο ƄƂ ἄιιƀο <ζƃλ Ƅηκὰο> θƀὶ πƃξὶ κƃƅνηθήƃƃσο Ƅο ἐλƅƃῦζƃλ θƀὶ πƃξὶ Ƅὰο Ƅƀƅάο, πο ƁƂ θƀƅƀζάπƅƃƃζƀη. Only into those animals which it is lawful to sacrifice does there not enter a human soul; for this reason one may eat only sacrificial animals, such as are suitable for eating, but no other living being. Such, then, were some of his oral instructions, but those of greatest length concerned sacrifices: how one should perform them on each particular occasion, and [observe] the other prerogatives of the gods; also about transmigration of souls from the present life and about burials, and how one should be buried. (trans. Dillon Hershbell 109) T.95 Xenophanes of Colophon fr. 7 Lesher BC Pythagoras fr. A Cardini Νῦλ ƀὖƅ ἄιινλ ἔπƃηκη ιόγνλ, ƁƂίμσ Ɓὲ θέιƃπζνλ. θƀί πνƅέ κηλ ƃƅπƅƃιηδνκέλνπ ƃθύιƀθνο πƀξηόλƅƀ ƅƀƃὶλ ἐπνηθƅξƀη θƀὶ ƄόƁƂ ƅάƃζƀη ἔπνο Πƀῦƃƀη κεɓὲ ῥάπηδ, ἐπƃὶ ἤ ƅίινπ ἀλέξνο ἐƃƅὶλ ςπρή, Ƅὴλ ἔγλσλ ƅζƃγμƀκέλεο ἀΐσλ. Now I will come to yet another account, and I will show the way. And they say that once as he 42 was passing by a puppy being beaten, He felt compassion and said this: Stop, don t beat it, since in truth it is the soul of a friend Which I recognized upon hearing it cry out. (trans. Lesher 19) T.96 Empedocles of Acragas, Katharmoi fr. 131 Wright 444 BC ἐλ ζήξƃƃƃη ιένλƅƃο ὀξƃηιƃρέƃο ρƀκƀηƃῦλƀη γίγλνλƅƀη, Ɓάƅλƀη Ɓ' ἐλὶ ƁέλƁξƂƃηλ πθόκνηƃηλ. 42 Xenophanes refers here to Pythagoras (Tsekourakis 370; Lesher 118). 107

108 10-11 (2015) Among animals they are born as lions that make their lairs in the hills and bed on the ground, and among fair-leafed trees as laurels. (trans. Wright 290) T.97 Empedocles of Acragas, Katharmoi fr. 127 Wright 444 BC Ɓάƅλεο Ƅλ ƅύιισλ ἀπὸ πάκπƀλ ἔρƃƃζƀη to keep completely from leaves of laurel. (trans. Wright 288) Symbols 15 16: Eat Not the Heart & Brain T.98 (cf. T.60)?Androcydes, On the Symbols qtd. in Nicomachus of Gerasa.? BC Transmitted by Iamblichus of Chalcis, On the Pythagorean Way of Life (63 Deubner) ἐλνκνζέƅεƃƃ Ɓὲ Ƅνο ƀὐƅνο θƀξɓίƀλ κὴ ƄξώγƂηλ, ἐγθέƅƀινλ κὴ ἐƃζίƃηλ, θƀὶ ƄνύƄσλ ƂἴξγƂƃζƀη πάλƅƀο Ƅνὺο Ππζƀγνξηθνύο γƃκνλίƀη γάξ Ƃἰƃη θƀὶ ὡƃƀλƃὶ ἐπηβάζξƀη θƀὶ ἕɓξƀη Ƅηλὲο Ƅνῦ ƅξνλƃλ θƀὶ Ƅνῦ δλ. ἀƅσƃηνῦƅν Ɓὲ ƀὐƅὰ Ɓηὰ Ƅὴλ Ƅνῦ ζƃίνπ ιόγνπ ƅύƃηλ. He decreed that they not munch on the heart nor eat brain, and from these all Pythagoreans are banned; for these organs are the ruling parts and, as it were, stepping-stones and seats of practical thinking and living. And these same things he eschewed on religious grounds because of the nature of the divine reason. (trans. Dillon Hershbell 133) T.99 Pythagorean Memoirs qtd. in Alexander Polyhistor of Miletus, Successions of Philosophers, FGrHist 273 F BC Transmitted by Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers 8.30 (616 Dorandi) Τὴλ Ɓ ἀλζξώπνπ ςπρὴλ ƁηƀηξƂƃζƀη Ƅξηρ, Ƃἴο ƄƂ λνῦλ θƀὶ ƅξέλƀο θƀὶ ζπκόλ. λνῦλ κὲλ νὖλ θƀὶ ζπκὸλ Ƃἶλƀη θƀὶ ἐλ Ƅνο ἄιινηο δῴνηο, ƅξέλƀο Ɓὲ κόλνλ ἐλ ἀλζξώπῳ. Ƃἶλƀη Ɓὲ Ƅὴλ ἀξρὴλ Ƅο ςπρο ἀπὸ θƀξɓίƀο κέρξηο ἐγθƃƅάινπ θƀὶ Ƅὸ κὲλ ἐλ Ƅῆ θƀξɓίᾳ κέξνο ƀὐƅο ὑπάξρƃηλ ζπκόλ, ƅξέλƀο Ɓὲ θƀὶ λνῦλ Ƅὰ ἐλ Ƅῶ ἐγθƃƅάιῳ ƃƅƀγόλƀο Ɓ Ƃἶλƀη ἀπὸ ƄνύƄσλ Ƅὰο ƀἰƃζήƃƃηο. θƀὶ Ƅὸ κὲλ ƅξόληκνλ ἀζάλƀƅνλ, Ƅὰ Ɓὲ ινηπὰ ζλεƅά. ƄξέƅƂƃζƀί ƄƂ Ƅὴλ ςπρὴλ ἀπὸ Ƅνῦ ƀἵκƀƅνο The soul of man, he says, is divided into three parts, intelligence, reason, and passion. Intelligence and passion are possessed by other animals as well, but reason by man alone. The seat of the soul extends from the heart to the brain; the part of it which is in the heart is passion, while the parts located in the brain are reason and intelligence. The senses are distillations from these. Reason is immortal, all else mortal. The soul draws nourishment from the blood (trans. Hicks 2: 347) T.100 Timaeus of Locri, On the Nature of the World and the Soul 47 (218 Thesleff) BC Ƅνῦ Ɓὲ ƃώκƀƅνο ἀξρὰλ κὲλ θƀὶ ῥίδƀλ κπƃινῦ ƂἶκƂλ ἐγθέƅƀινλ, ἐλ ᾧ ἁ ἁγƃκνλίƀ. 108

109 10-11 (2015) The principle of the body and root of the marrow is the brain, wherein resides the ruling power. (trans. Guthrie 292) T.101 Philolaus of Croton qtd. in Pseudo-Iamblichus, Theology of Arithmetics 21 (25 26 Falco) before 385 BC ἐγθέƅƀινο Ɓὲ <ƃƀκƀίλƃη> Ƅὰλ ἀλζξώπσ ἀξρὰλ, θƀξɓίƀ Ɓὲ Ƅὰλ δώνπ The brain provides the source for man, the heart for animals (trans. Waterfield 59) T.102 Leviticus LXX BC [10] Κƀὶ ἄλζξσπνο ἄλζξσπνο Ƅλ πἱλ Ηƃξƀὴι ἠ Ƅλ πξνƃειύƅσλ Ƅλ πξνƃθƃηκέλσλ ἐλ ὑκλ, ὃο ἂλ ƅάγῃ πλ ƀἷκƀ, θƀὶ ἐπηƃƅήƃσ Ƅὸ πξόƃσπόλ κνπ ἐπὶ Ƅὴλ ςπρὴλ Ƅὴλ ἔƃζνπƃƀλ Ƅὸ ƀἷκƀ θƀὶ ἀπνι ƀὐƅὴλ ἐθ Ƅνῦ ιƀνῦ ƀὐƅο [11] γὰξ ςπρὴ πάƃεο ƃƀξθὸο ƀἷκƀ ƀὐƅνῦ ἐƃƅη, θƀὶ ἐγὼ ƁέƁσθƀ ƀὐƅὸ ὑκλ ἐπὶ Ƅνῦ ζπƃηƀƃƅεξίνπ ἐμηιάƃθƃƃζƀη πƃξὶ Ƅλ ςπρλ ὑκλ Ƅὸ γὰξ ƀἷκƀ ƀὐƅνῦ ἀλƅὶ ςπρο ἐμηιάƃƃƅƀη. [12] Ɓηὰ ƄνῦƄν Ƃἴξεθƀ Ƅνο πἱνο Ηƃξƀήι πƃƀ ςπρὴ ἐμ ὑκλ νὐ ƅάγƃƅƀη ƀἷκƀ, θƀὶ ὁ πξνƃήιπƅνο ὁ πξνƃθƃίκƃλνο ἐλ ὑκλ νὐ ƅάγƃƅƀη ƀἷκƀ. [13] θƀὶ ἄλζξσπνο ἄλζξσπνο Ƅλ πἱλ Ηƃξƀὴι ἠ Ƅλ πξνƃειύƅσλ Ƅλ πξνƃθƃηκέλσλ ἐλ ὑκλ, ὃο ἂλ ζεξƃύƃῃ ζήξƃπκƀ ζεξίνλ ἠ πƃƅƃηλόλ, ὃ ἔƃζƃƅƀη, θƀὶ ἐθρƃƃ Ƅὸ ƀἷκƀ θƀὶ θƀιύςƃη ƀὐƅὸ Ƅῆ γῆ [14] γὰξ ςπρὴ πάƃεο ƃƀξθὸο ƀἷκƀ ƀὐƅνῦ ἐƃƅη. [10] Person by person of the sons of Israel or of the guests among you who adhere, whoever eats any blood and I will set my face against the soul who eats blood and will utterly destroy it from its people. [11] For the life of all flesh is its blood, and I have given it to you for making atonement for your souls on the altar, for it is its blood that makes atonement for the soul. [12] Therefore I have said to the sons of Israel: No soul among you shall eat blood, and no guest among you who adheres shall eat blood. [13] And person by person of the sons of Israel and of the guests among you who adhere, whoever hunts as prey a wild animal or bird that may be eaten, shall pour out the blood and cover it with earth. [14] For the life of all flesh is its blood (trans. NETS 98) T.103 Aristotle, On the Pythagoreans fr. 194 Rose qtd. in Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers 8.19 (611 Dorandi) 350 BC OF 647ii θƀξɓίƀο Ƅ ἀπέρƃƃζƀη θƀὶ θπάκσλ ἈξηƃƄνƄέιεο Ɓέ ƅεƃη θƀὶ κήƅξƀο and he enjoined abstinence from the hearts of animals and from beans, and, according to Aristotle, from pork belly (trans. Hicks 2: 337, modified) T.104?Aristotle, On the Pythagoreans qtd. in Athenaeus of Naucratis, Learned Banqueters 2.72, 65F (1: 370 Olson)?350 BC OF 648iv 109

110 10-11 (2015) γθέƅƀινη ρνίξƃηνη ƄνύƄσλ κο ἐƃζίƃηλ νὐθ Ƃἴσλ νἱ ƅηιόƃνƅνη ƅάƃθνλƅƃο Ƅνὺο ƀὐƅλ κƃƅƀιƀκβάλνλƅƀο ἶƃνλ θƀὶ θπάκσλ ƄξώγƂηλ θƃƅƀιλ ƄƂ νὐ Ƅνθήσλ κόλνλ, ἀιιὰ θƀὶ Ƅλ ἄιισλ βƃβήισλ. νὐɓέλƀ γνῦλ Ƅλ ἀξρƀίσλ βƃβξσθέλƀη Ɓηὰ Ƅὸ Ƅὰο ƀἰƃζήƃƃηο ἁπάƃƀο ƃρƃɓὸλ ἐλ ƀὐƅῶ Ƃἶλƀη. Pigs Brains: The philosophers did not permit us to eat these, saying about those who partake of them that eating fava beans is equivalent to eating not just the heads of one s parents [OF 648 = Pseudo-Pythagoras, Hieros Logos fr. 5 Thesleff], but the heads of anything polluted. None of the ancients, at any rate, ate pigs brains, because they contain almost all the senses. (trans. Olson 1: 371) T.105 Aristoxenus of Tarentum, On Pythagoras and His Circle fr. 25 Wehrli qtd. in Aulus Gellius, Attic Nights (178 Marshall) BC Opinati enim sunt plerique θπάκνπο legumentum dici, ut a vulgo dicitur. Sed qui diligentius scitiusque carmina Empedocli arbitrati sunt, θπάκνπο hoc in loco testiculos significare dicunt, eosque more Pythagorae operte atque symbolice θπάκνπο appellatos, quod sint ƀἴƅηνη Ƅνῦ θπƃλ et geniturae humanae vim praebeant; idcircoque Empedoclen versu isto non a fabulo edendo, sed a rei veneriae proluvio voluisse homines deducere. For most men thought that θπάκνπο meant the vegetable, according to the common use of the word. But those who have studied the poems of Empedocles with greater care and knowledge say that here θπάκνπο refers to the testicles, and that after the Pythagorean manner they were called in a covert and symbolic way θύƀκνη, because they are the cause of pregnancy and furnish the power for human generation: and that therefore Empedocles in that verse desired to keep men, not from eating beans, but from excess in venery. (trans. Rolfe ) T.106 (cf. T.22) Plutarch of Chaeronea, Table Talks 2.3.1, 635E (58 Hubert) AD OF 647i; Orfismo E8 Scarpi ὑπόλνηƀλ κέλƅνη πƀξέƃρνλ, ἑƃƅηλƅνο κο Σνƃƃίνπ ΣƂλƂθίσλνο, ἐλέρƃƃζƀη Ɓόγκƀƃηλ ξƅηθνο ἠ Ππζƀγνξηθνο, θƀὶ Ƅὸ ᾠόλ, ὥƃπƃξ ἔληνη θƀξɓίƀλ θƀὶ ἐγθέƅƀινλ, ἀξρὴλ γνύκƃλνο γƃλέƃƃσο ἀƅνƃηνῦƃζƀη But my companions at one of Sossius Senecio s dinners suspected me of being committed to beliefs of the Orphics or the Pythagoreans and holding the egg taboo, as some hold the heart and brain, because I thought it to be the first principle of creation. (trans. Clement 145) T.107 The purity regulation from Rhodes (?temple of Sarapis-Asclepius), LSS no AD first century OF vol. 2, p. 215 [ἀπὸ ἀƅξ]νɓηƃίσ[λ] ἀ[πὸ] θπάκσλ ἀπὸ θƀξɓίƀο. 110

111 10-11 (2015) ἁγλὸλ ρξὴ λƀνν ζ[π]- ώɓƃνο ἐλƅὸο ἰνλƅ[ƀ] ἔκκƃλƀη νὐ ινπƅξῶ ἀιιὰ λόῳ θƀζƀξόλ. from sexu]al intercourse, from beans, from a heart. One must be in a pure state to enter and be in the fragrant temple. Not clean by bathing, but by mind. (trans. Rostad 265) T.108 Androcydes, On the Symbols or Aristotle, On the Pythagoreans qtd. in Antonius Diogenes, Wonders beyond Thoule fr. 2b Stephens ca. 350 BC Transmitted by Porphyry of Tyre, Life of Pythagoras (56 Places) Akousmata & Symbola no. 6 Cardini [42] κεɓ ἐƃζίƃηλ ὅƃƀ κὴ ζέκηο, γέλƃƃηλ, ƀὔμεƃηλ, ἀξρήλ, ƄƂιƂπƄήλ, κεɓ ἐμ ὧλ πξώƅε Ƅλ πάλƅσλ ὑπόζƃƃηο γίλƃƅƀη. [43] ἔιƃγƃ Ɓ ἀπέρƃƃζƀη Ƅλ θƀƅƀζπνκέλσλ ὀƃƅύνο θƀὶ ƁηƁύκσλ θƀὶ ƀἰɓνίσλ θƀὶ κπƃινῦ θƀὶ πνɓλ θƀὶ θƃƅƀιο. ὑπόζƃƃηλ κὲλ γὰξ Ƅὴλ ὀƃƅῦλ ἐθάιƃη, ƁηόƄη ἐπὶ ƄƀύƄῃ ὡο ἐπὶ ζƃκƃιίῳ ƃπλίƃƅƀƅƀη Ƅὰ δῶƀ γέλƃƃηλ Ɓὲ Ƅνὺο ƁηƁύκνπο θƀὶ ƀἰɓνƀ, ἄλƃπ γὰξ Ƅο ƄνύƄσλ ἐλƃξγƃίƀο νὐ γίλƃƅƀη δῶνλ ƀὔμεƃηλ Ɓὲ Ƅὸλ κπƃιὸλ ἐθάιƃη, ὃο Ƅνῦ ƀὔμƃƃζƀη πƃηλ δῴνηο ƀἴƅηνο ἀξρὴλ Ɓὲ Ƅνὺο πόɓƀο, Ƅὴλ Ɓὲ θƃƅƀιὴλ ƄƂιƂπƄήλ ἅπƃξ Ƅὰο κƃγίƃƅƀο γƃκνλίƀο ἔρƃη Ƅνῦ ƃώκƀƅνο. [42] Do not eat what is not allowed birth, growth, beginning, end, nor those things from which the first foundation of all things arises; [43] he meant that one should abstain from certain parts of sacrificed animals loins, testicles, genitals, marrow, feet, and head. For he called the loin the foundation since it is as it were what underlies and supports the structure of the animal; birth means the testicles and genitals, without whose activity no animal comes into being; growth was his name for marrow, which is the cause of growth for all animals; beginning means the feet, end the head, which two have the greatest leadership in the body. (trans. Stephens 145) T.109 Plutarch of Chaeronea, On the Sign of Socrates 591B (596 Paton) AD ƄέƃƃƀξƂο Ɓ Ƃἰƃὶλ ἀξρƀὶ πάλƅσλ, δσο κὲλ πξώƅε θηλήƃƃσο Ɓ ƁƂπƄέξƀ γƃλέƃƃσο Ɓ ƄξίƄε ƅζνξο Ɓ ƄƂιƂπƄƀίƀ ƃπλɓƃ Ɓὲ Ƅῆ κὲλ ƁƂπƄέξᾳ Ƅὴλ πξώƅελ Μνλὰο θƀƅὰ Ƅὸ ἀόξƀƅνλ, Ƅὴλ Ɓὲ ƁƂπƄέξƀλ Ƅῆ ƄξίƄῃ Ννῦο θƀζ ἡιηνλ, Ƅὴλ Ɓὲ ƄξίƄελ πξὸο ƄƂƄάξƄελ ſύƃηο θƀƅὰ ƃƃιήλελ. Four principles there are of all things: the first is of life, the second of motion, the third of birth, and the last of decay; the first is linked to the second by Unity at the invisible, the second to the third by Mind at the sun, and the third to the fourth by Nature at the moon. (trans. Lacy 469) 111

112 10-11 (2015) T.110 Aristotle, On the Pythagoreans fr. 197 Rose qtd. in Porphyry of Tyre, Life of Pythagoras 42 (55 Places) BC κὴ θƀξɓίƀλ ἐƃζίƃηλ, νἷνλ κὴ ιππƃλ ἀλίƀηο. Moreover, eat not the heart signified not to afflict ourselves with sorrows. (trans. Guthrie 131) T.111 Demetrius of Byzantium, On Poems, book four, FHG 2: 624 qtd. in Athenaeus, Learned Banqueters d (5: 166 Olson) ca. 278/277 BC θƀὶ Ƅὰ Ππζƀγόξνπ Ɓὲ ƀἰλίγκƀƅƀ ƄνηƀῦƄά ἐƃƅηλ, ὥο ƅεƃη ΓεκήƄξηνο ὁ ΒπδάλƄηνο ἐλ ƄƂƄάξƄῳ πƃξὶ πνηεκάƅσλ θƀξɓίƀλ κὴ ἐƃζίƃηλ ἀλƅὶ Ƅνῦ ἀιππίƀλ ἀƃθƃλ. Pythagoras puzzles are also of this type, according to Demetrius of Byzantium in Book IV of On Poems: Don t eat your heart means Try not to get upset. (trans. Olson 5: 167) T.112 Pseudo-Plutarch, Education of Children 17, 12E (24 Gärtner) after AD 120 κὴ ἐƃζίƃηλ θƀξɓίƀλ ἢƅνη κὴ βιάπƅƃηλ Ƅὴλ ςπρὴλ Ƅƀο ƅξνλƅίƃηλ ƀὐƅὴλ θƀƅƀƅξύρνλƅƀ. Do not eat your heart; as much as to say, Do not injure your soul by wasting it with worries. (Babbitt 1: 61) Symbol 39: Roast What Not Is Boiled T.113 (cf. T.67) Iamblichus of Chalcis, On the Pythagorean Way of Life (87 Deubner) AD 300 Pseudo-Pythagoras, Hieros Logos in Latin (Thesleff p. 167) ἑƅζὸλ Ɓὲ πƀξƀγγέιιƃηλ κὴ ὀπƅλ, Ƅὴλ πξƀόƅεƅƀ ιέγσλ κὴ πξνƃɓƃƃζƀη Ƅο ὀξγο. He forbade roasting the boiled, saying gentleness does not need anger. (trans. Dillon Hershbell 169) T.114 Pseudo-Aristotle, Physical Problems 3.43 (331 Bussemaker)?AD 200 OF 633 Γηὰ Ƅί Ƅὸ ἑƅζὸλ ὁπƅλ νὐ λόκνο, ὀπƅὸλ Ɓὲ ἕςƃηλ λόκνο; ΠόƄƂξνλ Ɓὲ Ɓηὰ Ƅὰ ιƃγόκƃλƀ ἐλ Ƅῆ ƄƂιƂƄῆ, ἠ ὅƅη ὕƃƅƃξνλ ἔκƀζνλ ἑƅζὰ ἠ ὀπƅά; Ƅὸ γὰξ ἀξρƀνλ ὤπƅσλ πάλƅƀ. Why is it not permitted to roast boiled [beef], while it is permitted to boil roasted [beef]? Is it because of what is said in the Telete? 44 Or is it because men only learned 43 Cf. Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers 8.18 (610 Dorandi): Ɓηὰ Ɓὲ Ƅνῦ θƀξɓίƀλ κὴ ἐƃζίƃηλ ἐɓήινπ κὴ Ƅὴλ ςπρὴλ ἀλίƀηο θƀὶ ιύπƀηο θƀƅƀƅήθƃηλ ( By not eating your heart he meant not wasting your life in troubles and pains, trans. Hicks 2: 337). 112

113 10-11 (2015) later on to prepare boiled food, since in the old days they roasted everything? (trans. Detienne 1979, 74) T.115 Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Greeks (27 Marcovich). AD 195 OF 312i νἱ Ɓὲ ΤηƄλƂο, νἱ θƀὶ ƁηƀƃπάƃƀλƄƂο ƀὐƅόλ, ιέβεƅά Ƅηλƀ ƄξίπνƁη ἐπηζέλƅƃο θƀὶ Ƅνῦ Γηνλύƃνπ ἐκβƀιόλƅƃο Ƅὰ κέιε, θƀζήςνπλ πξόƅƃξνλ ἔπƃηƅƀ ὀβƃιίƃθνηο πƃξηπƃίξƀλƅƃο ὑπƃίξƃρνλ ἧƅƀίƃƅνην. But the Titans, they who tore him to pieces, placed a caldron upon a tripod, and casting the limbs of Dionysus into it first boiled them down; then, piercing them with spits, they held them over Hephaestus. (trans. Butterworth 39) Symbol 14: Abstain from Any Living Things T.116 Hierocles of Alexandria, Commentary on the Golden Verses of the Pythagoreans (175 Mullach) AD [19] ἐπƃηɓὴ Ɓὲ ἐλ ƄάμƂη Ƅὴλ ἐπίɓνƃηλ Ƅο ἀπνρο ἐπνηνῦλƅν, Ɓηὰ ƄνῦƄν θƀὶ κƀρόκƃλƀ, ὡο ἂλ νἰεζƃίε Ƅηο, ƂὑξίƃθƂƄƀη πƀξ ƀὐƅνο ƃύκβνιƀ. Ƅῶ γὰξ δῴσλ ἀπέρνπ Ƅὸ θƀξɓίƀο ἀπέρνπ ἐλƀλƅίνλ, Ƃἰ κή πνύ Ƅηο Ƅὸ κὲλ θƀξɓίƀο ἀπέρνπ Ƅνο ἀξρνκέλνηο πƀξεγγέιζƀη ιέγνη, Ƅὸ Ɓὲ δῴσλ Ƅνο ἢɓε ƄƂιƂίνηο. [20] πƃξηƅƅὴ γὰξ θƀƅὰ κέξνο ἀπνρή, νἷο Ƅὸ ὅινλ δῶνλ ἀπεγόξƃπƅν. [19] But since they [the Pythagoreans] conceived of abstinence as an orderly progression, on account of this their symbols are found, as one might suppose, to be conflicting. The precept to abstain from the heart opposes that of abstaining from animals, unless one should say that abstaining from the heart is prescribed for beginners, whereas abstinence from living animals is for those already perfect. [20] For partial abstinence is superfluous for those to whom the entire animal has been forbidden. (trans. Schibli 316) T.117 Nicomachus of Gerasa qtd. in Iamblichus of Chalcis, On the Pythagorean Way of Life (62 Deubner) ca. AD 151 θνηλο κὲλ νὖλ ƄƀῦƄƀ ἐλνκνζέƅεƃƃ πƃξὶ Ƅξνƅο, ἰɓίᾳ Ɓὲ Ƅνο ζƃσξεƅηθσƅάƅνηο Ƅλ ƅηινƃόƅσλ θƀὶ ὅƅη κάιηƃƅƀ ἀθξνƅάƅνηο θƀζάπƀμ πƃξηῄξƃη Ƅὰ πƃξηƅƅὰ θƀὶ ἄɓηθƀ Ƅλ ἐɓƃƃκάƅσλ, κήƅƃ ἔκςπρνλ κεɓὲλ κεɓέπνƅƃ ἐƃζίƃηλ ƂἰƃεγνύκƂλνο κήƅƃ νἶλνλ ὅισο πίλƃηλ κήƅƃ ζύƃηλ δῶƀ ζƃνο κήƅƃ θƀƅƀβιάπƅƃηλ κεɓ ὁƅηνῦλ ƀὐƅά, ƁηƀƃῴδƂηλ Ɓὲ θƀὶ Ƅὴλ πξὸο ƀὐƅὰ Ɓηθƀηνƃύλελ ἐπηκƃιέƃƅƀƅƀ. This, then, was his general legislation about nourishment. In particular, he removed once for all from the most contemplative group of philosophers, especially those at the 44 According to Marcel Detienne, the so-called Telete was the Orphic narrative Initiation Rite in which the myth of Dionysus and the Titans was told (Detienne 1979, 74). 113

114 10-11 (2015) highest level, the use of superfluous and ill-gotten foods, by instructing them never to eat anything animate and never to drink wine; neither to sacrifice living beings to the gods nor to harm them in any way, but to maintain justice most carefully towards them. (trans. Dillon Hershbell 131) T.118 Nicomachus of Gerasa qtd in Iamblichus of Chalcis, On the Pythagorean Way of Life (62 63 Deubner) ca. AD 151 Ƅνο κέλƅνη ἄιινηο ἐπέƅξƃπέ Ƅηλσλ δῴσλ ἅπƅƃƃζƀη, ὅƃνηο ὁ βίνο κὴ πάλπ ἤλ ἐθθƃθƀζƀξκέλνο θƀὶ ἱƃξὸο θƀὶ ƅηιόƃνƅνο θƀὶ ƄνύƄνηο ρξόλνλ Ƅηλὰ ὥξηδƃ Ƅο ἀπνρο ὡξηƃκέλνλ. He permitted the rest, nevertheless, to eat certain animals, those whose way of life was not entirely purified, holy, and philosophic; even for these, however, he set a definite period of abstinence. (trans. Dillon Hershbell 133) T.119 Nicomachus of Gerasa qtd in Iamblichus of Chalcis, On the Pythagorean Way of Life (84 Deubner) ca. AD 151 ἐπέζπƃ Ɓὲ ζƃνο ιίβƀλνλ, θέγρξνπο, πόπƀλƀ, θεξίƀ, ƃκύξλƀλ, Ƅὰ ἄιιƀ ζπκηάκƀƅƀ δῶƀ Ɓὲ ƀὐƅὸο νὐθ ἔζπƃλ νὐɓὲ Ƅλ ζƃσξεƅηθλ ƅηινƃόƅσλ νὐɓƃίο, Ƅνο Ɓὲ ἄιινηο Ƅνο ἀθνπƃκƀƅηθνο ἠ Ƅνο πνιηƅηθνο πξνƃƅέƅƀθƅν ƃπƀλίσο ἔκςπρƀ ζύƃηλ, ἢπνπ ἀιƃθƅξπόλƀ ἠ ἄξλƀ ἠ ἄιιν Ƅη Ƅλ λƃνγλλ, βνῦο Ɓὲ κὴ ζύƃηλ. He sacrificed to the gods frankincense, millet, popana, honey-combs, myrrh, and other fragrant stuffs, but he himself did not sacrifice animals, nor did any of the contemplative philosophers. But the others, the acousmatici or the politici, were commanded to sacrifice animals sparingly, perhaps, a cock or lamb or some other newborn animal, but never an ox. (trans. Dillon Hershbell 167) T.120 Nicomachus of Gerasa qtd. in Iamblichus of Chalcis, On the General Mathematical Science 25 (76 Festa) ca. AD 151 Γύν Ɓ ἐƃƅὶ Ƅο ἸƄƀιηθο ƅηινƃνƅίƀο ƂἴƁε, θƀινπκέλεο Ɓὲ Ππζƀγνξηθο. Ɓύν γὰξ ἤλ γέλε θƀὶ Ƅλ κƃƅƀρƃηξηδνκέλσλ ƀὐƅήλ, νἳ κὲλ ἀθνπƃκƀƅηθνί, νἳ Ɓὲ κƀζεκƀƅηθνί. ƄνύƄσλ Ɓὲ νἱ κὲλ ἀθνπƃκƀƅηθνὶ ὡκνινγνῦλƅν ΠπζƀγόξƂηνη Ƃἶλƀη ὑπὸ Ƅλ ἑƅέξσλ, Ƅνὺο Ɓὲ κƀζεκƀƅηθνὺο νὗƅνη νὐρ ὡκνιόγνπλ, νὔƅƃ Ƅὴλ πξƀγκƀƅƃίƀλ ƀὐƅλ Ƃἶλƀη Ππζƀγόξνπ, ἀιι Ἱππάƃνπ. 45 There were two forms of kinds of Italiote, so-called Pythagorean philosophy; for there were two sorts of people pursuing it, the acousmatics and the mathematicians. Of these, the acousmatics were recognized as Pythagoreans by the others, but they in turn did not recognize the mathematicians, saying that their activity did not even stem from Pythagoras but Hippasus. (trans. Burkert 1982, 213) 45 Cf. the similar, but not the same, text in Iamblichus of Chalcis, On the Pythagorean Way of Life (46 47 Deubner): there were two kinds of philosophy, for there were two kinds of those pursuing it: some were acusmatici and others were mathematici. Of these, the mathematici do not agree that the acusmatici are Pythagoreans, or that their mode of study derived from Pythagoras, but from Hippasus (trans. Dillon Hershbell 105). The quoted text is corrupted (or altered by Iamblichus), whereas Iamblichus On the General Mathematical Science has preserved the original version (Burkert 1972, 193 and note 8). 114

115 10-11 (2015) T.121 Nicomachus of Gerasa qtd. in Iamblichus of Chalcis, On the Pythagorean Way of Life (62 Deubner) ca. AD 151 D-K 31 B135, p. 366 ἢɓε Ɓὲ θƀὶ Ƅλ πνιηƅηθλ Ƅνο λνκνζέƅƀηο πξνƃέƅƀμƃλ ἀπέρƃƃζƀη Ƅλ ἐκςύρσλ ἅƅƃ γὰξ βνπινκέλνπο ἄθξσο ƁηθƀηνπξƀγƂλ ἔɓƃη Ɓήπνπ κεɓὲλ ἀɓηθƃλ Ƅλ ƃπγγƃλλ δῴσλ. ἐπƃὶ πο ἂλ ἔπƃηƃƀλ Ɓίθƀηƀ πξάƅƅƃηλ Ƅνὺο ἄιινπο ƀὐƅνὶ ἁιηƃθόκƃλνη ἐλ πιƃνλƃμίᾳ; ƃπγγƃληθὴ Ɓ Ƅλ δῴσλ κƃƅνρή, ἅπƃξ Ɓηὰ Ƅὴλ Ƅο δσο θƀὶ Ƅλ ƃƅνηρƃίσλ Ƅλ ƀὐƅλ θνηλσλίƀλ θƀὶ Ƅο ἀπὸ ƄνύƄσλ ƃπληƃƅƀκέλεο ƃπγθξάƃƃσο ὡƃƀλƃὶ ἀɓƃιƅόƅεƅη πξὸο κο ƃπλέδƃπθƅƀη. And he ordered law-givers 46 of the politics to abstain from living beings; for since they wished to act completely in justice, it was necessary, surely, not to injure kindred animals, since how could they persuade others to behave justly if they themselves be caught in greediness? There is a congenial partnership of living beings, since, through sharing life and the same elements and the mixture arising from these, they are yoked together with us by brotherhood, as it were. (trans. Dillon Hershbell , modified) T.122 Anonymus qtd. in Iamblichus of Chalcis, Exhortation to the Study of Philosophy 21 (151 Places) before AD 290s Akousmata & Symbola no. 6 Cardini Τὸ Ɓὲ ἐ κ ς ύ ρ σ λ ἀ π έ ρ ν π ἐπὶ Ɓηθƀηνƃύλελ πξνƅξέπƃη θƀὶ πƃƀλ Ƅὴλ Ƅνῦ ƃπγγƃλνῦο Ƅηκὴλ θƀὶ Ƅὴλ Ƅο ὁκνίƀο δσο ἀπνɓνρὴλ θƀὶ πξὸο ἕƅƃξƀ ƄνηƀῦƄƀ πιƃίνλƀ. This, abstain from the use of living creatures, exhorts to justice, with a due regard for what is of a kindred nature, and a sympathetic treatment of life which is similar to our own. (trans. Johnson 112) T.123a (cf. T.63) Pseudo-Pythagoras, Hieros Logos fr. 11 Thesleff (p. 162) qtd. in Timaeus of Tauromenium classical period Transmitted by Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers 8.23 (613 Dorandi) λόκῳ βνεζƃλ, ἀλνκίᾳ πνιƃκƃλ ƅπƅὸλ ἣκƃξνλ κήƅƃ ƅζίλƃηλ κήƅƃ ƃίλƃƃζƀη, ἀιιὰ κεɓὲ δῶνλ ὃ κὴ βιάπƅƃη ἀλζξώπνπο. To support the law, to wage war on lawlessness. Never to kill or injure trees that are not wild, nor even any animal that does not injure man. (trans. Hicks 2: 341) T.123b (cf. T.47) Aristoxenus of Tarentum, Pythagorean Maxims & On the Pythagorean Life fr. 1a Cardini qtd. in Porphyry of Tyre, Life of Pythagoras 39 (53 Places) BC 46 Elsewhere in the same work, Iamblichus informs that every Pythagorean community was subdivided into political, economic, and legislative groups (Iamblichus, On the Pythagorean Way of Life [52 Deubner]). 115

116 10-11 (2015) ƅπƅὸλ ἣκƃξνλ θƀὶ ἔγθƀξπνλ, ἀιιὰ κεɓὲ δῶνλ ὃ κὴ βιƀβƃξὸλ Ƃἶλƀη πέƅπθƃ Ƅῶ ἀλζξσπίλῳ γέλƃη, κήƅƃ ƅζƃίξƃηλ κήƅƃ βιάπƅƃηλ. A cultivated and fruit-bearing plant, as well as an animal harmless by nature to the human race, should be neither destroyed nor injured. (trans. Guthrie 130, modified) T.124a Nicomachus of Gerasa,?Life of Pythagoras, FGrHist 1063 F1 qtd. in Porphyry of Tyre, Life of Pythagoras 24 (46 47 Places) ca. AD 151 βνῦλ Ɓ ἐλ ΤάξƀλƄη ἰɓὼλ ἐλ πƀκκηγƃ λνκῆ θπάκσλ ρισξλ ἐƅƀπƅόκƃλνλ, Ƅῶ βνπθόιῳ πƀξƀƃƅὰο ƃπλƃβνύιƃπƃƃλ ƂἰπƂλ Ƅῶ βνῒ Ƅλ θπάκσλ ἀπνƃρέƃζƀη πξνƃπƀίμƀλƅνο Ɓ ƀὐƅῶ Ƅνῦ βνπθόινπ θƀὶ ƅήƃƀλƅνο νὐθ ƂἰƁέλƀη βντƃƅὶ ιƀιƃλ, πξνƃƃιζόλƅƀ θƀὶ Ƃἰο Ƅὸ νὖο πξνƃςηζπξίƃƀλƅƀ Ƅῶ Ƅƀύξῳ νὐ κόλνλ ƄόƄ ἀπνƃƅƃƀη Ƅνῦ θπƀκλνο, ἀιιὰ θƀὶ ƀὖζηο κεɓέπνƅƃ θπάκσλ ζηγƃλ, κƀθξνρξνληώƅƀƅνλ Ɓ ἐλ ΤάξƀλƄη θƀƅὰ Ƅὸ Ƅο Ἥξƀο ἱƃξὸλ γεξλƅƀ ƁηƀκƂκƂλεθέλƀη Ƅὸλ ἱƃξὸλ θƀινύκƃλνλ βνῦλ, Ƅξνƅὰο ƃηƅνύκƃλνλ ἃο νἱ ἀπƀλƅλƅƃο ὤξƃγνλ. At Tarentum, when he saw an ox in a mixed pasturage feeding on green beans, he approached the herdsman and advised him to tell the ox to abstain from the beans. When the herdsman laughed at him and said that he did not know how to speak the ox s language, he went to the bull and whispered into his ear to leave the field of beans not only for the moment, but also never to touch beans afterwards. And it grew very old living at Tarentum at the sanctuary of Hera, the so-called holy ox, feeding on the food the visitors offered to it. (trans. Radicke 115) T.124b Nicomachus of Gerasa qtd. in Iamblichus of Chalcis, On the Pythagorean Way of Life (33 Deubner) ca. AD 151 βνῦλ Ɓὲ ἐλ ΤάξƀλƄη ἰɓὼλ ἐλ πƀκκηγƃ λνκῆ θƀὶ θπάκσλ ρισξλ πƀξƀπƅόκƃλνλ, Ƅῶ βνπθόιῳ πƀξƀƃƅὰο ƃπλƃβνύιƃπƃƃλ ƂἰπƂλ Ƅῶ βνῒ Ƅλ θπάκσλ ἀπνƃρέƃζƀη. πξνƃπƀίμƀλƅνο Ɓὲ ƀὐƅῶ Ƅνῦ βνπθόινπ πƃξὶ Ƅνῦ ƂἰπƂλ θƀὶ νὐ ƅήƃƀλƅνο ƂἰƁέλƀη βντƃƅὶ ƂἰπƂλ, Ƃἰ Ɓὲ ƀὐƅὸο νἶɓƃ, θƀὶ πƃξηƃƃο ƃπκβνπιƃύƃηλ, Ɓένλ Ƅῶ βνῒ πƀξƀηλƃλ, πξνƃƃιζὼλ ƀὐƅὸο θƀὶ Ƃἰο Ƅὸ νὖο πνιιὴλ ὥξƀλ πξνƃςηζπξίƃƀο Ƅῶ Ƅƀύξῳ, νὐ κόλνλ ƄόƄƂ ƀὐƅὸλ ἀκƃιιεƅὶ ἑθόλƅƀ ἀπέƃƅƃƃƃ Ƅνῦ θπƀκλνο, ἀιιὰ θƀὶ Ƃἰƃƀῦζηο ιέγνπƃη κεθέƅη γƃγƃῦƃζƀη θπάκσλ Ƅὸ πƀξάπƀλ Ƅὸλ βνῦλ ἐθƃλνλ, κƀθξνρξνληώƅƀƅνλ Ɓὲ ἐλ Ƅῆ ΤάξƀλƄη θƀƅὰ Ƅὸ Ƅο Ἥξƀο ἱƃξὸλ γεξλƅƀ ƁηƀκƂκƂλεθέλƀη, Ƅὸλ ἱƃξὸλ ἀλƀθƀινύκƃλνλ Ππζƀγόξνπ βνῦλ ὑπὸ πάλƅσλ, ἀλζξσπίλƀηο Ƅξνƅƀο ƃηƅνύκƃλνλ, ἃο νἱ ἀπƀλƅλƅƃο ƀὐƅῶ πξνƃώξƃγνλ. And when he saw a bull in Tarentum in mixed pasturage, grazing on green beans, he approached the herdsman, and advised him to tell the bull to abstain from the beans. But the herdsman jested with him about how to communicate with it, and said he did not know how to speak bull-talk. If he himself knew, then it as was superfluous to urge him on, ifthe bull had to be admonished. So he himself approached, and whispered in the bull s ear for a long time, and the bull then not only willingly, but immediately abstained from the beans. Even afterwards, they say, that bull no longer ate any beans, but lived for a very long time growing old in Tarentum in the temple of Hera. Called by all the sacred ox of Pythagoras, he was fed with human provisions hich passersby offered to him. (trans. Dillon Hershbell 85) 116

117 10-11 (2015) T.125 Gospel of Matthew (NA 28 ) AD θƀὶ ἰɓὼλ ƃπθλ κίƀλ ἐπὶ Ƅο ὁɓνῦ ἤιζƃλ ἐπ' ƀὐƅήλ, θƀὶ νὐɓὲλ ƂὗξƂλ ἐλ ƀὐƅῆ Ƃἰ κὴ ƅύιιƀ κόλνλ, θƀὶ ιέγƃη ƀὐƅῆ, ΜεθέƄη ἐθ ƃνῦ θƀξπὸο γέλεƅƀη Ƃἰο Ƅὸλ ƀἰλƀ. θƀὶ ἐμεξάλζε πƀξƀρξκƀ ƃπθ. Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went up to it but found nothing on it except leaves. Then he said to it, May you never bear fruit again! Immediately the tree withered. (the NIV translation) T.126 Deuteronomium LXX BC Οὐ ƅηκώƃƃηο βνῦλ ἀινλƅƀ. You shall not muzzle a threshing ox. (trans. NETS 164) T.127 (cf. T.54) Aristotle, On the Pythagoreans qtd in Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers 8.35 (619 Dorandi) 350 BC πƃξὶ Ƅλ ἁιλ, ὅƅη ƁƂ πƀξƀƅίζƃƃζƀη πξὸο ὑπόκλεƃηλ Ƅνῦ Ɓηθƀίνπ νἱ γὰξ ἅιƃο πλ ƃῴδνπƃηλ ὅ Ƅη ἂλ πƀξƀιάβσƃη θƀὶ γƃγόλƀƃηλ ἐθ Ƅλ θƀζƀξσƅάƅσλ ιίνπ θƀὶ ζƀιάƃƃεο. Of salt he said it should be brought to table to remind us of what is right; for salt preserves whatever it finds, and it arises from the purest sources, sun and sea. (trans. Hicks 2: 351) T.128 Gospel of Matthew 5.13 (NA 28 ) AD κƃο ἐƃƅƃ Ƅὸ ἅιƀο Ƅο γο ἐὰλ Ɓὲ Ƅὸ ἅιƀο κσξƀλζῆ, ἐλ Ƅίλη ἁιηƃζήƃƃƅƀη; Ƃἰο νὐɓὲλ ἰƃρύƃη ἔƅη Ƃἰ κὴ βιεζὲλ ἔμσ θƀƅƀπƀƅƃƃζƀη ὑπὸ Ƅλ ἀλζξώπσλ. You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men. (the NIV translation) T.129a Pseudo-Pythagoras, Hieros Logos fr. 11 Thesleff (p. 162) qtd. in Timaeus of Tauromenium classical period Transmitted by Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers 8.22 (612 Dorandi) ƃƅάγηά ƄƂ ζƃνο πξνƃƅέξƃηλ θσιύƃηλ, κόλνλ Ɓὲ Ƅὸλ ἀλƀίκƀθƅνλ βσκὸλ πξνƃθπλƃλ. Not to let victims be brought for sacrifice to the gods, and to worship only at the altar unstained with blood. (trans. Hicks 2: 339) T.129b Nicomachus of Gerasa qtd. in Iamblichus of Chalcis, On the Pythagorean Way of Life (62 Deubner) ca. AD

118 10-11 (2015) θƀὶ ƀὐƅὸο νὕƅσο ἔδεƃƃλ, ἀπƃρόκƃλνο Ƅο ἀπὸ Ƅλ δῴσλ Ƅξνƅο θƀὶ Ƅνὺο ἀλƀηκάθƅνπο βσκνὺο πξνƃθπλλ, θƀὶ ὅπσο κεɓὲ ἄιινη ἀλƀηξήƃσƃη Ƅὰ ὁκνƅπ πξὸο κο δῶƀ πξνζπκνύκƃλνο, Ƅά ƄƂ ἄγξηƀ δῶƀ ƃσƅξνλίδσλ κιινλ θƀὶ πƀηɓƃύσλ Ɓηὰ ιόγσλ θƀὶ ἔξγσλ, ἀιι νὐρὶ Ɓηὰ θνιάƃƃσο θƀƅƀβιάπƅσλ. He himself lived according to these precepts, abstaining from food provided by living beings and worshipping before altars unstained with blood, desiring eagerly that others not destroy animals kindred in nature with us; rather he chastened and educated wild animals by words and deeds, and did not harm them with punishment. (trans. Dillon Hershbell 131) T.129c Pseudo-Orpheus, Lithica (119 Halleux) after AD 370 πξƅƀ κὲλ νὖλ ƃπέλɓνλƅƀο ἀλƀηκάθƅσλ ἐπὶ βσκλ νὐ γὰξ ἄγƃηλ ζέκηο ἐƃƅὶ ζπειὴλ ἐκςύρνην First, when you pour libations onto the altars unstained with blood for no one is allowed bringing any living sacrifice (trans. E. O.) T.130 Eudoxus of Cnidus, Description of the Earth, book seven fr. 36 Gisinger (p. 119) qtd. in Nicomachus of Gerasa 367 BC Transmitted by Porphyry of Tyre, Life of Pythagoras 7 (38 39 Places) Pythagoras fr. 9 Cardini πιὴλ ƄνƃƀύƄῃ γƃ ἁγλƃίᾳ ƅεƃὶλ ΔὔƁνμνο ἐλ Ƅῆ ἑβɓόκῃ Ƅο Žο ΠƂξηόƁνπ θƃρξƃζƀη θƀὶ Ƅῆ πƃξὶ Ƅνὺο ƅόλνπο ƅπγῆ θƀὶ Ƅλ ƅνλƃπόλƅσλ, ὡο κὴ κόλνλ ρξƃζƀη θƀὶ Ƅῆ πƃξὶ Ƅνὺο ƅόλνπο ƅπγῆ θƀὶ Ƅλ ƅνλƃπόλƅσλ, ὡο κὴ κόλνλ Ƅλ ἐκςύρσλ ἀπέρƃƃζƀη, ἀιιὰ θƀὶ κƀγƃίξνηο θƀὶ ζεξάƅνξƃη κεɓέπνƅƃ πιεƃηάδƃηλ. Moreover, Eudoxus, in the seventh book of his Description of the Earth, writes that Pythagoras practiced the greatest purity, and was shocked at all blood-shedding and killing; that he not only abstained from animal food, but never in any way approached butchers or hunters. (trans. Guthrie 124) T.131 Onesicritus of Astypalaia, How Alexander Was Educated, FGrHist 134 F17 qtd. in Strabo of Amaseia, Geography (4: 216 Radt) 323 BC Pythagoras fr. 9 Cardini ƂἰπόλƄνο Ɓ ὅƅη θƀὶ Ππζƀγόξƀο ƄνηƀῦƄƀ ιέγνη θƃιƃύνη ƄƂ ἐκςύρσλ ἀπέρƃƃζƀη, θƀὶ ΣσθξάƄεο θƀὶ Γηνγέλεο νὗ θƀὶ ƀὐƅὸο ἀθξνάƃƀηƅν When he [Onesicritus] replied that Pythagoras taught such things (and also urged abstention from living beings), as well as Socrates and Diogenes (whom he himself had heard) (trans. Roller 671) T.132 Callimachus of Cyrene, Iambus 1, fr Pfeiffer BC 118

119 10-11 (2015) Pythagoras fr. 9 Cardini θɓίɓƀμƃ λεƃƅƃύƃηλ Ƅλ ἐκπλƃόλƅσλ νἱ Ɓ νὐρ ὑπήθνπƃƀλ νὐ πάλƅƃο, ἀιι νὓο ƂἶρƂλ νὕƅƃξνο Ɓƀίκσλ. And taught full abstinence from tasting flesh of living things; but all would not to this He [sc. Pythagoras] taught to abstain from living animals; but all would not to this give heed, except the ones possessed by alien daimon. (trans. Oldfather 4: 63, completed) T.133 Seneca the Younger, Ad Lucilium epistulae morales ( Reynolds). AD 19 no. 44 Harden His ego instinctus abstinere animalibus coepi, et anno peracto non tantum facilis erat mihi consuetudo sed dulcis. Agitatiorem mihi animum esse credebam nec tibi hodie adfirmaverim an fuerit. Quaeris quomodo desierim? In primum Tiberii Caesaris principatum iuventae tempus inciderat: alienigena tum sacra movebantur et inter argumenta superstitionis ponebatur quorundam animalium abstinentia. Patre itaque meo rogante, qui non calumniam timebat sed philosophiam oderat, ad pristinam consuetudinem redii; nec difficulter mihi ut inciperem melius cenare persuasit. I was imbued with this teaching [of Sotion the Pythagorean], and began to abstain from animal food; at the end of a year the habit was as pleasant as it was easy, I was beginning to feel that my mind was more active; though I would not today positively state whether it really was or not. Do you ask how I came to abandon the practice? It was this way: The days of my youth coincided with the early part of the reign of Tiberius Caesar. Some foreign rites were at that time being inaugurated, and abstinence from certain kinds of animal food was set down as a proof of interest in the strange cult. So at the request of my father, who did not fear gossip, but who detested philosophy, I returned to my previous habits; it was no very hard matter to induce me to dine more comfortably. (trans. Gummere ) T.134 Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers 8.13 ( Dorandi). AD 200 ƄνῦƄνλ γὰξ θƀὶ Ƅὸ ƅνλƃύƃηλ ἀπƀγνξƃύƃηλ, κὴ ὅƅη γƃύƃƃζƀη Ƅλ δῴσλ θνηλὸλ Ɓίθƀηνλ κλ ἐρόλƅσλ ςπρο. θƀὶ ƄόƁƂ κὲλ ἤλ Ƅὸ πξόƃρεκƀ Ƅὸ Ɓ ἀιεζὲο Ƅλ ἐκςύρσλ ἀπεγόξƃπƃλ ἅπƅƃƃζƀη ƃπλƀƃθλ θƀὶ ƃπλƃζίδσλ Ƃἰο Ƃὐθνιίƀλ βίνπ Ƅνὺο ἀλζξώπνπο, ὥƃƅƃ ƂὐπνξίƃƄνπο ƀὐƅνο Ƃἶλƀη Ƅὰο Ƅξνƅάο, ἄππξƀ πξνƃƅƃξνκέλνηο θƀὶ ιηƅὸλ ὕɓσξ πίλνπƃηλ ἐλƅƃῦζƃλ γὰξ θƀὶ ƃώκƀƅνο ὑγίƃηƀλ θƀὶ ςπρο ὀμύƅεƅƀ πƃξηγίλƃƃζƀη. ἀκέιƃη θƀὶ βσκὸλ πξνƃθπλƃƀη κόλνλ ἐλ Γήιῳ Ƅὸλ Ἀπόιισλνο Ƅνῦ γƃλέƅνξνο, ὅο ἐƃƅηλ ὄπηƃζƃλ Ƅνῦ ΚƂξƀƄίλνπ, Ɓηὰ Ƅὸ ππξνὺο θƀὶ θξηζὰο θƀὶ πόπƀλƀ κόλƀ ƄίζƂƃζƀη ἐπ ƀὐƅνῦ ἄλƃπ ππξόο, ἱƃξƃνλ Ɓὲ κεɓέλ, ὥο ƅεƃηλ ἈξηƃƄνƄέιεο ἐλ Γειίσλ πνιηƅƃίᾳ. Pythagoras, who forbade even the killing, let alone the eating, of animals which share with us the privilege of having a soul. This was the excuse put forward; but his real reason for forbidding animal diet was to practice people and accustom them to simplicity of life, so that they could live on things easily procurable, spreading their 119

120 10-11 (2015) tables with uncooked foods and drinking pure water only, for this was the way to a healthy body and a keen mind. Of course the only altar at which he worshipped was that of Apollo the Giver of Life, behind the Altar of Horns at Delos, for thereon were placed flour and meal and cakes, without the use of fire, and there was no animal victim, as we are told by Aristotle in his Constitution of Delos [fr. 489 Rose]. (trans. Hicks 2: 333) T.135 Iamblichus of Chalcis, On the Pythagorean Way of Life (103 Deubner). AD 300 θƀὶ Ƅὸ ἐκςύρσλ Ɓὲ ἀπέρƃƃζƀη ἐλνκνζέƅεƃƃ Ɓηά ƄƂ ἄιιƀ πνιιὰ θƀὶ ὡο Ƃἰξελνπνηὸλ Ƅὸ ἐπηƅήɓƃπκƀ. ἐζηδόκƃλνη γὰξ κπƃάƅƅƃƃζƀη ƅόλνλ δῴσλ ὡο ἄλνκνλ θƀὶ πƀξὰ ƅύƃηλ, πνιὺ κιινλ ἀζƃκηƅώƅƃξνλ Ƅὸ ἄλζξσπνλ γνύκƃλνη θƅƃίλƃηλ νὐθέƅη ἐπνιέκνπλ. ƅόλσλ Ɓὲ ρνξεγέƅεο θƀὶ λνκνζέƅεο ὁ πόιƃκνο And he (Pythagoras) ordered abstinence from living beings for many other reasons, but mainly because the practice tended to promote peace. For once human beings became accustomed to loathe the slaughter of animals as lawless and contrary to nature, they would no longer make war, thinking it even more unlawful to kill a human being. War is the leader and lawgiver of slaughters... (trans. Dillon Hershbell 195) A Quest for Purity T.136 (cf. T.60)?Androcydes, On the Symbols qtd. in Nicomachus of Gerasa.? BC Transmitted by Iamblichus of Chalcis, On the Pythagorean Way of Life (63 Deubner) θƀὶ ἄιιƀ ƄνηƀῦƄƀ ƁηƂζƂƃκνζέƄεƃƂ ƄνύƄνηο ὅκνηƀ, θƀὶ Ɓηὰ Ƅο Ƅξνƅο ἀξρόκƃλνο Ƃἰο ἀξƃƅὴλ ὁɓεγƃλ Ƅνὺο ἀλζξώπνπο. He prescribed other rules like these, and thus, beginning with food, he led human beings to moral excellence. (trans. Dillon Hershbell 133) T.137 Hierocles of Alexandria, Commentary on the Golden Verses of the Pythagoreans (175 Mullach) AD [18] Ƅὰ Ɓὲ ἐπὶ κέξνπο ἐλ Ƅνο ἱƃξνο ἀπνƅζέγκƀƃηλ ἐλ ἀπνξξήƅῳ πƀξƃɓίɓνƅν, ὧλ ἕθƀƃƅνλ Ƃἰ θƀὶ κƃξηθὴλ ἀπνρὴλ ƂἰƃεγƂƄν νἷνλ, θπάκσλ κὲλ ἐλ ƃπέξκƀƃη, ζλεƃƃηɓίσλ Ɓὲ ἐλ δῴνηο θƀὶ ƄνύƄσλ θƀƅὰ γέλνο ὡο ἐπὶ ἰρζύσλ Ƅὸ ἐξπζξίλνπ ἀπέρƃƃζƀη θƀὶ ἐλ ρƃξƃƀίνηο ἄιινπ θƀὶ ἑƅέξνπ Ƅηλὸο ἐλ πƅελνο θƀὶ Ƅὸ ƄƂιƂπƄƀνλ κέξε Ƅηλὰ δῴσλ ἀπεγόξƃπƃλ νἷνλ, θƃƅƀιὴλ κὴ ἐƃζίƃηλ κεɓὲ θƀξɓίƀλ, ὅκσο θƀὶ ἐλ ἑθάƃƅῳ ƄνύƄσλ Ƅὴλ ƄƂιƂηόƄεƄƀ Ƅο θƀζάξƃƃσο ἐλƀπƃƅππνῦƅν ὁ ιόγνο, Ɓηὰ κέλ Ƅηλƀο ƅπƃηθὰο ἰɓηόƅεƅƀο ƄόƁƂ ἠ πνῦƅν ὁ ιόγνο, Ɓηὰ κέλ Ƅηλƀο ƅπƃηθὰο ἰɓηόƅεƅƀο ƄόƁƂ ἠ ƄόƁƂ Ƃἰο ƃσκƀƅηθὴλ ἀπνρὴλ θƀƅƀƅάμƀο, Ɓη ἑθάƃƅνπ Ɓὲ Ƅὴλ Ƅο ζλεƅο πξνƃπƀζƃίƀο θάζƀξƃηλ ƂἰƃεγνύκƂλνο θƀὶ ἐζίδσλ Ɓηὰ πάλƅσλ Ƃἰο ἑƀπƅὸλ ἐπηƃƅξƀƅλƀη Ƅὸλ ἄλζξσπνλ θƀὶ Ƅνῦ κὲλ Ƅο γƃλέƃƃσο θƀὶ ƅζνξο Ƅόπνπ ἐμƀλƀɓῦλƀη, πξὸο Ɓὲ Ƅὸ ἦιύƃηνλ πƃɓίνλ θƀὶ ƀἰζέξƀ Ƅὸλ ἐιƃύζƃξνλ κƃƅνηθίƃƀƃζƀη. [19] ἐπƃηɓὴ Ɓὲ ἐλ ƄάμƂη Ƅὴλ ἐπίɓνƃηλ Ƅο ἀπνρο 120

121 10-11 (2015) ἐπνηνῦλƅν, Ɓηὰ ƄνῦƄν θƀὶ κƀρόκƃλƀ, ὡο ἂλ νἰεζƃίε Ƅηο, ƂὑξίƃθƂƄƀη πƀξ ƀὐƅνο ƃύκβνιƀ. [18] The details have been transmitted in secret in the sacred sayings. Even if each of them proposed a partial abstinence, for example from beans among seeds, from carcasses among animals, and of animals to abstain according to kind, as from red mullet among fish, from this kind among land animals and from another among birds, and, finally, if each forbade certain parts of animals, for example, not to eat the head or heart, none the less in each of them the text would be expressing the perfection of purification. On account of some physical peculiarities it would be assigning this or that as an object for bodily abstinence, yet through each advising purification from the passionate attachment to the mortal and through all of them accustoming man to turn himself inwards, to rise from the region of generation and destruction, and to change his abode to the Elysian field and the free ether. [19] But since they [the Pythagoreans] conceived of abstinence as an orderly progression, on account of this their symbols are found, as one might suppose, to be conflicting. (trans. Schibli ) T.138 Aristotle, On the Pythagoreans fr. 195 Rose = Pythagorean Memoirs qtd. in Alexander Polyhistor of Miletus, Successions of Philosophers, FGrHist 273 F BC Transmitted by Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers 8.33 (618 Dorandi) OF 628; no. 47 Harden Ƅὴλ Ɓ ἁγλƃίƀλ Ƃἶλƀη Ɓηὰ θƀζƀξκλ θƀὶ ινπƅξλ θƀὶ πƃξηξξƀλƅεξίσλ θƀὶ Ɓηὰ Ƅνῦ θƀζƀξƃύƃηλ ἀπό ƄƂ θήɓνπο θƀὶ ιƃρνῦο θƀὶ κηάƃκƀƅνο πƀλƅὸο θƀὶ ἀπέρƃƃζƀη βξσƅλ ζλεƃƃηɓίσλ ƄƂ θξƃλ θƀὶ Ƅξηγιλ θƀὶ κƃιƀλνύξσλ θƀὶ ᾠλ θƀὶ Ƅλ ᾠνƅόθσλ δῴσλ θƀὶ θπάκσλ θƀὶ Ƅλ ἄιισλ ὧλ πƀξƀθƃιƃύνλƅƀη θƀὶ νἱ Ƅὰο ƄƂιƂƄὰο ἐλ Ƅνο ἱƃξνο ἐπηƅƃινῦλƅƃο. Purity is achieved through purifications and baths and ablutions and keeping oneself pure from funeral rites and childbirth and all pollution, and by abstaining from meat and carcasses and red mullets and blacktail fish and eggs and egg-laying animals and from beans and from other things forbidden by those who perform ritual initiations in the sanctuaries. (trans. Kahn 83, modified) T.139 Isocrates, Busiris 28 (195 Mathieu) BC Pythagoras no. 4 Cardini Ππζƀγόξƀο ὁ Σάκηόο ὃο ἀƅηθόκƃλνο Ƃἰο ΑἴγππƄνλ θƀὶ κƀζεƅὴο ἐθƃίλσλ γƃλόκƃλνο Ƅήλ Ƅ ἄιιελ ƅηινƃνƅίƀλ πξƅνο Ƃἰο Ƅνὺο Ἕιιελƀο ἐθόκηƃƃ, θƀὶ Ƅὰ πƃξὶ Ƅὰο ζπƃίƀο θƀὶ Ƅὰο ἁγηƃƅƃίƀο Ƅὰο ἐλ Ƅνο ἱƃξνο ἐπηƅƀλέƃƅƃξνλ Ƅλ ἄιισλ ἐƃπνύɓƀƃƃλ Pythagoras of Samos After he went to Egypt and became their student, he was the first to bring the rest of philosophy to the Greeks, but he was clearly interested than others in their sacrificial rites and in the temple rituals. (trans. Mirhady 56) 121

122 10-11 (2015) T.140 Hermippus of Smyrna, On Pythagoras, book one, FGrHist 1026 F21 qtd. in Flavius Josephus, Against Apion (31 Niese) 200 BC GLAJJ no. 25 θƀὶ ὅƅη πƀξƃθƃιƃύƃƅν κὴ ƁηέξρƂƃζƀη Ƅόπνλ, ἐƅ ὃλ ὄλνο ὀθιάƃῃ, θƀὶ Ƅλ Ɓηςίσλ ὑɓάƅσλ ἀπέρƃƃζƀη θƀὶ πάƃεο ἀπέρƃηλ βιƀƃƅεκίƀο. ƂἶƄƀ πξνƃƅίζεƃη κƃƅὰ ƄƀῦƄƀ θƀὶ ƄάƁƂ ƄƀῦƄƀ Ɓὲ ἔπξƀƅƅƃλ θƀὶ ἔιƃγƃ Ƅὰο ἸνπƁƀίσλ θƀὶ žξᾳθλ Ɓόμƀο κηκνύκƃλνο θƀὶ κƃƅƀƅέξσλ Ƃἰο ἑƀπƅόλ. Hermippus also says that Pythagoras prescribed not to walk past any place where an ass has crouched down [sc. without stopping], to abstain from water that causes thirst and to avoid all kinds of defamation. 47 To this he then adds the following: In practicing and saying this he [sc. Pythagoras] imitated and appropriated the beliefs of Jews and Thracians. (trans. Bollansée 33) T.141 Iamblichus of Chalcis, On the Pythagorean Way of Life (85 Deubner). AD 300 OF 1144vii + OF 508i ὅισο Ɓέ ƅƀƃη Ππζƀγόξƀλ δεισƅὴλ γƃλέƃζƀη Ƅο ξƅέσο ἑξκελƃίƀο ƄƂ θƀὶ ƁηƀζέƃƂσο θƀὶ Ƅηκλ Ƅνὺο ζƃνὺο ξƅƃ πƀξƀπιεƃίσο, ἱƃƅƀκέλνπο ƀὐƅνὺο ἐλ Ƅνο ἀγάικƀƃη θƀὶ Ƅῶ ρƀιθῶ, νὐ Ƅƀο κƃƅέξƀηο ƃπλƃδƃπγκέλνπο κνξƅƀο, ἀιιὰ Ƅνο ἱɓξύκƀƃη Ƅνο ζƃίνηο, πάλƅƀ πƃξηέρνλƅƀο θƀὶ πάλƅσλ πξνλννῦλƅƀο θƀὶ Ƅῶ πƀλƅὶ Ƅὴλ ƅύƃηλ θƀὶ Ƅὴλ κνξƅὴλ ὁκνίƀλ ἔρνλƅƀο, ἀγγέιιƃηλ Ɓὲ ƀὐƅλ Ƅνὺο θƀζƀξκνὺο θƀὶ Ƅὰο ιƃγνκέλƀο ƄƂιƂƄάο, Ƅὴλ ἀθξηβƃƃƅάƅελ ƂἴƁεƃηλ ƀὐƅλ ἔρνλƅƀ. ἔƅη Ɓέ ƅƀƃη θƀὶ ƃύλζƃƅνλ ƀὐƅὸλ πνηƃƀη Ƅὴλ ζƃίƀλ ƅηινƃνƅίƀλ θƀὶ ζƃξƀπƃίƀλ, ἃ κὲλ κƀζόλƅƀ πƀξὰ Ƅλ ξƅηθλ, ἃ Ɓὲ πƀξὰ Ƅλ ΑἰγππƄίσλ ἱƃξέσλ, ἃ Ɓὲ πƀξὰ ΧƀιƁƀίσλ θƀὶ κάγσλ, ἃ Ɓὲ πƀξὰ Ƅο ƄƂιƂƄο Ƅο ἐλ ιƃπƃλη γηλνκέλεο, ἐλ Ἴκβξῳ ƄƂ θƀὶ Σƀκνζξᾴθῃ θƀὶ Λήκλῳ, θƀὶ Ƃἴ Ƅη πƀξὰ Ƅνο θνηλνο, θƀὶ πƃξὶ Ƅνὺο ΚƂιƄνὺο Ɓὲ θƀὶ Ƅὴλ Ἰβεξίƀλ. In general, they say Pythagoras was a zealous admirer of Orpheus style and rhetorical art, and honored the gods in a manner nearly like Orpheus, setting them up, indeed, in the bronze of statues, not bound down with our human appearances, but with those divine rites of gods who comprehend and take thought for all things, and who have a substance and form similar to the All. He proclaimed their purificatory rites and what are called mystic initiations, ad he had most accurate knowledge of these things. Moreover, they say that he made a synthesis of divine philosophy and worship of the gods, having learned some things from the Orphics, others from the Egyptian priests; some from the Chaldeans and the magi, others from the mystic rites in Eleusis, Imbros, Samothrace, and Lemnos, and whatever was to be learned from mystic associations; and some from the Celts and Iberians. (trans. Dillon Hershbell 167) T.142 Xenocrates of Chalcedon, fr. F170 Parente qtd. in Porphyry of Tyre, On Abstinence from Living Animals (38 39 Patillon) BC 47 Jan Bollansée, after Howard Jacobson, argues that Hermippus refers here three Pythagorean symbols that correspond to the Jewish law of the Pentateuch (Bollansée ). 122

123 10-11 (2015) ƅƀƃὶ Ɓὲ θƀὶ ΤξηπƄόιƂκνλ Ἀζελƀίνηο λνκνζεƅƃƀη, θƀὶ Ƅλ λόκσλ ƀὐƅνῦ ƄξƂο ἔƅη ΞƂλνθξάƄεο ὁ ƅηιόƃνƅνο ιέγƃη ƁηƀκέλƂηλ ιƃπƃλη ƄνύƃƁƂ γνλƃο Ƅηκλ, ζƃνὺο θƀξπνο ἀγάιιƃηλ, δῶƀ κὴ ƃίλƃƃζƀη. It is said that Triptolemos too gave laws to the Athenians, and Xenocrates the philosopher says that the following three of his laws are still abided by in Eleusis: to honor one s parents, to worship the gods with offers of fruits, and never to hurt animals. (trans. Bollansée 19 21) T.143 Leviticus LXX BC [46] ΟὗƄνο ὁ λόκνο πƃξὶ Ƅλ θƅελλ θƀὶ Ƅλ πƃƅƃηλλ θƀὶ πάƃεο ςπρο Ƅο θηλνπκέλεο ἐλ Ƅῶ ὕɓƀƅη θƀὶ πάƃεο ςπρο ἑξπνύƃεο ἐπὶ Ƅο γο, [47] ƁηƀƃƄƂιƀη ἀλὰ κέƃνλ Ƅλ ἀθƀζάξƅσλ θƀὶ ἀλὰ κέƃνλ Ƅλ θƀζƀξλ θƀὶ ἀλὰ κέƃνλ Ƅλ δσνγνλνύλƅσλ Ƅὰ ἐƃζηόκƃλƀ, θƀὶ ἀλὰ κέƃνλ Ƅλ δσνγνλνύλƅσλ Ƅὰ κὴ ἐƃζηόκƃλƀ. [46] This is the law pertaining to land animals and birds and every being that moves through the water and every being that crawls upon the earth, [47] to make a distinction between the unclean and between the clean and between breeding things that may be eaten and between breeding things that may not be eaten. (trans. NETS 92) T.144 Deuteronomium LXX BC [3] Οὐ ƅάγƃƃζƃ πλ βɓέιπγκƀ. [4] ƄƀῦƄƀ Ƅὰ θƅήλε, ἃ ƅάγƃƃζƃ [7] θƀὶ ƄƀῦƄƀ νὐ ƅάγƃƃζƃ ἀπὸ Ƅλ ἀθάζƀξƅƀ ƄƀῦƄƀ ὑκλ ἐƃƅη [8] ἀπὸ Ƅλ θξƃλ ƀὐƅλ νὐ ƅάγƃƃζƃ θƀὶ Ƅλ ζλεƃηκƀίσλ ƀὐƅλ νὐρ ἅςƃƃζƃ. [3] You shall not eat any abomination. [4] These are the animals you shall eat:.. [7] And these you shall not eat they are unclean for you. [8]. You shall not eat their flesh, and you shall not touch their carcasses. (trans. NETS 157) T.145 Deuteronomium LXX BC ὅƅη ιƀὸο ἅγηνο Ƃἶ θπξίῳ Ƅῶ ζƃῶ ƃνπ, θƀὶ ƃὲ ἐμƃιέμƀƅν θύξηνο ὁ ζƃόο ƃνπ γƃλέƃζƀη ƃƃ ιƀὸλ ƀὐƅῶ πƃξηνύƃηνλ ἀπὸ πάλƅσλ Ƅλ ἐζλλ Ƅλ ἐπὶ πξνƃώπνπ Ƅο γο. For you are a people holy to the Lord your God, and it is you the Lord your God has chosen to be an exceptional people to him out of all the nations on the face of the earth. (trans. NETS 157) C. Why Abstain from Meat? T.146 Life of Pythagoras qtd. in Photius, Bibliotheca cod. 249 (128 Henry).?AD first century 123

124 10-11 (2015) ΠπζƀγόξƂηνη Ƅλ ἐκςύρσλ ἀπƃίρνλƅν, Ƅὴλ κƃƅƃκςύρσƃηλ ἀƅξόλσο ὡο ἀιεζ ὑπνιƀκβάλνλƅƃο, θƀὶ ὅƅη Ƅὰ ƄνηƀῦƄƀ Ƅλ βξσκάƅσλ πƀρύλƃη Ƅὸλ λνῦλ, ƄξνƅηκώƄƂξƀ ὄλƅƀ θƀὶ πνιιὴλ ἀλάɓνƃηλ πνηνῦλƅƀ. The Pythagoreans did not eat the flesh of living creatures, because they unreasonably believed in metempsychosis and thought such foods dull of mind, being too nutritive and making much work for the digestion. (trans. Wilson 220) T.147 Xenocrates of Chalcedon fr. F185 Parente qtd. in Clement of Alexandria, Stromata (2: Stählin) BC ƁνθƂ Ɓὲ ΞƂλνθξάƄεο ἰɓίᾳ πξƀγκƀƅƃπόκƃλνο ΠƂξὶ Ƅο ἀπὸ Ƅλ δῴσλ Ƅξνƅο θƀὶ Πνιέκσλ ἐλ Ƅνο ΠƂξὶ Ƅνῦ θƀƅὰ ƅύƃηλ βίνπ ƃπλƅάγκƀƃη ƃƀƅο ιέγƃηλ, ὡο ἀƃύκƅνξόλ ἐƃƅηλ Ɓηὰ Ƅλ ƃƀξθλ Ƅξνƅή, <ἡ> Ƃἰξγƀƃκέλε ἢɓε θƀὶ ἐμνκνην Ƅƀο Ƅλ ἀιόγσλ ςπρƀο. Now Xenocrates, treating by himself Of the Food Derived from Animals, and Polemon in his work On Life according to Nature, seem clearly to say that animal food is unwholesome, inasmuch as it has already been elaborated and assimilated to the souls of the irrational creatures. (trans. ANF 2: 532) T.148 Diodorus of Sicily, Library of History (2: Vogel) BC ὅƅη ὁ Ππζƀγόξƀο κƃƅƃκςύρσƃηλ ἐɓόμƀδƃ θƀὶ θξƃνƅƀγίƀλ ὡο ἀπνƅξόπƀηνλ γƃƅν, πάλƅσλ Ƅλ δῴσλ Ƅὰο ςπρὰο κƃƅὰ ζάλƀƅνλ Ƃἰο ἕƅƃξƀ δῶƀ ιέγσλ ƂἰƃέξρƂƃζƀη. Pythagoras believed in the transmigration of souls and considered the eating of flesh as an abominable thing, saying that the souls of all living creatures pass after death into other living creatures. (trans. Oldfather 4: 61) T.149 Eubulus, On Mithras no. 133 Vasunia qtd. in Porphyry of Tyre, On Abstinence (25 Patillon)?AD second century [1] Πƀξά γƃ κὴλ Ƅνο Πέξƃƀηο νἱ πƃξὶ Ƅὸ ζƃνλ ƃνƅνὶ θƀὶ ƄνύƄνπ ζƃξάπνλƅƃο κάγνη κὲλ πξνƃƀγνξƃύνλƅƀη ƄνῦƄν γὰξ Ɓειν θƀƅὰ Ƅὴλ ἐπηρώξηνλ ƁηάιƂθƄνλ ὁ κάγνο νὕƅσ Ɓὲ κέγƀ θƀὶ ƃƃβάƃκηνλ γέλνο ƄνῦƄν πƀξὰ Πέξƃƀηο λƃλόκηƃƅƀη, ὥƃƅƃ θƀὶ ΓƀξƂνλ Ƅὸλ ƃƅάƃπνπ ἐπηγξάςƀη Ƅῶ κλήκƀƅη πξὸο Ƅνο ἄιινηο ὅƅη θƀὶ κƀγηθλ γέλνηƅν ƁηƁάƃθƀινο. [2] ΓηῄξελƄν Ɓὲ νὗƅνη Ƃἰο γέλε Ƅξίƀ, ὡο ƅεƃὶλ Δὔβνπινο ὁ Ƅὴλ πƃξὶ Ƅνῦ Μίζξƀ ἱƃƅνξίƀλ ἐλ πνιινο βηβιίνηο ἀλƀγξάςƀο, ὧλ νἱ πξƅνη θƀὶ ινγηώƅƀƅνη νὔƅ ἐƃζίνπƃηλ ἔκςπρνλ νὔƅƃ ƅνλƃύνπƃηλ, ἐκκέλνπƃη Ɓὲ Ƅῆ πƀιƀηᾶ Ƅλ δῴσλ ἀπνρῆ νἱ Ɓὲ ƁƂύƄƂξνη ρξλƅƀη κέλ, νὐ κέλƅνη Ƅλ κέξσλ δῴσλ Ƅη θƅƃίλνπƃηλ νὐɓ νἱ ƄξίƄνη ὁκνίσο Ƅνο ἄιινηο ἐƅάπƅνλƅƀη πάλƅσλ θƀὶ γὰξ Ɓόγκƀ πάλƅσλ ἐƃƅὶ Ƅλ πξώƅσλ Ƅὴλ κƃƅƃκςύρσƃηλ Ƃἶλƀη, ὃ θƀὶ ἐκƅƀίλƃηλ ἐνίθƀƃηλ ἐλ Ƅνο Ƅνῦ Μίζξƀ κπƃƅεξίνηο. [1] Among the Persians, those who are wise about the divine and serve it are called Magi, for that is what magos means in the native language. These people are regarded as so great and reverend a race by the Persians that Darius son of Hystaspes had written on his tomb, in addition to the rest, that he was a teacher of wisdom of the magi. [2] They are divided into three groups, according to Euboulos who wrote an investigation of Mithras in several books. The first and most learned neither eat nor 124

125 10-11 (2015) kill any animate creature, but abide by the ancient abstinence from animals. The second group make use of animals, but do not any of the tame animals; and even the third group, like the others, do not eat all animals. For it is the belief of them all that metempsychosis is of the first importance, and this, apparently, they reveal in the mysteries of Mithras. (trans. Clark 112) T.150 Empedocles of Acragas, Katharmoi fr. 107 Wright 444 BC OF 449 ἔƃƅηλ ἀλάγθεο ρξκƀ, ζƃλ ςήƅηƃκƀ πƀιƀηόλ, ἀίɓηνλ, πιƀƅέƃƃƃη θƀƅƃƃƅξεγηƃκέλνλ ὅξθνηο ƂὖƄὲ Ƅηο ἀκπιƀθίῃƃη ƅόλῳ ƅίιƀ γπƀ κηήλῃ, <λƃίθƃτ ζ > ὅο θ(ƃ) ἐπίνξθνλ ἁκƀξƅήƃƀο ἐπνκόƃƃεη, ƁƀίκνλƂο νἵ ƄƂ κƀθξƀίσλνο ιƃιόγρƀƃη βίνην Ƅξίο κηλ κπξίƀο ὥξƀο ἀπὸ κƀθάξσλ ἀιάιεƃζƀη. ƅπνκέλνπο πƀλƅνƀ Ɓηὰ ρξόλνπ ƂἴƁƂƀ ζλεƅλ ἀξγƀιέƀο βηόƅνην κƃƅƀιιάƃƃνλƅƀ θƃιƃύζνπο. ƀἰζέξηνλ κὲλ γάξ ƃƅƃ κέλνο πόλƅνλɓƃ ƁηώθƂη, πόλƅνο Ɓ ἐο ρζνλὸο νὖɓƀο ἀπέπƅπƃƃ, γƀƀ Ɓ ἐο ƀὐγὰο Ƃιίνπ ƅƀέζνλƅνο, ὁ Ɓ ƀἰζέξνο ἔκβƀιƃ Ɓίλƀηο ἄιινο Ɓ ἐμ ἄιινπ ƁέρƂƄƀη, ƃƅπγένπƃη Ɓὲ πάλƅƃο. Ƅλ θƀὶ ἐγὼ λῦλ Ƃἶκη ƅπγὰο ζƃόζƃλ θƀὶ ἀιήƅεο λƃίθƃτ κƀηλνκέλση πίƃπλνο. There is a decree of Necessity, ratified long ago by the gods, eternal and sealed by broad oaths, that whenever one in error, from fear, defiles his own limbs, having by his error made false the oath he swore daimons to whom life long-lasting is apportioned he wanders from the blessed ones for three times ten-thousand years, being born throughout the time as all kinds of mortal forms, exchanging one hard way of life for another. For the force of air pursues him into sea, and sea spits him out onto earth s surface, earth casts him into the rays of blazing sun, and sun into the eddies of air; one takes him from another, and all abhor him. I too am now one of these, an exile from the gods and a wanderer, having put my trust in raving strife. (trans. Wright 270, modified) T.151 Plutarch of Chaeronea, On the Eating of Flesh 1.7, 996B (6.1: 103 Hubert). AD OF 318ii ἀιιεγνξƃ γὰξ ἐλƅƀῦζƀ Ƅὰο ςπράο, ὅƅη ƅόλσλ θƀὶ βξώƃƃσο ƃƀξθλ θƀὶ ἀιιεινƅƀγίƀο Ɓίθελ Ƅίλνπƃƀη ƃώκƀƃη ζλƅνο ἐλɓέɓƃλƅƀη. By these lines he [sc. Empedocles] means, though he does not say so directly, that human souls are imprisoned in mortal bodies as a punishment for murder, the eating of animal flesh, and cannibalism. (trans. Cherniss 559) T.152 Sextus Empiricus, Against the Physicists (AM 9) 127 (242 Mutschmann). AD

126 10-11 (2015) νἱ κὲλ νὖλ πƃξὶ Ƅὸλ Ππζƀγόξƀλ θƀὶ Ƅὸλ κπƃɓνθιέƀ θƀὶ Ƅὸ ινηπὸλ Ƅλ ἸƄƀιλ πιζνο ƅƀƃὶ κὴ κόλνλ κλ πξὸο ἀιιήινπο θƀὶ πξὸο Ƅνὺο ζƃνὺο Ƃἶλƀη Ƅηλƀ θνηλσλίƀλ, ἀιιὰ θƀὶ πξὸο Ƅὰ ἄινγƀ Ƅλ δῴσλ. Now Pythagoras and Empedocles and the rest of the Italian company declare that we have some fellowship not only with one another and with the gods but also with the irrational animals. (trans. Bury 3: 69) T.153 Ovid, Metamorphoses (452 Tarrant) before AD 8 no. 51 Harden Omnia mutantur, nihil interit. errat et illinc huc venit, hinc illuc et quoslibet occupat artus spiritus eque feris humana in corpora transit inque feras noster, nec tempore deperit ullo. utque novis facilis signatur cera figures, nec manet ut fuerat nec formas servat easdem, sed tamen ipsa eadem est, animam sic semper eandem esse, sed in varias doceo migrare figuras. ergo, ne pietas sit victa cupidine ventris, parcite, vaticinor, cognatas caede nefanda exturbare animas, nec sanguine sanguis alatur. {Pythagoras soul is speaking} All things are changing; nothing dies. The spirit wanders, comes now here, now there, and occupies whatever frame it pleases. From beasts it passes into human bodies, and from our bodies into beasts, but never perishes. And, as the pliant wax is stamped with new designs, does not remain as it was before nor keep the same form long, but is still the selfsame wax, so do I teach that the soul is ever the same, though it passes into ever-changing bodies. Therefore, lest your piety be overcome by appetite, I warn you as a seer, do not drive out by impious slaughter what may be kindred souls, and let not life be fed on life. (trans. Miller 377) T.154 Aristoxenus of Tarentum qtd. in Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers 8.14 (608 Dorandi) BC ΠξƄόλ Ƅέ ƅƀƃη ƄνῦƄνλ ἀπνƅλƀη Ƅὴλ ςπρὴλ θύθινλ ἀλάγθεο ἀκƃίβνπƃƀλ ἄιινƅ ἄιινηο ἐλɓƃƃζƀη δῴνηο He [sc. Pythagoras] was the first, they say, to declare that the soul, bound now in this creature, now in that, thus goes on a round ordained of necessity. (trans. Hicks 2: 333) T.155 Dicaearchus of Messana, Philosophical Biographies (Περὶ βίων) fr. 40 Mirhady qtd. in Porphyry of Tyre, Life of Pythagoras 19 (44 45 Places) fl. 320 BC Pythagoras no. 8a Cardini ΜάιηƃƄƀ κέλƅνη γλώξηκƀ πƀξὰ πƃηλ ἐγέλƃƅν πξƅνλ κὲλ ὡο ἀζάλƀƅνλ Ƃἶλƀί ƅεƃη Ƅὴλ ςπρήλ, ƂἶƄƀ κƃƅƀβάιινπƃƀλ Ƃἰο ἄιιƀ γέλε δῴσλ, πξὸο Ɓὲ ƄνύƄνηο ὅƅη θƀƅὰ πƃξηόɓνπο Ƅηλὰο Ƅὰ γƃλόκƃλά πνƅƃ πάιηλ γίγλƃƅƀη, λένλ Ɓ νὐɓὲλ ἁπιο ἔƃƅη θƀὶ ὅƅη πάλƅƀ Ƅὰ 126

127 10-11 (2015) γηλόκƃλƀ ἔκςπρƀ ὁκνγƃλ ƁƂ λνκίδƃηλ. ƅέξƃƅƀη γὰξ Ƃἰο Ƅὴλ ιιάɓƀ Ƅὰ ƁόγκƀƄƀ πξƅνο θνκίƃƀη ƄƀῦƄƀ Ππζƀγόξƀο. However, it was especially well-known by all, first, that the soul is immortal, then, that it transmigrated into other kinds of animals, and in addition that what happens happens again at some time according to certain cycles, that, in short, there is nothing new, and that is necessary to believe that all ensouled beings are of the same kind. For it appears that Pythagoras was the first to bring these teachings into Greece. (trans. Mirhady 39 40) T.156 Herodotus of Halicarnassus, Histories ( Rosén) 443 BC OF 423; Pythagoras no. 1 Cardini [2] πξƅνη Ɓὲ θƀὶ ƄόλƁƂ Ƅὸλ ιόγνλ ΑἰγύπƄηνη Ƃἰƃὶ νἱ ƂἰπόλƄƂο, ὡο ἀλζξώπνπ ςπρὴ ἀζάλƀƅνο ἐƃƅί, Ƅνῦ ƃώκƀƅνο Ɓὲ θƀƅƀƅζίλνλƅνο ἐο ἄιιν δῶνλ ƀἰƃὶ γηλόκƃλνλ ἐƃɓύƃƅƀη, ἐπƃὰλ Ɓὲ πάλƅƀ πƃξηέιζῃ Ƅὰ ρƃξƃƀƀ θƀὶ Ƅὰ ζƀιάƃƃηƀ θƀὶ Ƅὰ πƃƅƃηλά, ƀὖƅηο ἐο ἀλζξώπνπ ƃκƀ γηλόκƃλνλ ἐƃɓύλƃη Ƅὴλ πƃξηήιπƃηλ Ɓὲ ƀὐƅῆ γίλƃƃζƀη ἐλ Ƅξηƃρηιίνηƃη ἔƅƃƃη. [3] ƄνύƄῳ Ƅῶ ιόγῳ Ƃἰƃὶ νἳ ιιήλσλ ἐρξήƃƀλƅν, νἳ κὲλ πξόƅƃξνλ νἳ Ɓὲ ὕƃƅƃξνλ, ὡο ἰɓίῳ ἑσπƅλ ἐόλƅη Ƅλ ἐγὼ ƂἰƁὼο Ƅὰ νὐλόκƀƅƀ νὐ γξάƅσ. Moreover, the Egyptians were the first to teach that the human soul is immortal, and at the death of the body enters into some other living thing then coming to birth; and after passing through all creatures of land, sea, and air (which cycle it completes in three thousand years) it enters once more into a human body at birth. Some of the Greeks, early and late, have used this doctrine as if it were their own; I know their names, but do not here record them. (trans. Goodley 425) T.157 Pseudo-Pythagoras, Hieros Logos (or Discourse on the Gods in Doric prose) fr. 1 Thesleff (p. 164) Hellenistic period OF 1144iii ƁεινῦƄƀη Ɓὴ Ɓηὰ Ƅνῦ ἱƃξνῦ ιόγνπ ƄνύƄνπ [ἠ πƃξὶ ζƃλ ιόγνπ, ἐπηγξάƅƃƅƀη γὰξ ἀκƅόƅƃξνλ] θƀὶ Ƅίο ἤλ ὁ πƀξƀɓƃɓθὼο Ππζƀγόξᾳ Ƅὸλ πƃξὶ ζƃλ ιόγνλ. ιέγƃη γὰξ <ιόγνο> ὅɓƃ πƃξὶ ζƃλ Ππζƀγόξƀ Ƅ Μλεκάξρσ, Ƅὸλ ἐμέκƀζνλ ὀξγηƀƃζƃὶο ἐλ Ληβήζξνηο Ƅνο žξᾳθίνηο, Ἀγιƀνƅάκσ ƄƂιƂƃƄ κƃƅƀɓόλƅνο, ὡο ἄξƀ ξƅƃὺο ὁ Κƀιιηόπƀο θƀƅὰ Ƅὸ Πάγγƀηνλ ὄξνο ὑπὸ Ƅο κƀƅξὸο πηλπƃζƃὶο ἔƅƀ It is certainly clear from this Sacred Discourse (or Discourse on the Gods, both titles exists), who gave Pythagoras the discourse on gods, for it says: This (discourse) is what I Pythagoras, son of Mnemarchus, learned on initiation in the Thracian Libethra, from Aglaophamus the initiator, who communicated to me that Orpheus, son of Calliope, taught by his mother on Mt. Pangaeon, said: (trans. Dillon Hershbell ) T.158 Pindar of Thebes fr. 65(133) Fera ca. 476 BC OF

128 10-11 (2015) νἷƃη Ɓὲ ſƃξƃƃƅόλƀ πνηλὰλ πƀιƀηνῦ πέλζƃνο ƁέμƂƄƀη, ἐο Ƅὸλ ὕπƃξζƃλ ἅιηνλ θƃίλσλ ἐλάƅση ἔƅƃτ ἀλɓηɓν ςπρὰο πάιηλ, ἐθ Ƅλ βƀƃηιƃο ἀγƀπνί θƀὶ ƃζέλƃη θξƀηπλνὶ ƃνƅίƀ ƄƂ κέγηƃƅνη ἄλɓξƃο ƀὔμνλƅ ἐο Ɓὲ Ƅὸλ ινηπὸλ ρξόλνλ ἣξνƃο ἁγλνὶ πξὸο ἀλζξώπσλ θƀιένλƅƀη. But as for those from whom Persephone shall exact the penalty of their pristine woe, in the ninth year she once more restoreth their souls to the upper sun-light; and from these come into being august monarchs, and men who are swift in strength and supreme in wisdom; and, for all future time, men call them sainted. (trans. Sandys 591) T.159 The gold tablet from Thurii no. 5 Graf Johnston fourth century BC OF 488 Ἔξρνκƀη ἐθ θνζƀξ λ θνζƀξά, ρζνλί σλ βƀƃίιƃηƀ, Δὐθιο Δὐβν π ιƃύο ƄƂ θƀὶ ἀζάλƀƅνη ζƃνὶ ἄιινη θƀὶ γὰξ ἐγὼλ ὑκλ γέλνο ὄιβηνλ Ƃὔρνκƀη ƂἶκƂλ. ἀι ι ά κƃ Μν ξ {ƀ} ἐɓάκƀƃ ƃ Ƃ {θƀὶ ἀζάλƀƅνη ζƃνὶ ἄιινη} θƀὶ ἀƃ{ƃ}ƅƃξνβιƅƀ θ Ƃ ξƀπλη. θύθιν π Ɓ ἐμέπƅƀλ βƀξππƃλ ζένο ἀξγƀιένην, I come pure from the pure, Queen of the Chthonian Ones, Eucles, Euboleus and the other immortal gods. For I also claim to be of your happy race. But Moira overcame me and the other immortal gods and the star- flinger with lightning. I have flown out of the heavy, difficult circle (trans. Graf Johnston 13) T.160 Diogenes of Oenoanda fr. 40 Smith AD 200 OF 427i [κεɓὲ ιέγσκƃλ ὅƅη] [ ςπρὴ] κƃ[ƅƀβƀίλνπƃƀ νὐ]- [θ ἀ]πώιι[πƅν ὡο νἱ ξƅƃ]- νη, θƀὶ Ππζƀγ[όξƀο νὐ] κόλνο, κƀηλ[όκƃλνη Ɓνθνῦƃηλ]. [And let us not say that the soul transmigrated and did not perish, as the Orphics] and [not] only Pythagoras, crazily [suppose]. (trans. Smith 387) T.161 Proclus, Commentary on the Republic 2: 173 Kroll AD OF 346 θƀὶ ὁ κὲλ ΠιάƄσλ Ɓηὰ ƄνηƀύƄƀο ƀἰƅίƀο ἀπνɓίɓσƃη Ƅὴλ ρηιηάɓƀ Ƅƀο ὑπὸ Ƅη ΠινύƄσλη ςπρƀο, ὁ Ɓὲ ξƅƃὺο Ɓηὰ Ƅξηƀθνƃίσλ ƀὐƅὰο ἐƅλ ἀπὸ Ƅλ Ƅόπσλ ἄγƃη Ƅλ ὑπὸ γο θƀὶ Ƅλ ἐθƃ ƁηθƀησƄεξίσλ ƀὖζηο Ƃἰο γέλƃƃηλ, ƃύλζεκƀ θƀὶ νὗƅνο πνηνύκƃλνο Ƅὰο ƄξƂο 128

129 10-11 (2015) ἑθƅνλƅάɓƀο Ƅο ƄƂιƂίƀο πƃξηόɓνπ Ƅλ ἀλζξσπίλσλ ςπρλ θƀζƀηξνκέλσλ, ἐƅ νἷο ἐβίσƃƀλ ἐπηƃƅξƃƅόκƃλνη Ƅὴλ γέλƃƃηλ. Therefore, Plato [Phdr. 249b] gives Plouto the souls for one thousand years, whereas Orpheus leads them, during 300 years, from the underground places and prisons there back to generation, and the period of 300 years is a symbol of time that is needed for the perfect purification of human souls, after which they go back to the generation. (trans. E. O.) T.162 Orphic Rhapsodies qtd. in Proclus, Commentary on the Republic 2: Kroll. Before AD OF 338i + OF 338 ἠ νὐρὶ θƀὶ ξƅƃὺο Ƅὰ ƄνηƀῦƄƀ ƃƀƅο πƀξƀɓίɓσƃηλ, ὅƅƀλ κƃƅὰ Ƅὴλ Ƅλ ΤηƄάλσλ κπζηθὴλ Ɓίθελ θƀὶ Ƅὴλ ἐμ ἐθƃίλσλ γέλƃƃηλ Ƅλ ζλεƅλ ƄνύƄσλ δῴσλ ιέγῃ πξƅνλ κέλ, ὅƅη Ƅνὺο βίνπο ἀκƃίβνπƃηλ ƀἱ ςπρƀὶ θƀƅὰ Ɓὴ Ƅηλƀο πƃξηόɓνπο θƀὶ ƂἰƃƁύνλƄƀη ἄιιƀη Ƃἰο ἄιιƀ ƃώκƀƅƀ πνιιάθηο ἀλζξώπσλ νἱ Ɓ ƀὐƅνὶ πƀƅέξƃο ƄƂ θƀὶ πἱέƃο ἐλ κƃγάξνηƃηλ Ƃὔθνƃκνη Ƅ ἄινρνη θƀὶ κεƅέξƃο Ɓὲ ζύγƀƅξƃο γίλνλƅ ἀιιήισλ κƃƅƀκƃηβνκέλῃƃη γƃλέζιƀηο. ἐλ γὰξ ƄνύƄνηο Ƅὴλ ἀπ ἀλζξσπίλσλ ƃσκάƅσλ Ƃἰο ἀλζξώπηλƀ κƃƅνίθηƃηλ ƀὐƅλ πƀξƀɓίɓσƃηλ ἔπƃηζ ὅƅη θƀὶ Ƃἰο Ƅὰ ἄιιƀ δῶƀ κƃƅάβƀƃίο ἐƃƅη Ƅλ ςπρλ Ƅλ ἀλζξσπίλσλ, θƀὶ ƄνῦƄν ƁηƀξξήƁελ ξƅƃὺο ἀλƀɓηɓάƃθƃη, ὁπελίθƀ ἂλ ƁηνξίδεƄƀη νὕλƃθ ἀκƃηβνκέλε ςπρὴ θƀƅὰ θύθιƀ ρξόλνην ἀλζξώπσλ δῴνηƃη κƃƅέξρƃƅƀη ἄιινζƃλ ἄιινηο ἄιινƅƃ κέλ ζ ἵππνο, ƄόƄƂ γίλƃƅƀη ἄιινƅƃ Ɓὲ πξόβƀƅνλ, ƄόƄƂ Ɓ ὄξλƃνλ ƀἰλὸλ ἰɓέƃζƀη, ἄιινƅƃ Ɓ ƀὖ θύλƃόλ ƄƂ Ɓέκƀο ƅσλή ƄƂ βƀξƃƀ, θƀὶ ςπρξλ ὀƅίσλ ἕξπƃη γέλνο ἐλ ρζνλὶ Ɓίῃ. Does not Orpheus clearly transmit the things like that? For he says that after the mythical punishments of Titans and the subsequent creation of the mortal beings out of them [sc. Titans] the souls change their lives, in some cycles of time, and enter other bodies that are mostly human: The same inhabit the house as fathers and sons, As respected wives and cherished daughters, Become each others in alternating generations. In these lines, he transmits [the Orphic tradition on] a transmigration [of soul] from one human body into another Furthermore, there is a transmigration of the human souls into the other animals, what Orpheus explicitly says when he makes the following distinction: This is why the soul changes abodes, in cycles of time, Goes from human bodies into animal ones, To become either a horse, or a Either a ram, or bird of prey, a dreadful look, Either a canine species to bark with deep voice, Or one of cold serpents that crawl on the earth. (trans. E. O.) 129

130 10-11 (2015) T.163 Plutarch of Chaeronea, On the Eating of Flesh 1.7, 996C (6.1: Hubert). AD OF 671 θƀίƅνη ƁνθƂ πƀιƀηόƅƃξνο νὗƅνο ὁ ιόγνο Ƃἶλƀη Ƅὰ γὰξ Ɓὴ πƃξὶ Ƅὸλ Γηόλπƃνλ κƃκπζƃπκέλƀ πάζε Ƅνῦ ƁηƀκƂιηƃκνῦ θƀὶ Ƅὰ ΤηƄάλσλ ἐπ ƀὐƅὸλ ƄνικήκƀƄƀ, θνιάƃƃηο ƄƂ ƄνύƄσλ θƀὶ θƃξƀπλώƃƃηο γƃπƃƀκέλσλ Ƅνῦ ƅόλνπ, ᾐληγκέλνο ἐƃƅὶ Ƃἰο Ƅὴλ πƀιηγγƃλƃƃίƀλ. This doctrine, however, seems to be even older, for the stories told about the suffering and dismemberment of Dionysus and the outrageous assaults of the Titans upon him, and their punishment and blasting by thunderbolt after they had tasted his blood all this is a myth which in its inner meaning has to do with rebirth. (trans. Cherniss 559) T.164 Nonnus of Panopolis, Dionysiaca (52 53 Chuvin) AD 450 OF 308i + OF 304v + OF 309viii νὐɓὲ Γηὸο ζξόλνλ ƂἶρƂλ ἐπὶ ρξόλνλ ἀιιά ἑ γύςῳ [170] θƃξɓƀιέῃ ρξηƃζέλƅƃο ἐπίθινπƀ θύθιƀ πξνƃώπνπ Ɓƀίκνλνο ἀƃƅόξγνην ρόιῳ βƀξπκήληνο Ἥξεο ΤƀξƄƀξίῃ ΤηƄλƂο ἐɓειήƃƀλƅν κƀρƀίξῃ ἀλƅηƅύπῳ λόζνλ ƂἶƁνο ὀπηπƃύνλƅƀ θƀƅόπƅξῳ. ἔλζƀ Ɓηρƀδνκέλσλ κƃιέσλ ΤηƄλη ƃηɓήξῳ [175] Ƅέξκƀ βίνπ Γηόλπƃνο ἔρσλ πƀιηλάγξƃƅνλ ἀξρὴλ ἀιινƅπὴο κνξƅνῦƅν πνιπƃπƃξὲο ƂἶƁνο ἀκƃίβσλ, πῆ κὲλ ἅƅƃ ΚξνλίƁεο Ɓόιηνο λένο ƀἰγίɓƀ ƃƃίσλ, πῆ Ɓὲ γέξσλ βƀξύγνπλνο ἅƅƃ Κξόλνο ὄκβξνλ ἰάιισλ ἄιινƅƃ πνηθηιόκνξƅνλ ἔελ βξέƅνο, ἄιινƅƃ θνύξῳ [180] ƂἴθƂινο νἰƃƅξεζέλƅη, λένλ Ɓέ νἱ ἄλζνο ἰνύισλ ἀθξνθƃιƀηληόσλƅƀ θƀƅέγξƀƅƃ θύθιƀ πξνƃώπνπ πῆ Ɓὲ ρόιῳ ƁƀƃπιƄη ιέσλ κηκειὸο ἰάιισλ ƅξηθƀιένλ βξύρεκƀ ƃƃƃεξόƅη κƀίλƃƅν ιƀηκῶ, ὀξζώƃƀο ππθηλῆƃη θƀƅάƃθηνλ ƀὐρέλƀ ρƀίƅƀηο, [185] ἀκƅƃιƃιηδνκέλεο ιƀƃηόƅξηρνο ὑςόζη λώƅνπ ƀὐƅνκάƅῃ κάƃƅηγη πƃξηƃƅίδσλ Ɓέκƀο νὐξο ἔλζƀ ιƃνλƅƃίνην ιηπὼλ ἴλɓƀικƀ πξνƃώπνπ ὑςηιόƅῳ ρξƃκƃƅηƃκὸλ ὁκνίηνλ ἔβξƃκƃλ ἵππῳ ἄδπγη, γƀῦξνλ ὀɓόλƅƀ κƃƅνρκάδνλƅη ρƀιηλνῦ, [190] θƀὶ πνιηῶ ιƃύθƀηλƃ πƃξηƅξίβσλ γέλπλ ἀƅξῶ ἄιινƅƃ ῥνηδήƃλƅƀ ρέσλ ƃπξηγκὸλ ὑπήλεο ἀκƅηιƀƅὴο ƅνιίɓƃƃƃη Ɓξάθσλ ἐιέιηθƅν θƃξάƃƅεο, γιƃƃƀλ ἔρσλ πξνβιƅƀ θƃρελόƅνο ἀλζƃξƃλνο, θƀὶ βινƃπξῶ ΤηƄλνο ἐπƃƃθίξƅεƃƃ θƀξήλῳ [195] ὁξκὸλ ἐρηɓλήƃλƅƀ πƃξίπινθνλ ƀὐρέλη Ɓήƃƀο θƀὶ Ɓέκƀο ἑξπεƃƅξνο ἀƃηɓίλεƅνλ ἐάƃƀο Ƅίγξηο ἔελ, ƃƅίμƀο Ɓέκƀο ƀἰόινλ ἄιινƅƃ Ƅƀύξῳ ἰƃνƅπήο, ƃƅνκάƅσλ Ɓὲ λόζνλ κπθεζκὸλ ἰάιισλ ζεγƀιέῃ ΤηƄλƀο ἀλƃƃƅπƅέιημƃ θƃξƀίῃ. 130

131 10-11 (2015) [200[ θƀὶ ςπρο πξνκάρηδƃλ, ἕσο δειήκνλη ιƀηκῶ Ƅξερƀιένλ κύθεκƀ Ɓη έξνο ἔβξƃκƃλ Ἥξε, κεƅξπηὴ βƀξύκεληο, ἰƃνƅζόγγῳ Ɓὲ ζƃƀίλῃ ƀἰζέξηνλ θƃιάɓεκƀ πύιƀη θƀλάρηδνλ ιύκπνπ, θƀὶ ζξƀƃὺο ὤθιƀƃƃ Ƅƀῦξνο ἀκνηβƀίῃ Ɓὲ ƅνλƃο [205] Ƅƀπξνƅπ Γηόλπƃνλ ἐκηƃƅύιινλƅν κƀρƀίξῃ. But he did not hold the throne of Zeus for long. By the fierce resentment of implacable Hera, the Titans cunningly smeared their round faces with disguising chalk, and while he contemplated his changeling countenance reflected in a mirror they destroyed him with an infernal knife. There where his limbs had been cut piecemeal by the Titan steel, the end of his life was the beginning of a new life as Dionysus. He appeared in another shape, and changed into many forms: now young like crafty Cronides shaking the aegis-cape, now as ancient Cronos heavy-kneed, pouring rain. Sometimes he was a curiously formed baby, sometimes like a mad youth with the flower of the first down marking his rounded chin with black. Again, a mimic lion he uttered a horrible roar in furious rage form a wild snarling throat, as he lifted a neck shadowed by a thick mane, marking his body on both sides with the self-striking whip of a tail which flickered about over his hairy back. Next, he left the shape of a lion s looks and let out a ringing neigh, now like an unbroken horse that lifts his neck on high to shake out the imperious tooth of the bit, and rubbing, whitened his cheek with hoary foam. Sometimes he poured out a whistling hiss form his mouth, a curling horned serpent covered with scales, darting out his tongue from his gaping throat, and leaping upon the grim head of some Titan encircled his neck in snaky spiral coils. Then he left the shape of the restless crawler and became a tiger with gay stripes on his body; or again like a bull emitting a counterfeit roar from his mouth he butted the Titans with sharp horn. So he fought for his life, until Hera with jealous throat bellowed harshly through the air that heavy-resentful stepmother! and the gates of Olympus rattled in echo to her jealous throat from high heaven. Then the bold bull collapsed: the murderers each eager for his turn with the knife chopped piecemeal the bull-shaped Dionysus. (trans. Rouse 1: ) T.165 Empedocles of Acragas, Katharmoi fr. 124 Wright 444 BC OF 640 κνξƅὴλ Ɓ' ἀιιάμƀλƅƀ πƀƅὴξ ƅίινλ πἱὸλ ἀƃίξƀο ƃƅάδƃη ἐπƃπρόκƃλνο κέγƀ λήπηνο νἱ Ɓ' ἐπνξƃῦλƅƀη ιηƃƃόκƃλνη ζύνλƅƀο, ὁ Ɓ' ƀὖ λήθνπƃƅνο ὁκνθιέσλ ƃƅάμƀο ἐλ κƃγάξνηƃη θƀθὴλ ἀιƃγύλƀƅν ƁƀƄƀ. ὡο Ɓ' ƀὔƅσο πƀƅέξ' πἱὸο ἑιὼλ θƀὶ κεƅέξƀ πƀɓƃο ζπκὸλ ἀπνξξƀίƃƀλƅƃ ƅίιƀο θƀƅὰ ƃάξθƀο ἔɓνπƃηλ. The father will lift up dear son in a changed form, and, blind fool, as he prays he will slay him, and those who take part in the sacrifice bring (the victim) as he pleads. But the father, deaf to his cries, slays him in his house and prepares an evil feast. In the same way son seizes father, and children their mother, and having bereaved them of life devour the flesh of those they love. (trans. Wright 286) T.166 Aristotle, On the Soul 407b (15 Ross) after 335 BC 131

132 10-11 (2015) νἱ Ɓὲ κόλνλ ἐπηρƃηξνῦƃη ιέγƃηλ πνόλ Ƅη ςπρή, πƃξὶ Ɓὲ Ƅνῦ ƁƂμνκέλνπ ƃώκƀƅνο νὐζὲλ ἔƅη πξνƃɓηνξίδνπƃηλ, ὥƃπƃξ ἐλɓƃρόκƃλνλ θƀƅὰ Ƅνὺο Ππζƀγνξηθνὺο κύζνπο Ƅὴλ Ƅπρνῦƃƀλ ςπρὴλ Ƃἰο Ƅὸ Ƅπρὸλ ἐλɓύƃƃζƀη ƃκƀ. The supporters of such theories merely undertake to explain the nature of the soul. Of the body which is to receive it they have nothing more to say: just as if it were possible for any soul taken at random, according to the Pythagorean stories, to pass into any body. (trans. Hicks 29) T.167 Heraclides of Pontus, Diseases fr. 86 Schütrumpf qtd. in Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers 8.4 ( Dorandi) 339 BC Pythagoras no. 8 Cardini ΤνῦƄόλ ƅεƃηλ ἧξƀθιƃίɓεο ὁ ΠνλƄηθὸο πƃξὶ ƀὑƅνῦ ƄάƁƂ ιέγƃηλ, ὡο Ƃἴε πνƅὲ γƃγνλὼο ΑἰζƀιίƁεο θƀὶ ξκνῦ πἱὸο λνκηƃζƃίε Ƅὸλ Ɓὲ ξκλ ƂἰπƂλ ƀὐƅῶ ἑιέƃζƀη ὅ Ƅη ἂλ βνύιεƅƀη πιὴλ ἀζƀλƀƃίƀο. ƀἰƅήƃƀƃζƀη νὖλ δλƅƀ θƀὶ ƄƂιƂπƄλƄƀ κλήκελ ἔρƃηλ Ƅλ ƃπκβƀηλόλƅσλ. ἐλ κὲλ νὖλ Ƅῆ δσῆ πάλƅσλ ƁηƀκλεκνλƂῦƃƀη ἐπƃὶ Ɓὲ ἀπνζάλνη, Ƅεξƃƀη Ƅὴλ ƀὐƅὴλ κλήκελ. ρξόλῳ Ɓ ὕƃƅƃξνλ Ƃἰο Δὔƅνξβνλ ἐιζƃλ θƀὶ ὑπὸ ΜƂλέιƂσ Ƅξσζλƀη. ὁ Ɓ Δὔƅνξβνο ἔιƃγƃλ ὡο ΑἰζƀιίƁεο πνƅὲ γƃγόλνη θƀὶ ὅƅη πƀξ ξκνῦ Ƅὸ Ɓξνλ ιάβνη θƀὶ Ƅὴλ Ƅο ςπρο πƃξηπόιεƃηλ, ὡο πƃξηƃπνιήζε θƀὶ Ƃἰο ὅƃƀ ƅπƅὰ θƀὶ δῶƀ πƀξƃγέλƃƅν θƀὶ ὅƃƀ ςπρὴ ἐλ ἍηƁῃ ἔπƀζƃ θƀὶ ƀἱ ινηπƀὶ Ƅίλƀ ὑπνκέλνπƃηλ. Heraclidus Ponticus says that this man (Pythagoras) told the following about himself: how he had once been born Aethalides and was believed to be a son of Hermes, and that Hermes told him to choose anything he wished except immortality. So he requested that while living and while dead he might hold a memory of what happened (to him). Thus in his life he remembered everything, and when he died he retained the same memory. And later in time he came into (the body of) Euphorbus and was wounded by Menelaus. And Euphorbus told how he had once born Aethalides and that he received from Hermes his gift, and told of the wandering of his soul, how it wandered about, and in how many plants and animals it came to be present, and how many things his soul suffered in Hades, and what the other souls endure. (trans. Schütrumpf 167) T.168 Empedocles of Acragas, Katharmoi fr. 108 Wright 444 BC OF 451 ἢɓε γάξ πνƅ' ἐγὼ γƃλόκελ θνῦξόο ƄƂ θόξε ƄƂ ζάκλνο Ƅ' νἰσλόο ƄƂ θƀὶ ἔμƀινο ἔιινπνο ἰρζύο. For before now I have been at some time boy and girl, bush, bird, and a mute fish in the sea. (trans. Wright 275) T.169a Plato, Timaeus 42b d Burnet ca. 360 BC θƀὶ ὁ κὲλ Ƃὖ Ƅὸλ πξνƃήθνλƅƀ ρξόλνλ βηνύο, πάιηλ Ƃἰο Ƅὴλ Ƅνῦ ƃπλλόκνπ πνξƃπζƃὶο νἴθεƃηλ ἄƃƅξνπ, βίνλ ƂὐƁƀίκνλƀ θƀὶ ƃπλήζε ἕμνη, ƃƅƀιƃὶο Ɓὲ ƄνύƄσλ Ƃἰο γπλƀηθὸο ƅύƃηλ ἐλ Ƅῆ [42c] ƁƂπƄέξᾳ γƃλέƃƃη κƃƅƀβƀιν: κὴ πƀπόκƃλόο ƄƂ ἐλ ƄνύƄνηο ἔƅη θƀθίƀο, 132

133 10-11 (2015) Ƅξόπνλ ὃλ θƀθύλνηƅν, θƀƅὰ Ƅὴλ ὁκνηόƅεƅƀ Ƅο Ƅνῦ Ƅξόπνπ γƃλέƃƃσο Ƃἴο Ƅηλƀ ƄνηƀύƄελ ἀƃὶ κƃƅƀβƀιν ζήξƃηνλ ƅύƃηλ, ἀιιάƅƅσλ ƄƂ νὐ πξόƅƃξνλ πόλσλ ιήμνη, πξὶλ Ƅῆ ƄƀὐƄνῦ θƀὶ ὁκνίνπ πƃξηόɓῳ Ƅῆ ἐλ ƀὑƅῶ ƃπλƃπηƃπώκƃλνο Ƅὸλ πνιὺλ ὄρινλ θƀὶ ὕƃƅƃξνλ πξνƃƅύλƅƀ ἐθ ππξὸο θƀὶ ὕɓƀƅνο θƀὶ ἀέξνο [42d] θƀὶ γο, ζνξπβώɓε θƀὶ ἄινγνλ ὄλƅƀ, ιόγῳ θξƀƅήƃƀο Ƃἰο Ƅὸ Ƅο πξώƅεο θƀὶ ἀξίƃƅεο ἀƅίθνηƅν ƂἶƁνο ἕμƃσο. And if a person lived a good life throughout the due course of his time, he would at the end return to his dwelling place in his companion star, to live a life of happiness that agreed with his character. [42c] But if he failed in this, he would be born a second time, now as a woman. And if even then he still could not refrain from wickedness, he would be changed once again, this time into some wild animal that resembled the wicked character he had acquired. [42d] And he would have no rest from these toilsome transformations until he had dragged that massive accretion of fire water-airearth into conformity with the revolution of the Same and uniform within him, and so subdued that turbulent, irrational mass by means of reason. This would return him to his original condition of excellence. (trans. Cooper 1245) T.169b Plato, Timaeus 91d 92c Burnet ca. 360 BC γπλƀθƃο κὲλ νὖλ θƀὶ Ƅὸ ζιπ πλ νὕƅσ γέγνλƃλ: Ƅὸ Ɓὲ Ƅλ ὀξλέσλ ƅῦινλ κƃƅƃξξπζκίδƃƅν, ἀλƅὶ Ƅξηρλ πƅƃξὰ ƅύνλ, ἐθ Ƅλ ἀθάθσλ ἀλɓξλ, θνύƅσλ Ɓέ, θƀὶ κƃƅƃσξνινγηθλ κέλ, γνπκέλσλ Ɓὲ Ɓη ὄςƃσο [91e] Ƅὰο πƃξὶ ƄνύƄσλ ἀπνɓƃίμƃηο βƃβƀηνƅάƅƀο Ƃἶλƀη Ɓη ƂὐήζƂηƀλ. Ƅὸ Ɓ ƀὖ πƃδὸλ θƀὶ ζεξηɓƃο γέγνλƃλ ἐθ Ƅλ κεɓὲλ πξνƃρξσκέλσλ ƅηινƃνƅίᾳ κεɓὲ ἀζξνύλƅσλ Ƅο πƃξὶ Ƅὸλ νὐξƀλὸλ ƅύƃƃσο πέξη κεɓέλ, Ɓηὰ Ƅὸ κεθέƅη Ƅƀο ἐλ Ƅῆ θƃƅƀιῆ ρξƃζƀη πƃξηόɓνηο, ἀιιὰ Ƅνο πƃξὶ Ƅὰ ƃƅήζε Ƅο ςπρο γƃκόƃηλ ἕπƃƃζƀη κέξƃƃηλ. ἐθ ƄνύƄσλ νὖλ Ƅλ ἐπηƅεɓƃπκάƅσλ Ƅά Ƅ ἐκπξόƃζηƀ θιƀ θƀὶ Ƅὰο θƃƅƀιὰο Ƃἰο γλ ἑιθόκƃλƀ ὑπὸ ƃπγγƃλƃίƀο ἢξƃηƃƀλ, πξνκήθƃηο ƄƂ θƀὶ πƀλƅνίƀο ἔƃρνλ Ƅὰο [92a] θνξπƅάο, ὅπῃ ƃπλƃζιίƅζεƃƀλ ὑπὸ ἀξγίƀο ἑθάƃƅσλ ƀἱ πƃξηƅνξƀί ƄƂƄξάπνπλ ƄƂ Ƅὸ γέλνο ƀὐƅλ ἐθ ƄƀύƄεο ἐƅύƃƅν θƀὶ πνιύπνπλ Ƅο πξνƅάƃƃσο, ζƃνῦ βάƃƃηο ὑπνƅηζέλƅνο πιƃίνπο Ƅνο κιινλ ἄƅξνƃηλ, ὡο κιινλ ἐπὶ γλ ἕιθνηλƅν. Ƅνο Ɓ ἀƅξνλƃƃƅάƅνηο ƀὐƅλ ƄνύƄσλ θƀὶ πƀλƅάπƀƃηλ πξὸο γλ πλ Ƅὸ ƃκƀ θƀƅƀƅƃηλνκέλνηο ὡο νὐɓὲλ ἔƅη πνɓλ ρξƃίƀο νὔƃεο, ἄπνɓƀ ƀὐƅὰ θƀὶ ἰιπƃπώκƃλƀ ἐπὶ γο ἐγέλλεƃƀλ. Ƅὸ Ɓὲ [92b] ƄέƄƀξƄνλ γέλνο ἔλπɓξνλ γέγνλƃλ ἐθ Ƅλ κάιηƃƅƀ ἀλνεƅνƅάƅσλ θƀὶ ἀκƀζƃƃƅάƅσλ, νὓο νὐɓ ἀλƀπλνο θƀζƀξο ἔƅη μίσƃƀλ νἱ κƃƅƀπιάƅƅνλƅƃο, ὡο Ƅὴλ ςπρὴλ ὑπὸ πιεκκƃιƃίƀο πάƃεο ἀθƀζάξƅσο ἐρόλƅσλ, ἀιι ἀλƅὶ ιƃπƅο θƀὶ θƀζƀξο ἀλƀπλνο ἀέξνο Ƃἰο ὕɓƀƅνο ζνιƃξὰλ θƀὶ βƀζƃƀλ ἔσƃƀλ ἀλάπλƃπƃηλ ὅζƃλ ἰρζύσλ ἔζλνο θƀὶ Ƅὸ Ƅλ ὀƃƅξέσλ ƃπλƀπάλƅσλ ƄƂ ὅƃƀ ἔλπɓξƀ γέγνλƃλ, Ɓίθελ ἀκƀζίƀο ἐƃράƅεο ἐƃράƅƀο νἰθήƃƃηο [92c] ƂἰιερόƄσλ. θƀὶ θƀƅὰ ƄƀῦƄƀ Ɓὴ πάλƅƀ ƄόƄƂ θƀὶ λῦλ ƁηƀκƂίβƂƄƀη Ƅὰ δῶƀ Ƃἰο ἄιιειƀ, λνῦ θƀὶ ἀλνίƀο ἀπνβνιῆ θƀὶ θƅήƃƃη κƃƅƀβƀιιόκƃλƀ. That is how women and females in general came to be. As for birds, as a kind they are the products of a transformation. They grow feathers instead of hair. They descended from innocent but simple minded men, men who studied the heavenly bodies but in their naiveté believed that the most reliable proofs concerning them could be based upon visual observation. [91e] Land animals in the wild, moreover, came from men who had no tincture of philosophy and who made no study of the universe whatsoever, because they no longer made use of the revolutions in their heads but instead followed the lead of the parts of the soul that reside in the chest. As a consequence of these ways of theirs they carried their forelimbs and their heads dragging towards the ground, like towards like. [92a] The tops of their heads became elongated and took all 133

134 10-11 (2015) sorts of shapes, depending on the particular way the revolutions were squeezed together from lack of use. This is the reason animals of this kind have four or more feet. The god placed a greater number of supports under the more mindless beings, so that they might be drawn more closely to the ground. As for the most mindless of these animals, the ones whose entire bodies stretch out completely along the ground, the gods made them without feet, crawling along the ground, there being no need of feet anymore. [92b] The fourth kind of animal, the kind that lives in water, came from those men who were without question the most stupid and ignorant of all. The gods who brought about their transformation concluded that these no longer deserved to breathe pure air, because their souls were tainted with transgressions of every sort. Instead of letting them breathe rare and pure air, they shoved them into water to breathe its murky depths. This is the origin of fish, of all shellfish, and of every waterinhabiting animal. Their justly due reward for their extreme stupidity is their extreme dwelling place. [92c] These, then, are the conditions that govern, both then and now, how all the animals exchange their forms, one for the other, and in the process lose or gain intelligence or folly. (trans. Cooper ) T.170 Marmor Parium, FGrHist 239 F14 (1398/1397 BC) 264 BC IG XII 5 444; OF 379 [ἀƅ νὗ ξƅƃὺο ὁ Οἰάγξνπ θƀὶ Κƀιιηόπεο] πἱὸ[ο Ƅὴ]λ [ἑ]ƀπƅνῦ πν<ί>εƃηλ ἐμ[έ]ζεθƃ Κόξεο ƄƂ ἁξπƀγὴλ θƀὶ ΓήκεƄξνο δήƅεƃηλ θƀὶ Ƅὸλ ƀὐƅνπ[ξγεζέλƅƀ ὑπ ƀὐƅο ƃπόξνλ θƀὶ Ƅὸ] [ἐθƃζƃλ ἔ]ζνο Ƅλ ὑπνɓƃμƀκέλσλ Ƅὸλ θƀξπόλ, ἔƅε ΧΖΓΓΓΠ, βƀƃηιƃύνλƅνο Ἀζελλ ξηρζέσο. 48 From when Orpheus, son of Oeagrus and Calliope, made known his own poetry: the rape of Core and the search of Demeter and [the seed created by her and the lifestyle of those receiving the corn, 1135 years when Erechtheus was king of Athens. (translation retrieved from completed) T.171 Empedocles of Acragas, Katharmoi fr. 118 Wright 444 BC OF 638 Ƅὴλ νἵ γ ƂὐƃƂβέƂƃƃηλ ἀγάικƀƃηλ ἱιάƃθνλƅν γξƀπƅνο ƄƂ δώηνηƃη κύξνηƃί ƄƂ ƁƀηƁƀιƂόƁκνηο ƃκύξλεο Ƅ ἀθξήƅνπ ζπƃίƀηο ιηβάλνπ ƄƂ ζπώɓνπο, μνπζλ ƄƂ ƃπνλɓὰο κƃιηƅλ ῥίπƅνλƅƃο ἐο νὖɓƀο Ƅƀύξσλ Ɓ ἀθξήƅνηƃη ƅόλνηο νὐ ƁƂύƂƄν βσκόο, ἀιιὰ κύƃνο ƄνῦƄ ἔƃθƃλ ἐλ ἀλζξώπνηƃη κέγηƃƅνλ, ζπκὸλ ἀπνξξƀίƃƀλƅƀο ἐλέɓκƃλƀη έƀ γπƀ. Her [i.e. Cypris] they propitiated with holy images and painted animal figures, with perfumes of subtle fragrance and offerings of distilled myrrh and sweet-smelling 48 The Greek text is reproduced after: Searcheable Greek Inscriptions by The Packard Humanities Institute, Cornell U, Ohio State U ( 134

135 10-11 (2015) frankincense, and pouring on the earth libations of golden honey. Their altar was not drenched by the (?unspeakable) slaughter of bulls, but this was the greatest defilement among men to bereave of life and eat noble limbs. (trans. Wright 282) T.172a Plato, Statesman 271e 272e Burnet after 366 BC ζƃὸο ἔλƃκƃλ ƀὐƅνὺο ƀὐƅὸο ἐπηƃƅƀƅλ, θƀζάπƃξ λῦλ ἄλζξσπνη, δῶνλ ὂλ ἕƅƃξνλ ζƃηόƅƃξνλ, ἄιιƀ γέλε ƅƀπιόƅƃξƀ ƀὑƅλ λνκƃύνπƃη λέκνλƅνο Ɓὲ ἐθƃίλνπ πνιηƅƃƀί ƄƂ νὐθ ἤƃƀλ νὐɓὲ θƅήƃƃηο [272a] γπλƀηθλ θƀὶ πƀίɓσλ ἐθ γο γὰξ ἀλƃβηώƃθνλƅν πάλƅƃο, νὐɓὲλ κƃκλεκέλνη Ƅλ πξόƃζƃλ ἀιιὰ Ƅὰ κὲλ ƄνηƀῦƄƀ ἀπλ πάλƅƀ, θƀξπνὺο Ɓὲ ἀƅζόλνπο Ƃἶρνλ ἀπό ƄƂ ƁέλƁξσλ θƀὶ πνιιο ὕιεο ἄιιεο, νὐρ ὑπὸ γƃσξγίƀο ƅπνκέλνπο, ἀιι ƀὐƅνκάƅεο ἀλƀɓηɓνύƃεο Ƅο γο. γπκλνὶ Ɓὲ θƀὶ ἄƃƅξσƅνη ζπξƀπινῦλƅƃο Ƅὰ πνιιὰ ἐλέκνλƅν Ƅὸ γὰξ Ƅλ ὡξλ ƀὐƅνο ἄιππνλ ἐθέθξƀƅν, κƀιƀθὰο Ɓὲ Ƃὐλὰο Ƃἶρνλ ἀλƀƅπνκέλεο ἐθ [272b] γο πόƀο ἀƅζόλνπ. Ƅὸλ Ɓὴ βίνλ, ὦ ΣώθξƀƄƂο, ἀθνύƃηο κὲλ Ƅὸλ Ƅλ ἐπὶ Κξόλνπ ἐπƃηɓὴ γὰξ πάλƅσλ ƄνύƄσλ ρξόλνο ἐƅƃιƃώζε θƀὶ κƃƅƀβνιὴλ ἔɓƃη γίγλƃƃζƀη θƀὶ [272e] Ɓὴ θƀὶ Ƅὸ γήηλνλ ἢɓε πλ ἀλήισƅν γέλνο, πάƃƀο ἑθάƃƅεο Ƅο ςπρο Ƅὰο γƃλέƃƃηο ἀπνɓƃɓσθπίƀο, ὅƃƀ ἤλ ἑθάƃƅῃ πξνƃƅƀρζὲλ ƄνƃƀῦƄƀ Ƃἰο γλ ƃπέξκƀƅƀ πƃƃνύƃεο. A god tended them, taking charge of them himself, just as now human beings, themselves living creatures, but different and more divine, pasture other kinds of living creatures more lowly than themselves; and given his tendance, they had no political constitutions, [272a] nor acquired wives and children, for all of them came back to life from the earth, remembering nothing of the past. While they lacked things of this sort, they had an abundance of fruits from trees and many other plants, which grew not through cultivation but because the earth sent them up of its own accord. For the most part they would feed outdoors, naked and without bedding; for the blend of the seasons was without painful extremes, [272b] and they had soft beds from abundant grass that sprang from the earth. What you are hearing about, then, Socrates, is the life of those who lived in the time of Cronus When the time of all these things had been completed [272e] and the hour for change had come, and in particular all the earth-born race had been used up, each soul having rendered its sum of births, falling to the earth as seed as many times as had been laid down for each (trans. Cooper ) T.172b (cf. T.1) Plato, Laws 782c d Burnet OF 625i; Orfismo E6 Scarpi; no. 53 Harden 350 BC ὅƅƃ νὐɓὲ βνὸο ἐƅόικσλ κὲλ γƃύƃƃζƀη, ζύκƀƅά ƄƂ νὐθ ἤλ Ƅνο ζƃνƃη δῶƀ, πέιƀλνη Ɓὲ θƀὶ κέιηƅη θƀξπνὶ ƁƂƁƂπκέλνη θƀὶ ƄνηƀῦƄƀ ἄιιƀ ἁγλὰ ζύκƀƅƀ, ƃƀξθλ Ɓ ἀπƃίρνλƅν ὡο νὐρ ὅƃηνλ ὂλ ἐƃζίƃηλ νὐɓὲ Ƅνὺο Ƅλ ζƃλ βσκνὺο ƀἵκƀƅη κηƀίλƃηλ, ἀιιὰ ξƅηθνί ƄηλƂο ιƃγόκƃλνη βίνη ἐγίγλνλƅν κλ Ƅνο ƄόƄƂ, ἀςύρσλ κὲλ ἐρόκƃλνη πάλƅσλ, ἐκςύρσλ Ɓὲ ƄνὐλƀλƄίνλ [782d] πάλƅσλ ἀπƃρόκƃλνη. there was a time when we didn t even dare to eat beef, and the sacrifices offered to the gods were not animals, but cakes and meal soaked in honey and other pure offerings like that. People kept off meat on the grounds that it was an act of impiety to eat it, or to pollute the altars of the gods with blood. So at that time men lived a sort of 135

136 10-11 (2015) Orphic life, keeping exclusively to inanimate food and entirely abstaining from eating [782d] the flesh of animals. (trans. Cooper ) T.172c Plato, Laws 782b c Burnet 350 BC [782b] Ƅί νὖλ; πηƃƅƃύνκƃλ ἀκπέινπο ƄƂ ƅƀλλƀί πνύ πνƅƃ πξόƅƃξνλ νὐθ νὔƃƀο; ὡƃƀύƅσο Ɓὲ θƀὶ ἐιάƀο θƀὶ Ƅὰ ΓήκεƄξόο ƄƂ θƀὶ Κόξεο Ɓξƀ; ΤξηπƄόιƂκόλ Ƅέ Ƅηλƀ Ƅλ ƄνηνύƄσλ γƃλέƃζƀη Ɓηάθνλνλ; ἐλ ᾧ Ɓὲ κὴ ƄƀῦƄƀ ἤλ Ƅῶ ρξόλῳ, κλ νὐθ νἰόκƃζƀ Ƅὰ δῶƀ, θƀζάπƃξ λῦλ, ἐπὶ Ƅὴλ ἀιιήισλ ἐɓσɓὴλ ƄξέπƂƃζƀη; [782c] {Ἀζελƀνο} Ƅὸ Ɓὲ κὴλ ζύƃηλ ἀλζξώπνπο ἀιιήινπο ἔƅη θƀὶ λῦλ πƀξƀκέλνλ ὁξκƃλ πνιινο Well, we believe, don t we, that at a certain point grapevine made their appearance, not having existed before, and olives likewise, and the gifts of Demeter and Kore, which Triptolemus, or whoever it was, handed on to us? So long as these things did not exist, we can take it that animals resorted to feeding on each other, as they do now? [782c] We observe, of course, the survival of human sacrifice among many people today. (trans. Cooper 1454, modified) T.173 Sextus Empiricus, Against the Rhetoricians (AM 2) (90 Mau) AD OF OF 642 πƀξὸ θƀὶ ὁ ζνιόγνο ξƅƃὺο Ƅὸ ἀλƀγθƀνλ ƀὐƅλ ὑπνƅƀίλσλ ƅεƃὶ ἤλ ρξόλνο λίθƀ ƅƅƃο ἀπ ἀιιήισλ βίνλ Ƃἶρνλ ƃƀξθνɓƀθ, θξƃίƃƃσλ Ɓὲ Ƅὸλ ἣƅƅνλƀ ƅƅƀ ƁάηδƂλ. κεɓƃλὸο γὰξ ἐπηƃƅƀƅνῦλƅνο λόκνπ ἕθƀƃƅνο ἐλ ρƃξƃὶ Ƅὸ Ɓίθƀηνλ ƂἶρƂ, ὡο θƀὶ ἰρζύƃη <κὲλ> θƀὶ ζεξƃὶ θƀὶ νἰσλνο πƃƅƃελνο ἐπηƅέƅξπƅƀη ἔƃζƃηλ ἀιιήινπο, ἐπƃὶ νὐ Ɓίθε ἐƃƅὶ κƃƅ ƀὐƅνο, κέρξηο ὅƅƃ ὁ ζƃὸο νἰθƅƃίξσλ κνγνῦƃηλ ƀὐƅνο ζƃƃκνƅόξνπο ζƃὰο ἐμƀπέƃƅƃηιƃλ, ἃο ἐπὶ Ƅῶ Ƅὴλ ἀιιεινƅάγνλ ἀλνκίƀλ θƀƅƀιῦƃƀη πιένλ ἠ ἐπὶ Ƅῶ θƀξπνο κƃξƃƀη Ƅὸλ βίνλ ἐζƀύκƀƃƀλ ἄλζξσπνη. Hence, the theologian Orpheus hints at their necessity when he say, There was a time when every man lived by devouring his fellow Cannibal-wise, and the stronger man did feast on the wicker, (for when no law was in control each man maintained his right by force of hand, even as it is permitted to Fishes and beasts of the wild and the winged ravens and vultures, Each to devour the other, for justice exists not among them, [Hesiod, Works and Days ] until God in his pity for their misery sent to them law-bearing goddesses, and men admired these for the way they stopped the lawless cannibalism more than for the way they civilized life by means of the fruits of the earth. (trans. Bury 4: 205) T.174 Orphic Argonautics (76 Vian) AD fifth century OF 99 ƄηƄζƂίƀλ ƄƂ Εελόο, ὀξƃƃƃηɓξόκνπ ƄƂ ιƀƅξƃίƀλ 136

137 10-11 (2015) ΜεƄξόο ἅ Ƅ ἐλ Κπβέινηο ὄξƃƃηλ κεƅίƃƀƅν θνύξελ ſƃξƃƃƅόλελ πƃξὶ πƀƅξὸο ἀκƀηκƀθέƅνπ Κξνλίσλνο Κƀƃκίινπ ƄƂ θƀὶ ἧξƀθιένο πƃξίƅεκνλ ἄκπμηλ, [25] ὄξγηά Ƅ ἸƁƀίσλ, ΚνξπβάλƄσλ Ƅ ἄπιƃƅνλ ἰƃρύλ ΓήκεƄξόο ƄƂ πιάλελ θƀὶ ſƃξƃƃƅόλεο κέγƀ πέλζνο, ζƃƃκνƅόξνο ζ ὡο ἤλ Ɓ ἀγιƀὰ Ɓξƀ ΚƀβƂίξσλ, ρξεƃκνύο Ƅ ἀξξήƅνπο ΝπθƄὸο πƃξὶ Βάθρνπ ἄλƀθƅνο And the nursing of Zeus, the cult of the mountain-running Mother, the things she devised on the Kybelean mountains for maiden Persephone concerning her father, the invincible son of Cronos, the famous rending of Casmilos and of Heracles, the rites of Ida, the mighty Corybantes. The wandering of Demeter and the great grief of Persephone and how she became Thesmophoros. And then the glittering gifts of the Cabeiroi, and the ineffable oracles of Night concerning lord Bakchos (trans. Edmonds 2011: 77 78) T.175 Themistius, On Husbandry (Or. 30) 349b (183 Downey) AD OF 632 νὐ κὴλ νὐɓὲ ƅέσο ƄƂιƂƄάο ƄƂ θƀὶ ὄξγηƀ γƃσξγίƀο ἐθƅὸο ƃπκβέβεθƃλ Ƃἶλƀη, ἀιιὰ θƀὶ ὁ κῦζνο ƄνῦƄν ƀἰλίƅƃƅƅƀη, πάλƅƀ θειƃλ ƄƂ θƀὶ ζέιγƃηλ Ƅὸλ ξƅέƀ ιέγσλ. ὑπὸ Ƅλ θƀξπλ Ƅλ κέξσλ ὧλ γƃσξγίƀ πƀξέρƃη πƃƀλ κƃξƃƀη ƅύƃηλ θƀὶ ζεξίσλ ƁίƀηƄƀλ, θƀὶ Ƅὸ ἐλ Ƅƀο ςπρƀο ζεξηɓƃο ἐθθόςƀη θƀὶ κƃξƃƀη. θƀὶ Ƅὰ ζεξίƀ γὰξ Ƅῶ κέιƃη θειƃλ ἐπηƃƅƃύζε ζπƃίƀο ƄƂ πάƃƀο θƀὶ ƄƂιƂƄὰο Ɓηὰ Ƅλ ἐθ γƃσξγίƀο θƀιλ Ƃἰο ζƃνὺο ἀλάγσλ. πάλƅƀο γνῦλ ἀλζξώπνπο ἐπιζƃ Ƅῆ Ɓόμῃ θƀὶ πάλƅƃο ἐɓέμƀλƅν γƃσξγίƀλ. The truth that the initiations and mysteries of Orpheus are closely related to agriculture is also said, in allegorical way, in the myth on Orpheus who was to enchant and master every living thing. By analogy, husbandry that provides us with every kind of civilized nourishment, by means of cultivated plants, is able to civilize the bestial diet and to eradicate a beast in us. We believe that he charmed wild beasts with his music, that is, he was leading them to the gods through sacrifices, initiations, and all gifts we owe to husbandry. All people have been persuaded by him, and all of them have adopted husbandry. (trans. E. O.) T.176 Empedocles of Acragas, Katharmoi fr. 122 Wright 444 BC OF 639 νὐ πƀύƃƃƃζƃ ƅόλνην Ɓπƃερένο; νὐθ ἐƃνξƅƃ ἀιιήινπο ƁάπƄνλƄƂο ἀθεɓƃίεηƃη λόνην; Will you not cease the din of slaughter? Do you not see that you are devouring one another because of your careless way of thinking? (trans. Wright 285) Beans? T.177 Aristotle, On the Pythagoreans fr. 195 Rose qtd. in Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers 8.34 (618 Dorandi) 350 BC 137

138 10-11 (2015) Akousmata & Symbola no. 3 Cardini ƅεƃὶ Ɓ ἈξηƃƄνƄέιεο ἐλ Ƅῶ ΠƂξὶ Ƅλ θπάκσλ 49 πƀξƀγγέιιƃηλ ƀὐƅὸλ ἀπέρƃƃζƀη Ƅλ θπάκσλ ἢƅνη ὅƅη ƀἰɓνίνηο Ƃἰƃὶλ ὅκνηνη ἠ ὅƅη ᾍƁνπ πύιƀηο. ἀγόλƀƅνλ γὰξ κόλνλ ἠ ὅƅη ƅζƃίξƃη ἠ ὅƅη Ƅῆ Ƅνῦ ὅινπ ƅύƃƃη ὅκνηνλ ἠ ὅƅη ὀιηγƀξρηθόλ θιεξνῦλƅƀη γνῦλ ƀὐƅνο. According to Aristotle in his work On the Beans, Pythagoras counseled abstinence from beans either because they are like the genitals, or because they are like the gates of Hades as being alone unjointed, or because they are injurious, or because they are like the form of the universe, or because they belong to oligarchy, since they are used in election by lot. (trans. Hicks 2: 349, modified) T.178 (cf. T.60)?Androcydes, On the Symbols qtd. in Nicomachus of Gerasa.? BC Transmitted by Iamblichus of Chalcis, On the Pythagorean Way of Life (63 Deubner) θƀὶ θπάκσλ ἀπέρνπ Ɓηὰ πνιιὰο ἱƃξάο ƄƂ θƀὶ ƅπƃηθὰο θƀὶ Ƃἰο Ƅὴλ ςπρὴλ ἀλεθνύƃƀο ƀἰƅίƀο. And to abstain from beans because of many sacred and physical reasons, and reasons pertaining to the soul. (trans. Dillon Hershbell 133) T.179 Porphyry of Tyre, On the Cave of the Nymphs 19 (62 Simonini) AD νὐρ ἁπιο κέλƅνη πάƃƀο ςπρὰο Ƃἰο γέλƃƃηλ ἰνύƃƀο κƃιίƃƃƀο, ἔιƃγνλ ἀιιὰ Ƅὰο κƃιινύƃƀο κƃƅὰ Ɓηθƀηνƃύλεο βηνƅƃύƃηλ θƀὶ πάιηλ ἀλƀƃƅξέƅƃηλ Ƃἰξγƀƃκέλƀο Ƅὰ ζƃνο ƅίιƀ. Ƅὸ γὰξ δῶνλ ƅηιόƃƅξνƅνλ θƀὶ κάιηƃƅƀ Ɓίθƀηνλ θƀὶ λεƅƀλƅηθόλ ὅζƃλ θƀὶ λεƅάιηνη ƃπνλɓƀὶ ƀἱ Ɓηὰ κέιηƅνο. θƀὶ θπάκνπο νὐθ ἐƅηδάλνπƃηλ, νὓο ἐιάκβƀλνλ Ƃἰο ƃύκβνινλ Ƅο θƀƅ ƂὐζƂƀλ γƃλέƃƃσο θƀὶ ἀθƀκπνῦο Ɓηὰ Ƅὸ κόλνλ ƃρƃɓὸλ Ƅλ ƃπƃξκƀƅηθλ Ɓη ὅινπ ƄƂƄξƃζƀη, κὴ ἐγθνπƅόκƃλνλ Ƅƀο κƃƅƀμὶ Ƅλ γνλάƅσλ ἐκƅξάμƃƃη. They did not simply call all the souls entering into genesis bees, but specifically those that were to live just lives and return after performing acts pleasing to the gods, for bees love to return to their source and are remarkably even-tempered and sober. Thus libations of honey are sober libations. Moreover, bees do not light on the flowers of fava beans, which the ancients used to take as a symbol of the direct and unswerving path of genesis, since fava beans are virtually unique among seed-bearing plants in having stems that are continuously hollow and not interrupted by crossmembranes at the nodes. (trans. Lamberton 32) T.180aVarro of Reate, De vita populi Romani fr. 445 Salvadore qtd. in Pliny the Elder, Natural History (175 Mayhoff) ca. 47 BC 49 There is a lacuna in the text after the ἐλ Ƅῶ. The possible alternative readings are either ΠƂξὶ Ƅλ θπάκσλ or ΠƂξὶ Ƅλ ΠπζƀγνξƂίσλ (Delatte 131; Dorandi 618). 138

139 10-11 (2015) Varro et ob haec flaminem ea non vesci tradit et quoniam in flore eius litterae lugubres reperiantur. Moreover according to Varro s account it is partly for these reasons that a priest abstains from eating beans, though also because certain letters of gloomy omen are to be found inscribed on a bean flower. (trans. Rackham 265) T.180b Didymus of Alexandria, Georgics qtd. in Geoponica (73 Beckh) AD 400 OF vol. 2, p. 216 Τνὺο Ɓὲ θπάκνπο ὁ Ππζƀγόξƀο ƅεƃὶ κὴ ρξλƀη ἐƃζίƃηλ, Ɓηὰ Ƅὸ θƀὶ ἐλ Ƅῶ ἄλζƃη ƀὐƅλ ƂὑξίƃθƂƃζƀη πέλζηκƀ γξάκκƀƅƀ. Pythagoras says that beans should not be eaten because of the grievous letters written on their flowers. (trans. Dalby 93) T.181 Plutarch of Chaeronea, Roman Questions 95, 286D E (164 Boulogne). After AD 105 Ɓηὰ Ƅί λƃλόκηƃƅƀη Ƅνὺο ἁγλƃύνλƅƀο ὀƃπξίσλ ἀπέρƃƃζƀη; πόƅƃξνλ, ὡο νἱ Ππζƀγνξηθνὶ, Ƅνὺο κὲλ θπάκνπο ἀƅσƃηνῦλƅν Ɓηὰ Ƅὰο ιƃγνκέλƀο ƀἰƅίƀο, Ƅὸλ Ɓὲ ιάζπξνλ θƀὶ Ƅὸλ ἐξέβηλζνλ ὡο πƀξσλύκνπο Ƅνῦ ἐξέβνπο θƀὶ Ƅο ιήζεο; ἠ ὅƅη πξὸο Ƅὰ πƃξίɓƃηπλƀ θƀὶ Ƅὰο πξνθιήƃƃηο Ƅλ λƃθξλ κάιηƃƅƀ ρξλƅƀη Ƅνο ὀƃπξίνηο; Why is it the customary rule that those who are practicing holy living must abstain from legumes? Did they, like the followers of Pythagoras, religiously abstain from beans for the reasons which are commonly offered, and from vetch and chickpea, because their names suggest Lethe and Erebus? Or is it because they make particular use of legumes for funeral feasts and invocations of the dead? 50 (trans. Babbitt 4: 143) T.182a Scholia on the Iliad (3: 513 Erbse) s.v. kyamoi melanochroes. After 143 BC OF 648i + OF 648 Ƅνὺο Ɓὲ θπάκνπο ὡο κέιƀλƀο νὐθ ἐƃζίνπƃηλ νἱ ἱƃξƃο. νἱ Ɓὲ ἱƃξὸλ ιόγνλ ƅƀƃίλ ἶƃόλ Ƅνη θπάκνπο ƄƂ ƅƀγƃλ θƃƅƀιάο ƄƂ Ƅνθήσλ, 50 It concerns the Roman rites of Lemuria, celebrated on May 9 th, 11 th, and 13 th, and described by Ovid, Fasti (127 Alton): When from that day the Evening Star shall thrice have shown his beauteous face, and thrice the vanquished stars shall have retreated before Phoebus, there will be celebrated an olden rite, the nocturnal Lemuria: it will bring offerings to the silent ghosts. The year was formerly shorter, and the pious rites of purification (februa) were unknown, and thou, two-headed Janus, wast not the leader of the months. Yet even then people brought gifts to the ashes of the dead, as their due, and the grandson paid his respects to the tomb of his buried grandsire. It was the month of May, so named after our forefathers (maiores), and it still retains part of the ancient custom. When midnight has come and lends silence to sleep, and dogs and all ye varied fowls are hushed, the worshipper who bears the olden rite in mind and fears the gods arises; no knots constrict his feet; and he makes a sign with his thumb in the middle of his closed fingers, lest in his silence an unsubstantial shade should meet him. And after washing his hands clean in spring water, he turns, and first he receives black beans and throws them away with face averted; but while he throws them, he says: These I cast; with these beans I redeem me and mine. This he says nine times, without looking back: the shade is thought to gather the beans, and to follow unseen behind. Again he touches water, and clashes Temesan bronze, and asks the shade to go out of his house. When he has said nine times, Ghosts of my fathers, go forth! he looks back, and thinks that he has duly performed the sacred rites. (trans. Frazer ) 139

140 10-11 (2015) Ɓηὰ Ƅὸ ςπρῆο ƀἰδελ βάƃηλ ἔκκƃλƀη Ɓ ἀλƀβƀζκόλ ἐμ ἈΐƁƀν Ɓόκσλ, ὅƅƀλ ƀὐγὰο Ƃἰƃƀλίσƃηλ. νἱ Ɓέ, ὅƅη ἐπὶ Κξόλνπ ἄξƅνο ἐμ ƀὐƅλ ἤλ Ƅνο ἀλζξώπνηο, ὕƃƅƃξνλ Ɓὲ κὴ γƃύƃƃζƀη ƀὐƅλ ἐπƃƅξάπε, ἵλƀ κεɓ ὅισο ἐθƃίλνπ κλήκε ƅπιƀρζῆ. The priests used to eat no bean because of its black color. Some people say To eat beans is as much as to eat your parents heads [OF 648 = Pseudo- Pythagoras, Hieros Logos fr. 5 Thesleff], because the beans are the way out from the house of Hades and the ladder of ascent for the souls of strong men when they return to the rays of light. [OF 648 = Pseudo- Pythagoras, Hieros logos fr. 6 Thesleff] The others say that under the reign of Cronos the people used a bread made of bean meal which was to be prohibited in the later times to save no memory of him. (trans. E. O.) T.182b Eustathius of Thessalonica, Commentary on the Iliad (3: 518 Valk) s.v. kyamoi melanochroes ca. AD 1178 OF 648ii + OF 648 ΣεκƂίσƃƀη Ɓὲ θƀὶ ὅƅη κήξνπ ƂἰπόλƄνο θύƀκνη κƃιƀλόρξνƃο γξάƅνπƃηλ νἱ πƀιƀηνί, ὅƅη Ƅνὺο θπάκνπο ὡο κέιƀλƀο νὐθ ἐƃζίνπƃηλ νἱ ἱƃξƃο, νἷο θƀὶ ιόγνλ ƅƀƃὶλ Ƃἶλƀη ἱƃξὸλ ƄνηνῦƄνλ ἶƃόλ Ƅνη θπάκνπο ƄƂ ƅƀγƃλ θƃƅƀιάο ƄƂ Ƅνθήσλ, Ɓηὰ Ƅὸ ςπρῆο ƀἰδελ βάƃηλ ἔκκƃλƀη Ɓὲ ἀλƀβƀζκόλ ἐμ ἈΐƁƀν, ὅƅƀλ ƀὐγὰο Ƃἰƃƀλίσƃηλ. Οἱ Ɓὲ ƅƀƃηλ, ὅƅη ἐπὶ Κξόλνπ ἄξƅνο ἐμ ƀὐƅλ ἐγίνƃƅν Ƅνο ἀλζξώπνηο, ὕƃƅƃξνλ Ɓὲ κὴ γƃύƃƃζƀη ƀὐƅλ ἐπƃƅξάπε, ἵλƀ κεɓ ὅισο κλήκε Ƅνῦ Κξόλνπ ƅπιάƅƅνηƅν. The ancient authors write that the Homeric phrase black-colored beans signifies that the priests do not eat beans because of black color and they are said to compose the following verse: To eat beans is as much as to eat your parents heads [OF 648 = Pseudo- Pythagoras, Hieros Logos fr. 5 Thesleff], because the beans are the way out from the house of Hades and the ladder of ascent for the souls of strong men when they return to the rays of light. [OF 648 = Pseudo- Pythagoras, Hieros logos fr. 6 Thesleff] The other authorities say that under the reign of Cronos the people used a bread made of bean meal which was to be prohibited in the later times to save no memory of Cronos. (trans. E. O.) T.183a Hermippus of Smyrna, On Pythagoras, book two, FGrHist 1026 F25 qtd. in Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers 8.40 (623 Dorandi) 200 BC Ἕξκηππνο Ɓέ ƅεƃη, πνιƃκνύλƅσλ ἈθξƀγƀλƄίλσλ θƀὶ Σπξƀθνƃίσλ, ἐμƃιζƃλ Ƅὸλ Ππζƀγόξƀλ κƃƅὰ Ƅλ ƃπλήζσλ θƀὶ πξνƃƅλƀη Ƅλ ἈθξƀγƀλƄίλσλ Ƅξνπο Ɓὲ 140

141 10-11 (2015) γƃλνκέλεο πƃξηθάκπƅνλƅƀ ƀὐƅὸλ Ƅὴλ Ƅλ θπάκσλ ρώξƀλ ὑπὸ Ƅλ Σπξƀθνƃίσλ ἀλƀηξƃζλƀη Ƅνύο ƄƂ ινηπνύο, ὄλƅƀο πξὸο Ƅνὺο πέλƅƃ θƀὶ ƄξηάθνλƄƀ, ἐλ ΤάξƀλƄη θƀƅƀθƀπζλƀη, ζέινλƅƀο ἀλƅηπνιηƅƃύƃƃζƀη Ƅνο πξνƃƃƅƃη. Hermippus on his part relates that, when the Acragantines and the Syracusans were at war, Pythagoras and his disciples marched out at the head of the Acragantine troops; when their line was routed, he was killed by the Syracusans as he was trying to get round the bean-field; the others, some 35 men, were burned at the stake in Tarentum because they [were suspected of] wanting to oppose the policy of the established authorities. (trans. Bollansée 35) T.183b Neanthes of Cyzicus, Pythagorica, FGrH 84 F31b qtd. in Iamblichus of Chalcis, On the Pythagorean Way of Life ( Deubner) ca. 274 BC [189] Ƅὸλ γὰξ Γηνλύƃηνλ Ƅὸλ Ƅύξƀλλόλ ƅƀƃηλ, ὡο πάλƅƀ πνηλ νὐɓƃλὸο ƀὐƅλ ἐπƃƅύγρƀλƃ Ƅο ƅηιίƀο, ƅπιƀƅƅνκέλσλ θƀὶ πƃξηηƃƅƀκέλσλ Ƅὸ κνλƀξρηθὸλ ƀὐƅνῦ θƀὶ πƀξάλνκνλ, ιόρνλ Ƅηλὰ ƄξηάθνλƄƀ ἀλɓξλ, γνπκέλνπ Δὐξπκέλνπο Σπξƀθνπƃίνπ, Γίσλνο ἀɓƃιƅνῦ, ἐπηπέκςƀη Ƅνο ἀλɓξάƃη, ινρήƃνλƅƀ Ƅὴλ κƃƅάβƀƃηλ ƀὐƅλ, Ƅὴλ ἀπὸ ΤάξƀλƄνο Ƃἰο ΜƂƄƀπόλƄηνλ Ƃἰσζπƀλ θƀƅὰ θƀηξὸλ γίλƃƃζƀη ξκόδνλƅν γὰξ πξὸο Ƅὰο Ƅλ ὡξλ κƃƅƀβνιὰο θƀὶ Ƅόπνπο Ƃἰο Ƅὰ ƄνηάƁƂ ἐπƃιέγνλƅν ἐπηƅεɓƃίνπο [191] θƀὶ ἐπƃƅύγρƀλνλ Ɓὲ ἢɓε ƄνύƄνπ (βƀξνύκƃλνη γὰξ Ƅνο ὅπινηο ἀπƃιƃίπνλƅν νἱ ƃὺλ ΔὐξπκέλƂη Ƅνῦ Ɓησγκνῦ), Ƃἰ κή πƃξ ƅƃύγνλƅƃο ἐλέƅπρνλ πƃɓίῳ Ƅηλὶ θπάκνηο ἐƃπƀξκέλῳ θƀὶ ƄƂζειόƄη ἱθƀλο. θƀὶ κὴ βνπιόκƃλνη Ɓόγκƀ πƀξƀβƀίλƃηλ Ƅὸ θƃιƃῦνλ θπάκσλ κὴ ζηγγάλƃηλ ἔƃƅεƃƀλ θƀὶ ὑπ ἀλάγθεο ιίζνηο θƀὶ μύινηο θƀὶ Ƅνο πξνƃƅπρνῦƃηλ ἕθƀƃƅνο κέρξη ƄνƃνύƄνπ κύλνλƅν Ƅνὺο ƁηώθνλƄƀο, κέρξη Ƅηλὰο κὲλ ƀὐƅλ ἀλῃξεθέλƀη, πνιινὺο Ɓὲ ƄƂƄξƀπκƀƄηθέλƀη. πάλƅƀο κὴλ ὑπὸ Ƅλ Ɓνξπƅόξσλ ἀλƀηξƃζλƀη θƀὶ κεɓέλƀ Ƅὸ πƀξάπƀλ δσγξεζλƀη, ἀιιὰ πξὸ ƄνύƄσλ ζάλƀƅνλ ἀƃκƃλίƃƀη θƀƅὰ Ƅὰο Ƅο ƀἱξέƃƃσο ἐλƅνιάο [193] Ƅνῦ Ɓὲ Μπιιίνπ θƀὶ Ƅο Τηκύρƀο πξὸο πάλƅƀ ἃ ἐπεγγέιιƃƅν ἀλƀλƃπόλƅσλ, ἀιιὰ ἕλ γέ κƃ ἔƅε ƁηƁάμƀλƄƂο κƃƅὰ Ƅο ἐπηβƀιινύƃεο πξνπνκπο ƁηƀƃῴδƂƃζƂ ππζνκέλνπ Ɓὲ Ƅνῦ Μπιιίνπ θƀὶ Ƅί πνƅ ἐƃƅίλ, ὃ κƀζƃλ πξνζπκƃƅƀη, ἐθƃλν ƂἶπƂλ ὁ Γηνλύƃηνο Ƅίο ƀἰƅίƀ, Ɓη ἡλ νἱ ἑƅƀξνί ƃνπ ἀπνζƀλƃλ κιινλ ƂἵιƀλƄν ἠ θπάκνπο πƀƅƃƀη; θƀὶ ὁ Μπιιίƀο Ƃὐζὺο ἀιι ἐθƃλνη κὲλ ƂἶπƂλ ὑπέκƃηλƀλ, ἵλƀ κὴ θπάκνπο πƀƅήƃσƃηλ, ἀπνζƀλƃλ, ἐγὼ Ɓὲ ƀἱξνῦκƀη, ἵλƀ ƄνύƄνπ ƃνη Ƅὴλ ƀἰƅίƀλ κὴ ἐμƃίπσ, θπάκνπο κιινλ πƀƅƃƀη. [194] θƀƅƀπιƀγέλƅνο Ɓὲ Ƅνῦ Γηνλπƃίνπ θƀὶ κƃƅƀƃƅƃƀη θƃιƃύƃƀλƅνο ƀὐƅὸλ ƃὺλ βίᾳ, βƀƃάλνπο Ɓὲ ἐπηƅέξƃηλ Ƅῆ Τηκύρᾳ πξνƃƅάƅƅνλƅνο (ἐλόκηδƃ γὰξ ἅƅƃ γπλƀθά ƄƂ νὖƃƀλ θƀὶ ἔπνγθνλ ἐξήκελ ƄƂ Ƅνῦ ἀλɓξὸο ῥᾳɓίσο ƄνῦƄν ἐθιƀιήƃƃηλ ƅόβῳ Ƅλ βƀƃάλσλ), γƃλλƀίƀ ƃπκβξύμƀƃƀ ἐπὶ Ƅο γιώƃƃεο Ƅνὺο ὀɓόλƅƀο θƀὶ ἀπνθόςƀƃƀ ƀὐƅὴλ πξνƃέπƅπƃƃ Ƅῶ Ƅπξάλλῳ, ἐκƅƀίλνπƃƀ ὅƅη, Ƃἰ θƀὶ ὑπὸ Ƅλ βƀƃάλσλ Ƅὸ ζιπ ƀὐƅο ληθεζὲλ ƃπλƀλƀγθƀƃζƃίε Ƅλ ἐρƃκπζνπκέλσλ Ƅη ἀλƀθƀιύςƀη, Ƅὸ κὴλ ὑπεξƃƅƃνλ ἐθπνɓὼλ ὑπ ƀὐƅο πƃξηθέθνπƅƀη. νὕƅσο ƁπƃƃπγθƀƄάζƂƄνη πξὸο Ƅὰο ἐμσƅƃξηθὰο ƅηιίƀο ἤƃƀλ, Ƃἰ θƀὶ βƀƃηιηθƀὶ ƄπγράλνηƂλ. [189] Dionysius, the tyrant, 51 although doing everything possible, gained the friendship of one of them, since they avoided and shunned his monarchical and BC. 51 Dionysius the Younger was the tyrant of Syracuse in the years BC, and again in

142 10-11 (2015) shunned his monarchical and lawless rule. He sent against these men an armed troop of 30 led by Eurymenes the Syracusan, a brother of Dion, to ambush them at opportune time when their customary migration from Tarentum to Metapontium took place; for they adapted themselves to changes of the seasons, and selected suitable places for such [191] And they would have actually succeeded (for weighted down with heavy arms, those with Eurymenes were abandoning the pursuit) had they not encountered while fleeing a field planted and fully blooming with beans. And not wishing to transgress the decree which ordered them not to touch beans, they stopped and by necessity defended themselves against those in pursuit. Each one (fought) with stones, sticks, and whatever else there was, until they had killed and wounded many. Nevertheless, all were destroyed by the tyrant s bodyguards and no one was taken alive, but rather than that, they gladly accepted death in accord with the commands of their school [193] When Myllias inquired what he was eager to learn, Dionysius said: Just this: what was the reason your companions chose to die rather than tread on beans? And Myllias immediately replied, Those submitted to death in order that they not tread on beans, and I would choose rather to tread on beans then to tell you the reason for this. [194] Dionysius was astounded, ordered him removed by force, and commanded infliction of tortures on Timycha (for he believed since she was a woman, both pregnant and deprived of her husband, she would readily divulge this for fear of the tortures). But the noble woman clamped her teeth on her tongue, cut it off and spat it at the tyrant, showing that, even if her female nature, conquered by tortures, were compelled to reveal something of the things kept secret, that which would serve that purpose would be removed to her. So slow were they to make friendship outside the school, even if they were friendship with kings. (trans. Dillon Hershbell ) T.183c Pseudo-Elias (?Stephen of Alexandria), Prolegomena to Philosophy 6 (15 Busse).?AD OF 648vii γνῦλ ΠπζƀγόξƂηνλ γύλƀηνλ ὑπὸ Ƅπξάλλνπ ƃπƃρƃζὲλ θƀὶ ἀλƀγθƀδόκƃλνλ ἐμνξρήƃƀƃζƀη Ƅὰ ἀπόξξεƅƀ, ƄνῦƄ ἔƃƅη Ƅὴλ ƀἰƅίƀλ ƂἰπƂλ, Ɓη ἡλ νὐθ ἐƃζίνπƃη θπάκνπο (ἤλ γὰξ πƀξ ƀὐƅνο Ƅὸ Ἶƃόλ Ƅνη θπάκνπο ƅƀγέƃηλ, θƃƅƀιάο ƄƂ Ƅνθήσλ), ἔƅε ƅάγνηκη ἂλ ἠ Ƃἴπνηκη, Ƅνῦ Ɓὲ ƅƀγƃλ ἀλƀγθάδνλƅνο πάιηλ ƂἶπƂλ Ƃἴπνηκη ἂλ ἠ ƅάγνηκη. Ƅέινο νὖλ ἀλƀγθƀδνκέλε Ɓπνλ ζάƅƃξνλ πξμƀη, ἠ ƅƀγƃλ ἠ ƂἰπƂλ, κƀƃεƃƀκέλε Ƅὴλ ἑƀπƅο γιƅƅƀλ ἀπέƅƃκƃλ ὡο ὄξγƀλνλ ƁηƀιέθƄνπ θƀὶ γƃύƃƃσο, θƀὶ ἐλƅƃῦζƃλ ƀἰθηδνκέλε κƃƅήιιƀμƃ Ƅὸλ βίνλ. 52 The Pythagorean women, who was arrested by the tyrant and compelled to reveal their mysteries, that is, to say the reason, why they do not eat beans (for they had this saying: To eat beans is as much as to eat your parents heads ), she said, then: I would rather eat them than tell you the reason. And when the tyrant, in turn, compelled her to eat she said: I would rather tell you the reason than eat them. Finally, the woman, who had to make a choice between eating and speaking, ended by biting off her own tongue as the organ both of speech and taste and thus, having been tortured, left her life. (trans. E. O.) (51 Westerink). 52 The abbreviated version of the same story is found in Olympiodorus Commentary on the Phaedo

143 10-11 (2015) T.184 Corpus Theognideum, Elegiaca (28 Diehl) before fourth century BC ΠάλƄσλ κὲλ κὴ ƅῦλƀη ἐπηρζνλίνηƃηλ ἄξηƃƅνλ κεɓ ἐƃηɓƃλ ƀὐγὰο ὀμένο Ƃιίνπ, ƅύλƅƀ Ɓ ὅπσο ὤθηƃƅƀ πύιƀο ἈΐƁƀν πƃξƃƀη θƀὶ θƃƃζƀη πνιιὴλ γλ ἐπƀκεƃάκƃλνλ. Best is for mortals never to have been born at all, nor seen the rays of the bright sun; or else, once born, to pass through Hades gates at breakneck speed and lie well wrapped in earth. (trans. Annas 203) T.185 Anonymus qtd. in Iamblichus of Chalcis, Exhortation to the Study of Philosophy 21 (150 Places) before AD 290s Akousmata & Symbola no. 6 Cardini Τὸ Ɓὲ θ π ά κ σ λ ἀ π έ ρ ν π ƃπκβνπιƃύƃη ƅπιάƅƅƃƃζƀη πλ ὅƃνλ ἐƃƅὶ ƅζƀξƅηθὸλ Ƅο πξὸο ζƃνὺο ὁκηιίƀο θƀὶ πλ ὅƃνλ ἐƃƅὶ ƅζƀξƅηθὸλ Ƅο πξὸο ζƃνὺο ὁκηιίƀο θƀὶ Ƅο ζƃίƀο κƀλƅηθο. This, abstain from beans, advises us to beware of everything which is corruptive of our converse with the Gods and divine prophecy. (trans. Johnson 111) T.186 Dioscorides of Anazarbus, De materia medica (1: 179 Wellmann). AD θ ύ ƀ κ ν ο ι ι ε λ η θ ὸ ο πλƃπκƀƅσƅηθόο, ƅπƃώɓεο, ƁύƃπƂπƄνο, ƁπƃόλƂηξνο The Greek bean is full of wind, causes flatulence, is difficult to digest, and causes bad dreams (trans. Beck 136) T. 187 Corpus Hippocraticum, On Diet (44 Joly) after 370 BC Κύƀκνη, Ƅξόƅηκόλ Ƅη θƀὶ ƃƅƀƅηθὸλ θƀὶ ƅπƃɓƃο ƅπƃɓƃο κὲλ ὅƅη νὐ ƁέρνλƄƀη νἱ πόξνη Ƅὴλ Ƅξνƅὴλ ἁιέƀ ἐπηνῦƃƀλ ƃƅάƃηκνλ Ɓὲ ὅƅη ὀιίγελ ἔρƃη Ƅὴλ ὑπνƃƅάζκελ Ƅο Ƅξνƅο. Beans afford an astringent and flatulent nourishment; flatulent because that the passages do not admit the abundant nourishment which is brought, astringent because that it has only a small residue from its nourishment. (trans. Jones 315) T.188 Cicero, On the Divination (39 Giomini) BC OF vol. 2, p. 216 ex quo etiam Pythagoriis interdictum putatur, ne faba vescerentur, quod habet inflationem magnam is cibus tranquillitati mentis querenti vera contrariam. For this reason it is thought that the Pythagoreans were forbidden to eat beans, because that food produces great flatulence which is prejudicial to the tranquility of a soul in search of the truth. (trans. Wardle 66) 143

144 10-11 (2015) T.189 Pseudo-Pythagoras, Hieros Logos fr. 11 Thesleff (p. 163) qtd. in Timaeus of Tauromenium classical period Transmitted by Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers 8.24 (613 Dorandi) Ƅλ Ɓὲ θπάκσλ ὑπεγόξƃπƃλ ἀπέρƃƃζƀη Ɓηὰ Ƅὸ πλƃπκƀƅώɓƃηο ὄλƅƀο κάιηƃƅƀ κƃƅέρƃηλ Ƅνῦ ςπρηθνῦ θƀὶ ἄιισο θνƃκησƅέξƀο ἀπƃξγάδƃƃζƀη, κὴ πƀξƀιεƅζέλƅƀο, Ƅὰο γƀƃƅέξƀο. θƀὶ Ɓηὰ ƄνῦƄν θƀὶ Ƅὰο θƀζ ὕπλνπο ƅƀλƅƀƃίƀο ιƃίƀο θƀὶ ἀƅƀξάρνπο ἀπνƅƃιƃλ. To abstain from beans because they are flatulent and partake most of the breath of life; and besides, it is better for the stomach if they are not taken, and this again will make our dreams in sleep smooth and untroubled. (trans. Hicks 2: 341) T.190 Varro of Reate, De vita populi Romani fr. 445 Salvadore qtd. in Pliny the Elder, Natural History (175 Mayhoff) ca. 47 BC quin et prisco ritu pulsa fabata suae religionis diis in sacro est. praevalens pulmentari cibo, set hebetare sensus existimata, insomnia quoque facere, ob haec Pythagoricae sententiae damnata, ut alii tradidere, quoniam mortuorum animae sint in ea, qua de causa parentando utique adsumitur. Moreover in ancient ritual bean pottage has a sanctity of its own in sacrifice to the gods. It occupies a high place as a delicacy for the table, but it was thought to have a dulling effect on the senses, and also to cause sleeplessness, and it was under a ban with the Pythagorean system on that account or, as others have reported, because the souls of the dead are contained in a bean, and at all events it is for that reason that beans are employed in memorial sacrifices to dead relatives. (trans. Rackham ) T.191 John the Lydian, On Months 4.42 (100 Wuensch) before AD 554 ƄνύƄνπ ράξηλ Ƃἰο Ƅνὺο Ƅάƅνπο θύƀκνη ῥίπƅνλƅƀη ὑπὲξ ƃσƅεξίƀο ἀλζξώπσλ. For this reason beans are thrown into the graves for the sake of the well-being of humans. (trans. Bandy 213) T.192 Aristotle, On the Soul 410b a.2 (22 23 Ross) after 335 B ƄνῦƄν Ɓὲ πέπνλζƃ θƀὶ ὁ ἐλ Ƅνο ξƅηθνο θƀινπκέλνηο ἔπƃƃη ιόγνο ƅεƃὶ γὰξ Ƅὴλ ςπρὴλ ἐθ Ƅνῦ ὅινπ Ƃἰƃηέλƀη ἀλƀπλƃόλƅσλ, ƅƃξνκέλελ ὑπὸ Ƅλ ἀλέκσλ The account given in the so-called Orphic poems is open to the same strictures. For the soul, it is there asserted, enters from the universe in the process of respiration, being borne upon the winds. (trans. Hicks 43) T.193 Apollonius of Tyana, Life of Pythagoras, FGrHist 1064 F2 qtd. in Iamblichus of Chalcis, On the Pythagorean Way of Life ( Deubner). Before AD 100 Ƅνο θπάκνηο πνιƃκƃλ ὡο ἀξρεγνο γƃγνλόƃη Ƅνῦ θιήξνπ θƀὶ Ƅνῦ θƀζηƃƅάλƀη Ƅνὺο ιƀρόλƅƀο ἐπὶ Ƅὰο ἐπηκƃιƃίƀο. 144

145 10-11 (2015) They are to war against beans, since they are lords of the lot, and established those chosen by lot in their public offices. (trans. Dillon Hershbell 251) T.194 Pseudo-Plutarch, Education of Children 17, 12E (24 Gärtner) after AD 120 θπάκσλ ἀπέρƃƃζƀη ὅƅη νὐ ƁƂ πνιηƅƃύƃƃζƀη θπƀκƃπƅƀὶ γὰξ ἤƃƀλ ἔκπξνƃζƃλ ƀἱ ςεƅνƅνξίƀη Ɓη ὧλ πέξƀο ἐπƃƅίζƃƃƀλ Ƅƀο ἀξρƀο. Abstain from beans; means that a man should keep out of politics, for beans were used in earlier times for voting upon the removal of magistrates from office. (Babbitt 1: 61) T.195 Pseudo-Nonnus, Scholia Mythologica 4.17 (83 Nimmo Smith) AD sixth century πƅƀθƀηɓƃθάƅε ἐƃƅὶλ ἱƃƅνξίƀ θƀƅὰ Ƅνὺο Ππζƀγνξηθνὺο θπάκνπο. ἔƃƅη Ɓὲ ƀὕƅε. ΠπζƀγόξƂηνη γέλνο ƅηινƃόƅσλ ἐθ Ππζƀγόξνπ Ƅνῦ Σƀκίνπ. νὗƅνη Ɓη ƀἰληγκάƅσλ Ƅὰ Ƅο ƅηινƃνƅίƀο ἐκάλζƀλνλ ƁόγκƀƄƀ. πƀξƃɓίɓνƅν Ɓὲ κƃƅὰ Ƅὰ ἄιιƀ θƀὶ ƄνῦƄν Ƅὸ ƀἴληγκƀ, Κπάκνπο κὴ ἐƃζίƃηλ. ƄνπƄέƃƄη, κὴ πξνɓηɓόλƅƀο Ƅὸ Ɓίθƀηνλ ƁσξνƁνθƂƃζƀη ρξήκƀƃηλ. νἱ γὰξ Ἀζήλῃƃη πάιƀη ƁηθƀƃƄƀὶ ἀλƅὶ ςήƅσλ θπάκνηο ἐρξλƅν πξὸο θƀƅάθξηƃηλ ἐλ Ƅνο ƁηθƀƃƄεξίνηο. ƅεƃὶλ νὖλ ἐθ Ƅλ θπάκσλ Ƅλ ἐθ Ƅνῦ ƁηθƀƃƄεξίνπ κὴ ƁƂλ ἐƃζίƃηλ. Seventeenth is the story about the Pythagorean beans. It is this. The Pythagoreans are a sect of philosophers (who derived) from Pythagoras the Samian. These learnt the precepts of the philosophy by means of riddles. This riddle, too, was handed down among the rest. Do not eat beans. This is, Do not take bribes in betrayal of justice. For long ago in Athens the jurors used beans instead of counters for judgments in the law-courts. So he says that one should not eat of the beans from the law-court. (trans. Nimmo Smith 13) T.196 (cf. T.68) Pseudo-Pythagoras, Hieros Logos fr. 5 Thesleff classical period OF 648 ἶƃόλ Ƅνη θπάκνπο ƄƂ ƅƀγƃλ θƃƅƀιάο ƄƂ Ƅνθήσλ. It is the same, you see, whether you eat beans or the heads of your parents. (trans. Schütrumpf 239) T.197 Antonius Diogenes, Wonders beyond Thoule fr. 2b Stephens qtd. in Porphyry of Tyre, Life of Pythagoras 43 (56 Places)?AD second century OF 648xii; Akousmata & Symbola no. 6 Cardini ἴƃƀ Ɓὲ θπάκσλ πƀξῄλƃη ἀπέρƃƃζƀη θƀζάπƃξ ἀλζξσπίλσλ ƃƀξθλ. He advised his followers to abstain from beans as they would from human flesh. (trans. Stephens 145) T.198 (cf. T.18) Heraclides of Pontus, On the Pythagoreans fr. 129 Schütrumpf qtd. in John the Lydian, On Months 4.42 (99 Wuensch) 339 BC 145

146 10-11 (2015) OF 648iii + OF 648 ὁ Ɓὲ ΠνλƄηθὸο ἧξƀθιƃίɓεο ƅεƃίλ, ὡο Ƃἴ Ƅηο Ƅὸλ θύƀκνλ ἐλ θƀηλῆ ζήθῃ ἐκβƀιὼλ ἀπνθξύςƃη Ƅῆ θόπξῳ ἐπὶ ƄƂƃƃƀξάθνλƄƀ πάƃƀο κέξƀο, Ƃἰο ὄςηλ ἀλζξώπνπ ƃƃƃƀξθσκέλνπ κƃƅƀβƀιόλƅƀ Ƅὸλ θύƀκνλ ƂὑξήƃƂη, θƀὶ Ɓηὰ ƄνῦƄν Ƅὸλ πνηεƅὴλ ƅάλƀη ἶƃόλ Ƅνη θπάκνπο ƄƂ ƅƀγƃλ θƃƅƀιάο ƄƂ Ƅνθήσλ. Heraclides Ponticus says that if somebody throws a bean into a new coffin and covers it with dung foe a full 40 days, he will find that the bean has changed into the appearance of a human in full flesh. And (he continues) this is why the poet said: It is the same, you see, whether you eat beans or the heads of your parents. [OF 648 = Pseudo-Pythagoras, Hieros Logos fr. 5 Thesleff] (trans. Schütrumpf 239) T.199 Pythagorean Memoirs qtd. in Alexander Polyhistor of Miletus, Successions of Philosophers, FGrHist 273 F BC Transmitted by Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers 8.29 (616 Dorandi) κνξƅνῦƃζƀη Ɓὲ Ƅὸ κὲλ πξƅνλ πƀγὲλ ἐλ κέξƀηο ƄƂƃƃƀξάθνλƄƀ, θƀƅὰ Ɓὲ Ƅνὺο Ƅο ἁξκνλίƀο ιόγνπο ἐλ ἑπƅὰ ἠ ἐλλέƀ ἠ Ɓέθƀ Ƅὸ πιƃƃƅνλ κεƃὶ ƄƂιƂσζὲλ ἀπνθπΐƃθƃƃζƀη Ƅὸ βξέƅνο First congealing in about 40 days, it receives form and, according to the ratios of harmony, in seven, nine, or at the most ten, months, the mature child is brought forth. (trans. Hicks 2: 345) T.200 Antonius Diogenes, Wonders beyond Thoule, book 13 fr. 1b Stephens qtd. in John the Lydian, On Months 4.42 ( Wuensch)?AD second century OF vol. 2, p. 216 Γηνγέλεο Ɓὲ ἐλ Ƅνο ƄξηƃθƀηƁƂθάƄῃ ἀπίƃƅσλ ƄƀῦƄά ƅεƃηλ ƄόƄƂ ἀπὸ Ƅο ƀὐƅο ƃεπέɓνλνο ἄλζξσπνλ ƃπƃƅλƀη θƀὶ θύƀκνλ βιƀƃƅƃƀη. ƄνύƄνπ Ɓὲ ƅƀλƃξὰ ἐπγƃ ƄƂθκήξηƀ Ƃἰ γὰξ Ƅηο ƁηƀƄξƀγὼλ θύƀκνλ θƀὶ Ƅνο ὀɓνῦƃη ιƃάλƀο ἐλ ἀιέᾳ Ƅο Ƅνῦ ιίνπ βνιο θƀƅƀζƃίε πξὸο ὀιίγνλ, ƂἶƄƀ ἀλƀƃƅὰο ἐπƀλέιζνη κƃƅ νὐ πνιύ, Ƃὕξνη ἂλ ὀɓσɓόƅƀ ἀλζξσπƃίνπ ƅόλνπ Ƃἰ Ɓὲ θƀὶ ἀλζνῦλƅνο ἐλ Ƅῶ βιƀƃƅάλƃηλ Ƅνῦ θπάκνπ ιƀβώλ Ƅηο πƃξθάδνλƅνο Ƅνῦ ἄλζνπο βξƀρὺ ἐλζƃίε ἀγγƃίῳ θƃξƀκƃῶ θƀὶ ἐπίζƃκƀ ἐπηζƃὶο ἐλ Ƅῆ γῆ ƄƂ θƀƅνξύμƃηƃ θƀὶ ἐλλƃλήθνλƅƀ πƀξƀƅπιάμƃηƃλ κέξƀο κƃƅὰ Ƅὸ θƀƅνξπρζλƀη, ƂἶƄƀ κƃƅὰ ƄƀῦƄƀ ὀξύμƃηƃ θƀὶ ιάβνη θƀὶ ἀƅέινη Ƅὸ πκƀ, Ƃὕξνη ἂλ ἀλƅὶ Ƅνῦ θπάκνπ ἠ πƀηɓὸο θƃƅƀιὴλ ƃπλƃƃƅƃƀλ ἠ γπλƀηθὸο ƀἰɓννλ. Diogenes in the 13 th book of his Incredible Things says: At that time from the same putrescence human beings were formed and beans sprouted. He adduces evident proofs of this. For if one thoroughly chews a bean and mashes it into a paste with one s teeth and leaves it for a little while in a spot warmed by the sun s rays and then returns after a short interval, he would find it smelling of human gore. And if when the bean plant is blossoming one takes a bit of its ripening floweret and places it in a covered ceramic vessel and buries it in the earth and returns to dig it up after 90 days, 146

147 10-11 (2015) then one would find on taking off the lid that instead of a bean there had been formed either a child s head or a woman s genitals. (trans. Stephens 131) T.201 Antonius Diogenes, Wonders beyond Thoule fr. 2b Stephens qtd. in Porphyry of Tyre, Life of Pythagoras 44 (56 57 Places)?AD second century OF vol. 2, p. 216 ἱƃƅνξνῦƃη Ɓ ƀὐƅὸλ ἀπƀγνξƃύƃηλ Ƅὸ ƄνηνῦƄν ὅƅη Ƅο πξώƅεο Ƅλ ὅισλ ἀξρο θƀὶ γƃλέƃƃσο ƄƀξƀƄƄνκέλεο θƀὶ πνιιλ ἅκƀ ƃπλελƃγκέλσλ θƀὶ ƃπƃπƃηξνκέλσλ θƀὶ ƃπƃƃεπνκέλσλ ἐλ Ƅῆ γῆ θƀƅ ὀιίγνλ γέλƃƃηο θƀὶ Ɓηάθξηƃηο ƃπλέƃƅε δῴσλ ƄƂ ὁκνῦ γƃλλσκέλσλ θƀὶ ƅπƅλ ἀλƀɓηɓνκέλσλ, ƄόƄƂ Ɓὴ ἀπὸ Ƅο ƀὐƅο ƃεπƃɓόλνο ἀλζξώπνπο ƃπƃƅλƀη θƀὶ θύƀκνλ βιƀƃƅƃƀη. ƄνύƄνπ ƄƂ ƅƀλƃξὰ ἐπγƃ ƄƂθκήξηƀ. Ƃἰ γάξ Ƅηο ƁηƀƄξƀγὼλ θύƀκνλ θƀὶ Ƅνο ὀɓνῦƃη ιƃάλƀο ἐλ ἀιέᾳ Ƅο Ƅνῦ ιίνπ βνιο θƀƅƀζƃίε πξὸο ὀιίγνλ, ƂἶƄ ἀπνƃƅὰο ἐπƀλέιζνη κƃƅ νὐ πνιύ, Ƃὕξνη ἂλ ὀɓσɓόƅƀ ἀλζξσπƃίνπ γόλνπ Ƃἰ Ɓὲ θƀὶ ἀλζνῦλƅνο ἐλ Ƅῶ βιƀƃƅάλƃηλ Ƅνῦ θπάκνπ ιƀβώλ Ƅηο πƃξθάδνλƅνο Ƅνῦ ἄλζνπο βξƀρὺ ἐλζƃίε ἀγγƃίῳ θƃξƀκƃῶ θƀὶ ἐπίζεκƀ ἐπηζƃὶο ἐλ Ƅῆ γῆ θƀƅνξύμƃηƃλ θƀὶ ἐλƃλήθνλƅƀ πƀξƀƅπιάμƃηƃλ κέξƀο κƃƅὰ Ƅὸ θƀƅνξπρζλƀη, ƂἶƄƀ κƃƅὰ ƄƀῦƄƀ ὀξύμƀο ιάβνη θƀὶ ἀƅέινη Ƅὸ πκƀ, Ƃὕξνη ἂλ ἀλƅὶ Ƅνῦ θπάκνπ ἠ πƀηɓὸο θƃƅƀιὴλ ƃπλƃƃƅƃƀλ ἠ γπλƀηθὸο ƀἰɓννλ. They report that he issued such a ban because when the first principle of generation was all in a confusion and many things had been combined together and their various seeds and putrescences were coming together in the earth, there gradually occurred a generation and a separating out of living creatures that had been generated together and plants that had sprung up. At that time from the same putrescence human beings were formed and beans sprouted. He adduces evident proofs of this. For if one thoroughly chews a bean and mashes it into a paste with one s teeth and leaves it for a little while in a spot warmed by the sun s rays and then returns after a short interval, he will find it smelling of human gore. And if when the bean plant is blossoming one takes a bit of its ripening floweret and places it in a covered ceramic vessel and buries it in the earth and returns to dig it up after 90 days, then one will find on taking off lid that instead of a bean there had been formed either a child s head or a woman s genitals. (trans. Stephens 145) T.202 John the Lydian, On Months 4.42 (100 Wuensch) before AD 554 ὥƃƅƃ ἀƅƃθƅένλ θƀƅὰ Ππζƀγόξƀλ θπάκνπ, ὡο θƀὶ Ƅλ ιƃγνκέλσλ ρξπƃνιƀράλσλ, ἐπƃηɓὴ θƀὶ ƀὐƅλ γέλƃƃηο ἐμ ἐκκήλσλ γπλƀηθλ ἐƃƅη. ὅƅη Ɓὲ θύƀκνο ἀπὸ Ƅνῦ ƀἵκƀƅνο ƂἴξεƄƀη, ƁπλƀƄὸλ Ƅῆ πƃίξᾳ πƀξƀιƀβƃλ Ƃἴ Ƅηο γὰξ ƀὐƅὸλ ἀπνβξέμƃη ἐπὶ λπρζήκƃξνλ, Ƅὸ ἐλ ƀὐƅῶ ὕɓσξ ιύζξνλ ƂὑξήƃƂη. According to Pythagoras one must abstain, therefore, from the bean, as also from the so-called chrysolachana, since also their generation springs from menses of women That the bean has been said to be from blood 53 can be accepted by experience. For, if 53 Compare the etymology θύƀκνο ἀπὸ Ƅνῦ ƀἵκƀƅνο (bean is derived from blood) to another one: θπάκνπο ƀἴƅηνη Ƅνῦ θπƃλ (beans are responsible for procreation), given by Empedocles (T.105). Robert S. Beekes in the Etymological Dictionary of Greek rejects both etymologies to conclude that the word θύƀκνο is of pre-greek origin (Beekes s.v. kyamos ). 147

148 10-11 (2015) anyone will soak the bean for a night and a day, he will find the water in it to be gore. (trans. Bandy 213) T.203 Sacred law concerning the cult of Dionysus Bromios, Smyrna, LSAM no. 84. AD second century OF 582 Ƅεο ΜƂλάλƁξνπ ὁ ζƃνƅάλƅεο ἀλέζεθƃλ. ƄƂο ὅƃνη ƄέκƂλνο Βξνκίνπ λƀνύο ƄƂ πƃξƅƃ, ƄƂƃƃƀξάθνλƄƀ κὲλ ἢκƀƅƀ ἀπ ἐρζέƃƃσο πƃƅύιƀρζƃ λεπηάρνην βξέƅνπο, κὴ Ɓὴ κήλƃηκƀ γέλεƅƀη, [5] ἔθƅξσƃίλ ƄƂ γπλƀηθὸο ὁκνίσο ἢκƀƅƀ Ƅόƃƃƀ ἠλ Ɓέ Ƅηλ νἰθƃίσλ ζάλƀƅνο θƀὶ κνξƀ θƀιύςῃ, ƂἴξγƂƃζƀη κελὸο ƄξίƄƀƄνλ κέξνο ἐθ πξνπύινην ἠλ Ɓ ἂξ ἀπ ἀιινƅξίσλ νἴθσλ Ƅη κίƀƃκƀ γέλεƅƀη, Ƃιίνπο Ƅξηƃƃνὺο κƃλƀη λέθπνο ƅζηκέλνην, [10] κεɓὲ κƃιƀλƅάξνπο πξνƃίλƀη βσκνƃη ἄλƀθƅ [νο κεɓ ἀζύƅνηο ζπƃίƀηο ἱƃξλ ἐπὶ ρξƀο ἰάι[ιƃηλ] κεɓ ἐλ ΒƀθρƂίνηο ᾠὸλ πνƅὶ ƁƀƄƀ Ƅ[ηζƂƃζƀη] θƀὶ θξƀɓίελ θƀξπνῦλ ἱƃξνο βσκνο ƁƂόƃκνπ Ƅ ἀπέρƃƃζƀη, ὃλ Γεκ [εƅεξ ἀκάζπλƃλ ] [15] ἐρζξνƅάƅελ ῥίδƀλ θπάκσλ ἐθ ƃπέ [ξκƀƅνο ΤƂηƄάλσλ πξνιέγƃηλ κύƃƅƀηο. The theophantes son of Menandros dedicated (this stele). All who enter the temenos and temples of Bromios: avoid for forty days after the exposure of a newborn child, so that (divine) wrath does not occur; after the miscarriage of a woman for the same amount of days. If he conceals the death and fate of a relative, keep away from the propylon for the third of a month. If impurity occurs from other houses, remain for three days after the departure of the dead. No one wearing black clothes may approach the altar of the king, nor lay hands on things not sacrificed from sacrificial animals, nor place an egg as food at the Bacchic feast, nor sacrifice a heart on the holy altars [ ] keep away from the wild mint, which Demeter [treaded into the soil]; and the most hateful root of beans from seed of Titans; proclaim to the mystai (trans. Rostad 259, modified) T.204 Dio Chrysostom, Charidemos (Or. 30) 10 (408 Cohoon)?before AD 115 OF 320vii ἔρνλƅƀ Ɓέ Ƅη ζƀπκƀƃƅὸλ ἴƃσο ὅƅη Ƅνῦ Ƅλ ΤηƄάλσλ ƀἵκƀƅόο ἐƃκƃλ κƃο ἅπƀλƅƃο νἱ ἄλζξσπνη. ὡο νὖλ ἐθƃίλσλ ἐρζξλ ὄλƅσλ Ƅνο ζƃνο θƀὶ πνιƃκεƃάλƅσλ νὐɓὲ κƃο ƅίινη ἐƃκέλ, ἀιιὰ θνιƀδόκƃζά ƄƂ ὑπ ƀὐƅλ θƀὶ ἐπὶ Ƅηκσξίᾳ γƃγόλƀκƃλ, ἐλ ƅξνπξᾶ Ɓὴ ὄλƅƃο ἐλ Ƅῶ βίῳ ƄνƃνῦƄνλ ρξόλνλ ὅƃνλ ἕθƀƃƅνη δκƃλ. Ƅνὺο Ɓὲ ἀπνζλῄƃθνλƅƀο κλ θƃθνιƀƃκέλνπο ἢɓε ἱθƀλο ιύƃƃζƀί ƄƂ θƀὶ ἀπƀιιάƅƅƃƃζƀη. It is to the effect that all we human beings are of the blood of the Titans. Then, because they were hateful to the gods and had waged war on them, we are not dear to them either, but are punished by them and have been born for chastisement, being, in 148

149 10-11 (2015) truth, imprisoned in life for as long a time as we each live. And when any of us die, it means that we, having already been sufficiently chastised, are released and go our way. (trans. Cohoon 409) T.205 Pausanias, Description of Greece (3: 253 Rocha-Pereira) AD OF 649ii ſƃλƃƀƅλ Ɓέ ἐƃƅη ιόγνο, θƀὶ πξὶλ ἠ Νƀὸλ ἀƅηθέƃζƀη γὰξ θƀὶ ἐλƅƀῦζƀ ΓήκεƄξƀ πιƀλσκέλελ: ὅƃνη Ɓὲ ſƃλƃƀƅλ νἴθῳ ƄƂ θƀὶ μƃλίνηο ἐɓέμƀλƅν ƀὐƅήλ, ƄνύƄνηο Ƅὰ ὄƃπξηƀ ζƃὸο Ƅὰ ἄιιƀ, θύƀκνλ Ɓὲ νὐθ ἔɓσθέ ƃƅηƃη. θύƀκνλ κὲλ νὖλ ἐƅ ὅƅῳ κὴ θƀζƀξὸλ Ƃἶλƀη λνκίδνπƃηλ ὄƃπξηνλ, ἔƃƅηλ ἱƃξὸο ἐπ ƀὐƅῶ ιόγνο. The Pheneatians have a story that even before Naus arrived the wanderings of Demeter brought her to their city also. To those Pheneatians who received her with hospitality into their homes the goddess gave all sorts of pulse save the bean only. There is a sacred story to explain why the bean in their eyes is an impure kind of pulse. 54 (trans. Jones 3: 421) T.206 Pausanias, Description of Greece (1: 86 Rocha-Pereira) AD OF 649i ᾠθνɓόκεƅƀη Ɓὲ θƀƅὰ Ƅὴλ ὁɓὸλ λƀὸο νὐ κέγƀο θƀινύκƃλνο ΚπƀκίƄνπ ƃƀƅὲο Ɓὲ νὐɓὲλ ἔρσ ιέγƃηλ ƂἴƄƂ πξƅνο θπάκνπο ἔƃπƃηξƃλ νὗƅνο ƂἴƄƂ Ƅηλὰ ἐπƃƅήκηƃƀλ ἣξσƀ, ὅƅη Ƅλ θπάκσλ ἀλƃλƃγθƃλ νὐθ ἔƃƅη ƃƅίƃηλ ἐο ΓήκεƄξƀ Ƅὴλ ƂὕξƂƃηλ. ὅƃƅηο Ɓὲ ἢɓε ƄƂιƂƄὴλ ιƃπƃλη ƂἶƁƂλ ἠ Ƅὰ θƀινύκƃλƀ ξƅηθὰ ἐπƃιέμƀƅν, νἶɓƃλ ὃ ιέγσ. On the road stands a small temple called that of Cyamites. I cannot state for certain whether he was the first to sow beans, or whether they gave this name to a hero because they may not attribute to Demeter the discovery of beans. Whoever has been initiated at Eleusis or has read what are called the Orphica knows what I mean. (trans. Jones 1: 198) T.207 Photius, Lexicon K 1137 (451 Theodoridis) AD ΚπƀκίƄεο ξνο ἤλ ὄλνκƀ θύξηνλ ἴƃσο Ɓὲ ἐμ ἐπσλπκίƀο Ƅλ θπάκσλ, Ɓη ὅƅη πƀξ ƀὐƅῶ ἐθιεξνῦλƅν νἱ θπƀκίƅƀη ἄξρνλƅƃο ἠ ὅƅη ὁ θύƀκνο ἐπηπξάƃθƃƅν πƀξ ƀὐƅῶ. Kyamites: the name of hero in nominative, perhaps he may have been named from the beans, because in his [temple] archons were elected by lot with beans, or because the bean market was located not far from there. (trans. E. O.) T.208 Herodotus of Halicarnassus, Histories (163 Rosén) 443 BC 54 The text concerns th mysteries of Demeter Thesmia at Pheneos, Arcadia, about which next to nothing is known (Jost ). 149

150 10-11 (2015) θπάκνπ Ɓὲ νὔƅƃ Ƅη κάιƀ ƃπƃίξνπƃη ΑἰγύπƄηνη ἐλ Ƅῆ ρώξῃ, Ƅνύο ƄƂ γƃλνκέλνπο νὔƅƃ Ƅξώγνπƃη νὔƅƃ ἕςνλƅƃο πƀƅένλƅƀη νἱ Ɓὲ Ɓὴ ἱξέƃο νὐɓὲ ὁξένλƅƃο ἀλέρνλƅƀη, λνκίδνλƅƃο νὐ θƀζƀξὸλ Ƃἶλƀί κηλ ὄƃπξηνλ. The Egyptians sow no beans in their country; if any grow, they will not eat them either raw or cooked; the priests cannot endure even to see them, considering beans an unclean kind of legume. (trans. Godley 321) T.209 Aristagoras of Miletus, History of Egypt, FGrHist 608 F7 qtd. in Plutarch of Chaeronea, De Iside et Osiride 5 (124 Griffiths)?fourth century BC νἱ Ɓ ἱƃξƃο νὕƅσ ƁπƃρƂξƀίλνπƃη Ƅὴλ Ƅλ πƃξηƅƅσκάƅσλ ƅύƃηλ, ὥƃƅƃ κὴ κόλνλ πƀξƀηƅƃƃζƀη Ƅλ ὀƃπξίσλ Ƅὰ πνιιὰ θƀὶ Ƅλ θξƃλ Ƅὰ κήιƃηƀ θƀὶ ὕƃηƀ, πνιιὴλ πνηνῦλƅƀ πƃξίƅƅσƃηλ, ἀιιὰ θƀὶ Ƅνὺο ἅιƀο Ƅλ ƃηƅίσλ ἐλ Ƅƀο ἁγλƃίƀηο ἀƅƀηξƃλ The priests have such a loathing for the growth of surplus matter that they not only reject most kind a of pulse and of flesh of sheep and swine because they produce much surplus fat, but also in their periods of purification they exclude salt from food (trans. Griffiths 125) T.210 Plutarch of Chaeronea, Table Talks 8.8.2, 729A (287 Hubert) AD ΑἰγππƄίσλ Ɓὲ Ƅνο ƃνƅνο ƃπγγƃλέƃζƀη πνιὺλ ρξόλνλ ὁκνινγƃƅƀη δειƃƀί ƄƂ πνιιὰ θƀὶ Ɓνθηκάƃƀη κάιηƃƅƀ Ƅλ πƃξὶ Ƅὰο ἱƃξƀƅηθὰο ἁγηƃƅƃίƀο, νἷόλ ἐƃƅη θƀὶ Ƅὸ Ƅλ θπάκσλ νὔƅƃ γὰξ ƃπƃίξƃηλ νὔƅƃ ƃηƅƃƃζƀη θύƀκνλ ΑἰγππƄίνπο, ἀιι νὐɓ ὁξλƅƀο ἀλέρƃƃζƀί ƅεƃηλ ὁ ἧξόɓνƅνο. ἰρζύσλ Ɓὲ θƀὶ Ƅνὺο ἱƃξƃο ἴƃκƃλ ἔƅη λῦλ ἀπƃρνκέλνπο But it is fully agreed that he [sc. Pythagoras] associated for a long while with the wise men of Egypt, and that he emulated them in many ways and considered them to be of very great authority in matters of priestly ritual. An example is abstention from beans; Herodotus [Histories ] says that the Egyptians neither plant nor eat beans, and cannot even bear to look at them; and we know that even now the priests abstain from fish. (Minar 177) T.211 Macrobius, Saturnalia (64 65 Kaster) AD 395 [31] Non nonnulli putaverunt Iunium mensum a Iunio Bruto qui primus Romae consul factus est nominatum, quod hoc mense, id est Kalendis Iuniis, pulso Tarquinio sacrum Carnae deae in Caelio monte voti reus fecerit. [32] Hanc deam vitalibus humanis praeesse credunt. Ab ea denique petitur ut iecinora et corda quaeque sunt intrinsecus viscera salva conservet: et quia cordis beneficio, cuius dissimulatione brutus habebatur, idoneus emendationi publici status extitit, hanc deam quae vitalibus praeest templo sacravit. [33] Cui pulte fabacia et larido sacrificatur, quod his maxime rebus vires corporis roborentur. Nam et Kalendae Iuniae fabariae vulgo vocantur, quia hoc mense adultae fabae divinis rebus adhibentur. Some have thought that June was named after Junius Brutus, Rome s first consul, because in this month specifically, on the Kalends of June he discharged a vow by sacrificing to the goddess Carna on the Caelian Hill after the expulsion of Tarquin. [32] This goddess is thought to hold human vital organs in her power and is accordingly called upon to keep our livers, hearts, and all our innards healthy. Brutus 150

151 10-11 (2015) turned out to be the right man to improve our constitution by virtue of his wits [lit. heart ] which he concealed, and so was thought doltish [brutus] and for that reason he dedicated a temple to the goddess in charge of vital organs. [33] The goddess receives an offering of bean porridge and bacon, which are especially conductive to bodily strenght. The Kalends of June is also called the bean Kalends, because in this month ripe beans are used in sacrifice. (trans. Kaster 1: ) T.212a Dicaearchus of Messana, Cultural History fr. 56A Mirhady qtd. in Porphyry of Tyre, On the Abstinence from Living Animals (2 Patillon) fl. 320 BC ἃ Ɓὴ θƀὶ ἐμεγνύκƃλνο ὁ Γηθƀίƀξρνο Ƅὸλ ἐπὶ Κξόλνπ βίνλ ƄνηνῦƄνλ Ƃἶλƀη ƅεƃίλ. Ƃἰ ƁƂ ιƀκβάλƃηλ κὲλ ƀὐƅὸλ ὡο γƃγνλόƅƀ θƀὶ κὴ κάƅελ ἐπηπƃƅεκηƃκέλνλ, Ƅὸ Ɓὲ ιίƀλ κπζηθὸλ ἀƅέλƅƀο Ƃἰο Ƅὸ Ɓηὰ Ƅνῦ ιόγνπ ƅπƃηθὸλ ἀλάγƃηλ. ƀὐƅόκƀƅƀ κὲλ γὰξ πάλƅƀ ἐƅύƃƅν, ƂἰθόƄσο, νὐ γὰξ ƀὐƅνί γƃ θƀƅƃƃθƃύƀδνλ νὐζὲλ Ɓηὰ Ƅὸ κήƅƃ Ƅὴλ γƃσξγηθὴλ ἔρƃηλ πσ Ƅέρλελ κήζ ἑƅέξƀλ κεɓƃκίƀλ ἁπιο. Ƅὸ Ɓ ƀὐƅὸ θƀὶ Ƅνῦ γƃσξγηθὴλ ἔρƃηλ πσ Ƅέρλελ κήζ ἑƅέξƀλ κεɓƃκίƀλ ἁπιο. In explanation of this, Dicaearchus says that life under Cronus was of this kind since it is necessary to accept that it did exist, that it has not been renowned to no purpose, but also, by lying aside what is excessively mythical, to reduce it to natural items based on reason. All things, therefore, are very reasonably said to have grown of their own accord; for men themselves did not procure anything because they were still unacquainted with the agricultural art, or, in fact, any other art. (trans. Mirhady 63 65) T.212b Dicaearchus of Messana, Cultural History fr. 56B Mirhady qtd. in Jerome of Stridonium, Against Jovinian 2.13 (PL 23: 315C 316A) fl. 320 BC Dicaearchus in libris Antiquitatum et Descriptione Graeciae refert sub Saturno (id est in aureo saeculo), cum omnia humus funderet, nullum comedisse carnem, sed universos vixisse frugibus et pomis quae sponte terra gignebat. Dicaearchus in the books of Antiquities and Description of Greece says that under Saturn, that is, in the golden age, when the earth provided all things, no one ate meat, but all lived from the fruits and vegetables that the earth bore spontaneously. (trans. Mirhady 67) Eggs? T.213 (cf. T.177) Aristotle, On the Pythagoreans fr. 195 Rose qtd. in Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers 8.34 (618 Dorandi) 350 BC Akousmata & Symbola no. 3 Cardini ƅεƃὶ Ɓ ἈξηƃƄνƄέιεο ἐλ Ƅῶ ΠƂξὶ Ƅλ θπάκσλ πƀξƀγγέιιƃηλ ƀὐƅὸλ ἀπέρƃƃζƀη Ƅλ θπάκσλ ἢƅνη ὅƅη ƀἰɓνίνηο Ƃἰƃὶλ ὅκνηνη ἠ ὅƅη Ƅῆ Ƅνῦ ὅινπ ƅύƃƃη ὅκνηνλ According to Aristotle in his work On the Beans, Pythagoras counseled abstinence from beans either because they are like the genitals or because they are like the form of the universe (trans. Hicks 2: 349, modified) 151

152 10-11 (2015) T.214 (cf. T.23) Plutarch of Chaeronea, Table Talks 2.3.1, 635E (58 Hubert) AD OF 648v ὡο Ɓὴ θπάκνπο Ƅὰ ᾠὰ Ɓηὰ Ƅὴλ θύεƃηλ ƀἰληƅƅνκέλσλ Ƅλ ἀλɓξλ For these people call eggs beans (θύƀκνη), punning on the word conception (θύεƃηο) (trans. Clement 145) T.215 (cf. T.105) Aristoxenus of Tarentum, On Pythagoras and His Circle fr. 25 Wehrli qtd. in Aulus Gellius, Attic Nights (178 Marshall) BC Opinati enim sunt plerique θπάκνπο legumentum dici, ut a vulgo dicitur. Sed qui diligentius scitiusque carmina Empedocli arbitrati sunt, θπάκνπο hoc in loco testiculos significare dicunt, eosque more Pythagorae operte atque symbolice θπάκνπο appellatos, quod sint ƀἴƅηνη Ƅνῦ θπƃλ et geniturae humanae vim praebeant; idcircoque Empedoclen versu isto non a fabulo edendo, sed a rei veneriae proluvio voluisse homines deducere. For most men thought that θπάκνπο meant the vegetable, according to the common use of the word. But those who have studied the poems of Empedocles with greater care and knowledge say that here θπάκνπο refers to the testicles, and that after the Pythagorean manner they were called in a covert and symbolic way θύƀκνη, because they are the cause of pregnancy and furnish the power for human generation: and that therefore Empedocles in that verse desired to keep men, not from eating beans, but from excess in venery. (trans. Rolfe ) T.216 (cf. T.22) Plutarch of Chaeronea, Table Talks 2.3.1, 635E (58 Hubert) AD OF 647i; Orfismo E8 Scarpi ὑπόλνηƀλ κέλƅνη πƀξέƃρνλ, ἑƃƅηλƅνο κο Σνƃƃίνπ ΣƂλƂθίσλνο, ἐλέρƃƃζƀη Ɓόγκƀƃηλ ξƅηθνο ἠ Ππζƀγνξηθνο, θƀὶ Ƅὸ ᾠόλ, ὥƃπƃξ ἔληνη θƀξɓίƀλ θƀὶ ἐγθέƅƀινλ, ἀξρὴλ γνύκƃλνο γƃλέƃƃσο ἀƅνƃηνῦƃζƀη But my companions at one of Sossius Senecio s dinners suspected me of being committed to beliefs of the Orphics or the Pythagoreans and holding the egg taboo, as some hold the heart and brain, because I thought it to be the first principle of creation (trans. Clement 145) T.217 (cf. T.23) Plutarch of Chaeronea, Table Talks 2.3.1, 635F (58 Hubert) AD OF 648v; Orfismo E8 Scarpi.ƁηƀƅέξƂηλ Ɓὲ κεɓὲλ νἰνκέλσλ Ƅὸ ἐƃζίƃηλ ᾠὰ Ƅνῦ ρξƃζƀη Ƅνο ƄίθƄνπƃη Ƅὰ ᾠὰ δῴνηο. they think that eating eggs in no way differs from using the creatures which produce the eggs. (trans. Clement 145) T.218 Plutarch of Chaeronea, Table Talk 2.3.2, 636E (60 Hubert) AD

153 10-11 (2015) OF 646i ὅζƃλ νὐθ ἀπὸ Ƅξόπνπ Ƅνο πƃξὶ Ƅὸλ Γηόλπƃνλ ὀξγηƀƃκνο ὡο κίκεκƀ Ƅνῦ Ƅὰ πάλƅƀ γƃλλλƅνο θƀὶ πƃξηέρνλƅνο ἐλ ἑƀπƅῶ ƃπγθƀζσƃίσƅƀη. It is therefore not inappropriate that in the rites of Dionysus the egg is consecrated as a symbol of that which produces everything and contains everything within itself. (trans Clement 151) T.219 (cf. T.203) Sacred law concerning the cult of Dionysus Bromios, Smyrna, LSAM no. 84. AD second century OF 582 κεɓ ἐλ ΒƀθρƂίνηο ᾠὸλ πνƅὶ ƁƀƄƀ Ƅ[ηζƂƃζƀη] nor place an egg as food at the Bacchic feast (trans. Rostad 259) T.220 Macrobius, Saturnalia ( Kaster) AD 395 OF 646ii et ne videar plus nimio extulisse ovum elementi vocabulo, consule initiatos sacris Liberi patris, in quibus hac veneratione ovum colitur ut ex forma tereti ac paene sphaerali atque undique versum clausa et includente intra se vitam, mundi simulacrum vocetur, mundum autem consensu omnium constat universitatis esse principium. And lest I seem to have exalted the egg excessively by calling it an element, consider those initiated in the rites of father Liber, in which an egg is so worshipped that being rounded and almost spherical, perfectly enclosed on all sides, and keeping life shut up within it it is called a likeness of the universe, which, which by general agreement is held to be first beginning of all that is. (trans. Kaster 3: 299) T.221 Pindar of Thebes fr. 59(131) Fera before 443 BC OF 442 ƃκƀ κὲλ πάλƅσλ ἕπƃƅƀη ζƀλάƅση πƃξηƃζƃλƃ, δσὸλ Ɓ ἔƅη ιƃίπƃƅƀη ƀἰλνο ƂἴƁσινλ Ƅὸ γάξ ἐƃƅη κόλνλ ἐθ ζƃλ And, while the body of all men is subject to over-mastering death, an image of world remaineth alive, for it alone cometh from the gods. (trans. Sandys 589, modified) T.222 (cf. T.21b) Plutarch of Chaeronea, Table Talk 2.3.2, 636D (60 Hubert) AD OF 646i ἀƃίƃσ μπλƃƅνƃη Ƅὸλ ξƅηθὸλ θƀὶ ἱƃξὸλ ιόγνλ, ὃο νὐθ ὄξληζνο κόλνλ Ƅὸ ᾠὸλ ἀπνƅƀίλƃη πξƃƃβύƅƃξνλ, ἀιιὰ θƀὶ ƃπιιƀβὼλ ἅπƀƃƀλ ƀὐƅῶ Ƅὴλ ἁπάλƅσλ ὁκνῦ 153

154 10-11 (2015) πξƃƃβπγέλƃηƀλ ἀλƀƅίζεƃηλ. θƀὶ Ƅἄιιƀ κὲλ ƂὔƃƄνκƀ θƃίƃζσ θƀζ ἧξόɓνƅνλ, ἔƃƅη γὰξ κπƃƅηθώƅƃξƀ What is more, he added with a laugh, I shall recite for men of understanding [OF 101] the Orphic sacred tale which not only declares the egg older than the hen, but also attributes to it the absolute primordiality over all things together without exception. As for the rest of the doctrine, let reverent silence prevail, as Herodotus says [Histories 2.171]; for it is very much of a mystical secret. (trans. Clement ) T.223 Aristophanes, Birds 695 (1: 381 Wilson) 414 BC OF 64; Orfismo A1 Scarpi ƄίθƄƂη πξώƅηƃƅνλ ὑπελέκηνλ Νὺμ κƃιƀλόπƅƃξνο ᾠόλ did black-winged Night at the very start bring forth a wind egg (trans. Henderson 3: 117) T.224 Corpus Hippocraticum, On Diet (49 Joly) after 370 BC Ὠηὰ Ɓὲ ὀξλίζσλ ἰƃρπξὸλ θƀὶ Ƅξόƅηκνλ θƀὶ ƅπƃɓƃο ἰƃρπξὸλ κέλ, ὅƅη γέλƃƃίο ἐƃƅη Ƅνῦ δῴνπ, Ƅξόƅηκνλ Ɓέ, ὅƅη γάιƀ ἐƃƅὶ ƄνῦƄν Ƅῶ λƃνƃƃῶ, ƅπƃɓƃο Ɓέ, ὅƅη ἐθ κηθξνῦ ὄγθνπ ἐο πνιὺ ƁηƀρƂƄƀη. Birds eggs are strong, nourishing and windy. An egg is strong because it is the origin of an animal; nourishing because it is the milk of the animal; windy, because from small bulk it expands to a great one. (trans. Jones 325) D. ΓƂπλνλ ἄɓƃηπλνλ. Trying to Restore the Orphic Menu Recipes for Preparing a Pure Meal T.225 Aristophanes, Birds (1: 354 Wilson) 414 BC {Ἔπνς} λƃκόκƃƃζƀ Ɓ ἐλ θήπνηο Ƅὰ ιƃπθὰ ƃήƃƀκƀ θƀὶ κύξƅƀ θƀὶ κήθσλƀ θƀὶ ƃηƃύκβξηƀ. {πƃιπίɓεο} ὑκƃο κὲλ ἆξƀ δƅƃ λπκƅίσλ βίνλ. {Hoopoe} And in the gardens we feed on white sesame seeds, myrtle berries, poppies, and watermint. {Euelpides} Why, you are all living the life of honeymooners! (trans. Henderson 3: 37) T.226 Regulation of the Thesmophoria, Attica, LSS no. 124 fourth century BC Ƅὰο Ɓὲ ἀξρνύƃƀο θνηλƃ ἀκƅνƅ- έξƀο ƁηƁόλƀη Ƅο ἱƃξƃίƀο Ƃἰο [5] Ƅὴλ ἑνξƅὴλ θƀὶ Ƅὴλ ἐπηκέιƃηƀλ Ƅλ žƃƃκνƅνξίσλ κηƃθƅƃνλ θξηζλ, κηƃθƅƃνλ ππξλ, κη- ƂθƄένλ ἀιƅίƅσλ, κηƃθƅένλ ἀι- 154

155 10-11 (2015) [Ƃ]ύξσλ, ἰƃράɓσλ κηƃθƅένλ, [10] ρν νἴλνπ, κίρνπλ ἐιƀίνπ, Ɓύν θνƅ- ύιƀο κέιηƅνο, ƃεƃάκσλ ιƃπθλ ρνίληθƀ, κƃιάλσλ ρνίληθƀ, [κ]ήθσλνο ρνίληθƀ, Ƅπξνῦ Ɓύν ƄξνƅƀιίƁƀο κὴ ἔιƀƅƅνλ ἠ ƃƅƀƅεξηƀ[ί]ƀλ ἑθƀƅέξƀλ [15] θƀὶ ƃθόξɓσλ Ɓύν ƃƅƀƅξƀο Both women chosen to preside the festival should give in common [5] to celebrate and prepare the Thesmophoria [the following products]: half a sextarius of barley, half a sextarius of wheat, half a sextarius of barley-groats, half a sextarius of wheat-flour, half a sextarius of dried figs, [10] one chous of wine, half a chous of olive oil, two cups of honey, one choenix of white sesame seeds, one choenix of black sesame seeds, one choenix of poppy seeds, two wheels of cheese each of one pound, [15] and two pounds of garlic. (trans. E. O.) T.227a Demosthenes, On the Crown (Or. 18) 260 (299 Dilts) Orfismo C4 Scarpi κηƃζὸλ ιƀκβάλσλ ƄνύƄσλ ἔλζξππƅƀ θƀὶ ƃƅξƃπƅνὺο θƀὶ λƃήιƀƅƀ BC You were paid with soppy bread, twisted rolls, and flat cakes. (trans. Yunis 96) T.227b Harpocration of Alexandria, Lexeis of the Ten Orators s.v. neēlata (182 Keaney). Ca. AD 150 OF 577xvi ΝƂήιƀƄƀ Ƅὰ λƃσƃƅὶ ἀιειƃƃκέλƀ ἄιƅηƅƀ θƀὶ κέιηƅη ƁƂƁƂπκέλƀ, νἷο θƀὶ ἀƃƅƀƅίɓƃο θƀὶ ρισξνὶ ἐξέβηλζνη ƃπλƃƅύξνλƅν ἃ Ƅνο Ƅὰ ἱƃξὰ ƄƂινῦƃηλ ἔλƃκνλ. ἐθάινπλ Ɓέ ƄηλƂο ƀὐƅὰ θƀὶ ἀκβξνƃίƀλ θƀὶ κƀθƀξίƀλ. Neelata: Barley-cakes recently rolled out and soaked in honey, to which raisins and green chickpeas also were stirred in; these they would distribute to those taking part in the ceremonies. Some used to call them divine and blessed too. (the SOL translation) T.228 Antiphanes, Orpheus fr. 180 Edmonds BC OF 631; OF 1149 βύƃƅξƀλ Ƅηλ ἐθ ƅύιισλ Ƅηλλ. A loaf made of certain leaves. (trans. Edmonds 2: 251, modified) T.229 Antiphanes, Monuments fr. 160 Edmonds after 386 BC Pitagoristi nella commedia di mezzo no. 1 Cardini Ƅλ Ππζƀγνξηθλ Ɓ ἔƅπρνλ ἄζιηνί ƄηλƂο 155

156 10-11 (2015) ἐλ Ƅῆ ρƀξάɓξᾳ ƄξώγνλƄƂο ἅιηκƀ θƀὶ θƀθὰ ƄνηƀῦƄƀ ƃπιιέγνλƅƃο <ἐλ Ƅῶ θσξύθῳ.> It so fell out that down in the ravine some miserable Pythagorists were seen eating what wretched spinach they could gather tree-purslane and suchlike in their bag of leather. (trans. Edmonds 2: 239) T.230 Dioscorides of Anazarbus, De materia medica 1.91 (1: 84 Wellmann) AD ἅ ι η κ ν λ ιƀρƀλƃύƃƅƀη Ɓὲ ƀὐƅο Ƅὰ ƅύιιƀ ἑςόκƃλƀ Ƃἰο βξƃηλ. The tree-purslane Its leaves are used as vegetables boiled for eating. (trans. Beck 66) T.231 Alexis of Thurii, Pythagoreaness frs Edmonds? BC A. Ɓ ἑƃƅίƀƃηο ἰƃράɓƃο θƀὶ ƃƅέκƅπιƀ θƀὶ Ƅπξὸο ἔƃƅƀη: ƄƀῦƄƀ γὰξ ζύƃηλ λόκνο Ƅνο ΠπζƀγνξƂίνηο. Β. λὴ Γί, ἱƃξƃνλ κὲλ νὖλ ὁπννλ ἂλ θάιιηƃƅνλ, ὦ βέιƅηƃƅ, ἔρῃ. A. They ll give me dried figs, olive-mush, and cheese; Reg lar Pythagorean offering, that. B. You couldn t have a better, man; that s flat. (trans. Edmonds 2: 469) T.232 Antiphanes, Bumblebee fr. 62 Edmonds after 386 BC ƃθνξόɓηƀ, Ƅπξόλ, θξόκκπƀ, θάππƀξηλ... ἅπƀλƅƀ ƄƀῦƄ ἐƃƅὶλ Ɓξƀρκο. Garlic, cheese, onions, capers the whole lot can be supplied for a shilling. (trans. Edmonds 2: 193) T.233 Aristophon, Unnamed play fr. 16 Edmonds?362 BC ἀƃπάξƀγνλ θάππƀξηλ, βιερώ, ζύκνλ, Capers, pennyroyal, thyme, asparagus (trans. Edmonds 2: 529) T.234 Antonius Diogenes, Wonders beyond Thoule fr. 2b Stephens qtd. in Porphyry of Tyre, Life of Pythagoras 34 (52 Places)?AD second century PEG 2.3: 128 Ƅά γƃ κὴλ πιƃƃƅƀ ὁπόƅƃ ζƃλ ἀɓύƅνηο ἐγθƀƅƀɓύƃƃƃζƀη κέιινη θƀὶ ἐλƅƀῦζƀ ρξόλνπ Ƅηλὸο ἐλɓηƀƅξίςƃηλ, ἀιίκνηο ἐρξƅν θƀὶ ἀɓίςνηο Ƅξνƅƀο, Ƅὴλ κὲλ ἄιηκνλ ƃπλƅηζƃὶο ἐθ κήθσλνο ƃπέξκƀƅνο θƀὶ ƃεƃάκνπ θƀὶ ƅινηνῦ ƃθίιιεο πιπζƃίƃεο ἀθξηβο ἔƃƅ ἂλ Ƅνῦ πƃξὶ ƀὐƅὴλ ὀπνῦ θƀζƀξζƃίε, θƀὶ ἀƃƅνɓέισλ ἀλζƃξίθσλ θƀὶ κƀιάρεο ƅύιισλ θƀὶ ἀιƅίƅσλ θƀὶ θξηζλ θƀὶ ἐξƃβίλζσλ, ἅπƃξ θƀƅ ἴƃνλ πάλƅƀ ƃƅƀζκὸλ θνπέλƅƀ κέιηƅη 156

157 10-11 (2015) ἀλέɓƃπƃλ κεƅƅίῳ Ƅὴλ Ɓ ἄɓηςνλ ἐθ ƃηθύσλ ƃπέξκƀƅνο θƀὶ ἀƃƅƀƅίɓνο ιηπƀξο, ἐμƃιὼλ ƀὐƅο Ƅὰ γίγƀξƅƀ, θƀὶ ἄλζνπο θνξίνπ θƀὶ κƀιάρεο ὁκνίσο ƃπέξκƀƅνο θƀὶ ἀλɓξάρλεο θƀὶ Ƅπξνῦ θλήƃƅƃσο θƀὶ ἀιƃύξνπ πάιεο θƀὶ γάιƀθƅνο ιίπνπο, ἅπƃξ πάλƅƀ ἀλƃκίγλπ κέιηƅη λεƃησƅηθῶ. For the most part, whenever he was about to enter into the inner sancta of the gods and spend a certain time there, he used no-hunger and no-thirst foods. He prepared the nohunger from poppy seeds and sesame and skin of a sea-onion carefully washed until it is purified of all its sap and flowering stems of asphodel, and mallow leaves and barley meal and barley corns and garbanzos, all mashed together in equal amounts by weight and moistened with Hymettan honey. He made the no-thirst from squirting cucumber seeds and glistening raisins with the seeds removed and coriander blossom and also mallow seed and common purslane and grated cheese and fine wheat meal and pure cream, all mixed together wild island honey. (trans. Stephens 139, modified) T.235 Michael Psellus, Opuscula minora 32 (109 Duffy) AD Epimenides fr. 27v (PEG 2.3: 129) ἴƃζη Ƅνηγƀξνῦλ ὡο πηκƃλίɓƃηνο ἄιηκνο κίγκƀ ἐƃƅὶλ ἀƃƅνɓέινπ μεξνῦ θƀὶ κƀιάρεο ῥίδεο θƀὶ ƃεƃάκεο πƃπιπκέλεο κήθσλόο ƄƂ ιƃπθνῦ ƃθίιιεο ƄƂ ὠκο Ƅο μƀλζο, θƀὶ ὁ ιƀκβάλσλ ƄνῦƄν ἄƃηƅνο ἐƅ κέξƀο πνιιὰο ƁηεκƂξƂύƃƂηƂλ ἀιππόƅƀƅνο. You should know that the Epimenidean anti-hunger is a mixture of dry asphodel, a root of mallow, washed sesame, white opium poppy, and raw sea-onion; the one who takes it can endure many days with no food, no hunger, no discomfort. (trans. E. O.) T.236 Plutarch of Chaeronea, Dinner of the Seven Sages 14, 157D F ( Gärtner). AD Epimenides fr. 27ii (PEG 2.3: 129) πνιƀβὼλ Ɓ ὁ ἌξƁƀινο, ἆξ νὖλ, ἔƅε, θƀὶ Ƅὸλ ἑƅƀξνλ ὑκλ Σόισλνο Ɓὲ μέλνλ πηκƃλίɓελ λόκνο Ƅηο ἀπέρƃƃζƀη Ƅλ ἄιισλ ƃηƅίσλ θƃιƃύƃη, Ƅο Ɓ ἀιίκνπ ƁπλάκƂσο ἡλ ƀὐƅὸο ƃπλƅίζεƃη κηθξὸλ Ƃἰο Ƅὸ ƃƅόκƀ ιƀκβάλνλƅƀ ƁηεκƂξƂύƂηλ ἀλάξηƃƅνλ θƀὶ ἄɓƃηπλνλ; Ɓὲ Σόισλ ἔƅε ζƀπκάδƃηλ Ƅὸλ ἌξƁƀινλ Ƃἰ Ƅὸλ λόκνλ νὐθ ἀλέγλσθƃ Ƅο ƁηƀίƄεο Ƅνῦ ἀλɓξὸο ἐλ Ƅνο ἔπƃƃη Ƅνο ἧƃηόɓνπ γƃγξƀκκέλνλ ἐθƃλνο γάξ ἐƃƅηλ ὁ πξƅνο πηκƃλίɓῃ ƃπέξκƀƅƀ Ƅο Ƅξνƅο ƄƀύƄεο πƀξƀƃρὼλ θƀὶ δεƅƃλ ὁ ƁηƁάμƀο ὅƃνλ ἐλ κƀιάρῃ ƄƂ θƀὶ ἀƃƅνɓέιῳ κέγ ὄλƃηƀξ. ΟἴƂη γάξ, ὁ ΠƂξίƀλƁξνο ƂἶπƂ, Ƅὸλ ἧƃίνɓνλ ἐλλνƃƀί Ƅη ƄνηνῦƄνλ; νὐθ ἐπƀηλέƅελ ὄλƅƀ ƅƃηɓνῦο ἀƃί, θƀὶ πξὸο Ƅὰ ιηƅόƅƀƅƀ Ƅλ ὄςσλ ὡο ἣɓηƃƅƀ πƀξƀθƀιƃλ κο; ἀγƀζὴ κὲλ γὰξ κƀιάρε βξσζλƀη, γιπθὺο Ɓ ὁ ἀλζέξηθνο Ƅὰ Ɓ ἄιηκƀ ƄƀῦƄƀ θƀὶ ἄɓηςƀ ƅάξκƀθƀ κιινλ ἠ ƃηƅίƀ ππλζάλνκƀη θƀὶ κέιη θƀὶ Ƅπξόλ Ƅηλƀ βƀξβƀξηθὸλ ƁέρƂƃζƀη θƀὶ ƃπέξκƀƅƀ πάκπνιιƀ Ƅλ νὐθ ƂὐπνξίƃƄσλ. Ardalus then joined in and said, Well, then, is there some law which commands that comrade of all of you, Solon s foreign friend, Epimenides, to abstain from all other kinds of food, and by taking into his mouth a bit of the potent «no-hunger», which he himself compounds, to go all day without luncheon and dinner? Solon said that he was surprised at Ardalus if he had not read the regulations governing the manner of 157

158 10-11 (2015) living of the man in question, which are given in writing in Hesiod s verses. For Hesiod is the one who first sowed in the mind of Epimenides the seeds of this form of nourishment, inasmuch as it was he who taught that one should seek to find How in mallow and asphodel lies an immense advantage. [Hesiod, Works and Days 41] Do you really think, said Periander, that Hesiod ever had any such idea in mind? Do you not rather think that, since he was always sounding the praises of frugality, he was also summoning us to the simplest of dishes as being the most pleasant? For the mallow is good eating, and the stalk of the asphodel is luscious; but these no-hunger and no-thirst drugs (for they are drugs rather than foods), I understand, include in their composition a sweet gum and a cheese found among barbarian peoples, and a great many seeds of a sort hard to procure. (trans. Babbitt 2: ) T.237a Plato, Laws 677d e Burnet Epimenides fr. 16ii (PEG 2.3: 124) 350 BC {Ἀζελƀνο} ἄξηƃƅ, ὦ ΚιƂηλίƀ, Ƅὸλ ƅίινλ ὅƅη πƀξέιηπƃο, Ƅὸλ ἀƅƃρλο ρζὲο γƃλόκƃλνλ. {ΚιƂηλίƀο}κλ ƅξάδƃηο πηκƃλίɓελ; {Ἀζελƀνο} λƀί, ƄνῦƄνλ πνιὺ γὰξ ὑκλ ὑπƃξƃπήɓεƃƃ Ƅῶ κερƀλήκƀƅη Ƅνὺο ƃύκπƀλƅƀο, ὦ ƅίιƃ, ὃ ιόγῳ κὲλ ἧƃίνɓνο ἐκƀλƅƃύƃƅν πάιƀη, Ƅῶ Ɓὲ ἔξγῳ ἐθƃλνο ἀπƃƅέιƃƃƃλ, ὡο ὑκƃο ƅƀƅƃ. {Athenian} How tactful of you, Clinias, to leave out your friend, who really was born yesterday! {Clinias} I suppose you mean Epimenides? {Athenian} Yes, that s the man. His discovery, my dear fellows, put him streets ahead of all the other inventors. Hesiod [Days and Works 41] had foreshadowed it in his poetry long before, but it was Epimenides who achieved it in practice, so you Cretans claim. (trans. Cooper 1366) T.237b Plato, Laws 642d e Burnet Epimenides fr. 16ii (PEG 2.3: 124); FGrHist 457 T4a 350 BC ƄῆƁƂ γὰξ ἴƃσο ἀθήθνƀο ὡο πηκƃλίɓεο γέγνλƃλ ἀλὴξ ζƃνο, ὃο ἤλ κλ νἰθƃνο, ἐιζὼλ Ɓὲ πξὸ Ƅλ ΠƂξƃηθλ Ɓέθƀ ἔƅƃƃηλ πξόƅƃξνλ πƀξ ὑκο θƀƅὰ Ƅὴλ Ƅνῦ ζƃνῦ κƀλƅƃίƀλ, ζπƃίƀο ƄƂ ἐζύƃƀƅό Ƅηλƀο ἃο ὁ ζƃὸο ἀλƃιƃλ You have probably heard that Epimenides, a man who was divinely inspired, was born hereabouts. He was connected with my family, and ten years before the Persian attack [ca. 500 BC] he obeyed the command of the oracle to go to Athens, where he performed certain sacrifices which the god had ordered. (trans. Cooper 1336) T.238 Suda Lexicon, Δ 2471 (2: 370 Adler) after AD 1028 Epimenides fr. 2 (PEG 2.3: 111); Epimenides fr. T2 Fowler; FGrHist 457 T2 πηκƃλίɓεο, ſƀίƃƅνπ ἠ ΓνƃηάƁνπ ἠ Ἀγηƀƃάξρνπ πἱόο, θƀὶ κεƅξὸο ΒιάƃƄƀο, Κξὴο ἀπὸ Κλσƃƃνῦ, ἐπνπνηόο νὗ ιόγνο, ὡο ἐμίνη ςπρὴ ὁπόƃνλ ἢζƃιƃ θƀηξόλ, θƀὶ πάιηλ ƂἰƃῄƂη ἐλ Ƅῶ ƃώκƀƅη ƄƂιƂπƄήƃƀλƄνο Ɓὲ ƀὐƅνῦ, πόξξσ ρξόλσλ Ƅὸ Ɓέξκƀ Ƃὑξƃζƀη γξάκκƀƃη θƀƅάƃƅηθƅνλ. γέγνλƃ Ɓὲ ἐπὶ Ƅο ι ὀιπκπηάɓνο, ὡο πξνƅƃξƃύƃηλ θƀὶ Ƅλ δ θιεζέλƅσλ ƃνƅλ ἠ θƀὶ ἐπ ƀὐƅνο γƃλέƃζƀη. ἐθάζεξƃ γνῦλ Ƅὰο Ἀζήλƀο Ƅνῦ 158

159 10-11 (2015) ΚπισλƂίνπ ἄγνπο θƀƅὰ Ƅὴλ κɓ ὀιπκπηάɓƀ, γεξƀηὸο ὤλ. ἔγξƀςƃ Ɓὲ πνιιὰ ἐπηθο θƀὶ θƀƅƀινγάɓελ κπƃƅήξηά Ƅηλƀ θƀὶ θƀζƀξκνὺο θƀὶ ἄιιƀ ƀἰληγκƀƅώɓε. Epimenides: son of Phaistos or Dosiadas or Agiasarchos and, as his mother, Blasta; a Cretan from Knossos; an epic poet. Of him there is a story that his soul could leave his body on any occasion he liked and enter it again; and long after he had died his skin was found tattooed with letters. He lived in the 30 th Olympiad, [ BC] which makes him a predecessor rather than a contemporary of the so-called Seven Sages. At any rate he purified Athens from the Kylonian curse in the 44 th Olympiad, [ BC] as an old man [by that time]. He wrote many epic poems and, in prose, certain mystery-writings and spells and other riddling works. (the SOL translation) T.239 Strabo of Amaseia, Geography (3: 256 Radt) 26 BC Epimenides fr. 54i (PEG 2.3: 160); FGrHist 457 T2 ἐθ Ɓὲ Ƅο ſƀηƃƅνῦ Ƅὸλ Ƅνὺο θƀζƀξκνὺο πνηήƃƀλƅƀ Ɓηὰ Ƅλ ἐπλ πηκƃλίɓελ ƅƀƃὶλ Ƃἶλƀη. They say that Epimenides, who composed his Purifications in poetry, was from Phaistos. (trans. Roller 466) T.240 Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers (140 Dorandi) AD 200 Epimenides fr. 1 (PEG 2.3: 109); Epimenides fr. T1 Fowler; FGrHist 457 T1 πνίεƃƃ Ɓὲ ΚνπξήƄσλ θƀὶ ΚνξπβάλƄσλ γέλƃƃηλ θƀὶ žƃνγνλίƀλ, ἔπε πƃλƅƀθηƃρίιηƀ, Ἀξγνῦο λƀππεγίƀλ ƄƂ θƀὶ Ἰάƃνλνο Ƃἰο Κόιρνπο ἀπόπινπλ ἔπε ἑμƀθηƃρίιηƀ πƃλƅƀθόƃηƀ. ƃπλέγξƀςƃ Ɓὲ θƀὶ θƀƅƀινγάɓελ ΠƂξὶ ζπƃηλ θƀὶ Ƅο ἐλ ΚξήƄῃ πνιηƅƃίƀο θƀὶ ΠƂξὶ Μίλσ θƀὶ ῬƀƁƀκάλζπνο Ƃἰο ἔπε ƄƂƄξƀθηƃρίιηƀ. He wrote a poem On the Birth of the Curetes and Corybantes and a Theogony, 5,000 lines in all; another on the building of the Argo and Jason s voyage to Colchis in 6,500 lines. He also compiled prose works On Sacrifices and the Cretan Constitution, also On Minos and Rhadamanthys, running to about 4,000 lines. (trans. Hicks 1: 117) T.241 Demetrius of Magnesia, On Poets and Authors of the Same Name fr. 11 Mejer qtd. in Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers (142 Dorandi) 50 BC Epimenides fr. 1 (PEG 2.3: ) ƅεƃὶ Ɓὲ ΓεκήƄξηόο Ƅηλƀο ἱƃƅνξƃλ ὡο ιάβνη πƀξὰ Νπκƅλ ἔɓƃƃκά Ƅη θƀὶ ƅπιάƅƅνη ἐλ ρειῆ βνόο πξνƃƅƃξόκƃλόο ƄƂ θƀƅ ὀιίγνλ κεɓƃκηᾶ θƃλνῦƃζƀη ἀπνθξίƃƃη κεɓὲ ὀƅζλƀί πνƅƃ ἐƃζίσλ. κέκλεƅƀη ƀὐƅνῦ θƀὶ Τίκƀηνο ἐλ Ƅῆ ƁƂπƄέξᾳ. But Demetrius reports a story that he received from the Nymphs food of a special sort and kept it in a cow s hoof; that he took small doses of this food, which was entirely absorbed into his system, and he was never seen to eat. Timaeus mentions him in his second book [History of Sicily, FGrHist 566 F4]. (tr. Hicks 1: 119) 159

160 10-11 (2015) T.242 Herodorus Heracleota (vel Ponticus), Story of Heracles fr. 1 Fowler qtd. in Proclus, Commentary on Hesiod s Works and Days 41 (26 Marzillo) BC Epimenides fr. 27i (PEG 2.3: ); FGrHist 31 F1 Ἴƃσο Ɓὲ θƀὶ ἀƅ ἱƃƅνξίƀο ƄνῦƄν ιέγƃη. Ἕξκηππνο γὰξ ἐλ Ƅῶ ΠƂξὶ Ƅλ ἑπƅὰ ƃνƅλ πƃξὶ Ƅο ἀιίκνπ βξώƃƃσο ιέγƃη (κέκλεƅƀη Ɓὲ Ƅο ἀιίκνπ θƀὶ ἧξόɓσξνο ἐλ Ƅῶ πέκπƅῳ Ƅνῦ θƀζ ἧξƀθιέƀ ιόγνπ) θƀὶ ΠιάƄσλ ἐλ Ƅῶ ƄξίƄῳ Ƅλ Νόκσλ. πηκƃλίɓελ ƅεƃὶ κηθξόλ Ƅη ἐɓƃƃκάƅηνλ πξνƃƅƃξόκƃλνλ ὧɓƃ ὅιελ ƁηƀƄƂιƂλ Ƅὴλ κέξƀλ ἄƃηƅνλ θƀὶ ἄπνƅνλ. ἤλ Ɓ ἐμ ἀƃƅνɓέινπ θƀὶ κƀιάρεο, ὅπƃξ ƀὐƅὸλ ἄιηκνλ θƀὶ ἄɓηςνλ ἐπνίƃη. In his work On the Seven Sages [FGrHist 1026 F12a b], Hermippus says the following about the hunger-banishing food (Herodorus in the fifth book of his Story of Heracles and Plato in the third book of the Laws [677e] also mentioned it): that Epimenides would eat only a little bit of this food and then could make it through an entire day without additional nourishment or beverage. It was made of asphodel and mallow, and caused him never to feel hungry or thirsty. (trans. Bollansée 25 27) T.243 Antonius Diogenes, Wonders beyond Thoule fr. 2b Stephens qtd. in Porphyry of Tyre, Life of Pythagoras 35 (52 Places)?AD second century ƄƀῦƄƀ Ɓ ἧξƀθιέƀ πƀξὰ ΓήκεƄξνο ἔƅƀƃθƃ κƀζƃλ ƃƅƃιιόκƃλνλ Ƃἰο Ƅὴλ Ληβύελ Ƅὴλ ἄλπɓξνλ. He said that Heracles learned these recipes from Demeter when he was sent to waterless Libya. (trans. Stephens 139) Omophagy: What the Hell It Means? T.244 Porphyry of Tyre, On Abstinence from Living Animals (32 Patillon). AD 263 κηθξνῦ κƃ πƀξιζƃ θƀὶ Ƅὸ ΔὐξηπίƁƂηνλ πƀξƀζέƃζƀη, ὃο Ƅνὺο ἐλ ΚξήƄῃ Ƅνῦ Γηὸο πξνƅήƅƀο ἀπέρƃƃζƀη ƅεƃὶ Ɓηὰ ƄνύƄσλ ιέγνπƃη Ɓ νἱ θƀƅὰ Ƅὸλ ρνξὸλ πξὸο Ƅὸλ Μίλσ I almost omitted to cite Euripides, who says in these lines that the prophets of Zeus in Crete abstain: the chorus is speaking to Minos. (trans. Clark 115) T.245 Euripides, Cretans fr. 79 Austin; TrGF 472; fr. 1 Cozzoli BC OF 567 ſνηληθνγƃλνῦο Ƅέθλνλ Δὐξώπεο θƀὶ Ƅνῦ κƃγάινπ Εελόο, ἀλάƃƃσλ ΚξήƄεο ἑθƀƅνκπƅνιηέζξνπ ἣθσ δƀζένπο λƀνὺο πξνιηπώλ, [5] νὓο ƀὐζηγƃλὴο ƃƅƃγƀλνὺο πƀξέρƃη ƄκεζƂƃƀ Ɓνθνὺο Χƀιύβῳ πƃιέθƃη θƀὶ ƄƀπξνƁέƄῳ θόιιῃ θξƀζƃƃ ἀƅξƃθƃο ἁξκνὺο θππάξηƃƃνο. ἁγλὸλ Ɓὲ βίνλ ƄƂίλνκƂλ ἐμ νὗ 160

161 10-11 (2015) [10] Γηὸο ἸƁƀίνπ κύƃƅεο γƃλόκελ, θƀὶ λπθƅηπόινπ Εƀγξέσο βνύƅεο [βξνλƅὰο Cozzoli, βηνƅὰο González] Ƅὰο ὠκνƅάγνπο ƁƀƄƀο ƄƂιέƃƀο ΜεƄξί Ƅ ὀξƃίᾳ ƁᾶƁƀο ἀλƀƃρὼλ κƃƅὰ ΚνπξήƄσλ [15] βάθρνο ἐθιήζελ ὁƃησζƃίο. πάιιƃπθƀ Ɓ ἔρσλ ƂἵκƀƄƀ ƅƃύγσ γέλƃƃίλ ƄƂ βξνƅλ < > θƀὶ λƃθξνζήθƀο νὐ ρξηκπƅόκƃλνο, Ƅήλ Ƅ ἐκςύρσλ [20] βξƃηλ ἐɓƃƃƅλ πƃƅύιƀγκƀη. {Chorus address to Minos} Son Phoenician-born Europa and of great Zeus you who rule Crete and its hundred cities! I have come here from the most holy temple whose roof is provided from native cypress-wood cut into beams with Chalybean axe and bonded in exact joints with ox-glue. Pure is the life I have led since I became an initiate of Idaean Zeus, and a servitor of night-ranging Zagreus, after performing the feast on raw food; and raising torches high to the Mountain Mother among the Curetes I was consecrated and named a bacchus. In clothing all of white I shun the birthing of men, and the places of their dead I do not go near; against the eating of animal foods I have guarded myself. (trans. Collard , modified) T.246 Jerome of Stridonium, Against Jovinian 2.14 (PL 23: 317B) AD 392 Euripides, in Creta Iovis prophetas non solum carnibus, sed et coctis cibis abstinuisse refert. Euripides relates that Zeus prophets in Crete used to abstain not only from flesh but even from any cooked meals. (trans. E. O.) T.247 Hesychius of Alexandria, Lexicon Ω 218 (4: 265 Hansen) AD fifth century ὠκνƅάγνπο ƁƀίƄƀο 55 Ƅνὺο ὠκὰ θξέƀ κƃξίδνλƅƀο. θƀὶ ἐƃζίνλƅƀο ōmophagous daitas: the ones who divide raw meat, and eat. (trans. E. O.) T.248 Euripides,?Cretans, TrGF 912? BC OF 458 ƃνὶ πάλƅσλ κƃɓένλƅη ριόελ πƃιƀλόλ ƄƂ ƅέξσ, ΕƂὺο Ƃἴζ ἍηƁεο ὀλνκƀδόκƃλνο ƃƅέξγƃηο ƃὺ Ɓὲ κνη ζπƃίƀλ ἄππξνλ πƀγθƀξπƃίƀο The gloss is a commentary on Eurpides Cretans, TrGF 472 Kannicht. The Euripidean text, however, has Ƅὰο ὠκνƅάγνπο ƁƀƄƀο which is a plural accusative from Ɓƀίο ( feast ) (Austin 52), whereas Hesychius, by misunderstanding, reads ƁƀίƄƀο that is a plural accusative from ὁ ƁƀίƄεο to signify the priest who divides the sacrificial victims (LSJ 366 s.v. daites ). 161

162 10-11 (2015) [5] Ɓέμƀη πιήξε πξνρπƅƀίƀλ. ƃὺ γὰξ ἔλ ƄƂ ζƃνο Ƅνο ΟὐξƀλίƁƀηο ƃθπƅξνλ Ƅὸ Γηὸο κƃƅƀρƃηξίδƃηο ρζνλίσλ ζ ἍηƁῃ κƃƅέρƃηο ἀξρο. πέκςνλ Ɓ ἐο ƅο ςπρὰο ἐλέξσλ 57 [10] Ƅνο βνπινκέλνηο ἄζινπο πξνκƀρƃλ πόζƃλ ἔβιƀƃƅνλ, Ƅίο ῥίδƀ θƀθλ, Ƅίλη ƁƂ κƀθάξσλ ἐθζπƃƀκέλνπο ƂὑξƂλ κόρζσλ ἀλάπƀπιƀλ. To you, ruler of all whether you favor the name Zeus or Hades I bring fresh greenery and offertory cake; accept, I beg you, this unburned offering of all kinds of produce, poured forth in abundance. For you wield the scepter of Zeus amongst the gods of heaven, and also share with Hades the rule of those within the earth. Send into the light the souls of the dead for those who wish to learn the trials awaiting them whence they have grown, what is the root of their woes, which of the gods they should appease with sacrifice and so find respite from their tribulations. (trans. Collard 509) T.249 Aeschylus, Egyptians, TrGF 5 before 456 BC ΕƀγξƂύο (= ΠινύƄσλ) Zagreus 58 (= Pluto 59 ) T.250 Antonius Diogenes, Wonders beyond Thoule fr. 2a Stephens qtd. in Porphyry of Tyre, Life of Pythagoras 17 (43 Places)?AD second century ΚξήƄεο Ɓ ἐπηβὰο Ƅνο Μόξγνπ κύƃƅƀηο πξνƃῄƃη ἑλὸο Ƅλ ἸƁƀίσλ ΓƀθƄύισλ, ὑƅ ὧλ θƀὶ ἐθƀζάξζε Ƅῆ θƃξƀπλίᾳ ιίζῳ, ἕσζƃλ κὲλ πƀξὰ ζƀιάƅƅῃ πξελὴο ἐθƅƀζƃίο, λύθƅσξ Ɓὲ πƀξὰ πνƅƀκῶ ἀξλƃηνῦ κέιƀλνο κƀιινο ἐƃƅƃƅƀλσκέλνο. Δἰο Ɓὲ Ƅὸ ἸƁƀνλ θƀινύκƃλνλ ἄλƅξνλ θƀƅƀβὰο ἔξηƀ ἔρσλ κέιƀλƀ Ƅὰο λνκηδνκέλƀο Ƅξὶο ἐλλέƀ κέξƀο ἐθƃ ƁηέƄξηςƂλ θƀὶ θƀζήγηƃƃλ Ƅῶ Γηὶ Ƅόλ ƄƂ ƃƅνξλύκƃλνλ ƀὐƅῶ θƀƅ ἔƅνο ζξόλνλ ἐζƃάƃƀƅν, ἐπίγξƀκκά Ƅ ἐλƃράξƀμƃλ ἐπὶ Ƅῶ Ƅάƅῳ ἐπηγξάςƀο Ππζƀγόξƀο Ƅῶ Γηὶ, νὗ ἀξρή ὯƁƂ ζƀλὼλ θƃƅƀη Εάλ, ὃλ Γίƀ θηθιήƃθνπƃηλ. 56 Andrew Dalby comments on this place: The Greek pankarpia was an offering of every kind of fruit in the form of a cake. The cake involved perhaps took different forms; it is described by Euripides as a pelanos (Dalby 2003, 69 s.v. pankarpia ). 57 Note that Orpheus was credited with enchanting even the ghosts of the dead in the hell. See OF 1074vi = Manilius, Astronomica (10 Goold): et Lyra diductis per caelum cornibus inter sidera conspicitur, qua quondam ceperat Orpheus omne quod attigerat cantu, manesque per ipsos fecit iter domuitque infernas carmine leges ( and one may see among the stars the Lyre, its arms spread apart in heaven, with which the time gone by Orpheus charmed all that his music reached, making his way even to the ghosts of the dead and causing the decrees of hell to yield to his song, trans. Goold 31). 58 For the first time, the name Zagreus occurs in Alcmaeonis (Alcmaeonis fr. 3 [PEG 1: 33]), a poet of the sixth century BC: πόƅληƀ Ž, ΕƀγξƂῦ ƄƂ ζƃλ πƀλππέξƅƀƅƃ πάλƅσλ ( Queen of the earth and you, supreme Zagreus, the highest of all! trans. E. O.). Unfortunately, the context of the fragment is not given. 59 Pluto is an alias for Hades. 162

163 10-11 (2015) Arriving at Crete, he [sc. Pythagoras] visited the initiates of Morgos, one of the Idaean Dactyls; they purified him using a thunder-struck stone, requiring him to stretch out prone by the seashore at down and by night at the riverside crowned with black sheep s wool. He descended into the so-called Idaean cave 60 carrying black wool and spent the assigned twenty-seven days there; he made offerings to Zeus, and he saw the throne that was furnished there for him annually. He inscribed an epigram on the tomb headed Pythagoras to Zeus, which begins: Here lies the dead Zan, whom they call Zeus. [Pseudo-Pythagoras, Epigram on Zeus Tomb, Thesleff p. 174] (trans. Stephens 137) T.251 Plato, Laws 624a 625c Burnet 350 BC {Ἀζελƀνο} κλ νὖλ θƀζ Ὅκεξνλ ιέγƃηο ὡο Ƅνῦ Μίλσ ƅνηƅλƅνο πξὸο Ƅὴλ Ƅνῦ πƀƅξὸο ἑθάƃƅνƅƃ ƃπλνπƃίƀλ Ɓη ἐλάƅνπ ἔƅνπο θƀὶ θƀƅὰ Ƅὰο πƀξ ἐθƃίλνπ ƅήκƀο Ƅƀο πόιƃƃηλ ὑκλ ζέλƅνο Ƅνὺο λόκνπο; {ΚιƂηλίƀο} ιέγƃƅƀη γὰξ νὕƅσ πƀξ κλ θƀὶ Ɓὴ θƀὶ Ƅὸλ ἀɓƃιƅόλ γƃ ƀὐƅνῦ ῬƀƁάκƀλζπλ ἀθνύƃƅƃ γὰξ Ƅὸ ὄλνκƀ ƁηθƀηόƄƀƄνλ [625a] γƃγνλέλƀη. ƄνῦƄνλ νὖλ ƅƀκƃλ ἂλ κƃο γƃ νἱ ΚξƄƂο, ἐθ Ƅνῦ ƄόƄƂ ƁηƀλέκƂηλ Ƅὰ πƃξὶ Ƅὰο Ɓίθƀο, ὀξζο ƄνῦƄνλ Ƅὸλ ἔπƀηλνλ ƀὐƅὸλ Ƃἰιεƅέλƀη. {Ἀζελƀνο} θƀὶ θƀιόλ γƃ Ƅὸ θιένο ὑƃ ƄƂ Γηὸο κάιƀ πξέπνλ. ἐπƃηɓὴ Ɓὲ ἐλ ƄνηνύƄνηο ἢζƃƃη ƄέζξƀƅζƂ λνκηθνο ƃύ ƄƂ θƀὶ ὅɓƃ, πξνƃɓνθ νὐθ ἂλ ἀεɓο πƃξί ƄƂ πνιηƅƃίƀο Ƅὰ λῦλ θƀὶ λόκσλ Ƅὴλ ƁηƀƄξηβήλ, ιέγνλƅάο ƄƂ θƀὶ ἀθνύνλƅƀο ἅκƀ θƀƅὰ [625b] Ƅὴλ πνξƃίƀλ, πνηήƃƀƃζƀη. πάλƅσο Ɓ ἣ γƃ ἐθ Κλσƃνῦ ὁɓὸο Ƃἰο Ƅὸ Ƅνῦ Γηὸο ἄλƅξνλ θƀὶ ἱƃξόλ, ὡο ἀθνύνκƃλ, ἱθƀλή, θƀὶ ἀλάπƀπιƀη θƀƅὰ Ƅὴλ ὁɓόλ, ὡο Ƃἰθόο, πλίγνπο ὄλƅνο Ƅὰ λῦλ, ἐλ Ƅνο ὑςεινο ƁέλƁξƂƃίλ Ƃἰƃη ƃθηƀξƀί, θƀὶ Ƅƀο ιηθίƀηο πξέπνλ ἂλ κλ Ƃἴε Ƅὸ ƁηƀλƀπƀύƂƃζƀη ππθλὰ ἐλ ƀὐƅƀο, ιόγνηο ƄƂ ἀιιήινπο πƀξƀκπζνπκέλνπο Ƅὴλ ὁɓὸλ ἅπƀƃƀλ νὕƅσ κƃƅὰ ῥᾳƃƅώλεο ƁηƀπƂξλƀη. {ΚιƂηλίƀο} θƀὶ κὴλ ἔƃƅηλ γƃ, ὦ μέλƃ, πξντόλƅη θππƀξίƅƅσλ ƄƂ [625c] ἐλ Ƅνο ἄιƃƃƃηλ ὕςε θƀὶ θάιιε ζƀπκάƃηƀ, θƀὶ ιƃηκλƃο ἐλ νἷƃηλ ἀλƀπƀπόκƃλνη ƁηƀƄξίβνηκƂλ ἄλ. {Athenian} You follow Homer [Odyssey ], presumably, and say that every ninth year Minos used to go to a consultation with his father Zeus, and laid down laws for your cities on the basis of the god s pronouncements? {Clinias} Yes, that s our Cretan version, and we add that Minos brother, Rhadamanthus doubtless you know the name was an absolute paragon of justice. We Cretans would say that he won this reputation because of the scrupulously fair way in which he settled the judicial problems of his day. {Athenian} A distinguished reputation indeed, and one particularly appropriate for a son of Zeus. Well then, since you and your companion have been raised under laws with such a splendid ancestry, I expect you will be quite happy if we spend our time together today in a discussion about constitutions and laws, and occupy our journey in a mutual exchange of views. I ve heard it said that from Cnossos to Zeus cave and shrine is quite a long way, and the tall trees along the route provide shady resting places which will be more than welcome in this stiflingly hot weather. At our age, there is every excuse for having frequent rests in them, so as to refresh ourselves by conversation. In this way we shall come to the end of the whole journey without having tired ourselves out. {Clinias} And as you go on, sir, you find 60 Pythagoras was to descend there in company of Epimenides of Crete (Epimenides fr. 22i [PEG 2.3] qtd. in Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers 8.3), his disciple and student (Epimenides fr. 25 [PEG 2.3: 127] qtd. in Iamblichus, On the Pythagorean Way of Life ). 163

164 10-11 (2015) tremendously tall and graceful cypress trees in the sacred groves; there are also meadows in which we can pause and rest. (trans. Cooper ) T.252 Trebatius Testa, De religionibus, book nine fr. 8 Bremer (p. 406) qtd. in Macrobius, Saturnalia ( Kaster) first century BC [5] Hoc loco non alienum videtur de condicione eorum hominum referre, quos leges sacros esse certis diis iubent, quia non ignore, quibusdam mirum videri, quod cum cetera sacra violari nefas sit, hominem sacrum ius fuerit occidi. [6] Cuius rei causa haec est. Veteres nullum animal sacrum in finibus suis esse patiebantur, sed abigebant ad fines deorum quibus sacrum esset, animas vero sacratorum hominum, quos Graeci δσάλƀο ( zanas Kaster) vocant, dis debitas aestimabant. [7] Quem ad modum igitur quod sacrum ad deos ipsos mitti non poterat, a se dimittere non dubitabant, sic animas, quas sacras in coelum mitti posse arbitrati sunt viduatas corpora, quam primum illo ire voluerunt. [8] Disputat de hoc more etiam Trebatius religionum libro nono. [5] Here it seems appropriate to comment on the condition of those people whom the laws consecrate to specific gods, because I know some people think it strange that a consecrated person may be killed legally when it is against the law for all other consecrated things to be treated violently. [6] Here is the reason: because the ancients wanted to have no consecrated animal in their own territory, they used to drive them off to the territory of the gods to whom they were consecrated, whereas they thought that the souls of consecrated persons, whom the Greeks call zanas, are owed to the gods. [7] Therefore, just as they did not hesitate to drive away any consecrated animal that could not be conveyed directly to the gods, so they wanted consecrated souls, which they judged could be conveyed directly to heaven, to be separated from the body and make the journey at the first possible moment. [8] Trebatius, too, discusses this custom in book nine of his Religious Scruples (trans. Kaster 2: 55 57) T.253 Diodorus of Sicily, Library of History (1: 519 Vogel) BC [2] κπζνινγνῦƃη γὰξ πξὸ ƄνύƄσλ Ƅλ ρξόλσλ Μίλσƀ θƀƅ ἐληƀπƅὸλ ƃπλήζσο θƀζηƃξνῦλ Ƅὸλ θάιιηƃƅνλ Ƅλ γηλνκέλσλ Ƅƀύξσλ Ƅῶ ΠνƃƂηƁλη θƀὶ ζύƃηλ ƄνῦƄνλ Ƅῶ ζƃῶ γƃλνκέλνπ Ɓὲ ƄόƄƂ Ƅƀύξνπ θάιιƃη ƁηƀƅέξνλƄνο ἕƅƃξνλ Ƅλ ƄƄόλσλ Ƅƀύξσλ ζῦƃƀη Ƅὸλ Ɓὲ ΠνƃƂηƁλƀ κελίƃƀλƅƀ Ƅῶ Μίλῳ πνηƃƀη Ƅὴλ γπλƀθƀ ƀὐƅνῦ Πƀƃηƅάελ ἐξƀƃζλƀη Ƅνῦ Ƅƀύξνπ. [3] Ɓηὰ Ɓὲ Ƅο ƄνύƄνπ ƅηινƅƃρλίƀο Ƅὴλ Πƀƃηƅάελ κηγƃƃƀλ Ƅῶ Ƅƀύξῳ γƃλλƃƀη Ƅὸλ κπζνινγνύκƃλνλ ΜηλώƄƀπξνλ. ƄνῦƄνλ Ɓέ ƅƀƃη Ɓηƅπ γƃγνλέλƀη, θƀὶ Ƅὰ κὲλ ἀλώƅƃξƀ κέξε Ƅνῦ ƃώκƀƅνο ἄρξη Ƅλ ὤκσλ ἔρƃηλ Ƅƀύξνπ, Ƅὰ Ɓὲ ινηπὰ ἀλζξώπνπ. [2] In explanation of this the myths offer the following account: before this time it had been the custom of Minos annually to dedicate to Poseidon the fairest bull born in his herds and to sacrifice it to the god; but at the time in question there was born a bull of extraordinary beauty and he sacrificed another from among those which were inferior, whereupon Poseidon, becoming angry at Minos, caused his wife Pasiphae to become enamored of the bull. [3] And by means of the ingenuity of Daedalus Pasiphae had intercourse with the bull and gave birth to the Minotaur, famed in the myth. This creature, they say, was of double form, the upper parts of the body as far as the shoulders being those of a bull and the remaining parts those of a man. (trans. Oldfather 3: 61) 164

165 10-11 (2015) T.254 Ephorus of Cyme, On the Discoveries, FGrHist 70 F104 qtd. in Diodorus of Sicily, Library of History (2: 90 Vogel) 341 BC OF OF 940i; Orfismo D1 Scarpi ἔληνη Ɓ ἱƃƅνξνῦƃηλ, ὧλ ἐƃƅη θƀὶ Ἔƅνξνο, Ƅνὺο ἸƁƀίνπο ΓƀθƄύινπο γƃλέƃζƀη κὲλ θƀƅὰ Ƅὴλ ἼƁελ Ƅὴλ ἐλ ſξπγίᾳ, Ɓηƀβλƀη Ɓὲ κƃƅὰ ΜπγƁόλνο Ƃἰο Ƅὴλ Δὐξώπελ ὑπάξμƀλƅƀο Ɓὲ γόεƅƀο ἐπηƅεɓƃῦƃƀη Ƅάο ƄƂ ἐπῳɓὰο θƀὶ ƄƂιƂƄὰο θƀὶ κπƃƅήξηƀ, θƀὶ πƃξὶ Σƀκνζξᾴθελ ƁηƀƄξίςƀλƄƀο νὐ κƃƅξίσο ἐλ ƄνύƄνηο ἐθπιήƅƅƃηλ Ƅνὺο ἐγρσξίνπο θƀζ ὃλ Ɓὴ ρξόλνλ θƀὶ Ƅὸλ ξƅέƀ, ƅύƃƃη Ɓηƀƅόξῳ θƃρνξεγεκέλνλ πξὸο πνίεƃηλ θƀὶ κƃιῳɓίƀλ, κƀζεƅὴλ γƃλέƃζƀη ƄνύƄσλ, θƀὶ πξƅνλ Ƃἰο Ƅνὺο Ἕιιελƀο ἐμƃλƃγθƃλ ƄƂιƂƄὰο θƀὶ κπƃƅήξηƀ. But some historians, and Ephorus is one of them, record that the Idaean Dactyli were in fact born on the Mt. Ide which is in Phrygia and passed over to Europe together with Mygdon; and since they were wizards, they practicised charms and initiatory rites and mysteries, and in the course of a sojourn in Samothrace they amazed the natives of that island not a little by their skill in such matters. And it was at this time, we are further told, that Orpheus, who was endowed with an exceptional gift of poesy and song, also become a pupil of theirs, and he was subsequently the first to introduce initiatory rites and mysteries to the Greeks. (trans. Oldfather 3: 271) T.255 Epimenides the Genealogist (vel Theologian), History of Crete fr. 4 Fowler qtd. in Diodorus of Sicily, Library of History (2: 91 Vogel) Hellenistic period FGrHist 457 F17 = FGrHist 468 F1 κƃƅὰ Ɓὲ Ƅνὺο ἸƁƀίνπο ΓƀθƄύινπο ἱƃƅνξνῦƃη γƃλέƃζƀη ΚνύξεƄƀο ἐλλέƀ. ƄνύƄνπο Ɓ νἱ κὲλ κπζνινγνῦƃη γƃγνλέλƀη γεγƃλƃο, νἱ Ɓ ἀπνγόλνπο Ƅλ ἸƁƀίσλ ΓƀθƄύισλ. After the Idaean Dactyli, according to accounts we have, here were nine Curetes. Some writers of myths relate that these gods were born of the earth, but according to others, they were descended from the Idaean Dactyli. (trans. Oldfather 3: 273) T.256 Epimenides the Genealogist (vel Theologian), History of Crete fr. 4 Fowler qtd. in Diodorus of Sicily, Library of History (2: 92 Vogel) Hellenistic period FGrHist 457 F17 = FGrHist 468 F1 [1] κπζνινγνῦƃη γὰξ νἱ ΚξƄƂο γƃλέƃζƀη θƀƅὰ Ƅὴλ Ƅλ ΚνπξήƄσλ ιηθίƀλ Ƅνὺο θƀινπκέλνπο ΤηƄλƀο. ƄνύƄνπο Ɓὲ Ƅο Κλσƃίƀο ρώξƀο ἔρƃηλ Ƅὴλ νἴθεƃηλ, ὅπνππƃξ ἔƅη θƀὶ λῦλ ƁƂίθλπƄƀη ζƃκέιηƀ Ῥέƀο νἰθόπƃɓƀ θƀὶ θππƀξίƅƅσλ ἄιƃνο ἐθ πƀιƀηνῦ ρξόλνπ ἀλƃηκέλνλ. [2] ὑπάξμƀη Ɓὲ Ƅὸλ ἀξηζκὸλ ἓμ κὲλ ἄλɓξƀο, πέλƅƃ Ɓὲ γπλƀθƀο, ὡο κέλ ƄηλƂο κπζνινγνῦƃηλ, Οὐξƀλνῦ θƀὶ Žο ὄλƅƀο, ὡο Ɓέ Ƅηλέο ƅƀƃηλ, ἔθ Ƅηλνο Ƅλ ΚνπξήƄσλ θƀὶ κεƅξὸο ΤηƄƀίƀο, ἀƅ ἥο ƀὐƅνὺο ƄƀύƄεο ƄƂƄƂπρέλƀη Ƅο πξνƃεγνξίƀο. [3] ἄξξƃλƀο κὲλ νὖλ γƃλέƃζƀη Ƅόλ ƄƂ Κξόλνλ θƀὶ πƃξίνλƀ θƀὶ Κννλ, ἔƅη Ɓὲ ἸƀπƂƄὸλ θƀὶ Κξηὸλ θƀὶ Ƅὸ ƄƂιƂπƄƀνλ ὨθƂƀλόλ, ἀɓƃιƅὰο Ɓὲ ƄνύƄσλ Ƅήλ ƄƂ Ῥέƀλ θƀὶ žέκηλ θƀὶ Μλεκνƃύλελ, ἔƅη Ɓὲ ſνίβελ θƀὶ Τεζύλ. [1] The myth the Cretans relate runs like this: When the Curetes were young men, the Titans, as they are called, were still living. These Titans had their dwelling in the land 165

166 10-11 (2015) about Cnossos, at the place where even to this day men point out foundation of a house of Rhea and a cypress grove which has been consecrated to her from ancient times. [2] The Titans numbered six men and five women, being born, as certain writers of myths relate, of Uranus and Ge, but according to others, of one of the Curetes and Titaea, from whom as their mother they derive the name they have. [3] The males were Cronus, Hyperion, Coeus, Iapetus, Crius, and Oceanus, and their sisters were Rhea, Themis, Mnemosyne, Phoebe, and Tethys. (trans. Oldfather 3: ) T.257 Epimenides the Genealogist (vel Theologian), History of Crete fr. 4 Fowler qtd. in Diodorus of Sicily, Library of History (2: 92 Vogel) Hellenistic period FGrHist 457 F17 = FGrHist 468 F1 ƂὑξƂλ Ɓὲ θƀὶ μίƅε θƀὶ θξάλε θƀὶ Ƅὰο ἐλνπιίνπο ὀξρήƃƃηο, Ɓη ὧλ πνηνῦλƅƀο κƃγάινπο ςόƅνπο ἀπƀƅλ Ƅὸλ Κξόλνλ. ƅƀƃὶ Ɓ ƀὐƅνὺο Ƅὸλ Γίƀ, ιάζξᾳ Ƅνῦ πƀƅξὸο Κξόλνπ πƀξƀɓνύƃεο Ῥέƀο Ƅο κεƅξόο, ὑπνɓέμƀƃζƀη θƀὶ ζξέςƀη πƃξὶ νὗ Ƅὰ θƀƅὰ κέξνο κέιινλƅƀο κο Ɓεινῦλ ἀλƀγθƀνλ ἀλƀιƀβƃλ κηθξὸλ ἀλσƅέξσ Ƅὴλ Ɓηήγεƃηλ. The Curetes also invented swords and helmets and the war-dance, by means of which they raised a great alarm and deceived Cronus. And we are told that, when Rhea, the mother of Zeus, entrusted him to them unbeknown to Cronus his father, they took him under their care and saw to his nurture. (trans. Oldfather 3: 273) T.258 Epimenides the Genealogist (vel Theologian), History of Crete fr. 4 Fowler qtd. in Diodorus of Sicily, Library of History (2: 107 Vogel) Hellenistic period OF 283i + OF 311xii + OF 530; FGrHist 457 F17 = FGrHist 468 F1 ƄνῦƄνλ Ɓὲ Ƅὸλ ζƃὸλ γƃγνλέλƀη ƅƀƃὶλ ἐθ Γηὸο θƀὶ ſƃξƃƃƅόλεο θƀƅὰ Ƅὴλ ΚξήƄελ, ὃλ ξƅƃὺο θƀƅὰ Ƅὰο ƄƂιƂƄὰο πƀξέɓσθƃ ƁηƀƃπώκƂλνλ ὑπὸ Ƅλ ΤηƄάλσλ πιƃίνλƀο γὰξ Γηνλύƃνπο ƃπκβƀίλƃη γƃγνλέλƀη, πƃξὶ ὧλ κƃο ƃƀƅέƃƅƃξνλ Ƅὰ θƀƅὰ κέξνο ἐλ νἰθƃηνƅέξνηο θƀηξνο ἀλƀγƃγξάƅƀκƃλ. This god [viz. Dionysus] was born in Crete, men say, of Zeus and Persephone, and Orpheus has handed down the tradition in the initiatory rites that he was torn in pieces by the Titans. And the fact is that there is have been several who bore the name Dionysus (trans. Oldfather 3: 303) T.259 Olympiodorus of Alexandria, Commentary on the Phaedo 1.3 (41 43 Westerink). AD OF 220 Kern + OF 304i + OF 313ii + OF 318iii + OF 320i; Orfismo A16 Scarpi θƀὶ ἔƃƅη Ƅὸ κπζηθὸλ ἐπηρƃίξεκƀ ƄνηνῦƄνλ πƀξὰ Ƅῶ ξƅƃ ƄέƃƃƀξƂο βƀƃηιƃƀη πƀξƀɓίɓνλƅƀη. πξώƅε κὲλ Ƅνῦ Οὐξƀλνῦ, ἡλ ὁ Κξόλνο ƁηƂƁέμƀƄν ἐθƅƃκὼλ Ƅὰ ƀἰɓνƀ Ƅνῦ πƀƅξόο κƃƅὰ Ɓὲ Ƅὸλ Κξόλνλ ὁ ΕƂὺο ἐβƀƃίιƃπƃƃλ θƀƅƀƅƀξƅƀξώƃƀο Ƅὸλ πƀƅέξƀ ƂἶƄƀ Ƅὸλ Γίƀ ƁηƂƁέμƀƄν ὁ Γηόλπƃνο, ὅλ ƅƀƃη θƀƅ ἐπηβνπιὴλ Ƅο Ἥξƀο Ƅνὺο πƃξὶ ƀὐƅὸλ ΤηƄλƀο ƃπƀξάƅƅƃηλ θƀὶ Ƅλ ƃƀξθλ ƀὐƅνῦ ἀπνγƃύƃƃζƀη. θƀὶ ƄνύƄνπο ὀξγηƃζƃὶο ὁ ΕƂὺο ἐθƃξƀύλσƃƃ, θƀὶ ἐθ Ƅο ƀἰζάιεο Ƅλ ἀƅκλ Ƅλ ἀλƀɓνζέλƅσλ ἐμ ƀὐƅλ ὕιεο 166

167 10-11 (2015) γƃλνκέλεο γƃλέƃζƀη Ƅνὺο ἀλζξώπνπο. νὐ ƁƂ νὖλ ἐμάγƃηλ κο ἑƀπƅνύο ὡο Ƅνῦ ƃώκƀƅνο κλ Γηνλπƃηƀθνῦ ὄλƅνο κέξνο γὰξ ƀὐƅνῦ ἐƃκƃλ, Ƃἴ γƃ ἐθ Ƅο ƀἰζάιεο Ƅλ ΤηƄάλσλ ƃπγθƃίκƃζƀ γƃπƃƀκέλσλ Ƅλ ƃƀξθλ ƄνύƄνπ. The mythical argument is as follows: in the Orphic tradition we hear of four reigns. The first is that of Uranus, to which Kronos succeeds after emasculating his father; after Kronos Zeus becomes king having hurled down his father into Tartarus; then Zeus is succeeded by Dionysus, whom, they say his retainers the Titans tear to pieces through Hera s plotting, and they eat his flesh. Zeus, incensed, strikes them with his thunderbolts, and the soot of the vapors that rise from them becomes the matter from which men are created. Therefore suicide is forbidden because our bodies are Dionysiac; we are, in fact, a part of him, being made of the soot of the Titans who ate his flesh. (trans. Westerink 40 42, modified) T.260 Diodorus of Sicily, Library of History (2: 72 Vogel) BC Ƅὸλ Ɓ Ἰƀƃίσλƀ γήκƀλƅƀ Κπβέιελ γƃλλƃƀη ΚνξύβƀλƄƀ ΓάξƁƀλνλ θƀὶ Κπβέιελ θƀὶ ΚνξύβƀλƄƀ κƃƅƀθνκίƃƀη Ƃἰο Ƅὴλ Ἀƃίƀλ Ƅὰ Ƅο κεƅξὸο Ƅλ ζƃλ ἱƃξὰ θƀὶ ƃπλƀπξƀη Ƃἰο ſξπγίƀλ [3] Ƅὸλ Ɓὲ ΚνξύβƀλƄƀ Ƅνὺο ἐπὶ Ƅνο Ƅο κεƅξὸο ἱƃξνο ἐλζνπƃηάƃƀλƅƀο ἀƅ ἑƀπƅνῦ ΚνξύβƀλƄƀο πξνƃƀγνξƃῦƃƀη Iasion married Cybele and begat Corybas Dardanus and Cybele and Corybas conveyed to Asia the sacred rites of the Mother of the Gods and removed with them to Phrygia [3] and Corybas gave the name of Corybantes to all who, in celebrating the rites of his mother, acted like men possessed (trans. Oldfather 3: ) T.261 Theophrastus of Eresus, On Piety fr. 12 Pötscher qtd. in Porphyry of Tyre, On Abstinence from Living Animals (88 Bouffartigue) 322 BC κƀξƅπξƃƅƀη Ɓὲ ƄƀῦƄƀ νὐ κόλνλ ὑπὸ Ƅλ θύξβƃσλ, ƀἳ Ƅλ ΚξήƄεζέλ Ƃἰƃη ΚνξπβƀλƄηθλ ἱƃξλ νἷνλ ἀλƅίγξƀƅƀ ἄƅƅƀ πξὸο ἀιήζƃηƀλ, ἀιιὰ θƀὶ πƀξ κπƃɓνθιένπο, ὃο πƃξὶ Ƅο ζƃνγνλίƀο ƁηƂμηὼλ θƀὶ πƃξὶ Ƅλ ζπκάƅσλ πƀξƃκƅƀίλƃη ιέγƃη Ƅƀύξσλ Ɓ' ἀθξήƅνηƃη ƅόλνηο νὐ ƁƂύƂƄν βσκόο. Evidence for this 61 comes not only from the kyrbeis, which are really a kind of transcription of the Corybantic rites from Crete, but also in Empedocles [fr. 118 Wright], who comments on sacrifices in expounding his theogony: the altar was not soaked by violent deaths of bulls. (trans. Clark 63) T.262 Aristophanes of Byzantium fr. 410 Slater 200 BC ΚύξβƂηο ƀἱ Ƅὰο Ƅλ ζƃλ ἑνξƅὰο ἔρνπƃƀη θξύβηέο ƄηλƂο νὖƃƀη, ἐλ ƀἷο Ƅὰ Ƅλ ζƃλ ἀπνθξππƅόκƃλƀ ἔɓƃη Ƃἶλƀη. ἈƃθιεπηάƁεο, ὅƅη ἀπὸ ΚύξβƂσο Ƅνῦ Ƅὰο ζπƃίƀο ὁξίƃƀλƅνο, ὥο ƅεƃη ſƀλίƀο ὁ ξέƃηνο. ἀπὸ ƄνύƄνπ ƄƀῦƄƀ θπξσζλƀη Ƅνο γξάκκƀƃηλ. ξƀƅνƃζέλεο Ɓὲ Ƅξηγώλνπο ƀὐƅάο ƅεƃηλ Ƃἶλƀη ἈξηƃƄνƅάλεο Ɓὲ ὁκνίƀο Ƃἶλƀί ƅεƃη Ƅνο ἄμνƃη, πιὴλ ὅƅη νἱ κὲλ ἄμνλƃο λόκνπο, ƀἱ Ɓὲ θύξβƃηο ζπƃίƀο Ƃἶρνλ. 61 Sc. bloodless sacrifices and wineless libations. 167

168 10-11 (2015) Kyrbeis: Those containing [sc. lists of] the festivals of the gods; being a sort of secret sources, in which the matters of the gods were to be hidden away. Asclepiades [FGrHist 339 F1] says that [the term comes] from Kyrbes, who defined the sacrifices, as Phanias the Eresian says [fr. 22b Wehrli]. By him these [matters] were validated in writing. Eratosthenes [fr. 80 Strecker] says they were three-cornered. Aristophanes [of Byzantium] says they are like the axles, except that the axles contained the laws but the kyrbeis the sacrifices. (the SOL translation, modified) T.263 Nonnus of Panopolis, Dionysiaca ( Gerlaud) AD 450 Ἔλζƀ ƁηƀƃƄƂίρνλƄƀ βƀζππινύƅῳ πƀξὰ πέƅξῃ βνπθƃξάνηο ΣƀƄύξνηƃηλ ὁκήιπɓƀ πƃδὸλ ὁɓίƅελ Βάθρνλ ἀλὴξ ἄγξƀπινο ἐξεκάɓη ƁέθƄν θƀιηῆ, [40] Βξόγγνο, ἀɓσκήƅσλ ὀξƃƃίɓξνκνο ἀƃƅὸο ἐλƀύισλ, γεγƃλέσλ ἀράξƀθƅνλ ὑπὸ θξεπɓƀ ζƃκέζισλ λƀίσλ νἶθνλ ἄνηθνλ. πƅξνƃύλεο Ɓὲ ƁνƄξƀ ƀἰγὸο ἀκƃιγνκέλεο θƃξάƃƀο ρηνλσπὸλ ἐέξƃελ [44] μƃηλνɓόθνο γιƀγόƃλƅη πνƅῶ κƃηιίμƀƅν πνηκὴλ. [46] Κƀὶ κίƀλ Ƃἰξνπόθσλ ὀίσλ ἀλƃιύƃƀƅν κάλɓξεο, ὄƅξƀ θƃ ƁƀηƄξƂύƃƂηƂ ζπεπνιίελ Γηνλύƃῳ ἀιιὰ ζƃὸο θƀƅέξπθƃ γέξσλ Ɓ ἐπƃπƃίζƃƅν Βάθρνπ λƃύκƀƃηλ ἀƅξέπƅνηƃηλ, ὄηλ Ɓ ἄςƀπƃƅνλ ἐάƃƃƀο [50] πνηκƃλίελ Ƅηλὰ ƁƀƄƀ ζƃιήκνλη ζθƃ Λπƀίῳ, [51] ƄƂύρσλ ƁƂπλνλ ἄɓƃηπλνλ ἀɓƀηƅξƃύƅνην Ƅξƀπέδεο, [45] ƂἴƁƀƃηλ νὐƅηɓƀλνƃη θƀὶ ἀγξƀύινηƃη θππέιινηο [52] νἷƀ ΚιƂσλƀίνην ƅƀƅίδƃƅƀη ἀκƅὶ Μνιόξθνπ θƃλƀ, Ƅά πƃξ ƃπƃύɓνλƅη ιƃνλƅνƅόλνπο ἐο ἀγλƀο ὥπιηƃƃλ ἧξƀθιη. ρύɓελ Ɓ ἐπέβƀιιƃ Ƅξƀπέδῃ [55] Ƃἰλ ἁιὶ λερνκέλεο ƅζηλνπσξίɓνο ἄλζνο ἐιƀίεο Βξόγγνο, ἔρσλ κίκεκƀ ƅηινƃƅόξγνην λνκνο, πιƃθƅνο ἐλ Ƅƀιάξνηο λƃνπεγέƀ Ƅπξὸλ ἀƃίξσλ, ἰθκƀιένλ, ƄξνρόƂλƄƀ. žƃὸο Ɓ ἐγέιƀƃƃƃ ƁνθƂύσλ ἀγξνλόκσλ ιηƅὰ ƁƂπλƀ ƅηινμƃίλῳ Ɓὲ λνκη [60] ἵιƀνλ ὄκκƀ ƅέξσλ ὀιίγεο ἔςƀπƃƃ Ƅξƀπέδεο ƁƀξƁάπƄσλ ἀθόξεƅνο ἀƃὶ Ɓ ἐκλώƃƅν θƃίλεο Ƃἰιƀπίλελ ἐιάρƃηƀλ ἀλƀηκάθƅνην Ƅξƀπέδεο κεƅξὸο ἑο πƀξὰ Ɓόξπνλ, ὀξƃƃƃƀύινην Κπβήιεο. Κƀὶ θξƀλƀνὺο ππιƃλƀο ἐζάκβƃƃ θπθιάɓνο ƀὐιο, [65] πο ſύƃηο ἐξγνπόλνο Ɓόκνλ ἔγιπƅƃ, πο Ɓίρƀ Ƅέρλεο ἀλƅηƅύπνηο θƀλόλƃƃƃηλ ἐƅνξλώζεƃƀλ ἐξίπλƀη. There as the company of footmen with the homed Satyrs travelled beside the richly stored rocks, Bacchus on his march was entertained by a countryman in a lonely hut, Brongos, dweller in the highland glens where no houses are built. Beside the unquarried wall of these giant strongholds he dwelt, in a house that was no house. The hospitable shepherd milked a goat, and drew a potion snowy-white, to seek the favor of the giver of jolly good cheer with his milky draught in country cups, with common vittles. He brought out a fleecy sheep from the fold, as an offering for Dionysus, but the god stayed him. The old man obeyed the immutable bidding of Bacchus, and leaving the sheep untouched he set shepherd's fare before willing Lyaios. So he served 168

169 10-11 (2015) a supper no supper, board without beef, such as they say in Cleonai Molorcos once provided for Heracles on his way to fight the lion. Brongos like that kind-hearted shepherd set on the board plenty of the autumn fruit of the olive swimming in brine, and brought fresh curdled cheese in wickerwork baskets, juicy and round. The god laughed when he saw the countryman's light supper, and turning a gracious eye on the hospitable shepherd, he partook of the humble fare, munching greedily. All the time he was reminded of the frugal banquet on that bloodless table, when there was a meal for his Mother, Cybele of the highlands. And he wondered at the stone doors of the round courtyard, how industrious nature had carved a house, how without art the cliffs were rounded in answering proportion. (trans. Rouse 2: 35 37) T.264 Dionysius, Gigantias, GDRK 1 no , p. 76 AD third century Ƅνο ἐλὶ κὲλ θύƀκνη δ[ νἴθπιƀ ƄƂ ζƃηƀί ƄƂ πƃξ[ ƀὐƅὰξ ἐπὴλ ρƀιθὸο κ[ Ƅηλζƀιένο δƃίῃƃη Ƅƀ[ [5] Ɓὴ ƄόƄ ἐγὼ ζάιƀκόλɓ[ƃ.. ινκƀη ὄƅξƀ θƃ ƁƀƄƀ[ ]λ θάγθƀλƀ θιƀ [ ]Ƃζ ὕɓσξ In which there were beans, cereals, grains of wheat, and.. When the brazen potion with meal.. Then I want to to the house until the banquet dried woods... with water. (trans. E. O.) T.265 Palladius of Helenopolis, Lausiac History 11.4 (52 Bartelink) AD 388 ƄνύƄνπ Ƅνῦ Ἀκκσλίνπ ƅέξƃƅƀη Ƅὸ ζƀῦκƀ ƄνῦƄν, ὅƅη νὐɓέπνƅƃ Ɓνλο ƀὐƅη ἐπƀλƀƃƅάƃεο Ƅνῦ ƃƀξθίνπ ƀὐƅνῦ ἐƅƃίƃƀƅν, ἀιιὰ ƃίɓεξνλ ἐθππξώƃƀο πξνƃƃƅίζƃη Ƅνο ἑƀπƅνῦ κέιƃƃηλ, ὡο πάλƅνƅƃ ƀὐƅὸλ ιθσκέλνλ Ƃἶλƀη. κέλƅνη ƄξάπƂδƀ ƀὐƅνῦ γέγνλƃλ ἐθ λƃόƅεƅνο ὠκνƅƀγίƀ ἕσο ζƀλάƅνπ νὐɓὲλ γὰξ ὃ Ɓηὰ ππξὸο ƁηήξρƂƄν ἔƅƀγέ πνƅƃ ἐθƅὸο ἄξƅνπ. About this Ammonius the following marvelous story was told. When desire arose in him, he never spared his poor body, but heating an iron in the fire he would apply it to his members, so that he became a mass of ulcers. Now his table from youth until death contained raw food only. For he never ate anything that had passed through the fire except bread. (trans. Clarke 65) T.266 Euripides, Bacchants (6: 22 Kovacs) 406 BC Ɓὺο ἐλ ὄξƃƃηλ, ὅƅƀλ ἐθ ζηάƃσλ Ɓξνκƀίσλ πέƃῃ πƃɓόƃƃ, λƃβξίɓνο ἔρσλ ἱƃξὸλ ἐλɓπƅόλ, ἀγξƃύσλ ƀἷκƀ ƄξƀγνθƄόλνλ, ὠκνƅάγνλ ράξηλ, ἱέκƃλνο ἐο ὄξƃƀ ΛύƁη, ὁ Ɓ ἔμƀξρνο Βξόκηνο, Ƃὐνἷ. 169

170 10-11 (2015) Welcomes is the god when on the mountains he leaves the coursing covens and falls to the ground, his holy garment of fawn-skin about him, in pursuit of the shed blood of the skin goat, the glad meal of raw flesh, rushing to the mountains of Lydia, this leader of ours, Bromios, euhoi! (trans. Kovacs 6: 23) T.267 Regulation concerning the bloody sacrifices to Dionysus Bacchius, from Miletus, LSAM no /275 BC OF 583 Ν. ὅƅƀλ Ɓὲ ἱέξƃηƀ ἐπη [ƄƂιέƃ]εη Ƅὰ ἱƃξὰ ὑπὲξ Ƅο πόι[ƃσ]ο [πάƃεο] κὴ ἐμƃλƀη ὠκνƅάγηνλ ἐκβƀιƃλ κεζƃλὶ πξόƅƃξνλ [ἠ ἱέ]ξƃηƀ ὑπὲξ Ƅο πόιƃσο ἐκβάιεη. It is not permitted to anyone to put down the omophagion before the priestess does so on behalf of the city. (trans. Kane 336) T.268 Plutarch of Chaeronea, Obsolence of Oracles 14, 417C (117 Flacelière) AD 119 ΠƂξὶ κὲλ νὖλ Ƅλ κπƃƅηθλ, ἐλ νἷο Ƅὰο κƃγίƃƅƀο ἐκƅάƃƃηο θƀὶ ƁηƀƅάƃƂηο ιƀβƃλ ἔƃƅη Ƅο πƃξὶ Ɓƀηκόλσλ ἀιεζƃίƀο, ƂὔƃƄνκά κνη θƃίƃζσ θƀζʹ ἧξόɓνƅνλ ἑνξƅὰο Ɓὲ θƀὶ ζπƃίƀο, ὥƃπƃξ κέξƀο ἀπνƅξάɓƀο θƀὶ ƃθπζξσπάο, ἐλ ƀἷο ὠκνƅƀγίƀη θƀὶ Ɓηƀƃπƀƃκνὶ λεƃƅƃƀί ƄƂ θƀὶ θνπƃƅνὶ πνιιƀρνῦ Ɓὲ πάιηλ ƀἰƃρξνινγίƀη πξὸο ἱƃξνο Regarding the rites of the Mysteries, in which it is possible to gain the clearest reflections and adumbrations of the truth about the demigods, let my lips be piously sealed, as Herodotus says [Histories 2.171]; but as for festivals and sacrifices, which may be compared with ill-omened and gloomy days, in which occur the eating of raw flesh, rending of victims, fasting, and beating of breasts, and again in many places scurrilous language at the shrines (Babbitt 5: 391) T.269 Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Greeks (20 21 Marcovich). AD 195 Γηόλπƃνλ κƀηλόιελ ὀξγηάδνπƃη Βάθρνη ὠκνƅƀγίᾳ Ƅὴλ ἱƃξνκƀλίƀλ ἄγνλƅƃο θƀὶ ƄƂιίƃθνπƃη Ƅὰο θξƃνλνκίƀο Ƅλ ƅόλσλ ἀλƃƃƅƃκκέλνη Ƅνο ὄƅƃƃηλ, ἐπνινιύδνλƅƃο Δὐάλ, Δὔƀλ ἐθƃίλελ, Ɓἰ ἡλ πιάλε πƀξεθνινύζεƃƃλ: θƀὶ ƃεκƃνλ ὀξγίσλ βƀθρηθλ ὄƅηο ἐƃƅὶ ƄƂƄƂιƂƃκέλνο. ƀὐƅίθƀ γνῦλ θƀƅὰ Ƅὴλ ἀθξηβ Ƅλ βξƀίσλ ƅσλὴλ Ƅὸ ὄλνκƀ Ƅὸ Ἕπηƀ ƁƀƃπλόκƂλνλ ἑξκελƃύƃƅƀη ὄƅηο ζήιƃηƀ. The raving Dionysus is worshipped by Bacchants with orgies, in which they celebrate their sacred frenzy by a feast of raw flesh. Wreathed with Dionysus snakes, they perform the distribution of portions of their victims, shouting the name of Eva, that Eva through whom error entered into the world; and a consecrated snake is the emblem of the Bacchic orgies. At any rate, according to the correct Hebrew speech, the word hevia with an aspirate means the female snake. (trans. Butterworth 31) T.270 Lucian of Samosata, Dionysus 2 (17 MacLeod) AD Ƅὰο Ɓ νὖλ πνίκλƀο Ɓηεξπάƃζƀη ἢɓε ὑπὸ Ƅλ γπλƀηθλ θƀὶ ƁηƂƃπάƃζƀη ἔƅη δλƅƀ Ƅὰ ζξέκκƀƅƀ ὠκνƅάγνπο γάξ Ƅηλƀο ƀὐƅὰο Ƃἶλƀη. 170

171 10-11 (2015) The flocks have already been harried by the women, and the animals torn limb from limb while still alive; for they are eaters of raw meat. (trans. Harmon 51) T.271 Firmicus Maternus, On the Error of the Pagan Religions 6.5 (89 90 Turcan). AD 340 OF 322 Cretenses ut furentis tyranni saevitiam mitigarent festos funeris dies statuunt et annuum sacrum trieterica consecratione componunt, omnia per ordinem facientes quae per puer moriens aut fecit aut passus est. vivum laniant dentibus taurum, crudeles epulas annuis commemorationibus excitantes, et per secreta silvarum clamoribus dissonis eiulantes fingunt animi furentis insaniam, ut illud facinus non per fraudem factum, sed per insaniam crederetur. Prefertur cista in qua cor soror latenter absconderat tibiarum cantu et cymbalorum tinnitus crepundia, quibus puer deceptus fuerat, metiuntur, sic in honorem tyranny a serviente plebe deus factus est qui habere non potuit sepulturam. The Cretans, to soothe the fierce mood of the angry tyrant [i.e. Jupiter], instituted certain days as a funeral feast and coupled a yearly rite with a celebration on alternate years, performing in order due all that the boy [i.e. Liber] had done or suffered at his death. They tore a live bull with their teeth, recalling the savage banquet by a yearly commemoration of it. They penetrated the solitudes of the forest uttering discordant cries and so feigning madness, that the crime might be set down to lunacy, not to guile. Before them was carried the basket in which the sister [i.e. Minerva] had concealed and hidden the heart. With the music of pipes and the clash of cymbals they got up a make-belief of the rattles by which the boy had been deluded. (trans. Cook 662) T.272a Orphic Hymns (427 Fayant)?AD 200 λπθƅέξη, ΔὐβνπιƂῦ, κηƅξεƅόξƃ, ζπξƃνƅηλάθƅƀ, ὄξγηνλ ἄξξεƅνλ, Ƅξηƅπέο, θξύƅηνλ Γηὸο ἔξλνο, ΠξσƄνγνλ, ἦξηθƃπƀƃ, ζƃλ πάƅƃξ Ɓὲ θƀὶ πἱέ, ὠκάɓηƃ, ƃθεπƅνῦρƃ, ρνξνηκƀλέο, ἁγέƅƀ θώκσλ you lead them in the night, o filleted, o thyrsus-shaking Eubouleus. Your nature three-fold, your rites ineffable, o secret offspring of Zeus, primeval, Erikepaios, father and son of the gods, you take raw flesh [Omadie], and sceptered you lead us into the madness of revel and dance (trans. Athanassakis 43) T.272b Euelpis of Carystus, FHG 4: 408 qtd. in Porphyry of Tyre, On Abstinence from Living Animals (118 Bouffartigue) before AD 263 ἔζπνλ Ɓὲ θƀὶ ἐλ Χίῳ Ƅῶ ὨκƀƁίῳ Γηνλύƃῳ ἄλζξσπνλ ƁηƀƃπλƄƂο, θƀὶ ἐλ ΤƂλέƁῳ, ὡο ƅεƃὶλ ΔὔƂιπηο ὁ ΚƀξύƃƄηνο In Chios they used to sacrifice a human to Dionysus Omadios, tearing him to pieces; this also happened to Tenedos, according to Euelpis of Karystos (trans. Clark 77) 171

172 10-11 (2015) Milk: Not Good for You? T.273 Derveni Papyrus, col. 6 lines 5 10 (73 KTP) 340 BC OF 471; Orfismo C6 Scarpi [5] Ƅνο Ɓὲ ἱƃξν[ο] ἐπηƃπέλɓνπƃηλ ὕ[ɓσ]ξ θƀὶ γάιƀ, ἐμ ὧλπƃξ θƀὶ Ƅὰο ρνὰο πνηνῦƃη. ἀλάξηζκƀ [θƀ]ὶ πνιπόκƅƀιƀ Ƅὰ πόπƀλƀ ζύνπƃηλ, ὅƅη θƀὶ ƀἱ ςπρƀὶ ἀλάξηζκν[ί Ƃἰ]ƃη. ΜύƃƄƀη ΔὐκƂλίƃη πξνζύνπƃη θ[ƀƅὰ Ƅὰ] ƀὐƅὰ κάγνηο ΔὐκƂλίƁƂο γὰξ [10] ςπρƀί Ƃἰƃηλ. And on the offerings they pour water and milk, from which [plural] they also make the libations to the dead. Innumerable and many-knobbled are the cakes they sacrifice, because the souls too are innumerable. Initiates make a preliminary sacrifice to the Eumenides in the same way the magi do; for the Eumenides are souls. (trans. KTP 130) T.274 Scholia vetera in Aeschinem 1, 374a (53 54 Dilts) before AD tenth century Ƅƀο ΣƂκλƀο ζƃƀο. ἤλ Ɓὲ Ƅὰ πƃκπόκƃλƀ ƀὐƅƀο ἱƃξὰ πόπƀλƀ θƀὶ γάιƀ ἐλ ἄγγƃƃη θƃξƀκƃίνηο. ƅƀƃὶ κέλƅνη ƀὐƅὰο νἱ κὲλ Žο Ƃἶλƀη θƀὶ ΣθόƄνπο, νἱ Ɓὲ ΣθόƄνπο θƀὶ Δὐσλύκεο, ἡλ θƀὶ Žλ ὀλνκάδƃƃζƀη. θιεζλƀη Ɓὲ ΔὐκƂλίƁƀο ἐπὶ ξέƃƅνπ πξƅνλ ξηλύƀο θƀινύκƃλƀο. The Semnai Goddesses: there were sacrificed to them sacred cakes and milk in the special ceramic vessels. Some people say that they were born from Ge and Skotos, the others that from Skotos and Euonyme who was also named Ge. In Orestes times they were bestowed Eumenides, albeit formerly they were called Erinyes. (trans. E. O.) T.275 Athenaeus of Naucratis, Learned Banqueters 11.93, 496A B (5: Olson). AD Πιεκνρόε ƃθƃῦνο θƃξƀκƃνῦλ βƃκβηθɓƃο ἑɓξƀνλ ƃπρῆ, ὃ θνƅπιίƃθνλ ἔληνη πξνƃƀγνξƃύνπƃηλ, ὥο ƅεƃη Πάκƅηινο. ρξλƅƀη Ɓὲ ƀὐƅῶ ἐλ ιƃπƃλη Ƅῆ ƄƂιƂπƄƀίᾳ Ƅλ κπƃƅεξίσλ κέξᾳ, ἡλ θƀὶ ἀπ ƀὐƅνῦ πξνƃƀγνξƃύνπƃη Πιεκνρόƀο ἐλ ᾗ Ɓύν πιεκνρόƀο πιεξώƃƀλƅƃο Ƅὴλ κὲλ πξὸο ἀλƀƅνιάο, Ƅὴλ Ɓὲ πξὸο Ɓύƃηλ <... > ἀληƃƅάκƃλνη ἀλƀƅξέπνπƃίλ ƄƂ ἐπηιέγνλƅƃο ῥƃηλ κπƃƅηθήλ. Plemochoe: A ceramic vessel that resembles a top, but is relatively stable; some people employ the term kotuliskos for it, according to Pamphilus [of Alexandria]. It is used at Eleusis on the final day of the Mysteries, which is accordingly referred to as Plemochoai. On this day they fill two plemochoai, and standing facing east in the case of one, and facing west in the case of the other... and turn them upside down, reciting a formula associated with the Mysteries. 62 (trans. Olson 5: ) 62 Edward Ochsenschlager speculates that the mystic formula spoken during the libations from the plemochoai was the same as: ὕƃ θύƃ ( rain conceive ), attested by Proclus in his Commentary on the Timaeus 3: Diehl. 172

173 10-11 (2015) T.276 Numenius of Apamea fr. 32 Places qtd. in Porphyry of Tyre, On the Cave of the Nymphs 28 (74 Simonini) AD 150 Ɓκνο Ɓὲ ὀλƃίξσλ θƀƅὰ Ππζƀγόξƀλ ƀἱ ςπρƀὶ, ἃο ƃπλάγƃƃζƀη ƅεƃὶλ Ƃἰο Ƅὸλ γƀιƀμίƀλ Ƅὸλ νὕƅσ πξνƃƀγνξƃπόκƃλνλ ἀπὸ Ƅλ γάιƀθƅη ƄξƂƅνκέλσλ, ὅƅƀλ Ƃἰο γέλƃƃηλ πέƃσƃηλ. ᾧ θƀὶ ƃπέλɓƃηλ ƀὐƅƀο Ƅνὺο ςπρƀγσγνὺο κέιη θƃθξƀκέλνλ γάιƀθƅη ὡο ἂλ Ɓη Ɓνλο Ƃἰο γέλƃƃηλ κƃκƃιƃƅεθπίƀηο ἔξρƃƃζƀη ƀἷο ƃπγθπƃƃζƀη Ƅὸ γάιƀ πέƅπθƃλ. According to Pythagoras, the souls are the people of dreams [Homer, Odyssey 24.12] who, as he says, are assembled in the Milky Way which derives its name from milk because they are nourished with milk when they first fall into genesis. For this reason also, he says, those who call forth souls pour libations of milk and honey to them, since they are accustomed to enter genesis, because of the lure of pleasure. Also, milk is produced from the time of birth. (trans. Lamberton 36) Cheers! Wine Is Allowed T.277 Diodorus of Sicily, Library of History (2: 199 Vogel) BC πνιινὺο Ɓὲ ἔπƃηζƃλ ἀπύξνηο ƃηƅίνηο ρξƃζƀη θƀὶ ὑɓξνπνƃίƀηο πάλƅƀ Ƅὸλ βίνλ ἕλƃθƃλ Ƅνῦ Ƅἀγƀζὰ ζεξƃζƀη Ƅὰ θƀƅὰ ἀιήζƃηƀλ. Many men were also persuaded by him [sc. Pythagoras] to eat uncooked food and to drink only water all their life long, in order to pursue what is in truth the good. (trans. Oldfather 4: 63) T.278 Aelius Aristides, Hieroi Logoi 3.32 (421 Keil) AD 148 ὅƃνλ κὲλ νὖλ Ƅηλƀ ρξόλνλ ƁηήλƂγθƀ Ƅὴλ ὑɓξνπνƃίƀλ, νὐɓὲ ƄνῦƄν ἔρσ ιέγƃηλ ὅƅη Ɓ Ƃὐθόισο ƄƂ θƀὶ ῥᾳɓίσο ἀƃί πσο πξόƅƃξνλ ƁπƃρƂξƀίλσλ Ƅὸ ὕɓσξ θƀὶ λƀπƅηλ. ὡο Ɓὲ θƀὶ ƄνῦƄν ἐιƃιƃηƅνύξγεƅν, Ƅνῦ κὲλ ὕɓƀƅνο ἀƅίεƃί κƃ, νἴλνπ Ɓὲ ἔƅƀμƃ κέƅξνλ, θƀὶ ἤλ γƃ ῥκƀ κίλƀ βƀƃηιηθή γλώξηκνλ Ɓή πνπ ὅƅη ἔƅξƀδƃλ κηθόƅπινλ. ἐρξώκελ ƄνύƄῳ θƀὶ νὕƅσο ἢξθƃη ὡο νὐθ ἢξθƃη πξόƅƃξνλ Ƅὸ Ɓηπιάƃηνλ I also cannot say for how long I endured water drinking, but it was easy and pleasant, although before I always found water somehow disagreeable and disgusting. When this duty also had been performed, he [sc. Asclepius] took me off water, and assigned me a measure of wine. The word was a demiroyal. It is quite clear that he meant a half cup. I used this, and it sufficed, as formerly twice the amount did not. (trans. Behr 313) T.279a Pseudo-Apollodorus, Library (18 Frazer) ca. AD 100 OF 501; Orfismo A20 Scarpi ƂὗξƂ Ɓὲ ξƅƃὺο θƀὶ Ƅὰ Γηνλύƃνπ κπƃƅήξηƀ Orpheus also invented the mysteries of Dionysus 63 (trans. Frazer 19) 63 For more testimonies on Orpheus as a founder of mysteries see Frazer 18 note

174 10-11 (2015) T.297b Onomacritus of Athens, Orphic Initiations (ξƅέσο ΤƂιƂƄƀί) fr. II A4 D Agostino qtd. in Pausanias, Description of Greece (2: 301 Rocha-Pereira) ca. 508 BC OF 1113 πƀξὰ Ɓὲ κήξνπ λνκάθξηƅνο πƀξƀιƀβὼλ Ƅλ ΤηƄάλσλ Ƅὸ ὄλνκƀ Γηνλύƃῳ ƄƂ ƃπλέζεθƃλ ὄξγηƀ θƀὶ Ƃἶλƀη Ƅνὺο ΤηƄλƀο Ƅῶ Γηνλύƃῳ Ƅλ πƀζεκάƅσλ ἐπνίεƃƃλ ƀὐƅνπξγνύο. From Homer the name of the Titans was taken by Onomacritus, who in the orgies he composed for Dionysus made the Titans the authors of the god s sufferings. (trans. Jones 4: 87) T.280 Plato, Republic 363c d Burnet 371 BC OF 431i Μνπƃƀνο Ɓὲ ƄνύƄσλ λƃƀληθώƅƃξƀ Ƅἀγƀζὰ θƀὶ ὁ ὑὸο ƀὐƅνῦ πƀξὰ ζƃλ ƁηƁόƀƃηλ Ƅνο Ɓηθƀίνηο Ƃἰο ἍηƁνπ γὰξ ἀγƀγόλƅƃο Ƅῶ ιόγῳ θƀὶ θƀƅƀθιίλƀλƅƃο θƀὶ ƃπκπόƃηνλ Ƅλ ὁƃίσλ θƀƅƀƃθƃπάƃƀλƅƃο ἐƃƅƃƅƀλσκέλνπο πνηνῦƃηλ Ƅὸλ ἅπƀλƅƀ ρξόλνλ ἢɓε ƁηάγƂηλ κƃζύνλƅƀο, γεƃάκƃλνη θάιιηƃƅνλ ἀξƃƅο κηƃζὸλ κέζελ ƀἰώληνλ. Musaeus and his son 64 make the gods give the just more headstrong goods than these. In their stories, they lead the just to Hades, seat them on couches, provide them with a symposium of pious people, crown them with wreaths, and make them spend all their time drinking as if they thought drunkenness forever was the finest wage of virtue. (trans. Cooper 1003, modified) A City of Pigs? T.281 Plato, Republic 372b d Burnet 371 BC ζξέςνλƅƀη Ɓὲ ἐθ κὲλ Ƅλ θξηζλ ἄιƅηƅƀ ƃθƃπƀδόκƃλνη, ἐθ Ɓὲ Ƅλ ππξλ ἄιƃπξƀ, Ƅὰ κὲλ πέςƀλƅƃο, Ƅὰ Ɓὲ κάμƀλƅƃο, κάδƀο γƃλλƀίƀο θƀὶ ἄξƅνπο ἐπὶ θάιƀκόλ Ƅηλƀ πƀξƀβƀιιόκƃλνη ἠ ƅύιιƀ θƀζƀξά, θƀƅƀθιηλέλƅƃο ἐπὶ ƃƅηβάɓσλ ἐƃƅξσκέλσλ κίιƀθί ƄƂ θƀὶ κπξξίλƀηο, ƂὐσρήƃνλƄƀη ƀὐƅνί ƄƂ θƀὶ Ƅὰ πƀηɓίƀ, ἐπηπίλνλƅƃο Ƅνῦ νἴλνπ, ἐƃƅƃƅƀλσκέλνη θƀὶ ὑκλνῦλƅƃο Ƅνὺο ζƃνύο, [372c] θƀὶ ὁ Žιƀύθσλ ὑπνιƀβώλ, ἌλƂπ ὄςνπ, ἔƅε, ὡο ἔνηθƀο, πνηƃο Ƅνὺο ἄλɓξƀο ἑƃƅησκέλνπο. ἀιεζ, ἤλ Ɓ ἐγώ, ιέγƃηο. ἐπƃιƀζόκελ ὅƅη θƀὶ ὄςνλ ἕμνπƃηλ, ἅιƀο ƄƂ Ɓινλ ὅƅη θƀὶ ἐιάƀο θƀὶ Ƅπξόλ, θƀὶ βνιβνὺο θƀὶ ιάρƀλά γƃ, νἷƀ Ɓὴ ἐλ ἀγξνο ἑςήκƀƅƀ, ἑςήƃνλƅƀη. θƀὶ ƄξƀγήκƀƄά πνπ πƀξƀζήƃνκƃλ ƀὐƅνο Ƅλ ƄƂ ƃύθσλ θƀὶ ἐξƃβίλζσλ θƀὶ θπάκσλ, θƀὶ κύξƅƀ θƀὶ ƅεγνὺο ƃπνɓηνῦƃηλ [372d] πξὸο Ƅὸ πῦξ, κƃƅξίσο ὑπνπίλνλƅƃο θƀὶ νὕƅσ ƁηάγνλƄƂο Ƅὸλ βίνλ ἐλ Ƃἰξήλῃ κƃƅὰ ὑγηƃίƀο, ὡο Ƃἰθόο, γεξƀηνὶ ƄƂιƂπƄλƄƂο ἄιινλ ƄνηνῦƄνλ βίνλ Ƅνο ἐθγόλνηο πƀξƀɓώƃνπƃηλ. θƀὶ ὅο, Ƃἰ Ɓὲ ὑλ πόιηλ, ὦ ΣώθξƀƄƂο, ἔƅε, θƀƅƃƃθƃύƀδƃο, Ƅί ἂλ ƀὐƅὰο ἄιιν ἠ ƄƀῦƄƀ ἐρόξƅƀδƃο; 64 Musaeus son was Orpheus, to trust Plutarch of Chaeronea who states that Plato alludes here to Orpheus, Ƅνὺο πƃξὶ Ƅὸλ ξƅέƀ (OF 431ii). See Bernabé 2013,

175 10-11 (2015) For food, they ll knead and cook the flour and meal they ve made from wheat and barley. They ll put their honest cakes and loaves on reeds or clean leaves, and, reclining on beds strewn with yew and myrtle, they ll feast with their children, drink their wine, and, crowned with wreaths, hymn the gods [372c] It seems that you make your people feast without any delicacies, Glaucon interrupted. True enough, I said, I was forgetting that they ll obviously need salt, olives, cheese, boiled roots, and vegetables of the sort they cook in the country. We ll give them desserts, too, of course, consisting of figs, chickpeas, and beans, and they ll roast myrtle and acorns [372d] before the fire, drinking moderately. And so they ll live in peace and good health, and when they die at a ripe old age, they ll bequeath a similar life to their children. If you were founding a city for pigs, Socrates, he replied, wouldn t you fatten them on the same diet? (trans. Cooper 1011) T.282 Flavius Philostratus, Life of Apollonius of Tyana (1: Jones). AD θƀὶ Ƃἰπὼλ ƄνῦƄν Ƅὰο κὲλ ἐκςύρνπο βξώƃƃηο ὡο νὔƅƃ θƀζƀξὰο θƀὶ Ƅὸλ λνῦλ πƀρπλνύƃƀο πƀξῃƅήƃƀƅν, ƄξƀγήκƀƄƀ Ɓὲ θƀὶ ιάρƀλƀ ἐƃηƅƃƅν, θƀζƀξὰ Ƃἶλƀη ƅάƃθσλ, ὁπόƃƀ γ ƀὐƅὴ ƁίƁσƃη, θƀὶ Ƅὸλ νἶλνλ θƀζƀξὸλ κὲλ ἔƅƀƃθƃλ Ƃἶλƀη πκƀ ἐθ ƅπƅνῦ νὕƅσο κέξνπ Ƅνο ἀλζξώπνηο ἣθνλƅƀ, ἐλƀλƅηνῦƃζƀη Ɓὲ Ƅῆ Ƅνῦ λνῦ ƃπƃƅάƃƃη ƁηƀζνινῦλƄƀ Ƅὸλ ἐλ Ƅῆ ςπρῆ ƀἰζέξƀ. And after saying this he refused the meat of animals as impure and dulling the mind, and lived off dried fruit and vegetables, saying that everything was pure which the earth produced unaided. Wine, he said, was a pure drink, since it came from a plant so beneficial to humans, but it obstructed mental balance by confusing the ether in the soul. (trans. Jones 1: 47 48) E. Conclusions T.283 Porphyry of Tyre, On Abstinence from Living Animals (26 27 Pattilon). AD 263 Eleusi F31 Scarpi Μƀƀ Ɓὲ ƀὐƅὴ Ƅῆ ſƃξƃƃƅόλῃ ὡο ἂλ κƀƀ θƀὶ Ƅξνƅὸο νὖƃƀ ρζνλίƀ γὰξ ζƃὸο θƀὶ ΓεκήƄεξ ƀὐƅή. θƀὶ Ƅὸλ ἀιƃθƅξύνλƀ Ɓὲ ƄƀύƄῃ ἀƅηέξσƃƀλ. Γηὸ θƀὶ ἀπέρνλƅƀη νἱ ƄƀύƄεο κύƃƅƀη ὀξλίζσλ ἐλνηθηɓίσλ. ΠƀξƀγγέιιƂƄƀη γὰξ θƀὶ ιƃπƃλη ἀπέρƃƃζƀη θƀὶ θƀƅνηθηɓίσλ ὀξλίζσλ θƀὶ ἰρζύσλ θƀὶ θπάκσλ ῥνηο ƄƂ θƀὶ κήισλ, θƀὶ ἐπ ἴƃεο κƃκίƀƅƀη ὅ ƄƂ ιƃρνῦο ἁςάκƃλνο θƀὶ ὁ ζλεƃƃηɓίσλ. Maia is the same as Persephone, in that she is nurse and nurturer, for she is an earthgoddess and Demeter is the same. They also consecrated the cock to her. That is why her initiates abstain from household birds. It is also a rule at Eleusis to abstain from domestic fowls, from fish, and from beans, pomegranates and apples; and pollution is incurred equally by coming into contact with childbed or with animals that have died. (trans. Clark 112) T.284 Scholia on Lucian s Dialogues of the Courtesans 7.4 s.v. Haloa ( Rabe). Before AD 13 th century 175

176 10-11 (2015) ἐλƅƀῦζƀ νἶλόο ƄƂ πνιὺο πξόθƃηƅƀη θƀὶ ƄξάπƂδƀη πάλƅσλ Ƅλ Ƅο γο θƀὶ ζƀιάƃƃεο γέκνπƃƀη βξσκάƅσλ πιὴλ Ƅλ ἀπƃηξεκέλσλ ἐλ Ƅῶ κπƃƅηθῶ, ῥνηο ƅεκη θƀὶ κήινπ θƀὶ ὀξλίζσλ θƀὶ ᾠλ θƀὶ ζƀιƀƅƅίσλ Ƅξίγιεο, ἐξπζίλνπ, κƃιƀλνύξνπ, θƀξάβνπ, γƀιƃνῦ. πξόƃθƃηƅƀη Ɓὲ Ƅƀο Ƅξƀπέδƀηο θƀὶ ἐθ πιƀθνῦλƅνο θƀƅƃƃθƃπƀƃκέλƀ ἀκƅνƅέξσλ γƃλλ ƀἰɓνƀ. There is plenty of wine and variety of seafood and all fruits of the earth laid on the tables, except the ones prohibited during the mysteries, I mean pomegranate, apple, domestic fowl, and eggs; from seafood, red mullet, pandora, blacktail, crayfish, and dogfish are excluded. Besides, cakes shaped like the symbols of both sexes are laid on the tables. (trans. E. O.) T.285a Scholia on Aristophanes Acharnians 764 (101 Wilson) before AD tenth century ρνίξνπο ἐγώλγƀ κπƃƅηθάο Ɓηὰ Ƅὸ ἐλ Ƅνο κπƃƅεξίνηο Ƅο ΓήκεƄξνο ζύƃƃζƀη ρνίξνπο. I ve got piglets for the Mysteries: because during the Mysteries of Demeter the piglets were sacrificed. (trans. E. O.) T.285b Aristophanes, Frogs (2: Wilson) {Ξƀλζίƀο} ὦ πόƅληƀ πνιπƅίκεƅƃ ΓήκεƄξνο θόξε, ὡο Ɓύ κνη πξνƃέπλƃπƃƃ ρνηξƃίσλ θξƃλ. {Γηόλπƃνο} νὔθνπλ ἀƅξέκ ἕμƃηο, ἢλ Ƅη θƀὶ ρνξɓο ιάβῃο; BC {Xanthias} Most exalted lady, daughter of Demeter, what a nice aroma of pork wafted over me! {Dionysus} Then be still, and you might get some sausage too. (trans. Henderson 4: 73) VII. Bibliography with Abbreviations Adler Adler, Ada, ed. Suidae Lexicon. 5 vols. Lipsiae: Teubner, Lexicographi Graeci 1. Print. Alton Alton, E. H. et al., eds. P. Ovidi Nasonis fastorum libri sex. Leipzig: Teubner, Bibliotheca Teubneriana. Print. Amato Amato, Eugenio, ed., tr. Favorinos d Arles: Oeuvres. Vol. 3: Fragments. Paris: BL, CUF. Print. Andrews Andrews, Alfred C. The Bean and Indo-European Totemism. American Anthropologist 51.2 (1949): JStor. ANF 2 Roberts, Alexander and James Donaldson, eds. Fathers of the Second Century: Hermas, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Clement of Alexandria. Buffalo NY: Christian Literature, ANF 2. Internet Archive. 176

177 10-11 (2015) Annas Annas, Julia and Jonathan Barnes, trs. Sextus Empiricus: Outlines of Scepticism. 7 th ed. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy. Print. Arrighetti Athanassakis Athanassiadi Austin Babbitt 1 Babbitt 2 Babbitt 4 Babbit 5 Bandy Baron Bartelink Baumann Beazley Arrighetti, Graziano. Fra purificazioni e produzioni letteraria: La Teogonia di Epimenide. Epimenide cretese. Ed. Marcello Gigante et al. Napoli: Luciano, Quaderni del Dipartimento di Discipline Storiche E. Lepore Print. Athanassakis, Apostolos N. and Benjamin Wolkow, trs. The Orphic Hymns. Baltimore MD: Johns Hoskins UP, Print. Athanassiadi, Polymnia, ed., tr. Damascius: The Philosophical History. Athens: Apameia, Print. Austin, Collinus, ed. Nova fragmenta Euripidea in papyris reperta. Berlin: Gruyter, Kleine Texte für Vorlesungen und Übungen. Print. Babbitt, Frank Cole, tr. Plutarch s Moralia. Vol. 1. London: Heinemann, Loeb. Print. Babbitt, Frank Cole, tr. Plutarch s Moralia. Vol. 2. Cambridge MA: Harvard UP, Loeb. Rpt Print. Babbitt, Frank Cole, tr. Plutarch s Moralia. Vol. 4. Cambridge MA: Harvard UP, Loeb. Rpt Print. Babbitt, Frank Cole, tr. Plutarch s Moralia. Vol. 5. Cambridge MA: Harvard UP, Loeb. Rpt Print. Bandy, Anastasius C., ed., tr. The Three Works of Ioannes Lydus. Vol. 1: On the Months (De mensibus). Lampeter: Mellen, Print. Baron, Christopher A. Timaeus of Tauromenium and Hellenistic Historiography. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, Print. Bartelink, G. J. M., ed., and Marino Barchiesi, tr. Palladio: La storia Lausiaca. Vicenza: Lorenzo Valla, Vite dei Santi 2. Print. Baumann, Hellmut. Greek Wild Flowers and Plant Lore in Ancient Greece. Trans. William T. Stearn and Eldwyth R. Stearn. London: Herbert, Print. Beazley, John. Attic Black-Figure Vase-Painters. Oxford: Clarendon, Print. Beck Beck, Lily Y., tr. Pedanius Dioscorides of Anazarbus: De materia medica. Hildesheim: Olms-Weidmann, Altertumswissenschaftliche Texte und Studien 38. Print. 177

178 10-11 (2015) Beckh Beekes Beckh, Henricus, ed. Geoponica sive Cassiani Bassi scholastici de re rustica eclogae. Leipzig: Teubner, Bibliotheca Teubneriana. Print. Beekes, Robert S. Etymological Dictionary of Greek. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series 10. Print. Beer Beer, Michael. Taste or Taboo: Dietary Choices in Antiquity. Totnes: Prospect, Print. Behr Behr, Charles A., tr. P. Aelius Aristides: The Complete Works. Vol. 2. Leiden: Brill, Print. Bernabé 2004 Bernabé 2011 Bernabé 2013 Bernabé 2015 Bernabé, Alberto. Un fragmento de los Cretenses de Eurípides. La tragedia griega en sus textos: forma (lengua, estilo, métrica, crítica textual) y contenido (pensamiento, mitos, intertextualidad). Ed. Juan A. López. Madrid: Clásicas, Estudios de filología griega 9. Print. Bernabé, Alberto. La transmigración entre los órficos. Reencarnación: la transmigración de las almas entre oriente y occidente. Ed. Alberto Bernabé et al. Madrid: Abada, Bernabé, Alberto. Orphics and Pythagoreans: The Greek Perspective. Trans. Zoa Alonso. On Pythagoreanism. Ed. Gabriele Cornelli et al. Berlin: Gruyter, Studia Presocratica Print. Bernabé, Alberto. Vegetarianismo en Grecia: implicaciones religiosas, éticas y sociales. Alimentaciónes, creencias y diversidad cultural. Ed. Salvador Tarodo and Paulino C. Pardo. Valencia: THt, Print. Bernabé 2016 Bernabé, Alberto. Two Orphic Images in Euripides: Hippolytus and Cretans 472 Kannicht. Forthcoming. Berra Betegh Boehm Berra, Aurélien. Pythagoras Riddles: The Use of the Pythagorean Akousmata. Texts of Power, the Power of the Text: Readings in Textual Authority Across History and Cultures. Ed. Cezary Galewicz. Cracovie: Homini, HAL Id: halshs Betegh, Gábor. Pythagoreans, Orphism and Greek Religion. A History of Pythagoreanism. Ed. Carl A. Huffman. New York NY: Cambridge UP, Print. Boehm, Fridericus. De symbolis Pythagoreis. Berolinum: Driesner, [Diss.] Internet Archive. Bollansée Bollansée, Jan, ed., tr. Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker Continued. Part IV: Biography and Antiquarian Literature. IVa: Biography. Fascicle 3: Hermippus of Smyrna. Leiden: Brill, Print. 178

179 10-11 (2015) Borgeaud Borgeaud, Philippe. Greek and Comparatist Reflexions on Food Prohibitions. Purity and the Forming of Religious Traditions in the Ancient Mediterranean World and Ancient Judaism. Ed. Christian Frevel and Christophe Nihan. Leiden: Brill, Dynamics in the History of Religion Print. Bouffartigue Boulogne Bremer Bremmer Burkert 1972 Burkert 1982 Burnet Bury 3 Bury 4 Busse Bussemaker Bouffartigue, Jean, and Michel Patillon, eds., trs. Porphyre: De l abstinence. Vol. 2: Livres 2 et 3. Paris: BL, CUF. Print. Boulogne, Jacques, ed., tr. Plutarque: Oeuvres morales. Vol. 4. Paris: BL, CUF. Print. Bremer, Franz P., ed. Iurisprudentiae antehadrianae quae supersunt. Vol. 1. Lipsiae: Teubner, Bibliotheca Teubneriana. Internet Archive. Bremmer, Jan N. Initiation into the Mysteries of the Ancient World. Berlin: Gruyter, München Vorlesungen ze Antiken Welten 1. Print. Burkert, Walter. Lore and Science in Ancient Pythagoreanism. Trans. Edwin L. Minar. Cambridge MA: Harvard UP, Print. [German original 1962.] Burkert, Walter. Craft Versus Sect: The Problem of Orphics and Pythagoreans. Self-Definition in the Graeco-Roman World. Ed. B. F. Meyer and E. P. Sanders. London: SCM, Rpt. in Walter Burkert. Kleine Schriften III: Mystica, Orphica und Pythagorica. Ed. Fritz Graf. Göttingen: V&R, Print. Burnet, Ioannes, ed. Platonis opera. 5 vols. Oxonii: Clarendoniano, OCT. Print. Bury, R. G., tr. Sextus Empiricus. Vol. 3: Against the Physicists; Against the Ethicists. [AM 9 11] London: Heinemann, Loeb. Print. Bury, R. G., tr. Sextus Empiricus. Vol. 4: Against the Professors. [AM 1 6] London: Heinemann, Loeb. Print. Busse, Adolfus, ed. Eliae in Porphyrii Isagogen et Aristotelis Categorias commentaria. Berolini: Reimer, CAG Print. Bussemaker, Ulco Cats, ed., tr. Problemata inedita. Aristotelis οpera omnia. Vol Paris: Firmin-Didot, Print. Butterworth Butterworth, G. W., tr. Clement of Alexandria: The Exhortation to the Greeks; The Rich Man s Salvation; The Fragment of an Address Entitled to the Newly Baptized. Cambridge MA: Harvard UP, Loeb. Print. 179

180 10-11 (2015) CAF 3 Cardini Kock, Theodorus, ed. Comicorum Atticorum fragmenta. Vol. 3. Lipsiae: Teubneri, Internet Archive. Cardini, Maria Timpanaro, ed. Pitagorici antichi: testimonianze e frammenti. Milan: Bompiani, Pensiero occidentale. Rpt Print. Casadio Cherniss Christopoulos Casadio, Giovanni. I Cretesi di Euripide e l ascesi orfica. Didattica del Classico 2 (1990): [non vidi.] Cherniss, Harold and William C. Helmbold, trs. Plutarch s Moralia. Vol. 12. Cambridge MA: Harvard UP, Loeb. Print. Christopoulos, Menelaos. Dark-Winged Nyx and Bright-Winged Eros in Aristophanes Orphic Cosmogony: The Birds. Light and Darkness in Ancient Greek Myth and Religion. Ed. Menelaos Christopoulos et al. Lanham MD: Lexington, Print. Chuvin Chuvin, Pierre, ed., tr. Nonnos de Panopolis: Les Dionysiaques. Vol. 3: Chants VI VIII. Paris: BL, CUF. Print. Clark Clarke Clement Clark, Gillian, tr. Porphyry: On Abstinence from Killing Animals. London: Duckworth, Print. Clarke, W. K. Lowther, tr. The Lausiac History of Palladius. London: Macmillan, Translations of Christian Literature, Series 1: Greek Texts. Internet Archive. Clement, Paul A. and Herbert B. Hoffleit, trs. Plutarch s Moralia. Vol. 8. London: Heinemann, Loeb. Print. CMRDM Lane, Eugene N. Corpus Monumentorum Religionis Dei Menis. Vol. 3: Interpretations and Testimonia. Leiden: Brill, EPRO 19. Print. Cohoon Cohoon, J. W., ed., tr. Dio Chrysostom. Vol. 2. London: Heinemann, Loeb. Print. Collard Collard, Christopher, and Martin Cropp, eds., trs. Euripides. Vol. 8: Fragments. Cambridge MA: Harvard UP, Loeb. Cook Cooper Cook, Arthur B. Zeus: A Study in Ancient Religion. Vol. 1: Zeus, God of the Bright Sky. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, Print. Cooper, John M. et al., trs. Plato: Complete Works. Indianapolis IN: Hackett, Print. Cozzoli Cozzoli, Adele T., ed., tr. Euripide Cretesi. Pisa: Istituti editoriali e poligrafici internazionali, Testi e commenti 15. Print. 180

181 10-11 (2015) D Agostino Dalby D Agostino, Hector, ed., tr. Onomacriti testimonia et fragmenta. Pisa: Istituti editoriali e poligrafici internazionali, A.I.O.N. quaderni 10. Print. Dalby, Andrew, tr. Geoponika: Farm Work. A Modern Translation of the Roman and Byzantine Farming Handbook. Totnes: Prospect, Print. Dalby 2003 Delatte Delatte 1915 Detienne 1970 Detienne 1979 Deubner Diehl Diehl Dillon Dillon Hershbell Dalby, Andrew. Food in the Ancient World: From A to Z. London: Routledge, Ancient World from A to Z. Print. Delatte, Arnaud, ed. La vie de Pythagore de Diogène Laërce. Bruxelles: Lamertin, Académie royale de Belgique Internet Archive. Delatte, Arnaud. Études sur la littérature pythagoricienne. Paris: Champion, Bibliothèque de l École des Hautes Études 217. Print. Detienne, Marcel. La cuisine de Pythagore. Archives de sociologie des religions 29.1 (1970): Persée. Detienne, Marcel. Dionysos Slain. Trans. Mireille Muellner and Leonard Muellner. Baltimore MD: Johns Hopkins UP, Print. [French original 1977.] Deubner, Ludovicus and Udalricus Klein, eds. Iamblichi De vita Pythagorica liber. Stutgardiae: Teubneri, Bibliotheca Teubneriana. Print. Diehl, Ernestus, ed. Procli Diadochi in Platonis Timaeum commentaria. 3 vols. Lipsiae: Teubner, Bibliotheca Teubneriana. Internet Archive. Diehl, Ernestus, ed. Anthologia lyrica Graeca. Fasc. 2: Theognis; Pseudo-Pythagoras; Pseudo-Phocylides; Chares; Anonymi aulodia. 3 rd ed. Lispsiae: Teubneri, Bibliotheca Teubneriana. Print. Dillon, John M., ed., tr. Iamblichi Chalcidensis in Platonis dialogos commentariorum fragmenta. Leiden: Brill, Philosophia Antiqua 23. Print. Dillon, John M. and Jackson Hershbell, trs. Iamblichus: On the Pythagorean Way of Life. Atlanta GA: Scholars, Texts and Translations: Graeco-Roman Religion Print. Dilts Dilts, Mervin R., ed. Scholia in Aeschinem. Stutgardiae: Teubner, Bibliotheca Teubneriana. Print. Dilts Dilts, Mervin R., ed. Demosthenis Orationes. Vol. 1. Oxonii: Clarendoniano, OCT. Print. 181

182 10-11 (2015) D-K Dorandi Diels, Hermann and Walther Kranz, eds. Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker. Rev. ed. Vol. 1. Berlin: Weidmann, Print. Dorandi, Tiziano, ed. Diogenes Laertius: Lives of Eminent Philosophers. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, Print. Downey Downey, G. and A. F. Norman, eds. Themistii orationes. Vol. 2. Leipzig: Teubner, Bibliotheca Teubneriana. Print. Duffy Duffy, John M., ed. Michaelis Pselli philosophica minora. Vol. 1: Opuscula logica, physica, allegorica, alia. Stutgardiae: Teubner, Bibbliotheca Teubneriana. Print. Edmonds 1 Edmonds 2 Edmonds 2011 Ekroth Erbse 3 Falco Edmonds, John M., ed., tr. The Fragments of Attic Comedy after Meineke, Bergk, and Kock Augmented. Vol. 1: Old Comedy. Leiden: Brill, Print. Edmonds, John M., ed., tr. The Fragments of Attic Comedy after Meineke, Bergk, and Kock Augmented. Vol. 2: Middle Comedy. Leiden: Brill, Print. Edmonds, Radcliffe G. Orphic Mythology. A Companion to Greek Mythology. Ed. Ken Dowden and Niall Livingstone. Malden MA: Wiley Blackwell, Blackwell Companion to the Ancient World Print. Ekroth, Gunnel. Burnt, Cooked, or Raw? Divine and Human Culinary Desires at Greek Animal Sacrifice. Transformations in Sacrificial Practices: From Antiquity to Modern Times (Proceedings of an International Colloquium, Heidelberg, 12 14, July 2006). Ed. Eftychia Stavrianopoulou et al. Berlin: Lit, Performanzen Print. Erbse, Hartmut, ed. Scholia Graeca in Homeri Iliadem (scholia vetera). Vol. 3: Scholia in libros Κ Ξ continens. Berolini: Gruyter, Print. Falco, Victorius de, ed. Iamblichii Theologoumena arithmeticae. Lipsiae: Teubner, Bibliotheca Teubneriana. Print. Fayant Fayant, Marie-Christine, ed., tr. Hymnes orphiques. Paris: BL, CUF. Print. Fera Festa Fera, Maria Cannatà, ed. Pindarus, threnorum fragmenta. Romae: Athenaei, Lyricorum Graecorum quae exstant 7. Print. Festa, Nicolaus and Udalricus Klein, eds. Iamblichi de communi mathematica scientia liber. Rev. ed. Stutgardiae: Teubneri, Bibliotheca Teubneriana. Print. 182

183 10-11 (2015) FGrHist Jacoby, Felix et al., eds., trs. Fragmente der griechischen Historiker. Berlin: Weidmann, Print. FHG 2 Müllerus, Carolus, ed. Fragmenta historicorum Graecorum. Vol. 2. Parisiis: Didot, Internet Archive. FHG 4 Müllerus, Carolus, ed. Fragmenta historicorum Graecorum. Vol. 4. Parisiis: Didot, Internet Archive. Flacelière Flacelière, Robert, ed., tr. Plutarque: Oeuvres morales. Vol. 6: Dialogues pythiques. Paris: BL, CUF. Print. Fowler Frazer Frazer Gallay Gärtner GDRK 1 Gemelli Gerlaud Gifford Giomini Gisinger Fowler, Rober L., ed. Early Greek Mythography. Vol. 1. Oxford: Oxford UP, Print. Frazer, James G., tr. Apollodorus: The Library. London: Heinemann, Loeb. Print. Frazer, James George, tr. Ovid 5: Fasti. 2 nd ed. Cambridge MA: Harvard UP, Loeb. Print. Gallay, Paul and Maurice Jourjon, eds., trs. Grégoire de Nazianze: Discours (discours théologiques). Paris: Cerf, SCh 250. Print. Gärtner, Hans, ed. Plutarch: Moralia. Vol nd ed. Leipzig: Teubner, Bibliotheca Teubneriana. Print. Heitsch, Ernst, ed. Die griechischen Dichterfragmente der römischen Kaiserzeit. 2 nd rev. ed. Vol. 1. Götttingen: V&R, Print. Gemelli, M. Laura. The Pythagorean Way of Life and Pythagorean Ethics. A History of Pythagoreanism. Ed. Carl A. Huffman. New York NY: Cambridge UP, Print. Gerlaud, Bernard, ed., tr. Nonnos de Panopolis: Les Dionysiaques. Vol. 6: Chantes XIV XVII. Paris: BL, CUF. Print. Gifford, Edwin H., tr. Eusebii Pamphili Evangelicae praeparationis libri XV. Vol. 1. Oxford: Oxford UP, Internet Archive. Giomini, R., ed. M. Tullius Cicero. Fasc. 46: De divinatione; De fato; Timaeus. Leipzig:Teubner, Bibliotheca Teubneriana. Print. Gisinger, Friedrich, ed. Die Erdbeschreibung des Eudoxos von Knidos. Amsterdam: Hakkert, Stoicheia 6. Print. GLAJJ Stern, Menahem, ed., tr. Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism. Vol. 1. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Publications of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. Print. 183

184 10-11 (2015) Godley González Godley, A. D., tr. Herodotus. Vol. 1: Books 1 and 2. Cambridge MA: Harvard UP, Loeb. Rpt Print. González, Juan I. Ὠκνƅƀγίƀ, término órfico?. Orfeo y el orfismo: nuevas perspectivas. Ed. Alberto Bernabé et al. Alicante: Biblioteca Virtual Miguel de Cervantes, Antigua: Historia y Arqueología de las civilizationes Web. 27 July Goold Goold, G. P., ed. M. Manilii Astronomica. Leipzig: Teubner, Bibliotheca Teubneriana. Print. Goold Graf Johnston Griffiths Goold, G. P., tr. Manilius: Astronomica. Cambridge MA: Harvard UP, Loeb. Print. Graf, Fritz and Sarah Iles Johnston, eds. Ritual Texts for the Afterlife: Orpheus and the Bacchic Golden Tablets. London: Routledge, Print. Griffiths, John Gwyn, ed., tr. Plutarch s De Iside et Osiride. Swansea: U of Wales P, Print. Gummere Gummere, Richard M., tr. Ad Lucilium epistulae morales. Vol. 3. London: Heinemann, Loeb. Print. Guthrie Halleux Hammerstaedt Hansen 4 Harden Guthrie, Kenneth S., tr. The Pythagorean Sourcebook and Library. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids MI: Phanes, Alexandria Book. Rpt Print. Halleux, Robert and Jacques Schamp, eds., trs. Les lapidaires grecs. Paris: BL, CUF. Print. Hammerstaedt, Jürgen, ed. Die Orakelkritik des Kynikers Oenomaus. Frankfurt am Main: Athenäum, Athenäums Monografien, Altertumswissenschaft 188. Print. Hansen, Peter A. and Ian C. Cunningham, eds. Hesychii Alexandrini lexicon. Vol. 4. Berlin: Gruyter, SGLG Print. Harden, Alastair, ed. Animals in the Classical World: Ethical Perspectives from Greek and Roman Texts. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, Palgrave Macmillan Animal Ethics Series. Print. Harmon Harmon, Austin M., tr. Lucian. Vol. 1. London: Heinemann, Loeb. Print. Haussleiter Haussleiter, Johannes. Der Vegetarismus in der Antike. Berlin: Töpelmann, Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten 24. Internet Archive. Henderson 3 Henderson, Jeffrey, ed., tr. Aristophanes. Vol. 3. Cambridge MA: Harvard UP, Loeb. Print. 184

185 10-11 (2015) Henderson 4 Henrichs Henderson, Jeffrey, ed., tr. Aristophanes. Vol. 4. Cambridge MA: Harvard UP, Loeb. Print. Henrichs, Albert. The Eumenides and Wineless Libations in the Derveni Papyrus. Atti del XVII Convegno di Papirologia. Napoli: Centro internazionale per lo studio dei papiri ercolanesi, Print. Henry Henry, René, ed., tr. Photius: Bibliothèque. Vol. 7. Paris: BL, CUF. Print. Herrero Hicks Hicks Hoffman Herrero, Miguel. Cristianizzazioni antiche e moderne dell orfismo: l omofagia sacramentale. Religion in the History of European Culture: Proceedings of the 9th EASR Annual Conference and IAHR Special Conference, September 2009, Messina (Italy). Ed. Giulia Sfameni Gasparro. Palermo: Oficina di Studi Medievali, Biblioteca dell Oficina di Studi Medievali Print. Hicks, R. D. Diogenes Laertius: Lives of Eminent Philosophers. 2 vols. Cambridge MA: Harvard UP, Loeb. Print. Hicks, R. D., tr. Aristotle: De anima. Amsterdam: Hakkert, Rpt Print. Hoffman, Horace Addison and David Starr Jordan. A Catalogue of the Fishes of Greece, with Notes on the Names Now in Use and Those Employed by Classical Authors. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 44 (1892): JStor. Horky Horky, Philip S. Plato and Pythagoreanism. Oxford: Oxford UP, Print. Horn Houston Hubert Horn, Christoph. Why Two Epochs of Human History? On the Myth of the Statesman. Plato and Myth: Studies on the Use and Status of Platonic Myths. Ed. Catherine Collobert, Pierre Destrée, and Francisco J. Gonzalez. Leiden: Brill, MnS Print. Houston, Walter. Purity and Monotheism: Clean and Unclean Animals in Biblical Law. Sheffield: JSOT, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 140. Print. Hubert, C., ed. Plutarchi Moralia. Vol nd ed. Leipzig: Teubner, Bibliotheca Teubneriana. Print. Hubert 6.1 Hubert, C., ed. Plutarchi Moralia. Vol Lipsiae: Teubner, Bibliotheca Teubneriana. Print. Huffmann Huffmann, Carl A. Reason and Myth in Early Pythagorean Cosmology. Early Greek Philosophy: the Presocratics and the Emergence of Reason. Ed. Joe McCoy. Washington DC: Catholic U of 185

186 10-11 (2015) America P, Studies in Philosophy and the History of Philosophy Print. IG XII 5 Gaertringen, Friedrich Hiller von, ed. Inscriptiones Graecae XII 5 : Inscriptiones Cycladum. Vol. 1. Berlin: Reimer, Print. Jiménez Jiménez 2009 Johnson Jiménez, Ana I. Literatura ritual. Orfeo y la tradiciόn όrfica: Un reencuentro. Ed. Alberto Bernabé and Francesc Casadesús. Vol. 1. Madrid: Akal, Serie Religiones y mitos Print. Jiménez, Ana I. Hubo ritos de paso cruentos en el orfismo? Synthesis 16 (2009): Print. Johnson, Thomas M., tr. Iamblichus: Exhortation to the Study of Philosophy; Fragments of Iamblichus; Excerpts from the Commentary of Proclus on the Chaldean Oracles; The Golden Verses of Pythagoras; Plotinus Diverse Cogitations. Osceola MO: Republican, Print. Joly Joly, Robert, ed., tr. Hippocrate. Vol. 6.1: Du régime. Paris: BL, CUF. Print. Jones Jones Jones, Christopher P., ed., tr. Philostratus: The Life of Apollonius of Tyana. 2 vols. Cambridge MA: Harvard UP, Loeb. Print. Jones, W. H. S. and H. A. Omerod, trs. Pausanias: Description of Greece. 4 vols. Cambridge MA: Harvard UP, Loeb. Print. Jones Jones, W. H. S., ed., tr. Hippocrates. Vol. 4. London: Heinemann, Loeb. Rpt Print. Jost Kahn Kane Kaster Kaster Jost, Madeleine. Mystery Cults in Arcadia. Greek Mysteries: The Archaeology and Ritual of Ancient Greek Secret Cults. Ed. Michael B. Cosmopoulos. London: Routledge, Print. Kahn, Charles H. Pythagoras and the Pythagoreans: A Brief History. Indianapolis IN: Hackett, Print. Kane, J. P. The Mithraic Cult Meal in Its Greek and Roman Environment. Mithraic Studies: Proceedings of the First International Congress of Mithraic Studies. Ed. John R. Hinnells. Vol. 2. Manchester: Manchester UP, Print. Kaster, R. A., ed. Macrobii Ambrosii Theodosii Saturnalia. Oxford: Clarendon, OCT. Print. Kaster, Robert A., tr. Macrobius: Saturnalia. 3 vols. Cambridge MA: Harvard UP, Loeb. Print. Keaney Keaney, John J., ed. Harpocration: Lexeis of the Ten Orators. Amsterdam: Hakkert, Print. 186

187 10-11 (2015) Keil Keil, Bruno, ed. Aelii Aristidis Smyrnaei quae supersunt omnia. Vol. 2. Berolini: Weidmann, Internet Archive. Kern Kern 1916 Kern, Otto. Orphicorum fragmenta. Berolini: Weidmann, Internet Archive. Kern, Otto. Orphiker auf Kreta. Hermes 51.4 (1916): Print. Kingsley Kingsley, Peter. Ancient Philosophy, Mystery, and Magic: Empedocles and Pythagorean Tradition. Oxford: Clarendon, Print. Kołakowska Kołakowska, Katarzyna. Mit u Empedoklesa. Kraków: Scriptum, Orphica 2. Print. Kovacs 2 Kovacs 6 Kroll Kroll KTP Lacy Lamberton Lenormant Lesher Leurini Kovacs, David, ed., tr. Euripides. Vol. 2. Cambridge MA: Harvard UP, Loeb. Print. Kovacs, David, ed., tr. Euripides. Vol. 6. Cambridge MA: Harvard UP, Loeb. Print. Kroll, Guilelmus, ed. Procli Diadochi in Platonis Rem publicam commentarii. 2 vols. Leipzig: Teubner, Bibliotheca Teubneriana. Internet Archive. Kroll, Guilelmus, ed. Syriani in Metaphysica commentaria. Berolini: Reimer, CAG 6. Internet Archive. Kouremenos, Theokritos, George M. Parássoglou, and Kyriakos Tsantsanoglou, eds., trs. The Derveni Papyrus. Firenze: Olschki, Studi e testi per il corpus dei papiri filosofici greci e latini 13. Print. Lacy, Philipp H. de and Benedict Einarson, trs. Plutarch s Moralia. Vol. 7. Cambridge MA: Harvard UP, Loeb. Print. Lamberton, Robert, tr. Porphyry: On the Cave of the Nymphs. Barrytown NY: Station Hill, Print. Lenormant, Francois. Monographie de la voie sacrée éleusinienne de ses monuments et des ses souvenirs. Paris: Hachette, Print. Lesher, J. H., ed., tr. Xenophanes of Colophon: Fragments. Toronto: U of Toronto P, Phoenix Presocratics 4. Print. Leurini, Aloisius, ed. Ionis Chii Testimonia et fragmenta. Amsterdam: Hakkert, Classical and Byzantine Monographs 23. Print. Livrea Livrea, Enrico. Un frammento di Dionisio e Nonno. ZPE 106 (1995): JStor. 187

188 10-11 (2015) Lloyd Long Lloyd, Alan B. Herodotus Book 2: Commentary. 3 vols. Leiden: Brill, EPRO 43. Print. Long, A. A. The Eclectic Pythagoreanism of Alexander Polyhistor. Aristotle, Plato and Pythagoreanism in the First Century BC: New Directions for Philosophy. Ed. Malcolm Schofield. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, Print. LSAM LSJ LSS LXX MacLeod Majercik Marcovich Marcovich 1988 Marshall Marzillo Masullo Sokolowski, Franciszek, ed. Lois sacrées de de l Asie Mineure. Paris: Boccard, Print. Liddell, Henry G., Robert Scott, Henry S. Jones et al. Greek-English Lexicon. 9 th rev. ed. Oxford: Clarendon, Print. Sokolowski, Franciszek. Lois sacrées des cités grecques: Supplément. Paris: Boccard, École Française d Athènes: traveaux et mémoires 11. Print. Rahlfs, Alfred, ed. Septuaginta id est Vetus Testamentum Graece iuxta LXX interpretes. 2 vols. Stuttgart: Privilegierte Württembergische Bibelanstalt, Rpt Print. MacLeod, Matthew D., ed. Luciani opera. Vol. 1. Oxford: Clarendon, OCT. Print. Majercik, Ruth, tr. The Chaldean Oracles. Leiden: Brill, Studies in Greek and Roman Religion 5. Print. Marcovich, Miroslav, ed. Clementis Alexandrini Protrepticus. Leiden: Brill, SVC 34. Print. Marcovich, Miroslav. Pythagoras as Cock. Studies in Graeco-Roman Religions and Gnosticism. Leiden: Brill, Studies in Greek and Roman Religion Print. Marshall, Peter K., ed. A. Gellii Noctes Atticae. Vol. 1. Oxonii: Clarendoniano, OCT. Print. Marzillo, Patrizia, ed., tr. Der Kommentar des Proklos zu Hesiods Werken und Tagen. Tübingen: Narr, Classica Monacensia 33. Print. Masullo, Rita, ed., tr. Marino di Neapoli: Vita di Proclo. Napoli: Auria, Speculum. Print. Mathieu Mathieu, Georges, ed., tr. Isocrate: Discours. Vol. 1. Paris: BL, CUF. Print. Mau Mau, J. ed. Sexti Empirici opera. Vol. 3: Adversus mathematicos I VI. Lipsiae: Teubner, Bibliotheca Teubneriana. Print. 188

189 10-11 (2015) Mayhoff Mejer Mayhoff, Carolus, ed. C. Plini Secundi Naturalis historiae libri XXXVII. Vol. 3. Lipsiae: Teubneri, Bibliotheca Teubneriana. Internet Archive. Mejer, Jørgen. Demetrius of Magnesia: On Poets and Authors of the Same Name. Hermes (1981): JStor. Mikołajczak Miller Minar Mirhady Mirhady Morand Mras Mullach Mutschmann NA 28 Niese Nilsson Mikołajczak, Aleksander W., ed., tr. Ovidius Halieutica. Gniezno TUM, Print. Miller, Frank Justus, tr. Ovid: Metamorphoses. Vol. 2. Cambridge MA: Harvard UP, Loeb. Print. Minar, Edwin et al., trs. Plutarch s Moralia. Vol. 9. London: Heinemann, Loeb. Print. Mirhady, David, and Yun Lee Too, trs. Isocrates I. Austin TX: U of Texas P, Oratory of Classical Greece 4. Print. Mirhady, David C. Dicaearchus of Messana: The Sources, Text and Translation. Dicaearchus of Messana: Text, Translation, and Discussion. Ed. William W. Fortenbaugh and Eckart Schütrumpf. New Brunswick NJ: Transaction, Rutgers U Studies in Classical Humanities Print. Morand, Anne-France. Études sur les Hymnes orphiques. Leiden: Brill, RGRW 143. Print. Mras, Karl et al., eds. Eusebius Werke: Die Praeparatio Evangelica. 2 nd ev. ed. Vol. 1. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, GCS 43. Print. Mullach, Friedrich W., ed. Hieroclis in Aureum Pythagoreorum carmen commentarius. Berolini: Geelhaar, Books google. Mutschmann, Hermannus, ed. Sexti Empirici opera. Vol. 2: Adversus dogmaticos libros quinque continens (AM VII XI). Lipsiae: Teubner, Bibliotheca Teubneriana. Print. Nestle, Erwin, Kurt Aland et al., eds. Novum Testamentum Graece. 28 th rev. ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, Print. Niese, Benedictus, ed. Flavii Iosephii opera. Vol. 5: De Iudaeorum vetustate sive contra Apionem libri II. Berlin: Weidmann, Print. Nilsson, Martin P. The Dionysiac Mysteries of the Hellenistic and Roman Age. Lund: Gleerup, Skrifter utgivna av Svenska institutet i Athen 80. Print. 189

190 10-11 (2015) Nimmo Smith Nimmo Smith, Jennifer, ed. Pseudo-Nonniani in IV orationes Gregorii Nazianzeni commentarii. Turnhout: Brepols, CCSG 27; Corpus Nazianzenum 2. Print. Nimmo Smith NETS Nilsson NIV Nimmo Smith, Jennifer, tr. A Christian s Guide to Greek Culture: The Pseudo-Nonnus Commentaries on Sermons 4, 5, 39 and 43 by Gregory of Nazianzus. Liverpool: Liverpool UP, Translated Texts for Historians 37. Print. Pietersma, Albert and Benjamin G. Wright, eds. A New English Translation of the Septuagint. Oxford: Oxford UP, Print. Nilsson, Martin P. The Dionysiac Mysteries of the Hellenistic and Roman Age. Lund: Gleerup, Skrifter utgivna av Svenska institutet i Athen 80. Print. New International Version: An English Translation of the Bible. Grand Rapids MI: Zondervan, Web. 22 July Nock Nock, Arthur D. A Cult Ordinance in Verse. HSPh 63 (1958): JStor. Ochsenschlager OF Oldfather 3 Oldfather 4 Olson Parente Parker Patillon Ochsenschlager, Edward L. The Cosmic Significance of the Plemochoe. History of Religions 9.4 (1970): JStor. Bernabé, Albertus, ed. Poetae epici Graeci: testimonia et fragmenta. Pars II. Vols. 1 2: Orphicorum et Orphicis similium testimonia et fragmenta. Monachii: Saur, Bibliotheca Teubneriana. Print. Oldfather, C. H., tr. Diodorus of Sicily. Vol. 3. London: Heinemann, Loeb. Print. Oldfather, C. H., tr. Diodorus of Sicily. Vol. 4. London: Heinemann, Loeb. Print. Olson, S. Douglas, ed., tr. Athenaeus: The Learned Banqueters. 8 vols. Cambridge MA: Harvard UP, Loeb. Print. Parente, Margherita Isnardi, ed., tr. Senocrate e Ermodoro: Testimonianze e frammenti. Pisa: Normale, Testi e commenti 13. Print. Parker, Robert. Miasma: Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion. Oxford: Clarendon, Print. Patillon, Michel and Alain Ph. Segonds, eds., trs. Porphyre: De l abstinence. Vol. 3: Livre 4. Paris: BL, CUF. Print. Paton Paton, W. R., M. Pohlenz, and W. Sieveking, eds. Plutarchi Moralia. Vol. 3. Leipzig: Teubner, Bibliotheca Teubneriana. Print. 190

191 10-11 (2015) PEG 1 PEG 2.3 Bernabé, Albertus, ed. Poetae epici Graeci: testimonia et fragmenta. Pars I. 2 nd rev. ed. Stutgardiae: Teubner, Bibliotheca Teubneriana. Print. Bernabé, Albertus, ed. Poetae epici Graeci: testimonia et fragmenta. Pars II. Vol. 3: Musaeus; Linus; Epimenides; Papyrus Derveni; Indices. Berolini: Gruyter, Bibliotheca Teubneriana. Print. Pfeiffer Pfeiffer, Rudolfus. Callimachus. Vol. 1. Oxonii: Clarendon, Print. PL 23 Places Places Patrologiae cursus completus: series Latina. Ed. Jacques-Paul Migne. Vol. 23: Sancti Eusebii Hieronymi opera omnia 2. Paris: Garnier, Internet Archive. Places, Éduard des, ed. Numénius: Fragments. Paris: BL, CUF. Print. Places, Édouard des, ed. Porphyre: Vie de Pythagore; Lettre à Marcella. Paris: BL, CUF. Print. Places Places, Édouard des, ed., tr. Jamblique: Protreptique. Paris: BL, CUF. Print. Pötscher Pötscher, Walter, ed., tr. Theophrastos: Περὶ εὐσεβείας. Leiden: Brill, Philosophia Antiqua 11. Print. Pötscher 1968 Pötscher, Walter. Flamen Dialis. Mnemosyne (1968): JStor. Prance Rabe Rackham Radicke Radt Reynolds Prance, Ghillean, ed. The Cultural History of Plants. New York NY: Routledge, Print. Rabe, Hugo, ed. Scholia in Lucianum. Lipsiae: Teubner, Print. Rackham, H., ed., tr. Pliny: Natural History. Vol. 5. Cambridge MA: Harvard UP, Loeb. Print. Radicke, J., ed. Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker Continued. Part IV: Biography and Antiquarian Literature. IVa: Biography. Fascicle 7: Imperial and Undated Authors. Leiden: Brill, Print. Radt, Stefan, ed. Strabons Geographika. 4 vols. Göttingen: V&R, Print. Reynolds, L. D., ed. L. Annaei Senecae Ad Lucilium epistulae morales. Vol. 2. Oxonii: Clarendoniano, OCT. Print. Robertson Robertson, Noel. The Concept of Purity in Greek Sacred Laws. Purity and the Forming of Religious Traditions in the Ancient 191

192 10-11 (2015) Mediterranean World and Ancient Judaism. Ed. Christian Frevel and Christophe Nihan. Leiden: Brill, Dynamics in the History of Religion Print. Rocha-Pereira Rocha-Pereira, Maria H., ed. Pausaniae Graeciae descriptio. 3 vols. Leipzig: Teubner, Bibliotheca Teubneriana. Print. Rolfe Rolfe, John C., ed., tr. The Attic Nights of Aulus Gellius. Vol. 1. London: Heinemann, Loeb. Rpt Print. Roller Roller, Duane W., tr. The Geography of Strabo. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, Print. Rose 1921 Rose, H. J. Zeus Meilichios, Zeus Agamemnon, and Zanes. CR (1921): JStor. Rose Rosén Rose, Valentinus, ed. Aristotelis qui ferebantur librorum fragmenta. Lipsiae: Teubner, Print. Rosén, Haiim B., ed. Herodoti Historiae. Vol. 1. Leipzig: Teubner, Bibliotheca Teubneriana. Print. Ross Ross, W. D., ed. Aristotelis De anima. Oxonii: Clarendoniano, OCT. Print. Rostad Rouse Salvadore Sandbach Sandbach Sandys Rostad, Aslak. Human Transgression Divine Retribution: A Study of Religious Transgressions and Punishments in Greek Cultic Regulations and Lydian-Phrygian Reconciliation Inscriptions. U of Bergen, BORA. Print. Rouse, W. H. D., tr. Nonnus: Dionysiaca. 3 vols. Cambridge MA: Harvard UP, Loeb. Print. Salvadore, Marcello, ed. M. Terenti Varronis Fragmenta omnia quae extant. Vol. 2: De vita populi Romani libri IV. Hildesheim: Olms, Bibliotheca Weidmanniana 4. Print. Sandbach, F. H., ed. Plutarchi Moralia. Vol. 7: Fragmenta. Lipsiae: Teubner, Bibliotheca Teubneriana. Print. Sandbach, F. H., tr. Plutarch s Moralia. Vol. 15: Fragments. Cambridge MA: Harvard UP, Loeb. Print. Sandys, John, tr. The Odes of Pindar Including the Principal Fragments. London: Heinemann, Loeb. Print. Scarborough Scarborough, John. Beans, Pythagoras, Taboos, and Ancient Dietetics. CW 75.6 (1982): JStor. 192

193 10-11 (2015) Scarpi Schibli Scarpi, Paolo, ed. Le religioni dei misteri. 2 nd ed. Vol. 1: Eleusi, Dionisimo, Orfismo. Milano: Mondadori, Scrittori greci e latini. Print. Schibli, Hermann S., ed., tr. Pherekydes of Syros. Oxford: Clarendon, Print. Schibli Schütrumpf Scodel Sharples Simon Simonini Slater Smith SOL Spengel Stählin Schibli, Hermann S., tr. Hierocles of Alexandria: Commentary on the Golden Verses of the Pythagoreans; On Providence. Oxford: Oxford UP, Print. Schütrumpf, Eckart et al., eds., trs. Heraclides of Pontus. Piscataway NJ: Transaction, Rutgers U Studies in Classical Humanities 14. Print. Scodel, Ruth. Euripides, the Derveni Papyrus, and the Smoke of Many Writings. Sacred Words: Orality and Literacy in the Ancient World. Vol. 8. Orality, Literacy and Religion. Ed. A. P. Lardinois et al. Leiden: Brill, MnS Print. Sharples, Robert W. Pseudo-Alexander or Pseudo-Aristotle, Medical Puzzles and Physical Problems. Aristotle s Problemata in Different Times and Tongues. Leuven: Leuven UP, Print. Simon, Erika. Festivals of Attica: An Archaeological Commentary. Madison WI: U of Wisconsin P, Wisconsin Studies in Classics. Print. Simonini, Laura, ed., tr. Porfirio: L antro delle Ninfe. Milano: Adelphi, Print. Slater, William J, ed. Aristophanis Byzantii fragmenta. Berlin: Gruyter, SGLG 6. Print. Smith, Martin F., ed., tr. Diogenes of Oinoanda: The Epicurean Inscription. Napoli: Bibliopolis, La scuola di Epicuro, Supplemento 1. Print. Finkel, Raphael, William Hutton et al., trs. Suda on Line: Byzantine Lexicography. Lexington KY: Stoa Consortium, Web. 24 February Spengel, Leonardus, ed. Rhetores Graeci. Vol. 3. Lipsiae: Teubneri Internet Archive. Stählin, Otto and Ludwig Früchtel, eds. Clemens Alexandrinus: Stromata. 2 nd ed. 2 vols. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, GCS 52(15); GCS 17 bis. Print. 193

194 10-11 (2015) Stephens Strecker Stephens, Susan A. and John J. Winkler, eds., trs. Ancient Greek Novels: The Fragments. Princeton NY: Princeton UP, Print. Strecker, Carolus, ed. De Lycophrone Euphronio Eratosthene comicorum interpretibus. Gryphiswaldae, [Diss.] Internet Archive. Struck Schütrumpf Taormina Tarrant Struck, Peter T. Birth of the Symbol: Ancient Readers at the Limits of Their Texts. Oxford: Princeton UP, Print. Schütrumpf, Eckart et al., eds., trs. Heraclides of Pontus. Piscataway NJ: Transaction, Rutgers U Studies in Classical Humanities 14. Print. Taormina, Daniela P., ed., tr. Plutarco di Atene: L Uno, L Anima, Le Forme. Catania: U di Catania, Symbolon 8. Print. Tarrant, R. J., ed. P. Ovidi Nasonis Metamorphoses. Oxonii: Clarendoniano, OCT. Print. Teodorsson Teodorsson, Sven-Tage. A Commentary on Plutarch s Table Talks. 3 vols. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis, Studia Graeca et Latina Gothoburgensia 51, 53. Print. Theodoridis Thesleff Thesleff 1961 Thom Thom 2013 Thompson Tigchelaar Theodoridis, Christos, ed. Photii Patriarchae lexicon. Vol. 2. Berlin: Gruyter, Print. Thesleff, Holger, ed. The Pythagorean Texts of the Hellenistic Period. Åbo: Åbo Akademi, Acta Academiae Aboensis Print. Thesleff, Holger. An Introduction to the Pythagorean Texts of the Hellenistic Period. Åbo: Åbo Akademi, Acta Academiae Aboensis Print. Thom, Johan C., ed., tr. The Pythagorean Golden Verses. Leiden: Brill, RGRW 123. Print. Thom, Johan C. The Pythagorean Akousmata and Early Pythagoreanism. On Pythagoreanism. Ed. Gabriele Cornelli et al. Berlin: Gruyter, Studia Presocratica Print. Thompson, D Arcy Wentworth. A Glossary of Greek Fishes. London: Oxford UP, St. Andrews U Publications 45. Print. Tigchelaar, Eibert J. The White Dress of the Essenes and the Pythagoreans. Jerusalem, Alexandria, Rome: Studies in Ancient Cultural Interaction in Honour of A. Hilhorst. Ed. Florentino García and Gerard P. Luttikhuizen. Leiden: Brill, Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism Print. 194

195 10-11 (2015) TrGF Tsekourakis Snell, Bruno, Richard Kannicht, and Stefan Radt, eds. Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta. 5 vols. Göttingen: V&R, Print. Tsekourakis, Damianos. Pythagoreanism or Platonism and Ancient Medicine? The Reasons for Vegetarianism in Plutarch s Moralia. ANRW (1987): Print. Turcan Valk 3 Vasunia Turcan, Robert, ed., tr. Firmicus Maternus: L erreur des religions paїennes. Paris: BL, CUF. Print. Valk, Marchinus van der, ed. Eustathii archiepiscopi Thessalonicensis Commentarii ad Homeri Iliadem pertinentes. Vol. 3. Lugduni Batavorum: Brill, Print. Vasunia, Phiroze, tr. Zarathushtra and the Religion of Ancient Iran. Mumbai: Cama Oriental Institute, Print. Vian Vian, Francis, ed., tr. Les Argonautiques orphiques. Paris: BL, CUF. Print. Vian 1991 Vidal-Naquet Vogel 1 Vogel 2 Wachsmuth 5 Wardle Wehrli Wehrli Vian, Francis. La grotte de Brongos et Cybèle: Nonnos, Dionysiaques REG 104 (1991): Persée. Vidal-Naquet, Pierre. Plato s Myth of the Statesman, the Ambiguities of the Golden Age and of History. JHS 98 (1978): JStor. Vogel, Fr. and C. Th. Fischer, eds. Diodorus: Bibliotheca historica. 3 rd ed. Vol. 1. Stutgardiae: Teubner, Bibliotheca Teubneriana. Rpt Print. Vogel, Fr. and C. Th. Fischer, eds. Diodorus: Bibliotheca historica. 3 rd ed. Vol. 2. Stutgardiae: Teubner, Bibliotheca Teubneriana. Rpt Print. Wachsmuth, Curtius and Otto Hense, eds. Ioannis Stobaei Anthologii libri quarti partem alteram continens. Vol. 5. Berolini: Weidmann, Internet Archive. Wardle, David, tr. Cicero On Divination, Book 1. Oxford: Clarendon, Clarendon Ancient History Series. Print. Wehrli, Fritz, ed. Die Schule des Aristoteles. Vol. 2: Aristoxenos. 2 nd rev. ed. Basel: Schwabe, Print. Wehrli, Fritz, ed. Die Schule des Aristoteles. Vol. 9: Phainias von Eresos; Chamaileon; Praxiphanes. 2 nd rev. ed. Basel: Schwabe, Print. Wellmann Wellmann, Max, ed. Pedanii Dioscuridis Anazarbei de materia medica libri quinque. 2 nd ed. 3 vols. Berlin: Weidmann, Print. 195

196 10-11 (2015) West West 1983 West, Martin L., ed., tr. Homeric Hymns; Homeric Apocrypha; Lives of Homer. Cambridge MA: Harvard UP, Loeb. Print. West, Martin L. Orphic Poems. Oxford: Clarendon, Print. Westerink Wilson Wilson Wilson Wilson Wright Wuensch Yunis Zhmud Westerink, Leendert G., ed., tr. The Greek Commentaries on Plato s Phaedo. Vol. 1: Olympiodorus. Amsterdam: North-Holland, KNAW 92. Print. Wilson, Nigel G., ed. Scholia in Aristophanem. Vol. 1.1b: Scholia in Aristophanis Acharnenses. Groningen: Bouma, Print. Wilson, Nigel G., tr. Photius: The Bibliotheca (A Selection). London: Duckworth, Print. Wilson, Nigel G., ed., tr. Aelian: Historical Miscellany. Cambridge MA: Harvard UP, Loeb. Print. Wilson, Nigel G., ed. Aristophanis Fabulae. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon, OCT. Print. Wright, M. R., ed., tr. Empedocles: The Extant Fragments. New Haven CT: Yale UP, Print. Wuensch, Richardus, ed. Ioannis Laurentii Lydi Liber de Mensibus. Lipsiae: Teubner, Bibliotheca Teubneriana. Print. Yunis, Harvey, tr. Demosthenes: Speeches 18 and 19. Austin TX: U of Texas P, Oratory of Classical Greece 9. Print. Zhmud, Leonid. Pythagoras and the Early Pythagoreans. Trans. Kevin Windle and Rosh Ireland. Oxford: Oxford UP, Print. 196

197 10-11 (2015) DIETA ORFICKA (Streszczenie) Artykuł jest poświęcony tak zwanemu życiu orfickiemu, które wedle Platona polegało na zadowalaniu się pokarmem bezmięsnym i składaniu bogom ofiar bezkrwawych. Szereg świadectw starożytnych potwierdza praktykowanie diety orfickiej w Atenach co najmniej od początku wojny peloponeskiej (431 p.n.e.). Część pierwsza omawia teksty źródłowe mówiące o tym, czym było życie orfickie i skąd się wzięło. Źródła jednoznacznie wskazują na Orfeusza jako sprawcę rewolucji dietetycznej i przypisywane mu poematy, które zakazywały jedzenia trzech produktów: mięsa, jaj i bobu greckiego. Ten ostatni nie był identyczny z naszym bobem, bo roślina zakazana przez Orfeusza już nie istnieje (ilustracja 1). Wiadomo, że bób grecki miał łodygi puste w środku, złowróżbne cętki na kwiatach i czarne okrągłe nasionka. Źródła niedokładnie cytują Orfeusza, nie podając tytułu jego pieśni i przytaczając zaledwie dwa bezpośrednie cytaty: jedzenie bobu jest jak pożeranie głów rodziców i ogień niech płonie na nieskrwawionym ołtarzu. Plutarch z Cheronei twierdzi, że wyczytał zakaz jedzenia jaj w Świętym orędziu orfickim, którego wszakże nie wolno było recytować w obecności niewtajemniczonych. Z kolei autor Złotych wierszy pitagorejskich utrzymuje, że poemat o zakazanych pokarmach nosił tytuł Oczyszczenia. Część druga dotyczy diety pitagorejskiej, która często bywa mylona lub utożsamiana z dietą orficką. Moje wnioski są takie, że dieta stosowana przez pitagorejczyków w poludniowej Italii w latach p.n.e. nie powinna być identyfikowana z dietą orficką rozpropagowaną w Atenach po 431 roku p.n.e. Powód jest następujący. Akuzmatycy po katastrofie w 450 roku p.n.e. zlecili spisanie tradycji życia pitagorejskiego, w tym kodeksu dietetycznego. Ich zapiski przeciekły do opinii publicznej ok. 350 roku p.n.e. i odtąd były szeroko komentowane. Z nich wiadomo, że pitagorejczycy przestrzegali zakazu spożywania bobu i jaj, który był zbieżny z regułą orficką; ponadto nie wolno im było konsumować liści laurowych i malwy (malachē to kolejna wymarła odmiana, zob. ilustracja 7). Nie mieli jednak całkowitego zakazu jedzenia mięsa, co ich odróżniało od orfickiego wegetarianizmu. Mogli więc jeść mięso zwierząt ofiarnych oprócz wołów i baranów z wyjątkiem ich serc, mózgów, szpiku, głów, nóg, genitaliów i lędźwi oraz wieprzowego boczku. Zakazane było pieczenie uprzednio ugotowanego mięsa. Mogli jeść drób, z wyjątkiem białych kogutów, oraz 197

198 10-11 (2015) ryby i owoce morza, oprócz czterech świętych gatunków: morlesz szkarłatny, barwena, oblada i jeżowiec (ilustracje 2, 3, 4, 6). Powodem nałożenia prohibicji na białe koguty oraz zwierzęta morskie, z których dwie pierwsze ryby są intensywnie czerwone, trzecia ma czarną plamkę na ogonie, a czwarte stworzenie jeżowiec zawiera koralową ikrę, była symbolika barw. Wedle pitagorejczyków biel symbolizowała dobro i bóstwa solarne, czerń zło i bogów podziemia, zaś czerwień narodziny i ich patronkę Hekate. Starożytni komentatorzy zauważają podobieństwo diety pitagorejskiej do Prawa Mojżeszowego i postów obowiązujących podczas misteriów w Eleusis i gdzie indziej w Grecji. Część trzecia dyskutuje mistyczne przyczyny nałożenia sankcji na mięso, bób i jaja, które były podane w poematach Orfeusza. Mimo że oryginalne teksty orfickie zaginęły, to jednak późniejsi autorzy, poczynając od Empedoklesa a kończąc na scholiastach bizantyńskich, relacjonują je na tyle, że można pokusić się o próbę rekonstrukcji. Zakaz jedzenia jaj kurzych wynikał z orfickiego mitu o kosmicznym jaju, z którego miał się wykluć Pierwszy Żyjący, stwórca świata. Następnie, kategoryczny zakaz jedzenia mięsa zwierzęcego wyrósł z sagi o srebrnym pokoleniu, które żyło za Kronosa i odżywiało się wyłącznie owocami ziemi, by w końcu ustąpić gorszej rasie ludzi wskrzeszonych z krwi Tytanów zabójców Dionizosa, szóstego i ostatniego króla bogów. Zbrodnia popełniona przez Tytanów była szczególnie perwersyjna. Tytani najpierw zaszlachtowali boskie dziecię, które metamorfozowało w byka, potem poćwiartowali jego ciało, ugotowali, nadziali na rożny, upiekli i zjedli. Rozgniewany Zeus spalił ich za to piorunem. Dusze ludzkie, które powstały z prochów tych kanibali, zwykły wcielać się w organimy zarówno ludzkie, jak i zwierzęce, tu są wyszczególniane: koń, baran, ptak, pies i wąż. Zatem człowiek, który zjada mięso jakiegokolwiek zwierzęcia, pożera istotę sobie pokrewną, przez co staje się takim samym kanibalem jak Tytani. Zakaz konsumpcji bobu był wyjaśniany w ten sposób, że bób wyrósł z nasienia Tytanów, protoplastów ludzkości, a to oznacza, że zjadanie go jest równoznaczne z kanibalizmem. Orfickie mity wywarły wpływ nie tylko na dietę orficką, lecz także pitagorejską z jej zakazami konsumpcji bobu, jaj i mięsa niektórych zwierząt, m.in. wołowiny. Część czwarta bada źródła, które zawierają informacje na temat orfickiego jadłospisu. Można przyjąć za rzecz pewną, że podstawę diety orfickiej stanowiły zboże, ziarna (tj. sezam i mak), oliwa, miód, wino, natomiast unikano mleka ze względu na skojarzenia z cyklem narodzin. Zachowała się glosa z komedii pt. Orfeusz (ok p.n.e.), która mówi o bochenku wykonanym ze sprasowanych liści. Szereg komedii z połowy czwartego wieku wyśmiewających tak zwanych pitagorystów (ateńskich naśladowców pitagorejskiego stylu 198

199 10-11 (2015) życia) wymienia produkty, które mogły być także wegetariańskimi przysmakami orfików: szparagi, marynowane owoce i łodygi kaparowca, gotowane liście łobody solniskowej, wytłoki z oliwek, suszone figi, czosnek, cebulę, tymianek, miętę polej ta ostatnia była składnikiem eleuzyńskiego kykeonu. Platon czyni aluzję do diety orfickiej w Państwie 372b d, gdzie układa menu wegetariańskie ( świńskie, wedle jego własnych słów) dla mieszkańców swego idealnego państwa. Serwuje im chleb, ser, oliwki, wino, sól, pieczone warzywa i kasztany, figi, jagody mirtu, ciecierzycę i groch. Spośród przytaczanych źródeł najciekawszy, ale i najbardziej kontrowersyjny, jest znany fragment z Eurypidesa Kreteńczyków (ok. 438 p.n.e.), dotyczący zdaniem badaczy (m.in. Alberto Bernabé) inicjacji w misteria, która miałaby polegać na omofagii definiowanej jako jednorazowa rytualna konsumpcja surowego mięsa. Kontrargumentuję przeciw tej powszechnie przyjętej hipotezie, próbując odtworzyć oryginalny kontekst tego wyrwanego z kontekstu fragmentu. Mój wniosek jest taki, że fragment TrGF 472 dotyczy ōmophagous daitas rozumianych zgodnie z etymologią greckiego wyrazu jako wikt na surowych, niegotowanych produktach. Tego rodzaju omofagia mogła być faktycznie przestrzegana w ramach miesięcznego oczyszczenia poprzedzającego inicjację w misteria Idajskiego Zeusa i Korybantów, dokonywanych właśnie we wskazanym przez Eurypidesa miejscu na Idzie i szeroko znanych z detestacji do ofiar krwawych. Antoniusz Diogenes i kilku innych autorów z okresu Cesarstwa przekazuje recepty na surowe wegetariańskie pasty hamujące apetyt i pragnienie, które miały być wymyślone przez eksperta od rytuałów korybanckich: Epimenidesa z Krety (500 p.n.e.). Moim zdaniem sporny fragment Eurypidesa nie ma związku z misteriami orfickimi ani dionizyjskimi, natomiast odnosi się do rytuałów korybanckich i Oczyszczeń Epimenidesa. Część piąta formułuje konkluzje. Analizowane teksty nie dają podstaw do łączenia życia orfickiego z działalnością domniemanej sekty orfickiej w Attyce czy południowej Italii. Dieta orficka, polegająca na dożywotnim unikaniu produktów zwierzęcych i bobu, była czymś znacznie więcej niż kilkudniowe posty przestrzegane podczas Misteriów Eleuzyńskich i innych świąt ateńskich ku czci Demeter. Jedyny trop prowadzi do zaginionych pieśni Orfeusza, znanych tylko wtajemniczonym, które przedstawiały jedzenie mięsa, jaj i bobu jako odrażający akt kanibalizmu. Część szósta obejmuje korpus 285 tekstów, które stanowiły bazę źródłową analiz przeprowadzonych w niniejszym artykule, podając je w wersji bilingwicznej: w oryginale greckim lub łacińskim oraz w przekładzie na język angielski. Część siódma zawiera wykaz cytowanych pozycji bibliograficznych i edycji wykorzystanych tekstów źródłowych. 199

200 10-11 (2015) Abstract: The paper discusses the dietary prohibitions implied by Orpheus poems, the socalled Orphica, attested since ca. 444 BC; the interrelations between the Orphic diet and the taboos observed by early Pythagoreans ( BC); the reasons why the adherents of Orphic movement used to abstain from meat, beans, and eggs; and the virtual Orphic menu. Keywords: Orphic diet; vegetarianism; Pythagoreanism; taboo foods; sacrifices; mysteries; Graeco-Roman religion Słowa kluczowe: dieta orficka; wegetarianizm; pitagoreizm; zakazane pokarmy; ofiary; misteria; religia grecko-rzymska. Ewa Osek is associate professor at the John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, Poland. Her research interests focus on the late ancient religions, the mystery cults, and so-called Orphism; 200

201 10-11 (2015) DARIUSZ PIASECKI Modlitwa Chrystusa w Centonach homeryckich (Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski Jana Pawła II) Tematyka modlitwy pojawia się już u samych początków kształtowania się piśmien- nictwa. Precyzyjne uwagi na jej temat zawiera zarówno literatura akadyjska, ugarycka, sta- roaramejska, hebrajska jak i grecka1. To bogactwo tekstów modlitewnych skłania do poszukiwań podobieństw i różnic między modlitwą w różnych religiach, i epokach. W ten kieru- nek badań wpisuje się także obecna publikacja, która stawia sobie za cel przedstawienie modlitwy Jezusa w Centonach homeryckich. W starożytności powstało wiele różnych centonów, które czerpały inspirację z poe- matów Homera2. Tematyka modlitwy Jezusa pojawia się tylko w utworach z kręgów chrześcijańskich i właśnie te dzieła staną się przedmiotem analizy. Chrześcijańskie Centony home- ryckie to utwory, które w swojej ostatecznej formie zostały zredagowane V wieku. Łączą w sobie treści ewangeliczne z poematami Homera. Mówiąc obrazowo, Centony homeryckie powstały w wyniku pocięcia Iliady i Odysei na wersety, z których ułożono zupełnie nową treść ewangeliczną, ukazującą wydarzenia z życia Jezusa i Jego publiczną działalność. Treści te centonista zamyka w 50 utworach, dzieląc na trzy części: pierwsza dotyczy przygotowania do publicznej działalności Jezusa, kolejna koncentruje się na publicznej działalności Syna Bożego, ostatnia natomiast kończy ją i wprowadza w misterium paschalne3. Skoro Centony homeryckie zostały skonstruowane w oparciu o tekst poematów home- ryckich, to rodzą się w tym kontekście pytania: Czy modlitwa Chrystusa w Ewangeliach jest czymś wyjątkowym, czy też jest podobna do modlitw bohaterów spod Troi? Czy jest coś specyficznego w tej modlitwie, czego nie udało się przedstawić językiem poematów home- ryckich? Czy da się postawić znak równości między modlitwą religii chrześcijańskiej, a modlitwą starożytnej religii greckiej? Chociaż w ostatnim okresie pojawiło się szereg publikacji poświęconych Centonom homeryckim oraz studiów poszukujących podobieństw i różnic między światem starożytnej West 2008: Centony skonstruowane w oparciu o poematy Homera, a pochodzące spoza kręgów chrześcijańskich wymienia Usher 1998: 3. 3 Por. Piasecki 2014:

202 10-11 (2015) Grecji a światem Biblii 4, to jednak nie udało się wśród nich znaleźć artykułu, który podejmowałby tematykę modlitwy Jezusa w perspektywie poematów homeryckich. Tematyka modlitwy zajmuje wiele miejsca zarówno u Homera, jak i w Biblii. Niewiele jest ksiąg w poematach homeryckich, w których nie byłoby wzmianek na temat modlitwy. Jak słusznie zauważa Marek Gilski w monografii Koncepcja wzroku w poematach homeryckich, modlitwa wpisana jest ściśle w strukturę poematów Homera. Grecki aoid rozpoczyna bowiem Iliadę od inwokacji do Muzy i jak klamrą poematy jego wydają się być spojone wypowiedzią Ateny pod koniec Odysei. Pierwsze słowa poematów są zatem modlitwą człowieka do bóstwa. Ostatnie, jakie padają w poematach homeryckich, to słowa bóstwa do człowieka 5. Modlitwa towarzyszy bohaterom homeryckim na każdym etapie ich życia. Wiąże się ona z przyjęciem konkretnej postawy wobec bóstwa, począwszy od stojącej z rękoma i wzrokiem wzniesionymi ku niebu, poprzez klęczącą, której towarzyszy uderzanie rękami w ziemię (kiedy chcą uzyskać posłuch i przychylność bóstw podziemia), aż po modlitwę ciszy, będącej jednym z elementów modlitwy rytualnej 6. Analiza tekstów centonów pod kątem modlitwy Chrystusa pozwala wyłonić spośród nich takie, które zawierają zachętę do modlitwy oraz osobistą modlitwę Syna Bożego. Grupę tych pierwszych tworzą utwory, nawiązujące do ewangelicznego opisu rozmnożenia siedmiu chlebów (C. 36, 19-20, 24) 7, uroczystego wjazdu Jezusa do Jerozolimy, w tym również incydentu Jezusa ze świątynnymi handlarzami (C. 38, 91-92), oraz do zdrady Judasza (C. 42, 25). Druga natomiast grupa tekstów dotyczy Jezusa modlącego się w różnych okolicznościach: w Kanie Galilejskiej (C. 14, 40), podczas drugiego rozmnożenia chlebów (C. 36, 29-30), w czasie ostatniej wieczerzy z uczniami (C. 40, 64-77), obecności Jezusa w Ogrodzie Oliwnym (C. 42, 27-35) oraz modlitwę Syna Bożego z wysokości krzyża (C. 44, 77-80). 4 MacDonald 2003; West 2008; Sandnes Gilski 2011: 219. Autor wylicza 18 ksiąg Iliady i 13 ksiąg Odysei, w których zawarte są konkretne przykłady modlitw bohaterów homeryckich. Oprócz tego wymienia jeszcze inne 3 księgi Iliady oraz 7 ksiąg Odysei, w których są krótkie informacje o modlitwie. 6 Gilski 2011: Skrót ten i kolejne oznaczone literą C odnoszą treść do poszczególnych utworów (centonów) zawartych w: Centons Homériques (Homerocentra), édit. Rey A. L., SCh 437, Paris

203 10-11 (2015) Zagadnienie modlitwy Jezusa w Centonach homeryckich zostanie przedstawione w dwóch etapach: najpierw przedmiotem analiz staną się zachęty Jezusa do modlitwy, a następnie zostaną zaprezentowane teksty Jego modlitw. Zachęta Jezusa do modlitwy Zaledwie trzy teksty, zachęcające do modlitwy, wpisują się w cykl mów dydaktyczno-moralnych Jezusa. Nie przedstawiają one modlitwy jako takiej, są natomiast wezwaniem do jej praktykowania, wynikającym z wewnętrznego pragnienia Boga. W utworze nawiązującym do rozmnożenia przez Jezusa siedmiu chlebów (C. 36, 19-24) czytamy: 19. Lecz chodźmy! Zaprawdę powiadam, obyśmy wszyscy zechcieli (Il. 2, 139); 20. się modlić: wszyscy ludzie pragną Boga; (Od. 3, 48); 24. oby w ten sposób większa i wspanialsza była moja chwała. (Od. 18, 255). Z kolei uroczysty wjazd Jezusa do świątyni jerozolimskiej (C. 38, 91-92) autor parafrazy prezentuje słowami zaczerpniętymi w całości z Odysei: 91. i zachęcając wówczas swoich towarzyszy polecił: (Od. 2, 422; 15, 217, 287); 92. Módlcie się, wszyscy bowiem ludzie potrzebują Boga. (Od. 3, 48). Gest wzniesionych w kierunku nieba rąk i pragnienie Boga autor centonów ukazuje za pomocą Homerowego wersetu: 25. Dobrze jest bowiem do Boga wznieść ręce, aby się zlitował (Il. 24, 301), który umieszcza w kontekście zdrady Judasza (C. 42, 25). Powyższe wersety centonista czerpie zarówno z Iliady, jak i z Odysei. Dziesięcioletnia wojna pod Troją i brak jej wymiernego efektu zniechęca wojska achajskie do tego stopnia, że wodzowie greccy rozważają konieczność powrotu do ziemi ojczystej. Konieczność powrotu wojsk achajskich do domów rodzinnych centonista przemienia w modlitewny kontekst potrzeby i pragnienia Boga. Pragnienie to, wpisane w naturę ludzką, nie jest charakterystyczne 203

204 10-11 (2015) tylko dla ludów starożytnych. Znajduje ono również swoje odbicie między innymi w biblijnym wypełnianiu się nadziei mesjańskich pokładanych w Jezusie radośnie witanym podczas wjazdu do Jerozolimy8. Modlitwie postaci poematów Homera towarzyszy odpowiednia postawa ciała, która wraz ze słowami stanowi integralny element wiary. Liczne tego przykłady dostarcza w swoich poematach autor, który nierzadko prezentuje modlących się bohaterów z uniesionymi w górę rękami i podniesionym wzwyż wzrokiem9. Gest wzniesienia rąk utożsamia centonista z modlitwą, podobne elementy występują w tradycji sięgającej epoki Sumerów10. Zarówno modlitwa, jak i towarzysząca jej odpowiednia postawa proszącego, stano- wią element łączący świat starożytnych Greków ze światem wierzących w Chrystusa. Akt religijny przynosi w tradycji Homerowej sławę bogom11, w biblijnej zaś Bogu Ojcu12. Modlitwa Jezusa Ze względu na odmienność kulturową poematów Homerowych i Biblii nie zawsze udało się centoniście wiernie odtworzyć ewangeliczną modlitwę Jezusa. Te braki centonista kompensuje dodatkowymi modlitewnymi scenami, których brak w ewangeliach, jak: modlitwa Jezusa podczas przemiany wody w wino w Kanie Galilejskiej (C. 14, 40): 40. (Jezus) modlił się wznosząc ręce do gwiaździstego nieba. (Il. 15, 371; Od. 9, 527). W przeciwieństwie do św. Jana Ewangelisty, odmienną relację z godów w Kanie Galilejskiej przedstawia autor centonów. Wprowadza on do swojej relacji z Kany modlitewną postawę Jezusa, której brak u ewangelisty. W relacji centonisty, Jezus, po interwencji swej matki, wznosząc ręce ku gwiaździstemu niebu, w geście błagalnika, wyprasza u Ojca łaskę prze- miany wody w wino. Tę modlitewną postawę Jezusa autor centonów zapożycza od okaleczonego przez Odyseusza Cyklopa, który wznosząc ręce w kierunku gwiaździstego nieba, woła o pomstę do Posejdona. Homerycki kontekst zemsty autor parafrazy umiejętnie łączy z Por. Mt 21, 1-11; Mk 11, 1-11; Łk 19, 29-40; J 12, Il. 1, 450; 7, ; 16, Jak zaznacza West (2008: 82), już w języku sumeryjskim podniesienie jednej ręki jest określeniem równoznacznym z terminem modlitwa. 11 Il. 1, Mt 6, 9-10; Łk 11,

205 10-11 (2015) Jezusową modlitwą. I choć w centonie występuje wyraźna niezgodność relacji z ewangelicznym przekazem to modyfikacja autorska ubogaca tekst ewangeliczny o nowe elementy. W tym przypadku mamy więc do czynienia nie tyle z wyrażeniem treści ewangelicznych za pomocą poematów homeryckich, co z uzupełnieniem Biblii o całkowicie nowe rzeczy. Próbując przedstawić ewangeliczny opis rozmnożenia siedmiu chlebów (C. 36, 29-30), centonista sięga do obu eposów Homerowych, z których zapożycza zaledwie po jednym wersecie najwierniej oddającym cud rozmnożenia: 29. i wziąwszy cały chleb z przepięknego kosza (Od. 17, 343); 30. modlił się: wszyscy zaś razem rozsiedli się w ciszy. (Il. 19, 255). Opowiadaniem o rozmnożeniu siedmiu chlebów autor parafrazy nawiązuje do relacji św. Mateusza (15, 32-36) i św. Marka (8, 1-6). Podobnie jak w opisie cudu w Kanie Galilejskiej, nie zamieszcza on słów modlitwy Jezusa, koncentrując się jedynie na Jego modlitewnej postawie i przyrównując ją do zachowania i gestów Telemacha, syna Odyseusza. Modlitewna postawa Syna Bożego jest natomiast nawiązaniem do modlitwy króla Myken i Argos Agamemnona. Homerycka zaś rzesza achajskich żołnierzy, otaczająca swego wodza, staje się w centonie tłumem zgłodniałych ludzi w ciszy słuchających Jezusa i oczekujących cudu rozmnożenia. Spośród tekstów, prezentujących modlitwę Jezusa w centonach, opis ostatniej wieczerzy (C. 40, 64-77) stanowi najdłuższą ekfrazę modlitewną, składającą się z 13 wersetów: 64. Kiedy była już pora posiłku i nadszedł czas, (Od. 17, 170); 65. trzymając w prawej dłoni wino słodkie jak miód (Od. 15, 148); 66. wziąwszy z przepięknego kosza chleb (Od. 17, 343); 67. modlił się: wszyscy zaś wspólnie w ciszy się rozsiedli, (Il. 19, 255); 68. rozdzielił wówczas wszystkim nalewając pierwsze wino w kielichy. (Il. 1, 471); 69. A kiedy im już dał i się napili zaraz potem (Od. 10, 237); 70. modlił się, wznosząc ręce do gwiaździstego nieba. (Il. 15, 371); 71. A kiedy posilił się i zadowolił serce pokarmem, (Od. 5, 95); 72. wziąwszy chleb z przepięknego kosza, (Od. 17, 343); 73. połamawszy w rękach, wyciągnął i głośno się modlił (Il. 1, 351, 450; 5, 216); 74. za dwunastu towarzyszy i skierował do nich słowo: (Il. 5, 26); 75. Bierzcie z tego chleba i bądźcie radośni; następnie 205

206 10-11 (2015) (Od. 4, 60); 76. całe ciało moje dajecie ucztującym do domu (Il. 22, 342); 77. kiedy już podzielicie między sobą, aby nikt nie odszedł pozbawiony swojej części. (Od. 16, 385/Od. 9, 42). Wydaje się, że kompozycja opisu ostatniej wieczerzy nie sprawiła centoniście większych problemów z wyborem tekstów, ponieważ poematy Homera obfitują w liczne sceny gościnności, towarzyszącym im uczt, czy też obiat ku czci bogów. Autor parafrazy sięga więc czy to do biesiadnych tekstów Iliady (Il. 1, 471), czy to do kontekstu ubiegających się o rękę Penelopy zalotników (Od. 17, 170), czy też w końcu do jednego z nich, Antinoja, który stając się niegodziwym prawzorem Judasza, podburza swych towarzyszy przeciwko synowi Odyseusza, namawiając do zabicia Telemacha i nieskrępowanego już podzielenia się majątkiem zaginionego króla Itaki (Od. 16, 385/Od. 9, 42). W opisie Ostatniej Wieczerzy daje się zatem zauważyć pewne podobieństwo związane z kontekstem wydarzeń. U Homera, w Biblii oraz w Centonach homeryckich mamy do czynienia z kwestią zdrady i z perspektywą zabicia człowieka. Z tym że u Homera ostatecznie nie dochodzi do śmierci Telemacha, podczas gdy w Centonach homeryckich Jezus zostaje pozbawiony życia. Ponadto, licznie występująca tematyka uczty, jej przygotowania i przebieg wydała się dla centonisty doskonałym materiałem do zobrazowania Ostatniej Wieczerzy Jezusa z uczniami. Modlitwa ustanowienia Eucharystii, połamanie chleba i danie go apostołom stanowią modyfikację wersetów Iliady (1, 351, 450; 5, 216), ukazujących podniesione ręce błagalników w modlitwie. Słowa Jezusa, dotyczące kontynuacji eucharystycznego misterium przez uczniów, centonista czerpie od Hektora, a następnie modyfikuje. Pokonany przez Achillesa Hektor prosi, aby przekazać jego ciało rodzinie. Ten element troski o nieobecnych i przekazania im, czy zaniesienia eucharystycznego pokarmu stanowi novum w centonach nieobecne w ewangeliach. Dzięki różnorodności biesiadnych tekstów w poematach Homera, jak i czynów oraz negatywnych zachowań bohaterów (zalotnicy), udaje się autorowi Centonów zawrzeć w opisie ostatniej wieczerzy najważniejsze komponenty ewangelicznego wydarzenia, mianowicie: elementy uczty, słowa ustanawiające eucharystię i jej kontynuację. I chociaż centonista nie zamieszcza opisu dotyczącego zdrady Jezusa, to jednak, sięga do Homerowego tekstu, w którym jest mowa o przygotowywanym spisku na życie Telemacha i moż- 206

207 10-11 (2015) liwych korzyściach odniesionych z jego śmierci (Od. 16, 385/Od. 9, 42), odnosząc ten Homerowy kontekst do ewangelicznej zdrady Judasza. W osobnym centonie (C. 42, 27-35) autor prezentuje zdradę Jezusa przez Judasza: 27. i modlił się (Jezus), wznosząc ręce do gwiaździstego nieba: (Il. 15, 371); 28. Ojcze, nie oburzasz się, widząc te straszne czyny? (Il. 5, 872); 29. jakże okazujesz łaskawość ludziom niegodziwym? (Il. 13, 633); 30. Teraz chcą zabić umiłowanego Syna Twojego. (Od. 5, 18); 31. Lecz Ty, jeśli możesz, ocal Syna swego, (Il. 1, 393); 32. jeśli jestem istotnie Twój i szczycisz się być moim Ojcem (Od. 9, 529); 33. jeśli więc tak to jest, przeznaczenia nie zmienię. (Il. 1, 564); 34. Lecz jeśli chcesz tego, i podoba się w sercu Twoim, (Il. 14, 337); 35. spocznę po śmierci: a teraz obym mógł pozyskać zaszczytną sławę. (Il. 18, 121). Wydarzenie to stanowi kolejną okazję do zaprezentowania osobistej modlitwy Chrystusa. Na podstawie zachowania Achillesa, jak również zalotników, ubiegających się o rękę Penelopy udało się centoniście przedstawić pełną dramatyzmu scenę w Ogrodzie Oliwnym, gdzie Jezus wznosząc swe ręce wzwyż, do gwiaździstego nieba, kieruje do Ojca słowa pełne zdziwienia, że nie oburzają Go straszne czyny niegodziwych, chcących zabić umiłowanego Syna. W modlitwie swojej Jezus podkreśla równe pochodzenie od Ojca i uległość Jego planom, świadom, że śmierć dopełni Jego przeznaczenia i przyniesie zaszczytną chwałę. Werset trzydziesty drugi, ukazujący w centonie pochodzenie Syna Bożego od Ojca, stanowi własną twórczość centonisty. Powołanie się natomiast Jezusa na pochodzenie od Ojca jest zapożyczeniem z Odysei, gdzie okaleczony przez Odyseusza Cyklop żali się Posejdonowi na swoje kalectwo, a powołując się na pochodzenie od boga mórz prosi o pomszczenie jego cierpienia (Od. 9, 529). Rodzinne więzy, jak również pochodzenie bohaterów Homera stają się dla centonisty doskonałym materiałem, w którym prezentuje pochodzenie Syna Bożego od Ojca. Ostatnią modlitwą Jezusa, zaprezentowaną w Centonach, są słowa Syna Bożego z wysokości krzyża (C. 44, 77-80): 77. modlił się wówczas, wpatrując się w niezmierne niebo i mówił: (Il. 19, 257); 78. Ojcze, rzecz przedziwną oglądam oczami: (Od. 19, 36); 79. jakże okazujesz łaskawość lu- 207

208 10-11 (2015) dziom niegodziwym, (Il. 13, 633); 80. którzy, niegodziwcy, obmyślają przeciwko mnie zgubę (Od. 3, 207). Ukrzyżowany Jezus po raz ostatni modli się do Ojca. Nie udało się centoniście znaleźć odpowiednich Homerowych wersetów, oddających ewangeliczny okrzyk Jezusa skierowany do Ojca, Boże mój, Boże mój, czemuś mnie opuścił< (Mt 27, 47; Mk 15, 33) oraz: Ojcze, w Twoje ręce składam ducha mego< (Łk 23, 46), dlatego komponuje własną wypowiedź Chrystusa, który wznosząc wzrok ku górze kieruje do Ojca słowa pełne żalu: Ojcze, rzecz przedziwną oglądam oczami (Od. 19, 36). Te pełne zdumienia słowa, wyrwane z ust Telemacha, syna Odyseusza, centonista wkłada w usta Jezusa, który kieruje je ku Bogu, zdziwiony łaskawością Ojca wobec niegodziwców, obmyślających zgubę Synowi Bożemu (C. 44, 79-80). Wnioski Powyższe analizy tekstów modlitwy Jezusa i zachęty do niej pozwalają sformułować następujące wnioski: 1. Ze względu na odmienną treść poematów Homerowych i Ewangelii nie udało się centoniście przedstawić wszystkich ewangelicznych scen modlitewnych Jezusa. Jedne pomija (modlitwa arcykapłańska Jezusa), inne dodaje odautorsko i uzupełnia o nowe elementy (modlitwa w Kanie Galilejskiej). 2. Centonista, komponując sceny modlitewne, sięga do różnych kontekstów homeryckich, związanych z codzienną modlitwą starożytnych, gościnnych i biesiadnych zwyczajów, osobistego żalu bohaterów Iliady i Odysei (Achilles, Cyklop), przygód Telemacha i zuchwałości zalotników, walecznych czynów Diomedesa oraz innych. 3. W prezentacji sceny rozmnożenia chleba centonista pomija rozmnożenie ryb, co jak się wydaje, wskazuje na niemożność znalezienia odpowiednich tekstów u Homera. Podobnie ma się rzecz z opisem przeistoczenia chleba w Ciało Jezusa, w którym autor centonów opuszcza przeistoczenie wina w Krew Pańską. 4. Elementem łączącym modlitwę Jezusa w Ewangelii z modlitwą zawartą w centonach jest gest spojrzenia w niebo. Jak widać, jest to element modlitwy obecny w wielu religiach. Do dziś gest wzniesienia oczu ku niebu pozostał w katolickiej Mszy św. w pierwszej modlitwie eucharystycznej. 208

209 10-11 (2015) 5. Najistotniejszym wnioskiem wydaje się stwierdzenie, że Centony homeryckie są dowodem na to, że nie da się zredukować modlitwy chrześcijańskiej do modlitwy starożytnych Greków. Nie różnimy się od Greków, jeśli chodzi o postawy czy gesty mo- dlitewne. Różnimy się w tym, co dotyczy treści. Nie udało się bowiem w centonach znaleźć takich treści modlitwy Jezusa jak Jego wołania o przebaczenie dla tych, co nie wiedzą, co czynią. Ten wniosek wydaje się być kompatybilny z wynikami badań innych centonów chrześcijańskich. S. Drzyżdżyk i M. Gilski w swoich analizach relacji między greckim a chrześcijańskim rozumieniem mądrości w dramacie Christus patiens (centon z tragedii greckiej) jako chrześcijańskie novum wskazali jedynie mądrość serca, podkreślając istnienie wielu podobieństw między greckim a chrześcijańskim pojmowaniem mądrości13. Tak, więc chrześcijaństwo wyrosłe z kultury greckiej, wzbogaca ją o nowe elementy. BIBLIOGRAFIA Centons Homériques (Homerocentra), édit. Rey A. L., SCh 437, Paris Homeri opera, rec. T. W. Allen, voll. I-IV, Oxford Drzyżdżyk S., Gilski M. 2014: Spotkanie mądrości pogańskiej z chrześcijańską w dramacie «Christus patiens», in Drzyżdżyk S., M. Gilski (eds.), Oblicza mądrości. Z czego wyrastamy, ku czemu zmierzamy, Kraków 2014, Gilski M. 2011: Koncepcja wzroku w poematach homeryckich, Kraków. MacDonald D.R. 2003: Does the New Testament Imitate Homer? New Haven-London. Piasecki D. 2014: Centony homeryckie. Spotkanie tradycji pogańskiej z chrześcijańską, Kra- ków. Popowski R. M. Wojciechowski 1995: Grecko-polski Nowy Testament, wydanie interli- nearne z kodami gramatycznymi, Warszawa. Sandnes K.O., The Gospel According to Homer and Virgil, Leiden Boston Usher M.D. 1998: Homeric Stitchings. The Homeric Centos of the Empress Eudocia, Lanham. 13 Drzyżdżyk Gilski 2014:

210 10-11 (2015) West M.L. 2008: Wschodnie oblicze Helikonu. Pierwiastki zachodnioazjatyckie w greckiej po- Homeric Centones. Encounter of the pagan and Christian traditions (Summary) ezji i micie, przeł. M. Filipczuk, T. Polański, Kraków. The article brings up the matter of Jesus prayer in Homeric Centos. The works, which were written in the fifth century AD, are a connection of The Bible with Homer s works Illiad and Odyssey. There are some questions because of the fact that Homeric Centos were constructed on the basis of the text of Homeric lyric, and they are: Is the prayer of Christ in Gospels something exceptional, or is it similar to the ones of the hero of Troy? Is there anything specific in this particular prayer, which failed to be portrayed in the language of Homeric lyric? Is it possible to equate Christian religion s prayer to the prayer of the ancien Greek religion? SŁOWA KLUCZOWE: Homer; Iliada; Odyseja; Biblia; Ewangelia; centon; parafraza; modlitwa KEYWORDS: Homer; Illiad; Odyssey; The Bible; Gospel; cento; paraphrase; prayer Dariusz Piasecki ur. w 1969, kapłan diecezji sosnowieckiej, doktor nauk humanistycznych z zakresu filologii klasycznej, asystent w Katedrze Filologii Greckiej w Instytucie Filologii Klasycznej KUL. 210

211 10-11 (2015) APOSTOLOS N. ATHANASSAKIS (The University of California, Santa Barbara) Who sang the Orphic Hymns? An answer to the question posed by the title of my talk may not be possible. However, the question might bring us a little closer to the answer. More than ten of the Hymns end with a prayer for good health, riches/wealth and a good end to life on earth. A few end with a prayer for two or only one of these blessings. There is nothing mystical or spiritual about the desired aims of the prayers of the initiates. In fact, what they pray for appears rather frequently in the well-wishing of people in several cultures, including the modern Greek one. Up to now, in the remoter parts of the country, sometimes people wish each other a good end. Much more remarkable is the fact that at some point of the liturgy of Saint Chrysostom, every Sunday, the priest chants before the congregation as follows: «Χριστιανά τα τέλη της ζωής ημών, ανώδυνα, ανεπαίσχυντα, ειρηνικά και καλήν απολογίαν την επί του φοβερού βήματος του Χριστού αιτησώμεθα». We pray for a Christian end to our lives, without pain, without shame, a peaceful end, as well as for an unblemished account of our deeds before Christ s seat of judgment. This prayer is certainly asking God to give the faithful a good end to their lives, to spare them pain and to give them peace. The prayer is very much like the Orphic prayer mentioned above, except that wealth, πλούτος, is omitted. If wealth existed in a Christian family, it might be considered a blessing, one to share with others in Christ-like deeds. The pursuit of wealth, however, would not be included in the prayer of a good Christian. As I 211

212 10-11 (2015) have written elsewhere, Saint Paul condemns wealth and greed and substitutes material wealth for the spiritual wealth given by Christ. As all who have read the Orphic Hymns know, the Orphic world we encounter in the Golden tablets is nowhere to be found in these quite unusual texts of late antiquity. There are no symbolic cypress trees, no ever flowing fountains, no lake of Mnemosyne. We hear of transformation e.g. in the hymn to Proteus no. 25. We are told that he is transformed far beyond all other immortals (line 6). The hymns to Dionysus make no mention of transformation. One wonders why this is so. A comparison of these Hymns with the Homeric Hymn to Dionysus is indeed instructive. The Homeric Hymn to the God points to a strong tradition in which Dionysus is the supreme shape-shifter. The Orphic Hymns do not seem to have been composed for the average person. They presume a good knowledge of Greek especially of poetic, religious vocabulary. It is only possible that these texts have been put together for the benefit of an upper-class religious association, for which a strong commitment to religion per se was not so necessary. There are some basic rituals, such as burning incense or aromatic herbs. There was a leader, very likely simply the person in charge of protocol. The leader s title was Boukolos, Oxherd. This word is listed in LSJ as meaning worshipper of Dionysus in bull-form (note that the residence of the Archon Basileus in Athens was called Boukoleion). Note that in Sparta boua was a herd of very young boys. Bouagos was clearly an oxherd, but why were the initiates metaphorically oxen? Perhaps because oxen do work hard and they can be trained to be obedient. They also are put to the yoke to plow the earth. In this image, the oxen are symbols of hard work and the yoke stands for discipline. When we look at the Orphic Hymns and read them it is natural for us to place them automatically within a Hellenic context. Yet, we must not forget that by the 3 rd century AD, the presumed date of the Orphic Hymns, Pergamon had been part of the Roman world for roughly 400 years. Roman rule in Pergamon was consolidated in 129 BC. After this date, Pergamon was a very significant part of the province of Asia. The transition of the political status of Pergamon from a Hellenistic kingdom to a province of the Roman Empire does not seem to have been a painful process. Pergamon was host to many other peoples. Some of them came from other parts of Asia Minor. The Jewish diaspora accounted for a very active 212

213 10-11 (2015) Jewish minority. By 300 BC, Pergamon had adopted Greek civic organization. The kings promoted Athena as their presiding deity. The city was magnificent: palace, temples, and other public buildings. Athens was the model. Pergamon was subordinate to Ephesos. Saint Paul may have visited Pergamon. He certainly did visit Ephesos, a city at a very small distance from Pergamon. It was mostly for the benefit of the members of the Jewish synagogue of Ephesus that he wrote his very important letter to the Ephesians. There is no doubt in my mind that the new faith made advances in Ephesos and Pergamon. During the two centuries that followed Saint Paul s visits to Ephesos, people of all backgrounds adopted the Christian faith. The Christian religion must have become a challenge for which not a few felt apprehensions. It has been said that the orphic Hymns were revivalist documents. In other words, they were part of a counter movement, a line of defense. The proper medium for resistance may have been a collegium, an association of people who probably belonged to the same class and shared the same interests. Such an association could be based on a blend of religious preferences and financial opportunities for contact and useful information. The foremost divinities in Ephesos and Pergamon were Artemis in Ephesos and Athena Nikephoros in Pergamon. Pergamon was a stellar city in Asia Minor with a record of loyalty to Rome especially under the Attalid dynasty. It is worth noting that Zeus Sabazios was worshipped in Pergamon. After Saint Paul s visits to Ephesos (52 and 54 AD), the process of conversion to the Christian faith acquired great momentum. As others followed in his steps, the new religion became a threat to the established pagan religions. Rome was unhappy with all this. So, there were persecutions of the Christians. Also the tensions surrounding the many heresies which arose from the very beginning caused additional conflict. Saint Antipas who belongs to the time of the Apostles provoked the anger of the pagans and ended his life in humiliation and pain, sometime between 92 and 96 AD. We read in Revelation that Antipas, a faithful witness to the Christian faith, had been killed in a riot. Since the conventional date for Revelation is 96 AD, obviously the murder of Antipas is another indication that persecutions of the Christians started early. By the end of the third century AD, the church of Pergamon was an episcopacy. Already in the time of the composition of Revelation, Pergamon rose to the status of being one of the seven churches (2:12-13). There was a religious 213

214 10-11 (2015) ferment in the place for many centuries. The city was a seat of learning boasting a great library. There were many temples in it. Noteworthy, among religious institutions, was the Collegium of the Kouretes. The worship of Magna Mater had been prominent in Ephesos since the beginning of time. Most likely, Artemis of Ephesos was a double of Magna Mater. It is interesting that we have evidence in Pergamon for the presence of the Egyptian deities Isis and Serapis. We have no evidence for the cults of Mise and Hipta, but we do have an inscription which mentions Melinoe. There were violent persecutions against the Christians under Diocletian. His first edict for such persecutions was issued in 303. In his letter to the Ephesians, Saint Paul mentions pleonexia, greed, which accompanies deeds of impurity (4.20, 5.3). He also, seems to contrast pleonexia with the wondrous wealth, ploutos, given by Christ. Elsewhere, he brings up the wealth, ploutos, of the glory of Jesus (3.16). We should consider the possibility that ploutos, the object of fervid prayer in many of the Orphic Hymns would not be Saint Paul s top recommendation. Even though we place the composition of the Orphic Hymns more than 200 years after Saint Paul s famous letter, ideas about material wealth in Ephesos and very likely in Pergamon could not have changed much in the course of a few centuries. There is no doubt whatsoever that the Christian ideology was not intent on promoting wealth. Do not accumulate treasures upon this earth accumulate treasures in heaven. (Matthew, 6:19-20) These are the words of Jesus. Elsewhere Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a treasure hidden in a field (Matthew, 13:44). In memorable words Jesus tells someone who seeks his advice If you wish to be perfect, go sell your property and give the proceeds to the poor and you shall have a treasure in heaven (Matthew, 19:21-22). Especially significant is what Jesus does when he enters the temple and throws out all those who sell and buy in the temple - the merchants that is. From Acts 19 we learn that a certain Demetrios, a gifted silver worker, was in the business of making imitations of the temple of Artemis. He employed many people. One day, he gathered them and he said to them: All of you know that your wellbeing comes from the work you do for me. You do see and you hear that this man who is named Paul has converted a lot of people, not only in Ephesos but also in all of Asia. He keeps on saying that objects made by the human hand are not divine. It is not only our profession that runs the risk of being slandered, but 214

215 10-11 (2015) also the temple of the great goddess Artemis, a temple worshipped in the whole world and of course in Asia, runs the risk of being reduced to nothing. All this caused a huge row in the assembly, where people were shouting Artemis of Ephesos is a great goddess. Soon after this episode, Saint Paul bid farewell to his disciples and left for Macedonia. In all this, we see the great potential for conflict between the rising Christian faith and especially the business people. There was a conflict here, so the frequent prayer in the Orphic Hymns for health, a good end to life and wealth, even if it is traditional, it is a reaffirmation of pagan values and an effort to build ideological defenses against a religion which literally nullified their status and wealth. In chapter five of his letter to the Ephesians, Saint Paul advises the recipients of his letter to avoid drinking wine to the point of intoxication and to communicate with one another with psalmoi, hymnoi and spiritual songs. Perhaps what Saint Paul had in mind when he used the word hymns was some sort of song or chant which belonged to a long standing tradition. Clearly the context of the words just cited is religious. Ephesos had a cult of the Kouretes. However, this fact is not mentioned in the Hymn to the Kouretes. The Egyptian deities Isis and Serapis were also part of the religious life in Ephesos. There is scant epigraphical evidence for Mise, Hipta and Melinoe. We need evidence but we have little of it. However, imagination can help us penetrate the millennia and reach deep into the dim past. It is evening now. Wisps of incense and the fragrances of aromatic plants are mingling. All this is a place which is about to receive all kinds of people. Many Greeks are coming in. Soon, they are followed by Romans and Jews. Distinct in the crowd are people from other parts of Asia Minor, Lycians, Cilicians, Pisidians and, who knows, even barbarian Gauls. There is excitement in the air. The man in charge, the Boukolos, is busy making sure everyone is properly accommodated. People sit. They recognize one another. They are all bound by a sense of a common purpose of shared economic and social values. There may be a lectionary. Who are these men? It seems they are well to do people from all walks of life. They are not bad people. In fact, they are good people. They enjoy their comforts and their good health which would come with the use of gymnasium and perhaps with visits to the temple 215

216 10-11 (2015) of Hygiea, the goddess of health. They are wealthy and they saw nothing wrong with becoming wealthier. Demetrios of Acts should receive careful attention. At some point, there was great trouble, in fact violence, in Ephesos. The Orphic Hymns were intended to bypass nationality and to minimize the importance of people s birthplace. What mattered was the sharing of certain social and economic values. Clearly as in all such associations, central was a network for the benefit of all involved. Respect for commonly held religious ideas supplied a comfort zone. There are many parallels to the type of religious association just described. The many lodges of the Free Masons in the United States offer an analogue. The pyramid, which is topped by the all-seeing eye on the back side of the one dollar bill, is a good example. This image which is and is not religious could be shared by all who honor the United States of America as an almost god given truth. Details: We have two inscriptions bearing the name Mise. One was found in the precinct of Demeter in Pergamon, the other on an altar dedicated to Mise Kore. For a review see Ricciardelli 2000: , and Morand 2001: Hipta: her name is mentioned in four inscriptions found close to Mount Tmolos, in Libya; see Morand 2001: Melinoe: hymn 71 is the only literary testimony to the existence of Melinoe. The only other appearance of her name is on a magical device which contains an invocation to Hekate. See Morand 2001: BIBLIOGRAPHY Athanassakis A.N. B.M. Wolkow 2013: The Orphic Hymns. Translation, introduction and notes, Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Morand A.-F. 2001: Études sur les Hymnes Orphiques, Leiden: Brill. 216

217 10-11 (2015) Ricciardelli G. 2000: Inni orfici, Milan: Mondadori. KEYWORDS: The Orphic Hymns; Ephesos; Pergamon; Artemis; Athena Nikephoros; Saint Paul; prayer Apostolos N. Athanassakis Professor of Classics Emeritus (the University of California, Santa Barbara). With the exception of a guest appointment at the University of Crete where he served as Head of the Humanities Division, he is now completing close to thirty years of service to the Department of Classics at UCSB. Much of his work is in the language of Homer and Hesiod. He is also a translator and a poet. He has received many honors, among these the Alumni Teaching Award for his positive impact on the lives of his students and his inspirational teaching. He studied the Scandinavian languages and was director of the UC program in Lund, Sweden from He spent time in Iceland and became interested in Icelandic poetry and the Icelandic sagas and has served as vice president of the ASFSB due to his interest in Scandinavia. 217

218 10-11 (2015) EDYTA GRYKSA (Uniwersytet Śląski w Katowicach) Śmierć jako pietas erga patriam w historiografii starożytnego Rzymu Temat samobójstwa w starożytnym Rzymie, dającego możliwość zachowania honoru lub poświęcenia się jednostki w imię dobra państwa rzymskiego, był bardzo często podej- mowany przez autorów tekstów antycznych. W kulturze obrazował on ambiwalentne odczucia Rzymian związane z dychotomią dobrej i złej śmierci. Z jednej strony kwestie samo- bójstwa rozpatrywano z pewną podejrzliwością, jako akty motywowane wyrzutami sumienia winnego lub też jego słabą determinacją. Z drugiej strony było ono wyrazem dzielności i szanowanego wyboru dokonanego w obliczu prawdziwej przeciwności losu1. W zależności od zaistniałych okoliczności mogło być ono tym samym rozpatrywane w kategoriach rzymskich virtutes. Celem artykułu jest przybliżenie kwestii devotio, jej poszczególnych etapów oraz zna- czenia. W oparciu o teksty autorów antycznych omówione zostaną wybrane przypadki samobójstw będące przykładami pietas erga patriam. Próbując pokrótce przybliżyć znaczenie pietas w antycznym Rzymie warto odwołać się do traktatu De inventione Cycerona. Nazywając pietas obowiązkiem (officium) wobec ojczyzny (erga patriam), rodziców (erga parentes) czy bogów (erga deos) porusza on trzy jej aspekty. Pierwszy związany jest z relacją bogów i ludzi, a zatem odwołuje się bezpośrednio do religii. Kolejne dwa stanowią odniesienie do relacji międzyludzkich i obowiązku w sto- sunku do państwa rzymskiego. Przypuszcza się, że zróżnicowana natura koncepcji pietas pośród innych rzymskich virtutes sięga czasów wczesnej republiki. Jej zinstytucjonalizowany kult odbywał się w dwóch świątyniach na Forum Holitorium oraz Circum Flaminium. Można sądzić, że sama koncepcja pietas erga patriam została wprowadzona u schyłku repu- bliki. Impulsem miały być prawdopodobnie ówczesne wydarzenia i znacząca rola przywódców politycznych2. Devotio, ze względu na wysoką rangę ofiar i ich poświęcenie była formą ofiary, do której przywiązywano w czasach starożytnych wiele uwagi i emocji. Spośród najbardziej 1 2 Hope 2009: 57. Berdowski 2014:

219 10-11 (2015) znanych z literatury antycznej przypadków samobójstw obok rodu Decjuszów należy wymienić także Marka Kurcjusza czy senatorów oczekujących Galów 3. Jako skrajna forma wotywna devotio było aktem poświęcenia życia bogom chtonicznym w zamian za wygraną własnych wojsk w starciu z wrogiem 4. Wspomnianego obrzędu dokonywano w wyjątkowych sytuacjach, kiedy bitwa przyjmowała zły obrót. Rytuał poświęcenia miał ściśle określony przebieg, a nad jego dopełnieniem czuwał towarzyszący armii kapłan pontifex. Osoba mająca oddać życie ubrana była w białą togę z purpurowym paskiem na brzegu (toga praetexta). Po zakryciu głowy i wysunięciu pod brodę ręki spod togi stawała na położonej na ziemi włóczni powtarzając słowa ślubowania wypowiadane przez kapłana. Zgodnie z przekazem Liwiusza brzmiały one następująco: Iane, Iuppiter, Mars pater, Quirine, Bellona, Lares, Diui Nouensiles, Di Indigetes, Diui, quorum est potestas nostrorum hostiumque, Dique Manes, uos precor ueneror, ueniam peto feroque, uti populo Romano Quiritium uim uictoriam prosperetis hostesque populi Romani Quiritium terrore formidine morteque adficiatis. sicut uerbis nuncupaui, ita pro re publica <populi Romani> Quiritium, exercitu, legionibus, auxiliis populi Romani Quiritium, legiones auxiliaque hostium mecum Deis Manibus Tellurique deuoueo 5. Po dopełnieniu rytualnych czynności, dokonujący devotio rzucał się na szyk wroga. W momencie śmierci osoby spełniającej devotio z rąk wrogów na wojska przeciwnika spadała klątwa prowadząca do ich klęski. Składając w ofierze swoje życie wódz przypieczętowywał los wrogiej armii, która miała podążyć za nim do krainy umarłych. Zgodnie z rzymską tradycją rytuału devotio mógł dokonać konsul, dyktator lub pretor poświęcając życie swoje lub jednego z obywateli legionu. Liwiusz podaje również zasady postepowania na wypadek niepowodzenia rytuału. Jeśli poświęcony człowiek przeżył samobójczy atak na wroga ko- 3 Barton 1993: Adkins 2004: Liv. VIII 9, 6 8: Janusie, Jowiszu, ojcze Marsie, Kwirynie, Bellono, Lary, bogowie nowo przyjęci, bogowie opiekunowie ziemi naszej, bogowie, w których mocy jesteśmy my i nieprzyjaciele, boskie cienie zmarłych, do was się modlę, z czcią was błagam, o łaskawość proszę i wołam, byście narodowi rzymskiemu Kwirytów dali moc i zwycięstwo, a nieprzyjaciół narodu rzymskiego Kwirytów dotknęli strachem, przerażeniem i śmiercią. Jak to wypowiedziałem słowami, tak za rzeczpospolitą Kwirytów, za wojsko, legiony i posiłki narodu rzymskiego Kwirytów poświęcam legiony i wojsko nieprzyjacielskie razem ze mną bogom podziemnym i ziemi *przeł. A. Kościółek+. 219

220 10-11 (2015) nieczne było zakopanie w ziemi jego posągu wysokiego na co najmniej 7 stóp i złożenie ofiary przebłagalnej ze zwierzęcia. W miejscu tym nie mógł stanąć żaden urzędnik rzymski. Jeśli atak samobójczy przeżył ktoś poświęcający samego siebie nie wolno mu było składać ofiar bogom, ani obejmować stanowisk politycznych we władzach republiki. Istotna była również ochrona włóczni, na której stawano podczas ślubowania: Sin autem sese deuouere uolet, sicuti Decius deuouit, ni moritur, neque suum neque publicum diuinum pure faciet, siue hostia siue quo alio uolet. qui sese deuouerit, Uolcano arma siue cui alii diuo uouere uolet ius est. telo, super quod stans consul precatus est, hostem potiri fas non est; si potiatur, Marti suouetaurilibus piaculum fieri 6. Najlepiej potwierdzonym przykładem devotio jest rytuał dokonany przez ród Decjuszów. Publiusz Decjusz Mus poświęcił się w bitwie pod Sentinum, a jego dziad prawdopodobnie uczynił to również w bitwie pod Veseris stoczonej z Latynami 7. Najmłodszy z rodu miał ofiarować swe życie za wygraną wojsk w strarciu z Pyrrusem pod Ausculum 8. W rzymskich dziełach historiograficznych możemy znaleźć jednak i innych bohaterów, którzy poświęcili swe życie erga patriam. Pierwszym przykładem, na który warto zwrócić uwagę jest fragment Epitome de Tito Livio Lucjusza Anneusza Florusa. Po klęsce Rzymian nad rzeką Allią, zaliczonej do tzw. dies atri, Galowie wtargnęli do miasta. Wówczas swoje życie w akcie devotio poświęciła starszyzna, o czym czytamy: Tum igitur aut numquam alias apparuit vera illa Romana virtus. iam primum maiores natu, amplissimis usi honoribus, in forum coeunt, ibi devovente pontifice se diis manibus consecrant, statimque in suas quisque aedes regressi, sic ut in trabeis erant et amplissimo 6 Liv. VIII 10, 13 14: Jeśli zaś będzie chciał poświęcić samego siebie, jak to zrobił Decjusz, to jeżeli nie zginie, nie będzie mógł spełniać należycie żadnej służby bożej, ani państwowej, ani prywatnej, czy to gdy chodzi o ofiarę z zabitego zwierzęcia, czy jakąś inną. Kto by siebie poświęcił, a chciałby poświęcić broń Wulkanowi albo jakiemuś innemu bogu, wolno mu. Włócznia, na której stał konsul podczas wypowiadania formuły poświęcenia, nie może wpaść w ręce nieprzyjaciela: gdyby wpadła, to czyni się Marsowi ofiarę z wieprza, barana i byka *przeł. A. Kościółek+. 7 Cowan 2007: Popławski 2011:

221 10-11 (2015) cultu, in curulibus sellis sese reposuerunt, ut, cum venisset hostis, in sua quisque dignitate morerentur 9. Liwiusz wspomina, że starszyzna poświęciła swoje życie nie chcąc być ciężarem dla walczących obywateli: Et quo id aequiore animo de plebe multitudo ferret, senes triumphales consularesque simul se cum illis palam dicere obituros, nec his corporibus, quibus non arma ferre, non tueri patriam possent, oneraturos inopiam armatorum. haec inter seniores morti destinatos iactata solacia 10. Niewielka zwłoka w działaniach Galów po bitwie nad Allią umożliwiła mieszkańcom Rzymu przygotowanie ostatniej pozycji obronnej na Wzgórzu Kapitolińskim. Pozostałe dzielnice nie miały dostatecznie silnych fortyfikacji, przez co wrogie wojska zajęły miasto nie natrafiając na żaden opór. Obrońcy Kapitolu, którzy przez siedem miesięcy nie otrzymywali żadnej pomocy z Wejów ani miast latyńskich, zostali ostatecznie zmuszeni do kapitulacji 11. Innym przykładem rytuału devotio jest historia Marka Kurcjusza. Młodzieniec, który poniósł śmierć dla dobra swej ojczyzny, jest bohaterem jednego z podań przekazanych przez Liwiusza. Jego gotowość poświęcenia życia erga patriam nie nosiła znamion poczucia winy ani strachu, przez co może być interpretowana i przedstawiana jako przykład prawdziwej virtus Romana 12. Zgodnie z legendą w 362 p.n.e. na Forum Romanum otworzyła się głęboka przepaść, co zdaniem kapłanów było wróżbą wielkiego niebezpieczeństwa. Warron w swoim dziele De Lingua Latina podkreśla, że przyczyną dla której zapadła się ziemia, było prawdopodobnie zaniedbanie ślubowania, podczas którego najdzielniejszy spośród rzymskich 9 Flor. I 7, 8 9 : Wtedy to, jak w żadnym innym czasie, zajaśniało owo prawdziwe rzymskie męstwo. Najpierw starszyzna ciesząca się największym poważaniem zebrała się na Forum, gdzie za sprawą kapłana poświęciła swe życie bogom podziemnym. Każdy wrócił natychmiast do swojego domu i tak, jak był ubrany w paradne szaty i wspaniałe ozdoby, zasiadł na krześle kurulnym, aby z chwilą wtargnięcia wroga mógł umrzeć z należytym dostojeństwem *przeł. I. Lewandowski+. 10 Liv. V 39: Aby zaś tłum plebejski tym spokojniej zniósł ten los, starcy, mający za sobą triumfy i konsulaty, oświadczyli, że zginą razem z ludem, i skoro nie mogą już dźwigać zbroi ani bronić ojczyzny, nie będą ciężarem dla uzbrojonych wojowników w ich niedoli. Takimi myślami pocieszali się starzy, przeznaczeni na śmierć [przeł. A. Kościółek+ 11 Cary Skullard 1992: Lennon 2014:

222 10-11 (2015) obywateli miał być poświęcony bogu śmierci 13. Jedynym sposobem na uratowanie miasta miało być pogrążenie w otchłani tego, co dla Rzymian było najcenniejsze. Próby wrzucenia cennych przedmiotów zakończyły się niepowodzeniem. Wówczas Kurcjusz, słysząc wyjaśnienia kapłanów, postanowił poświęcić to, co sam uważał za najcenniejsze swą odwagę i siłę rzymskiego żołnierza. Okryty zbroją, rzucił się razem ze swoim rumakiem w otchłań, która natychmiast się za nimi zamknęła. Liwiusz tak opisuje to wydarzenie: Tum M. Curtium, iuuenem bello egregium, castigasse ferunt dubitantes an ullum magis Romanum bonum quam arma uirtusque esset; silentio facto templa deorum immortalium, quae foro imminent, Capitoliumque intuentem et manus nunc in caelum, nunc in patentes terrae hiatus ad deos manes porrigentem, se deuouisse; equo deinde quam poterat maxime exornato insidentem, armatum se in specum immisisse 14. Podobnie relacjonuje je Waleriusz Maksymus: Curtius et animi et generis nobilissimi adulescens interpretatus urbem nostram uirtute armisque praecipue excellere, militaribus insignibus ornatus equum conscendit eumque uehementer admotis calcaribus praecipitem in illud profundum egit 15. Za ginącym w przepaści Kurcjuszem mieszkańcy Rzymu wrzucali liczne dary i owoce. Zgodnie z tradycją miejsce to przyjęło miano jeziora Kurcjusza Lacus Curtius. Inne legendy związane z powstaniem tego miejsca odnoszą się do konsula Gajusza Kurcjusza Philo, który miał zlecić wykonanie ogrodzenia w miejscu, gdzie uderzył piorun 16 oraz do Mettiusza 13 Enenkel De Jong De Landtsheer 2001: Liv. VII 6: Wtedy to Marek Kurcjusz, młodzieniec wyróżniający się w wojnie, miał zganić namyślających się pytając, czy Rzym ma jakiekolwiek większe dobro nad miecz i męstwo. Nastała cisza, a on spojrzał na świątynie bogów nieśmiertelnych, które wznoszą się na Forum, spojrzał na Kapitol, podniósł ręce do nieba, to znów wyciągnął je ku czeluści rozdartej ziemi do bogów podziemnych i poświęcił się na ofiarę: wsiadł na konia możliwie pięknie przybranego i w zbroi rzucił się w przepaść *przeł. A. Kościółek+. 15 V. Max. V 6, 2: Kurcjusz był szlachetnym młodzieńcem, zarówno pod względem ducha jak i urodzenia, który zrozumiał, że wyrocznia miała na myśli miejscową przewagę odwagi i działań wojennych. Założył więc zbroję, dosiadł konia i energicznie ruszył prosto w przepaść *przekład własny+. 16 Var. L. V

223 10-11 (2015) Kurcjusza, który podczas walki, do której doszło między Rzymianami i Sabinami po uprowadzeniu ich kobiet, miał ugrzęznąć w błocie: Mettius in paludem sese strepitu sequentium trepidante equo coniecit; auerteratque ea res multorum addito animo euadit17. etiam Sabinos tanti periculo uiri. et ille quidem adnuentibus ac uocantibus suis fauore Z przekazu Swetoniusza dowiadujemy się ponadto, że w antycznym Rzymie znany był zwyczaj związany z obchodami urodzin Oktawiana Augusta. Wtedy odwiedzający miasto wrzucali do Jeziora Kurcjusza drobne monety, wypełniając ślub złożony na intencję jego zdrowia i pomyślności18. W drugiej księdze Ab urbe condita Liwiusz pisze o Horacjuszu Koklesie, który poświę- cił swoje życie w imię ojczyzny, przy czym miał przeżyć swoją samobójczą próbę19: Tum Cocles 'Tiberine pater' inquit, 'te sancte precor, haec arma et hunc militem propitio flumine accipias.' ita sic armatus in Tiberim desiluit multisque superincidentibus telis incolumis ad suos tranauit, rem ausus plus famae habituram ad posteros quam fidei20. Podczas wojny toczonej z etruskim królem Porsenną Horacjusz Kokles obronił w pojedynkę most na Tybrze (Pons Sublicius). Początkowo odpierał on ataki Etrusków wraz z dwoma towarzyszami, Spuriuszem Larcjuszem i Tytusem Herminiuszem, dając swoim oddziałom czas na zerwanie belek podtrzymujących most. W ostatniej chwili odesłał ich jednak i samotnie stawiał opór wrogowi. Gdy most się zawalił, Horacjusz wezwał boga Tiberinusa i wskoczył w pełnej zbroi do rzeki. W zależności od wersji legendy dopłynął bezpiecznie do brzegu lub zginął w nurtach Tybru, jak pisze Polibiusz: Liv. I 12, 10: Mettiusz zapędził się w bagno, bo krzyki goniących spłoszyły mu konia, niebezpieczeństwo grożące bohaterowi odwróciło od walki uwagę Sabinów. Poczęto mu znakami i wołaniem dodawać otuchy, a on widząc u ogółu taką miłość ku sobie rzeczywiście się stamtąd wydostał *przeł. A. Kościółek+. 18 Suet. Aug McDonnell 2006: Liv. II 10 : A Kokles zawołał: Ojcze Tyberynie Błagam cię, święty, przyjmij łaskawie w swe nurty ten oręż mój i mnie żołnierza!. I tak w zbroi skoczył do Tybru. Posypało się za nim mnóstwo pocisków, on jednak cało dopłynął do swoich, dokonując czynu, który miał u potomnym znaleźć więcej sławy niż wiary *przeł. A. Kościółek

224 10-11 (2015) διασπασθείσης δὲ τῆς γεφύρας, οἱ μὲν πολέμιοι τῆς ὁρμῆς ἐκωλύθησαν, ὁ δὲ Κόκλης ῥίψας ἑαυτὸν εἰς τὸν ποταμὸν ἐν τοῖς ὅπλοις κατὰ προαίρεσιν μετήλλαξε τὸν βίον, περὶ πλείονος ποιησάμενος τὴν τῆς πατρίδος ἀσφάλειαν καὶ τὴν ἐσομένην μετὰ ταῦτα περὶ αὐτὸν εὔκλειαν τῆς παρούσης ζωῆς καὶ τοῦ καταλειπομένου βίου 21. Kiedy Rzym stał się monarchią rytuał devotio stał się również wyrazem oddania życia za zdrowie władcy. Znanym przykładem jest historia Publiusza Afraniusza Potitusa, który obiecał popełnić samobójstwo za ozdrowienie cesarza Kaliguli: ἐκεῖνος μὲν οὖν ὡς καὶ τῇ ἀρρωστίᾳ αὐτοῦ ἐφεδρεύσας ἀπώλετο, Πούπλιος δὲ Ἀφράνιος Ποτῖτος δημότης τε ὢν καὶ ὑπὸ μωρᾶς κολακείας οὐ μόνον ἐθελοντὴς ἀλλὰ καὶ ἔνορκος, ἄν γε ὁ Γάιος σωθῇ, τελευτήσειν ὑποσχόμενος 22. Kaligula był trzecim imperatorem Rzymu. Po śmierci Tyberiusza, którego uważano za zepsutego i zdeprawowanego obywatele przyjęli wiadomość o objęciu przez niego władzy z ulgą. Na początku Kaligula wydał rozkaz umorzenia wszystkich procesów politycznych, odwołał osoby zesłane oraz wprowadził ulgi podatkowe nie zważając na ostrzeżenia senatorów przewidujących rychłe bankructwo skarbca państwowego. W listopadzie 37 roku cesarz zapadł na dosyć poważną chorobę, prawdopodobnie mózgu. Gdy powrócił do zdrowia, był już innym człowiekiem 23. Od tej pory uważano go za irracjonalnego, nieodpowiedzialnego, okrutnego, zazdrosnego, ogarniętego różnymi paranojami, skorego do zemsty i żądnego krwi. Normą stały się odtąd egzekucje bez sądu, przez co nikt z obywateli nie mógł czuć się bezpiecznie Polyb. VI 55, 3: Kiedy most runął, atak wrogów został wstrzymany. Wtedy Kokles w swojej zbroi rzucił się w nurt Tybru i celowo poświęcił swoje życie, ponieważ cenił bezpieczeństwo narodu i swoją przyszłą reputację ponad obecne życie i lata jakie mu pozostały *przekład własny+. 22 D. C. LIX 8, 3: Z drugiej strony Publiusz Afraniusz Potitus, plebejusz, zginął, ponieważ w akcie lekkomyślnej służalczości obiecał nie tylko swoją wolną wolę, lecz także pod przysięgą ślubował, że odda swoje życie jeśli tylko Gajusz wyzdrowieje *przekład własny+. 23 Castleden 2008: Dando-Collins 2008:

225 10-11 (2015) Kolejnym przykładem może być poświęcenie Semproniusza Densusa, który oddał swoje życie by ocalić cesarza. Centurion gwardii pretoriańskiej, zgodnie z przekazem Tacyta osłaniał Lucjusza Kalpurniusza Pizona, wybranego przez Galbę na jego następcę i współwładcę: Insignem illa die virum Sempronium Densum aetas nostra vidit. centurio is praetoriae cohortis, a Galba custodiae Pisonis additus, stricto pugione occurrens armatis et scelus exprobrans ac modo manu modo voce vertendo in se percussores quamquam vulnerato Pisoni effugium dedit 25. Devotio, podobnie jak fides charakteryzowały postawy rzymskich sług. Ich lojalność i wzajemna relacja względem pana niejednokrotnie objawiała się w gotowości poświęcenia życia dla jego dobra i ocalenia 26. W rzadkich przypadkach role potrafiły się odwrócić. Waleriusz Maksymus w szóstej księdze Facta et Dicta Memorabilia pisze: Non sustinuit deinde Plancus tam fideles tamque boni exempli seruos ulterius cruciari, sed processit in medium iugulumque gladiis militum obiecit 27. Cytowany fragment dotyczy konsula Lucjusza Plotiusza Plancusa. Wpisany przez triumwirów na listę proskrypcyjną ukrywał się w okolicy Salernum. Sekretne miejsce poszukującym go miał jednak ujawnić zapach jego maści 28. Schwytani niewolnicy nie wyjawili miejsca pobytu pana, pomimo długotrwałych i okrutnych tortur. Plancus, który nie był w stanie znieść poniżenia i cierpienia swoich niewolników, sprowokował własną śmierć. 25 Tac. I 43: Wiek nasz widział, jak w owym dniu odznaczył się jeden mąż Semproniusz Densus. Ten setnik kohorty pretoriańskiej, przydzielony przez Galbę do straży Pizona, z dobytym puginałem zaszedł drogę zbrojnemu orszakowi żołnierzy, wyrzucając im zbrodnię, i już to ręką, już to głosem usiłował na siebie zwrócić uwagę morderców, w ten sposób Pizonowi, choć zranionemu, dał sposobność do ucieczki *przeł. S. Hammer+. 26 Van Hoff 2002: V. Max. VI 8, 5: Nie zgodził się Plancus żeby tak wierni i przykładni niewolnicy byli tak okrutnie torturowani, lecz wyszedł na środek i podsunął gardło pod miecze żołnierzy *przekład własny+. 28 Forbes 1993: II

226 10-11 (2015) Należy dodać, że znaczenie słowa devotio zmieniło się znacznie w schyłkowym okresie Cesarstwa Rzymskiego. Utraciło ono wówczas wymiar heroiczno-militarny, stając się cnotą cywilną - lojalnością obywatela względem państwa, niejednokrotnie zawężoną do uzyskało ono ponownie w religii chrześcijańskiej29. skrupulatności podatkowej (devotio rei annorariae). Nowy sens jako synonim religijności Gotowość oddania życia w imię dobra ojczyzny czy współobywatela oddawała istotę pietas, zachowanej w kanonie rzymskich cnót. Rozumiana początkowo jako sumienne i rzetelne wykonywanie obowiązków względem duchów zmarłych członków rodziny, z czasem przybrała szersze znaczenie, jako stosunek do rodziców, bogów i ostatecznie do ojczyzny30. Bogactwo utworów autorów antycznych podejmujących kwestie samobójstwa erga patriam pozwalają dziś poznać jego znaczenie i symbolikę. Przedstawiają ponadto obraz viri boni, dla którego ojczyzna i honor stanowiły w tradycji rzymskiej najwyższe wartości. BIBLIOGRAFIA Żródła Fisher C. D. (ed.) 1962: Cornelii Taciti Historiarum libri, Oxonii: Oxford Classical Texts. Florus, Zarys dziejów rzymskich, transl. I. Lewandowski, Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich Hase B. (ed.) : Valerius Maximus, De dictis factisque memorabilius, 1-2 vols., Pa- risii: Lemaire. Ihm M. (ed.) 2003: C. Suetonius Tranquillus, De vita Caesarum libri VIII, Lipsiae: Saur. Jal P. (ed.) 2002: Florus. Oeuvres, 1-2 vols., Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Liwiusz, Dzieje Rzymu od założenia miasta, transl. A. Kościółek, Wrocław: Zakład Naro- dowy im.ossolińskich Pedech P., de Foucault J., Weil R. (eds.) 2003: Polybe, Histoires, 6 vol., Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Tacyt, Dzieła, transl. S. Hammer, Warszawa: Czytelnik Evola 2011: 123. Styka 1994:

227 10-11 (2015) Weissenborn G. (ed.) : Titi Livii Ab Urbe condita libri. 1-2 vols., Lipsiae: Teubner. Opracowania Adkins L. R. 2004: Handbook to life in Ancient Rome, New York: Facts on file. Barton C. A. 1993: The sorrows of the Ancient Romans: the Gladiator and the Monster, Princeton: Princeton University Press. Berdowski P. 2014: Pietas erga patriam: ideology and politics in Rome in early first century BC. The evidence from coins and glandae inscriptae, in: K. Twardowska, M. Salamon, S. Sprawski, M. Stachura, S. Turlej (eds.), Within the circle of Ancient Ideas and Virtutes. Studies in Honour of Professor Maria Dzielska, Kraków: Historia Iagellonica. Cary M., Scullard H. 1992: Dzieje Rzymu. Od czasów najdawniejszych do Konstantyna, 1-2 vols., Warszawa: Państwowy Instytut Wydawniczy. Castleden R. 2008: Wcielenia zła. Najgorsi ludzie świata, Warszawa: Bellona. Cowan R. 2007: Wojny, bitwy i wojownicy rzymscy, Warszawa: Bellona. Dando-Collins S. 2008: Machina do zabijania: XIV Legion Nerona, Warszawa: Bellona. Enenkel K., De Long J. L., De Landsheer J. (eds.) 2001: Recreating Ancient History: episodes from the Greek and Roman past in the arts and literature of the Early Modern Period, Leiden: Brill. Evola J. 2007: Metaphisics of War. Battle, victory and death in the world of tradition, London. Forbes R. J. 1993: Studies in Ancient Technology, 1-9 vols., Leiden: Brill. Hope v. M. 2009: Roman death. The dying and the Dead in Ancient Rome, London: Continuum. Lennon J. J. 2014: Pollution and Religion in Ancient Rome, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McDonell M. 2006: Roman Manliness. Virtus and the Roman Republic, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Popławski M. S. 2011: Bellum Romanum. Sakralność wojny i prawa rzymskiego, Lublin: Uniwersytet Lubelski. Styka J. 1994: Studia nad literaturą rzymską epoki republikańskiej. Estetyka satyry republikańskiej. Estetyka neoteryków, Kraków: Uniwersytet Jagielloński. 227

228 10-11 (2015) Van Hoff A. 2002: From Autothanasia to Suicide. Self-killing in Classical Antiquity, New York: Routledge. Death as pietas erga patriam in the historiography of the ancient Rome (Summary) The aim of this article is to outline the question of devotio, its particular stages as well as its meaning. The selected examples of suicide regarded as pietas erga patriam are going to be elaborated on the base of ancient authors texts. SŁOWA KLUCZOWE: pietas; devotio; samobójstwo; historiografia rzymska KEYWORDS: pietas; devotion; suicide; Roman historiography Edyta Gryksa mgr, słuchaczka studiów doktoranckich z zakresu literaturoznawstwa, aktywna przy Katedrze Filologii Klasycznej Uniwersytetu Śląskiego w Katowicach. Zainteresowania naukowe: uzbrojenie rzymskie (praca magisterska: Gladius i ensis w kulturze rzymskiej ), historiografia rzymska (obecnie w przygotowaniu rozprawa doktorska: Obraz Rzymu u Florusa ); edyta.gryksa@gmail.com 228

229 10-11 (2015) ŁUKASZ HALIDA (Uniwersytet Jagielloński) Color affectus jako źródło semantycznej ewolucji terminu pietas 1 W leksykalnym zasobie języka łacińskiego, charakteryzującego się szczególną zdolnością do zwięzłego wyrażania myśli, istnieje pewna grupa pojęć abstrakcyjnych, których przekład na języki nowożytne niejednokrotnie przysparza poważnych problemów translatorskich ze względu na trudność w odnalezieniu właściwego ekwiwalentu semantycznego, który satysfakcjonująco wyrażałby sens danego terminu. Dla przykładu można wymienić takie słowa jak: ratio, religio czy humanitas. Do wymienionej grupy zalicza się również pojęcie pietas, tłumaczone często na język polski słowem pobożność. Jednakże przekład ten nie jest w stanie oddać w pełni znaczeniowego bogactwa omawianego leksemu i można go zastosować jedynie w ściśle określonym kontekście. Co więcej, na przestrzeni tekstów pogańskich i chrześcijańskich nastąpił interesujący proces reinterpretacji pojęcia. Jaka jest zatem istota i dokładne znaczenie słowa pietas 2? Gdzie znajduje się źródło jego semantycznej ewolucji? 1. Pietas Romana ex iustitia By odpowiedzieć na powyższe pytanie, należy najpierw pokrótce przedstawić, jakie sensy prezentował termin pietas w literaturze klasycznej3. W De inventione Cyceron przytacza następującą definicję: Pietatem *appellant+, quae erga patriam aut parentes aut alios sanguine coniunctos officium conservare moneat 4. W De natura deorum zaś podaje: Est enim pietas iustitia adversum deos 5. Słowa Arpinaty stanowią precyzyjne i syntetyczne wyjaśnienie rozważanego pojęcia oraz wskazują na typowy dla rzymskiego myślenia sposób jego rozumienia. Na szczególną uwagę zasługu- 1 Należy podkreślić, iż uwagi zawarte w niniejszym artykule poświęcone znaczeniu i semantycznej ewolucji rzeczownika pietas znajdują zastosowanie również w przypadku przymiotnika pius, określającego podmiot, który odznacza się pietas. 2 Co do etymologii rzeczownika pietas derywowanego od przymiotnika pius cf. De Vaan 2008: Temat pietas w ujęciu klasycznym był już wielokrotnie dyskutowany, cf. bibliografia. W tym miejscu ograniczymy się do najważniejszych informacji niezbędnych w toku dalszego dyskursu. 4 Cicero, De inventione II Cicero, De natura deorum I

230 10-11 (2015) ją dwa wyrażenia: officium oraz iustitia. Są one kluczowe dla właściwej interpretacji cyceroniańskiej definicji i odgrywają zarazem istotną rolę w badaniach nad znaczeniem rzymskiej pietas. Zgodnie z przytoczonymi wyżej sformułowaniami, w mniemaniu Cycerona, którego uznać możemy za wyraziciela rzymskich opinii, przede wszystkim była ona poczuciem należnego obowiązku i szacunku (sensus officii, officium pietatis 6 ) względem kogoś innego o wyższej pozycji i znaczeniu, oddawaniem każdemu tego, co stosowne (cuiusque debentia ac decentia reddere) oraz odpowiednie do jego godności i autorytetu. Stąd też takie konotacje jak pietas erga deos 7, erga parentes 8 czy też erga patriam 9. Wyjątek stanowi tu pietas erga liberos 10, jednakże i ta postawa, podobnie jak poprzednie, polega na wypełnianiu obowiązku, w tym przypadku przez rodziców względem dzieci. Działania te można zaś określić mianem sprawiedliwości (iustitia). Pietas należy więc do grona rzymskich cnót (virtutes), których praktykowanie wpisuje się w kulturę mos maiorum i stanowi jej realizację. W kontekście dalszych rozważań warto zaznaczyć, iż literatura klasyczna atrybuuje termin pietas przede wszystkim ludziom, stąd też pietas hominis erga alios, z zachowaniem wspomnianej hierarchiczności. Konotacja pietas deorum erga homines pojawia się zdecydowanie rzadziej. W drugiej księdze Eneidy czytamy: «At tibi pro scelere», exclamat [Priamus], «pro talibus ausis,/ di, si qua est caelo pietas, quae talia curet,/ persolvant grates dignas et praemia reddant/ debita» 11. Syliusz Italikus zaś notuje: Si qua deis pietas, tales, Carthago, videre/ dent tibi Sidonias matres 12. Naturalnie, biorąc pod uwagę charakter rzymskiej religii, trudno w tym miejscu mówić o jakimś miłosierdziu bóstw względem ludzi rozumianym jako bezinteresowny dar. Bogowie oddają człowiekowi to, co są mu dłużni za składane wyrazy czci i ofiary. Realizuje się więc zasada do ut des. Jedynie w ten sposób błagalnik może doświadczyć boskiej łaskawości. Również zatem pietas deorum wpisuje się w krąg znaczeń 6 Sondel 2005: Cf. Cicero, De officiis II 11; idem, De finibus bonoroum et malorum III 73; Vergilius, Aeneis I 8-11; idem, Aeneis I Cf. Tacitus, Vita Agricolae VII 2. 9 Cf. Cicero, De republica VI Cf. Plautus, Poenulus, v Vergilius, Aeneis II Silius Italicus, Punica VI

231 10-11 (2015) związanych z officium i iustitia 13. Ponadto występuje poważna wątpliwość co do możliwości jej uzyskania, wyrażona w obydwu przytoczonych fragmentach poprzez przysłówek qua. 2. Pietas Christiana Pewien rodzaj zbieżności między klasycznym a chrześcijańskim pojmowaniem analizowanego terminu odnajdujemy w kontekście związanym z religią. Dla autorów chrześcijańskich bowiem pietas stanowi określenie kultu oddawanego Bogu, pojmowanego jako wszelkie oznaki czci, modlitwy i ofiary, a zatem w tym kontekście jako to, co moglibyśmy dziś określić właśnie mianem pobożności. W De civitate Dei Augustyna czytamy: Pietas quoque proprie Dei cultus intellegi solet, quam Graeci eusebeian uocant 14. Podobne znaczenie spotykamy u Leona Wielkiego: Et quid tam sacerdotale quam (...) immaculatas pietatis hostias de altari cordis offerre? 15 i Paulina z Noli: Nam ut evocationem ad Deum sanctae sororis meae, ita devotionem pietatis in Christo tuae pariter audivi 16. Fragmenty te, poprzez konotacje z takimi słowami jak cultus, hostia, altare czy devotio, wyraźnie wskazują na kontekst kultowy. Swoistym novum jest jednak fakt, iż pobożność ta ma charakter duchowy 17 i rodzi się nie tyle z czystego obowiązku i zwyczaju albo z powodu chęci zjednania sobie przychylności Boga, co z miłości do Niego. Pietas christiana erga Deum to zatem cultus Dei proprius, którego źródło wypływa ex affectu, czy też posługując się słowami Leona, ex altari cordis. Modyfikacja ta umotywowana była zmianą religijnego kontekstu. Ponadto pietas w kontekście chrześcijańskim to także gorliwość w wyznawaniu ewangelicznej wiary apostolskiej, na co wskazują słowa wspomnianego już papieża: Evangelicae atque apostolicae fidei pietas defendatur 18. Kontynuuację sensów klasycznych, również ze względu na kontekst swego użycia, prezentują dwa fragmenty z Divinae Institutiones apologety Laktancjusza. W pierwszym 13 W taki też sposób zacytowany wyżej fragment Eneidy interpretuje autor przekładu polskiego Zygmunt Kubiak: Za zbrodnię, / Za okrucieństwo krzyknął *Priam+ niech bogowie,/ Jeśli jest w niebie jeszcze sprawiedliwość,/ Która to widzi, niechże ci bogowie, Odpłacą, niech cię nagrodzą, jak trzeba<. Słowo pietas przetłumaczono jako sprawiedliwość, zgodnie z tezą officium ex iustitia, cf. Kubiak 1987: 85; Lewis-Short 1930: 1375; Plezai 1999: Augustinus, De civitate Dei X Leo Magnus, Sermo IV Paulinus Nolensis, Epistula XIII Cf. J 4, Leo Magnus, Epistula LIV

232 10-11 (2015) z nich opisuje on postać Furiusza Bibakulusa, korzystając przy tym z tekstu Waleriusza Maksymusa 19 : Nam Furius Bibaculus inter praecipua pietatis exempla numeratur, qui, cum praetor esset, tamen lictoribus praeeuntibus ancile portavit, cum haberet magistratus beneficio muneris eius vacationem 20. Niesienie przez Bibakulusa w uroczystej procesji specjalnej tarczy, zwanej ancile - mimo zwolnienia z tego obowiązku ze względu na sprawowany urząd - uznane zostało za niezwykły przejaw pobożności 21, rozumianej jako szacunek względem bogów i oddawanie im czci. Drugi zaś fragment traktuje o składaniu przez pogan ofiar z dzieci: Tam barbaros, tam immanes fuisse homines, ut parricidium suum, id est taetrum atque exsecrabile humano generi facinus, sacrificium vocarent, cum teneras atque innocentes animas, quae maxime est aetas parentibus dulcior, sine ullo respectu pietatis extingeurent 22. Według Laktancjusza barbarzyństwo i szaleństwo opisywanych ludzi przejawiało się w składaniu ich małych dzieci w ofierze, a zatem w złamaniu zasady pietas erga liberos. Autor ma jednak na myśli również to, iż ludzie ci wyzuci byli z wszelkich uczuć towarzyszących zazwyczaj relacjom rodziców z dziećmi. Obecny jest więc tutaj element emocjonalny istotny w perspektywie dalszych rozważań. Poza przytoczonymi wyżej przykładami, prezentującymi pewne zbieżności z prymarnym znaczeniem pietas obecnym w literaturze klasycznej, utwory autorów wyznających wiarę w Chrystusa prezentują inne jeszcze sensy analizowanego słowa. Zaskakującym, i dlatego też bardzo interesującym faktem jest to, iż w tekstach wchodzących w skład spuścizny chrześcijańskiej, zarówno starożytnych, jak i późniejszych, szczególnie liturgicznych, pietas to przede wszystkim synonim miłości, dobroci, łagodności i miłosierdzia, i to nie tylko w kontekście pietas hominis erga alios, lecz zwłaszcza w kontekście pietas Dei erga homines. Po raz kolejny warto odwołać się do Laktancjusza, który w szóstej księdze swego apologetycznego dzieła notuje: Deus imbecilitatem nostram sciens pro sua pietate aperuit homini portum salutis 23. Nie ma wątpliwości, iż właściwie interpretując do zdanie, należy 19 Cf. Valerius Maximus I 1,9. 20 Lactantius, Divinae Institutiones I W tym przypadku przekład ten jest jak najbardziej odpowiedni, na co wskazuje również kontekst zacytowanego fragmentu. Końcowe rozdziały pierwszej księgi Divinae Institutiones poruszają bowiem problematykę rzymskich praktyk kultowych. 22 Lactantius, Divinae Institutiones I Lactantius, Divinae Institutiones VI

233 10-11 (2015) stwierdzić, że Bóg udzielił człowiekowi łaski zbawienia przez wzgląd na swą litość, z uwagi na swe miłosierdzie i dobroć. Podobny motyw spotykamy w prologu Reguły świętego Benedykta: Ecce pietate sua demonstrat nobis Dominus viam vitae 24. Cyprian z Kartaginy zaś, pisząc o modlitwie Chrystusa podczas Ostatniej Wieczerzy, zaznacza: Magna Domini propter salutem nostram benignitas pariter et pietas, ut non contentus quod nos sanguine suo redimeret, adhuc pro nobis amplius et rogaret 25. Na omawiane znaczenie wskazuje wyraźnie konotacja słowa pietas z rzeczownikiem benignitas, wzmocniona ponadto przysłówkiem pariter. Podobne połączenie odnajdujemy w kazaniu Leona Wielkiego: Benignitatem itaque in hoc et dispensationem divinae pietatis agnosce 26. Co więcej, w liturgicznym tekście Praeconium paschale, znanym szerzej pod nazwą Exultet, czytamy: O mira circa nos tuae, *Domine+, pietatis dignatio! O inaestimabilis dilectio caritatis: ut servum redimeres, Filium tradidisti!. Kontekst świadczy, iż pietatis dignatio to w gruncie rzeczy dilectio caritatis. Na uwagę zasługuje również werbalna abundancja, mająca na celu wyrazić miłość Boga okazaną w dziele Odkupienia. Analizując teksty liturgii rzymskiej, zawarte choćby w trzeciej edycji typicznej posoborowego Missale Romanum, napotykamy na bardzo liczne występowanie terminu pietas w znaczeniu dobroci i miłości okazywanej przez Boga. W okresie adwentu Kościół łaciński modli się następującymi słowami: Festina, quaesumus, ne tardaveris, Domine Iesu, ut adventus tui consolationibus subleventur, qui in tua pietate confidunt 27. Na użycie rzeczownika pietas w znaczeniu dobroci i łaskawości wskazuje jego powiązanie z czasownikiem confidere. Wierni pokładają ufność w pietas Jezusa, to znaczy w Jego miłosierdziu. Taki sam sens prezentuje również tekst oratio super populum przypisany na jeden z powszednich dni Wielkiego Postu i to nie tylko jak w poprzednim przypadku - poprzez konotację z czasownikiem confidere, lecz także z rzeczownikami caritas oraz misericordia: Implorantes, Domine, misericordiam tuam fideles tuos propitius intuere, ut qui de tua pietate confidunt, tuae caritatis dona ubique diffundere valeant 28. Modlitwa obrzędu poświęcenia popiołu zawiera prośbę o błogosławieństwo Boże dla osób, które przyjmą na siebie znak pokuty: Deus, qui humiliatione flecteris et satisfac- 24 Regula Sancti Benedicti, Prologus Cyprianus, De dominica oratione Leo Magnus, Sermo VI Missale Romanum 2002, oratio de die 24 decembris. 28 Missale Romanum 2002, oratio super populum de feria sexta III hebdomadae Quadragesimae. 233

234 10-11 (2015) tione placaris, aurem tuae pietatis precibus nostris inclina, et super famulos tuos, horum cínerum aspersione contactos, gratiam tuae benedictionis effunde propitius 29. Źródłem zaś owego błogosławieństwa jest łaskawość Boga i fakt, że nakłania On ucha swej pietas ku prośbom ludzi, kierując się łaskawością (propitius). Podobną metaforę odnajdujemy w innej z wielkopostnych modlitw nad ludem: Pateant aures misericordiae tuae, Domine, precibus supplicantium 30. Użycie słowa misericordia potwierdza tezę, iż pietas stanowi jego synonim, podobnie jak w tekście hymnu Attende Domine 31, za pośrednictwem którego błagalnik prosi Chrystusa o przebaczenie grzechów: Tua, Redemptor, pietas ignoscat. Augustyn z Hippony stwierdza, iż w chrześcijańskim kontekście pietas hominis erga alios termin ten używany był na określenie dzieł miłosierdzia: More autem vulgi hoc nomen [pietatis] etiam in operibus misericordiae frequentatur; quod ideo arbitror evenisse, quia haec fieri praecipue mandat Deus eaque sibi uel pro sacrificiis vel prae sacrificiis placere testatur 32. Można zatem powiedzieć, iż zgodnie z opinią Augustyna również dobre uczynki chrześcijanina są przejawem wspomnianego już kultu Bożego ex affectu. Dobroć wyświadczana bliźniemu jest także miłością, a zarazem czcią okazywaną Panu 33, stanowiąc wyraz pietas erga Deum. W Carmen 10 Paulin z Noli stawia natomiast pytanie: Pietas abesse Christiano qui potest?/ Namque argumentum mutuum est/ Pietatis, esse Christianum. Wzajemne wyświadczanie sobie pietas, czyli miłosierdzia i dobroci (argumentum mutuum), jest znakiem rozpoznawczym chrześcijan oraz centrum ich życia oraz wiary. Należy zatem stwierdzić, iż w literaturze chrześcijańskiej widoczne są podobieństwa z klasycznym ujęciem pietas, jako że wciąż pobrzmiewa w niej echo klasycznego officium. Pietas hominis erga Deum jest bowiem oddawaniem Bogu należnej Mu czci, wynikającej z Jego potęgi i majestatu, a ponadto uzasadniona jest przykazaniem 34, podobnie jak pietas hominis erga alios - haec fieri praecipue mandat Deus - jak pisał Augustyn. Pewne zbieżności widoczne są też w kontekście pietas Dei erga homines. Bóg, poczuwając się niejako do odpowiedzialności za stworzenie, troszczy się o swoje dzieci, co nasuwa skojarzenia z klasyczną pietas erga liberos. 29 Missale Romanum 2002, oratio benedictionis cinerum de feria IV Cinerum. 30 Missale Romanum 2002, oratio super populum de sabbato II hebdomadae Quadragesimae. 31 Wielkopostny hymn łaciński wywodzący się z liturgii mozarabskiej z X wieku. 32 Augustinus, De civitate Dei X Cf. Mt 25, Cf. Mt 22,

235 10-11 (2015) Jednakże podstawową różnicą jest fakt, iż owo officium w literaturze klasycznej prymarnie wypływało ex iustitia i w pewien sposób było uregulowane przez mos maiorum, zaś w tekstach chrześcijańskich wypływa w głównej mierze ex affectu. Co więcej, pietas dla chrześcijan, będąc synonimem takich słów jak misericordia czy caritas, to affectus par excellence, i to zarówno ze strony Boga względem człowieka, jak i ze strony człowieka względem Boga i innych ludzi. Warto wspomnieć, że wskazane wyżej emocjonalne znaczenia rozważanego terminu kontynuują języki romańskie. Dla przykładu włoska pietà oznacza litość, miłosierdzie, podobnie jak francuska pitié czy hiszpańska piedad. Z kolei w polskim słowie pietyzm słychać raczej echo znaczenia klasycznego, mieszczącego się w znaczeniu szacunku i respektu. 3. Pietas Romana ex affectu Jest rzeczą wiadomą, iż literatura chrześcijańska przekształcała znaczenie klasycznych pojęć, zarówno greckich, jak i łacińskich, akomodując je do potrzeb nowej religii. Zachowywała jednak ich semantyczną istotę. Dla przykładu klasyczny episkopos 35 to stróż, strażnik, i podobnie w tekstach chrześcijańskich to strażnik grupy wierzących, ich przewodnik czyli biskup. Dla pogan ekklesia 36 to zebranie obywateli, dla chrześcijan jest to również zgromadzenie ludzi, zwołane jednak przez Chrystusa, innymi słowy Kościół. W przypadku jednak terminu pietas zdaje się, iż mamy do czynienia nie tyle z przekształceniem sensu, co z nowym znaczeniem. Rodzi się zatem pytanie o przyczynę i źródło takiej semantycznej ewolucji. Dlaczego w literaturze chrześcijańskiej pietas oznacza przede wszystkim łaskawość, miłość czy miłosierdzie, podczas gdy zgodnie z sensem klasycznym polega ona na spełnianiu obowiązku w celu praktykowania cnoty sprawiedliwości? Należy zaznaczyć, iż wprawdzie, jak wskazano wcześniej, rzymska pietas stanowiła wypełnienie iustitia i officium, jednakże motywacja do jej praktykowania wypływała nie tylko - choć przede wszystkim - z restrykcyjnie pojmowanego mos maiorum, ze ściśle ustalonego porządku, zbioru praw, zasad i obyczajów. Jak w przypadku każdego człowieka, tak również i u starożytnych Rzymian, ważną rolę musiał odgrywać czynnik emocjonalny. 35 Liddell Scott Jones 1968: Liddell Scott Jones 1968:

236 10-11 (2015) Można zatem uznać, że pietas Romana to nie tylko officium ex iustitia, lecz również officium ex affectu, dowody czego odnajdujemy w tekstach źródłowych. Szczególną uwagę zwraca zakończenie poematu Aetna nieznanego autora, z którego dowiadujemy się o dokonanym przez synów uratowaniu rodziców z pożaru: Illis divitiae solae materque paterque:/ hanc rapient praedam. Mediumque exire per ignem/ ipso dante fidem properant. O maxima rerum/ et merito pietas homini tutissima virtus! 37. Motywem wyświadczania przez dzieci pietas erga parentes (zaliczonej przez autora poematu w poczet cnót) jest oczywiście iustitia, ale niewątpliwie istotną rolę spełnia również affectus, jako że synowie niosą ratunek rodzicom nie tylko ze względu na obowiązek i odpowiedzialność wobec nich, lecz także na miłość, jaką ich obdarzają. Czynnik emocjonalny zatem nie może być pominięty 38. W Panegiryku Pliniusz Młodszy zwraca się do cesarza Trajana: Te fama, te gloria, te civium pietas super ipsos principes vehunt 39. Również i w tym przykładzie możemy dostrzec zabarwienie uczuciowe. Źródłem pietas erga principem jest nie tylko poczucie szacunku i respektu wobec władcy, ale też przywiązanie do tego, który zapewnia obywatelom żywność i przewodzi państwu. Podobny kontekst spotykamy u Liwiusza: Ut tribuni militares contione advocata peditibus equitibusque gratias agerent, memorem pietatis eorum erga patriam dicerent senatum fore 40. Pietas erga patriam to nie tylko obowiązek względem państwa, ale niewątpliwie również pragnienie jego wielkości i potęgi, co z kolei wynika ex affectu, z pewnego rodzaju uczucia, a więc jest czymś, co dzisiaj nazwalibyśmy patriotyzmem. Wskazane przykłady w sposób pośredni wskazywały na emocjonalne zabarwienie rzymskiej pietas. Możemy jednak odnaleźć źródła, w których color affectus jest bezsprzecznie widoczny. Cyceron pisze w jednym z listów Ad familiares: Caesarem vero, quod me in tanta fortuna modo cognitum vetustissimorum familiarium loco habuit, dilexi summa cum 37 Incerti auctoris Aetna, v Tak też interpretuje ten fragment autor angielskiego przekładu, który termin pietas tłumaczy zwrotem loving duty, a zatem zgodnie z tezą officium ex affectu, cf. Duff 1954: 419. Stanisław Śnieżewski, autor przekładu polskiego, pozostaje przy stricte klasycznym ujęciu, tłumacząc tę frazę jako poczucie obowiązku wobec rodziców, cf. Śnieżewski 2002: Plinius Minor, Panegyricus Livius, Ab urbe condita V

237 10-11 (2015) pietate et fide 41. Sens całego zdania, jak i konotacja terminu pietas z czasownikiem diligere nie pozostawia żadnych wątpliwości, że w tym przypadku pietas posiada charakter uczuciowy. W plautyńskich Dwóch Bakchidach natrafiamy zaś na następującą frazę: Sine, mea pietas, te exorem 42. Kontekst fragmentu wskazuje, iż obecne w nim słowo pietas wyraża bez wątpienia sens emocjonalny, a jego polskim ekwiwalentem może być zwrot moje kochanie 43. Widać zatem, iż rzymska pietas, choć zdecydowanie z mniejszą częstotliwością, opisuje również uczucia miłości. Na uwagę zasługuje również fakt używania formuły pietatis causa lub ex pietate w epitafach, świadczącej, iż dziedzic wzniósł pomnik nie tyle w celu wypełnienia ostatniej woli zmarłego (ex testamento), ale przez wzgląd na uczucie, jakim go obdarzał Pietas Romana id est clementia Kontynuację emocjonalnego nurtu semantycznego rzymskiej pietas możemy odnaleźć w pewnych - choć bardzo nielicznych - fragmentach, w których omawiane słowo zostało użyte jako synonim takich terminów jak clementia, a zatem w sensie podobnym, w jakim jako prymarnym wykorzystywać je będzie łacina chrześcijańska. W żywocie Domicjana autorstwa Swetoniusza czytamy: Permittite, patres conscripti, a pietate vestra impetrari, ut damnatis liberum mortis arbitrium indulgeatis. Na fakt użycia słowa pietas w znaczeniu łaskawości po raz kolejny wskazuje zestawienie z innym słowem, tym razem z czasownikiem indulgere. W tym miejscu warto wspomnieć, iż termin pietas był również tytułem honorowym władcy 45, co wiązało się z pragnieniem uzyskania łaskawości monarchy, dlatego też zwrot ten tłumaczono często frazą Wasza Łaskawość. Ponadto jedna z sentencji zawartych w 41 Cicero, Ad familiares X Plautus, Bacchides, v W taki sposób interpretuje ten fragment Ewa Skwara, autorka współczesnego przekładu polskiego, tłumacząc: Ma Miłości, me kochanie. Według tłumaczki Plaut nawiązuje w tym miejscu do rzymskiej bogini Pietas, która uosabiała szacunek, wierność, przywiązanie, a także miłość, cf. Skwara 2004: 154. Zabarwienie emocjonalne obecne jest również w starszym przekładzie Gustawa Przychockiego, który omawianą frazę oddaje zwrotem: O mój słodki, cf. Przychocki 1935: Lewis-Short 1930: Sondel 2005: 749; Plezia 1999:

238 10-11 (2015) Digesta Iustiniani głosi: Patria potestas in pietate debet, non atrocitate consistere 46. Jak widać, pietas stoi w opozycji do atrocitas, stanowiąc odpowiednik łagodności i dobroci, na której powinna opierać się władza ojcowska. 5. Summarium Na przestrzeni tekstów pogańskich i chrześcijańskich, poza naturalnymi zbieżnościami widocznymi w pewnej kontynuacji sensów związanych z officium, dostrzegalne są przede wszystkim różnice w rozumieniu i interpretacji terminu pietas. Sens emocjonalny obecny w literaturze klasycznej pozostawał w gronie znaczeń sekundarnych. Dla Rzymianina bowiem pietas to przede wszystkim poczucie obowiązku wynikające z mos maiorum. W tekstach chrześcijańskich zaś klasyczny sens sekundarny stał się sensem prymarnym i dlatego dla autorów wierzących w Chrystusa omawiane słowo było synonimem miłości, miłosierdzia, łaskawości i dobroci. Nowością są jednak nie tylko modyfikacje znaczeniowe. Na uwagę zasługuje również zmiana w atrybucji pojęcia. Pisarze pogańscy rzadko przypisywali ten termin bóstwom, a jeżeli już, to w znaczeniu officium ex iustitia, a nie ex affectu. Literatura chrześcijańska zaś bardzo chętnie posługiwała się terminem pietas w odniesieniu do Boga we wskazanych sensach emocjonalnych, co umotywowane było nowym kontekstem religijnym. Zmiany semantyczne i odmienna atrybucja wpłynęły również na odwrócenie hierarchiczności podmiotów. O ile tradycyjnym kierunkiem wyświadczania pietas przez pogan był zazwyczaj kierunek od kogoś mniej znaczącego do kogoś ważniejszego: erga deos, parentes, patriam (ze wskazanym wyjątkiem pietas erga liberos), o tyle teksty chrześcijańskie, traktując o pietas Dei erga homines, znacząco ten kierunek zmieniły. Trzeba zatem stwierdzić, iż emocjonalne zabarwienie terminu pietas występujące w literaturze klasycznej wpłynęło decydująco na semantyczny rozwój pojęcia w utworach autorów chrześcijańskich. Ów klasyczny color affectus stał się podstawą dla rozumienia terminu pietas przede wszystkim w kategoriach uczuciowych. Rozważanie na temat znaczenia rzymskiej pietas zakończmy słowami Horacego, który zastanawiając się nad semantycznymi zmianami słów, napisał: Ut silvae foliis pronos mutantur in annos,/ prima cadunt, ita verborum vetus interit aetas,/ et iuvenum ritu florent 46 Digesta Iustiniani 48,9. 238

239 10-11 (2015) modo nata vigentque./ Debemur morti nos nostraque, (...) nedum sermonum stet honos et gratia vivax./ Multa renascentur quae iam cecidere, cadentque/ quae nunc sunt in honore vocabula, si volet usus,/ quem penes arbitrium est et ius et norma loquendi 47. BIBLIOGRAFIA Blaise A. (ed.) 1967: Dictionnaire latin-français des auteurs chrétiens, Turnhout. Emilie G. 1944: Cicero and the Roman Pietas, The Classical Journal 39, Forcellini A. (ed.) 1940: Lexicon totius Latinitatis, Patavii. Garrison J. D. 1992: Pietas from Vergil to Dryden, Pennsylvania. Glare P.G.W. (ed.) 1990: Oxford Latin Dictionary, Oxford. Duff J.W. (ed.) 1954: Minor Latin Poets with introductions and English translations, London. Hellegouarc h J. 1963: Le vocabulaire latin des relations et des partis politiques sous la République, Paris. Jougan A. (ed.) 1958: Słownik kościelny łacińsko-polski, Poznań. Korpanty J. 1974: Pietas Romana, Filomata 279, Korpanty J. 1975: Z dziejów rzymskiej pietas, Meander 30, Korpanty J. 1976: Studia nad łacińską terminologią polityczno-socjalną okresu Republiki Rzymskiej, Wrocław-Kraków. Korpanty J. (ed.) 2003: Słownik łacińsko-polski, 2 vol., Warszawa. Kowalski H. 2002: Pietas jako wyznacznik odniesień między rodzicami a dziećmi w republikańskim Rzymie, in: J. Jundziłł D. Żołądź-Strzelczyk (eds.), Dziecko w rodzinie i społeczeństwie. Starożytność - Średniowiecze, 1 vol., Bydgoszcz. Kubiak Z (ed.) 1987: Publius Vergilius Maro. Eneida, Warszawa. Lewis Ch.T., Short Ch. (eds.) 1930: A Latin dictionary, Oxford. Liddell H.G., Scott R., Jones H.S., McKenzie R. (eds.) 1968: A Greek-English Lexicon. Ninth edition, Oxford. Olejnik S. (ed.) 1968: Słownik łacińsko-polski terminów teologiczno-moralnych, Warszawa. Pieńkoś J. (ed.) 2001: Słownik łacińsko-polski. Łacina w nauce i kulturze, Kraków. 47 Horatius, Ars poetica, v

240 10-11 (2015) Plezia M. (ed.) 1999: Słownik łacińsko-polski, 4 vol., Warszawa. Przychocki G. (ed.) 1935: T. Maccius Plautus. Komedje, 3 vol., Kraków. Skwara E. (ed.) 2004: Plaut. Komedie, 3 vol., Warszawa. Sondel J. (ed.) 2005: Słownik łacińsko-polski dla prawników i historyków, Kraków. Śnieżewski S. (ed.) 2002: Etna nieznanego autora, Terminus IV 2, De Vaan M. (ed.) 2008: Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the other Italic Languages, Leiden-Boston. Wagenvoort H. 1980: Pietas: Selected Studies in Roman Religion, Leiden. Color affectus as a source of semantic evolution of Latin term pietas (Summary) According to Cicero, the term pietas stands for officium and iustitia. The meaning of this term in classical Roman literature signifies sense of duty, especially towards the gods, parents and country which has it s source in mos maiorum culture. Yet when we read texts of the ancient Christian literature as well as Latin prayers present in the liturgy of Roman Catholic Church, we find other, very surprising and interesting meaning of pietas. Christian authors use this term as a synonym of love, affection, goodness and benignity. Where is the source of this semantic evolution? When we analyze more precisely the works of classical writer, we can find some texts in which pitas is used in more affectional and emotional tone. For instance pietas erga parentes in Aetna poem is not only motivated by sense of duty, but also by love and affection towards the parents. Moreover, Plautus in one of his comedies use phrae mea pietas in the meaning of my darling. What is more, some classical authors, like Suetonius, use term pietas as a synonym of clemency and mercy. This affectional tone (color affectus) is a source of semantic evolution of Latin term pietas. SŁOWA KLUCZOWE: pietas; semantyczna ewolucja; literatura klasyczna; literatura chrześcijańska KEYWORDS: pietas; semantic evolution; classical literature; Christian literature Łukasz Halida ur. 1992; studia magisterskie w Instytucie Filologii Klasycznej Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego w Krakowie rozpoczęte w 2014 roku; zainteresowania naukowe: seman- 240

241 10-11 (2015) tyka języka greckiego i łacińskiego, filologia biblijna, chrześcijańska literatura patrystyczna i apologetyczna, kultura klasyczna a chrześcijaństwo; lukasz.halida@gmail.com 241

242 10-11 (2015) DANNU HÜTWOHL (The Ohio State University) Pindar of Thebes: The Orphic Mystagogue Scholars have long debated Pindar s involvment with the Orphic movement. Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff (1922) 1 and W. K. C. Guthrie (1993) 2 both argued that Pindar was catering to the Orphic beliefs of his patron Theron when he composed Olympian 2. Erwin Rhode (1925) 3 suggested Pindar learned Orphic doctrine directly from his repeated visits to Sicily, and, more recently, Jan N. Bremmer (2002) 4 pointed out the influence of Orphic thought on Pindar s poetry. Domenico Comparetti first remarked at the striking similarities between the Orphic Gold Tablets and Pindar s Olympian 2. 5 Fritz Graf and Sarah Johnston (2007) 6 and Dirk Obbink (2011) 7 have argued Pindar s representation of the afterlife was based on a similar eschatological scheme as the Gold Tablets. Pindar describes a tripartite division of souls in the afterflife 8 and he even designates Chronos as the father of all. 9 Martin West (1983) 10 questioned whether Pindar s Orphic themed eschatology in addition to cosmology was merely a coincidence. Sir Hugh Lloyd-Jones (1990) 11 responded that Pindar 1 Wilamowitz 1922: Guthrie 1993: 236: We must not forget that the second Olympian ode, which is our chief Pindaric source for transmigration and the life of the blessed, was written for recital before a Sicilian audience, who might be supposed to be more interested than others in Orphico-Pythagorean beliefs. 3 Rhode 1925: 417: From what particular direction Pindar s theological interests may have come to him we cannot say with precision or certainty. Orphic as well as Pythagorean doctrines may have come to his notice in Sicily whither he made repeated visits after 477 BC. 4 Bremmer 2002: 21, 23, Graf and Johnston 2007: Graf and Johnston 2007: 101: In both Pindar and the tablets, the bad, the good, and the good-plus are geographically and experientially separated in the Underworld. 7 Obbink 2011: : Pindar could also be seen as offering in the epilogue of the sixth Isthmian an exegesis of the sacred doctrine (as he similarly treats other aspects of Orphic eschatology in Olympian 2. 8 Willcock 1995: Χρόνος ὁ πάντων πατὴρ (Ol Race). All translations are mine [D. H.] unless otherwise stated. 10 West 1983: 110n82: The eschatology of this ode is indeed close to that of the Orphic poem. There is judgment of the dead (56-60), a pleasant existence for the good with those gods who have not perjured themselves (61-67), a hell for the wicked, presumably with the perjurer gods (67), repeated reincarnations with the possibility of final escape to the Isle of the Blessed where the heroes live (68 ff.)... Is it coincidence that in the same poem (17) Pindar refers to Chronos, the father of all? 11 Lloyd-Jones 1990: 83: Pindar could, I think, speak of Time the father of all things without having in mind the special importance of Time in Orphic theogonies. 242

243 10-11 (2015) could invoke Time without implying Chronos as the primordial Orphic god, yet he catalogued compelling observations between the afterlife depicted in Olympian 2 and the Gold Tablets. Most recently, Marco Santamaría (2008) has argued that in Pindar s poetry, there are as many typically Orphic doctrines as there are images. 12 I propose that Pindar s poetry contains ideas inherent in the foundational Orphic belief, the Zagreus myth, which does not survive in a complete form before Olympiodorus 6th century CE commentary on Plato s Phaedo (OF 220 Kern F, 318 F, 320 F Bernabé), but is reflected in older texts including, I argue, Pindar s Odes and Threnoi. 13 According to Olympiodorus s narrative, Hera, in her hatred of Dionysus, the son of Zeus and Persephone, incited the Titans to kill Dionysus, dismember him, and feed upon his flesh. In punishment Zeus blasted the Titans with lightning, and from their ashes sprung the human race, composed of both Dionysus and the Titans. The Orphic Zagreus myth can be considered fundamental because it contains specific entailments and assumptions that resonate throughout Orphic thought: that the human soul is immortal because of its divine origins; that it faces judgment in the afterlife; that there is a reward of heroization for the initiate; but also that there is a need for salvation because of an ancient transgression such that initiation functions as a kind of poinē blood payment for the murder of Dionysus implicit in mankind because of our Titanic portions; and, finally, that initiation offers a better afterlife and distinguishes the soul based on her memory of this ancient transgression. I contend that Pindar s poetry contains ideas inherent in the Zagreus myth, organized according its mythico-religous belief system, and, most importantly, expressed in the same terminology as we find in Orphic texts, such as the Gold Tablets. I specifically draw attention to the term ποινή, penalty or blood-payment used in the Threnoi and Olympian 2 and its corresponding use on the Gold Tablets. I suggest ποινή functioned as an Orphic symbolon, or password exchanged between fellow initiates that established their identity as initiates with one another through their 12 Santamaría 2008: Santamaría (2008: 1183) argues In various passages of Pindar (especially in Olympian 2 and in different fragment of the Threnoi and Dithyrambs) numerous passages of Pindar are percieved, as well as features of the style and literary expression that these beliefs had received in a homogeneous series of writings, 13 For poinē in Orphism and fragment 133 of Pindar see Santamaría 2003: and 2008: For the antiquity of the myth of Dionysus Zagreus see Graf and Johnston 2007: There is evidence from Nonnus Dionysiaca , Dio s Charidemos (OF 320vii), and the Smyrna inscription (OF Bernabé) that the Zagreus myth was known earlier. For the antiquity of the myth of the Titans see Bernabé 2002:

244 10-11 (2015) knowledge of the implied myth of the cannabalism of Dionysus by the Titans. Hence, Pindar s use of the word points to his intimate knowledge of Orphic ritual. Following the work of Graf, Johnston and Obbink, I argue that the tripartite division of souls in Olympian 2 and the depiction of the waters of Memory imparting immortality in Isthmian 6 are parallel to the tripartite scheme and the mnemonic function of immortalization on the Gold Tablets. I read this as evidence that Pindar was not simply catering to a specific audience, but that he was also working within the literary tradition that produced the tablets. I propose Pindar learned Orphic doctrine by being initiated into its Mysteries, after which he integrated Orphic myth into his poetry. The poetry of Pindar is filled with ideas and imagery reminiscent of Orphic belief and the Orphic Gold Tablets in particular. In the Threnoi, Pindar describes Orpheus as Orpheus of the golden lyre, 14 and in his description of the Isles of the Blessed, flowers of gold are blazing, 15 and even Memory is golden-robed. 16 Pindar s golden imagery and goldenrobed Memory seem to recall the Orphic Gold Tablets, where Memory plays a key role in heroization as she distinguishes an initiate and grants his immortality. 17 The Gold Tablets themselves functioned as a ritual mnemonic device for the initiate in the afterlife, and they contained passwords to help the initiate enjoy his blessed immortality. Immortality was promised to an initiate by his claim to divine lineage. This belief provided a theoretical justification for salvation and was a central belief of the Orphic cult. The Petelia tablet commands the initiate to give a secret password in order to gain access to the blessed afterlife: Γῆς παῖς εἰμι καὶ Οὐρανοῦ ἀστερόεντος αὐτὰρ ἐμοὶ γένος οὐράνιον, I am a child of Earth and starry Sky, but my race is heavenly (2.6-7 Graf/Johnston = B1 Zuntz, L3 Bernabé). The γένος οὐράνιον of the Petelia tablet is echoed in Pindar s Nemean 6 where he too expresses the idea of divine lineage of mankind. Ἓν ἀνδρῶν, ἓν θεῶν γένος ἐκ μιᾶς δὲ πνέομεν ματρὸς ἀμφότεροι One is the race of men, one is the race of gods, and from one mother do we both derive our breath (Nem Race). 14 Ὀρφέα χρυσάορα (Thren Race = Pindar fr. 139 Snell). 15 ἔνθα μακάρων νᾶσον ὠκεανίδες αὖραι περιπνέοισιν ἄνθεμα δὲ χρυσοῦ φλέγει... (Ol Race). 16 χρυσοπέπλου Μναμοσύνας (Isthm Race). 17 Although the epithet χρυσόπεπλος is used in other non-orphic contexts, and gold is a common sign of immortality, it is the specific conjunction with gold and Memory that I argue is marked as Orphic. 244

245 10-11 (2015) An Orphic initiate claimed divine lineage from Dionysus and his mother Persephone. This aetiological myth of an ancient transgression formed the basis of the Orphic cult. Although the antiquity of the myth has been questioned, Paul Tannery (1899), who was followed by Herbert J. Rose (1943), developed the argument that Pindar s fragment 133 referred to the Orphic myth of Dionysus, and that, therefore, Pindar and Plato knew about the myth before its Hellenistic elaboration. Martin West (1983), 18 Walter Burkert (1985), 19 E. R. Dodds (2004), 20 Fritz Graf and Sarah Johnston (2007), 21 and even Ivan Linforth (1941) 22 have all supported the myth s antiquity; Alberto Bernabé and Ana Isabel Jiménez San Cristóbal (2008) 23 situated Pindar within the same system of beliefs that produced the tablets. I argue that Pindar was himself an Orphic initiate as revealed by his intimate knowledge of the method by 18 West notes: Let us recall the details of the story of Dionysus as it was told in the Rhapsodies, or rather, of that part of the story which we attribute to the Eudemian Theogony because of its connections with a preceding episode in that poem. Dionysus is born in Crete to Zeus and Kore. He is guarded by the dancing Kouretes, as Zeus was. This probably lasts for five years. Zeus installs him on his own throne and tells the gods that this is their new king. But the Titans, whitening their faces with gypsum, lure him away with a mirror, apples, a bull-roarer, and other articles. They kill him and cut him into seven pieces, which they first boil, then roast and proceed to eat. But Athena preserves the still living heart and takes it to Zeus in a casket. The gods grieve. Zeus discharges his thunderbolt at the Titans and removes them from the face of the earth. The residual smoke contains a soot from which mankind is created. The remnants of the Titans feast are given to Apollo, who takes them to Parnassus (that is, to Delphi) and inters them. But from the heart a new Dionysus is made (West 1983: 140). He also observes, The Eudemian Theogony was current at Athens in the fourth century BC; the earliest reference to it, in Plato s Cratylus, takes us back to the 380s (West 1983: 174). 19 One should therefore concede that the myth of the dismemberment of Dionysus is relatively old and well known among the Greeks but was consciously kept secret as a doctrine of mysteries (Burkert 1985: 298). 20 Several considerations combine to persuade me that the myth is nevertheless old. The first is its archaic character: it is founded on the ancient Dionysiac ritual of Sparagmos and Omophagia, and it implies the archaic belief in inherited guilt, which in the Hellenistic Age had begun to be a discredited superstition. The second is the Pindar quotation in Plato s Meno where the penalty of an ancient grief is most naturally explained as referring to human responsibility for the slaying of Dionysus. Thirdly, in one passage of the Laws Plato refers to people who show off the old Titan nature, and in another to sacrilegious impulses which are neither of man nor of god but arise from old misdeeds unpurgeable by man. And fourthly, we are told that Plato s pupil Xenocrates somehow connected the notion of the body as a prison with Dionysus and the Titans. Individually, these apparent references to the myth can at a pinch be explained away; but taking them together, I find it hard to resist the conclusion that the complete story was known to Plato and his public (Dodds 2004: ). 21 Graf and Johnston 2007: But after all, and in spite of these objections, one must acknowledge that there is a high degree of probability in Rose s interpretation. The fragment may be accepted as at least plausible evidence that the story of the dismemberment was known to Pindar (Linforth 1941: 350). 23 Bernabé and Jiménez San Cristóbal observe (2008: 72): This is the same situation alluded to in a Pindaric fragment (133 Maehl), and again, A text from Pindar seems clearly to allude to the same scheme as the one found in the tablets (106). 245

246 10-11 (2015) which an initiate could atone for this primordial blood crime namely, through ποινή, penalty, blood price, retribution, by which the initiate expiated the Titanic crime through initiation and ritual purifications. The goal of Orphism was for the initiate to atone for the ancient blood crime throughout a cycle of rebirths until, upon paying the ποινή, he once again becomes a god instead of a mortal. In Pindar fragment 133, Persephone will recieve the requital of the ancient sorrow : οἷσι δὲ Φερσεφόνα ποινὰν παλαιοῦ πένθεος δέξεται, ἐς τὸν ὕπερθεν ἅλιον κείνων ἐνάτῳ ἔτεϊ ἀνδιδοῖ ψυχὰν πάλιν, ἐκ τᾶν βασιλῆες ἀγαυοί καὶ σθένει κραιπνοὶ σοφίᾳ τε μέγιστοι ἄνδρες αὔξοντ ἐς δὲ τὸν λοιπὸν χρόνον ἥροες ἁγνοὶ πρὸς ἀνθρώπων καλέονται. But for those from whom Persephone accepts requital for the ancient grief, in the ninth year she returns their souls to the upper sunlight; from them arise proud kings and men who are swift of strength and greatest in wisdom, and for the rest of time they are called sacred heroes by men. Pindar fr. 133 (trans. Race 1997: 369) Rose argued this fragment must refer to the Orphic myth of Dionysus based on the conjunction of the words Persephone, ποινὰν, and πένθεος. With regards to the ποινή, which by its traditional definition of blood-guilt suggests the murder of Persephone s son Dionysus by the Titans, Rose argued ποινάν is simple enough, for it always means a recompense of some sort in Pindar, though generally keeping close to its proper sense of wergelt. 24 Rose s argument that Pindar is expressing an Orphic eschatology hinges on the word πένθεος, for which only two events seem likely, the rape of Persephone by Hades or the death of her son Dionysus Zagreus: No human soul could be expected to make requital to the goddess for what she underwent then. Remains therefore only one possibility, the death of her son, Dio- 24 Rose 1967:

247 10-11 (2015) nysus or Zagreus, at the hands of the Titans. 25 Most recently, Radcliffe G. Edmonds III contends that in Pindar fragment 133 ποινή means reward rather than its original meaning of Wergeld, and Pindar s use of ποινή is instead a reference to cult honors paid to Persephone because of the sorrow (πένθος) of her traumatic rape by Hades. 26 Furthermore, Edmonds asserts that Pindar never uses ποινή with the sense of Wergeld. 27 In his review of Edmond s book, Robert Parker points out, In the particular fragment, however, the verb accept (δέχεσθαι) strongly suggests a relation between an offender and an offended party, who may or may not accept the proffered ποινά. 28 Furthermore, although Edmonds argues that Pindar does not use ποινή in the precise sense of Wergeld in such Odes as Pythian 4.63 and especially Nemean 1.70, the Scholia vetera for Pythian 4.63 clearly define ποινή as acquittal. 29 I argue that Pindar s use of ποινή as requital only in fragment 133 and Olympian 2 suggests that it is a marked term and has a specific usage within the particular eschatological contexts of both poems. Furthermore, it is significant to recall that Plato cites Pindar s fragment 133 in the context of Socrates argument that anamnēsis recollection as a proof of the immortality of the soul and the doctrine of reincarnation (Meno 81b-e). Plato is quoting Pindar as an authority for the belief in reincarnation and the fragment informs Plato s eschatological context. Therefore, I contend, we must interpret fragment 133 within this specific context of reincarnation and the soul s immortality rather than within the context of Persephone s rape by Hades. We see a very similar eschatological description to Pindar s fragment 133 on Orphic tablet 6 from Thurii: 4 ποινὰν,ν} ἀ<ν>ταπ έτε<ισ > ἔργω<ν ἕνεκ > οτι δικ verso α<ί>ων< 6 νῦν δὲ <ι>κ<έτις> ἥκω, ἥκω παρὰ Φ<ερ>σεφ<όνειαν>. 7 ὥς,λ} με <π>ρόφ<ρων> πέ*μ+ψει,μ} ἕδρας ἐς εὐ<α>γ<έων> 25 Rose 1967: Edmonds 2013: Edmonds 2013: Parker Schol. Vet. Pyth Drachmann: τίς ἔσται τῆς φωνῆς ποινὴ, τουτέστιν ἀπόλυσις ἐπεὶ ἡ ποινὴ ἀπολύσεως ἕνεκεν γίνεται. What will be the blood-price for speaking, this is the requital, since the blood-price comes on account of the requital. 247

248 10-11 (2015) I have paid the penalty for unrighteous deeds< Now I have come beside Persephone as a suppliant in order that she may willingly send me to the seat of the pure. Thurii tablet (trans. Graf and Johnston 2007: 15) The idea of paying the penalty is equated with escaping the painful cycle of incarnations on Tablet 5 from Thurii: 5 κύκλο δ εξέπταν βαρυπενθέος ἀργαλέοιο 6 ἱμερτο δ ἐπέβαν στεφάνο ποσὶ καρπαλίμοισι 7 Δεσσποίνας δὲ ὑπὸ κόλπον ἔδυν χθονίας Βασιλείας I have flown out of the painful, grief causing circle, I have approached the long for crown with swift feet, I have sunk beneath the breast of the Lady, the Chthonian Queen. Thurii tablet (trans. Graf and Johnston 2007: 13) The tablets from Thurii and Pindar fragment 133 both use ποινή when speaking about the cycle of incarnations. Pindar associates the two ideas of ποινή and πένθος in fragment 133. In turn, I relate ποινή with πένθος on the Thuriian tablets since the idea of retribution, or blood-payment is a result of Persephone s grief. The epithet Δεσσποίνας on tablet 5 gives anaphoric resonance since Persephone is the goddess who recieves the ποινή; the resonance may suggest a folk-etymology associating Persephone with requital. 30 On tablet 5 the initiate, sinks into the breast of the Chthonian queen, and becomes a god instead of a mortal. Likewise on tablet 6 we read, I have come beside Persephone in order that she may willingly send me to the seats of the pure. I argue the word ποινή is used by both Pindar and the tablets as a technical term referring to the specific Orphic belief known to initiates. In Pindar fragment 133, after souls have atoned for the ποινή of Persephone they become ἥρωες I do not suggest a direct etymological relation between ποινή and Δεσσποίνας, since δεσποινα is from *δεσ-ποτ-νια. The first part, IE *dems (whence Gr. δεσ-, Skt. dam- ), is the genitive of a word for house (Beekes 2010: 319). But the anaphoric resonance of Δεσσποίνας in conjunction with βαρυπενθέος in Thurii tablet 5 is striking nonetheless

249 10-11 (2015) ἁγνοὶ. The association between purity and heroization is consistent with tablet 6 as Persephone sends the initiate to the seats of the pure (ἕδρας ἐς εὐ<α>γ<έων>). Pindar s use of ποινή extends to Olympian 2, which scholars focus on when speaking of Pindar s Orphica. Pindar describes a tripartite division of souls by designating separate destinations for the bad, the good, and the heroic souls. The destinations are separated by an elaborate succession marked by μὲν and δὲ. The afterlife is introduced with the conjunction ὅτι, and the first division is marked by μὲν. εἰ δέ νιν ἔχων τις οἶδεν τὸ μέλλον, ὅτι θανόντων μὲν ἐνθάδ' αὐτίκ' ἀπάλαμνοι φρένες ποινὰς ἔτεισαν τὰ δ' ἐν τᾷδε Διὸς ἀρχᾷ ἀλιτρὰ κατὰ γᾶς δικάζει τις ἐχθρᾷ λόγον φράσαις ἀνάγκᾳ If one has it and knows the future, that the helpless spirits of those who have died on earth immediately pay the penalty and upon sins committed here in Zeus realm, a judge beneath the earth pronounces sentence with hateful necessity. Ol (trans. Race 1997: 69) For the category of bad souls, when men have died here on earth, wicked minds immediately pay the penalty. Lloyd-Jones also proposed Pindar was relating similar beliefs behind the initiatory rites depicted on the Gold Tablets, and he first demonstrated that ποινὰς ἔτεισαν is identical to the atonement of the ποινή accepted by Persephone in fragment Following Lloyd-Jones, I read the eschatological scheme of Olympian 2 as an elaboration of fragment 133, both of which correspond to the scheme depicted on the tablets. In other words, I contend that Pindar s usage of ποινή in Olympian 1 and fragment 133 is employed identically as the term appears in the Orphic tablets; Pindar s use of a marked Orphic term in eschatological contexts affirms Pindar s Orphic status. 31 Lloyd-Jones 1990:

250 10-11 (2015) Wilamowitz explained the corresponding μὲν and δὲ of lines of Olympian 2 as two separate points of view, that of the deceased and that of the judge, 32 but the scholiast Aristarchus understood these lines as an indication of the idea of rebirth. 33 In turn, I read these lines as two corresponding and cyclical ideas death and rebirth. I interpret Διὸς ἀρχᾷ not as here on earth as suggested by Willcock 34 but rather as a reference to Pindar s διόσδοτον ἀρχάν Zeus-given beginning from his fragment 137 (Race) on the Eleusinian mysteries which expresses the soteriological dichotomy between life and death, in the same terms as an Orphic Olbian bone tablet does in its formula: bios-thanatos-bios. 35 ὄλβιος ὅστις ἰδὼν κεῖν εἶσ ὑπὸ χθόν οἶδε μὲν βίου τελευτάν, οἶδε δὲ διόσδοτον ἀρχάν. Blessed is he who sees them (the mysteries) and goes beneath the earth; he knows the end of life and knows the Zeus-given beginning. Pindar fr. 137 (trans. Race 1997: 371) The contrasting μὲν and δὲ in Pindar s fragment 137 separate the idea of βίου τελευτάν the end of life, and διόσδοτον ἀρχάν, the Zeus-given beginning. Based on my reading of fragment 137, I argue that in Olympian 2 we see the same elaboration of this dichotomy between death and life marked by the contrasting μὲν and δὲ: θανόντων μὲν... τὰ δ' ἐν τᾷδε Διὸς ἀρχᾷ. This Orphic life-death dichotomy is also evident on the Pelinna leaf: Νῦν ἔθανες καὶ νῦν ἐγένου, τρισόλβιε ἄματι τωῖδε. εἰπεῖν Φερσεφόν αι σ ὅτι Β<άκ>χιος αὐτὸς ἔλυσε. Now you have died and now you have come into being, O thrice happy one, on this same day. Tell Persephone that the Bacchic One himself released you. 32 Wilamowitz 1922: 248 n See Willcock 1995: Willcock 1995: The top of tablet A (Graf and Johnston 2007: 185) reads βίος θάνατος βίος ἀλήθεια; the bottom of the tablet reads: Διόνυσος Ὀρφικοί (or Ὀρφικόν). 250

251 10-11 (2015) Tablet 26a Pelinna (trans. Graf and Johnston 2007: 36-37) The use of ποινή in addition to the Orphic formula life-death indicates Pindar s intimate knowledge of Orphic mysteries. Pindar s second category of souls is delineated by the δὲ at line 61: ἴσαις δὲ νύκτεσσιν αἰεί, ἴσαις δ' ἁμέραις ἅλιον ἔχοντες, ἀπονέστερον ἐσλοὶ δέκονται βίοτον< But forever having sunshine in equal nights and in equal days, good men receive a life of less toil< Ol (trans. Race 1997: 69) These good souls receive a life free from less toil (Ol ). The contrast with the bad souls is implied by the force of the comparative ἀπονέστερον, but also emphasized by a subordinated μὲν δὲ clause: (<) ἀλλὰ παρὰ μὲν τιμίοις θεῶν οἵτινες ἔχαιρον εὐορκίαις, ἄδακρυν νέμονται αἰῶνα, τοὶ δ' ἀπροσόρατον ὀκχέοντι πόνον. No, in company with the honored gods, those who joyfully kept their oaths spend a tearless existence, whereas the others endure pain too terrible to behold. Ol (trans. Race 1997: 71) The second division consisting of the good souls (marked by μὲν), delighting in good oaths, live a life free from grief among the gods who have honor (Ol ), whereas the first division consisting of bad souls (marked by δὲ), endure toil not to be looked upon (Ol. 251

252 10-11 (2015) 2.67). Pindar clearly delineates the distinction between souls in Olympian 2 as does the author of the Hipponion tablet: Μναμοσύνας τόδε ἔργον, ἐπεὶ ἂν μέλλεισι θανεσθαι εἰς Ἀΐδαο δόμος εὐέρεας. ἔστ ἐπὶ δ<ε>ξιὰ κρένα, πὰρ δ αὐτὰν ἑστακῦα λευκὰ κυπάρισος ἔνθα κατερχόμεναι ψυκαὶ νεκύον ψύχονται. ταύτας τᾶς κράνας μεδὲ σχεδὸν ἐνγύθεν ἔλθεις. [5] πρόσθεν δὲ hευρέσεις τᾶς Μναμοσύνας ἀπὸ λίμνας ψυχρὸν ὕδορ προρέον φύλακες δὲ ἐπύπερθεν ἔασι. τοὶ δέ σε εἰρέσονται ἐν φρασὶ πευκαλίμαισι ὅ τι δὲ ἐξερέεις Ἄϊδος σκότος ὀρφέεντος. εἶπον ύὸς Γᾶς ἐμι καὶ Ὀρανο ἀστερόεντος. [10] δίψαι δ ἐμ αὖος καὶ ἀπόλλυμαι ἀλὰ δότ ο*κα ψυκρὸν ὕδορ πιέναι τες Μνεμοσύνες ἀπὸ λίμν*α+ς καὶ δή τοι ἐρέοσιν hυποχθονίοι βασιλεϊ καὶ δέ τοθ δόσοσι πιεν τῆς Μναμοσύνας ἀπὸ λίμνα*ς+. καὶ δὲ καὶ σὺ πιὸν ὁδὸν ἔρχεα<ι>, hάν τε καὶ ἄλλοι [15] μύσται καὶ βαχχοι hιερὰν στείχοσι κλεινοί. This is the work of Memory, when you are about to die down to the well-built house of Hades. There is a spring at the right side, and standing by it a white cypress. Descending to it, the souls of the dead refresh themselves. Do not even go near this spring! Ahead you will find from the Lake of Memory, cold water pouring forth; there are guards before it. They will ask you, with astute wisdom, what you are seeking in the darkness of murky Hades. Say, I am a son of Earth and starry Sky, I am parched with thirst and am dying; but quickly grant me cold water from the Lake of Memory to drink. And they will announce you to the Chthonian King, and they will grant you to drink from the Lake of Memory. 252

253 10-11 (2015) And you, too, having drunk, will go along the sacred road on which other glorious initiates and bacchoi travel. Tablet 1 Hipponion (trans. Graf and Johnston 2007: 4) On the Orphic tablet, there is a spring on the right, and standing by it a white cypress (1.2-3). The tablet firmly commands not to approach this direction, the first division of souls. On the other side is the lake of Memory, which delineates the second division of souls (1.6-7). These good souls may only drink and become immortalized if they know the correct password. Graf and Johnston argue that initiation specifically separated the good from the heroic souls (their good-plus). 36 Knowing the password elevates the initiate from a good to a heroic soul. The initiated soul must proclaim, I am a child of earth and starry heaven, grant me to drink from the lake of Memory (1.10), then the soul passes down the sacred road with the other initiates. The initiate is distinguished by his memory of knowledge obtained through initiation, and the tablet thereby functions as his mnemonic for achieving immortality. Pindar equates these privileged souls with heroes both in Olympian 2 and fragment 133. Pindar s heroes attain a blessed immortality after completing the cycle of rebirths a distinctly Orphic idea: ὅσοι δ' ἐτόλμασαν ἐστρίς ἑκατέρωθι μείναντες ἀπὸ πάμπαν ἀδίκων ἔχειν ψυχάν, ἔτειλαν Διὸς ὁδὸν παρὰ Κρόνου τύρσιν ἔνθα μακάρων νᾶσον ὠκεανίδες αὖραι περιπνέοισιν ἄνθεμα δὲ χρυσοῦ φλέγει, ὅρμοισι τῶν χέρας ἀναπλέκοντι καὶ στεφάνους But those with the courage to have lived three times in either realm, while keeping their souls free from all unjust deeds, travel the road of Zeus to the tower of Kronos, where ocean breezes blow round the Isle of the Blessed, and flowers of 36 Graf and Johnston 2007:

254 10-11 (2015) gold are ablaze, some from radiant trees on land, while the water nurtures others; with these they weave garlands for their hands and crowns for their heads. Ol (trans. Race 1997: 71) Pindar s heroic souls such as Peleus, Cadmus, and Achilles, after they have kept their soul pure during the tripartite cycle of incarnations, dwell in a blessed afterlife. Likewise, on the Petelia tablet after a soul pays the penalty: καὶ τότ ἔπειτ ἄ[λλοισι μεθ ] ἡρώεσσιν ἀνάξει[ς], you will rule among the other heroes (2.11, Graf and Johnston 2007: 7). Scholars have pointed out the similarity between Pindar s Διὸς ὁδὸν (Ol. 2.70) and the Hipponion tablet s sacred road (1.15). In addition, I argue Pindar s tripartite formula ἐστρίς (Ol. 2.68) corresponds to a makarismos formula, which grants heroization, such as on the Pelinna leaf (tablet 26a), which describes an initiate as τρισόλβιε thrice-blessed. 37 And on the Pherae leaf the initiate gives the tripartite password: ἀνδρικεπαιδόθυρσον, after which he becomes ἄποινος, redeemed. 38 Succesfully paying the ποινή of the Titanic crime results in the initiate becoming ἄποινος or free from the guilt and punishment of the Titanic crime and therefore, I argue, heroized or immortal. The alpha-privative articulates this distinction of the initiated soul over other souls. Olympian 2 (line 74) and Thurii tablet 5 (line 6) both associate immortality with the stephanos victory crown. The initiate who escaped the cycle of incarnation was equated to a victorious and heroic athlete: 5 κύκλο δ εξέπταν βαρυπενθέος ἀργαλέοιο 6 ἱμερτο δ ἐπέβαν στεφάνο ποσὶ καρπαλίμοισι 7 Δεσσποίνας δὲ ὑπὸ κόλπον ἔδυν χθονίας Βασιλείας. 37 On Pelinna 26a, see Graf and Johnston 2007: and my discussion above. 38 Pherae leaf: Σύμβολα Ἀν<δ>ρικε- παιδόθυρσον, ἀνδρικεπαι- δόθυρσον Βριμώ, Βριμώ. εἴσιθ<ι> ἱερὸν λειμῶνα ἄποινος γὰρ ὁ μύστης. ΓΑΠΕΔΟΝ. Passwords: Man-and-childthyrsus. Man-and-child-thyrsus. Brimo, Brimo. Enter the holy meadow, for the initiate is redeemed. GAPEDON (apparently a nonsense word, written upside down) (27 Graf and Johnston 2007: 39). I follow the reading of Graf and Johnston: The word that I have translated above as redeemed, apoinos, is cognate with the one that I have translated elsewhere as retribution, poinē (2007: 207). 254

255 10-11 (2015) I have flown out of the heavy, difficult circle, I have approached the longed for crown with swift feet, I have sunk beneath the breast of the Lady, the Chthonian Queen. Thurii tablet (trans. Graf and Johnston 2007: 13) Tablet 5 equates achieving immortality with winning a prize in a footrace. The stephanos had ritualistic implications in Mystery cults since initiates were crowned like athletes. 39 Likewise, in the epilogue of Isthmian 6, Pindar imparts immortality to the crowned hero: φαίης κέ νιν ἄνδρ' ἐν ἀεθληταῖσιν ἔμμεν< πίσω σφε Δίρκας ἁγνὸν ὕδωρ, τὸ βαθύζωνοι κόραι χρυσοπέπλου Μναμοσύνας ἀνέτειλαν παρ' εὐτειχέσιν Κάδμου πύλαις. Among athletes I shall offer them a drink of Dirce s sacred water, which the deep-bosomed daughters of golden-robed Mnemosyne made to surge by the well-walled gates of Cadmus. Isthm (trans. Race 1997: 193) The Petelia tablet also imparts immortality to the crowned-initiate through Memory: 9 ψυχρὸν ὕδωρ προρέον τῆς Μνημοσύνης ἀπὸ λίμνης< 11 καὶ τότ ἔπειτ ἄ[λλοισι μεθ ] ἡρώεσσιν ἀνάξει[ς]. 12 [Μνημοσύ]νης τόδ<ε> ἔ*ργον Grant me cold water flowing from the Lake of Memory And thereafter you will rule among the other heroes. This is the work of Memory. Petelia tablet (trans. Graf and Johnston 2007: 7) 39 See Euripides Bacchae 81; Plato Republic 363cd; Bernabé and Jiménez San Cristóbal 2008: ; and, in general, Blech

256 10-11 (2015) Obbink (2011) maintained Pindar was disseminating some of the sacred Orphic doctrine in Isthmian 6 as he does in Olympian 2, and, following Faraone (2002), Obbink argued, Pindar is alluding to the same myth and performative pattern found in the gold leaves. 40 Perhaps it is only coincidence that Pindar s heroic souls use golden leaves to weave crowns in the afterlife, but the significance of Memory imparting and the use of ποινή are unique conjunctions between Orphic eschatology and Pindar s poetry, which suggest that Pindar performed a greater role in the development of the Orphic movement. As Currie recently argued, Doctrines of rebirth and the immortality of the soul should be regarded as a development of the general picture, not a wild deviation from it. 41 I have argued Pindar was an Orphic initiate, who used his platform as an epinician poet in order to disseminate the new ideas of Orphic personal salvation on a Pan-Hellenic scale. Pindar s wide assimilation of Orphic eschatology implies Pindar s choice of themes and vocabulary was a deliberate integration and assimilation of Orphic beliefs within epinician poetry. BIBLIOGRAPHY Beekes, Robert S. Etymological Dictionary of Greek. Leiden/Boston: Brill The Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series 10. Print. Bernabé, Alberto. La toile de Pénélope: a-t-il existé un mythe orphique sur Dionysos et les Titans? Revue de l histoire des religions 219: Print. Bernabé, Alberto, ed. Poetae epici Graeci: testimonia et fragmenta. Pars II. Orphicorum et Orphicis similium testimonia et fragmenta. Fasciculus I. Leipzig: K.G. Bibliotheca Teubneriana Print. Bernabé, Alberto, ed. Poetae epici Graeci: testimonia et fragmenta. Pars II. Orphicorum et Orphicis similium testimonia et fragmenta. Fasciculus II. Leipzig: K.G. Bibliotheca Teubneriana Print. Bernabé, Alberto. Píndaro y el orfismo. In Bernabé and Casadesús (eds.), Orfeo y la tradición órfica: un reencuentro, Madrid 2008: Print. 40 Obbink 2011: Currie 2005:

257 10-11 (2015) Bernabé, Alberto. and A. Jiménez San Cristóbal. Instructions for the Netherworld: The Orphic Gold Tablets. Trans. Michael Chase. Leiden: Brill RGRW 162. Print. Blech, Michael. Studien zum Kranz bei den Griechen. Religions-geschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten, 38. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter Print. Bluck, Richard. S., ed. Plato s Meno. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge UP Print. Bremmer, Jan. The Rise and Fall of the Afterlife. The 1995 Read-Turkwell Lectures at the University of Bristol. London/New York: Routledge Print. Burkert, Walter. Greek Religion: Archaic and Classical. Trans. John Raffan. Oxford: Blackwell Print. Currie, Bruno. Pindar and the Cult of Heroes. New York: Oxford UP Oxford Classical Monographs. Print. Dodds, Eric. R. The Greeks and the Irrational. Berkeley/Los Angeles: U of California P [Original publication, 1951.] Print. 66. Print. Drachmann, Anders. B. Scholia vetera in Pindari carmina, 3 vols. Leipzig: Teubner Edmonds III, Radcliffe. Redefining Ancient Orphism: A Study in Greek Religion. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge UP Print. Faraone, Christopher. A. A Drink from the Daughters of Mnemosyne: Poetry, Eschatology, and Memory at the End of Pindar s Isthmian 6. in J. F. Miller, C. Damon, K. S. Myers, eds., Vertis in usum : Studies in Honor of Edward Courtney. Munich/Leipzig: Saur Print. Graf, Fritz. and Sarah. I. Johnston. Ritual Texts for the Afterlife: Orpheus and the Bacchic Gold Tablets. London/New York: Routledge Print. Guthrie, William. K. C. Orpheus and Greek Religion: A Study of the Orphic Movement. Princeton: Princeton UP [Original publication, 1935] Print. Kern, Otto., ed. Orphicorum Fragmenta. Berlin: Weidmann Print. Print. Linforth, Ivan. M. The Arts of Orpheus. Berkeley/Los Angeles: U of California P

258 10-11 (2015) Lloyd-Jones, Hugh. Pindar and the Afterlife. In Hugh Lloyd-Jones, ed., Greek Epic, Lyric and Tragedy: The Academic Papers of Sir Hugh Lloyd-Jones. Oxford: Clarendon Print. Obbink, Dirk. Poetry and Performance in the Orphic Gold Leaves. In R. G. Edmonds III, ed., The Orphic Gold Tablets and Greek Religion: Further Along the Path. Cambridge: Cam- bridge UP Print Parker, Robert. Review of Edmonds III Bryn Mawr Classical Review (online) Race, William. H., ed. and trans. Pindar: Odes and Fragments. 2 vols. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP. Loeb Print. Riedweg, Christoph. Initiation Death Underworld: Narrative and Ritual in the Gold Leaves. In R. G. Edmonds III, ed., The Orphic Gold Tablets and Greek Religion: Further Along the Path. Cambridge: Cambridge UP Print. Rohde, Erwin. Psyche: The Cult of Souls and the Belief in Immortality Among the Greeks. 8 th ed. W. B. Hollis, trans. London: Routledge & Keegan Paul [Original publication, 1894.] Print. Rose, Herbert. J. The Ancient Grief: A Study of Pindar, Fragment 133 (Bergk), 127 (Bowra) in Bailey et. al Greek Poetry and Life. Oxford: Clarendon. Print. Santamaría, Marco. A. Poinás tínein. Culpa y expiación en el orfismo. In A. Alvar, J. F. Gonz{lez Castro, eds., Actas del XI Congreso de la Sociedad Española de Estudios Clásicos (Santiago de Compostela, de septiembre de 2003), I, Madrid: Sociedad Española de Estudios Cl{sicos Print. Tannery, Paul. Orphica, fr. 208 Abel. Revue de Philologie 23: Print. West, Martin L.. The Orphic Poems. Oxford: Clarendon Press Print Print. Wilamowitz-Moellendorf, Ulrich. von. Pindaros. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung. Willcock, Malcolm. M. Pindar: Victory Odes. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics Print. 258

259 10-11 (2015) (Summary) Pindar s references to the soul have long intrigued scholars studying the Orphic movement. The fragments of Pindar s Threnoi attest to specific knowledge of Orphic doctrine concerning the divinity and immortality of the soul (e.g. Thren. 7 Race), while his Odes demonstrate familiarity with Orphic beliefs (Lloyd-Jones 101). In Olympian 2 and the Threnoi, Pindar describes a marked division of souls by designating separate destinations for the bad, the good, and the heroic souls. This tripartite division is also depicted in the so-called Orphic Gold Tablets, whose descriptions were possibly based on an archetypal Katabasis poem known to Orphic initiates (West 12; Riedweg 247). Nemean 6 suggests Pindar embraced the distinctive Orphic belief about a common origin for gods and men, while Isthmian 6 and the Gold Tablets both depict the waters of Mnemosyne as imparting a form of immortality upon the crowned hero-initiate (Obbink 308). Furthermore, the secret doctrinal Orphic myth of Zagreus, where the Titans kill Dionysus (Burkert 298), appears to be familiar to Pindar in fragment 133 Race (Bernabé and Jimenéz San Cristóbal 106); even the skeptic Linforth confesses that the Zagreus story was known to the ancients (350), and West points out (110 n. 82) that Pindar imbues the god Chronos "Time" with Orphic cosmological resonance when he calls him "the father of all" (Olym. 2.17). This paper hypothesize that Pindar was an Orphic initiate, and therefore had access to Orphic arcana such as the Protogonos Theogony postulated by West (260) and even the Orphic Katabasis poem. As an initiate, Pindar was privy to Orphic arcana such as the myth of Zagreus. Moreover, Pindar intentionally used Olympian 2 as a poetic platform to bridge traditional Homeric religion with the emerging Orphic mysticism, so that, as Rohde suggests, Pindar s views of the nature, origin, and destiny of the soul seem to be combined in his mind with equal claim to authority (414). Accordingly, I interpret Olympian 2 as an Orphic triumph that elevates the Homeric heroes to Orphic souls by re-mythologizing the Isles of the Blessed into a common meeting place for both Orphic and Homeric souls. My exegesis will assemble Pindar s fragments concerning transmigration and the immortality of the soul (fr. 133, 137 Race), as well as the Odes which allude to Orphic beliefs (Olym. 2, 6; Nem. 6; Isth. 6), and compare them with the Orphic Gold Tablets to argue that Pindar was working in a similar literary tradition as the composers of the Tablets and thus likely to have been an initiate. I will demonstrate that Pindar was not only composing Orphic-themed poetry for a spe- 259

260 10-11 (2015) cific audience, as was argued by Guthrie (236), but was disseminating Orphic arcana in the veiled tradition of the Mysteries more broadly, as the fact that his references to Orphic beliefs are widespread throughout his poetry (and not merely in his odes for Theron) suggests. I conclude that the celebrated poet Pindar was a μύστης who had a hard time keeping his mouth shut. KEYWORDS: Orphism; Pindar; Eschatology; Gold Tablets; ποινή Dannu J. Hütwohl earned his B.A. in Classical Studies from the University of New Mexico in 2012 and is now completing his Master s thesis titled Plato s Orpheus: The Philosophical Appropriation of Orphic Formulae in fulfillment of the M.A. in Comparative Literature and Cultural Studies at the University of New Mexico; will begin pursuing a Ph.D. in Classics at The Ohio State University in fall

261 10-11 (2015) DARIUSZ KUBOK (University of Silesia in Katowice) Allocriticism and Autocriticism in the Views of Xenophanes of Colophon Skepticism in its zetetic dimension is an expression of broadly-understood criticism taken as an anti-dogmatic position. However, in passages of Xenophanes' works both skeptical and negative dogmatic elements can be found. 1 It seems that the Colophonian does not adequately differentiate between these two positions; rather, he adheres to a view which may be called skeptical negative dogmatism, in accordance with which one continually searches for truth while simultaneously upholding that truth cannot be found. Despite this, he is rightly considered a critical thinker in the broadest sense of the word. Since he does not precisely distinguish between skepticism and negative dogmatism, however, his criticism as anti-dogmatism refers solely to positive dogmatism. 2 Thus, Xenophanes criticizes all claims 1 Skepticism from the perspective of Sextus' typology (Pyr., I, 1-4) - assumes investigation, a constant search for truth, with the simultaneous awareness that it has not yet been cognized; thus, the skeptic is forced to refrain from final, decisive judgments and cannot dogmatically determine whether the truth will be reached, or not. Thus, when Xenophanes writes in fragment D-K B 34 that is no one and will never be anyone who will possess knowledge of the gods and of the things, of which he speaks, this statement must be classified not as skepticism, but as negative dogmatism. On the other, however, in other passages (especially D-K B 18) Xenophanes presents a skeptical view that does not lead into negative dogmatism. To clarify these positions, we can say that negative dogmatism declares that truth cannot be found, whereas skepticism is a negation of dogmatism in general, including both positive and negative dogmatism. A skeptic declares that he can neither state that truth can be found, nor that it cannot be found. For more on this subject, see: Woleński 1992: Here, I would like to stipulate that I am only referring to Sextus' typology as a certain general model for distinguishing three basic philosophical standpoints (positive dogmatism, negative dogmatism, skepticism) to help recognize them in the context of the views of Xenophanes. At the same time, I am aware that I am using a historically-later typology to analyze Xenophanes' thought - a typology burdened with many long, philosophical discussions. Except where noted contrary, the Greek text of the fragments is taken from Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker. Griechisch und Deutch von H. Diels, herausgeg. von W. Kranz, Bd. 1 3, Zürich Hereafter cited as D-K. 2 It is worth noting that Xenophanes is autocritical, but not completely autocritical, because there are a few things of which he is quite certain. Such testimonies can be found in the texts of ancient authors. Galen (Hist. phil. 7, D-K 21A35) writes: "Xenophanes was in doubt about everything, being certain only that everything was one, and this was a god who was limited, rational, changeless." Graham s (2010: 127) translation. Sextus Empiricus, in turn, in Pyr. (I, 224, cf Diog. IX, 18) describes Xenophanes of Colophon as hupatuphos, which means that he was a skeptic who did not entirely free himself of dogmatic assertions. Among these assertions are the passages regarding the deity, which constitute an 261

262 10-11 (2015) to positive and final truth, seemingly not noticing that his own fragment B 34 (excluding the last sentence) also expresses a definitive and final thesis, according to which objective knowledge is unattainable (at least such that is ἀμφὶ θεῶν τε καὶ ἅσσα λέγω [scil. Xenophanes] περὶ πάντων), just like the hypothetical metaobjective knowledge that one has spoken the truth is unattainable. In this context, another question appears as to whether he considered the negative dogmatism he professed to be universal, or whether it allowed for exceptions. In other words, the question arises if the statement that no man possesses clear and distinct knowledge refers to all human beings, including Xenophanes, or whether he considered himself an exception to this rule. Is it the case that no one possesses knowledge, and neither does Xenophanes, or rather that no one possesses knowledge, but he himself constitutes an epistemic exception? In the context of the entirety of fragment B 34, this problem boils down to a dichotomy: either Xenophanes, like others, does not possess and cannot possess knowledge, thus making him one of those, who make do only with belief and opinion (δόκοι), or Xenophanes does possess knowledge in contrast to the rest of mankind, which can only hold opinions. This issue can be understood as the wise man - masses relationship, though it seems that this is a problem concerning reflection on criticism as such, namely, the problem of allocriticism and autocriticism. Generally speaking, critique is a cognitive action that accompanies scientific, practical (for example, ethical), and creative cognition. Both actions and their products may be the objects of critique. In the case analyzed here, we are taking into account scientific cognition, expression of a positive theology, as well as the monistic theses (everything is one) ascribed to this thinker. For many commentators, Xenophanes skepticism is in conflict with his positive theology and ontology. Sextus Empiricus treats Xenophanes as hupatuphos that is, as someone who is partly free from tuphos, and so has not yet freed himself completely of the arrogance of (positive) dogmatic statements. Thus, we can accept the interpretation that Xenophanes is not completely autocritical (because he is quite certain of a few things), on the basis of the opinions of Galen and Sextus. In my opinion, another interpretation is also permissible, which alleviates Xenophanes alleged positive dogmatism. Xenophanes supposed monism may result from attempts at systematizing the philosophic tradition by later commentators (especially by Plato and Aristotle). On the other hand, Xenophanes alleged new positive theology can be treated as a way of expressing opposition to traditional conceptions of the gods; in this interpretation, the aim of Xenophanes comments about God would be to emphasize the epistemological presuppositions of all conceptions concerning notions of the gods. In the light of these assumptions, we can say that Xenophanes certainty is not absolute and final. We cannot, therefore, exclude the possibility that Xenophanes is aware of the fact that all human convictions are only opinions (B 34, 4), including his own. This issue, as well as the problem of negative dogmatism s universality and scope, is the subject of analysis in this article. 262

263 10-11 (2015) and at the objective level, the possibility of possessing knowledge. Autocriticism takes as its object the cognitive actions and cognitive products (statements) of the author, which allocriticism concerns these actions and products in relation to everyone but the author of the critique. On the basis of extant fragments of Xenophanes' texts, we must consider whether he was an allocritical or autocritical thinker in regards to the question of the possession of certain knowledge. In other words, did he think that no one except he himself could possess knowledge (epistemological allocriticism in its modal version), or did he presume that he also could not attain knowledge (epistemological autocriticism in the modal version)? The sum of both of these positions would be the conviction that no one could ever attain such knowledge. The thesis that Xenophanes was an allocritical thinker is not controversial (his criticism was aimed at other thinkers); the question disputed is whether or not he was also autocritical. If we take the object of critique to be the possibility of possessing knowledge, then the effect of allocritique would be the assertion that no one, excluding the critiquing subject, can either now, or in the future, possess certain knowledge; the effect of autocriticism, on the other hand, would be the assertion that the critiquing subject cannot possess such knowledge. Full criticism, as the enjoinment of allocriticism and autocriticism, would in this case boil down to the assertion that no one can possess such knowledge. Such criticism in reference to the possibility of knowledge would be co-extensive with the position of negative dogmatism (such a position may be called general negative dogmatism, GND). 3 Two things must be added here: (1) We are only speaking here of the possibility of clear and certain knowledge (τὸ σαφές - B 34, 1), not of doxal knowledge laying claim to final certainty, for example (B 34, 4; B 18; B 35); (2) Criticism is understood here as an evaluation of the possibility of accepting and justifying a given statement. 3 It should be noted here that GND, in contrast to skepticism, is vulnerable to the accusations of selfrefutation and inconsistence. 263

264 10-11 (2015) In reference to Xenophanes' philosophy, we must then ask whether he professed GND, or whether he remained on an allocritical position excluding autocriticism. Did Xenophanes, in proclaiming that there neither was, nor will be anyone who would possess the clear and distinct truth, include himself in the range in which this thesis is binding, or did he exclude himself? It is worth noting here that this problem refers to a more narrow understanding of criticism than the broadest sense of the term, signifying the ability to divide and distinguish. 4 It seems that the issue of including or excluding oneself from the general mass of the opining is based on elementary distinction of oneself from others. Of course, we can accept that in professing GND one need not be conscious of this division, but the passages of Xenophanes containing the critique of various other viewpoints (eg. anthropomorphism, potential zoomorphism, metempsychosis) seem to undermine this thought. Thus, we must consider which thesis the testimonies concerning Xenophanes make more probable: that he was both autocritical and allocritical, or that he was only allocritical. 5 fragment D-K B 34. The above statements and typology of criticism require clarification in light of καὶ τὸ μὲν οὖν σαφὲς οὔτις ἀνὴρ ἴδεν οὐδέ τις ἔσται εἰδὼς ἀμφὶ θεῶν τε καὶ ἅσσα λέγω περὶ πάντων εἰ γὰρ καὶ τὰ μάλιστα τύχοι τετελεσμένον εἰπών, αὐτὸς ὅμως οὐκ οἶδε δόκος δ' ἐπὶ πᾶσι τέτυκται Firstly, the word τὸ σαφές (B 34, 1) means certain and clear truth, which no one has perceived or will know. Secondly, this truth (knowledge) is further described in B 34, 2, which states ἀμφὶ θεῶν τε καὶ ἅσσα λέγω [scil. Xenophanes] περὶ πάντων. Thirdly, 4 Criticism refers back to the terms: krino (to separate, distinguish, judge, evaluate, explain, investigate, among others) and kritikos (critical, able to distinguish, deciding, among others). 5 Theoretically, it is also possible to hold that aside from the position that upholds the knowing - opining distinction and the one that assumes that everyone is condemned to opinion, a third position exists asserting that everyone in some sense knows. Such an option would be difficult to uphold, though it is true that the relativist views of the sophists, which Plato so passionately fought in the Sophist, revealing the possibility and form of falsehood, leaned in that direction. 264

265 10-11 (2015) Xenophanes asserts that no one has perceived this truth in the past, and that there will likewise be no one in the future, who will possess knowledge about it. Thus, the allocritical position in regards to this issue states that Xenophanes asserted that there would no one but he himself either in the past or future who would possess σαφές (certain and clear truth) ἀμφὶ θεῶν τε καὶ ἅσσα λέγω *scil. Xenophanes+ περὶ πάντων; on the other hand, the autocritical position holds that Xenophanes asserts that he himself did not and will not possess σαφές (certain and clear truth) ἀμφὶ θεῶν τε καὶ ἅσσα λέγω [scil. Xenophanes] περὶ πάντων. Full criticism, as the combination of autocriticism and allocriticism, in regards to this issue holds that Xenophanes asserts that there was not, nor will there be anyone, who would possess σαφές (certain and clear truth) ἀμφὶ θεῶν τε καὶ ἅσσα λέγω [scil. Xenophanes] περὶ πάντων. In Sextus' comments on fragment B 34, we can find it mentioned that Xenophanes understood mankind as γένος, using as a designation for this the name 6 This would signify that he counts himself among those, who did not have and will not have the indicated objective knowledge. In light of Sextus' interpretation, Xenophanes professed full criticism, i.e. both allo- and autocriticism. The same interpretation is held by Varro and Arius Didymus, who oppose human opinion and divine knowledge. The former writes: ὡς ἄρα θεὸς μὲν οἷδε τὴν ἀλήθειαν, δόκος δ' ἐπὶ πᾶσι τέτυκται, 7 while the latter notes: "Quid putem, non quid contendam ponam, hominis enim est, haec opinari, Dei scire. 8 Many contemporary scholars, though differing in their detailed interpretations of the writings of the thinker from Colophon, also hold this view proclaiming that Xenophanes counted himself among those condemned to opinion, or at least that he did not consider himself epistemically singled-out. H. Fränkel treats Xenophanes not as a skeptic (more precisely: as a negative dogmatic), but as an empiricist. In fragment B 34 he states that knowledge about a supraempirical reality is uncertain, contrary to empirical knowledge. 9 Guthrie comments in a 6 *...+ ἄνδρα δὲ τὸν ἄνθρωπον, τῷ εἰδικῷ καταχρώμενος ἀντὶ τοῦ γένους εἶδος γὰρ ἀνθρώπου καθέστηκεν ὁ ἀνήρ. Sext. Emp., Adv. Math., VII, Arius Didymus ap. Stob. Ecl. II, 1, 17 (D-K 21 A 24). 8 Varro ap. Augustinus, De civ. dei, VII, Fränkel

266 10-11 (2015) similar spirit, advocating a combination of allocriticism and autocriticism, 10 as do Heitsch, 11 Lesher, 12 Philippoussis, 13 and Marcinkowska, 14 among others. Though Kirk and Raven do in fact indicate the essential issue of the cognitive limitations of man discussed by Xenophanes, as well as the fact that he indicated the contrast between gods and men (especially in fragment B 38, or in Kirk&Raven fr. 192), they vaguely suggest that Xenophanes, "like Heraclitus, felt himself to be in special state of knowledge for this reason. 15 On the other hand, some scholars are convinced that Xenophanes' criticism refers only to the thought of others, and that he believed himself to be epistemically privileged, meaning that he thought only he possessed knowledge. In light of this assumption, Xenophanes would be only allocritical, not autocritical. For B. Snella "it is evident that Xenophanes himself trusts to soar above the usual false assumptions of men. 16 However, this scholar draws attention to the fact that it is not certain how man could participate in divine knowledge, which could indicate either that the thinker from Colophon simply did not write about this, or that his writings on this subject have not survived. O. Gigon 17 comments in a 10 He writes: "His observations of the widely differing beliefs of mankind had led Xenophanes to the conclusion that none of them could be right. In their place he puts forward what he personally feels is the truth, yet in all modesty and honesty he must confess that as all men are fallible, so may he be. Guthrie 1962: 396. Commenting on the interpretation assuming the existence of two different objects of cognition in Xenophanes, he adds: "[...] we cannot affirm that Xenophanes posited two realms of existence, of one of which men could have certain knowledge, and of the other only opinion. He said that men could have no certain knowledge at all: that was reserved for God. Guthrie 1962: Heitsch 1966: Lesher 1978: "It is of fundamental importance also to notice here that Xenophanes includes himself in (rather then, as it is argued, excludes from) the οὔτις ἀνήρ and, consequently, his dokos. Philippoussis 1989: This author notes that "absolutely nothing in the fragments of Xenophanes indicates that he considers himself inspired or in any way cognitively privileged. Thus, it remains for us to acknowledge that the pessimistic statement contained in fr. 34 concerns the views of other philosophers and Xenophanes' own to an equal degree. Marcinkowska 2004: 12, trans. L. Fretschel. 15 Kirk, Raven 1964: Snell 1960: Gigon 1968:

267 10-11 (2015) similar tone, which may indicate - in his opinion - the existence of a parallel between the views of Xenophanes and Heraclitus regarding the opposition of the wise man to the masses. J. Gajda-Krynicka openly indicates such a similarity. 18 F. M. Cleve, on the other hand, excludes the possibility of autocriticism in Xenophanes' views, owing to the fact that he treats this thinker as a prophet. This scholar asserts that "his doctrine is indeed not substantiated by any philosophical arguments. It is preached with the authoritativeness of a prophet. 19 As "the devout herald of the Heis Megistos, Xenophanes cannot be viewed as the father of skepticism not only in the modern understanding, but also in the ancient understanding. 20 A detailed critique of the position asserting epistemological autocriticism on the part of Xenophanes can be found in the work of S. Yonezawa. This scholar accurately recognizes that essential problem, which I presented in the form of the dichotomy between the combination of allocriticism and autocriticism on the one hand, and only allocriticism on the other. Yonezawa, whose arguments will, to a large degree, constitute the basis for my polemic, is against the interpretation asserting Xenophanes' autocriticism. He state that "it is unthinkable that Xenophanes was a sceptic and that he included himself in man of fr. 34 who he denied having certain truth. 21 It is worth examining the extant fragments of Xenophanes from the perspective of the two mentioned forms of criticism. The comments of Sextus, Varro, and Arius Didymus to fragmentu B 34 cited above unambiguously suggest that Xenophanes stood on the position of full criticism, counting himself among those bound to opinion, as he speaks there about people as such, contrasted with the gods as the latter possess knowledge. Thus, in this 18 J. Gajda-Krynicka writes: "Only he knows the truth! What distinguishes Xenophanes from ignorant masses, or rather 'opining' masses, is his wisdom sofie. For the first time in the history of philosophical thought we come in contact with the significant opposition of the 'wise man' and the masses; we find the same opposition in Heraclitus. Gajda-Krynicka 2007: , trans. L. Fretschel. 19 Cleve 1965: Cleve 1965: 28. It is worth noting here that according to Cleve in contrast to other advocates of the anti-autocritical interpretation - there is a difference between Xenophanes and Heraclitus, which this scholar views in the psychological dimension. He writes: "Accordingly, the mood and hue of his religion is rather contemplative, rather theorogon then pathogon. This lack in emotional appeal, this failure to bestow meaning on the sufferings from destiny, makes for one of the main differences between Xenophanes and that other religious reformer, the Ephesian Heraclitus. Cleve 1965: Yonezawa 1989:

268 10-11 (2015) passage we can oppose: μέν from verse 1 - δ' from verse 4, and σαφές from verse 1 - δόκος from verse There can be no doubt that Xenophanes is an allocritical thinker. He critiques Homer and Hesiod (B 10, B 11, B 12) 23 for their notions of the gods, and thus all those, who unreflectively cite these testimonies. Aside from these two examples, further objects of critique seem to be Simonides (B 21), Epimenides (B 20), Pythagoras (B 7), Lasos of Hermione (A 16), 24 and the inhabitants of Colophon. In the objective layer, the following become objects of direct or indirect critique: arrogance (B 1), customs at feasts (B 1, B 5), the contents of speeches lacking in arete and benefits (B 1), a lack of piety (B 1), people's excessive respect and profits for Olympic champions (B 2), the erroneous discernment of the hierarchy of values (B 2), a lack of teleological reflection on the good of the polis (B 2), useless pleasures (B 3), the concept of metempsychosis (B 7), anthropomorphism (B 11, B 12, B 14, B 16), potential zoomorphism (B 15), superstition of bacchanals (B17), meteorological superstitions (B 32), the 22 Yonezawa also mentions the antithesis: nobody (οὔτις ἀνήρ) everybody (πάντες). Yonezawa 1989: 433. In footnote 15, he states that he takes "πᾶσι as masculine with Burnet. Yonezawa translates the last sentence of fr. B 34: "all men have their opinion (δόκος) about them. Yonezawa 1989: 434. It seems, however, that Xenophanes is would rather say that δόκος is allotted to all (Lesher's proposal), not that all men have their opinion about them. In my opinion, Xenophanes above all wants to emphasize the objective universality of opinion (I understand the πᾶσι as a neuter), not simply the subjective universality. Of course, the latter proposal cannot be rejected, but it suggests that everyone has his opinions, i.e. that everyone chooses some solution to these problems. Rather, we should say that this fragment states that those, who speak about all these things are condemned to opinion, as there is no one would possesses the certain and clear truth ἀμφὶ θεῶν τε καὶ ἅσσα λέγω [scil. Xenophanes] περὶ πάντων. 23 It is worth noting here that Xenophanes' critique in reference to Hesiod does not extend to all of his views, only to those connected with notions of the gods described in the image of humans in his Theogony. In my opinion, the critique does not encompass Hesiod's moral recommendations formulated in the Opera et dies. Moreover, we can even go so far as to show the essential similarities between Hesiod's ideas in that work and those of Xenophanes. Hesiod believes in a rigorous relationship between work and justice, which allows man to obtain the necessary humility before the gods (law) and nature, as well as rid themselves of arrogance and greed. Xenophanes, on the other hand, seems to negate the arrogance of reason laying claim to certain knowledge. It is only thanks to humility, expressed in the critical (zetetic) approach, that it is possible to find what is better, and free oneself from unreflectively accepted tradition. Thus, both believe in self-perfection and in the "better": Hesiod through work and toil, Xenophanes through a philosophical search and investigation. See: Kubok See: Marcovich 1978:

269 10-11 (2015) demand for a oath made on a pious person by an impious one (A 14) 25. Of course, this list does not take into account fr. B 34, which seems to be the most general and disputable. In the subjective layer, the controversy is connected with the person of Xenophanes himself, whereas in the objective layer it concerns the possibility of knowledge. It is worth noting a fragment omitted by opponents of the autocritical reading, though it is often used in biographical descriptions. In fragment B 8, Xenophanes states that for 67 years he has wandered on Hellenic soil, to which 25 more years must be added from the moment of his birth. A summary of these biographical comments is the statement: " εἴπερ ἐγὼ περὶ τῶν δ' οἶδα λέγειν ἐτύμως ("if I know how to speak truly concerning these things ). 26 It is clear that this passage should not be read literally as an expression of philosophical negative dogmatism, 27 though it is worth noting Xenophanes' well-founded restraint even in regards to such facts as his age. Sextus Empiricus, in commenting on fragment B 34 of Xenophanes, gives two divergent interpretations. According to the first, Xenophanes was to profess that nothing is cognizable (πάντα ἀκατάληπτα), 28 thus rejecting all possible criteria of truth. 29 According to the second, the thinker from Colophon did not proclaim universal acatalepsy, but rather permits δόκος as a criterion. 30 This passage can also be looked at from the perspective of its argumentational structure. Verses 1-2 contain a general thesis, while verses 3-4 are its justification. The generality of this thesis seems to suggest that it is binding for everyone 25 See Yonezawa's own list: 1989: Lesher's translation. 27 Lesher accurately comments on this fragment, though he uses the term skepticism instead of negative dogmatism, which may suggest that for Xenophanes, the question of his age was the object of constant investigation, which there is no mention of in the texts. He writes: "Xenophanes expression of some uncertainty in this connection provides some reason to think that (at least in this late period of his life) his scepticism was the usual retail sort rather then the wholesale or philosophical scepticism often found in fragment 34 *...+. Lesher 1992: Ξενοφάνης μὲν κατά τινας εἰπὼν πάντα ἀκατάληπτα. Sext. Emp., Adv. Math., VII, Οὗτος μὲν δὴ οὔ φησιν εἶναι κριτήριον ἀληθείας διὰ τὸ μηδὲν εἶναι καταληπτὸν ἐν τῇ φύσει τῶν ζητουμένων Sext. Emp., Adv. Math., VII, φαίνεται μὴ πᾶσαν κατάληψιν ἀναιρεῖν ἀλλὰ τὴν ἐπιστημονικὴν καὶ ἀδιάπτωτον, ἀπολείπειν δὲ τὴν δοξαστήν τοῦτο γὰρ ἐμφαίνει τὸ δόκος δ' ἐπὶ πᾶσι τέτυκται. Sext. Emp., Adv. Math., VII,

270 10-11 (2015) regardless of time, i.e. it refers both to the past and future. Of course, due to the general nature of this thesis, the interpretation according to which it also encompasses Xenophanes is more justified. Verses 1-2 of fragment B 34 do not make any mention of excluding Xenophanes from this general statement. It also seems that the justification of this thesis (verses 3-4) does not allow for the recognition of the thinker from Colophon as epistemically singled-out. Xenophanes excludes the possibility of knowledge based on the element of contingency in speaking the some truth with the simultaneous awareness that that truth is possessed. 31 Even if someone did accidentally speak of what has been brought to pass, he would not be aware of it. 32 Thus, fragment B 34 states that either clear knowledge concerning the gods and everything else that Xenophanes talks about is not possible, or, if someone was able to possess it, he could not state (know) that he had possessed it. Opponents of the autocritical reading of Xenophanes' views would be forced to defend the thesis that the knowledge that one had possessed knowledge is possible. More precisely, if Xenophanes did indeed assert that he alone knows, contrary to all other mortals, he would also have to assume that he knows that he possesses this certain knowledge. Of course, this metaobjective knowledge on the certainty of objective knowledge does not fit within the scope of the latter; indeed, such an argument could even suggest some kind of infinite regress. On the other hand, however, this same argument can be formulated in regards to the thesis that someone knows that he does not possess certain knowledge. Therefore, Xenophanes concludes this argument with the assertion that dokos is appointed to all (B 34, 4). 31 Sextus Empiricus comments on this fragment referring to two metaphors. According to the first, someone who searchs for truth is compared to someone searching for gold in a dark room. Even if he finds gold (and is convinced of it), he does not possess knowledge (certainty) that it is, in fact, gold (Sext. Emp., Adv. Math., VII, 52). According to the second metaphor, man's cognitive situation is likened to people shooting arrows at a target in the dark. It is possible that someone hits the target, but no knowledge about this can be attained (Sext. Emp., Adv. Math., VIII, 325). Both metaphors are linked by a vision of darkness enveloping man. Sextus seems to suggest that man's reality is a world of darkness. It is doubtless that Sextus' interpretation is weighed down by the later philosophical tradition, eg. the Pythagoreans, Parmenides, Plato, and others. Nonetheless, however, we can use Sextus' metaphors to illustrate the positions presented in this article. The opponents of an autocritical reading of Xenophanes' views suggest that mortals inhabit a world of darkness, while Xenophanes himself has access to the reality of light. In my opinion, the difference between the mortals and Xenophanes boils down to the fact that he is aware of being in the dark, while the mortals are not. 32 The phrase τετελεσμένον εἰπών suggests stating of what has been brought to completion (fulfillment), while signifies what has achieved (fulfillment, result, state of perfection, meta, goal). 270

271 10-11 (2015) Dokos signifies an opinion, supposition, or conjecture that refers to all objects, or more precisely, to those things mentioned in verse 2 of fragment B 34. Either Xenophanes considered himself epistemically distinguished and encompassed by οὔτις ἀνήρ, or δόκοι are universal for everyone, including him. If we accept the second reading, that does not mean that Xenophanes and other mortals should necessarily be considered equal from the perspective of epistemological awareness. Rejecting the conviction that only Xenophanes possesses certain knowledge, the difference between him and other mortals appears in the fact that the thinker from Colophon is - contrary to them - aware that he is condemned to opinion, whereas they do not possess this awareness. Moreover, they are convinced that their opinions (from the perspective of Xenophanes' view) constitute final knowledge, giving rise to no objections and not open to revision. Xenophanes is convinced (only convinced), 33 that he is different from other mortals, not because he lays claim to possessing certain knowledge, but rather because in contrast to them he is aware that his convictions are only opinions, not certain knowledge. This position will be discussed in more detail later. Here, it would be worthwhile to critically reflect on the arguments of those, who consider Xenophanes to be epistemically distinguished, i.e. who treat him as only allocritical, not auto- and allocritical, in regards to matters of cognition. The first and simplest argument of this type asserts that Xenophanes did not include himself or his views among the objects he critiqued (see the list above). According to Yonezawa, "criticisms like these are quite suitable only to man who can have 33 The problem analyzed in this article concerns whether or not to exclude Xenophanes from the binding range of the principle according to which there is no one, and will never be anyone who will have clear knowledge about the gods or about the others things of which Xenophanes speaks. The problem, then, concerns the level of objective (epistemic) knowledge, or more precisely, the possibility of cognition. Reflection could also be undertaken on this problem from the level of meta-objective knowledge, concerning the possibility of cognizing our cognition of things. In that case, from the perspective of Xenophanes' distinction between knowledge, or certain and clear truth (τὸ σαφές), and opinion (δόκος)), we can distinguish four different positions: 1) Xenophanes knows that he knows, 2) Xenophanes knows that he opines, 3) Xenophanes opines that he knows, 4) Xenophanes opines that he opines. For now we can say that in light of fr. B 34, 3-4, position 1) was explicitly rejected by Xenophanes. Were we to also accept the thesis about the universality of opinion, positions 2) and 3) would need to be questioned. However, the issue is more complicated, as verses 1-2 of fr. B 34 are clear testimonies to negative dogmatism, as they suggest the definitive thesis (not only supposition) that there is no one, nor will there be anyone, who would have knowledge about the gods or about any of the things, of which Xenophanes speaks. 271

272 10-11 (2015) unshakable confidence in his own views and assertions. 34 This statement seems to go decidedly too far. The fact that someone criticizes something does not mean that he has unshakable confidence in his own views. Allocriticism does not assume an automatic exclusion of autocriticism. Moreover, Xenophanes' criticism does not refer only to a critique of particular standpoints or attitudes, but is meant to recognize and subject to critical reflection the foundations upon which people build their views. Xenophanes is one of the initiators of epistemological reflection, which includes reflection on the source, essence, and limitations of cognition. It seems that he is interested not only in the critique of erroneous notions, but also in showing the universality of opinion. Thus, he does not critique particular views in order to replace them with others, i.e. to introduce true views in the place of false ones, but rather to reveal the doxal character of human cognition, which is open to revision. In my opinion, the opposition setting the false opinions of others against the dogmatically certain knowledge of Xenophanes is inadequate. Certain scholars, attempting to reject the autocriticism of Xenophanes, i.e. to exclude him from the group of those condemned to opinion, frequently cite fragment B 14 to support their thesis: ἀλλ' οἱ βροτοὶ δοκέουσι γεννᾶσθαι θεούς, τὴν σφετέρην δ' ἐσθῆτα ἔχειν φωνήν τε δέμας τε For example, S. Yonezawa in a comment on this fragment writes that Xenophanes "criticizes the false beliefs of 'the mortals (οἱ βροτοί)' [...]. In its literal sense, the term 'the mortals' must include humankind as a genus, including Xenophanes himself. But he does not share those beliefs of the mortals and criticizes them as false. So he must surely be exempt from those false beliefs. Therefore, when he calls men 'the mortals' and criticizes their false beliefs, it is most clear that he does not include himself as one of 'the mortals.' 35 I do not think the issue is as clear as Yonezawa would have it, moreover, the interpretation could be accepted according to which Xenophanes is aware that everyone, including him, is 34 Yonezawa 1989: Yonezawa 1989:

273 10-11 (2015) condemned to opinion, i.e. is encompassed by the term "the mortals. Xenophanes does not critique the false beliefs of mortals, as the category of falsehood does not appear in this passage. 36 The arbitrary introduction of the concept of falsehood prejudges the possession of truth on the part of Xenophanes; anyone who describes certain convictions as false must himself be convinced as what the truth really is. Such a conclusion does not follow from the cited passage. Xenophanes only writes that mortals δοκέουσι, that gods are born, wear their own clothes and have a voice and figure (body). The verb δοκέω used in this passage should be compared with its derivatives in B 35 ("ταῦτα δεδοξάσθω μὲν ἐοικότα τοῖς... ) and B 34, 4 ("*...+. δόκος δ' ἐπὶ πᾶσι τέτυκται ). There is no mention of falsity in any of these passages, 37 and δοκέω should rather be translated as "suppose, "assume, or "conjecture. In fragment B 14, Xenophanes does not assert that mortals harbor false convictions, he only states that they accept such accept such views, that they supposed such an image of the gods. He does not make these statements from the position of a privileged possessor of the truth about the gods, but rather as a critical observer stating a fact. This fully corresponds with fragment B 34, in which he states that "the clear truth no man has seen nor will there be anyone who knows about the gods. In addition, the verb δοκέω presupposes some element of choice or assumption, which is characteristic for mortals. Xenophanes' assertions contained in B 14 should not be viewed on the same level of objective reflection as those of the remaining mortals. The aim is not to replace the false opinions of mortals with the true views of the thinker from Colophon. His assertion belongs to the metalevel, as it concerns the opinions of mortals as such. He does not state, however, that they are true or false in their entirety; he only states that mortals harbor such opinions, that they are 36 It is worth noting that in the extant fragments of Parmenides' poem, the category of falsehood also does not appear, and - what follows - neither does the opposition truth falsehood. The fundamental distinction for the thinker from Elea is that of two paths of investigation: the way of truth (literally: the way of persuasion, which accompanies truth) and the way of opinion of mortals. The truth opinion distinction can also be illustrated as the contrast between true certainty and untrue certainty (D-K 28 B 1, 30; B 8, 28). 37 In his commentary to fragment B 34, J. H. Lesher writes: "In light of the inferior status of mortal δόξα in Parmenides account (and subsequently in Plato s) one might imagine that δόκος here in Xenophanes must have contained an implicit element of error or falsity. But this does not appear to be the case. [...] δόκος, therefore, like δοκέω, involves what one takes to be the case, what one opines *...+, without an inherent suggestion that what one opines is false. Lesher 1992:

274 10-11 (2015) condemned to opinions, suppositions, and conjectures. A confirmation of this reading can be found in the statement: "δόκος δ' ἐπὶ πᾶσι τέτυκται (B 34, 4). The difference between Xenophanes and the mortals does not lie in the fact that the mortals are stuck in falsity, while Xenophanes alone possesses knowledge, but boils down to the fact that Xenophanes is aware that everyone is condemned to opinion, including he himself, 38 while the mortals are unable to realize that their opinions are simply opinions; thus, consciously or not, they believe their opinions should be treated as the final truth. Mortals, in their opinions, are certain of their own convictions and do not admit the possibility of error; they have achieved certainty, but it is only their subjective certainty, which lays claim to finality. The next issue that should be taken into account is the problem of clarifying οἱ βροτοί in fragment B 14. The question arises whether Xenophanes perceives himself as one of the mortals. Yonezawa firmly accepts that Xenophanes excludes himself from this set, as he does not share these false views. 39 The category of falsity was discussed earlier. Here, it is worth noting that a critique of the opinions of mortals does not have to automatically be connected with setting oneself beyond those mortals. 40 It is also worth noting that Xenophanes uses in these passages both the word βροτοί and ἄνθρωποι. The first appears in the context of accepting or assuming certain views about the gods, and so ties in with the acceptance of a certain doxal standpoint (B 14). The use of the word ἄνθρωποι neutral, as it is not connected with any particular assumption as to the nature of the gods or the world. In fragment B 11 Xenophanes writes that Homer and Hesiod ascribed certain 38 Of course, in reference to this assertion the accusation can be made that Xenophanes was not aware of the fact that if he opines that everyone opines, this does not necessarily have to be the case; it could be the case that someone (or even everyone except him) possesses truth. Of course, we are unable to resolve this matter on the basis of the extant fragments. It seems, however, that Xenophanes' statements are aimed at the "promotion" of cognitive humility, so to speak, or at least holding back from the arrogance of dogmatic, conclusive claims to certain cognition of the gods and the world. 39 "Therefore, when he calls men 'the mortals' and criticizes their false beliefs, it is most clear that he does not include himself as one of 'the mortals.' Yonezawa 1989: J. Philippoussis asserts that "Xenophanes is one of the brotoi and anthrôpoi who, in frgs B 11 and 14, dokeousi and kaleousi; he is one of the thnêtoi to whom, in frg 18, the panta have not been revealed; he is one of the pantes who, as the first plural ekgenomestha indicates in frg 33, came from earth and water. Philippoussis 1989: 335, n

275 10-11 (2015) traits to the gods, which are shameful and embarrassing for people. In this passage, it is Homer and Hesiod who hold a certain position, while people almost by nature consider theft, adultery, and deceit shameful. In fragment B 23, on the other hand, Xenophanes mentions a god who is the greatest among gods and men. Here again people are not described from the perspective of their cognitive reference to the world. Moreover, Xenophanes adds in the same passage that god is not similar to mortals (θνητοῖσιν), neither in terms of thought (νόημα) or body (δέμας). It is difficult to unambiguously judge whether the distinction between βροτοί and ἄνθρωποι in Xenophanes has a deeper philosophical significance, though if we were to seek one, ἄνθρωποι rather signifies mankind as a whole, while βροτοί those, who accept certain conjectures describing reality. 41 It seems to me, however, that a more interesting distinction can be found in Xenophanes. In reference to Homer and archaic literature, we can state that βροτοί signifies those, who are mortal in contrast to the immortal gods. This finite nature of human existence in inseparably tied with the finite nature (limitations on) cognition, which Xenophanes emphasizes in his statements that δόκος is universal (B 34, 4) and that there never was, nor ever will be anyone who will possess the clear truth about the gods and everything else, about which Xenophanes speaks 41 This problem also appears in interpreting the philosophy of Parmenides. He also distinguishes between βροτοί and ἄνθρωποι. Coxon states that "the term βροτοί does not refer to the man-in-thestreet, but to philosophers (Coxon 1934: 134), whereas ἄνθρωποι refers to mankind as a whole. This view is shared by Owen 1960: 91, n. 2 and Meijer 1997: Verdenius is of a different opinion, calling this distinction quite arbitrary (Verdenius 1942: 56, n. 3). The word βροτοί does indeed appear in Parmenides in the context of concrete views on the nature of things that are subjected to critique. Fragments B 1, 30, B 6, 4, B 8, 38-39, B 8, 51-52, B 8, speak about the fact that mortals do not have certainty, they do not know anything, they wander around two-headed, having only convictions, and their statements are deceitful. On the other hand, in the context of the word ἄνθρωποι polemic descriptions almost do not appear. In fragments B 1, 27, B 16 (twice), B 19 there is talk of what belongs to people for the sole reason that they are people. Fragment B 19 is the most disputable, as it contains that statement that people (ἄνθρωποι) gave things their names. In B 8, 38-39, on the other hand, Parmenides writes that everything will be a name, that mortals (βροτοί) accepted in the conviction that it was true. Thus, it is difficult to uphold that there exists some rigorous distinction between these categories; rather, it seems reasonable to agree with the view of A. Finkelberg that we are dealing with a certain tendency. "If the alternation of βροτοί and ἄνθρωποι it not due to material convenience, a possibility which should not be neglected, and consequently the difference is not purely incidental, we may speak of a tendency in Parmenides to use ἄνθρωποι in a more general sense (1.27, 16.2), but only of a tendency, for in 19.3 ἄνθρωποι appear in exactly the same association with the pluralistic outlook as βροτοί usually do. This undermines the basis of Coxon s suggestion, improbable in itself, that by βροτοί and ἄνθρωποι Parmenides systematically distinguishes between philosophers and ordinary men. Fikelberg 1988: 11, n. 34. We should be all the more cautious in drawing long-term conclusions in the case of Xenophanes, because even this tendency is rather weakly present in his views. 275

276 10-11 (2015) (B 34, 1-2). In this sense, it is clear that Xenophanes cannot possibly think of himself as someone, who is not a mortal. Such arrogance expressed as an attempt at making himself equal to the gods or setting himself beyond the mortals does not at all fit with his piety expressed in the elegies. Among the mortals, however, as was mentioned, there are those, who are aware that their views are only convictions, and those, who do not admit such a possibility, if only in the fact that they treat their convictions as final, with the claim to complete truth. To better clarify this distinction, we must refer to fragment B 18. In it, Xenophanes states that not from the beginning did gods intimate all things to mortals, but in time those, who search (ζητοῦντες) find what is better (D-K B 18). Thus, we can say that in general, βροτοί are divided into ζητοῦντες and those, who do not search. Only the former can find what is better, the rest will continue to remain within the bounds of their own convictions, or those simply sanctified by tradition. On the basis of fr. B 18, we can say that Xenophanes refers in his studies to the zetetic-syncritic method, which boils down to a constant search for better solutions (the fig and honey example, B 38), while simultaneously rejecting the belief that the final truth has been found. The purpose of the syncritic aspect of this procedure is to critically compare (juxtapose) convictions in order to grasp what is better (ἄμεινον), not the dogmatic assertion that what is best has been found (ἄριστον). 42 An expression of this zetetic-syncritic attitude can be found in Xenophanes' elegies. In fr. B 2 he writes that our wisdom is better than the strength of men and horses (ἡμετέρη σοφίη, B 2, 11-12) and that good (true) wisdom should be valued more highly than physical strength (B 2, 14). 43 The phrase "our wisdom (ἡμετέρη 42 J. Philippoussis writes: "The comparison, result of a critique, implies both a critic (a human observer) and a criterion (be it a relative one). But the relative criterion provides only a relative and conjectural conclusion and, as both the criterion and the conclusion are subject to doubt and revision, they can always be re-questioned and revised. Philippoussis 1989: Some scholars translate the term σοφίη used in his elegies as art or skill (for example Burnet 1930: 117, n. 2; Bowra 1953: 16-20; Guthrie 1962: 364), others as knowledge, wisdom, Wissen (for example D-K: 129; Marcovich 1978: 22). E. Heitsch, on the other hand, combines both of these meanings ( unsere Kunst und Kenntnis Heitsch 1983: 19), whereas J. H. Lesher translates this word as expertise (Lesher 1992: 56). S. Yonezawa, to defend his interpretation excluding Xenophanes' autocriticism, writes: "Therefore, it is most natural to think that Xenophanes wisdom is in the center of our wisdom and representative of it, although our wisdom is shared among us. Hence, the word our points out those people who accepted Xenophanes wisdom and his sense of values. After all, our wisdom (line 12) or a good wisdom (line 14) here means nothing more than his thought and insight expressed in his poems. Yonezawa 1989: Translating σοφίη as art would lead to 276

277 10-11 (2015) σοφίη) unambiguously suggests that Xenophanes is not only referring to himself. This indicates that the division among mortals (βροτοί) is drawn according to who possesses a critical zetetic attitude. On the one hand, there are mortals who do not seek truth, because they are satisfied with their dogmatic convictions, often drawn from unreflectively-accepted tradition; in the case of these mortals, since they do not search, they cannot find what is epistemically better. On the other hand, there are those, who seek (ζητοῦντες), who persistently look for truth, and only they can find what is better. In addition, it is probably only the latter, and certainly Xenophanes, who are aware of the status of their investigations. They are aware that their views (δόκοι) are only opinions, and thus only temporary, relative (syncritic) 44 truths open to revision, as they are obtained as a result of applying the critical syncritic method with the simultaneously held (de facto dogmatic) assumption that certain knowledge is unattainable for mortals. Thus, when Xenophanes writes about "our wisdom, he means above all the critical wisdom of ζητοῦντες, to which he himself belongs. This criticism of the searching is, therefore, both allocritical and autocritical, as those who search are aware that their hitherto convictions may be rejected, revised, and replaced with new (better) convictions. Therefore, Xenophanes is not a thinker convinced that only he knows, while all other mortals only hold opinions (allocriticism without autocriticism), but is aware of the fact that all human convictions are only opinions (B 34, 4), including his own (allo- and autocriticism difficulties in clarifying the phrase our art, as it is difficult to say who would belong to this group besides Xenophanes himself (it would also be possible to translate ἡμετέρη σοφίη as my art ). It would be difficult to image that Xenophanes had Homer and Hesiod, whom he critiques, in mind. In my opinion, σοφίη in this fragment signifies a certain type of skill, or critical attitude connected with certain critical wisdom that takes into account reflection on man's cognitive limitations, which from a practical perspective would serve the good of the polis. This critical wisdom is both theoretical (it undertakes problems tied with cognition) and practical, as it is directed towards socio-political good. Cognitive humility, resulting in critical reflection concerning man and the hierarchy of values, can be built upon the foundation of epistemological reflection. This good (true) wisdom (B 2, 14) is critical wisdom, including (and maybe above all) autocritical wisdom. 44 Xenophanes distinguishes those, who search from those, who do not, while Parmenides creates a division of the paths of investigation, distinguishing the way of persuasion, which accompanies truth, and the way of opinion. In Xenophanes' view, truths discovered (scil. disclosed by the gods B 18) by those who seek are temporary, relative, and open to revision, while truth for Parmenides was final, absolute, and complete. An interesting research topic extending beyond the framework of this article - would be the comparison of Xenophanes' position with Parmenides' way of opinion. 277

278 10-11 (2015) combined). However, there are those among mortals who dogmatically (uncritically) accept their convictions as final, and those capable of searching for truth; the latter's cognitive effort is expressed in the application of the zetetic-syncritic method directed at finding better answers (because only those, who seek, can find) with the full awareness that what is ἄμεινον should not be treated as that, which is ἄριστον, since man cannot cognize the clear and certain truth and has only opinion at his disposition. Xenophanes' pan-criticism as a combination of allo- and autocriticism shows that Western philosophy already at its source strongly accented the critical, anti-dogmatic, and zetetic attitude, thanks to which it had the opportunity to develop creatively instead of stagnating. BIBLIOGRAPHY Bowra C. M. 1953: Problems in Greek Poetry, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Burnet J. 1930: Early Greek Philosophy, 4 th ed, London. Cleve F. M. 1965: The Giants of pre-sophistic Greek Philosophy: An attempt to reconstruct their thoughts, 1 vol., The Hague: M. Nijhoff Coxon A. H. 1934: The Philosophy of Parmenides, Classical Quarterly 28, 134- Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker Griechisch und Deutch von H. Diels, herausgeg. von W. Kranz, 1-3 Band, Zürich. Finkelberg A. 1988: Parmenides: Between Material and Logical Monism. Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 70 (1), Fränkel H. 1925: Xenophanesstudien, Hermes 60, Gajda-Krynicka J. 2007: Filozofia przedplatońska, Warszawa. 278

279 10-11 (2015) Gigon O. 1968: Der Ursprung der griechischen Philosophie. Von Hesiod bis Parmenides, Basel und Stuttgart. Graham D.W. 2010: The Texts of Early Greek Philosophy: The Complete Fragments and Selected Testimonies of the Major Presocratics. Part I. Translated and Selected by Daniel W. Graham, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Guthrie W.K.C. 1962: A History of Greek Philosophy, 1 vol., The Earlier Presocratics and the Pythagoreans, Cambridge University Press. Heitsch E. 1966: Das Wissen des Xenophanes, Rheinisches Museum für Philologie. Neue Folge 109, Heitsch E. 1983: Xenophanes: Die Fragmente, München und Zürich. Kirk G. S., Raven J. E. 1964: The Presocratic Philosophy. A Critical History with a Selection of Texts, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kubok D. 2014: Postęp, pycha, pokora: Ksenofanes z Kolofonu a Hezjod, Folia Philosophica 32, Lesher J. H. 1978: Xenophanes Scepticism, Phronesis 23, Lesher J. H. 1992: Xenophanes of Colophon: Fragments. A Text and Translation with a Commentary by J.H. Lesher, Toronto. Marcinkowska M. 2004: Ksenofanes z Kolofonu o ludzkim poznaniu, Studia Antyczne i Mediewistyczne XXXVII, Marcovich M. 1978: Xenophanes on Drinking-Parties and Olympic Games, Illinois Classical Studies 3, Meijer P. A. 1997: Parmenides Beyond the Gates: The Divine Revelation on Being, Thinking, and the Doxa, Amsterdam. 279

280 10-11 (2015) Owen G.E.L. 1960: Eleatic Questions, Classical Quarterly 10, Philippoussis J. 1989: The Gnoseological and Metaphysical Particularity of Xenophanes thought, in: Boudouris K.J.: Ionian Philosophy, Athens. Snell B. 1960: The Discovery of Mind. The Greek Origins of European Thought, transl. By T. G. Rosenmeyer, New York. Verdenius W. J. 1942: Parmenides. Some Comments on His Poem, Groningen. Woleński J. 1992: A note on scepticism, Kriterion 3, Yonezawa S. 1989: Xenophanes: His Self-Consciousness as a Wise man and Fr. 34, in: Boudouris K.J.: Ionian Philosophy, Athens. Summary The article analyzes extant fragments of Xenophanes of Colophon's works from the perspective of broadly-understood criticism, with special emphasis on fragment B 34 (Diels-Kranz). Two types of criticism can be distinguished: allocriticism and autocriticism. The first refers to criticism of the opinions of others, while the second type of criticism is directed at one's own opinions. The object of criticism discussed in the article is the possibility of possessing knowledge. In this context, it is worth considering whether Xenophanes believed that no human being, including himself, could possess clear and certain knowledge (a combination of allocriticism and autocriticism), or whether he believed himself excluded from this general rule (solely allocriticism). KEYWORDS: criticism; knowledge; skepticism; dogmatism; Xenophanes of Colophon 280

281 10-11 (2015) Dariusz Kubok, currently serves as Chair of the Department of Philosophy at the University of Silesia in Katowice. He is the author of, among others, Problem apeiron i peras w filozofii przedsokratejskiej (1998) and Prawda i mniemania. Studium filozofii Parmenidesa z Elei (2004). His main research interests include ancient philosophy and the history of ontological and epistemological reflection. dariusz.kubok@us.edu.pl 281

282 10-11 (2015) PATRYCJA MATUSIAK Devotio Decjuszy jako exemplum republikańskiej pietas (Uniwersytet Śląski w Katowicach) W swej kanonicznej już książce From Autothanasia to Suicide. Self-Killing in Classical Antiquity poświęconej samobójstwu i porządkującej jego typologie Anton van Hooff wśród przykładów wymienia także devotio1. Jest ona specyficznym rodzajem samobójstwa2, jak zauważa Mieczysław Popławski prastarym italskim zwyczajem3. Na 52 zebrane przez Hooffa przypadki aż trzy dotyczą tej samej rodziny Publiuszy Decjuszy Musów (Publii Decii Mures): kolejno dziadka, ojca (syna) i wnuka4. Idea poddania się devotio pokolenie po pokoleniu jest niezwykle interesująca, nawet jeśli nie byłby to fakt historyczny a jedynie koncept antycznych autorów. Pierwszy z rodziny Publiusz Decjusz Mus (I) był konsulem roku 340 p.n.e. Poświęcił się w czasie bitwy z Latynami pod rzeką Weseris, niedaleko Wezuwiusza, zwaną też bitwą pod Wezuwiuszem w 340 r. p.n.e. w czasie drugiej wojnie latyńskiej. Drugi Publiusz Decjusz Mus (II), był synem Decjusza Musa (I). Czterokrotnie piastował urząd konsula w latach 312, 308, 297 oraz 295 p.n.e. Poświęcił się w czasie bitwy pod Sentinum w 295 r. p.n.e. w trzeciej wojnie samnickiej. Trzeci Publiusz Decjusz Mus (III), był synem Decjusza Musa (II) i wnukiem Decjusza Musa (I), konsulem roku 279 p.n.e. Poświęcił się w czasie bitwy z Pyrrusem pod Asculum (lub też Ausculum, miejscowości znajdującej się w Apulii) w 279 r. p.n.e. Devotio jako mors voluntaria5 polega na poświęceniu życia (własnego lub innego Rzymianina) przez dyktatora, konsula lub pretora w imię zwycięstwa rzymskiego wojska6. Następuje po dopełnieniu ceremonii polegającej na wypowiedzeniu carmen devotionis w obecności pontifeksa, dokonujący devotio powinien być ubrany w białą szatę bramowaną Hooff 2002: Szerzej na temat devotio jako pietas erga patriam i innych przykładów z czasów republiki w artykule Edyty Gryksy w tym samym tomie. O rzymskiej idei samobójstwa Sapota 2009: Popławski 2011: Dla rozróżnienia opisywanych przeze mnie Decjuszy zastosowałam oznaczenie: Decjusz (I) dziadek, Decjusz (II) ojciec/syn i Decjusz (III) wnuk. 5 Liv. 8, 6, Liv. 8, 10,

283 10-11 (2015) togą 7. Celem tej ceremonii jest wyproszenie od bogów dla Rzymian siły (vis) i zwycięstwa (victoria), dla wrogów lęku i przerażenia (terror et formido), a wreszcie śmierci (mors), jak dowiadujemy się z przekazu Liwiusza dotyczącego devotio Decjusza (I): uti populo Romano Quiritium uim uictoriam prosperetis hostesque populi Romani Quiritium terrore formidine morteque adficiatis 8. Florus w Epitome przesuwa akcent z wywoływania strachu na zapowiedź zwycięstwa. Podkreśla także element rzymskiego bohaterstwa. W niezwykle plastycznym obrazie Decjusz (I) miał utorować drogę do zwycięstwa ścieżką swojej krwi: ut in confertissima se hostium tela iaculatus novum ad victoriam iter sanguinis sui limite aperiret 9. Devotio Decjusza (I) dokonała się na skutek przepowiedni zawartej w widzeniu sennym obu konsulów Decjusza i Torkwata (Titus Manlius Torquatus): ibi in quiete utrique consuli eadem dicitur uisa species uiri maioris quam pro humano habitu augustiorisque, dicentis ex una acie imperatorem, ex altera exercitum Deis Manibus Matrique Terrae deberi; utrius exercitus imperator legiones hostium superque eas se deuouisset, eius populi partisque uictoriam fore 10. Obaj konsulowie opowiedzieli sobie swoje sny, a następnie złożyli ofiary. Wróżby uzyskane przez haruspików potwierdzać miały te ze snu. Zatem pojawia się tutaj element powinności 11, niekoniecznie wolnej woli, oraz namysłu i przygotowania do samego aktu. Brakuje tego w przypadku Decjusza (II). Liwiusz wkłada w jego usta słowa właściwie stwarzające legendę rodu. W dramatycznej chwili, gdy rzymskie wojsko ucieka z pola bitwy, 7 Liv. 8, 9, 5. 8 Liv. 8, 9, 7. 9 Flor. 1, 9, 3: *<+ aby ścieżką swojej krwi, gdy rzuci się w miejsce najgęściej padających pocisków nieprzyjacielskich, utorować nową drogę do zwycięstwa *wszystkie przekłady Florusa autorstwa Ignacego Lewandowskiego]. 10 Liv. 8, 6, 9 10: Tutaj obu konsulom miało się objawić we śnie takie samo widzenie: człowiek nadludzkiej postaci, pełen dostojności, zapowiadający, że z jednej strony wódz, a z drugiej wojsko jest przeznaczone cieniom podziemnym i matce Ziemi; który wódz poświęci im legiony nieprzyjacielskie, a z nimi i siebie samego, tego naród i wojsko będą zwycięzcami *wszystkie przekłady Liwiusza autorstwa Andrzeja Kościółka]. 11 Liv. 8, 6, 12: animo tacitae religioni. 283

284 10-11 (2015) Decjusz sam zastępuje im drogę i wzywa ich z powrotem, a następnie poddaje się losowi, który wydaje mu się przeznaczony: quid ultra moror' inquit 'familiare fatum? datum hoc nostro generi est ut luendis periculis publicis piacula simus. iam ego mecum hostium legiones mactandas Telluri ac Dis Manibus dabo 12. Owa spontaniczna reakcja stoi w niezgodzie z trzymaniem przy sobie pontyfika, Marka Liwiusza, mogącego wypowiedzieć słowa carmen devotionis 13, pasuje zaś do gwałtownej reakcji, o której piszę dalej. Tenże Decius Mus (II) według Liwiusza 14 poświęcił się w tych samych szatach, co ojciec eodemque habitu, co wydaje się być jednak trudnym logistycznie przedsięwzięciem. Po pierwsze, obydwa akty devotiones dzieli 45 lat. Po drugie, Decius Mus (I) według Patawińczyka padł pod gradem pocisków: corruit obrutus telis 15, dopiero drugiego dnia po bitwie został znaleziony i pochowany 16, zresztą podobnie jak później jego syn 17. Po trzecie skąd nagle się wzięła na polu bitwy owa szata i kto ewentualnie ją przechowywał? Sam Decjusz (II) przygotowany na taką ewentualność? Uważam, że jeśli eodem habitu nie oznacza podobieństwa pod względem ubrania w obramowaną purpurą togę, przypisaną rytuałowi devotio, ale niekoniecznie tą samą, którą nosił ojciec, ewentualnie jeśli nie chodzi o odniesienie do cinctu Gabino, a więc opasania togi na sposób gabiński, stosowany w niektórych rytuałach 18, to w tym przypadku habitus należałoby przetłumaczyć nie jako ubranie, jak zrobił to Andrzej Kościółek, lecz jako pewną postawę, zarówno fizyczną, jak i 12 Liv. 10, 28, 12: Czegóż wzdragam się jeszcze przed losem przeznaczonym mej rodzinie? Tak już pisano naszemu rodowi, że mamy być ofiarą przebłagalną za całość rzeczypospolitej. Oto i ja razem z sobą poświęcę Ziemi i cieniom zmarłych legiony nieprzyjacielskie na śmierć. 13 Liv. 10, 28, 14: *<+ M. Liuium pontificem, quem descendens in aciem digredi uetuerat ab se *<+. 14 Liv. 10, 28, 15: deuotus inde eadem precatione eodemque habitu quo pater P. Decius ad Ueserim bello Latino *<+. 15 Liv. 8, 9, Liv. 8, 10, 10: Decii corpus ne eo die inueniretur, nox quaerentes oppressit; postero die inuentum inter maximum hostium stragem, coopertum telis, funusque ei par morti celebrante collega factum est. 17 Liv. 10, 29, 19 20: consulis corpus eo die, quia obrutum superstratis Gallorum cumulis erat, inueniri non potuit; postero die inuentum relatumque est cum multis militum lacrimis. intermissa inde omnium aliarum rerum cura Fabius collegae funus omni honore laudibusque meritis celebrat. 18 Liv. 8, 9, 9 Decjusz Mus (I): ipse incinctus cinctu Gabino oraz Liv. 10, 7, 3; Liv. 5, 46, 2 Gabiusz Fabiusz Dorsuo składający ofiary na Kapitolu w czasie najazdu Galów w 390 r. p.n.e.: Gabino cinctu incinctus. 284

285 10-11 (2015) związaną z charakterem, Decjusza (II), przypominającą per analogiam postawę Decjusza (I), a może właściwy Decjuszom sposób zachowania. Taką wersję zdaje się potwierdzać inne miejsce u Liwiusza. W związku z opisem walk pomiędzy zwolennikami i przeciwnikami ustawy Ogulniuszy o dostępie plebejuszy do kolegium pontyfików i augurów pojawia się osoba Decjusza Musa (II), który miał właśnie postawą przypominać swego ojca, opasanego togą na sposób, czy też styl (Gabino cultu) gabiński. Użyty w tym miejscu habitus odnosi się do postawy lub postaci, scharakteryzowanej poprzez wygląd (toga) i miejsce (na leżącej włóczni): dicitur Decius parentis sui speciem, qualem eum multi qui in contione erant uiderant, incinctum Gabino cultu super telum stantem, quo se habitu pro populo ac legionibus Romanis deuouisset 19. Decjusz Mus (II) do standardowej formuły (eadem precatione 20 ) dodał także słowa: prae se agere sese formidinem ac fugam caedemque ac cruorem, caelestium inferorum iras, contacturum funebribus diris signa tela arma hostium, locumque eundem suae pestis ac Gallorum ac Samnitium fore< 21. Do elementów istniejących, takich jak formido (lęk, przerażenie, strach) dodał fuga (ucieczka), caedes (rozlew krwi, a nawet masakra) oraz cruor (przelaną w walce krew, a także rzeź, masowy mord), a wreszcie te związane z bogami gniew nie tylko tych w niebie, ale i bóstw podziemnych. Wynikiem jego devotio ma być pestis Galów i Samnitów, a więc całkowita zagłada i zniszczenie fizyczne. Co ciekawe, Decjusz Mus (I) jako piaculum, czyli dopełnienie rytuału lub wręcz ofiarę przebłagalną gniewu bogów miał ową pestis przenieść ze swoich żołnierzy na wrogów: piaculum omnis deorum irae qui pestem ab suis auersam in hostes 19 Liv. 10, 7, 3: Decjusz miał przypominać postać swego ojca; wielu z obecnych na zgromadzeniu widziało go, jak przybrany w strój gabiński stał na leżącej włóczni i w tym stanie poświęcał się za lud i legiony rzymskie. 20 Liv. 10, 28, Liv. 10, 28, 17: Strach i ucieczkę, śmierć i krew, gniew bogów niebieskich i podziemnych niosę przed sobą, przekleństwem zguby obarczam nieprzyjacielskie chorągwie, pociski i broń, a miejsce mojej śmierci będzie miejscem zniszczenia Gallów i Samnitów. 285

286 10-11 (2015) ferret 22, na dodatek przerażając wrogów poprzez wyobrażenie gwiazdy przynoszącej zgubę: pestifero sidere 23. Zarówno ojciec, jak i syn, w przekazie Liwiusza, skoczyli w środek wojsk nieprzyjaciela. Decjusz Mus (I) rzucił się na koniu w sam środek wroga: se in medios hostes immisit 24, na dodatek zupełnie niespodziewanie, jak z nieba: sicut caelo missus 25, wywołując wśród wrogów strach i trwogę: terror pavorque 26. Decjusz Mus (II) dodatkowo popędził konia concitat equum 27, gwałtownie się kierując inferensque 28 w miejsce, gdzie wrogowie tworzyli bardzo zwarty szyk: qua confertissimam cernebat Gallorum aciem 29. Co ciekawe w epitomie Florusa to jego ojciec miał się rzucić tam, gdzie pociski padały najgęściej: in confertissima se hostium tela iaculatus 30. Obaj wykazali się ogromną odwagą, przy czym w opisie czynu Decjusza Musa (I) przeważa zaskoczenie i strach Latynów, u Decjusza Musa (II) zaś najpierw jego popędliwość i gwałtowność, a dopiero następnie wywołany aktem samopoświęcenia efekt u wrogów, którzy uelut alienata mente uana in cassum iactare tela; torpere quidam et nec pugnae meminisse nec fugae 31. Zarówno w pierwszym, jak i drugim przypadku efekt był natychmiastowy, a wojsko rzymskie wykazało się ogromną wolą walki. Po pierwszej devotio wojsko pozbyło się bojaźni i rzuciło do bitwy z zapałem jak po pierwszym sygnale do boju 32. Po drugiej devotio pontyfik Liwiusz wołał, że śmierć Decjusza (II) uratowała Rzymian, którzy zwyciężali 33. W czasie bitwy pod Wezuwiuszem, będącej istną rzezią (tantaque caede 34 ), a wygranej przez Rzymian, według Liwiusza pozostać przy życiu miała zaledwie czwarta część nieprzyjaciół: uix quartam partem relinquerent hostium 35. Bitwa pod Sentinum również zakończyła się zwycięstwem Rzymian, według autora Ab Urbe Condita zginęło 25 tysięcy 22 Liv. 8, 9, Liv. 8, 9, Liv. 8, 9, Liv. 8, 9, Liv. 8, 9, Liv. 10, 28, Liv. 10, 28, Liv. 10, 28, Flor. 1, 9, Liv. 10, 29, 2: jakby pozbawieni zmysłów daremnie rzucali chybiające pociski, niektórzy drętwieli i ani o bitwie, ani o ucieczce nie mogli myśleć. 32 Liv. 8, 9, 12: simul et Romani exsolutis religione animis, uelut tum primum signo dato coorti pugnam integram ediderunt. 33 Liv. 10, 29, 3: uociferari uicisse Romanos defunctos consulis fato. 34 Liv. 8, 10, Liv. 8, 10,

287 10-11 (2015) wrogów, a 8 tysięcy wzięto do niewoli 36. Po stronie Rzymian zanotowano stratę 7 tysięcy żołnierzy z wojska Decjusza (II) i 1700 z wojska Fabiusza 37. Devotiones obu Decjuszy przyczyniły się nie tylko do wygrania obu bitew, ale co za tym idzie także do wygrania całych wojen. Jak zauważa D.S. Levene w przypadku bitwy pod Sentinum zwycięstwo było kulminacyjnym punktem zarówno rzymskiej pietas jak i umiejętności militarnych 38. Na zebrane przez Hooffa 52 przykłady devotiones 39 na 960 potwierdzonych przykładów samobójczej śmierci, autor analizuje w Appendixie B 37 przypadków, stanowiących ogółem 6% samobójstw. Wśród nich 27% zostało dokonanych za pomocą broni, 3% przez powieszenie, 19% przez skok (z mostu), 3% poprzez truciznę, 8% ogień a 41% (czyli 15 przypadków) było prowokacją 40. Devotio poprzez zagłodzenie, które także było sposobem popełniania samobójstwa, co zrozumiałe w tym wypadku, nie stwierdzono. Wszystkie trzy devotiones Decjuszy Hooff zaliczył do rodzaju tak zwanych prowokacji 41. Wśród 22 przypadków śmierci przez prowokację w aż 15 przypadkach przyczynę stanowiło devotio 42. Owo wspomniane już familiare fatum 43, czyli los przeznaczony rodzinie, o którym miał według Liwiusza wspomnieć Decjusz (II) w czasie bitwy pod Sentinum, czy też Florusowe sformułowanie more patrio 44, a więc zwyczaj ojcowski, bądź odziedziczony po przodkach, rodowy przywołuje analogię losu Korneliuszy Scypionów. Florus w Epitome w opisie trzeciej wojny punickiej zauważa, że nomen Scipionum wydaje się przynosić zgubę Afryce (fatale Africae videbatur), dlatego też mimo braku pełnego cursus honorum i przewidzianego 36 Liv. 10, 29, Liv. 10, 29, Levene 1993: Appendix A: Adrastos, Alkestis, Alkestis in Odessos, Anchouros, Anthia, Antilochos, Antinoos, Antipoini filiae, Brennos, captivus Romanus, Coma, Curtius, Decius Mus I, Decius Mus II, Decius Mus III, depugnaturi pro Calig., Eleazar Auran, Epicharis, Galli, Gobryas, Hipponoos, Iulius Agrestis, iuvenes Terracinenses, Iuventius M. Laterensis, Kallikrateia, Kodros, Kratinos, Lactorius, Leokorides, Longinus, magistratus curuleus, Makaria, Menestratos, Menippe et Metioche, Menoikeus, miles nuntius quidam, miles Othonis gregarius, Oinokles, Othonis eques, periturus pro Caligula, Persae, Petronius M., Plotius Plancus, Pomponius, Pomptilla, Pexaspes, Pythagorae discipuli, Sempronius Densus, servus Pisonis, strategi Athenienses, Urbinii servus, Zenon Eleates. Hooff 2002: Hooff 2002: Hooff 2002: Hooff 2002: Liv. 10, 28, Flor. 1, 12,

288 10-11 (2015) prawem wieku 45 na konsula w 147 roku p.n.e. wybrano Scypiona Emiliana, wnuka przez adopcję Scypiona Afrykańskiego Starszego: Quamvis profligato urbis excidio tamen fatale Africae nomen Scipionum videbatur. Igitur in alium Scipionem conversa res p. finem belli reposcebat 46. Cyceron w Rozmowach Tuskulańskich analizując śmierć niosącą brak czucia, a zatem wymykającą się kategoriom szczęścia i nieszczęścia, między innymi przywołuje przykład obu rodzin Decjuszy i Scypionów. Jest on bardzo wymowny zarówno dzięki swej szczegółowości jak i rozpoczynającemu przysłówkowi quotiens, podkreślającemu frekwentatywność altruistycznych poświęceń przedstawicieli najlepszych rzymskich rodzin: quotiens non modo ductores nostri, sed universi etiam exercitus ad non dubiam mortem concurrerunt! quae quidem si timeretur, non Lucius Brutus arcens eum reditu tyrannum, quem ipse expulerat, in proelio concidisset; non cum Latinis decertans pater Decius, cum Etruscis filius, cum Pyrrho nepos se hostium telis obiecissent; non uno bello pro patria cadentis Scipiones Hispania vidisset, Paulum et Geminum Cannae, Venusia Marcellum, Litana Albinum, Lucani Gracchum 47. Devotio przedstawicieli każdego pokolenia rodziny jest czymś wyjątkowym. Już Émile Durkheim w podstawowej dziś pracy o samobójstwie z 1897 roku Le Suicide. Étude de Sociologie poruszył kwestię dziedziczności samobójstw. Zauważył, że odziedziczyć można jedynie chorobę nerwową bądź umysłową, która może, ale nie musi, doprowadzić do śmierci 48. Jednakże podkreślił ogromną rolę procesu naśladownictwa powtarzanie 45 App. Lyb. 112 (528); Alfőldy G. 1998: Flor. 1, 31, 12: Chociaż zagłada Kartaginy dobiegała końca, wydawało się jednak, że dla Afryki zgubne jest wyłącznie imię Scypionów. Przeto rzeczpospolita zwróciwszy się do innego Scypiona żądała położenia kresu wojnie. 47 Cic. Tusc. 1, 89: Ileż to razy nie tylko nasi wodzowie, lecz nawet całe armie szły na pewną śmierć! Gdyby budziła ona lęk, to Lucjusz Brutus nie poległby w bitwie, broniąc powrotu tyranowi, którego sam wypędził; nie wystawialiby się na pociski nieprzyjaciół ojciec Decjusz walcząc z Latynami, syn z Etruskami, wnuk z Pirrusem; Hiszpania nie widziałaby Scypionów, Kanny nie widziałyby Paulusa i Geminusa, Wenuzja Marcellusa, Litania Albinusa, Lukanowie Grakchusa, którzy w jednej wojnie ginęli za ojczyznę *tłum. J. Śmigaj]. 48 Durkheim 2011:

289 10-11 (2015) zwyczajów czy też tradycji jest wynikiem czynników społecznych, od których zależna jest autodestrukcja 49. Zatem w przypadku Decjuszy ogromną rolę mogła odgrywać (a zapewne także wywierać presję) przypisywana rodzinie tradycja 50, owo familiare fatum 51 oraz more patrio 52, a nie ewentualna choroba psychiczna. Durkheim zaproponował także sklasyfikowanie samobójstw w trzech głównych typach. Wyróżnił mianowicie samobójstwo egoistyczne, altruistyczne oraz anomiczne. Devotio należy do rodzaju samobójstw altruistycznych 53, podtypu popełnianych z obowiązku 54, choć mogłoby się wydawać (zarówno jednostce, obserwatorom, jak i odbiorcom późniejszego literackiego przekazu), że decyduje tu jedynie wolna wola. Stefan Chwin podkreśla istniejącą w różnych kulturach symboliczną heroizację samobójstwa altruistycznego, które może popychać jednostki ku jak to określił suicidal destruction 55. Taka jednostka, która wcieliła się w narzędzie zbiorowości, zabijająca się dla wspólnego dobra staje się ikoną najwyższego poświęcenia 56. Mieczysław Brożek i Józef Wolski w komentarzu do przekładu Liwiusza podkreślają w dwóch miejscach 57, że przypuszczalnie historyczną devotio jest ta Decjusza (II), natomiast chronologicznie wcześniejsza jego ojca Decjusza (I) jest jej kopią, dubletem. Bizantyński historyk Zonaras z XII wieku przytacza dwie tradycje jedną mówiącą o devotio i drugą, według której Decjusz (I) został zabity przez jednego ze swych żołnierzy: ὑπο συστρατιώτου πολιτικοῦ σφαγῆναι 58. Czasownik σφάζω oprócz neutralnego znaczenia zabijać, niesie jeszcze dodatkowe: zarzynać bądź zabijać na ofiarę. Opisująca tą część historii księga Kasjusza Diona zachowała się we fragmentach, nie możemy więc stwierdzić, czy Zonaras powołując się na dwie tradycje opierał się na Dionie, czy na jakimś innym źródle. Sam Dion wypowiada wielce wątpiące zdanie na temat tradycji i Decjusza (I): 49 Durkheim 2011: Bernard 2000: Liv. 10, 28, Flor. 1, 12, Durkheim 2011: Durkheim 2011: Chwin 2010: Chwin 2010: Liv. 8, 9 przyp. 31 na s. 114 oraz Liv. 10, 28 przyp. 94 na s Zon. 7,

290 10-11 (2015) Dziwię się, że śmierć Decjusza nadała walce lepszy obrót, pokonała zwyciężających i dała zwycięstwo uciskanym. Nie mogę dojść, co było tego powodem. Kiedy pomyślę o czynach pewnych ludzi (bo wiemy, że już wiele podobnych rzeczy przytrafiło się wielu ludziom), nie mogę nie dowierzać tradycji. Kiedy jednak wnikam w ich przyczyny, popadam w wielkie zakłopotanie. Bo jakże tu nie wierzyć, że na skutek samopoświęcenia człowieka tak wielki tłum zdołał się od razu uratować i zwyciężyć? Zostawmy innym troskę o zbadanie stanu rzeczywistego i jego powodów 59. D.S. Levene wychodząc zaś od myśli wyrażonej przez Diona podkreśla, że i u Liwiusza nigdzie nie przeczytamy, że zwycięstwo w bitwie pod Wezuwiuszem było spowodowane devotio Decjusza (I), raczej równoważąc swój przekaz starał się on też podkreślić umiejętności militarne drugiego konsula Torkwata Manliusza 60. O poświęceniu życia Decjusza (III) w dostępnych nam dziś źródłach wspomina tylko Cyceron 61. Florus nie dość, że nie odnotowuje devotio Decjusza (III), mimo odniesień do poświęceń pozostałych dwóch, to jeszcze jako wodzów pod Askulum notuje konsulów Kuriusza i Fabrycjusza (Curio Fabricioque consulibus 62 ). O ile Fabrycjusz (Caius Fabricius Luscinus) był konsulem, ale w roku następnym 278 (a nie w roku bitwy i śmierci Decjusza (III) 279 p.n.e.), o tyle jego kolegą był Quintus Aemilius Papus (także w pełnionym wcześniej konsulacie w 282 r. p.n.e.) a nie Kuriusz (M. Curius Dentatus), który był konsulem dopiero w 275 r. p.n.e. Widocznie Florusowi zlały się w jedno wydarzenie dwie bitwy stoczone z Pyrrusem pod Asculum w 279 p.n.e. oraz pod Beneventum w 275 r. p.n.e. Jest to kolejny błąd epitomatora w opisie devotio Decjusza (II) pomieszał Fabiuszy Maksymusów Fabiusa Maximusa Rullianusa, konsula 310 r. oraz Q. Fabiusa Maximusa Rullianusa, konsula z roku 295 p.n.e. Nie zgadza się również miejsce Decjusz (II) poświęcił się w czasie bitwy pod Sentinum w 295 roku, a nie w bitwie w Lesie Cymińskim w roku 310 p.n.e. 63 Ponieważ nie zachowały się księgi Liwiusza, prymarnego źródła Florusa, opisujące historię potyczek z Pyrrusem, nie można stwierdzić, czy Florus pominął Decjusza (III), czy też może Liwiusz w ogóle go w swej relacji nie uwzględnił. Skoro Florus odnotował obu 59 Cass. Dio fr. 7, 32, 7 8 *przeł. W. Madyda+. 60 Levene 1993: Cic. Tusc. 1, 89; fin. 2, Flor. 1, 13, Jal 2002: I

291 10-11 (2015) Decjuszy (I i II), wydaje się, że nie pominąłby także spinającego historię rodzinnych devotiones opisu dokonań Decjusza (III). A jeśli tak, to może devotio Decjusza (III) nie zaistniała ani w dziele historyka z Patavium, ani w rzeczywistości. Jest to jednak w tej chwili spekulacja oparta na podwójnym argumencie ex silentio. Być może nie było więc wspaniałego poświęcenia dla ojczyzny kolejnych członków rodziny, nie przekazywali sobie oni pałeczki międzypokoleniowej. Jak zauważył jednak cytowany powyżej Kasjusz Dion, stan faktyczny nie był tak ważny. Wartość takiej opowieści o samobójstwach patriotycznych64 leżała w jej możliwościach propagandowych, w ikonizacji pewnych elementów rzymskości i heroizacji dawnych Rzymian. Dla Cycerona, powołującego się na chwalebne dokonania przodków, było to znakomite, najwyższe wręcz exemplum republikańskiej pietas erga patriam, do którego mógł się odwoływać, podobnie jak do niezwykle często przywoływanego przykładu rodziny Scypionów. Patriotyczna wymowa gestu poświęcenia znalazła odzwierciedlenie w twórczości malarskiej Petera Paula Rubensa. Między 1616 a 1617 rokiem namalował on tzw. Cykl Decjusza Musa, odnoszący się do Decjusza (I), liczący 8 obrazów, obecnie znajdujący się w kolekcji Liechtenstein (The Princely Collections)65, wraz z dziełami naśladowców Rubensa, tworzącymi dalsze tytuły cyklu oraz kopie już istniejących66. Dzięki temu patriotyczna idea poświęcenia Decjuszy dla ojczyzny mogła zaistnieć ponownie w czasach nowożytnych, spełniając przypisaną funkcję heroicznego exemplum, i dotrzeć do szerszego grona odbiorców niż czytelnicy Liwiusza, Cycerona czy Florusa. BIBLIOGRAFIA Alfőldy G. 1998: Historia społeczna starożytnego Rzymu, przeł. A. Gierlińska, Poznań: Wydawnictwo Poznańskie. Grisé 1982: 86. Baumstark 1985: passim. Tytuły cyklu to: Decius Mus Relating His Dream, The Interpretation of the Victim, Decius Mus Preparing for Death, The Dismissal of the Lictors, The Obsequies of Decius Mus, The Trophy. 66 Adam Bartsch The Obsequies of Decius Mus, Domenico Mainardi The Death of Decius Mus in the Battle of Veseris, Gustav Adolph Müller The Death of Decius Mus, Jan II Raes The Consecration of Decius Mus, Jakob Matthias Schmutzer, Andreas Schmutzer

292 10-11 (2015) Baumstark R. 1985: Peter Paul Rubens. The Decius Mus Cycle, New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art. Bernard J.-E. 2000: Le portrait chez Tite-Live. Essai sur une écriture de l histoire romaine, Bruxelle: Latomus. Chwin S. 2010: Samobójstwo jako doświadczenie wyobraźni, Gdańsk: Wydawnictwo Tytuł. Durkheim E. 2011: Samobójstwo. Studium z socjologii, przeł. K. Wakar, Warszawa: Oficyna Naukowa. Lettres. Grisé Y. 1982: Le suicide dans la Rome antique, Montréal: Bellarmin, Paris: Les Belles Gryksa E. 2015: Śmierć jako pietas erga patriam w historiografii starożytnego Rzymu, (2015), Hooff A. van 2002: From Autothanasia to Suicide. Self-Killing in Classical Antiquity, London: Routledge. Jal P. (ed.) 2002: Florus. Oeuvres, vol. 1, Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Levene D.S. 1993: Religion in Livy, Leiden New York Köln: E.J. Brill. Popławski M.S. 2011: Bellum Romanum. Sakralność wojny i prawa rzymskiego, Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL. s Sapota T. 2009: Rzymska idea samobójstwa, Symbolae Philologorum Posnaniensium 19, Tytus Liwiusz, Dzieje Rzymu od założenia miasta. Księgi VI X, przeł. A. Kościółek, kom. J. Wolski, M. Brożek, Wrocław Warszawa Kraków Gdańsk Decii Mures devotio as an example of Republican pietas (Summary) Among all examples of an unique manner of suicide, known as devotio, which occur in ancient sources, the one is especially interesting. It concernes family of the Decii Mures. Three of its members father, son and grandson one by one sacrificed themselves and their soldiers during battles with Latins, Samnites and Pyrrhus. It is the only instance of "family" sacrifice among cases listed by Anthony van Hoff 52 examples of devotio known from ancient times and 21 found in Roman historiography. Livy defined it as familiare fatum, that is 292

293 10-11 (2015) the fate destined for a particular family. It means that the Decii became an exemplum to which e.g. Cicero appeals. SŁOWA KLUCZOWE: devotio; samobójstwo; Decius Mus; Livius; Cicero; pietas KEYWORDS: devotio; suicide; Decius Mus; Livius; Cicero; pietas Patrycja Matusiak, dr, adiunkt w Katedrze Filologii Klasycznej Uniwersytetu Śląskiego w Katowicach. Zajmuje się zagadnieniami związanymi z wojnami punickimi i Hannibalem, historiografią rzymską, antykiem w komiksie oraz antyczną kuchnią. Autorka Obrazu Hannibala w literaturze antycznej (Katowice 2015). Współredaktorka Szkiców o antyku oraz czasopisma Scripta Classica. 293

294 10-11 (2015) Recenzja: Spetsialnyie istoricheskiie distsipliny, vyp. 1, otvestv. red. B.L. Fonkich, Rossiiskaia Akademia nauk. Institut vseobshchei istorii. Otdel spetsialnykh istoricheskikh distsiplin, Moskva: IVI RAN 2014, ss. 612 W ramach Instytutu Historii Powszechnej Rosyjskiej Akademii Nauk (RAN) działa dwanaście naukowych jednostek. Jedną z badawczych sekcji jest Oddział Nauk Pomocniczych Historii (ONPH), który w 2014 roku zainicjował periodyczną działalność wydawnicza w formie pracy zbiorowej prezentującej wyniki badań swoich pracowników (Nauki pomocnicze historii, t. 1). Recenzentami serii zostali: Elena V. Ukhanova oraz Mikhail V. Bibikov. Redaktorem odpowiedzialnym za nową serię jest wybitny badacz, historyk, paleograf i kodykolog, jeden z założycieli Comité International de Paléographie Grecque, prof. Borys L. Fonkich, członek Akademii Ateńskiej oraz doktor honoris causa Uniwersytetu Arystotelesa w Salonikach, który w ramach ONPH RAN prowadzi od 1998 «Centrum Paleografii, Kodykologii oraz Dyplomatyki». Jednostka badawcza pod jego kierunkiem z powodzeniem wydaje już dwie serie: Rossiia i Khristianskij Vostok oraz Monfokon. Issledovaniia po paleografii, kodikologii, diplomatike. W ramach pierwszej serii ukazują się dwie części: zbiór artykułów (do 2014 roku wydano pięć tomów) oraz biblioteka w dziesięciu tomach prac monograficznych. Druga seria (dotychczas wydano też pięć tomów) wzięła swoją nazwę od nazwiska francuskiego paleografa Bernarda de Montfaucona. W niej poruszane są ściśle paleograficzne oraz kodykologiczne zagadnienia, jak także historia kolekcji i dylomatyka. W przedmowie do recenzowanego dzieła (s. 3.) Fonkich stwierdza, że tom ten powinien ukierunkować, nadać główny charakter oraz wskazać na podstawowe cechy całej serii. Chodzi mianowicie o ujęcie trzech elementów. Po pierwsze, znajdą się w niej wyniki badań każdej z samodzielnych nauk pomocniczych historii. Ta część powinna zarazem stanowić trzon każdego kolejnego wydania. Drugą część będą stanowić prace odwołujące się do historii każdej z dyscyplin, której poświęcony będzie kolejny tom. Trzeci zaś element, to recenzje nowych dzieł ( poważnego i krytycznego charakteru ) oraz obowiązkowy przegląd nowszych publikacji i konferencji w interesującej dziedzinie. Recenzowana praca została podzielona na pięć części, które poprzedza przedmowa (s. 3.), a zamyka notka o autorach (s ), wykaz skrótów (s. 606) i spis treści (s ). Pierwsza część została poświęcona kwestiom paleograficznym (paleografia grecka, łacińska i staroruska), kodykologii, dyplomatyce, wprowadzeniu w badania historyczne, tekstologii, prozopografii oraz heraldyce od IV do XVIII wieku. Artykuły bazują na tekstach źródłowych (we wspomnianych wyżej językach) wraz z bogatym aparatem krytycznym i ukazaną najnowszą literaturą. Dołączone są ponadto zdjęcia rękopiśmiennych arkuszy, tabele i ilustracje. Część wstępna, najbardziej rozbudowana (ss ), liczy piętnaście artykułów naukowych. Spośród nich najwięcej uwagi poświęcono paleografii greckiej (6 artykułów) oraz aspektom tekstologicznym badanych źródeł pisanych (3). 294

295 10-11 (2015) Drugą część wydania (ss ) tworzą tzw. Pamiętniki (Memuary). Zaprezentowano tutaj postać Evgenii E. Granstrem, która w środowisku przed- i powojennego Leningradu / Petersburga zajmowała się paleografią grecką. Drugim artykułem w tej części są wspomnienia S.M. Kashtanova odnoszące się do jego naukowego pobytu na Górze Athos, a sekcję tę zamyka tekst: Mój pierwszy grecki rękopis Borysa Fonkicha. W ramach części recenzyjnej (cz. III, ss ) znalazły się: jedna recenzja petersburskiej książki, popełniona przez E.V. Kazbekovą oraz głos w dyskusji do kwestii funkcjonowania w XVII-wiecznej Moskwie grecko-łacińskiej szkoły Arseniusza Greka (B. Fonkich). Temat ten pojawił się w kilku ostatnich pracach współczesnych rosyjskich badaczy, a Fonkich, który na ten temat napisał książkę, nie omieszkał pominąć tego tematu w swoich rozważaniach. Dwa ostatnie rozdziały omawianego tomu (IV oraz V) stanowią kolejno: opisy (Annotatsii) dwudziestu siedmiu książek, albumów, akt kongresów i konferencji za lata (ss ) oraz kronika (ss ) jako przegląd konferencji Tom Nauki pomocnicze historii są ciekawą pracą, w której nie tylko kształceni historycy mogą znaleźć coś dla siebie, ale wszyscy sympatycy vitae magistra. Zakres tematyczny poruszanych artykułów jest szeroki i różnorodny. To problematyka źródeł, ich odczytywania i interpretacji, zagadnienia tekstologiczne i dotyczące historii oraz transmisji tekstu. Wreszcie to nowości w aspekcie datowania manuskryptów greckich, łacińskich i słowiańskich, co często rzuca nowe światło na przyjęte kiedyś twierdzenia i pozwala w innym kontekście patrzeć na znane wszystkim wydarzenia. Tom ten pozwala także zorientować się, czym naukowo zajmują się badacze RAN. Autor powyższych słów uważa, że recenzowana publikacja powinna być zauważona również przez polskie środowisko naukowe, ponieważ szereg pojawiających się w rosyjskim dziele kwestii, w naszych badaniach istnieje w znikomym stopniu lub w ogóle. dr Lesław Łesyk 295

296 10-11 (2015) Recenzja: Andrzej Gillmeister, The Point of View. Tadeusz Zieliński on Ancient Religions, Akme. Studia Historica: nr 11/2013, Warszawa, 67 pp. Andrzej Gillmeister s book on Tadeusz Zieliński as a historian of ancient Greek religion was published in 2013 as a part of the series titled Akme. Studia Historica published by the Institute of History of the University of Warsaw. Before the book, the author had published an article about Zieliński: Kontrowersje wokół książki Hellenizm a judaizm Tadeusza Zielińskiego. Polemiki chrześcijańskie 1 (Controversies around Tadeusz Zieliński s book Hellenism vs. Judaism. Christian polemics) (Przegląd Religioznawczy * , pp ). Some other works concerning Tadeusz Zieliński and his scholarly work have recently been published: Badania nad religiami starożytnymi Tadeusza Zielińskiego i Ryszarda Gansińca 2 (Tadeusz Zieliński and Ryszard Gansiniec s research on ancient religions), Tadeusz Zieliński ( ) i jego interpretacja motywów dionizyjskich w tragedii greckiej 3 (Tadeusz Zieliński ( ) and his interpretation of Dionysian motives in Greek tragedy), Religia starożytnej Grecji w koncepcji Tadeusza Zielińskiego (Tadeusz Zieliński s account of ancient Greek religion) 4 and Relacje Tadeusza Zielińskiego z rosyjskimi uczonymi w Petersburgu w świetle jego Autobiografii (Tadeusz Zieliński s relations with Russian scholars in Petersburg in the light of his Autobiography) 5. The book consists of five parts, preceded by a short introduction (p. 3-5) in which the author explains the reasons behind writing the book. Gillmeister claims that the role of Tadeusz Zieliński in the development of the research on ancient culture and literature is inestimable and his studies on Homer and Cicero have long been considered major achievements of classical philology. It happened so because that Zieliński has published in Polish and his religious studies have not been very popular among the historians of idea and 1A. Gillmeister, Kontrowersje wokół książki Hellenizm a judaizm Tadeusza Zielińskiego. Polemiki chrześcijańskie,,,przegląd Religioznawczy (3) 2011, H. Hoffmann, Badania nad religiami starożytnymi Tadeusza Zielińskiego i Ryszarda Gansińca,,,Biuletyn. Instytut Filozoficzno-Historyczny WSP w Częstochowie (30) 2002, H. Hoffmann, Tadeusz Zieliński ( ) i jego interpretacja motywów dionizyjskich w tragedii greckiej,,,nomos (41/42) 2003, R. Nieczyporowski, Religia starożytnej Grecji w koncepcji Tadeusza Zielińskiego, Gdańsk Z. Opacki, Relacje Tadeusza Zielińskiego z rosyjskimi uczonymi w Petersburgu w świetle jego Autobiografii, in Studia z dziejów Europy Wschodniej. Księga pamiątkowa dedykowana Profesorowi Arturowi Kijasowi w 70. rocznice urodzin, G. Błaszczyk, P. Kraszewski (eds.), Poznań 2010,

297 10-11 (2015) historiography. As a result, Zieliński has been forgotten by the scholarly world to a large extent. In the first part Gillmeister (p. 5-9) briefly relates the basic biographical data of this outstanding scholar. Tadeusz Zieliński was born in He was educated in Saint Petersburg under the supervision of his father. In 1869 young Tadeusz enrolled in the German Saint Ann's Gymnasium. After passing the exam for a secondary school certificate, Tadeusz was granted a government scholarship, and in October he went to Leipzig to study classical philology. Those months spent at German universities became the foundation of his scholarly approach. The studies in Leipzig ended with a Ph.D. in classical philology granted for the paper about the last period of the Second Punic War. Zieliński completed his education in Munich, Vienna, Rome and Naples, among other places. He returned to Russia in 1882 and a year later he passed an M.A. examination, which in the Russian education system corresponded to the academic degree of doctor. Subsequently he started to lecture at a university in Saint Petersburg. In 1886 Zieliński became an associate professor at Saint Petersburg and took over the department of Greek literature. After Poland regained independence, the University of Warsaw offered Zieliński the position of the head of the Classical Philology department. The offer was accepted eagerly and Tadeusz Zieliński quickly became an unquestioned authority in the world of Polish humanities of the interwar period. Frequent travels abroad and his presentation of Polish scholarship during international conventions made Zieliński one of the most recognizable Polish researchers of the ancient world. In 1935, Zieliński went into retirement, but since he received a degree of the honorary professor at the University of Warsaw he continued lecturing. He died on the 8 th of May The second part of the book (p. 9-14) briefly discusses Zieliński s most important publications about Greek religion. Gillmeister proves that the six-volume cycle Religions of the Ancient World became Tadeusz Zieliński's personal opus magnum, the culminating point of his academic path. It also became the ultimate proof of the synthesis of work and life, always the humanist's pursuit, which he managed to achieve. Gillmeister quotes Plezia's correct opinion about Religions of the Ancient World:,,Plezia noticed that the second volume is analogical to the third one, just as the fifth one is analogical to the sixth. The volume about Judaism begins in one of the chapters of Religion of Hellenism. Ancient Christianity, on the 297

298 10-11 (2015) other hand, was treated as one of the religions of the Roman Empire that deserved a separate study due to the significance of the role it played. Plezia notices that, thanks to that, the antithesis of Judaism and Christianity, typical of Zieliński, gained clarity (p. 14). In the next part, numbered as fourth 6 (p ), the author summarizes main points concerning Greek religion made by Zieliński in the book Religion of Ancient Greece. He writes that:,,i. Scholarly research on the origin of religion, similarly to the scientific research on the origin of life, is destined to be pointlessness from the beginning: ignoramus et ignorabimus. II. Just like a man with no artistic sense cannot understand ancient art, the one who has no religious feelings will not understand ancient religion. III. Ignite a bright torch of religious feeling in your heart, but leave a dim oil lamp of denomination at home if you want the temple of ancient religion to show you its wonders. IV. God reveals himself in beauty, in truth and in goodness; the only perfect religion is the one that takes into account those three revelations in their wholeness. V. The height of the religious pursuits of mankind is Christianity in its most developed form. VI. The ancient religion is the true Old Testament of this Christianity 7. The author observes that Tadeusz Zieliński s understanding of Greek religion differed considerably from the opinions of other researchers. According to Gillmeister, in Zieliński's view,,a man of normal faith did not fear his gods but loved them. The definition of Greek religion as the,,religion of happiness and the full identification of,,god-fearing with superstition took on an additional meaning when the religion in question was contrasted with Judaism, portrayed by the Polish scholar as the,,religion of fear. On that grounds Zieliński was criticized by his opponents, Szczepan Szydelski and Rudolf Otto. Szczepan Szydelski published a vast study containing the criticism of all historical and religious views of Tadeusz Zieliński. He protested against contrasting Judaistic,,religion of fear with the Greek,,religion of happiness, claiming that Zieliński confused,,god-fearing, Otto's numinosum, with ordinary fear and anxiety. At the same time, according to Andrzej Gillmeister, not all researchers opposed Zieliński s views. Zieliński s view shows many similarities to the equally emotional vision presented by the 6 Number 3 was omitted in this publication. 7 Gillmeister, The Point of View,

299 10-11 (2015) German philologist Walter F. Otto; suffice it to recall the role that both scholars attributed to the goddess Demeter. For the Polish scholar, Demeter and her Roman counterpart Ceres were prefigurations of the Christian,,Mater Dolorosa. He dedicated quite a lot of attention to this goddess, also in the context of the Mysteries. Author's The Point of View notices that according to Edmund Stein the publication about Hellenism and Judaism made meaningful progress in the research on ancient religions in Polish scholarship, proving Zieliński's great courage, but the author lacked objectivity and the awareness of his own limits. Apart from that, Gillmeister considered the polemics with Zieliński's opinions to be important from the scholarly and social viewpoint. Gillmeister touched on the question asked by Józef Teodorowicz. Already at the outset of his reflections he pointed out the greatest danger resulting from the publication of Zieliński's work, connected with its convergence in time with the growing anti-semitism in Europe, especially in Germany. The last part of Gillmeister s considerations is devoted to the presentation of some elements of the vision of Roman religion presented by Tadeusz Zieliński. Being opposed to the picture of the evolution of Roman religion created by Georg Wissowa, Zieliński proposed another depiction of the changes occurring in it. Wissowa divided the history of religion into several stages: primary religion (since the time of the kings), the period of Etruscanisation, then Hellenisation and the final collapse at the decline of the Republic. The most important to him was the first period, which resulted from the cult of genesis popular at that time. To Zieliński, Roman religion included three merging currents: national, Greek and eastern. The currents in question did not unite despite the fact that they had been merging for ages. Roman religion developed in many directions so as to be able to satisfy the needs of its believers and fulfill the function of the religion of the Empire. Zieliński claimed that the two,,doctrines of Hellenic religion were developed in Roman religion and enabled the "psychological" adoption of Christianity. In the fifth part of book is included the study of the poetics of this work. Gillmeister notes that Tadeusz Zieliński frequently used a technique close to the,,peripatetic dialogue and the use of literary. In the final part the author summarises his research and concludes:,,i'm inclined to believe that the following assessment could easily refer to the whole cycle: the reviewer of the French edition of Religions of Ancient Greece called the discussed study a,,point of view. 299

300 10-11 (2015) Religions of the Ancient World are just that, a point of view of one of the last great masters of the golden age of Altertumwissenschaften 8. The work is complemented by detailed bibliographies (pages 57-67), enumerating all works by Tadeusz Zieliński as well as the works about him. Andrzej Gillmeister's book is the first book written in English that deals with Tadeusz Zieliński's writing, thus being able to restore this Polish author to his due place in the pantheon of the major researchers of ancient religions. Mariola Sobolewska 8 A. Gillmeister, The Point of View. Tadeusz Zieliński on Ancient Religions, p

301 10-11,(2015) Recenzja: Irene J.F. de Jong, Narratology and Classics. A Practical Guide, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2014, ss. 230 Książka Narratology and Classics. A Practical Guide autorstwa Irene De Jong, którą wydawnictwo Oxford oddało do rąk czytelnika w ubiegłym roku, jest pozycją niezbędną w biblioteczce wszystkich, którzy są zainteresowani współczesną teorią narracji wraz z jej kategoriami oraz ich aplikacją do tekstów starożytnych. Publikacja ta jest tym bardziej pożądana, ponieważ pisze ją jedna z najlepszych specjalistek, której obfity dorobek naukowy potwierdza znajomość zaproponowanego tematu 1. Książka składa się z dwu części: pierwszej, dającej niejako podkład teoretyczny oraz drugiej, w której przedstawiona została analiza wybranych passusów z dzieł antycznych w świetle omówionych już pojęć narratologicznych. W rozdziale wprowadzającym części I (ss. 3-15) Autorka wiąże początki narratologii z filozofią antyczną i przywołuje dialogi Platona (Państwo III.392-3) czy też Poetykę Arystotelesa (rozdziały 7, 24) jako przykłady refleksji na tematy związane z opowiadaniem w sztuce poetyckiej - diegesis oraz z samą naturą procesu reprezentowania w niej przez poetę rzeczywistości mimesis 2. Odwołując się zaś do nowożytnych powieściopisarzy oraz szkoły Formalistów 1 Publikacje Prof. I.J.F. de Jong z jedynie roku już stanowią dość pokaźny zbiór tekstów zogniskowanych wokół tego zagadnienia. Por. I.J.F.de Jong (2014). After Auerbach: Ancient Greek literature as a test case of European Literary historiography. European Review, 22 (1), doi: /S I.J.F. de Jong (2014). Diachronic Narratology: (the example of Ancient Greek narrative). In P. Hühn, J.C. Meister, J. Pier & W. Schmid (Eds.), Handbook of narratology. -1 (De Gruyter handbook) (pp ). Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter. I.J.F. de Jong (2014). The anonymous traveller in European literature: a Greek meme? In D. Cairns & R. Scodel (Eds.), Defining Greek narrative (Edinburgh Leventis Studies, 7) (pp ). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. I.J.F. de Jong (2013). Diachronic Narratology (the example of Ancient Greek narrative). In P. Hühn, J.C. Meister, J. Pier & W. Schmid (Eds.), The living handbook of narratology. Hamburg: Hamburg University Press.[go to publisher's site] I.J.F. de Jong (2013). Metalepsis and Embedded Speech in Pindaric and Bacchylidean Myth. In U.E. Eisen & P. von Möllendorff (Eds.), Über die Grenze: Metalepse in Text und Bildmedien des Altertums (Narratologia, 39) (pp ). Berlin-New York: De Gruyter. 2 Przywołane pisma to nie jedyne loci, z których przebija refleksja teoretyczno-literacka słynnych Filozofów. O poezji i prozie jako medium słowa traktuje Platońska Uczta (205 B-C; 209 D; 215 D-E; 187 B- C), konwencjonalnością mowy zajmuje się Platon w krótkim, acz bogatym w treść dialogu Kratylos, a w X księdze Państwa interesują go możliwości poznawcze oraz naśladowcze poezji. W końcu w dialogu Ion Filozof ateński mierzy się z problemem natchnienia poetyckiego, a w Fajdrosie bezlitośnie potępia pismo; topiką poetycką zajmuje się w VII księdze Praw (804 C). Arystoteles natomiast problematyce sztuki poetyckiej poświęca całe swoje dzieło, zatytułowane od przedmiotu rozprawy po prostu Poetyką (Techne poietiké). Traktat ten w dwu księgach (zachowała się do naszych czasów jedynie księga I) omawia, jak stwierdza jego autor w ustępie 1447a: <sztukę poetycką jako taką, jej istotę i rodzaje oraz właściwości każdego z nich, sposób w jaki należy układać fabułę, aby utwór poetycki był piękny, jego składniki 301

302 10-11,(2015) rosyjskich z początków wieku dwudziestego, De Jong przypisuje im działalność antycypującą wiele z narratologicznych pojęć, takich jak perspektywa, czas, fabula czy sjużet, które będą stanowić podstawę badań nad narracją w złotych latach rozwoju tego podejścia badawczego, tj. w latach 60-tych i 70-tych ubiegłego stulecia. Jednocześnie ze smutkiem stwierdza, że filologia klasyczna, choć w istocie najstarsza z filologii, długo opierała się aplikowaniu nowoczesnych metodologii do analizy tekstów antycznych. Jednakże od lat dziewięćdziesiątych wieku dwudziestego aż do chwili obecnej powstaje coraz więcej prac związanych z rozwojem interpretacji tychże tekstów pod kątem narracji i związanych z nią konceptów typu: narrator, odbiorca ( narratee ), punkt widzenia ( focalization ), przestrzeń ( space ) itp. Gdyby zaś nieco dokładniej określić wpływ teorii narratologicznych na badania literatur starożytnych, to dotyczyłby on z pewnością: przezwyciężenia tendencji filologów do utożsamiania historycznej osoby pisarza z narratorem w tekście dzieła, co prowadziło do zbyt pochopnych wniosków typu autobiograficznego (to zwłaszcza w odniesieniu do takich autorów jak Hezjod czy Owidiusz); odróżnienia stylistyki tzw. narrator-text (wypowiedzi narratora) a character-text (wypowiedzi postaci) szczególnie w kwestii specyfiki słownictwa; w końcu uświadomienie sobie perspektywy, inaczej punktu widzenia (focalization), z jakiego prowadzona jest narracja, która to kategoria umożliwia głębsze zrozumienie emocjonalnego, a nawet ideologicznego nacechowania opowiadania zarówno w tekstach prozatorskich, jak i poetyckich (jak u Wergiliusza, Propercjusza, Apolloniosa Rodyjskiego czy Historyków). Narratologia pobudziła wreszcie uśpioną od dawna (tzn. niemal od starożytności) predylekcję badaczy do tworzenia komentarzy do tekstów, koncentrujących się zwłaszcza na pojedynczych aspektach ich struktury narracyjnej. Rozdział drugi książki (ss ) jest już poświęcony konkretnym przykładom literackim, na których Autorka pokazuje funkcjonowanie kategorii narracyjnych. Ten, jak i następne rozdziały zostały przez nią oparte nie tylko na przykładach antycznych, lecz także na tekstach współczesnych, co też nieźle uwidacznia zbieżności oraz kontrasty istniejące pomiędzy techniką pisarską dawną i dzisiejszą. Rozpoczyna zatem od wprowadzenia kategorii narratora, którą uznaje za wieloma teoretykami, za centralną i niezbędną do tego, aby w ogóle można było mówić o narracji. Narrator jest w tekście tym, który opowiada jakąś serię ilościowe i jakościowe, a także wszystkie inne sprawy, które wchodzą w zakres tej dyscypliny badawczej przekład według H. Podbielskiego, Wrocław

303 10-11,(2015) zdarzeń. Rozdział traktuje więc takie gatunki literatury starożytnej jak: epikę, powieść oraz narracyjną postać liryki, czyli dytyramb. Są to według De Jong gatunki czysto narracyjne (purely narrative texts). O historiografii i biografii Uczona mówi jako o gatunkach użytkowych (applied narrative texts); mity, narracje historyczne zawarte w liryce, mowy posłańców w tragedii oraz tzw. narrationes retoryczne nazywa narracjami wkomponowanymi w teksty nie-narracyjne (narratives that are incorporated into non-narrative genres); w końcu zajmuje się przypadkami tekstów z tzw. narratorem ukrytym (suppressed narrator), którego w narratologii zwykło się określać za Genettem pseudo-diegetycznym 3. W szczegółach Autorkę zajmują przypadki, na podstawie których: nie można na przykład utożsamić narratora z autorem tekstu (Hezjod, Teogonia 22-3) 4, można z kolei wyodrębnić tożsamość narracyjną osoby opowiadającej w zależności od tego czy jest ona jednocześnie postacią w swoim opowiadaniu narrator wewnętrzny (internal narrator), czy też pozostaje poza światem przedstawionym narrator zewnętrzny (external narrator). Oprócz tego dodaje w tekstach narracyjnych mamy do czynienia z narratorem głównym (primary narrator), opowiadającym zdarzenia oraz z narratorem sekundarnym vel pobocznym (secondary narrator), który odpowiadałby postaci referującej zdarzenia w mowie zależnej. Przykłady występowania poszczególnych kategorii obejmują fragmenty z Apolloniosa Rodyjskiego (1.1-4), Apulejusza (3.24-5), Platona (Gorgiasz 522e-3a), Wergiliusza ( ) oraz z Herodota (1.24.1), który stanowi ciekawy przypadek tzw. narratora sprawozdawczego (reported narrator), prezentującego wydarzenia w opowieści w mowie niezależnej, przypisując to opowiadanie bliżej nieokreślonej kategorii oni/ci, nie będącym postaciami w opowieści. W końcu rozdziału drugiego De Jong analizuje funkcje tzw. jawnego narratora (overt narrator) w tekstach starożytnych. Jego obecność może przyjąć trojaką formę: udramatyzowaną, a więc prezentującą swoją własną osobowość oraz przebieg życia (w wypadku postaci występującej w opowieści); formę komentarza co do opisywanych przez siebie wydarzeń albo formę ekspresyjną, związaną z ukazaniem świadomości co do własnej roli w opowiadaniu. Narrator ukryty (covert narrator) jest kategorią dominującą w epice, gdzie na wzór narratora homeryckiego, osoba opowiadająca ukrywa się za opisywanymi zdarzeniami. W tekstach narracyjnych przyjmuje się 3 Jest to bezpośrednie odwołanie do dialogu Platona Teajtet 143c, w którym narrator stwierdza, że będzie unikał zwrotu a ten powiedział<. 4 Zob. zarazem ciekawą definicję kategorii tzw. implied author (autora implikowanego vel zakładanego ) (s. 19). 303

304 10-11,(2015) także istnienie odbiorcy (narratee), zakładanego każdorazowo przez generującego opowieść; narrator prymarny zakłada zatem istnienie odbiorcy prymarnego, narrator sekundarny odbiorcy sekundarnego, itd., ponieważ czynność opowiadania zawsze stanowi rodzaj aktu komunikacyjnego. Na stronach 35 i n. Autorkę zajmują takie problemy jak: obecność tzw. opowiadań włączonych (embedded narratives), struktura wertykalna (text-story-fabula) i horyzontalna (natural narratives) narracji oraz metalepsa, czyli sytuacja, kiedy w opowiadaniu mieszają się dwa porządki, a mianowicie narrator wchodzi niejako w świat postaci i odwrotnie. Tę część wieńczy podanie obfitej literatury przedmiotu. Fokalizacja, czyli tzw. punkt widzenia jest przedmiotem trzeciego rozdziału książki (ss ). Kategoria ta pojawia się zawsze w kontekście pytań o to, jak właściwie narracja oddziaływa na poziomie słów, które czytamy i słyszymy, a które w połączeniu tworzą konkretny tekst. Tekst ten zawiera opowieść (story) snutą przez narratora dla odbiorcy (narratee). Opowieść ta zaś może być opowiedziana z punktu widzenia narratora i zawiera albo serię zdarzeń, które tylko hipotetycznie mogły mieć miejsce, albo opierać się na wydarzeniach rzeczywistych, które razem tworzą fabułę. Opowieść o faktach ma najczęściej miejsce w historiografii lub pisarstwie biograficznym. Ów punkt widzenia czy perspektywę z jakiej są opowiadane zdarzenia, filtrowane emocje lub dokonuje się przemiana miejsc w scenerię, a osób w bohaterów, narratologia nazywa właśnie fokalizacją (s. 47). Dalej następują tekstowe przykłady fokalizacji, a więc te momenty w narracjach, w których widać zróżnicowaną pozycję, z jakiej opowiada mówiący. Przykłady obejmują passusy z Apolloniosa Rodyjskiego (Argonaut ), Homera (Il ) czy z Apulejusza (11.12) oraz innych autorów zarówno greckich jak i rzymskich. Fokalizacja pełni ważną funkcję poznawczą w tekście dzieła. Albowiem im mniej ograniczona jest narracja prowadzona ze strony narratora określonego wyraźnie (the overt primary narrator), tym więcej informacji dotyczących przeżyć i myśli bohaterów ujawnia się dla odbiorcy. Optymalna dla tego rodzaju sytuacji zdaje się być kategoria tzw. narratora wszechwiedzącego (omniscent narrator) (s. 56). Fokalizacja jako termin pojemniejszy niż sam punkt widzenia, obejmuje w końcu tzw. pozycję przestrzenną (spatial standpoint), z jakiej opowiadane są wydarzenia fabuły. W tekstach antycznych występują przykłady opowiadania z pozycji panoramicznej, w których narrator określa miejsce zdarzeń. W Iliadzie Homera narrator opisuje na przykład rozległą równinę trojańską, na której gromadzą się wojska Achajów. Niekiedy dochodzi również do sytuacji za- 304

305 10-11,(2015) wężenia niejako planu, na którym dzieją się wypadki i to w takim stopniu, że przedmiotem opisu ze strony narratora lub samych bohaterów stają się konkretne miejsca, np. port w zatoce (u Wergiliusza w Eneidzie ) lub miejsce pozostawienia niepogrzebanych zwłok Polinejkesa w Sofoklesowej Antygonie Ostatnim przypadkiem fokalizacji analizowanym przez Autorkę książki jest tzw. narracja prowadzona z bliska (close-up narration), skontrastowana z narracją panoramiczną. Tak dzieje się na przykład w pieśni (Carmen ) Katullusa, opisującego komnatę weselną Peleusa i Tetydy. Rozdział kończy się bibliografią odnośnie do poruszonych w nim zagadnień. Ponieważ w tytule publikacji wyraźnie czytamy, że ma ona stanowić praktyczny przewodnik po narratologii zastosowanej do badań nad literaturą starożytną, rozdziały czwarty (s ) i piąty (s ) omawiają jeszcze dwie najbardziej podstawowe kategorie narracyjne, oprócz narratora, odbiorcy oraz punktu widzenia, a więc czas (time) i przestrzeń (space) ujęte w dziele literackim. Wiemy, że zdarzenia opowiadane w tekście mogą być wywoływane lub doświadczane przez bohaterów. Zdarzenia te jednak rozwijają się w czasie. Czas jest również potrzebny, aby zdarzenia się zadziały (s. 73). Autorka pokazuje więc w rozdziale czwartym możliwości ujmowania wypadków fabularnych w ciągi czasowe. Rozpoczyna zaś od przyjrzenia się relacji pomiędzy samą narracją, a więc momentem, w którym dokonuje się akt opowiadania, a zdarzeniami w narracji, czyli czasem, w jakim się one rozgrywają. W związku z tym można mieć do czynienia jak mówi z trojakim rodzajem tej zależności (s. 74). Narracja może stać bowiem w stosunku następczym do zdarzeń, a więc opowiadanie następuje po zdarzeniach; narracja może pozostawać w stosunku równoczesności z wydarzeniami, a więc relacja następuje w momencie dziania się zdarzeń; narracja może w końcu wyprzedzać zdarzenia, które jeszcze nie miały miejsca. Częstą formą narracji jak podkreśla De Jong jest we wszystkich okresach literackich i w wielu gatunkach nie wyrażane przez narratora explicite w tekście dzieła opowiadanie zdarzeń już po ich zakończeniu. Autorka pokazuje tę formę na przykładzie Owidiusza Metamorfoz , dodając, że czas opowiadania równoczesny z wydarzeniami jest formą najrzadszą, zarezerwowaną dla powieści modernistycznych. W celu przybliżenia tej problematyki, na kilku stronnicach rozdziału czwartego (s ) Autorka zajmuje się szczególnymi przypadkami opowiadania z zastosowaniem swoistych procedur porządkujących ciągi czasowe w dziele, a więc tzw. 305

306 10-11,(2015) prolepsą oraz analepsą 5. W zasadzie obie te kategorie odwracają chronologiczny układ zdarzeń w fabule. Narrator antycypuje bowiem w opowiadaniu wypadki, które jeszcze nie miały miejsca w momencie snucia opowieści prolepsa (flash-forward) lub wspomina wypadki, które miały miejsce zaraz przed momentem, w którym znajdujemy się w opowiadaniu analepsa (flashback). Należy również zaznaczyć, iż pierwsza z tych kategorii byłaby jednym z wyraźnych znamion narratora wszechwiedzącego. Autorka ponownie ilustruje zastosowanie omawianych kategorii w tekstach antycznych. Odwołuje się do proleptycznego opowiadania narratora w Argonautykach Valeriusza Flakkusa, tj. sceny z Medeą, mającą pozbawić życia swoje dzieci ( ) oraz jako przykład analepsy podaje passus z Argonautyków Apolloniosa Rodyjskiego, czyli opis (mającej wcześniej miejsce) boskiej działalności Ateny wobec śpiewającego okrętu Argo Dalej Autorka pokazuje przykłady tekstów, w których kategorie te występują w różnym natężeniu, dokonując przy tym oddzielenia wypowiedzi narratorów oraz postaci w poszczególnych dziełach. Rozdział czwarty traktuje ponadto o incipitach oraz zakończeniach dzieł antycznych jako szczególnego rodzaju momentach wieńczących lub wprowadzających w układ czasowy wydarzeń w dziele (s ) oraz o tempie (rythm) wydarzeń z zastrzeżeniem, że może się ono zmieniać w zależności od tego czy mamy do czynienia z wypadkami w opowieści (story) narratora/bohaterów czy też wypadkami dziejącymi się w samej fabule (fabula) dzieła (s. 92 n.). Do tego na koniec dochodzi omówienie na tekstach tzw. częstotliwości (frequency), z jaką wydarzenia pojawiają się w opowieści i w fabule (s ). Podobnie jak w rozdziałach poprzednich, wywód wieńczy bibliografia do zagadnienia. Rozdział piąty książki dotyczy kategorii przestrzeni (space) w badaniach nad narracją. Jak stwierdza Autorka opracowania, kategoria ta zwróciła uwagę narratologów dopiero od niedawna. Rozumiana szeroko jako: otoczenie dla akcji w opowieści, miejsca, które są wspominane w opowiadaniu lub obiekty, które wypełniając przestrzeń, stanowią jej cechy charakterystyczne, pełni ona ważną rolę nie tylko w konstrukcji narracji, lecz także dla jej 5 W tym miejscu chciałabym przywołać jedyną znaną mi polskojęzyczną pracę z zakresu narratologii w badaniach nad literaturą starożytną, a mianowicie rozprawę habilitacyjną prof. Jakuba Pigonia z Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego zatytułowaną Ze studiów nad technikami narracyjnymi Tacyta. Wypowiedzi proleptyczne, Wrocław W tej znakomitej dysertacji na temat pisarstwa historycznego Tacyta rozdział IV traktuje o owych kategoriach oraz ich funkcjach wraz z cenną analizą wewnątrztekstową. W Polsce w kilku ostatnich latach pojawiło się także kilka przekładów prac narratologicznych uczonych zachodnich w tym: Narratologia, pod red. M. Głowińskiego, Gdańsk 2004; M. Bal, Narratologia. Wprowadzenie do teorii narracji, Kraków

307 10-11,(2015) interpretacji (s. 105). Przestrzeń nigdy nie stanowi tematu w pełni wyczerpanego przez artystów sztuki słowa, dlatego zawsze zakłada aktywną kooperację z odbiorcą, który musi ewokować obrazy, polegając na swojej własnej pamięci o miejscach, zwłaszcza tych istniejących w rzeczywistości. Nieraz mamy w tekstach, także tych antycznych do czynienia z sytuacją, w której narrator daje odbiorcom możliwość oglądu nie tylko przestrzeni, w której dzieją się zdarzenia, lecz także swego własnego otoczenia. Przypadek taki ma miejsce w Wojnie peloponeskiej Tukidydesa , kiedy po wygnaniu z Aten ma możliwość szczegółowiej opisywać Peloponezyjczyków. Przestrzeń zdarzeń łączy się na przykład z przestrzenią, w której przebywa narrator u Owidiusza w Metamorfozach czy Longosa Dafnis i Chloe Szczególnym sposobem wprowadzenia do narracji kategorii przestrzeni jest opis (description). Opis świadczy o tym, że narrator chce nieco spowolnić lub zupełnie zatrzymać tempo opowiadania, przywołując miejsca i przedmioty z otoczenia z większą uwagą i precyzją. U Homera znajdujemy na przykład szczegółowy opis zatok morskich obok wyspy Asteris, pomiędzy którymi mieszkańcy Itaki zaczaili się na Telemacha w Odysei Co więcej, przyglądając się porządkowi opisu detali z konkretnych miejsc w przestrzeni opowieści, można zauważyć, że obiekty mogą być skonfigurowane przez piszącego na zasadzie powracającego quasi refrenu w toku przywoływanych wypadków; mogą być wspominane na zasadzie prostej enumeracji albo według zasad kategoryzacji przestrzennej z użyciem słów wskazujących typu na lewo, na prawo, niedaleko, etc.; istotą ich porządkowania może być także jakaś zasada uwarunkowana ideologicznie, kulturowo lub konwencjonalnie. W końcowej części rozdziału znajdujemy również garść uwag na temat funkcji, jakie może pełnić przestrzeń w utworze narracyjnym, od funkcji ornamentacyjnej począwszy, poprzez tematyczną na symbolicznej skończywszy (s. 124). Całość ponownie wieńczy przejrzysta bibliografia do przedmiotu. Druga część książki stanowi praktyczne zastosowanie omówionych kategorii narratologicznych do analizy tekstów antycznych, czyli studium przypadków stąd także jej tytuł: Narratological Close Readings. Autorka dzieli jednak materiał na trzy części według kryterium genologicznego, tj. według rodzajów pisarstwa antycznego: epiki, historiografii i dramatu. W części pierwszej poddaje analizie narratologicznej Hymn do Afrodyty , w części drugiej przygląda się opowieści o Adrastosie i Atysie wziętej z księgi Herodotowych Dziejów, w trzeciej zaś analizuje passus z tragedii Eurypidesa Bachantki Każda z 307

308 10-11,(2015) trzech całostek zakończona jest krótkim podsumowaniem, w którym De Jong rozstrzyga kwestie czystości gatunkowej utworów oraz konwencji pisarskich, pokazując przydatność teorii narracji do przeprowadzania takiego badania. Wszystkich zainteresowanych warto jednak odesłać do s tej książki, aby indywidualnie ocenili wartość prezentowanych analiz. Z całości opracowania wyłania się obraz dotyczący nie tylko wielości fabuł zawartych w tekstach antycznych, lecz także sprawnych narzędzi metodologicznych, które w znacznym stopniu pomagają zrozumieć warstwę głęboką tych narracji. Dzięki zrozumieniu tej warstwy można bowiem dopiero uchwycić prawdziwy sens i bogactwo znaczeń tkwiących w materiale starożytnym. dr Iwona Wieżel (Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski Jana Pawła II) 308