Private initiation and the afterlife in classical
Greece
Stuart David Rawson
Supervisors: Professor Ralph Häussler, Dr Kyle Erickson
Submitted in part fulfilment for the award of the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
University of Wales Trinity Saint David
2020
DECLARATION SHEET
This sheet MUST be signed and included within the thesis
This work has not previously been accepted in substance for any degree and
is not being concurrently submitted in candidature for any degree.
Signed
Stuart Rawson
Date
3 January 2020
STATEMENT 1
This thesis is the result of my own investigations, except where otherwise
stated. Where correction services have been used the extent and nature of
the correction is clearly marked in a footnote(s). Other sources are
acknowledged by footnotes giving explicit references. A bibliography is
appended.
Signed
Stuart Rawson
Date
3 January 2020
STATEMENT 2
I hereby give consent for my thesis, if accepted, to be available for
photocopying and for inter-library loan, and for the title and summary to be
made available to outside organisations.
Signed
Stuart Rawson
Date
3 January 2020
STATEMENT 3
I hereby give consent for my thesis, if accepted, to be available for deposit in
the University’s digital repository,
Signed
Stuart Rawson
Date
3 January 2020
ii
Abstract
Private initiators, freelance religious practitioners who worked for a fee,
offered their clients a better fate after death. I survey the evidence for their
activities in classical Greece, and try to determine the date they came into
being, which I suggest may be the end of the fifth century, their relation to
other forms of religion such as the cult of Dionysus and mainstream polis
religion, and their views of the afterlife. I argue that they did not belong to
anything that could be called a sect, a concept anachronistic for this period,
and that they did not have a coherent doctrine of the afterlife, but rather
employed a patchwork of different and inconsistent concepts. In particular,
there is no evidence that they belonged to a group of Orphics in the sense in
which this term is used by modern scholars. There is, however, a basic
similarity which can be seen in a number of disparate sources. I look at the
Pythagorean Notebooks, the lex sacra of Selinous, the funerary gold leaves and
the Derveni Papyrus to find a common underlying pattern, featuring the
survival of the soul after death, a division between those with a better and a
worse fate after death, enforced by hostile divine powers, and an initiation
ritual to neutralise these and secure for its adherents the better outcome.
iii
Table of contents
Illustrations .................................................................................. viii
Abbreviations ................................................................................. ix
Introduction .................................................................................... 1
1:
Scope of this study ............................................................................... 1
2:
Previous scholarship............................................................................. 7
3:
Aims and structure of this study ........................................................ 12
ONE: Private initiators in classical Greece .................................... 18
1:
Introduction........................................................................................ 18
2:
An alternative to polis religion ........................................................... 21
3:
Varieties of religious specialist ........................................................... 27
4:
Beggar priests ..................................................................................... 36
5:
Orphic initiators.................................................................................. 44
6:
Magi .................................................................................................... 49
7:
Two kinds of craftsman ...................................................................... 66
8:
Conclusion .......................................................................................... 76
TWO: Contextual framework........................................................ 80
1: Introduction ............................................................................................. 80
2:
The soul .............................................................................................. 81
3:
The topography of the afterlife.......................................................... 90
4:
Myths of Plato on the soul ............................................................... 101
5:
Eleusis and the public mysteries ...................................................... 113
6:
Orphism ............................................................................................ 131
iv
THREE: Dionysus, initiation and the afterlife .............................. 146
1:
The question to be answered .......................................................... 146
2:
Early evidence .................................................................................. 151
3:
The bone tablets from Olbia ............................................................ 153
4:
The Cretans of Euripides .................................................................. 156
5:
Euripides’ Bacchae as hieros logos? ................................................. 158
6:
Dionysus in the gold leaves .............................................................. 164
7:
A saying in Plato ............................................................................... 169
8:
The activities of Aeschines’ mother ................................................. 171
9:
The Toledo Krater ............................................................................. 182
10:
Dionysus in Egypt ............................................................................. 185
11:
Later evidence .................................................................................. 192
12:
The development of Dionysiac initiation ......................................... 195
FOUR: Unity and variation in the funerary gold leaves ............... 198
1:
Introduction...................................................................................... 198
2:
The A and B groups .......................................................................... 201
3:
The case for unity ............................................................................. 205
4:
Variation in the gold leaves .............................................................. 210
5:
A new model for the gold leaves ..................................................... 219
FIVE: Metempsychosis and related matters ............................... 225
1:
Introduction...................................................................................... 225
2:
Sources for metempsychosis before Plato ...................................... 228
3:
Varieties of metempsychosis ........................................................... 238
4:
Plato, metempsychosis and justice .................................................. 246
5:
Memory and release from the cycle ................................................ 255
6:
The body as tomb of the soul .......................................................... 261
7:
Penalty and recompense.................................................................. 271
v
8:
Conclusion ........................................................................................ 287
SIX: Daimons and Erinyes ........................................................... 292
1:
Introduction...................................................................................... 292
2:
Daimon as lesser divine being .......................................................... 294
3:
Daimon as soul of the dead.............................................................. 297
4:
Personal daimon............................................................................... 300
5:
Bad daimons ..................................................................................... 303
6:
Erinyes .............................................................................................. 306
7:
Eumenides ........................................................................................ 312
8:
Conclusion ........................................................................................ 314
SEVEN: Four sources for the afterlife ......................................... 316
1:
Introduction...................................................................................... 316
2:
The Pythagorean Notebooks............................................................ 318
3:
The lex sacra of Selinous .................................................................. 323
4:
A funerary gold leaf .......................................................................... 337
5:
The Derveni Papyrus ........................................................................ 344
EIGHT: A common conception of the afterlife ............................ 356
1:
Introduction...................................................................................... 356
2:
Souls survive after death .................................................................. 358
3:
Dead souls are divided into two classes .......................................... 363
4:
One class has a better fate after death ............................................ 368
5:
The division is the result of initiation ............................................... 371
6:
The division was enforced by hostile daimons ................................ 374
7:
The hostile daimons are neutralised by the initiation ..................... 381
8:
The hostile daimons may have been souls of the dead too ............ 383
9:
Conclusion ........................................................................................ 392
vi
Conclusion ................................................................................... 396
Bibliography ................................................................................ 403
Appendix ..................................................................................... 448
The Derveni Papyrus: a note on the text ................................................... 448
Concordances.............................................................................. 449
Orphicorum fragmenta Bernabé OF - Kern ............................................... 449
Gold leaves ................................................................................................. 452
Empedocles DK – Wright ........................................................................... 453
Index locorum ............................................................................. 454
vii
Illustrations
Fig. 1. The Telesterion at Eleusis................................................. 113
Fig. 2. The Niinion Tablet ............................................................ 114
Fig. 3. Head of Orpheus dictating ............................................... 131
Fig. 4. Dionysus with satyr and maenads .................................... 147
Fig. 5. Olbia bone tablet [A] ........................................................ 153
Fig. 6. Dionysus holding a thyrsos............................................... 169
Fig. 7. The Toledo Krater ............................................................ 182
Fig. 8. Flagellation scene from Pompeii ...................................... 192
Fig. 9. Gold leaf B9...................................................................... 198
Fig. 10. Winged daimon .............................................................. 294
Fig. 11. Erinyes ........................................................................... 306
Fig. 12. Gold leaf B10 .................................................................. 337
Fig. 13. The Derveni Krater ......................................................... 344
Fig. 14. The Derveni Papyrus ...................................................... 344
viii
Abbreviations
DK
H. Diels, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, 6th ed. by W,
Kranz (Berlin: 1951)
FGrH
F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker
(Berlin/Leiden: 1823-58)
IG
Inscriptiones Graecae
JJK
M.H. Jameson, D.R. Jordan and R.D. Kotansky, A Lex Sacra
from Selinous (Durham, NC: 1993)
KPT
T. Kouremenos, G.M. Parássoglou and K. Tsantsanoglou, The
Derveni Papyrus (Firenze: 2006)
LSJ
H.G. Liddell and R. Scott, A Greek-English lexicon, 9th ed.
revised by H.S. Jones (Oxford: 1940)
OF
A. Bernabé, Poetae epici Graeci: testimonia et fragmenta.
Pars 2: Orphicorum et Orphicis similium testimonia et
fragmenta. 3 vols. (Munich/Berlin: 2004-7)
PGM
K. Preisendanz, Papyri graecae magicae: die griechischen
Zauberpapyri. 2nd ed, rev. A. Henrichs. 2 vols. (Stuttgart:
1973)
PMG
D.L. Page, Poetae melici Graecae (Oxford: 1962)
SEG
Supplementum epigraphicum Graecum
For abbreviations of ancient authors and titles I follow the Oxford classical
dictionary (4th ed., Oxford: 2012), supplemented by LSJ. Translations are my
own unless otherwise indicated.
ix
Introduction/1:
Scope of this study
Introduction
1:
1:
Scope of this study ........................................................................................ 1
2:
Previous scholarship ...................................................................................... 7
3:
Aims and structure of this study ................................................................. 12
Scope of this study
Greek religion, as is well known, was centred on the gods of Olympus and the
heroes, together with the many myths told about them. Its practice was based
on the festivals and sacrifices of the polis, together with a number of
sanctuaries and oracles such as Delphi and Olympia of a wider scope. With the
odd exception, such as the Eleusinian mysteries, it was not much concerned
with the afterlife, what happens to us after death.
With this in mind, we may consider the following excerpts from contemporary
sources:
Beggar priests and seers go to the doors of the rich and persuade them that
through sacrifices and incantations a power is provided them from the gods,
either to remedy his own or his ancestors’ misdeeds through feasts and
enjoyment ... And they supply a din of books of Musaeus and Orpheus,
descendants of the moon and the Muses, as they say, according to which they
sacrifice, persuading not only individuals but even cities that there are
releases and purifications for misdeeds through sacrifices and childish
pleasures, when they are still living and also when they are dead, which rites
1
Introduction/1:
Scope of this study
they call τελεταί, which free us from the evils there, while terrible things await
those who do not sacrifice.1
When you became a man you read out the books while your mother
performed the ceremony and you assisted with the other preparations.
During the night you took the fawn skin, mixed the wine and purified the
participants and wiped them with mud and bran and after the purification
raised them up and told them to say ‘I have escaped the bad and found the
better’ ... In the day you led the fine procession, garlanded with fennel and
white poplar, through the streets, rubbing the pareias snakes and raising
them above your head, and shouting ‘euoi saboi’ and dancing to ‘hues attes
hues’2
You will find in the halls of Hades a spring on the right, and standing by it, a
glowing white cypress tree. Do not approach this spring at all. Further along
you will find, from a lake of Memory, the refreshing water flowing forth. But
guardians are nearby, and they will ask you for what need you have come; to
them you should relate very well the whole truth. Say: ‘I am the child of Earth
and starry Heaven; starry is my name. I am parched with thirst, but give me
to drink from the spring.’3
Pure I come from the pure, Queen of those below the earth, and Eukles and
Eubouleus and the other immortal gods; for I also claim that I am of your
blessed race. But fate mastered me and the thunderer, striking with his
lightning. I flew out of the circle of wearying heavy grief; I came on with swift
feet to the desired crown; I passed beneath the bosom of the Mistress, Queen
of the Underworld. ‘Happy and most blessed one, a god you shall be instead
of a mortal.’ A kid I fell into milk.4
For [Pythagoras] would clearly remind many of those he talked to of their
former life, which their soul had once lived before it was bound to its present
1
Pl. Resp. 364b-365a = OF573.
2
Dem. 18.259-60 = OF577.
3
Gold leaves B2 (Pharsalus, 4th century BC). Translation of Edmonds 2011b.
4
Gold leaves A1 (Thurii, 4th century BC). Translation of Edmonds 2011b.
2
Introduction/1:
Scope of this study
body, and would show by irrefutable evidence that he himself had been
Euphorbus, son of Panthus, conqueror of Patroclus.5
Those from whom Persephone will receive the recompense of ancient grief,
in the ninth year she gives back to the sun above; from these arise illustrious
kings and men swift in strength and great in wisdom, and in the time to come
they are called by men pure heroes.6
For I should not wonder if Euripides did not speak the truth when he said
‘Who knows if to live is to be dead and to be dead to live?’, and we are
perhaps really dead; for I once heard from the wise that we are dead now and
the body is our tomb.7
Prayers and offerings appease the souls, while the incantation of the magi is
able to remove or change the hindering daimons; hindering daimons hostile
to souls. For this reason, the magi make offerings, as if, as it were, paying an
atonement. They pour on the offerings water and milk, from which they also
make libations. The cakes they offer are countless and many-knobbed, for
the souls too are countless. The initiates make preliminary offerings to the
Eumenides in the same way the magi do, for the Eumenides are souls.8
The things they are describing are difficult to understand, and do not at all
seem to fit into our standard picture of Greek religion. This study is an attempt
to make sense of what they are saying.
In order to do this, I shall examine the topic of private initiation and the
afterlife in classical Greece. In this introductory section I want to define these
terms and explain what I am trying to prove, what sources I shall use and what
will be the general approach and plan of the work.
5
Iambl. VP 63.
6
Pind. fr. 133 = OF443.
7
Pl. Grg. 492e-493a = OF430.
8
P. Derv. col. VI. For alternative readings, see Chapter Seven section 5.
3
Introduction/1:
Scope of this study
By classical Greece I mean the Greek world, including Greek settlements
outside Greece itself, in approximately the fifth and fourth centuries BC. As I
shall explain below, the evidence base will be somewhat wider than this. The
phenomena that I am examining, as I hope will become apparent in the course
of the investigation, seem to have emerged as something new during the fifth
and fourth centuries, and, at least as far as we can tell, faded away in the
subsequent years.
The English term ‘initiation’ is used in contemporary scholarship on the
classical world with two different meanings.9 The one with which I am
concerned, of a ritual to enrol someone in a particular group, corresponds to
the Greek μυέω. This is usually derived from μύω, ‘to keep the eyes or mouth
shut’: μύσαντος ὄμματος, ‘closed eye’ (Eur. Med. 1183), χεῖλος ἔμυσε, ‘my lip
closed’ (Antiphil. Anth. Pal. 7.630).10 It would then refer to the characteristic
secrecy of the ritual, best attested for initiation at Eleusis. 11 The word τελετή
is also often translated as ‘initiation’, but is in fact used for a wide range of
rites, including but not confined to initiation.12
From μυέω come μύστης, ‘initiate’, and μυστήρια, ‘the mysteries’. μυέω and
μυστήρια were rendered into Latin by Cicero as initiare, initia, from which we
get the English and French ‘initiation’. We also have from the nineteenth
century the phrase ‘mystery religion’ (from the German Mysterienreligion),
originally used for various Oriental cults in the time of the Roman Empire,
which may have had the unfortunate effect of suggesting that the earlier
9
There are clear explanations in Graf 2003: 4-8 and Bremmer 2014: vii-xi, which I follow
here.
10
Cosmopoulos 2015: 14-15. For an alternative derivation from the Hittite munnae see
Bremmer 2014: vii-viii.
11
Chapter Two section 5.
12
Chapter One section 5.
4
Introduction/1:
Scope of this study
Greek mysteries were a religion in the modern sense, which, as I shall argue,
is not the case.
The term ‘initiation’ was also adopted by the eighteenth-century
anthropologist Lafitau for what might be called rites of passage such as
puberty rituals, and in this sense has been applied to corresponding rites of
passage in ancient Greece which have no connection with initiation into the
mysteries. I shall not be concerned with these here.
By private initiation I mean initiation performed by private individuals, that is
freelance religious practitioners, for a fee. Its counterpart is initiation in a civic
cult under the auspices of the polis, notably in the mysteries at Eleusis, which
I shall consider briefly as a comparator to and example for the private rituals. 13
The other half of my subject is the afterlife, or what happens to us after death.
Initiation at Eleusis offered those who underwent it a better fate after they
were dead, and it seems clear that this was characteristic of the private rituals
also. It was obviously necessary for the initiators to give the initiands some
kind of portrayal of what the afterlife might be like. The topics of initiation
and the afterlife therefore naturally belong together.
The evidence for all this is scanty and difficult to interpret. Two prime sources
are the gold leaves found in a number of tombs typically giving instructions for
the soul after death, and the Derveni Papyrus, which includes accounts of
various rituals and supernatural entities. Their importance lies in the fact that
they come from the initiators themselves, or at least sources close to them,
though their meaning has been much disputed. There are a number of
references in the poets, philosophers and orators of the period, though they
13
Chapter Two section 5.
5
Introduction/1:
Scope of this study
are not necessarily either knowledgeable or sympathetic in their attitude.
Plato, an especially rich source of information, poses particular problems of
interpretation, which I shall address.
There is one significant inscription, from Selinous, but I have not found much
of value in either pictorial or archaeological evidence. Earlier literary evidence,
primarily Homer and Hesiod, has been useful in demonstrating the evolution
of various concepts and the general state of understanding at the time.
Evidence later than the period, though it may reflect what was current at an
earlier time, I have used with caution. It is very difficult to disentangle, for
example, what in major late Pythagorean sources such as Porphyry and
Iamblichus was faithfully copied from lost works of the classical period which
we know they did use and what was the result of Neopythagorean speculation
many centuries later.14 I have ignored the very late Neoplatonists unless there
is warrant for their statements in the classical period, which is generally not
the case.
14
Riedweg 2005: 119-28.
6
Introduction/2:
2:
Previous scholarship
Previous scholarship
Some aspects of this topic have been extensively studied in recent years. In
nearly all cases, however, there has been no attempt to look at the private
initiators and their views of the afterlife as a whole, but only to examine what
I would see as particular parts of the subject.
Many studies are based on the assumption of the existence of different sects,
such as Orphics, Bacchics or Pythagoreans. Among these, Orphism15 has been
both the most prominent and the most controversial. Two early works are still
of great value: Rohde’s Psyche, which raises many of the key questions and
lists most of the relevant ancient sources in the chapter notes, and Linforth’s
detailed and sceptical study of all those sources that mention the name of
Orpheus.16 More recently, scholarly discourse has been dominated by the
work of Bernabé and his pupils, who argue for the existence of an Orphic sect
subscribing to an Orphic mythology first attested many centuries later in the
late Neoplatonists.17
Edmonds, in opposition to this, has put forward a sceptical position and has
tried, in my view convincingly, to show that there is not good evidence for
either an Orphic group or this kind of Orphic myth at this time. 18 In general,
however, Bernabé’s case has been accepted by scholars, if often with some
15
Chapter Two section 6.
16
Rohde 1925, Linforth 1941.
17
Bernabé 2004-07 and many articles (see Bibliography); also see, for example, the
collections Bernabé and Casadesús 2008, Bernabé, Casadesús and Santamaría 2010,
Bernabé, Kahle and Santamaría 2011, Borgeaud 1991, Herrero de Jáuregui 2011, Bernabé
[et al.] 2013.
18
Edmonds 1999, 2013 and a number of other articles; see also Torjussen 2010 who takes a
similar view.
7
Introduction/2:
Previous scholarship
reservations.19 This Orphism is usually linked, on the basis of the name, with
the orpheotelests mentioned by Theophrastus (Char. 16), and frequently also
with the beggar priests and prophets described by Plato (Resp. 364b),20 who it
is assumed are the same and are in effect priests of the Orphic religion.
Another difficult to define group, the Pythagoreans, has sometimes been
linked with initiation and associated theories of the afterlife, especially
metempsychosis.21 Groups of Bacchics, or followers of Dionysus, have also
been posited, though it is often supposed that these are the same as the
Orphics (‘Orphic-Bacchics’), because of the prominence of Dionysus in late
Orphic myth.22 Public initiation at Eleusis has of course been studied,23 and
there have been several useful surveys of mysteries in general, mostly
structured with a chapter to each cult, rather than a comparative approach24
A great deal of work focuses upon individual sources. The Derveni Papyrus25
has attracted much interest since its discovery in 1962. There have been
19
See e.g. West 1983: 170-1, Parker 1995: 496, Most 1997: 131-2, Johnston in Graf and
Johnston 2013: 127, Bremmer 2014: 56-70.
20
Chapter One sections 4-5.
21
Zuntz 1971 makes a connection to the gold leaves. Burkert 1972 is still the basic study of
the Pythagoreans; for more recent work, see Zhmud 2012 and the collections of Cornelli,
McKirahan and Macris 2013 and Huffman 2014.
22
Nilsson 1957a, Henrichs 1978, Cole 1980, Seaford 1981, Cazanove 1986, Bernabé [et al.]
2013.
23
Mylonas 1961, Graf 1974 (linking it with Orphism), Clinton in many studies (see
Bibliography), Cosmopoulos 2014, 2015. See Chapter Two section 5.
24
Burkert 1987, which does attempt a comparative approach, Bowden 2010, Bremmer
2014; see also Cosmopoulos 2003, Casadio and Johnston 2009.
25
Chapter Seven section 5.
8
Introduction/2:
Previous scholarship
several editions,26 two monographs,27 three collections28 and many articles.29
Some of this is related to the commentator’s philosophical ideas, or to
papyrological reconstruction of the text. Attempts to analyse what it can tell
us of initiation and the afterlife normally, however, assume an Orphic context.
Three editions of the funerary gold leaves with commentary and studies have
been published in recent years.30 They are commonly referred to as ‘Orphic’
gold leaves, though they do not in fact mention either Orpheus or Orphics, and
their content is difficult to reconcile with what is known from elsewhere of
Orphic myth. Two of the forty or more refer to Dionysus, from which it is
usually assumed that they all come from a Bacchic or Orphic-Bacchic sect.
Other relevant sources that have received attention include the Pythagorean
Notebooks,31 the lex sacra of Selinous,32 the Olbia bone tablets,33 and the
26
[Anonymous] 1982, Janko 2002, Jourdan 2003, Betegh 2004, Bernabé 2004-07,
Kouremenos, Parássoglou and Tsantsanoglou 2006, Laks and Most 2016, Kotwick 2017.
See Appendix: The Derveni Papyrus: a note on the text.
27
Betegh 2004, which concentrates on the philosophical aspects, and Piano 2016, which is
mainly concerned with the earlier columns that I shall be examining here. There is also
considerable relevant material relating to the theogony in West 1983 and Meisner 2018.
28
Laks and Most 1997, Papadopoulou and Muellner 2014 and Santamaría 2019a.
29
See, for example, those listed in the bibliography under Bernabé, Ferrari and Janko.
30
Bernabé and Jiménez San Cristóbal 2008, Edmonds 2011d, Graf and Johnston 2013; see
also Zuntz 1971, Torjussen 2010 and various articles by especially Bernabé, Edmonds, Janko
and Riedweg (see Bibliography) and Chapter Four below.
31
The older studies of Delatte 1922 and Festugière 1945 have not been altogether
replaced; for more recent work see Laks 2013, Long 2013.
32
Jameson, Jordan and Kotansky 1993, Clinton 1996, Robertson 2010, Ianucci, Muccioli and
Zaccarini 2015.
33
West 1982, VInogradov 1991, Zhmud 1992.
9
Introduction/2:
Previous scholarship
Gurôb Papyrus.34 Though these studies naturally do attempt to situate their
subject in a wider context, each is basically focused on a single source.
This concentration on particular cults or sources has meant that there is no
general treatment of the initiators. There are a couple of brief but suggestive
papers by Burkert,35 there are surveys of private religious practitioners other
than initiators,36 and there are incidental remarks in the references listed
earlier in this section, of which only the magi of the Derveni Papyrus have given
rise to a number of separate studies.37
The case is somewhat similar for the initiators’ view of the afterlife, though the
nature of two of the chief sources, the Derveni Papyrus and the gold leaves,
has meant that this has attained greater prominence in studies of these areas.
Bremmer’s short survey of the afterlife in antiquity covers this period in
sixteen pages.38 There is some relevant work on the development of the
concept of the soul,39 and an important book by Johnston on those who have
died prematurely or by violence.40 Even on a topic such as metempsychosis,
which is not clearly linked to a single cult or source, the last specialised booklength monograph was published seventy years ago.41
34
Hordern 2000.
35
Burkert 1982, 1983.
36
Dillery 2005, Eidinow 2017, Flower 2008, Johnston 2008; see Chapter One section 3.
37
Such as Bernabé 2006, Calvo Martínez 2007, De Jong 1997, Russell 2001; see Chapter
One section 6.
38
Bremmer 2002.
39
Claus 1981, Bremmer 1983, and see Chapter Two section 2.
40
Johnston 1999. Sourvinou-Inwood 1995 is also useful.
41
Long 1948; but see also McGibbon 1964, Casadio 1991, Obeyesekere 2002, Bernabé and
Santamaría 2011, Bernabé 2013b and Chapter Five below.
10
Introduction/2:
Previous scholarship
Finally, there is the question of situating the initiators and their views of the
afterlife within Greek religion as a whole. The once-dominant model of polis
religion42 has been modified in recent years,43 driven by the difficulty of fitting
various religious phenomena into the model, among which are the activities
of the private initiators. In tandem with this, Rüpke and his collaborators have
examined the concept of individuation, or the development of individual selfidentity, which may provide a useful approach.44 Neither have considered the
initiators in much detail.
42
Sourvinou-Inwood 2001a, 2001b, Parker 1996, 2005.
43
Bremmer 2010, Eidinow 2011, 2015, Kindt 2012, 2015, Harrison 2015.
44
Rüpke 2013, Waldner 2013. See Chapter One section 2.
11
Introduction/3:
3:
Aims and structure of this study
Aims and structure of this study
I shall be examining the private initiators and their views of the afterlife as a
whole, without assuming that they belong to any particular sect or cult. In
fact, as will emerge throughout this study, they seem to have been much more
freelance practitioners taking their tenets and practices from a wide variety of
not always consistent sources, or in current terminology bricoleurs.45 My
approach will be based on a new examination of the primary sources. I shall
also look at how the private initiators offered an alternative model to polis
religion.
While building on previous scholarship, I think that this fresh
perspective will offer an original and more accurate picture of their role.
Other new conclusions that this investigation will produce include: a new
analysis and assessment of the value of Plato’s myths as evidence for
alternative religious beliefs, a distinction between Dionysiac cult involving
initiation and other forms, a re-assessment of the credibility of Demosthenes’
account of Aeschines’ mother, a modification of current accounts of daimons
and Erinyes to show that characteristics such as bad daimons, personal
daimons and daimons as souls of the dead were relatively late developments,
and that the close connection of the Erinyes with blood kin killing did not exist
before the tragedians, and that apparently disparate and unconnected sources
such as the Pythagorean Notebooks, the lex sacra of Selinous, the funerary
gold leaves and the Derveni Papyrus share a common underlying structure.46
45
Lévi-Strauss 1962. The importance of bricolage in areas associated with private initiation
has been suggested by, among others, Torjussen 2010, Edmonds 2013, Graf and Johnston
2013 and Meisner 2018.
46
Plato: Chapter Two section 4, Chapter Five section 4; Dionysiac cult: Chapter Three;
Aeschines’ mother: Chapter Three section 8; daimons and Erinyes: Chapter Six; common
structure: Chapters Seven-Eight.
12
Introduction/3:
Aims and structure of this study
Overall, I have tried to key my conclusions as closely as possible to the
evidence and reduce conjecture and speculation to a minimum, though I have
certainly not been able to eliminate them entirely. I do not wish to deny the
validity of the opposite approach, which creates a more comprehensive and
overarching picture by extrapolation from a few scattered pieces of evidence.
There is the danger, however, of misplaced ingenuity fitting everything into a
preconceived pattern, and so that we might end up with an apparently
authoritative account which is at base just a construct of modern scholars.47 I
have preferred a more minimalist approach, and omitted anything that I do
not believe can be justified from contemporary evidence.
I shall try to show that private initiators did exist and discuss what they might
have been called, when and where they came into being, how they might have
learned their craft, what kind of thing they might have done, their relation to
other forms of religion such as polis religion or the cult of Dionysus and what
views of the afterlife they and others might have held. I particularly want to
demonstrate three propositions.
The first is that these initiators and initiands did not constitute a sect, that is,
a coherent group with a distinctive structure, theology and practices, defining
itself in opposition to other religious groups.48
The concept of a sect
An example of this approach: ‘Each of the authors dealing with this myth presents a
different aspect of the paradigm, but none of them adds elements incompatible with the
reconstructed paradigm which has remained coherent through time. It must therefore
reflect a religious movement covering many centuries. Besides Orphism, which other
equally long-lasting candidates are there?’ (Bernabé 2002: 401). This is only a valid
argument on the assumptions that all the authors dealt with were giving partial accounts of
a single myth, never attested in its entirety, and that there did exist a long-lasting
movement called Orphism. These are both tenable hypotheses, but accepting their
possibility does not amount to proof.
47
48
Burkert 1982: 2-3, Riedweg 2005: 99-100; see Chapter One section 2 below.
13
Introduction/3:
Aims and structure of this study
developed in relation to Christianity,49 and however appropriate it might be
for monotheism it makes little sense in the context of ancient polytheistic
religion, where each person might worship many different gods. 50
The
widespread modern view that these people belonged to supposed groups of
Orphics,51 or Orphic-Bacchics or Pythagoreans is without any secure
foundation.52
I shall use the term ‘cult’ in its original English meaning of ‘a particular form of
religious worship’ (Shorter Oxford) or ‘a system of religious beliefs and ritual’
(Merriam-Webster). The cult of a particular divinity would then be some form
of religious activity dedicated to that divinity, and to say that it received cult is
to say that it was worshipped in some form. The term is now, however, often
used to refer to a group, with a meaning similar to ‘sect’; I shall not be using it
in this sense.
The second proposition that I want to establish is related to this, that there
was not a single coherent doctrine of the afterlife among the private
practitioners, nor even a number of coherent competing doctrines. Instead, it
appears that we are rather dealing with a patchwork or bricolage of
αἵρεσις (LSJ s.v. B2), from which our ‘heretic’, originally a Hellenistic term for a
philosophical school; Riedweg 2005: 98-9.
49
50
Zhmud 2012: 165-8. Cf. Linforth 1941: 79, Edmonds 2008: 21, Bremmer 2010: 24, 28.
Certainly this would be true for the Graeco-Roman world before the appearance of
Mithraism under the Roman Empire.
51
Chapter Two section 6.
52
I consider the bacchics and the cult of Dionysus in Chapter Four. The latest monographic
treatment of the Pythagoreans explicitly rejects the case for considering them as a sect
(Zhmud 2012: 135-68), concluding that ‘[t]heir philosophical theories were highly
individual; they never had any sacred scripture; and the contradictions in our sources
concerning metempsychosis and the vegetarianism that was linked with it are so great that
it is impossible to see them as binding dogmas of Pythagorean religion’ (Zhmud 2012: 168).
14
Introduction/3:
Aims and structure of this study
overlapping concepts taken up, developed and combined by different people
without much regard to consistency.
Thirdly, however, I shall argue that despite these superficial differences there
is at a deeper level a common picture of the afterlife that differed significantly
from that in conventional polis religion, apart from the Eleusinian mysteries.
Its main features were the survival of the soul after death, a division between
those with a better and a worse fate after death, enforced by some kind of
hostile daimons, and an initiation ritual to neutralise the daimons and secure
for its adherents the better outcome. I shall examine four disparate sources
(the Pythagorean Notebooks, the lex sacra of Selinous, a funerary gold leaf and
the Derveni Papyrus) to show how they all embody this common pattern.
I shall begin with the evidence for the private initiators themselves. They fit
into a large group of private religious practitioners with various and
overlapping names and functions, which are different from but exist alongside
the mainstream religion of the polis. Three of these, the beggar priests
(ἀγύρται), practitioners of Orphic rites (Ὀρφεοτελεστάι) and magi (μάγοι) will
be considered in more detail for evidence of their activities, though with the
possible exception of magi none is likely to be what they called themselves. I
shall also look at parallels with the craft of medicine.
I then try to set a contextual framework for the initiators and their views of
the afterlife in contemporary thought and society by reviewing the
development of the concept of the soul and views on its immortality, the
topography of the afterlife, especially of Hades and the Isles of the Blessed,
the myths of Plato on the soul and the methodological problems of using them
as evidence, the well-known public initiatory cult of Eleusis, which may have
acted in some respects as a model for the private practitioners, and finally my
15
Introduction/3:
Aims and structure of this study
reasons for scepticism as to the existence at this period of any group, doctrine
or religious movement that might be identified as Orphism.
In the next chapter, I shall go through the evidence for private initiation
connected with the cult of Dionysus; it will be important to distinguish this
from other forms of Dionysian cult, something which has perhaps not always
been done. Surveying the evidence in roughly chronological order, I find the
reliable evidence for this to date from the end of the fifth century onwards:
the Hipponion gold leaf, a proverbial saying recorded by Plato, a polemical
passage in Demosthenes and an edict and religious papyrus from fourthcentury Egypt.
Following this I shall look at the funerary gold leaves as a group, and in
particular at modern scholarly attempts to treat them as extracts from a single
original. I shall conclude that the variations and inconsistencies between them
are too many for this to be plausible, and that so far from representing a
coherent and consistent secret doctrine they are in fact a much more random
collection that have been copied and altered without much understanding of
what the original meaning may have been.
One very distinctive doctrine concerning our fate after death that has often
been linked to these initiators is metempsychosis, the transmigration of the
soul to a reincarnation in a new body, which I consider in the fifth chapter. The
belief was an uncommon one, and those that held it did not agree on many of
the details. Much of our information comes from Plato, usually connected
with his arguments that human beings are judged in the afterlife, but I shall try
to show that what he tells us has very little evidential value. The concept of
the body as the tomb or prison of the soul, often linked with metempsychosis,
may well not be connected. The term ποινή, seen as significant for an Orphic
16
Introduction/3:
Aims and structure of this study
interpretation, has different meanings in the various contexts in which it
occurs and cannot be shown to have a connection to late Orphic myth.
As a preliminary to the final part of my study, I shall survey in the sixth chapter
the nature of beings known as daimons, in their various aspects: lesser divine
beings, souls of the dead, personal daimons and bad daimons. Many of these
aspects were not long-established, and do not appear in the evidence before
Plato. The semi-divine beings known as Erinyes or Eumenides will be shown
to have a wider function than that of avengers of blood-kin with which they
are now generally associated.
The final two chapters will examine four very different sources for the afterlife:
the Pythagorean Notebooks transmitted by Alexander Polyhistor, the lex sacra
of Selinous, the funerary gold leaves of the B type and the sixth column of the
Derveni Papyrus. In Chapter Seven I shall look at each individually to describe
their nature and clear up preliminary problems of interpretation. Then in
Chapter Eight I shall try to demonstrate that they all share a common
underlying conception of the afterlife, in which souls survive after death and
are divided into two classes, of which one, the initiates, has a better fate in the
next world.
The division was enforced by hostile daimons which were
neutralised in the initiation process; these hostile daimons may themselves
have been souls of the dead.
The picture of the private initiators and their views of the afterlife that will
emerge from this investigation will be incomplete and uncertain in many
respects. This is determined by the limitations of the evidence. I hope to have
made a case that they were not any kind of sect or organised group and that
they did not have a coherent and consistent doctrine of the afterlife, but that
there was an underlying pattern to what they taught and practised that can be
traced in sources of disparate origin.
17
1/1:
Introduction
Chapter One
Private initiators in classical Greece
1:
1:
Introduction ................................................................................................. 18
2:
An alternative to polis religion .................................................................... 21
3:
Varieties of religious specialist .................................................................... 27
4:
Beggar priests .............................................................................................. 36
5:
Orphic initiators ........................................................................................... 44
6:
Magi ............................................................................................................. 49
7:
Two kinds of craftsman ............................................................................... 66
8:
Conclusion ................................................................................................... 76
Introduction
καὶ κινδυνεύουσι καὶ οἱ τὰς τελετὰς ἡμῖν οὗτοι καταστήσαντες οὐ φαῦλοί
τινες εἶναι, ἀλλὰ τῷ ὄντι πάλαι αἰνίττεσθαι ὅτι ὃς ἂν ἀμύητος καὶ ἀτέλεστος
εἰς Ἅιδου ἀφίκηται ἐν βορβόρῳ κείσεται, ὁ δὲ κεκαθαρμένος τε καὶ
τετελεσμένος ἐκεῖσε ἀφικόμενος μετὰ θεῶν οἰκήσει. εἰσὶν γὰρ δή, ὥς φασιν
οἱ περὶ τὰς τελετάς, ‘ναρθηκοφόροι μὲν πολλοί, βάκχοι δέ τε παῦροι·’ οὗτοι
δ᾽ εἰσὶν κατὰ τὴν ἐμὴν δόξαν οὐκ ἄλλοι ἢ οἱ πεφιλοσοφηκότες ὀρθῶς.
(Pl. Phd. 69c-d = OF434, 576)
And perhaps those who founded the sacred rites were not negligible people,
but actually long ago expressed something symbolically when they said that
those who go to Hades uninitiated without participating in the rites shall lie
in mud, but those who arrive there purified having accomplished them shall
live with the gods. For as those concerned with the rites say, ‘many bear the
narthex, but the Bacchi are few’; these in my opinion are none other than the
true philosophers.
Plato is here referring to people offering some kind of rites (τελεταί), which
hold out to those who take part in them the prospect of a better fate after
death. The initiated will live with the gods; the uninitiated will lie in mud. As
is generally recognised, he is not referring to those who founded the Eleusinian
18
1/1:
Introduction
mysteries, but to people who celebrate some kind of Dionysiac rites, as shown
by the allusion to Bacchi and to the narthex, the fennel reed crowned with ivy,
or thyrsus, borne by the followers of Dionysus (Fig. 6). There is no trace of a
state cult of this kind. These, then, are private practitioners providing a rite of
initiation comparable to Eleusis that secures for the participant a better fate
in the afterlife.
Plato is not really interested in these people, and after this passing reference
tells us, here at any rate, no more about them. He goes on to his real subject,
philosophy, with the ingenious but highly implausible suggestion that these
initiators were really putting forward an allegory of the philosophical life. In
this chapter I shall examine what evidence we have for the existence of these
private initiators, and what terms might have been used to refer to them. As
will become apparent, we do not know a great deal about them.
I want to start by considering their private status, and how they relate to the
concept of polis religion. I shall try to define this, and to sketch an alternative
model which might apply to the initiators. I shall then go on to try and
characterise the environment in which they emerged by briefly describing
some of the major, often overlapping, types of other private religious
practitioners in the period.
I shall then examine three terms which might be taken to refer to these
initiators, the beggar priest (ἀγύρτης), the celebrator of Orphic rites
(ὀρφεοτελεστής) and the magus (μάγος). Relevant evidence will be found in
Plato’s Republic and in the Derveni Papyrus, but only magus is likely to be how
they referred to themselves, and even this may be a special case. Finally in
this chapter, I shall look at parallels with the medical profession and put
forward the hypothesis that both were similar craft groups which might have
19
1/1:
Introduction
recruited through family inheritance and some kind of apprenticeship in a
similar way.
20
1/2:
2:
An alternative to polis religion
An alternative to polis religion
The concept of polis religion was originally formulated by Sourvinou-Inwood
as a comprehensive model of Greek religion in the classical era: 1 ‘In the
Classical period polis religion encompassed all religious activity within the
polis’.2 She saw it as embedded in the specific environment of the polis, so
that it was not possible to treat it separately from the culture, 3 and believed
that each significant grouping within the polis was articulated and given
identity through cult, and that polis religion embodied, negotiated and
informed all religious discourse.4 Although she does express a slight doubt
about whether what she describes as ‘the ambiguous and uncertain exception
of sectarian discourse’ can be included in the model,5 her basic position is that
‘all cult acts, including those which some modern commentators are inclined
to think of as “private”, are religiously dependent on the polis’.6
In recent years, however, this model has been the subject of criticism by a
number of scholars.7 Attention has been drawn to a variety of religious
phenomena which do not seem to fit easily in to the paradigm, including the
consultation of oracles, epiphanic experiences, votive offerings, funerary
1
Sourvinou-Inwood 2000a, 2000b (originally published 1988-90).
2
Sourvinou-Inwood 2000b: 51.
3
Kindt 2012: 15-16.
4
Sourvinou-Inwood 2000a: 20, 27.
5
Sourvinou-Inwood 2000a: 20.
6
Sourvinou-Inwood 2000b: 51. On polis religion in Athens, see Parker 1996, 2005.
7
Eidinow 2011, 2015, Kindt 2012, 2015, Rüpke 2013, Harrison 2015.
21
1/2:
An alternative to polis religion
stelae, curse tablets and domestic cult. 8 We are perhaps moving to a new
consensus, like that suggested by Eidinow, where polis religion is only one
component, if an extremely important one, in a network of diverse religious
identities.9 In Kindt’s formulation: ‘Rather than speaking of polis religion, we
may prefer to state that Greek religion was embedded in Greek culture with
the polis as its paradigmatic worshipping group’.10
I shall be using the term ‘polis religion’ in this second sense, not as an allinclusive model claiming to incorporate all religious manifestations in classical
Greece, but simply as a shorthand for one form of religious activity, though
certainly the most prominent one. This polis religion is primarily determined
by the polis into which the participant is born, and the social grouping within
that polis, it typically involves animal sacrifice, it takes place in public, its
officiants have a recognised place in society and are drawn from the ordinary
citizens, and it requires performance of the prescribed rituals rather than any
kind of personal religious experience.
Two things should be made clear. First, that this is an abstract, theoretical,
model, and in the real world, as you might expect, there were fuzzy margins.
To take a couple of examples, itinerant specialists such as Lampon or
Epimenides could be called in by the polis in emergency,11 and the Eleusinian
mysteries, which share many of the characteristics of non-polis religion, were
very much part of Athenian civic life. Second, that though the other forms of
religion that I shall be describing were significantly different, there was little
sense of any opposition between the two. Individuals participated in both
8
Kindt 2015: 36.
9
Eidinow 2011: 31-5.
10
Kindt 2012: 19.
11
Dillery 2005: 195-7, Gagnė 2013: 312-20.
22
1/2:
An alternative to polis religion
without perceiving any conflict between them.12 It should be noted, though,
that while non-polis religion was not infrequently referred to in pejorative
terms, this was almost never true of the established civic cult.13
The revised model has not so far, however, given much more consideration to
the private initiators than the original did. Harrison’s survey of recent work
advancing on the polis religion concept does not mention them. 14 There are
some exceptions. Eidinow, applying social network theory to Greek religion,
has examined what she calls, with two sets of quotation marks, ‘ The
‘ “ Orphic ” type ’ ‘.15
She characterises the practitioners as travelling
operators who compete with each other, and their clients as having cult
membership and belonging to groups which she identifies with the traditional
Dionysiac thiasoi, competing with the polis for control over the network
relationships.
An alternative approach is to consider these phenomena in the context of the
development of individual self-identity. The individual, in this formulation, is
no longer bound by traditional modes of religious expression, but has a range
of options.16 Rüpke has produced a heuristic model of ancient religious
individuation,17 which, however, is explicitly based on the Hellenistic and
Roman periods, and is not altogether appropriate for classical Greece. 18
Waldner has developed the concept for the mystery cults, with a focus on
12
‘[U]na convivenza non polemica tra gruppi religiosi di vario tipo’ (Piano 2016: 241).
13
Parker 2005: 134.
14
Harrison 2015.
15
Eidinow 2011: 26-31.
16
Rüpke 2013: 6-9.
17
Rüpke 2013: 14-23.
18
In, for example, the move away from a polis-based society and the rise of Christianity.
23
1/2:
An alternative to polis religion
Eleusis and Hellenistic thiasoi and on how they are used in the Platonic
tradition.19 She believes that ‘any kind of initiation also meant a socialization
into the group of all those who were initiated into the same cult’;20 though the
degree of integration of this group might differ from case to case, it might well
form an alternative community to the polis or the family.
Both Eidinow and Waldner have therefore retained the idea of the initiates as
a kind of sect, which I argue here is not an appropriate model. Bremmer, in
his discussion of the mysteries and Orphism in relation to polis religion,21
explicitly rejects the idea of an Orphic sect as at the least very improbable. He
also doubts that they were the charlatans depicted by Plato, and sees them
rather as the heirs of a tradition of wandering Wundermänner that includes
Empedocles. This may be a more fruitful approach.
Building on some of the ideas of these scholars, I should like to suggest a new
and more detailed characterisation of a type of religious activity in classical
Greece offered by private initiators on an alternative model to polis religion:
(i)
It is altogether optional and voluntary on the part of the participant.
That is to say, it is not determined or at least suggested by the socio-political
environment, in a way that, for example, taking part in civic festivals like the
Anthesteria or sacrificing to local heroes or being one of the women cultivating
the rooftop gardens of Adonis might be. Instead, even if it may of course be
influenced by the example of others, it is entirely an individual decision.
(ii)
Those who offer this religious experience do not have any role in the
social or political structure because of it, in the way that priests of the
19
Waldner 2013.
20
Waldner 2013: 226.
21
Bremmer 2010: 22-9.
24
1/2:
An alternative to polis religion
established cults do. Instead, they are private practitioners working on their
own account, for payment.
(iii)
The practitioners are generally itinerant, rather than connected to a
particular polis.22 It is true that we know too little about the individuals
concerned to be certain, and of course itinerant practitioners may have made
extended stays in particular locations, but there is no indication that they were
natives of the place where they were practising or that they had any personal
connection to the polis.23 They seem to have included both men and women,
in contrast to the division between male and female officiants in polis
religion.24
(iv)
There was probably a greater emphasis on personal religious
experience in the ritual, though this is an aspect where the evidence is very
elusive. Plato, speaking of the bright beauty (κάλλος λαμπρόν), blessed sight
(μακαρίαν ὄψιν) and happy visions (εὐδαίμονα φάσματα) of the world of
ideas, uses the terminology of initiation at Eleusis (μυούμενοί τε καὶ
ἐποπτεύοντες, Phdr. 250b-c), suggesting that this was an ecstatic experience.25
The formulation of Aristotle, that they should experience rather than learn
(τοὺς τελουμένους οὐ μαθεῖν τι δεῖν ἀλλὰ παθεῖν, fr. 15 Rose),26 may be a little
22
On the relation of itinerant religious practitioners to sacred space, see Herrero de
Jáuregui 2015: 668-74.
23
Eidinow 2011: 26-7 suggests that some practitioners were embedded in local
communities, on the grounds that itineracy is not mentioned by Theseus in Euripides’
Hippolytus (952-4 = OF627), and that the superstitious man of Theophrastus visits the
Ὀρφεοτελεστής every month (Char. 16 = OF654). Theseus’ invective is not meant as a
comprehensive description, however, while even if the superstitious man went to the same
person each time he might easily have been making an extended stay of some months or
more.
24
Section 8 below; Parker 2005: 270.
25
Waldner 2013: 227-30.
26
Waldner 2013: 231-3.
25
1/2:
An alternative to polis religion
misleading, as instruction was not generally a part of polis religion, and we
shall see an example of non-polis activity where it was emphasised.27 The
contrast is rather between performance and experience. There may also have
been from time to time personal religious experience in the civic cults, but it
was only the correct performance of the ritual that was expected.
(v)
The motive of the participants was to gain a personal benefit for
themselves, specifically a better fate after death.28
It should be clear that this model does not describe anything that could be
called a sect. This is defined by Burkert as a minority group with an alternative
lifestyle, regular meetings, communal property, authority deriving from a
leader or a scripture, defining itself against its opponents and punishing
apostates, with diachronic stability and local mobility.29 However you adjust
the details of this definition, there is not a close match. Crucially, the model
does not include any idea of a coherent group.
With these considerations in mind, we can now go on to examine the evidence
for private initiators in classical Greece.
27
The Derveni Papyrus, section 6 below.
Pausanias credits Orpheus with cures for diseases (νόσων τε ἰάματα, Paus. 9.30.4 =
OF551), and Burkert, citing Mesopotamian parallels, has suggested that the recital of a
theogony might be used for therapeutic purposes (Burkert 1982: 8; see also Obbink 1997:
50), which would be a further personal benefit. Evidence for this in Greece is, however,
lacking (Edmonds 2013: 106-7).
28
29
Burkert 1982: 2-3.
26
1/3:
3:
Varieties of religious specialist
Varieties of religious specialist
I should like to start by setting the background with a survey of the different
types of private religious specialist that existed at the time. 30 Three of these,
the ἀγύρτης or beggar priest, the ὀρφεοτελεστής or celebrator of Orphic rites
and the μάγος or magus will be reserved for separate treatment, as these are
the most likely groups to contain the private initiators. There remain the
μάντις or seer, the χρησμολόγος or dealer in oracles, the ἐπῳδός or chanter
of incantations, the καθαρτής or purifier, the γόης or magician and the
ψυχαγωγός or necromancer. One might indeed add others, such as the
ἐξηγητής or interpreter of sacred matters, the προφήτης or expounder of the
divine will, the φαρμακεύς or sorcerer with drugs, the θαυματοποιός or
wonder worker and the ἐγγαστρίμυθος or belly-prophet.31
I here give a brief description of each of six of the main types. The suggested
translations are only approximate, and we shall have to consider how far these
are different names for the same people. Their number and variety should
demonstrate that there was a favourable environment for the introduction of
private initiators.
(i)
μάντις
The μάντις, usually translated as seer, was a long-established term, appearing
in Homer (Theoclymenus, Od. 15.223-81) and myth.32 The root meaning may
30
More general recent surveys include Dickie 2001, Dillery 2005, Flower 2008 and Johnston
2008.
31
Dickie 2001: 12-14 (φαρμακεύς), 72-4 (θαυματοποιός), Dillery 2005: 170-1 (ἐξηγητής,
προφήτης), Johnston 2008: 140 (ἐγγαστρίμυθος).
32
Dillery 2005: 172-83.
27
1/3:
Varieties of religious specialist
be from the Indo-European *men, indicating a state of inspiration or mania.33
There was a strong hereditary element, with many mantic families originating
in Elis and the north-west Peloponnese.34 It was also, however, considered a
learnable skill,35 elements of which came eventually to be put in writing.36
Isocrates (19.5-7) recounts how one Thrasyllus inherited some books on
divination (τάς τε βίβλους τὰς περὶ τῆς μαντικῆς) and by their means practised
in many cities and accumulated a large fortune.37
They were important figures for armies going into battle,38 and they seem also
to have had a role in the founding of colonies. 39 Their core function seems to
have been divination from the entrails of sacrificed animals and the flights of
birds.40 They are, however, criticised by a medical writer for inconsistency:
some think a bird on the left was good, on the right bad, others the opposite
(οἱ μάντιες τὸν αὐτὸν ὄρνιθα, εἰ μὲν ἀριστερὸς εἴη, ἀγαθὸν νομίζουσιν εἶναι,
εἰ δὲ δεξιὸς, κακόν ... ἀλλ᾽ ἔνιοι τῶν μάντιων τἀναντία τουτέων, Hippoc. Acut.
8). Their range of skills was wider than this, however: according to Plutarch
(Per. 6.2-4), Lampon the μάντις predicted the rise of Pericles from the
appearance of a one-horned ram, and in Xenophon they recommend
purification of the army (An. 5.7.35) and sacrifices to calm the winds (An.
4.5.4).41 When Aeschylus describes Apollo as ‘a healing seer and reader of
33
Dillery 2005: 169, Flower 2008: 23; cf. Plato, Phileb. 44c.
34
Dillery 2005: 184, Flower 2008: 37-50.
35
Bowden 2003: 257-60, Johnston 2008: 110-16.
36
Dillery 2005: 221-3, Flower 2008: 51-3.
37
I discuss Thrasyllus further in section 7 below.
38
Dillery 2005: 200-9, Johnston 2008: 116-18.
39
Dillery 2005: 193-4.
40
Bowden 2003: 257-60, Johnston 2008: 125-32.
41
Flower 2015: 304.
28
1/3:
Varieties of religious specialist
portents and purifier of homes for others’ (ἰατρόμαντις δ᾽ ἐστὶ καὶ τερασκόπος
καὶ τοῖσιν ἄλλοις δωμάτων καθάρσιος, Eum. 62-3), he may be reflecting what
was expected of a mortal seer.42
(ii)
χρησμολόγος
The χρησμολόγος was a dealer in oracles.43
The term first appears in
Herodotus, and seems to have reached its high point in fifth century Athens.44
It can mean a speaker of oracles, a collector of oracles or an interpreter of
oracles.45 Onomacritus, an Athenian χρησμολόγος, was said to have edited,
and occasionally forged, the oracles of Musaeus, and subsequently appeared
at the court of Xerxes, reciting such oracles as were favourable to the Persians
(Hdt. 7.6.3-4). In the famous wooden wall oracle at the time of the Persian
invasion, the Athenians preferred the interpretation of Themistocles to that of
the professional χρησμολόγοι (ταύτῃ Θεμιστοκλέος ἀποφαινομένου Ἀθηναῖοι
ταῦτα σφίσι ἔγνωσαν αἱρετώτερα εἶναι μᾶλλον ἢ τὰ τῶν χρησμολόγων, Hdt.
7.143.3).46
(iii)
ἐπῳδός
The ἐπῳδός was a chanter of incantations.47 They were used medically, along
with purifications (καθαρμοῖσί τε χρέονται καὶ ἐπαοιδῇσι, Morb. sacr. 1),
much to the annoyance of the doctors, who considered this impious; Plato also
42
Flower 2008: 27.
43
Bowden 2003 and Dillery 2005 have comprehensive treatments.
44
Dillery 2005: 184-5, 220.
45
Bowden 2003: 261.
46
Bowden 2003: 272-4, Dillery 2005: 209-19.
47
Dickie 2001: 12-14, 24, 71.
29
1/3:
Varieties of religious specialist
is critical of those who try to bewitch the gods with sacrifices, prayers and
incantations (θυσίαις τε καὶ εὐχαῖς καὶ ἒπῳδαῖς γοητεύοντες, Leg. 909b =
OF573).
(iv)
καθαρτής
The καθαρτής was a purifier.48 Purification was used in medical contexts as a
remedy for diseases such as epilepsy (Morb. sacr. 1 = OF657). Indeed, the
same term, κάθαρσις, was used both for religious purification and for physical
evacuations from the body.49 It was also used for mental illness, the afflicted
one (τῷ ὀρθῶς μανέντι) being treated with purifications and religious rites
(καθαρμῶν τε καὶ τελετῶν, Pl. Phdr. 244d = OF575). It may have developed as
a specialisation of the role of healer-seer (ἰατρόμαντις) that we find in Homer
and Hesiod (Il. 1.93-100, Hes. fr. 37.14 MW).50 Whole cities could be purified
as well as individuals, as when Epimenides purified Athens from the Cylonian
curse (Arist. Ath. Pol. 1, Plut. Sol. 12).51
Methods included washing, of course, the use of substances such as sulphur,
gold, laurel, buckthorn, squill, blood and mud, and the use of animals to
receive the impurity.52 Demosthenes, describing what seems to be a kind of
fictitious composite rite,53 has the participants first washed, then scoured with
mud and bran (ἀπομάττων τῷ πηλῷ καὶ τοῖς πιτύροις, 18.259 = OF577).
Incantations might also be employed, as we know from the allegation that the
48
Parker 1983: 207-34.
49
Lloyd 1979: 44.
50
Parker 1983: 209-10.
51
Burkert 1972: 150-2, Bernabé 2004-7: iii.119-21.
52
Parker 1983: 212-13, 224-34.
53
See below Chapter Three section 8.
30
1/3:
Varieties of religious specialist
philosopher Epicurus would in his youth accompany his mother to cottages
and there read purifications (καθαρμοὺς ἀναγιγνώσκειν, D.L. 10.4). Parker
suggests that by at least the fourth century the καθαρτής was generally held
in low esteem,54 but it is not clear that his evidence altogether supports this.55
(v)
γόης
The γόης, or sorcerer, a hostile designation rather than one used by the
practitioners themselves, was primarily concerned with what we might call
magic.56 The derivation is perhaps from γοάω, to groan or lament, especially
over the dead.57 They were associated with deception and illusion, as we see
from numerous references in Plato, for example ‘Is it not clear that [the
sophist] is one of the γόητες, an imitator of what is real?’ (σαφές, ὅτι τῶν
γοήτων ἐστί τις, μιμητὴς ὢν τῶν ὄντων, Soph. 235a).58
Among the activities that can reasonably be ascribed to the γόης are the
production of the curse tablets that appear from the sixth century in Magna
Graecia and from the fifth century in Attica.59 They also left moulded wax
54
Parker 1983: 207-8.
55
In his examples from comedy, purification as an empty (κενὸν) remedy for hypochondria
(Men. Phasm. 52-3) does not seem to me to imply that it might not be effective against a
real disease, and the burlesque in Diphilus (fr. 126) does not of course imply any disrespect
for what is burlesqued; the special case of the Hippocratic De morbo sacro, where the
hostility is due to professional rivalry, is dealt with below (Section 7). As Parker himself
points out, purification is referred to with respect by Sophocles (fr. 34) and even if the title
of Empedocles’ Katharmoi may not be due to the author himself (Wright 1995: 86), its use
by whoever assigned it can hardly be intended as pejorative.
56
Edmonds 2008: 23-7 examines ancient Greek magic from both an etic and an emic
perspective.
57
Dickie 2001: 12-13, Johnston 1999: 112.
58
See also Euthyd. 288b, Menex. 235a, Resp. 380d, 584a, Soph. 234c, 241b, Stat. 291c,
303c.
59
Bremmer 2010: 16-22.
31
1/3:
Varieties of religious specialist
images (κήρινα μιμήματα πεπλασμένα, Pl. Leg. 933b) in doorways and at
crossroads and tombs. They claimed to be able to influence the weather,
inducing storms and droughts, darkening the sun and bringing down the moon
(σελήνην τε καθαιρέειν καὶ ἥλιον ἀφανίζειν καὶ χειμῶνά τε καὶ εὐδίην ποιέειν
καὶ ὄμβρους καὶ αὐχμοὺς, Hippoc. Morb. sacr. 1). Others claimed to be able
to prolong life (παρεκτρέποντες ὀχετὸν ὥστε μὴ θανεῖν, Eur. Supp. 1011).
They convinced not only those who employed them, but also their victims that
they could cause injury through bewitchment (ὡς παντὸς μᾶλλον ὑπὸ τούτων
δυναμένων γοητεύειν βλάπτονται, Pl. Leg. 932e).
The γόης are sometimes linked with mystery initiations. Ephorus in the fourth
century said they practised incantations, rites and mysteries (ὑπάρξαντας δὲ
γόητας ἐπιτηδεῦσαι τάς τε ἐπωιδὰς καὶ τελετὰς καὶ μυστήρια, FGrHist 70 F
104).60 This may, however, be no more than the application of an abusive term
to the initiators.
(vi)
ψυχαγωγός
The ψυχαγωγός was a necromancer who raised the dead to serve as an
oracle.61 There were public νεκυομαντεῖα,62 but also private practitioners.
Plato criticises those who claim to raise the dead (τοὺς δὲ τεθνεῶτας
φάσκοντες ψυχαγωγεῖν) for money (χρημάτων χάριν, Leg. 909b = OF573). The
Spartans sent for ψυχαγωγοί from Italy to deal with the ψυχή of Pausanias
(Thuc. 1.34, Plut. De sera 560e-f). Empedocles claimed he could empower
someone to ‘lead from Hades the life-force of a dead man’ (ἄξεις δ’ ἐξ Ἀίδαο
Johnston 1999: 105-11. Cf. Strabo’s description of Orpheus as an ἄνδρα γόητα involved
with τῶν περὶ τὰς τελετὰς ὀργιασμῶν (7a.1.18); τελετή may or may not mean initiation
here rather than rites in general (see section 5).
60
61
Johnston 1999: 21-3, 29, 62-3, 81, Bremmer 2002: 76.
62
Hdt. 1.46, 49, 5.92, 8.134.
32
1/3:
Varieties of religious specialist
καταφθιμένου μένος ἀνδρός, DK31B111). A Dodona tablet records a question
to the oracle about the advisability of the questioner hiring Dorios the
ψυχαγωγός.63
So far, we have been assuming that μάντις, χρησμολόγος and so on were each
the names of separate groups with different functions. Were they perhaps,
however, just different ways of referring to the same group of people, or at
least referring to different functions which one person could combine? There
is some evidence to support this.
μάντις was clearly the most prestigious and respected term, and tended to be
the description of choice for the practitioners themselves.64 χρησμολόγος was
very close to μάντις.65 The same person can be called a ‘sacrificer and
χρησμολόγος and μάντις’ (ὁ δὲ Λάμπων θύτης ἦν καὶ χρησμολόγος καὶ μάντις,
schol. Ar. Av. 521), and the Athenians after Sicily were angry at both
(ὠργίζοντο δὲ καὶ τοῖς χρησμολόγοις τε καὶ μάντεσι, Thuc. 8.1.1), as if they
were much the same. A distinction, however, appears to be drawn by
Aristophanes:
Οἰκέτης: ὡς ἀλαζὼν φαίνεται: μάντις τίς ἐστιν.
Τρυγαῖος: οὐ μὰ Δί᾽ ἀλλ᾽ Ἱεροκλέης οὗτός γέ πού 'σθ᾽ ὁ χρησμολόγος οὑξ
Ὠρεοῦ.
(Pax 1046-7)
He looks like a charlatan; he is some μάντις. No indeed, it's Hierocles, the
χρησμολόγος from Oreus.66
63
Evangelides #23 = Christides, Dakaris and Vokotopoulou 1999: no. 4.
64
Flower 2015: 299-301.
65
Bowden 2003: 261-4 thinks they that were usually the same, Dillery 2005: 170-1 that
they were usually different.
66
I am not convinced by Bowden’s attempt to explain this away (Bowden 2003: 263).
33
1/3:
Varieties of religious specialist
Pausanias says that only some μάντεις, inspired by Apollo, were χρησμολόγοι
(χωρὶς δὲ πλὴν ὅσους ἐξ Ἀπόλλωνος μανῆναι λέγουσι τὸ ἀρχαῖον, μάντεών γ᾽
οὐδεὶς χρησμολόγος ἦν, 1.34.4).
As for the other terms, ἐπῳδοί were probably medical in origin, as I suggested
above, but later they are often associated with other groups, as in the
examples in (iii) above (καθαρτής and γόης, Morb. sacr. 1 = OF657, Pl.
Leg.909b = OF573), or, again with γόης, in Euripides (ἆρ᾽ οὐκ ἐπῳδὸς καὶ γόης
πέφυχ᾽ ὅδε;, Hipp. 1038). The ψυχαγωγός was very close to the γόης; the Suda
in fact defines γοητεία as ‘to bring up a corpse through invocation’ (ἀνάγειν
νεκρὸν δι’ ἐμικλήσεως, Suda s.v. γοητεία).67 Johnston indeed proposes that
the γόης was originally just a ψυχαγωγός,68 but produces little evidence for
this.
There was clearly a great deal of latitude over whether a particular person was
called, for example γόης, μάγος, ἐπῳδός, ψυχαγωγός, ἀγύρτης or
φαρμακεύς.69 These were often pejorative terms;70 we do not know what the
practitioners called themselves, perhaps something more respectable like
μάντις. Plato (OF573) proposes punishments for those μάντεις (Leg. 908d)
who claim to raise the dead (ψυχαγωγεῖν, 909b) or bewitch by incantations
(ἐπῳδαῖς γοητεύοντες, 909b),71 which does suggest that practitioners of arts
beyond those of the traditional μάντις were adopting the term.
67
For a sceptical view of this definition, see Dickie 2001: 12-13.
68
Johnston 1999: 103-5.
69
Dickie 2001: 12-14, Johnston 1999: 103-5, 111-18.
See for example (v) above for γόης and sections 4 and 6 below for ἀγύρτης and μάγος;
the evidence, however, may be skewed by Plato’s consistent hostility.
70
71
Flower 2015: 301.
34
1/3:
Varieties of religious specialist
The most likely conclusion is that the terminology was very fluid, and that the
different names sometimes related to different persons, sometimes to
different functions of the same person, and sometimes were simply used as
synonyms, perhaps with more or less negative overtones.
This necessarily brief and selective survey should have demonstrated the
range of private religious practitioners in fourth- and fifth-century Greece.
Clearly there was a considerable overlap of both terminology and function
between the different specialists. In terms of the model put forward in the
previous section, they are voluntary and private in the sense there defined,
probably also itinerant and offer personal benefits to their clients; what kind
of religious experience they offered is uncertain. Although some, such as the
γόης, were considered disreputable, and Plato is generally disapproving of the
whole tribe, they were normally tolerated. Ninos, a priestess who was put to
death for making charms for the young men (φίλτρα ποιούσης τοῖς νέοις,
schol. Dem. 19.281) and Theoris, a sorceress (φαρμακίδα, Dem. 25.79), also
executed, are odd exceptions.
This kind of environment was fertile ground for the appearance of private
initiators, to whose traces we now turn.
35
1/4:
4:
Beggar priests
Beggar priests
Private initiators seem to be identified as ἀγύρται, or beggar priests, in a
passage of Plato’s Republic (OF431, 434, 573) which requires detailed
analysis.72
In this passage Adeimantus takes up the discussion (362e-367e). He begins by
explaining the arguments, in his opinion erroneous, that people normally use
in favour of justice. Among these are a better fate in the afterlife:
Μουσαῖος δὲ τούτων νεανικώτερα τἀγαθὰ καὶ ὁ ὑὸς αὐτοῦ παρὰ θεῶν
διδόασιν τοῖς δικαίοις: εἰς Ἅιδου γὰρ ἀγαγόντες τῷ λόγῳ καὶ κατακλίναντες
καὶ συμπόσιον τῶν ὁσίων κατασκευάσαντες ἐστεφανωμένους ποιοῦσιν τὸν
ἅπαντα χρόνον ἤδη διάγειν μεθύοντας, ἡγησάμενοι κάλλιστον ἀρετῆς
μισθὸν μέθην αἰώνιον ... τοὺς δὲ ἀνοσίους αὖ καὶ ἀδίκους εἰς πηλόν τινα
κατορύττουσιν ἐν Ἅιδου καὶ κοσκίνῳ ὕδωρ ἀναγκάζουσι φέρειν
(Pl. Resp. 363c-d)
Musaeus and his son give good things more dashing than these from the gods
to the just, for in their account they lead them to Hades and set them
garlanded on couches and prepare a drinking party of the hallowed and make
them drunk for eternity, believing the finest reward of virtue to be perpetual
drunkenness ... but the impious and unjust they sink in mud in Hades and
force them to carry water in a sieve
Musaeus was a legendary prophet associated with Orpheus; it is not clear who
Plato meant by his son.73 Although we are here presented with a better and
worse fate in the afterlife, there is no question of gaining this through
initiation, but only through having led a just or unjust life on earth. The
characterisation of the better fate as perpetual drunkenness seems to be a
72
Previous analyses include Linforth 1941: 76-91, Andueza Pèrez 2010.
73
Linforth 1941: 85-9, Bernabé 2004-7: iii.1-53.
36
1/4:
Beggar priests
hostile account by Plato; very likely the original represented it as a pleasant
and civilised symposium with wine, conversation and music.74 The mud and
the sieve appear elsewhere as post-mortem punishments.75
Adeimantus goes on to cite a different argument that is current, that injustice
is more profitable than justice (λυσιτελέστερα δὲ τῶν δικαίων τὰ ἄδικα, 364a),
and that the gods often reward the wicked rather than the good. As an
illustration of this he says:
ἀγύρται δὲ καὶ μάντεις ἐπὶ πλουσίων θύρας ἰόντες πείθουσιν ὡς ἔστι παρὰ
σφίσι δύναμις ἐκ θεῶν ποριζομένη θυσίαις τε καὶ ἐπῳδαῖς, εἴτε τι ἀδίκημά
του γέγονεν αὐτοῦ ἢ προγόνων, ἀκεῖσθαι μεθ᾽ ἡδονῶν τε καὶ ἑορτῶν, ἐάν τέ
τινα ἐχθρὸν πημῆναι ἐθέλῃ, μετὰ σμικρῶν δαπανῶν ὁμοίως δίκαιον ἀδίκῳ
βλάψει ἐπαγωγαῖς τισιν καὶ καταδέσμοις, τοὺς θεούς, ὥς φασιν, πείθοντές
σφισιν ὑπηρετεῖν.
(Pl. Resp. 364b-c)
Beggar priests and seers go to the doors of the rich and persuade them that
through sacrifices and incantations a power is provided them from the gods,
either to remedy his own or his ancestors’ misdeeds through feasts and
enjoyment, and if he wants to hurt an enemy, just or unjust, for little expense
through spells and binding curses he will do him harm, making, they say, the
gods their assistants.
The subjects of this passage are described as ‘ἀγύρται and μάντεις’, which
might mean two different groups or might be two words for the same group.
We have seen in the preceding section that μάντις was a respectable
description whose functions of advising armies and states by inspection of
74
There is a reference in comedy to unlimited wine in the underworld (here, oddly,
Tartarus); Pherecrates fr. 113 K.-A. = OF432 (cf. Ar. fr. 504 K.-A.). This is discussed by
Ferrari (2011c: 98-103), though his conclusion that wine would not be enjoyed by initiates
after death seems influenced by his assumptions that initiates are Orphic and Orphics are
ascetic. Edmonds suggests a reading of gold leaf B1 in which the fortunate soul will
celebrate (ἀνάξεις) festivals (Edmonds 2011c).
75
Sieve: Pl. Grg. 492e-493c; mud: Pl. Phd. 69c-d, D.L. 6.2.39 = OF435, Ar. Ran. 145-51
(dung). See Graf 1974: 103-7, Fabiano 2010.
37
1/4:
Beggar priests
entrails and the flight of birds are very different to what is described here. The
likely explanation is that the ἀγύρται and μάντεις are the same people,
ἀγύρτης being a hostile description and the more prestigious μάντις what they
preferred to call themselves. Cassandra in Aeschylus says she has been called
an ἀγύρτρια (Ag. 1273) and a pretended μάντις (ψευδόμαντις, Ag. 1195) who
knocks at doors (θυροκόπος, Ag. 1195).76
Two things are offered by them, obviously for money as it is the rich they
target. The first is a painless method of freeing their clients from the
consequences of their own and their forbears’ unjust deeds. We are not told
here what these consequences might be, or whether they relate to this world
or to the afterlife. The second is the use of spells and curses to injure their
enemies, the kind of activity we have identified as characteristic of the γόης.
After quoting passages from Hesiod and Homer that he says these
practitioners use to support their case, Adeimantus proceeds as follows:
βίβλων δὲ ὅμαδον παρέχονται Μουσαίου καὶ Ὀρφέως, Σελήνης τε καὶ
Μουσῶν ἐκγόνων, ὥς φασι, καθ᾽ ἃς θυηπολοῦσιν, πείθοντες οὐ μόνον
ἰδιώτας ἀλλὰ καὶ πόλεις, ὡς ἄρα λύσεις τε καὶ καθαρμοὶ ἀδικημάτων διὰ
θυσιῶν καὶ παιδιᾶς ἡδονῶν εἰσι μὲν ἔτι ζῶσιν, εἰσὶ δὲ καὶ τελευτήσασιν, ἃς
δὴ τελετὰς καλοῦσιν, αἳ τῶν ἐκεῖ κακῶν ἀπολύουσιν ἡμᾶς, μὴ θύσαντας δὲ
δεινὰ περιμένει.
(Pl. Resp. 364e-365a)
And they supply a din of books of Musaeus and Orpheus, descendants of the
moon and the Muses, as they say, according to which they sacrifice,
persuading not only individuals but even cities that there are releases and
purifications for misdeeds through sacrifices and childish pleasures, when
they are still living and also when they are dead, which rites they call τελεταί,
which free us from the evils there, while terrible things await those who do
not sacrifice.
76
Dickie 2001: 63-4. See also section 3 above on alternative names for these practitioners.
38
1/4:
Beggar priests
Are these people with the books still the same as the beggar priests and seers
referred to in the earlier section? Linforth, followed by Andueza Pérez,
thought they must be different.77 They seem to have been influenced,
however, by a feeling that the spiritual followers of Orpheus cannot have been
the same as the low-life peddlers of curses. There is in fact nothing to show
that they are different, and indeed they are both described in quite similar
terms as offering remedies for misdeeds (ἀδίκημα) that are pleasurable
(ἡδονῶν).78 Quite likely Plato is presenting a composite picture combining
everything that these itinerant practitioners might offer, but there is nothing
to indicate that the same person might not have both curse tablets and some
kind of books.
It is not clear exactly what would be in the books, or what is meant by saying
that they sacrifice according to them (καθ᾽ ἃς θυηπολοῦσιν).79 They may be
mythological texts like that commented on in the Derveni Papyrus, 80 but it is
difficult to see how this could be a guide to liturgical procedure. The more
miscellaneous content of something like the Gurôb Papyrus81 might seem
more likely, but we can only guess. The reference to purifications (καθαρμοὶ)
and the extension from individuals to cities would seem to include καθαρταί
and figures like Epimenides, the purifier of Athens.82 Presumably the purifiers
77
Linforth 1941: 90-1, Andueza Pérez 2010: 363-4.
78
Linforth: 1941: 80, Andueza Pérez 2010: 366-71.
79
Linforth 1941: 79.
80
Below Chapter Seven section 5.
81
Chapter Three section 10.
82
Cf. a Hippocratic reference to those who interpret dreams that foretell good and bad to
either cities or individuals (προσημαίνει ἢ πόλεσιν ἢ ἰδιώτῃσιν ἢ κακὰ ἢ ἀγαθὰ, Vict. 4.87).
39
1/4:
Beggar priests
of cities did not get custom by going round knocking on doors, which confirms
that this is a composite picture.
It is now made explicit that the purpose of these expiations is to secure a better
fate in the afterlife, which must certainly be the meaning of ‘there’ (ἐκεῖ).
Terrible things (δεινά) await everyone else. There is a dubious etymology in
the Platonic manner83 implied between τελευτήσασιν, the dead, and τελετὰς,
rites or initiations.84 The phrase εἰσι μὲν ἔτι ζῶσιν, εἰσὶ δὲ καὶ τελευτήσασιν,
‘either still living or also dead’, is ambiguous: it may mean (a) that the same
persons benefit both before and after death, or (b) that even those who are
already dead can be saved posthumously by their descendants. 85
The
conclusion, however, that ‘terrible things await those who do not sacrifice’ (μὴ
θύσαντας δὲ δεινὰ περιμένει), refers only to the fate of those actually
sacrificing, which makes (a) seem more likely.
What relation does this hold to the earlier account (363c-d) of a better fate
after death offered by Musaeus? That reserved this better fate to the just;
here by contrast it is available to anyone for a suitable fee. They may be
variant versions offered by different people. It would be difficult, however, to
see what the role of the practitioner with the book might be in the first version,
where the just benefited; it would be simply up to you to live a good and
virtuous life. Plato, as we shall see when we discuss metempsychosis, 86 does
tend to project his own concern with justice into his references to these
matters, so perhaps he has introduced it here too and therefore the initiation
83
Chapter Five section 6 below.
84
Section 5 below for further discussion of this term.
85
For (a): Linforth 1941: 80-2, Guthrie 1952: 214-25, Edmonds 2013b: 214-15n50. For (b):
Rohde 1925: 358-9n66, Johnston 1999: 53-4, Graf 2011: 61-2.
86
Chapter Five section 4.
40
1/4:
Beggar priests
version is the more authentic one. The connection with justice in the first
version would also be necessary to fit in with Adeimantus’ argument at that
point about the popular reasons for being just.
Can we at least identify the persons offering this as being called ἀγύρται? We
do not know a great deal about this group from other sources. 87 The word is
derived from ἀγείρω, to collect; Odysseus is said in Homer to collect wealth
(χρήματ’ ἀγυρτάζειν, Od. 19.284). There are few extant references to ἀγύρται
in the classical period apart from this in Plato, and all stress their poverty and
low status. They are wretched starving beggars (πτωχὸς τάλαινα λινοθνὴς,
Aesch. Ag. 1274), deceitful (δόλιον, Soph. OT 388), dressed like beggars
(πτωικὴν ἔχων στολὴν, [Eur.] Rhes. 503), with squalid dirty heads
(ψαφαρόχρουν κάρα πολυπινές, [Eur.] Rhes. 716), and are associated with
μάγοι and καθάρται and vagrant charlatans (ἀλαζόνες, Hippoc. Morb. sacr. 1).
Aristotle contrasts them with the torch-bearer of Eleusis: both have to do with
the gods, but the torch-bearer is honourable, the other dishonourable (ἄμφω
γὰρ περὶ θεόν, ἀλλὰ τὸ μὲν τίμιον τὸ δὲ ἄτιμον, Rh. 1405a). They are the butt
of the comic poets.88 An anecdote is told of the tyrant Dionysius of Syracuse
ending his days as one of these, clearly representing the ultimate
degradation.89
As time went by, the ἁγύρτης came to be identified with one particular cult as
the eunuch priest of Cybele, the Mother goddess, often with the term
μητραγύρτης or μηναγύρτης, or in Latin gallus.90
87
They also had a low
Eidinow 2017: 256-60 surveys the use of the term in Greek.
Cratinus fr. 62, Eubulus fr. 57, and ‘Αγύρτης or a variant as titles of plays by Antiphanes,
Philemon and Menander.
88
89
Clearchus fr. 47 Wehrli = Ath. 541e (12.58) = FHG II 307; Dickie 2001: 64.
90
Roller 1999: 163-8, 229-32, Dickie 2001: 64, Martín Hernandez 2006: 79-81.
41
1/4:
Beggar priests
reputation.91 These eunuch priests are not clearly attested before the fourth
century,92 though Cratinus in the fifth century refers to an ἀγερσικύβηλις,
which seems to be a pun on Κυβέλη, Cybele, and κύβηλις, axe (fr. 62).
Can we say then that the private initiators were known as ἀγύρται, or was this
just a term of abuse attached to them by Plato? The following considerations
seem relevant:
(a) The term is only used once by Plato in what is a fairly extended passage. I
have already observed that his account seems to be a composite picture,
combining the activities of a number of different people.
(b) There is no connection with initiation made in any of the other extant
references of the period.
(c) The name seems clearly to imply that they lived by begging, whereas the
initiators charged fees for their services.
(d) It would seem surprising that the rich might be convinced to trust
practitioners who are universally described as dirty, ragged and disreputable.
(e) Plato is clearly hostile to the people he describes, and might well have used
a term of abuse.
The balance of probability, therefore, must be that ἀγύρτης is only used as a
derogatory term, and has no particular connection to initiators.
91
See e.g. Anth. Pal. 6.217-20, 234, 237.
92
Roller 1999: 163-8.
42
1/4:
Beggar priests
What we have learnt from this passage, however, is that there were indeed
initiators, whatever they were called, who offered for a fee to procure for their
clients a better fate in the next life: ‘releases and purifications for misdeeds
through sacrifices and childish pleasures, when they are still living and also
when they are dead, which rites they call τελεταί, which free us from the evils
there, while terrible things await those who do not sacrifice’. They backed up
their claims by writings ascribed to legendary figures. It may be that in some
cases the better fate was specified as a pleasant and civilised symposium, and
the worse as lying in mud or carrying water in a sieve.
43
1/5:
5:
Orphic initiators
Orphic initiators
A name frequently met with in scholarship for these private initiators is
Orpheotelest or orpheotelestes (Ὀρφεοτελεστής), ‘celebrator of Orphic rites’,
or as it is sometimes rendered, ‘Orphic initiator’.
Some representative
quotations:
‘These professional initiators ... had a special name from their calling,
Orpheotelestai.’ (Guthrie)93
‘Los oficiantes mistéricos, a los que de forma convencional denominamos
orfeotelestas’ (Jiménez San Cristóbal)94
‘Perhaps some orpheotelestai had ready-made bundles of these [gold
tablets] to hand out to those who had paid to be initiated.’ (Johnston)95
‘[T]he word Ὀρφεοτελεστής is virtually a technical term ... a term of art
used by erudite ancient “historians of religion”’ (Bernabé)96
It may therefore come as a surprise to learn that the word is only attested
three times in surviving Greek literature, and is only clearly linked to initiation
in one case, of doubtful date.97 We need to examine what it might mean in
more detail.
A τελεστής is someone who performs a τελετή, which has been traditionally
defined as a ‘rite, esp. initiation into the mysteries’ (LSJ s.v. τελετή). The
93
Guthrie 1952: 202.
94
Jiménez San Cristóbal 2008: 771.
95
Graf and Johnston 2013: 135.
96
Bernabé 2014: 36, repeating Bernabé 2006: 106.
97
Bernabé 2006: 106-8 collects the evidence.
44
1/5:
Orphic initiators
comprehensive survey of the use of the term by Zijderveld and Schuddeboom
has, however, shown that the picture is a little more complicated than that. 98
In the words of Aristotle, ‘the mysteries are the most honoured rite of all’ (τὰ
γὰρ μυστήρια πασῶν τιμωτάτη τελετή, Rh. 1401a15), indicating that while the
term was certainly applied to initiation, it was also applied to a range of other
rites. The derivation appears to be from τελέω, ‘to perform, fulfil’. It could be
used, for example, of the Olympic Games (Pind. Ol. 10.53) or the Panathenaia
(Pind. Pyth. 9.97) or the Anthesteria (Eur. IT 959) or the Adonia (Ar. Pax 41920), as well as of Eleusis (Isoc. Paneg. 28). In later times, however, after the
classical period, the meaning became restricted to ceremonies of a special
nature, often secret, symbolical or magical.99
I shall discuss the question of Orphism in more detail in the next chapter.100
We have seen that Plato’s initiators who knock at rich men’s doors might have
books ascribed to Orpheus, though we do not know their content. Burkert
identifies as one of the meanings of ‘Orphic’ (Ὀρφικοί), someone who
performs the Orphic mysteries (οἱ τὰ Ὀρφικὰ μυστήρια τελοῦντες, Ach. Tat.
Comm. Arat.17.11 Di Maria = OF114), but the only source he cites is of the
Imperial period.101 It certainly cannot be assumed in advance that any
reference to Orpheus ipso facto identifies the context as concerned with
initiation.
The first of the three occurrences of Ὀρφεοτελεσταί comes in the Characters
of Theophrastus. Theophrastus was a pupil of Aristotle, and his Characters are
a mildly satirical treatment of various types of person in contemporary
98
Schuddeboom 2009. See also Clinton 2003: 53-8.
99
Schuddeboom 2009: 36-7, 99.
100
Chapter Two section 6.
101
Burkert 1982: 3-4.
45
1/5:
Orphic initiators
Athenian society, among whom is the superstitious man (δεισιδαίμων).102 He
starts the day by washing in three springs and sprinkling himself with holy
water, he throws three stones on the road if a weasel crosses his path, and so
on. He consults multiple religious experts (ἐξηγηταί, ὀνειροκρίται, μάντεις,
ὀρνιθοσκόποι) not only about his dreams, but also if a mouse nibbles through
his grain sack. In addition,
καὶ τελεσθησόμενος πρὸς τοὺς Ὀρφεοτελεστὰς κατὰ μῆνα πορεύεσθαι
μετὰ τῆς γυναικὸς (ἐὰν δὲ μὴ σχολάζῃ ἡ γυνή, μετὰ τῆς τίτθης) καὶ τῶν
παίδων.
(Theophr. Char. 16.12-13 = OF654)
He will go monthly to the celebrators of Orphic rites to take part in their
ceremonies, with his wife (or if she is busy, the nurse) and children.
This passage has puzzled those who assume that it must mean that he is going
to be initiated, as initiation is a one-off process, not something that could
happen every month. Explanations include that this is meant as extreme
ridicule, that he just went to prepare for the actual ceremony, like a Christian
convert preparing for catechism, or that the Ὀρφεοτελεσταί devised some
fresh ceremony each time to take his money.103 Theophrastus, however, while
gently exaggerating, does not usually suggest anything very far from reality,
and this does not at all explain why he takes the family along. The obvious
solution is that this does not relate to initiation at all, but to some other kind
of rite, of what kind is not clear. It is Orphic either because it too used writings
ascribed to Orpheus as an authority, or simply because Orpheus was credited
with founding all kinds of τελεταί.104
102
Char. 16; Diggle 2004, Bowden 2008.
103
Ussher 1993 ad loc, Diggle 2004 ad loc, Nodar Domínguez 2011, Betegh 2014: 159.
Ὀπφεὺς μὲν γὰρ τελετὰς θ’ ἡμῖν κατέδειξε, Ar. Ran. 1032 = OF510, 547, 626. Cf. Linforth
1941: 102-4, who suggests it may be meant to indicate a private, unofficial rite.
104
46
1/5:
Orphic initiators
The next instance of the word comes in a fragment of Philodemus, in the first
century BC.
ὀλίγον λόγον οὗτος, Ὀρφεοτελεστοῦ τυμπάνωι καὶ παιδαγωγοῦ καλαμίδι
προσθεὶς ὅτι “δεῖ τὸ͙ν͙ ψευδορήμονα μὴ ξενόσ[τ]ομα μόνον ἐγλέγειν, ἀλλὰ
<καὶ> κάλλιστα,
(Phld. fr. 181 = OF655)
He has little reason to add with the tumpanon of an Orpheotelest and the pen
of a schoolteacher that false words should not be chosen for their strange
sound alone, but the most beautiful.
The point of the comparison, from the author’s Περὶ ποημάτων, is perhaps just
that the sound of this Orpheotelest was wild and exotic. All we really know of
him is that he had a kind of tambourine associated with the ecstatic rites of
Dionysus, Cybele and the Corybants.105 Whether this had anything to do with
initiation we cannot say, and in any case this is some time after our period.
There is no doubt about the third instance, which occurs in Plutarch:
Πρὸς δὲ Φίλιππον τὸν ὀρφεοτελεστὴν παντελῶς πτωχὸν ὄντα, λέγοντα δ’ ὅτι
οἱ παρ’ αὐτῷ μυηθέντες μετὰ τὴν τοῦ βίου τελευτὴν εὐδαιμονοῦσι, ‘τί οὖν,
ὦ ἀνόετε’ εἶπεν, ‘οὐ τὴν ταχίστην ἀποθνῄσκεις, ἵν’ ἅμα παύσῃ
κακοδαιμονίαν καὶ πενίαν κλαίων;’
(Plut. Apopth. Lacon. 224d = OF653)
To Philip the Orpheotelest, who was a complete beggar, but said that those
initiated by him were happy after the end of this life, [Leotychidas] said ‘Why
then, you fool, don’t you die as soon as possible so that you may at the same
time stop bewailing your ill fortune and poverty?’
‘Tumpana, inventions of my mother Rhea [= Cybele] and myself [Dionysus]’ (τύμπανα,
Ῥέας τε μητρὸς ἐμά θ᾽ εὑρήματα, Eur. Bacch. 59), ‘after that he was given Corybantic rites,
but took their tumpanon’ (μετὰ τοῦτ᾽ ἐκορυβάντιζ᾽, ὁ δ᾽ αὐτῷ τυμπάνῳ ᾁξας, Ar. Vesp. 11);
Edmonds 2013b: 204-5.
105
47
1/5:
Orphic initiators
Obviously we do have here an Orphic initiator. The problem is to establish the
date. This is clearly a floating anecdote here attached to Leotychidas, as is
proved by a later version in Diogenes Laertius (D.L. 6.1.4) where a similar
remark is credited to Antisthenes when being initiated into Orphic mysteries
(μυόμενος ποτε τὰ Ὀρφικὰ) by someone described just as a priest (τοῦ
ἱερέως). The anecdote might date from any time before Plutarch (late first to
early second century AD), and the term ὀρφεοτελεστής might even have been
introduced by Plutarch himself when retelling the story. As I noted above,
τελετή after the classical period took on a more restricted meaning connected
to secret rites.
The case for considering Orpheotelest as the distinctive name for private
initiators in the classical period can therefore be summarised as follows. The
term occurs once during, or shortly after, the period, when it appears not to
have referred to initiation. It subsequently occurs at an uncertain date which
may have been some centuries later, when it did refer to initiation. I think that
we must conclude that in this sense it is a chimaera of modern scholarship,
and that the term should no longer be used.
48
1/6:
6:
Magi
Magi
The third group that has been identified with the private initiators is the magi,
who appear in the Derveni Papyrus, which is usually, and as I shall argue,
rightly, connected with initiation. This document refers to ‘the incantations of
the magi’ (ἐπωιδὴ δἐ μάγων, VI.2) and says that ‘the magi make offerings’ (τὴν
θυσίαν ... ποιοῦσιν οἱ μάγοι, VI.4-5) and that initiates make offerings ‘in the
same way the magi do’ (κατὰ τὰ αὐτὰ μάγοις, VI.8-9). Before examining the
much-debated question of what the term signifies in the Derveni text, I shall
outline what it means in other contexts of the period.106 Unfortunately, it has
two fairly distinct meanings, neither of which seems at first sight appropriate
in this case.
The first meaning is that of an Iranian priest, from the Old Persian magu-,
‘priest’.107 It is from Herodotus that we learn most about them. They chant
theogonies at sacrifices (1.1.32),108 supervise burials at which the corpse is first
mangled by a bird or dog (1.140), kill all kinds of animals except dogs and men
(1.1.40), make libations of wine (7.43), quell storms with spells (γόησι) (7.191)
and interpret dreams (1.107, 7.19) and portents (7.37). Xenophon describes
them as religious experts (οϊ περὶ τοὺς θεοὺς τεχνίται, Cyr. 8.3.11).
106
For general surveys, see Nock 1972, De Jong 1997: 387-403, Graf 1997: 20-35, Bremmer
1999a, Martín Hernandez 2006: 60-72, Calvo Martínez 2007.
107
De Jong 1997: 389.
108
Bernabé 2006: 105 suggest that they actually sang a hymn, and that the theogony is
Herodotus’ projection of Orphic practice on to the Persians.
49
1/6:
Magi
Herodotus lists the Magi (Μάγοι) as one of the six tribes of the Medes (1.101),
but there is not much other evidence for a Median origin.109 Diogenes Laertius
says that Zoroaster was the first magus (τῶν Μάγων, ὧν ἄρξαι Ζωροάστρην
τὸν Πέρσην, D.L. 1.2), citing the Lydian historian Xanthus in support. A pseudoPlatonic dialogue also connects them with Zoroaster (ὁ μὲν μαγείαν τε
διδάσκει τὴν Ζωροάστρου τοῦ Ὡρομάζου, Alc. 1 122a). The Herodotean magi
seem to conform to Zoroastrian practices such as the exposure of the dead,
the killing of noxious animals (xrafstras) and reverence for the dog.110 In the
Hellenistic period the term came to be used more widely for non-Iranians.111
The second meaning of magus is very different, being applied to Greeks not
foreigners and being decidedly pejorative. In Sophocles, Oedipus insults
Tiresias as a magus and a plotter (μάγον τοιόνδε μηχανορράφον, OT 387),
while in Euripides Helen vanishes through their tricks (μάγων τέχναισιν, Or.
1497-8), Iphigeneia is described as singing barbarous songs like a magus
(μαγεύουσ’, IT 1337), and their spells (μαγεύμασι, Supp. 1110) are used to try
and prolong life. Plato calls those who corrupt the young ‘terrible magi’ (οἱ
δεινοὶ μάγοι, Resp. 572e) and connects their art with antidotes to drugs and
spells (τὴν μαγευτικὴν τὴν περὶ τὰ ἀλεξιφάρμακα, Plt. 280e); a scholiast to
Aristophanes also has a magus using incantations to produce rings to protect
against charms (ἐπαοιδαῖς καὶ τέχναις τισὶ δακτυλίους ἀντιφαρμάκους
εἰργάζετο, schol. Plut. 883). They sound, in fact, rather like the γόης or
magician that we looked at earlier in this chapter,112 and the sophist Gorgias
does indeed make explicit that the arts of the γόης and the magus are similar
109
De Jong 1997: 391-2.
110
De Jong 1997: 393.
111
Nock 1972: 319-21.
112
Above, section 3.
50
1/6:
Magi
ways of deceiving the mind (γοητείας δὲ καὶ μαγείας δισσαὶ τέχναι εὕρηνται,
αἵ εἰσι ψυχῆς ἁμαρτήματα καὶ δόξης ἀπατήματα, Hel. fr. 11.10).
A meaning that is both positive in tone and referring to Greeks is hard to find.
The prime candidate is what appears to be a fragment of Heraclitus preserved
by Clement of Alexandria, a Christian theologian of the second and third
centuries AD. It is from the part of Clement’s Exhortation to the Greeks in
which he exposes what he claims to be the secrets of the mysteries, which
prove to be either bathetic or indecent. After scornfully recounting the
episode from a version of the Eleusis myth in which Baubo exposes her genitals
(‘a fine sight, and worthy of a goddess!’, καλά γε τὰ θεάματα καὶ θεᾷ
πρέποντα, Clem. Al. Protr. 2.21), he calls the Athenians and the other Greeks
feeble-minded (ματαιόφρονος) for believing such things, and goes on:
τίσι δὴ μαντεύεται Ἡράκλειτος ὁ Ἐφέσιος; νυκτιπόλοις, μάγοις, βάκχοις,
λήναις, μύσταις, τούτοις ἀπειλεῖ τὰ μετὰ θάνατον, τούτοις μαντεύεται τὸ
πῦρ· τὰ γὰρ νομιζόμενα κατὰ ἀνθρώπους μυστήρια ἀνιερωστὶ μυοῦνται.
(Clem. Al. Protr. 2.22)
To whom does Heraclitus the Ephesian prophesy? Night-walkers, magi,
Bacchi, maenads, initiates, he threatens these with what is after death and
prophesies the fire to them; for they are initiated in an unholy way into the
mysteries accepted among the people.
The words ‘νυκτιπόλοις, μάγοις, βάκχοις, λήναις, μύσταις’ have been the
cause of some controversy. They have often been taken as a direct quotation
from Heraclitus (DK22B14).113 νυκτιπόλοις, ‘night-walkers’, appears to be an
adjective generally describing the succeeding four groups. 114 If Heraclitus did
113
Bremmer 1999a: 2-3 and Calvo Martínez 2007: 306-8 summarise the debate with
bibliographical references to earlier work. See also Lloyd 1979: 12-13, Graf 1997: 21,
Bernabé 2006: 102, Martín Hernandez 2006: 64-5, Graf 2014: 79-80, Piano 2016: 219-22.
114
Martín Hernandez 2006: 64-5, Graf 2014: 79-80.
51
1/6:
Magi
refer to magi here, then we seem to have a use of the term from the late sixth
or early fifth century BC, earlier than anything else I cited above, placing them
in the company of generally respectable Greeks, even if they were not
approved of by Heraclitus. Bernabé, indeed, believes all four to be ‘términos
propios del mundo de los misterios órfico-dionisíacos’.115
Magus normally meant ‘magician’ at the time of Clement, but there is no
suggestion of magic here, which is in favour of the term belonging to Heraclitus
rather than Clement.116
There are, however, a number of grounds for
scepticism:
(a) It is not in fact clear that Clement is claiming this list as the actual words of
Heraclitus. Lloyd observes that as it is a list not a grammatical sentence, it
might be especially susceptible to interpolation and corruption. 117
(b)
Clement is a polemicist whose aim is to condemn and ridicule his
opponents rather than to report them accurately. As I note below, 118 his
account of the mysteries is confused and appears to be based on a secondhand compilation. There is no reason to suppose that he would have any
concern to transmit Heraclitus’ precise words.
(c) I shall try to demonstrate in a following chapter 119 that there is no real
evidence for Dionysiac mysteries before about the start of the fourth century,
115
Bernabé 2006: 102.
116
Graf 1997: 21.
117
Lloyd 1979: 12n18.
118
Chapter Seven section 5.
119
Chapter Three below.
52
1/6:
Magi
which means that a concatenation of Bacchoi and initiates a century earlier
would be something of an outlier.
(d) Ephesus was part of the Persian empire at the time of Heraclitus, which
suggests that he would have been familiar with Persian magi and unlikely to
have used the word for Greeks. He is also unlikely to have associated the
priests of Zoroastrianism, a religion in which light and fire were central, with
‘night-walkers’.120
(e) The words here grouped with magi, that is βάκχοι, λῆναι and μύσται
without further qualification, are not otherwise attested before at least the
late fifth century, λήναι not until Theocritus.121
On balance, then, I conclude that this use of the term magi is probably not that
of Heraclitus, and is more likely to be due to Clement or his immediate source.
The Hippocratic text On the sacred disease, which I shall discuss in the next
section, criticises the activities of ‘magi and purifiers and beggar priests and
roaming charlatans’ (μάγοι τε καὶ καθάρται καὶ ἀγύρται καὶ ἀλαζόνες, Morb.
sacr. 1 = OF657). Bernabé has suggested that the first two terms are neutral
technical ones, and the second two are the author’s explanation of what they
120
Calvo Martínez 2007: 306. Piano 2016: 219 (following Gershevitch 1964: 24-6) suggests
that the magi were not primarily Zoroastrians, but rather a kind of technical religious
expert available for hire; it seems clear, however, that whatever their origins they were at
this period closely associated with Zoroastrianism (De Jong 1997: 387-403, Choksy 2005:
9990).
βάκχοι Eur. Bacch. 491, λῆναι Theoc. Id. 26 tit. (but ληναïζουσιν in Heraclit. DK22B15,
also transmitted by Clement), μύσται P. Derv. VI, gold leaf B10; Bremmer 1999a: 2-3.
νυκτιπόλοι occurs in Aeschylus (fr. 273a.8 Radt).
121
53
1/6:
Magi
really are.122 This, however, is not obvious, and it seems more natural to take
the first two also as having a generally pejorative connotation.123
There is also no example from this period, apart from possibly the one we are
about to discuss, of anyone describing themselves as a magus. Later this did
occur in the magical papyri.124 Kingsley sees Empedocles as a magus,125 but
there is no evidence that he used the term himself. By the Imperial period,
several centuries later, some writers did try to redeem the term and
distinguish it from γόης; Diogenes Laertius says of the magi that ‘they do not
practice the magic of the sorcerers’ (τὴν δὲ γοητικὴν μαγείαν οὐδ᾽ ἔγνωσαν,
D.L. 1.8).126
To sum up, then, magus was used either as a positive term for Persian
Zoroastrian priests, or as a pejorative term for Greek magicians. It is doubtful
if we have any example of it being used in a positive sense of Greeks, and
certainly there is no attested case of anyone calling themselves a magus.
This takes us back to the Derveni Papyrus, with whose references to magi I
began this section. I shall treat the papyrus and its sixth column in more detail
122
Bernabé 2006: 103-4.
123
Graf 2014: 81 has proposed Theophrastus Hist. Pl. 9.15.7, where a plant identified with
the moly of Homer is used πρὸς τὰ ἀλεξιφάρμακα καὶ τὰς μαγείας, as an example of
mageia used positively for a healing plant. I think, however, that it only shows that the
plant was used in charms and spells. Hort’s Loeb translation (Hort 1916), ‘against spells
and magic arts’, takes πρὸς very awkwardly in a double sense, ‘for the purpose of’ and
‘against’, and should rather be ‘for antidotes to spells and for magic’ (Smyth 1956: 1695
3c), that is, for both offensive and defensive charms.
124
Nock 1972: 318.
125
Kingsley 1995: 217-32.
He cites a pseudo-Aristotelian Μαγικός (fr. 36) and Deinon; Graf 2014: 82. For similar
views, see Apollonius of Tyana Ep. 16 = OF8i8, Dio Chrysostom 36.41, Apuleius Apol. 27 =
OF819 and Cosmas Migne PG 38.491.
126
54
1/6:
in a subsequent chapter.127
Magi
Briefly, however, it mainly consists of an
anonymous philosophical commentary, possibly dating to the late fifth century
BC, on an old theogonic poem. In addition to this, the author also discusses
various religious practices, and in the sixth column we have the following
information on the magi:
(i) ‘The incantation of the magi is able to remove/change the hindering
daimons’ (ἐπωιδὴ δὲ μάγων δύναται δαίμονας ἐμποδὼν γινομένους
μεθιστάναι, P. Derv. VI.2-3),
(ii) ‘The magi make offerings, as if, as it were, paying an atonement’ (τὴν
θυσίαν ... ποιοῦσιν οἱ μάγοι, ὡσπερεὶ ποινὼν ἀποδιδόντες, P. Derv. VI. 4-5),
(iii) ‘They pour on the offerings water and milk, from which they also make
libations’ (τοῖς δὲ ἱεροῖς ἐπισπένδουσιν ὕδωρ καὶ γάλα, ἐξ ὧνπερ καὶ τὰς χοὰς
ποιοῦσι, P. Derv. VI.6-7),
(iv) ‘The cakes they offer are countless and many-knobbed, for the souls too
are countless’ (ἀνάριθμα καὶ πολυόμφαλα τὰ πόπανα θύουσιν ὅτι καὶ αἱ
ψυχαὶ ἀνάριθμοί εἰσι, P. Derv. VI.7-8),
(v) ‘The initiates make preliminary offerings to the Eumenides in the same way
the magi do’ (μύσται Εὐμενίσι προθύουσι κατὰ τὰ αὐτὰ μάγοις, P. Derv. VI.89).
They are therefore chanting incantations and making offerings of water, milk
and cakes, apparently to the souls of the dead, and possibly to the Eumenides,
depending on whether αύτὰ in (v) is read as applying to the powers offered to
as well as to the manner of the offering. In the light of our previous
127
Chapter Seven section 5.
55
1/6:
Magi
conclusions on the use of the term magus this raises a number of questions.
Are these magi Persian or Greek? Does the author approve of them? Is he
one himself?
Scholars have not been unanimous in their answers to these questions.
Tsantsanoglou argues that they are Iranians, as the term is never used of
Greeks except pejoratively; even if they were an unattested class of Greek
magi, he believes that they would have imported Iranian beliefs and practices
and so be much the same thing.128 Ferrari also emphasises their Iranian
roots,129 while Bremmer thinks them Medes who migrated to Greece and
became assimilated.130 Calvo Martínez agrees that they are Persian, but
maintains they are just put forward as examples with which to compare the
initiates.131 Jourdan suggests that the author may be exploiting the ambiguity
and playing with both meanings, the positive Persian and negative Greek, but
thinks that his own attitude to them is negative, as they cannot really do what
they pretend to do.132 Janko also considers the author, who is, he believes, a
rationalist, to take a critical stance, and that they are more likely to be
Greek.133 Piano thinks their demonology and ritual primarily Greek, and that
they are perhaps hellenised magi who have adapted Iranian beliefs to the local
Greek context.134 Graf proposes that they are Greeks who had been active in
the East and appropriated the Persian title for themselves. 135 Edmonds, too,
128
Tsantsanoglou 1997: 110n25.
129
Ferrari 2011b.
130
Bremmer 2002: 19.
131
Calvo Martínez 2007: 310-13.
132
Jourdan 2003: 38.
133
Janko 2008: 47.
134
Piano 2016: 239-41.
135
Graf 2014: 83.
56
1/6:
Magi
agrees that they are Greek and presented in a positive light as experts, though
not as expert as the author himself, who is not one of them.136 Betegh,
however, does think that our author would identify as a magus.137
The diversity of opinion in this survey, which I do not claim to be
comprehensive, perhaps indicates that we do not have enough evidence to
determine the matter. Nevertheless, I believe that a few tentative conclusions
can be drawn.
There is some evidence which might suggest that Persian magi visited
Greece.138 Aristotle is said by Diogenes Laertius to have described a Syrian
magus in Athens meeting Socrates (μάγον τινὰ ἐλθόντα ἐκ Συρίας εἰς Ἀθήνας,
Arist. fr. 32 = D.L. 2.45), a Chaldaean was a guest-friend of Plato (Π̣λάτων ξένον
ὑπεδέξατο Χαλδαῖον, Philodemos Σύνταξις τῶν φιλοσόφων (P. Herc. 164,
1021) III.15.), a Persian erected a statue of Plato in the Academy (D.L. 3.25)
and some magi happened to be at Athens when he died (magi, qui forte
Athenis erant, Sen. Ep. 58.31). Even, however, if these stories are true, and
not simply later attempts to connect Plato with Eastern wisdom, there may be
a suspicion that these Persians, Syrians, Chaldaeans and magi may all just be
vague descriptions of some kind of wise man from the East.
There may seem a certain improbability in supposing the presence in Greek
lands of the hereditary practitioners of an alien religion of fire sacrifice. In fact,
what we are told of the Derveni magi does not correspond to what we know
136
Edmonds 2008: 35.
137
Betegh 2004: 78-83.
138
Tsantsanoglou 2008: 37.
57
1/6:
Magi
of the Iranians.139 The divine powers mentioned, Erinyes and Eumenides, are
Greek, and it is difficult to equate them with the Persian artavan, who are not
revenge daimons.140 Water libations are not known in the Iranian cult, and the
many-knobbed cakes are also Greek.141 I think the best formulation is that
these are essentially Greek practitioners of Greek religion. Whether they have
just borrowed the name of magus as a prestigious title, or whether they were
originally influenced by the Persians, or whether indeed they are themselves
wandering Persians who have now changed their tenets and practices to Greek
ones, we do not know.
There is no sign of a hostile attitude to the magi in the author’s account. Taking
a different view, Jourdan interprets the conjunction ὡσπερεί in (iii) above,
referring to the offerings of the magi, and translated by her as ‘comme si’, as
implying that the writer believes that the rites described do not really work,
and that the magi are just deceiving the initiates; in contrast, after line 10 the
writer puts forward the genuine rites.142 ὡσπερεί, however, is commonly used
not to imply scepticism but rather to give as close an approximation as possible
to something difficult to describe.143 Also, there is nothing to show that two
139
Bremmer 1999a: 8, Bernabé 2006: 104-5, Tsantsanoglou 2008: 35, Ferrari 2011b: 80-2,
Piano 2016: 225-37, Bremmer 2019 (forthcoming).
140
Ferrari 2011b: 81. Ahmadi 2014 suggests that the hindering daimons, who are not the
Erinyes, are the Iranian daēvas. On the Erinyes and Eumenides in the Derveni Papyrus, see
below Chapter Eight section 8.
141
Ferrari 2011b: 81, refuting Russell 2001: 54-5.
142
Jourdan 2003: 38-9.
E.g.: ἀεὶ ἀνταποδιδοίη τὰ ἕτερα τοῖς ἑτέροις γιγνόμενα, ὡσπερεὶ κύκλῳ περιιόντα,
‘always returning from one to the other, as if going in a circle’, Pl. Phd. 72b; ὡσπερεὶ ὑπὸ
ἀγαθοῦ πύκτου πληγείς, ἐσκοτώθην, ‘blinded as if struck by a good boxer’, Pl. Prt. 339e.
Cf. Denniston 1950: 490.
143
58
1/6:
Magi
sets of rites are being described, or that the author is moving from ones he
disapproves to ones he approves.144
Janko and Laks approach the matter from a different perspective, seeing the
author as a rationalist who is concerned here only to explain away
superstition.145 I do not think this view is sustainable. He regards Orpheus as
a divine authority, if one needing interpretation.146 He states clearly that the
Eumenides are souls (Εὐμενίδες γὰρ ψυχαί εἰσιν, VI.9-10) and that
incantations are effective against hindering daimons (ἐπωιδὴ δὲ μάγων
δύναται δαίμονας ἐμποδὼν γινομένους μεθιστάναι, VI.2-3), so he is a believer
in a world of divine or semi-divine beings.
There is further evidence in the preceding column of the papyrus, where we
read:
χρη[στη]ριαζομ[
].ο̣ι̣.ε̣[
χ̣ρη
̣ σ̣[τ]ηρ̣ιάζον[ται
].[ . ]. . . . . .[ . . ]ι
αὐ̣τοῖς πάριμεν̣ [εἰς τὸ μα]ν̣τεῖον ἐπερ̣[ω]τ̣ήσ̣[οντες,]
τῶν μαντευομένω̣ν̣ [ἕν]εκεν, εἰ θέμι[ . . . ] . . η̣δα
̣ ̣[
ἐν ᾍδου δεινὰ τί ἀπ̣ιστοῦσι; οὐ γινώσ̣[κοντες ἐ]ν̣ύ̣πνια
ο̣ὐδὲ τῶν ἄλλων πρ̣αγμάτων ἕκαστ̣[ον], δ̣ιὰ ποίω̣ν ἂν
π̣α̣ρα
̣ δ
̣ ειγμάτων π̣[ι]στεύοιεν;
(P. Derv. V.2-8) 147
... consult an oracle ... they consult an oracle ... we go with them to the oracle
144
KPT: 168-9.
145
Laks 1997: 125-6, Janko 2001: 2.
146
Piano 2016: 129.
See Appendix: The Derveni Papyrus: a note on the text. I have adopted Janko’s
correction of KPT’s ἆρ’ to ἐν (l. 6), accepted by Tsantsanoglou 2018: 15-16.
147
59
1/6:
Magi
to ask about the oracular questions if it is lawful ... Why do they not believe
the horrors in Hades? Not knowing dreams or each of the other things,
through what examples would they believe?
I follow Janko and Jourdan in taking μαντευομένων as passive (‘objects of
consultation’), 148 but Tsantsanoglou takes it as middle (‘those consulting for
themselves’) and translates ‘for them we enter the oracle in order to ask, with
regard to those seeking a divination, whether it is proper’.149 In this case,
however, we would expect ὑπέρ, ‘on behalf of’, rather than ἕνεκεν, ‘on
account of’. Alternatively, Johnston suggests that this is a kind of generalising
‘we’ referring to all humans, which is possible.150
Janko originally proposed that this is not an actual consultation at all, but that
the author is mocking those who believe in the terrors of Hades, which are
incredible to his rational mind, and ironically offering to consult an oracle on
their behalf about this.151 He punctuates V.4-6 with a stop after δεινά:
αὐτοῖς πάριμεν̣ [εἰς τὸ μα]ντεῖον ἐπερ[ω]τήσ[οντες,]
τῶμ μαντευομέν[ων ἕν]εκεν, εἰ θέμι[ς ἀπιστ]ῆ̣σ̣α[̣ ι]
ἄν Ἅιδου δεινά. τί ἀ[πισ]τοῦσι;
(P. Derv. V.4-6)
for them we will enter the prophetic shrine to enquire, with regard to the
things that are prophesied, whether it is right if one were to disbelieve in the
terrors of Hades. Why do they disbelieve?’
148
Janko 2001: 20n84, Jourdan 2003 ad loc.
149
KPT ad loc. See also Tsantsanoglou 2014: 5, Tsantsanoglou 2018: 15-16 for alternatives.
150
Johnston 2014: 89-91.
151
Janko 2008: 38, 51.
60
1/6:
Magi
This interpretation is determined by Janko’s preconceived view of the author
as a sceptical and rationalist philosopher. I do not quite follow the logic of
even a mocking offer to consult an oracle in this case, and I can see no support
in the text for any suggestion of a derisive or sceptical attitude.
In his latest contribution152 he modifies this to change the end of line 5 to εἰ
θεμί[τ’ ἐσ]τ̣ὶν̣ καὶ̣ τὰ, now translating ‘to ask, with regard to what is prophesied,
whether the terrors in Hades too are divinely sanctioned’. This seems to imply
an actual consultation, though he expects the oracle to claim, wrongly, that
the terrors do exist, which he believes still implies a sceptical tone on the part
of our author. I am not sure that I entirely understand either his translation or
his explanation. It is not plausible that the oracle was actually being asked if it
is right to believe in the terrors of Hades.153 There are no other examples in
this period of oracles being asked this kind of question.154
Dreams can, according to the author, be used as evidence for the terrors of
Hades, as can also other things (πραγμάτων), which may refer to tangible signs
sent by the gods, such as natural phenomena.155 It seems clear that the author
is claiming to interpret dreams correctly, possibly using the same interpretive
techniques as in his commentary on the theogony.156
The author is therefore involved in the consultation of oracles and the
interpretation of dreams, and believes in the horrors of Hades, which further
confirms that he is not a sceptical rationalist opposed to the magi. In fact, he
152
Janko 2016b: 19.
153
As read by Janko 2008: 50, Ferrari 2011b: 74.
154
Jourdan 2003 ad loc, KPT ad loc, Johnston 2014: 93-4.
155
Jourdan 2003 ad loc.
156
Most 1997: 120, Janko 2001: 19n82, Jourdan 2003 ad loc, Bernabé 2014: 27-8.
61
1/6:
Magi
is beginning to sound rather like a magus himself. Here we can bring in a
further piece of evidence, from the twentieth column, where the author
breaks off his commentary to make the following remarks:
ἀνθρώπω[ν ἐν] πόλεσιν ἐπιτ̣ελέσαντες [τὰ ἱ]ε̣ρὰ εἶδον,
ἔλασσόν σφας θαυμάζω μὴ γι̣νώσκειν· οὐ γὰρ οἷόν τε
ἀκοῦσαι ὁμοῦ καὶ μαθεῖν τὰ λ̣εγόμενα· ὅσοι δὲ παρὰ τοῦ
τέχνην ποιουμένου τὰ ἱερά, οὗτοι ἄξιοι θαυμάζεσθαι
καὶ οἰκτε[ί]ρεσθαι· θαυμάζεσθαι μὲν ὅτι δ̣οκοῦντες
πρότερον ἢ ἐπιτελέσαι εἰδήσειν ἀπέρχονται ἐπι–
τελέσαντες πρὶν εἰδέναι οὐδ' ἐπανερόμενοι ὥσπερ
ὡς εἰδότες τ̣έω
̣ ν εἶδον ἢ ἤκουσαν ἢ ἔμαθον· [οἰ]κτε[ί]ρεσθαι δὲ
ὅτι οὐκ ἀρκεῖ̣ σφιν τὴν δαπάνην προανηλῶσ̣θαι, ἀλλὰ
____ καὶ τῆς̣ γνώμης στερόμενοι πρὸς ἀπέρχοντ̣αι,
πρὶν μὲν τὰ [ἱ]ε̣ρὰ ἐπιτελέσαι ἐλπίζον̣[τε]ς εἰδήσειν,
ἐπ[ιτελέσ]α̣ντ̣[ες] δ̣ὲ στερηθέντες κα̣[ὶ τῆς] ἐλπί[δος] ἀπέρχονται̣.
____ τω̣[ c.10
].υοντ[...] λ̣όγος̣..[...]ται̣[..].να
.[
].ι τῆι ἑαυ̣τ̣οῦ
̣ ο..[
μ]ητρὶ μὲν
]δ' ἀδελφη[
]ωcειδε
]..[
(P. Derv. XX)
[As for those men who believe that they learned] when they witnessed the
rites while performing them [together with other] people in the cities, I
wonder less that they do not understand; for it is not possible to hear and
simultaneously comprehend what is being said. But those (who believe that
they learned) from someone who makes a profession of the rites deserve to
be wondered at and pitied: wondered at because, although they believe
before they perform the rites that they will learn, they go away after
performing them before having learned, without even asking further
questions, as if they knew something of what they saw or heard or were
taught; and pitied because it is not enough for them that they paid the fee in
advance – they also go away devoid even of their belief. Before they perform
the rites expecting to acquire knowledge, but after performing them they go
away devoid even of expectation. ... account ... to his own ... mother ... sister
...157
157
KPT translation.
62
1/6:
Magi
He is talking about two groups of people. The first saw the sacred things (τὰ
ἱερὰ εἴδον, XX.1) in the cities (ἐν πόλεσιν, XX.1), though they did not really
understand what was happening. ‘Seeing the sacred things’ seems to reflect
the kind of makarismos formula used for initiation into the mysteries of
Eleusis: ‘whoever sees these things is blessed’ (ὀλβιος ὅς τάδ’ ὄπωπεν, Hymn.
Hom. Cer. 480; ὄλβιος ὅστις ἰδὼν κεῖν’, Pind. fr. 137a = OF444), ‘those mortals
who have seen these rites are thrice blessed’ (ὡς τρισόλβιοι κεῖνοι βροτῶν οἵ
ταῦτα δερχθέντες τέλη, Soph. fr. 837 Radt).158 Initiation in the cities must
mean Eleusis; it is not clear if he includes rites elsewhere, or if ‘cities’ is just a
conventional plural.159
The second group were initiated by professionals, ‘those making the sacred
things a skill’ (παρὰ τοῦ τέχνην ποιουμένου τὰ ἱερά, XX.3-4), who must by
contrast with the first group not be connected with the polis, and who charge
a fee, to be paid in advance (τὴν δαπάνην προανηλῶσθαι, XX.9). This second
group of initiates also, says our author, remains in ignorance, and if this was
excusable in the case of the mass initiations in the cities, it is certainly
reprehensible in the case of these private practitioners. He does not, however,
suggest that their rites are not valid.160 The author has earlier emphasised the
importance for him of the participants understanding what is occurring:
ὑπό [τε γὰρ] ἁ̣μαρτ[ί]ης̣
κ̣αὶ [τ]ῆς ἄλλης ἡδον[ῆ]ς̣ νενικημέν̣[οι, οὐ] μ̣α̣ν̣θ[̣ άνο]υ̣σιν
[οὐδὲ] π̣ιστεύουσι. ἀ[πι]στίη δὲ κἀμα̣[θίη ταὐτόν·
158
Richardson 1974: 313-14, Burkert 1982: 5, KPT ad loc, Graf 2014: 69.
159
Graf 2014: 69-70 suggests Bacchic mysteries performed in city sanctuaries; for a
different view of their development see Chapter Three below. Jiménez San Cristóbal 2019:
130 objects that the Eleusinian rites took place not in a city, but on the outskirts of the
small town of Eleusis, and so could not be meant, but this was of course very much part of
the polis of Athens.
Jiménez San Cristóbal 2008: 774-5 calls them ‘falsos oficiantes’ and compares them with
the magi in Euripides and On the sacred disease, but I can see no justification for this.
160
63
1/6:
Magi
(P. Derv. V.8-10)
Overcome by error and the other pleasures, they neither learn nor believe.
Disbelief and ignorance are the same.
With this emphasis on understanding, we can compare Plato’s reference to
‘those of the priests and priestesses who take the trouble to be able to give a
reason for what they do’ (οἱ ... τῶν ἱερέων τε καὶ ἱερειῶν ὅσοις μεμέληκε περὶ
ὧν μεταχειρίζονται λόγον οἵοις τ’ εἶναι διδόναι, Meno 81a-b = OF424, 666).161
This may be an idiosyncrasy of the Derveni author, who after all does devote
most of his text to an explanatory commentary. It does not follow that all the
private practitioners we are examining had the same priority; they are likely to
be a very diverse collection.
We therefore know from column VI that the magi make incantations and
offerings in connection with initiation. Column V tells us that the Derveni
author himself is involved in consulting oracles, interpreting dreams and
warning of the horrors of Hades. Column XX criticises private initiators who
do not explain what they are doing. It seems clear that the author is himself a
private practitioner who is critical of rivals who provide an inferior service.
Whether he would describe himself as a magus is an open question. He talks
of them in the third person, which perhaps implies that he would not. 162 On
the other hand, he does give some detail of their activities without any overt
criticism, which, judging by column XX, is not how he is accustomed to treat
his rivals, and so suggests that he would be one of the group.
If all three columns deal with the same or similar kinds of practitioner, we can
combine their information to say that they are not connected with the polis,
161
Kingsley 1995: 161, Kahn 1997: 55, West 1997: 83, KPT: 46-7.
162
Edmonds 2008: 34-5, Tsantsanoglou 2008: 36-7.
64
1/6:
Magi
that they warn against the horrors of Hades, that they perform initiations, for
which they charge fees payable in advance, that these involve incantations and
offerings to daimons and the souls of the dead, that they may also consult
oracles and interpret dreams, that they do not always explain what they are
doing adequately and that they are sometimes called magi. They are private
initiators, as they are not part of polis cult and charge a fee, and, as they deal
with the horrors of Hades and the souls of the dead, they evidently offer a
better fate in the afterlife.
Whether the term magus was a common
description for this kind of private initiator or just used by one group we do
not know.
The question of what they might believe themselves to be doing in this
process, and who might be the daimons that they are appeasing, is one I shall
address in later chapters.163 For the moment, I shall continue to focus on the
personnel, and to examine how far they might be considered similar to
another group of craftsmen, the doctors.
163
Chapter Seven section 5 and Chapter Eight below.
65
1/7:
7:
Two kinds of craftsman
Two kinds of craftsman
τίς γὰρ δὴ ξεῖνον καλεῖ ἄλλοθεν αὐτὸς ἐπελθὼν
ἄλλον γ᾽, εἰ μὴ τῶν οἳ δημιοεργοὶ ἔασι,
μάντιν ἢ ἰητῆρα κακῶν ἢ τέκτονα δούρων,
ἢ καὶ θέσπιν ἀοιδόν, ὅ κεν τέρπῃσιν ἀείδων;
οὗτοι γὰρ κλητοί γε βροτῶν ἐπ᾽ ἀπείρονα γαῖαν·
(Hom. Od. 17.382-6)
For who himself invites another coming from elsewhere, unless he be one of
the public workers, a seer or healer of ills or builder or indeed a divine singer,
who might delight by singing? For these are invited throughout the boundless
earth.
Homer here identifies a class of itinerant craftsmen, whom he describes as
‘public workers’ (δημιοεργοί), who go wherever their services are in
demand.164 They include not only those we might think of as craftsmen, such
as builders, but also singer-poet-musicians such as Homer himself, doctors and
μάντεις, or seers, which as we have seen165 is the longest-established term for
private religious practitioners.
We have identified, among the plethora of variously-defined private religious
practitioners in classical Greece, a group of private initiators offering their
clients a better fate in the afterlife. In seeking to understand the nature of
these people, it may be helpful to draw a comparison between the religious
practitioners in general and another of Homer’s craft groups, the medical
practitioners. It will be argued that the two have a great deal in common. 166
164
Burkert 1992, Dillery 2005: 177-8.
165
Section 3 above.
166
As has often been noted, for example by Lloyd 1979: 10-58.
66
1/7:
Two kinds of craftsman
The similarities were indeed obvious to contemporaries. One medical writer
says the process in seercraft and medicine is essentially the same: both use
what is visible to get knowledge of the invisible (μαντικὴ τοιόνδε· τοῖσι
φανεροῖσι μὲν τὰ ἀφανέα γινώσκειν, Hippoc. Vict. 1.12).167 Another compares
differences among physicians on diagnosis to differences among seers on the
interpretation of bird flight or sacrifices, so that people think that the two
disciplines are much on a par (καὶ σχεδὸν ἂν κατά γε τὸ τοιόνδε τὴν τέχνην
φαῖεν ὡμοιῶσθαι τῇ μαντικῇ, Hippoc. Acut. 8).168
Originally, in fact, the two crafts may not have been clearly differentiated.
Melampus in Hesiod healed through the science of divination (μαντοσύνηις
ἰήσατ’, fr. 37.14 MW).169 Calchas in the Iliad is a seer called upon in the case
of a plague (Il. 1.93-100), as was Epimenides in historical times.170 Pindar
describes the centaur Chiron as ‘caring for some with soft incantations, others
by taking gentle drinks or wrapping ointments round their limbs and setting
right others with surgery’ (τοὺς μὲν μαλακαῖς ἐπαοιδαῖς ἀμφέπων, τοὺς δὲ
προσανέα πίνοντας, ἢ γυίοις περάπτων πάντοθεν φάρμακα, τοὺς δὲ τομαῖς
ἔστασεν ὀρθούς, Pyth. 3.51-3), which may reflect what he would expect from
contemporary practitioners.171 Euripides refers to those who try to lengthen
life through a combination of diet and magic spells (ὅσοι χρῄζουσιν ἐκτείνειν
βίον, βρωτοῖσι καὶ ποτοῖσι καὶ μαγεύμασι, Supp. 1109-10).172 The term
167
Bartoš 2015: 141-4.
168
Jouanna 1999: 183-4.
169
Parker 1983: 209.
170
Parker 1983: 209-10, Johnston 2008: 119-20, with other examples.
171
Dickie 2001: 14 suggests that the ἐπῳδός was originally a healer.
172
Dickie 2001: 32.
67
1/7:
Two kinds of craftsman
κάθαρσις was used of both religious purification and by medical writers of
natural evacuations.173
There is some evidence that even in more recent times medicine was not
altogether distinct from religion and magic.174 Plato recommends purifications
and rites (καθαρμῶν καὶ τελετῶν, Phdr. 244e = OF575) in cases of mental
illness, and divides poisoning into that caused naturally and that caused by
spells; although he feels the latter may work simply by mental suggestion, he
is not certain of this (μὴ σαφὲς ἔχουσι δόγμα περὶ αὐτῶν, Leg. 933b = OF573).
The Hippocratic text Regimen allows for the prognosis of physical symptoms
by dreams (Vict. 4.87), and recommends prayers to the appropriate gods as
part of the therapeutic programme (Vict. 4.89). The medical author of On the
sacred disease admits that the magi and other charlatans he is attacking do
make sensible dietary recommendations (ἀπέχεσθαι κελεύοντες καὶ
ἐδεσμάτων πολλῶν καὶ ἀνεπιτηδείων ἀνθρώποισι νοσέουσιν ἐσθίειν, Morb.
sacr. 1 = OF657). In the Epidaurian iamata, accounts of miraculous cures of
sleepers in the sanctuary of Asclepius, the god sometimes appears in a dream
administering a drug or performing surgery.175
Both craft groups of course charged for their services. 176 As the quotation
from Homer at the start of this section indicates, both were also itinerant.
Herodotus (3.131) describes how the noted physician Democedes went in the
course of his career from Croton to Aegina, Athens, Samos and Susa. 177 A
173
Lloyd 1979: 44, Parker 1983: 213-15.
174
Lloyd 1979: 40-3, Jouanna 1999: 194-203, Dickie 2001: 24.
175
LiDonnici 1995. Drugs: A9, A17, A19, B20, B21; surgery: A13, B3, B5, B7. Although these
are not itinerant private practitioners, the priests certainly did profit from their services
(A4, A7, A10, B5, C4).
176
On physician’s fees, see Jouanna 1999: 119-20.
177
Jouanna 1999: 25-6.
68
1/7:
Two kinds of craftsman
medical writer says that a doctor must acquire an accurate knowledge of the
craft of medicine (τὴν ἰητρικὴν τέχνην) before he can travel from city to city
(ἀνὰ τὰς πόλιας φοιτεῦντας, Hippoc. Lex 4) as a true physician.
They practised in a competitive environment, as can be seen from Hippocratic
treatises such as On the nature of man and The art, which begin with attacks
on those who hold different views. Jouanna’s picture of physicians debating
with each other in public and being interviewed for public posts before
democratic assemblies is, however, exaggerated.178 The principal evidence he
puts forward for public debates, On the nature of man 1.15-20, actually refers
to philosophers not doctors, which is confirmed by it proceeding ‘what I have
said about these men is sufficient, but about the doctors ...’ (περὶ μὲν οὖν
τούτων ἀρκεῖ μοι τὰ εἰρημένα. τῶν δὲ ἰητρῶν, Nat. hom. 2). Edmonds has
further shown that the idea of public auditions for civic appointments does not
hold up.179
In the case of religious practitioners, there is evidence for debates on the
interpretation of oracles, such as the wooden wall oracle at the time of the
Persian invasion (Hdt. 7.142).180 We saw earlier how the author of the Derveni
Papyrus criticises his rivals.181 The most interesting case, however, sets up a
direct opposition between doctors and the magi, purifiers and so forth when
they cannot agree under whose professional competence the disease of
epilepsy falls.
178
Jouanna 1999: 78-80, 83-4.
179
Edmonds 2013b: 118n58.
180
Edmonds 2013b: 118-22.
181
Section 6 above.
69
1/7:
Two kinds of craftsman
The medical author of the Hippocratic treatise On the sacred disease (ἡ ἱερή
νοῦσος), as epilepsy was known, begins with a sustained attack on a group of
competitors for the appropriate treatment of the disease (Morb. sacr. 1 =
OF657).182 These competitors are described as ‘magi and purifiers and beggar
priests and roaming charlatans’ (μάγοι τε καὶ καθάρται καὶ ἀγύρται καὶ
ἀλαζόνες). They are therefore private religious practitioners, who regard
epilepsy as a divine visitation, and consequently their responsibility, rather
than a physical ailment to be treated by doctors.
We learn from the author something of their methods.
They employ
purifications (καθαρμούς) and incantations (ἐπαοιδάς) or spells (μαγεύων).
They forbid baths, a long list of foodstuffs such as red mullet, pigeons and
onions, the wearing of black or goatskins and the placing of foot on foot or
hand on hand. Although the author ascribes to them claims to marvellous
powers over the weather, calling up storms and eclipsing the sun, it does not
appear that they make any use of these in their treatment. They analyse
symptoms in what is indeed an analogous way to doctors, 183 diagnosing for
example loud cries as caused by Poseidon and foaming at the mouth by Ares.
The results of their purifications they bury in the earth, hide in the mountains
or throw into the sea.
The author is scathing about their pretensions, arguing that the disease is no
more sacred than any other, and that indeed they are themselves impious in
maintaining that a divine power can be overmastered by human craft (τοὺ
θείου ἡ δύναμις ὑπὸ ἀνθρώπου γνώμης κρατεῖται καὶ δεδούλωται). Applying
some elementary scientific logic in a reductio ad absurdum, he observes that
if goatskins were so deleterious, then Libyan goatherds would never be
182
Fully discussed in Lloyd 1979: 15-29, 37-49.
183
Jouanna 1999: 184-8.
70
1/7:
Two kinds of craftsman
healthy. He puts forward instead a rational medical account of epilepsy,
explaining that it is caused by phlegm blocking the veins that carry air from the
brain, as is proved by its attacking only those of phlegmatic temperament; it is
also influenced by the winds, as is proved by attacks being most likely when
the wind is southerly. Treatment is by the appropriate regimen (ὑπὸ διαίτης)
for the particular occasion (τὸν καιρὸν, Morb. sacr. 18 = OF657), which the
author does not specify, perhaps considering it a trade secret.
Although it seems obvious to us which party is in the right, that epilepsy is a
medical condition, and that the hypothesis of divine visitation is just
superstition, there is no reason why it would have been obvious at the time.
The explanations offered by each side are both wrong, in different ways, and
it is a moot point which recommended treatment would have been of more
use to the patient. We have here a dispute between two comparable craft
groups. These are private practitioners arguing among themselves; there is no
opposition to or indeed mention of polis religion.184
In view of these parallels between private medical and private religious
enterprise, it might be worthwhile to look at how doctors entered their
profession, as this may give us some clues as to what might have been the case
with the seers and initiators.
As may have been common with many other crafts, medical knowledge was
passed down in the family from father to son.185 In Homer the Greek army
doctors, Podaleirius and Machaon, are the sons of Asclepius (Ἀσκληπιοῦ δύο
παῖδε, ἰητῆρ’ ἀγαθώ, Il. 2.730-1), which doubtless reflects the normal situation
in the world outside myth. The physician families of the great medical centres
184
Eidinow 2011: 27.
185
Burkert 1982: 6-8, Jouanna 1999: 42-4, Jiménez San Cristóbal 2008: 779-80.
71
1/7:
Two kinds of craftsman
of Cos and Cnidus were said to be descended from Asclepius (τῶν ἐν Κῶι καὶ
Κνίδωι ἰατρῶν, ὡς Ἀσκληπιάδαι, Theopomp. FGrH 115 F103).186 We have seen
something similar with the families of mythical seers.187
It was expected that a doctor would be trained up from childhood. In the
words of a medical treatise in the Hippocratic corpus, the good doctor is
created by ‘ability, teaching, the right location, learning from childhood, hard
work and time’ (φύσιος· διδασκαλίης· τόπου εὐφυέος· παιδομαθίης·
φιλοπονίης· χρόνου, Hippoc. Lex 2). Galen some centuries later speaks of
physicians in times gone by as being taught dissection by their parents in
childhood just like reading and writing (παρὰ τοῖς γονεῦσιν ἐκ παίδων
ἀσκουμένοις, ὥσπερ ἀναγινώσκειν καὶ γράφειν, οὕτως ἀνατέμνειν, Gal. De
anat. admin. 2.1 (280)).188
Entry to the craft was not confined to family members, however, as we see
from the following passage of the famous Hippocratic oath,189 in which the
physician swears as follows:
ἡγήσεσθαι μὲν τὸν διδάξαντά με τὴν τέχνην ταύτην ἴσα γενέτῃσιν ἐμοῖς, καὶ
βίου κοινώσεσθαι, καὶ χρεῶν χρηΐζοντι μετάδοσιν ποιήσεσθαι, καὶ γένος τὸ
ἐξ αὐτοῦ ἀδελφοῖς ἴσον ἐπικρινεῖν ἄρρεσι, καὶ διδάξειν τὴν τέχνην ταύτην,
ἢν χρηΐζωσι μανθάνειν, ἄνευ μισθοῦ καὶ συγγραφῆς, παραγγελίης τε καὶ
ἀκροήσιος καὶ τῆς λοίπης ἁπάσης μαθήσιος μετάδοσιν ποιήσεσθαι υἱοῖς τε
ἐμοῖς καὶ τοῖς τοῦ ἐμὲ διδάξαντος, καὶ μαθητῇσι συγγεγραμμένοις τε καὶ
ὡρκισμένοις νόμῳ ἰητρικῷ, ἄλλῳ δὲ οὐδενί.
(Hippoc. Jus.)
186
Jouanna 1999: 10-16.
187
Section 3 above.
188
Jouanna 1999: 17-19.
189
Nittis 1940, Edelstein 1943, Jouanna 1999: 47-8, Nutton 2004: 69-70.
72
1/7:
Two kinds of craftsman
To hold the one who taught me the craft equal to my parents, and to share
my livelihood with him, and provide him with money when he is in need, and
to consider his family as my own brothers, and to teach them the craft
without charge or contract if they wish to learn it, to pass on the rules and
oral and other teaching to my sons and those of my teacher and to those
pupils who have subscribed to the customary medical covenant and oath, but
to no one else.
This clearly allows outsiders to join the family group, and to take on the rights
and obligations of members of the family. A commentary on the oath
attributed to Galen says that this was because of a shortage of family members
to carry on the tradition.190 It should be emphasised, however, that we do not
know how generally this covenant was applied, or even what its date was; the
extension of a kind of apprenticeship arrangement to a lifelong obligation
seems highly unusual in the period.191
A different kind of arrangement is alluded to in Plato’s Protagoras, when
Socrates is questioning a young Athenian with the same name as the famous
doctor:
ὥσπερ ἂν εἰ ἐπενόεις παρὰ τὸν σαυτοῦ ὁμώνυμον ἐλθὼν Ἱπποκράτη τὸν
Κῷον, τὸν τῶν Ἀσκληπιαδῶν, ἀργύριον τελεῖν ὑπὲρ σαυτοῦ μισθὸν ἐκείνῳ,
εἴ τίς σε ἤρετο: ‘εἰπέ μοι, μέλλεις τελεῖν, ὦ Ἱππόκρατες, Ἱπποκράτει μισθὸν
ὡς τίνι ὄντι;’ τί ἂν ἀπεκρίνω;
εἶπον ἄν, ἔφη, ὅτι ὡς ἰατρῷ.
ὡς τίς γενησόμενος;
ὡς ἰατρός, ἔφη.
Arabic version preserved in Ibn Abi Uṣaybi’ah 1, 2419-31 Müller = Rosenthal 1956 3g
(81). Rosenthal notes that it may not be by Galen and that this comment may not be part
of the Galen citation. Galen remarks elsewhere that in time the craft was extended from
family members to suitable outsiders (ἐπεὶ δὲ, τοῦ χρόνου προϊόντος, οὐ τοῖς ἐγγόνοις
μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς ἔξω τοῦ γένους ἔδοξε καλὸν εἶναι μεταδιδόναι τῆς τέχνης ... ἤδη γὰρ
τελέοις ἀνδράσιν, οὓς ἐτίμησαν ἀρετῆς ἕνεκα, ἐκοινώνουν τῆς τέχνης, Gal. De anat. admin.
2.1 (281)); Edelstein 1943: 40.
190
191
Nittis 1940, Edelstein 1943: 42, Nutton 2004: 69. Edelstein 1943: 39-48 argues that it
follows Pythagorean practice.
73
1/7:
Two kinds of craftsman
(Prt. 311b-c)
Suppose you intended to go to your namesake, Hippocrates the Coan, the
Asclepiad, to pay him money as a fee for yourself, if someone asked you ‘Tell
me, Hippocrates, you are going to pay a fee to Hippocrates as him being
what?’, what would you answer?
I would say, he said, as a doctor.
So that you might become what?
A doctor, he said.
Here there is no question of Plato’s friend joining the family of Hippocrates of
Cos, but just of paying for instruction, in the same way in fact that in the
dialogue he is actually planning to pay Protogoras the sophist. Edelstein points
out that a young aristocrat like the Athenian Hippocrates would be unlikely to
join a family of craft workers.192 Of course, Plato may not have been very
familiar with the training of doctors, or have been twisting his account to make
it similar to the sophists who are his actual target. Nevertheless, this is
certainly a different model to that of the Hippocratic Oath.
As far as religious practitioners are concerned, there is an interesting account
in Isocrates of Thrasyllus the seer:
Θράσυλλος γὰρ ὁ πατὴρ τοῦ καταλιπόντος τὴν διαθήκην παρὰ μὲν τῶν
προγόνων οὐδεμίαν οὐσίαν παρέλαβεν, ξένος δὲ Πολεμαινέτῳ τῷ μάντει
γενόμενος οὕτως οἰκείως διετέθη πρὸς αὐτὸν ὥστ᾽ ἀποθνῄσκων ἐκεῖνος τάς
τε βίβλους τὰς περὶ τῆς μαντικῆς αὐτῷ κατέλιπε καὶ τῆς οὐσίας μέρος τι τῆς
νῦν οὔσης ἔδωκεν. λαβὼν δὲ Θράσυλλος ταύτας ἀφορμὰς ἐχρῆτο τῇ τέχνῃ:
πλάνης δὲ γενόμενος καὶ διαιτηθεὶς ἐν πολλαῖς πόλεσιν
(Isoc. 19.5-6)
For Thrasyllus, the father of the testator, inherited nothing from his parents,
but becoming a guest-friend of Polemaenetus the seer he became so close to
him that when he died he left him his books on seercraft and gave him part
192
Edelstein 1943: 40.
74
1/7:
Two kinds of craftsman
of the present property. Thrasyllus took these and practiced the craft,
becoming itinerant and living in many cities
Later, however, he is said to have ‘learned his art from Polemaenetus the seer’
(καὶ γὰρ αὐτὸς καὶ τὴν τέχνην ἔμαθε παρὰ Πολεμαινέτου τοῦ μάντεως, Isoc.
19.45), which suggests something more like an actual apprenticeship.193
In conclusion, therefore, we might imagine the private initiators to practice a
craft analogous to that of physicians, and to recruit their number and pass on
their techniques by a mixture of hereditary transmission within the family and
some kind of apprenticeship. It will be apparent that this conclusion depends
heavily on unprovable if plausible assumptions; even if we accept that we have
two comparable crafts, we do not really know either that the conditions in
each were similar or even that what applied to the seers and other groups
mentioned above also applied to initiators, about whom we have no specific
relevant information.
Nevertheless, I think that this view of the private initiators as religious
craftsmen is the best attempt that can be made to provide a plausible context
in which to view them.
See Flower 2008: 26-7 for a sceptical interpretation. Flower’s suggestion, however, that
he may have been the illegitimate son of Polemaenetus has little support in the text.
193
75
1/8:
8:
Conclusion
Conclusion
Private initiation to secure a better fate in the afterlife offered an alternative
model to the dominant type of religious activity in classical Greece, polis
religion.
It was operated by private itinerant practitioners for a fee, was
optional and voluntary for the participants rather than expected of them from
their social situation, and was designed to secure for them a personal benefit,
if only after death. It may also have given greater emphasis to personal
religious experience, though we have not as yet seen any evidence for this.
There were many types of private religious practitioner, of whom we have
singled out the seer, the dealer in oracles, the chanter of incantations, the
purifier, the magician and the necromancer, though these might often have
been different names for the same persons.
This provided a fertile
environment for the appearance of the private initiators.
Three designations have been especially linked with these initiators. The
ἀγύρτης, or beggar priest, occurring in one passage of Plato, is probably just a
pejorative way of referring to what appears to be a composite picture of
various magicians, purifiers and so forth, rather than anything especially
connected with initiators. The ὀρφεοτελεστής, or celebrator of Orphic rites, is
a rare term which is not clearly linked with initiation until several centuries
after this period. The μάγος, or magus, on the other hand, is used of initiators
in the Derveni Papyrus, though we do not know whether the term was
generally established in this sense or confined to one particular group.
These private religious practitioners, including the initiators, appear to have
been a craft group analogous to the physicians, and like them may well have
76
1/8:
Conclusion
recruited and trained their personnel through a mixture of hereditary
transmission in the family and some kind of apprenticeship or paid instruction.
Initiators and initiates seem to have included both men and women. Women
were certainly initiated at Eleusis,194 and the burials with gold leaves that I shall
consider later in this study195 are equally divided between males and females,
where this can be ascertained.196 As for the initiators, Glaucothea, mother of
the orator Aeschines, seems to have taken part in some such activity (Dem.
18.259-60 = OF577),197 and Plato refers to both men and women expounding
a doctrine of metempsychosis: ‘those of the priests and priestesses who take
the trouble to be able to give a reason for what they do’ (οἱ ... τῶν ἱερέων τε
καὶ ἱερειῶν ὅσοις μεμέληκε περὶ ὧν μεταχειρίζονται λόγον οἵοις τ’ εἶναι
διδόναι, Meno 81a-b = OF424, 666).198 There is a marked contrast with the
division between male and female worship in standard polis religion. 199
194
Bremmer 2014: 2; Chapter Two section 5.
195
Chapter Four, Chapter Seven section 4.
196
Edmonds 2011b: 41-8. The texts use both masculine and feminine forms, but
assessment is complicated by the appearance of masculine forms with female burials (B10),
perhaps due to the use of standardised texts, and the disputed question of whether the
feminine forms might refer to the soul (ἡ ψυχή, feminine) of the deceased (Zuntz 1971:
306, Bernabé and Jiménez San Cristóbal 2008: 59, Obbink 2011: 298n29, Bremmer 2016:
34). Women were also prominent in Pythagorean circles (Rowett 2014: 122-3) and
Dionysiac maenadism (Edmonds 2004: 67-8; Chapter Three section 1 below).
197
Chapter Three section 8.
198
There were also women priestesses at Eleusis, the priestess of Demeter and Kore and
the hierophantids (Clinton 1974: 68-76, 86-9). Women practiced magic (Ninos φίλτρα
ποιούσης, schol. Dem. 19.281, Theoris τὴν φαρμακίδα, Dem. 25.79) and conducted
purifications (for Theophrastus’ superstitious man, ἱερείας καλέσας ... αὐτὸν περικαθᾶραι,
Theophr. Char. 16, by Epicurus’ mother, καθαρμοὺς, D.L. 10.4, in a play of Menander
(Parker 2005: 121)).
‘It would be an exaggeration to say that Athenian men and Athenian women had
different gods, but the differences between the relation of the two sexes to the gods go
deep’, Parker 2005: 270.
199
77
1/8:
Conclusion
As far as what these people offered to their clients, we have actually found
only three pieces of evidence, two in Plato, and one in the Derveni Papyrus.
From Plato we learn that they offered for a fee to procure for their clients a
better fate in the next life: ‘releases and purifications for misdeeds through
sacrifices and childish pleasures, when they are still living and also when they
are dead, which rites they call τελεταί, which free us from the evils there, while
terrible things await those who do not sacrifice’ (Resp. 364e-365a = OF573).
They backed up their claims by writings ascribed to legendary figures. It may
be that in some cases the better fate was specified as a pleasant and civilised
symposium, and the worse as lying in mud or carrying water in a sieve.200
The Derveni Papyrus further tells us that they are not connected with the polis,
that they warn against the horrors of Hades, that they perform initiations, for
which they charge fees payable in advance, that these involve incantations and
offerings to daimons and the souls of the dead, that they may also consult
oracles and interpret dreams, that they do not always explain what they are
doing adequately and that they are sometimes called magi.
We have also learned from the passage of the Phaedo (69c-d = OF576) with
which I began this chapter, which quoted their saying ‘many bear the narthex,
but the Bacchi are few’ (ναρθηκοφόροι μὲν πολλοί, βάκχοι δέ τε παῦροι), that
200
Faraone 2008 suggests that they also received benefits in life, citing Eur. Cyc. 646-8 =
OF814 which refers to a magic incantation of Orpheus known to the satyrs. There is no
indication, however, that the satyrs are initiates, Orpheus was a likely figure to credit with
such things, and the parallels he sees with Orphic myth (the Cyclops as child of Earth, the
word δαλός, ‘torch’, possibly meaning ‘thunderbolt’) are tenuous. Kotansky 1991: 114-16,
2019: 533-4 discusses the use of the gold leaves (Chapter Four below) as amulets giving
magical protection to the living, but as far as one can tell this seems to have been a
secondary development; certainly the longer intelligible texts were not designed for
amulets, and where they were so employed there is evidence of re-use (B1, A4) or the leaf
itself is very late (A5).
78
1/8:
Conclusion
there is a connection with Dionysus. The role of initiation in the rites of
Dionysus will be considered in a later chapter.201
201
Chapter Three.
79
2/1:
Introduction
Chapter Two
Contextual framework
1:
1:
Introduction ................................................................................................. 80
2:
The soul ....................................................................................................... 81
3:
The topography of the afterlife ................................................................... 90
4:
Myths of Plato on the soul ........................................................................ 101
5:
Eleusis and the public mysteries ............................................................... 113
6:
Orphism ..................................................................................................... 131
Introduction
I want in this chapter to examine various aspects of the environment in which
the private initiators operated. What was the concept of the soul that had
passed down through tradition, literature and mythology? Was it thought to
survive after death? If it did, what might the afterlife look like? There appears
to be a good deal of information about the soul in the afterlife in the works of
Plato, but what are the problems of using these philosophical dialogues as
evidence?
It also seems relevant that the world in which the private initiators worked
included the well-known public initiation cult of Eleusis, of which I therefore
give a brief description. I want finally to look at the question of whether an
Orphic movement formed a significant part of this environment, and to explain
why, despite its prominence in modern scholarship, I am sceptical of this.
80
2/2:
2:
The soul
The soul
If we are examining the possible fate of human beings after death, we need to
give some consideration to what it is of us that is supposed to survive. The
normal present-day English term for this is the soul, and I shall accordingly use
that here. Translating it into an ancient Greek equivalent is, however, not
straightforward. There were a number of terms partially corresponding to our
modern concept, they were used by different authors in different senses, the
meanings changed over time, and the closest equivalent, ψυχή, though
conventionally translated as ‘soul’, is by no means an exact match. 1
In this section, I want to show that there had been a significant change in the
idea of the soul by the fifth and fourth centuries BC, and also to look at what
views were held on its possible survival after death.
These were the
presuppositions upon which initiation operated.
In Homer we do not find a single entity corresponding to the modern ‘soul’.
Instead there are a confusing variety of terms and concepts spanning what we
might call ‘soul’, ‘mind’, ‘heart’ and so forth. They include:
(i) ψυχή2 This is conventionally translated ‘soul’. In Homer, however, it differs
from what we think of as soul in that it has no role in humans during their life.
It leaves temporarily during a faint: ‘she fell backward and her psyche was
breathed out’ (ἤριπε δ᾽ ἐξοπίσω, ἀπὸ δὲ ψυχὴν ἐκάπυσσε, Il. 22.467).3
1
I shall rely heavily on the careful analysis of Claus 1981, supplemented by Bremmer 1983,
who tries to match the ancient terms with modern anthropological concepts. There are a
number of studies of individual Homeric terms by Sullivan (1979, 1980, 1988, 1989a,
1989b, 1996).
2
Warden 1971, Sullivan 1979, Claus 1981: 61-2, Bremmer 1983: 14-17,74.
3
Nehring 1947.
81
2/2:
The soul
Otherwise it only appears when departing the body at death: ‘the psyche of a
man cannot be captured and come back when it has passed the barrier of his
teeth’ (ἀνδρὸς δὲ ψυχὴ πάλιν ἐλθεῖν οὔτε λεϊστὴ οὔθ᾽ ἑλετή, ἐπεὶ ἄρ κεν
ἀμείψεται ἕρκος ὀδόντων, Il. 9.408-9). It leaves from the limbs (Il. 16.856,
22.362) or through the mouth (Il. 9.409) or a wound (Il. 14.518, 16.505). It is
what survives after death: ‘a phantom psyche is still in the halls of Hades, but
with no mind at all within it’ (τίς ἐστι καὶ εἰν Ἀΐδαο δόμοισι ψυχὴ καὶ εἴδωλον,
ἀτὰρ φρένες οὐκ ἔνι πάμπαν, Il. 23.103-4).4 It may be derived from ψύχω, to
breathe or blow, and so have originally meant breath (so already Plato Cra.
399d-e).5
(ii) εἴδωλον:6 Another term for the dead in Hades: ‘the phantoms of the dead’
(εἴδωλα καμόντων, Od. 24.14). It was a simulacrum of the living person:
‘Apollo of the silver bow made an eidolon like Aeneas himself’ (ὃ εἴδωλον τεῦξ᾽
ἀργυρότοξος Ἀπόλλων αὐτῷ τ᾽ Αἰνείᾳ ἴκελον, Il. 5.449-50).
(iii) αἰών:7 Something like ‘life-force’, which leaves the body at death: ‘let life
depart from me in your city’ (με καὶ λίποι αἰὼν ἐν πόλει ὑμετέρῃ, Il. 5.685-6).
In the Homeric hymn to Hermes (42) it is used in a physical sense for ‘marrow’
(of a tortoise).8
4
But the Homeric psyche was not always so mindless, as is pointed out by SourvinouInwood 1995: 77-80, citing such inconsistencies as the psychai blocking the entrance to
Hades of the unburied Patroclus (Il. 23.72-3), the leading position among the dead that
Odysseus ascribes to Achilles (Od. 11.485-6) and the fact that Ajax can recognise and
understand Odysseus without drinking the blood as the other shades do (Od. 11.541-67).
See also Edmonds 2013b: 252-7, 2014: 9-11.
5
Nehring 1947: 108-13, Bremmer 1983: 21-4, but LSJ s.v. ψυχή VII is sceptical.
6
Bremmer 1983: 78-80.
7
Claus 1981: 11-12, Bremmer 1983: 15-16.
8
Richardson 2010 ad loc.
82
2/2:
The soul
(iv) φρήν:9 ‘Mind’, the seat of thought: ‘devise another better plan in their
minds’ (ἄλλην φράζονται ἐνὶ φρεσὶ μῆτιν ἀμείνω, Il. 9.423). It is also used in
a physical sense as diaphragm or lungs: ‘’he drew the spear from the flesh, and
the phrenes followed’ (ἐκ χροὸς ἕλκε δόρυ, προτὶ δὲ φρένες αὐτῷ ἕποντο, Il.
16.504). In this sense it can contain the θυμός or ἦτορ: ‘the thumos in your
phrenes pitied’ (ὀλοφύρεται ἐν φρεσὶ θυμός, Il. 8.202).
(v) πραπίδες:10 This seems to be an occasional synonym of φρήν: ‘with
knowing mind’ (ἰδυίῃσι πραπίδεσσι, Il. 1.608).
(vi) νόος:11 Another term for mind. It is located in the chest (νόον ... ἐνὶ
στήθεσσιν, Il. 4.309). It can also be used in a more abstract sense as ‘reason’:
‘do not be angry beyond reason’ (μὴ χαλέπαινε παρὲκ νόον, Il. 20.133).
(vii) θυμός:12 This was situated in the φρήν: ‘the thumos was gathered in the
phren’ (ἐς φρένα θυμὸς ἀγέρθη, Il. 22.475). It sometimes appears to be a kind
of breath: ‘breathing out his thumos’ (θυμὸν ἀΐσθων, Il. 16.468). It was a kind
of life-force or strength which fades away in exhaustion: ‘there was little
thumos still in me’ (ὀλίγος δ’ ἔτι θυμὸς ἐνῆεν, Il. 1.593). The seat of the
emotions: ‘you have put this anger in your thumos’ (χόλον τόνδ’ ἔνθεο θυμῷ,
Il. 6.326), it is perhaps best translated as ‘spirit’ or ‘heart’.
(viii) μένος:13 This is situated in the chest (Il. 5.513), knees (Il. 17.451), φρένες
(Il. 1.103) or θυμός (Il. 16.529). It is used for strength, courage and the fury of
9
Ireland and Steel 1975, Claus 1981: 16-19, Bremmer 1983: 61-2, Sullivan 1988.
10
Bremmer 1983: 62, Sullivan 1989a.
11
Claus 1981: 19-21, Bremmer 1983: 56-7, Sullivan 1989b.
12
Lynch and Miles 1980, Sullivan 1980, Claus 1981: 22, 37-42, Bremmer 1983: 54-6.
13
Claus 1981: 24-5, 35-7, Bremmer 1983: 57-60.
83
2/2:
The soul
battle: ‘fleeing the menos and invincible hands of Aias’ (Αἴαντος προφυγόντα
μένος καὶ χεῖρας ἀάπτους, Il. 7.309). It can be used of forces of nature: ‘the
force of the sun’ (μένος ἠελίοιο, Il. 23.190). Its privative ἀμενηνός is used of
the wounded (Il. 5.887) or dead: ‘strengthless heads of the dead’ (νεκύων
ἀμενηνὰ κάρηνα, Od. 10.521). It is difficult to translate, but perhaps ‘force’ or
‘spirit’ come closest.
(ix) κῆρ:14 ‘Heart’ in the mental rather than physical sense. It overlaps with
θυμός, and was like it situated in the φρήν (Od. 18.344), or actually in the
θυμός itself (Il. 6.523-4). It too can be used for life-force, or for emotions such
as anger, courage or grief: ‘grieving at heart’ (ἀχνύμενος κῆρ) occurs
frequently in the Odyssey. The phrase περὶ κῆρι is used to mean ‘very much’:
‘I honoured at heart sacred Ilios’ (μοι περὶ κῆρι τιέσκετο Ἴλιος ἱρὴ, Il. 4.46).
(x) ἦτορ:15 Another term that may be translated ‘heart’. It may be located in
the chest (Il. 22.452), φρένες (Il. 17.111) or κραδίη (Il. 20.169). The seat of
emotions and also thought, it is loosened at times of emotional crisis: ‘her
knees and etor were loosened’ (τῆς δ᾽ αὐτοῦ λύτο γούνατα καὶ φίλον ἦτορ,
Od. 4.703).
(xi) κραδίη:16 The physical heart: ‘he fixed his spear in his heart’ (δόρυ δ᾽ ἐν
κραδίῃ ἐπεπήγει, Il. 13.442). It can also be used for feelings, especially
associated with courage: ‘my kradie and proud spirit urge me on’ (ἔμ᾽ ὀτρύνει
κραδίη καὶ θυμὸς ἀγήνωρ, Il. 10.220).
14
Claus 1981: 22-3, 26-33, Bremmer 1983: 63.
15
Claus 1981: 23-4, 33-5, Bremmer 1983: 63, Sullivan 1996.
16
Claus 1981: 42-5, Bremmer 1983: 63.
84
2/2:
The soul
The important point for our purposes that emerges so far from this survey is
that there was not really in Homer a concept of the soul in the modern sense
of something that both carried our personality during life and might survive
our physical death.
The usage of these terms, however, changed considerably after Homer. 17
Some, such as μένος, κῆρ and ἦτορ, fall out of use altogether. φρήν is less
frequent, and often occurs in attempts to mimic Homeric style (e.g. Hdt.
3.155), νόος tends to mean ‘intention’ in stereotyped phrases such as ἐν νόῳ
ἔχειν (e.g. Hdt. 1.27), θυμός becomes an emotion, ‘anger’ or ‘spirit’ (e.g. Thuc.
1.49.3), and καρδία takes on a new meaning of ‘life’ (eg. Eur. Hec. 1026).
The ψυχή has now moved into the leading role. We shall indeed see a case, in
the Pythagorean Notebooks,18 where the θυμός, νόος and φρένες are
considered merely as parts of the ψυχή.19 The ψυχή, which we may now refer
to as ‘soul’ in something like the modern sense, has become the seat of the
personality or essence of the living person. Some examples of this new usage:
Anacreon says to his loved one ‘you are the charioteer of my soul’ (τἠς ἐμῆς
ψυχῆς ἡνιοχεύεις, Anac. 4), Heraclitus says that a drunk ‘has a moist soul’
(ὑγρὴν τὴν ψυχὴν ἔχων, DK22B117), Pindar speaks of ‘men whose souls are
superior to possessions’ (κτεάνων ψυχὰς ἔχοντες κρέσσονας ἄνδρες, Nem.
9.32-3), the unmarried daughters of Proteus in Bacchylides enter Hera’s
sanctuary ‘with still virgin souls’ (παρθενίᾳ γὰρ ἔτι ψυχᾷ, 11.47-8), and an
unwilling listener in Sophocles is asked ‘does it sting in your ears or in your
soul?’ (ἐν τοῖσιν ὠσὶν ἢ ‘πὶ τῇ ψυχῇ δάκνει;, Ant. 317). It is essential to human
17
Assmann 1926, Claus 1981: 48-56.
18
Chapter Seven section 2.
19
νοῦς, θυμός and ἐπιθυμία in other Pythagorean writings: Burkert 1972: 74.
85
2/2:
The soul
life: ‘the soul gives mortal bodies life as long as it is in them’ (τὰ θνητὰ σώματα
ὅσον ἂν ἐν αὐτοις χρόνον ᾖ ἡ ψυχή, ζῶντα παρέχεται, Xen. Cyr. 8.7.19).
Aristotle provides a great deal of information on his predecessors’ views on
the soul in the De anima (403b-405b). Thales thought magnets had souls, as
they could move iron (405a). Heraclitus said it was a fluid, incorporeal
(ἀσωματώτατὸν) exhalation (ἀναθυμίασιν, 405a).20
The Pythagoreans
believed that specks of dust in the air (ξύσματα, 404a), or at least what moved
them, were souls. Alcmaeon said that souls were immortal because they were
always moving (ἀεὶ κινουμένη, 405a). Anaxagoras held that soul was what
moved things (ψυχὴν εἶναι λέγει τὴν κινοῦσαν, 404a) and that either it or mind
(τὸν νοῦν) were the cause of beauty and rightness (τοῦ καλῶς καὶ ὀρθῶς,
404b).21 Democritus thought that soul and mind were identical, and also
spherical (405a). Their view of the soul was linked to their view of the primary
substance: Hippo held that soul was water (405b),22 Critias that it was blood
(405b), Diogenes of Apollonia that it was air (405a), 23 Democritus that it was
fire (403b-404a) and Empedocles that it was formed out of all the elements
(404b).
Unfortunately, however, Aristotle’s account needs to be treated with some
scepticism. Aristotle’s shortcomings as a historian of philosophy, and his
tendency to re-interpret his predecessors’ work as imperfect attempts to
But cf. DK22B36, 45, 117, 118. ‘For soul it is death to become water’ (ψυχῇσιν θάνατος
ὕδωρ γενέσθαι, DK22B36) might suggest that he regarded it as fire; Rohde 1925: 367-71,
Claus 1981: 125-38.
20
21
The fragments of Anaxagoras preserved by Simplicius ascribe this primacy to mind
(DK59B6, 9, 11-14).
22
He thought it originated from semen produced in the brain, according to Hippolytus
(DK38A3); Zhmud 2014: 100, 104.
23
Claus 1981: 139-40; Diogenes may also be the author of DK13B2 attributed to
Anaximenes (Claus 1981: 121-5).
86
2/2:
The soul
realise his own ideas, have often been pointed out since the classic work of
Cherniss.24 He may therefore be systematising and perhaps distorting passing
references to a concept that was not central to the ideas of these thinkers. 25
Aristotle also mentions another theory of the soul: ‘they say it is a harmony,
and the harmony is a mixture and synthesis of opposites, and the body is
composed of opposites’ (ἁρμονίαν γάρ τινα αὐτὴν λέγουσι· καὶ γὰρ τὴν
ἁρμονίαν
κρᾶσιν
καὶ
σύνθεσιν
ἐναντίων
εἶναι,
καὶ
τὸ
σῶμα
συγκεῖσθαι ἐξ ἐναντίων, De an. 407b). This seems to be the same conception
we find in Plato: ‘our body is strung and held together by hot and cold and dry
and wet and suchlike, and the mixture and harmony of these is our soul, if they
are mixed with each other correctly and proportionately’ (ἐντεταμένου τοῦ
σώματος ἡμῶν καὶ συνεχομένου ὑπὸ θερμοῦ καὶ ψυχροῦ καὶ ξηροῦ καὶ ὑγροῦ
καὶ τοιούτων τινῶν, κρᾶσιν εἶναι καὶ ἁρμονίαν αὐτῶν τούτων τὴν ψυχὴν
ἡμῶν, ἐπειδὰν ταῦτα καλῶς καὶ μετρίως κραθῇ πρὸς ἄλληλα, Phd. 86b-c).
Plato puts this doctrine in the mouth of Simmias, a pupil of the Pythagorean
Philolaus, and so it has been attributed to the Pythagoreans, but the other
evidence for this is weak and it is difficult to reconcile the concept with the
soul’s immortality, also ascribed to the Pythagoreans.26
The medical writers occasionally refer to the soul. In Airs, waters, places,
where it is used interchangeably with γνώμη, ‘disposition’, it is the seat of
courage and endurance (τὸ δὲ ἀνδρεῖον καὶ τὸ ταλαίπωρον ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ, Aër.
24), which vary according to the climate.27 In On regimen, where the term
occurs most frequently, it is a mixture of fire and water (πυρὸς καὶ ὕδατος
24
Cherniss 1935, see also Guthrie 1957, Collobert 2002.
25
Claus 1981: 105-7.
26
Graham 2014: 62-3, Palmer 2014: 212-13, Zhmud 2014: 106.
27
Claus 1981: 150-1, Bartoš 2015: 173-4.
87
2/2:
The soul
ξύγκρησιν, Vict. 1.25), which can be modified by the appropriate diet and
regimen, and seems to originate in the sperm.28 It is what takes over when the
body is asleep (Vict. 4.86-8).29
As to whether the soul was immortal and continued to exist after death, as the
old Homeric ψυχή did, there was no consensus.30 The term did continue to be
used in certain contexts for that of us which lives after death: ‘even dead he
has a pleasant life in his soul’ (καὶ φθίμενος ψυχῇ τερπνὸν ἔχει βίοτον, Ion
DK36B4). Pherecydes in the sixth century, according to Cicero, was the first
(presumably first philosopher) to maintain its immortality (Pherecydes Sirius
primus dixit animos esse hominum sempiternos, Tusc. 1.16.38).31 Xenophon’s
Cyrus asks ‘do you think that honours to the dead would continue if their souls
had power over nothing?’ (τοῖς δὲ φθιμένοις τὰς τιμὰς διαμένειν ἔτι ἂν
δοκεῖτε, εἰ μηδενὸς αὐτῶν αἱ ψυχαὶ κύριαι ἦσαν;, Cyr. 8.7.18). Pindar is more
ambiguous when he tells his soul not to desire immortal life (μή, φίλα ψυχά,
βίον ἀθάνατον σπεῦδε, Pyth. 3.61-2), though this does imply that it is the soul
that would survive if anything did. I shall deal with the special case of
immortality through metempsychosis in a later chapter.32
Immortality was, however, far from a universal belief. It was quite natural to
speak of the soul as something that perished (ἀπόλλυται ψυχή, Eur. Hec. 212; ἡ δ’ ἐμὴ ψυχὴ πάλαι τέθνηκεν, Soph. Ant. 559-60). In the Republic, when
Socrates asks Glaukon if he does not realise that the soul is undying and never
28
Claus 1981: 151-3, Bartoš 2015: 185-212.
29
Claus 1981: 152n22, Bartoš 2015: 201-7. On a possible connection to metempsychosis,
see below Chapter Five section 2.
30
Parker 2005: 363-8.
31
Bernabé 2013b: 127.
32
Chapter Five below.
88
2/2:
The soul
perishes (ἀθάνατος ἡμῶν ἡ ψυχὴ καὶ οὐδέποτε ἀπόλλυται, 608d), ‘he stared
at me in amazement and said “No, by god, I did not!”’ (ὃς ἐμβλέψας μοι καὶ
θαυμάσας εἶπε: μὰ Δί᾽, οὐκ ἔγωγε). In the Phaedo it is said that people
generally believe that when the soul leaves the body it no longer exists
anywhere (τὰ δὲ περὶ τῆς ψυχῆς πολλὴν ἀπιστίαν παρέχει τοῖς ἀνθρώποις μή,
ἐπειδὰν ἀπαλλαγῇ τοῦ σώματος, οὐδαμοῦ ἔτι ᾖ, 70a). I do not here have
space to embark on the major topic of Plato’s own view of the soul, though I
shall consider in a later section33 the question of how Plato’s mythical
treatments of the soul can be used as evidence.
This necessarily selective sketch has tried to show how by the fifth and fourth
century BC the concept of the soul had developed from the range of mental
and life forces we find in Homer, of which ψυχή was only one and not the most
important, into an idea of a ψυχή that carries in some sense the essence or
personality of us, and that there were some, if perhaps a minority, who
believed that this, like the Homeric ψυχή, could survive after death. This was
an essential precondition of the possibility of gaining a better fate in the
afterlife through initiation.
33
Section 4 below.
89
2/3:
3:
The topography of the afterlife
The topography of the afterlife
In this section I want to look at popular and mythological conceptions of the
lot of the soul after death, in order to set the context in which the offer of a
better fate might be viewed. If the soul did in some form survive death, to
what kind of place was it supposed to go?
The usual answer was to Hades. Hades (Ἀΐδης, Ἅιδης and other spellings) was
the name of both the god of the underworld and of his realm. 34 There are
many passing references to Hades in classical literature, but the main sources
we have from and before this period for what it may have been like are five:
Homer, especially the visit of Odysseus to the realm of the dead in the eleventh
book of the Odyssey,35 the Theogony of Hesiod, the description by Pausanias
(10.28-31) of the fifth-century picture by Polygnotus in the lesche of the
Cnidians at Delphi,36 the parodic treatment of the visit of Dionysus to the
underworld in Aristophanes’ Frogs,37 and the account of Plato in the Phaedo
The meaning perhaps moved through phrases like ‘the house of Hades’ from the god to
the place.
34
35
Sourvinou-Inwood plausibly suggests that this may not be typical of contemporary
beliefs, and that its portrayal of the dead as witless shades (ἀμενηνὰ κάρηνα, 11.49) is
inconsistent with other indications in Homer (Sourvinou-Inwood 1995: 77-83; for criticism
of this approach, see Edwards 1985: 218-19n9). On the so-called Deuteronekyia in Book
24, which may be a later addition to the Odyssey, see Heubeck 1992: 356-8, SourvinouInwood 1995: 94-106, Albinus 2000: 82-6.
36
Rohde 1925: 241-2, Albinus 2000: 132-4.
37
Rohde 1925: 240-1, Albinus 2000: 135-7, Edmonds 2004: 111-58.
90
2/3:
(112e-113c).38
The topography of the afterlife
From these it is possible to build up a picture of the
topography.39
Hades was under the earth: ‘the halls of Hades under the depths of the earth’
(Ἀΐδαο δόμοις ὑπὸ κεύθεσι γαίης, Hom. Od. 24.204), ‘Hades who dwells under
the earth’ (Ἀίδην, ὃς ὑπὸ χθονὶ δώματα ναίει, Hes. Th. 455). Much further
below Hades was Tartarus,40 with the roots of earth and sea (γῆς ῥίζαι
πεφύασι καὶ ἀτρυγέτοιο θαλάσσης, Hes. Th. 728). There were entrances to
Hades from the upper world (πλουτώνια) in various caves, for example at
Tainaron or the river Acheron in Thesprotia.41
The Odyssey might seem an exception to this, as the house of Hades is located
in the west on the edge of the stream of Ocean, where Odysseus beaches his
ship (Od. 10.508-15), but probably we are meant to think of some kind of
entrance there to the world below.42 Ocean was conceived as a river encircling
the whole world (γῆν περὶ πᾶσαν ῥέειν, Hdt. 4.8.2). The entrance to Hades to
which Circe directs Odysseus is by the poplars and willows (μακραί τ’ αἴγειροι
καὶ ἰτέαι, 10.510) of the groves of Persephone (ἄλσεα Περσεφονείης, 10.509)
and the mist-shrouded city of the Cimmerians (11.14-15);43 later we are told it
is past the gates of the sun and the land of dreams (παρ’ Ἡελίοιο πύλας καὶ
δῆμον ὀνείρων, 24.12). It is not at first sight clear on which bank of Ocean the
entrance is, but as we are told that it is impossible to approach by land, but
38
Edmonds 2004: 159-220.
39
The combination of epic and later sources seems justified in a survey of popular
mythology by the continued prominence of Homer and Hesiod in fourth and fifth century
culture and education.
40
Hom. Il. 8.13-16, Hes. Th. 119, 720-44, West 1966: 194-5.
41
Rohde 1925: 186-7n23, Albinus 2000: 69n9.
42
On the west as a location for the dead, see Wagenvoort 1971: 115-19.
43
On the Cimmerians, see Heubeck 1989: 77-9.
91
2/3:
The topography of the afterlife
only by ship (11.156-9), it seems it must be on the outer bank, separated by
Ocean from our world.44
The separation of the other world from us by water is a persistent theme,
though the details vary. The ψυχή of Patroclus looks forward to joining the
others ‘beyond the river’ (ὑπὲρ ποταμοῖο, Hom. Il. 23.73). In Hesiod only the
Styx is mentioned, a branch of Ocean (Th. 775-7, 787-9),45 though in Pausanias’
account of the picture of Polygnotus the river is Acheron (Paus. 10.28.1), while
in Aristophanes there is a lake that is crossed by Dionysus in Charon’s ferry
(though his slave is able to walk round it in the same time) (Ran. 136-72).46
There seems to be only one body of water in these cases, but elsewhere there
are more. Odysseus is told by his mother of ‘great rivers and terrible streams
between’ (μέσσῳ γὰρ μεγάλοι ποταμοὶ καὶ δεινὰ ῥέεθρα, Hom. Od. 11.157)
and Pindar refers to ‘sluggish streams of murky night’ (βληχροὶ δνοφερᾶς
νυκτὸς ποταμοὶ, fr. 130 = OF440). Circe’s instructions to Odysseus go into
more detail: ‘there the Pyriphlegethon and the Cocytus, a branch of the water
of the Styx, flow into the Acheron’ (ἔνθα μὲν εἰς Ἀχέροντα Πυριφλεγέθων τε
ῥέουσιν Κώκυτός θ᾽, ὃς δὴ Στυγὸς ὕδατός ἐστιν ἀπορρώξ, Hom. Od. 10.51314). The names suggest hate (Styx), misery (Acheron), wailing (Cocytus) and
44
Contra, Heubeck 1989: 78, who supposes a far shore to be non-existent. I am sceptical of
Heubeck’s further contention that Odysseus goes on to make a complete circuit of the
river. Though it would be logical that if he went to Hades with the current it would be
against him returning the same way, we are told that he used oars and a favourable wind
(11.649), and something as striking as a circumnavigation of the world would surely be
made more explicit.
45
Kirk 1985: 236-7, Sourvinou-Inwood 1995: 59-63.
46
The figure of Charon seems to have been introduced by the beginning of the sixth
century; Sourvinou-Inwood 1995: 304-9.
92
2/3:
The topography of the afterlife
flame (Pyriphlegethon).47 There is a white rock where the rivers meet (Hom.
Od. 10.515, 24.11).
Homer’s picture is difficult to visualise: we seem to have one river (the Styx)
dividing, with part but not all of it (the Cocytus) flowing into another river (the
Acheron). It was perhaps to clarify this that Plato introduces a rather more
elaborate arrangement in the Phaedo (112e-113c),48 in which there are two
sets of rivers flowing in opposite directions, and two lakes, the Acherousian
and the Styx, here turned into a lake apparently to make better sense of the
Homeric account. This version appears to be Plato’s own invention.
Aristophanes mentions a Stygian rock and a crag of Acheron (Ran. 470-1),
perhaps ad hoc inventions too, and also a plain of Lethe (Ran. 186), or
Forgetfulness. This recurs in Plato’s myth of Er (Resp. 621a), where it contains
the Careless River (Ἀμέλητα ποταμόν, 621a), also called the river of Lethe (τῆς
Λήθης ποταμόν, 621c), at which the souls drink to forget their previous lives.49
Proceeding further, we come to various formidable creatures, multitudes of
snakes and terrible wild beasts (ὄφεις καὶ θηρί’ ὄψει μυρία δεινότατα, Ar. Ran.
143-7), the demon Eurynomos who devours the flesh of corpses (Paus.
10.28.7), and the shape-changing demon Empousa (Ar. Ran. 288-95). The
dead are in meadows of asphodel (ἀσφοδελὸν λειμῶνα, Hom. Od. 11.539,
24.13, cf. Diod. 1.86.7).50 Those who commit serious crimes such as sacrilege
47
Mackie 1999: 487.
Pender 2012: 210-14. Kingsley (1995: 79-87) observes that Plato’s account bears some
resemblance to Sicily.
48
49
See below, Chapter Five section 5. Rohde 1925: 249-50n21, Wagenvoort 1971: 130-1.
Cf. Anth. Pal. 7.25 (Λήθης δόμων) and Lucian Dial. Mort. 13.6 (Λήθης ὕδωρ), also Paus.
9.39.8 (Λήθης ὕδωρ), not in Hades, but at the oracle of Trophonius.
50
Albinus 2000: 132.
93
2/3:
The topography of the afterlife
and mistreating their fathers (Paus. 10.28.4-5, 10.31.11-12, Dem. 25.52-3) are
punished in various ways,51 including lying in the mud (βόρβορον πολὺν, Ar.
Ran. 145) (Aristophanes says also in dung, but this is likely to be comic
exaggeration).52
The realm of Hades is commonly described as a house: ‘the wide-gated house
of Hades’ (εὐρυπυλὲς Ἀΐδος δῶ, Hom. Il. 23.74), ‘the dank house of Hades’
(Ἀίδεω ... δόμον εὐρώεντα, Hom. Od. 10..512), ‘the halls of Hades’ (Ἀΐδαο
δόμοις, Hom. Od. 24.204), ‘the echoing halls of powerful Hades’ (δόμοι
ἠχήεντες ἰφθίμου Ἀίδεω, Hes. Th. 767-8), ‘the dank house of chilly Hades’
(εὐρώεντα δόμον κρυεροῦ Ἀίδαο, Hes. Op. 153).53 The adjectives characterise
it as both impressive, the seat of a powerful god, and unpleasant.
In
Aristophanes’ parody (Ran. 460-78), it has a doorkeeper and otherwise seems
like a normal Athenian house. The entrance is guarded by Cerberus, a
fearsome multi-headed dog, who fawns on those entering, but devours
anyone who tries to leave (Hes. Th. 311-12, 769-74, Ar. Ran. 467-8).54
If all the dead are inside the house of Hades, and at least some of them are on
the meadows of asphodel or lying in mud, then the mud and the meadow must
be inside the house, which is difficult to visualise; they may be alternative
conceptions, but it is perhaps also an indication that we should not look for a
too literal interpretation of these glimpses of the next world.
51
Rohde 1925: 241-2, Sourvinou-Inwood 1995: 67-9, Edmonds 2013b: 257-9.
52
Fabiano 2010: 149-52, however, suggests a deeper connection between excrement and
the underworld.
53
Bremmer 2016: 35.
54
Rohde 1925: 244n56.
94
2/3:
The topography of the afterlife
So far, the setting of the afterlife has seemed uniformly miserable. There is,
however, another aspect, at least for a favoured few, that is alluded to in
various sources, including Homer (Od. 4.561-9), Hesiod (Op. 167-73), Pindar
(Pyth. 10.37-44)55 and Aristophanes (Ran. 154-6, 449-59). This depicts an
idyllic existence. Again, I shall combine the accounts to build up an overall
picture of the traditional view.
Instead of the characteristic gloom of Hades, they enjoy the sunlight (ἥλιος καὶ
φέγγος ἱλαρόν ἐστιν, Ar. Ran. 455-6), as the sun shines with a beautiful light
just as in our world (φῶς κάλλιστον ὥσπερ ἐνθάδε, Ar. Ran. 155). The climate
is temperate, without rain, snow or winter (οὐ νιφετός, οὔτ’ ἂρ χειμὼν πολὺς
οὔτε ποτ’ ὄμβρος, Hom. Od. 4.566) and with gentle breezes (Ζεφύροιο λιγὺ
πνείοντος ἀήτας, Hom. Od. 4.567). There are flowery meadows and myrtle
groves (λειμῶνας ἀνθεμώδεις, Ar. Ran. 450, μυρρινῶνας, Ar. Ran. 156), and
fruit (μελιηδέα καρπὸν, Hes. Op. 172). The inhabitants are entertained with
the music of pipe (καναχαὶ τ’ αὐλῶν, Pind. Pyth. 10.39, αὐλῶν ... πνοή, Ar. Ran.
154) and lyre (λυρᾶν τε βοαὶ, Pind. Pyth. 10.39) and with dancing maidens
(χοροὶ παρθένων, Pind. Pyth. 10.38). Here they live without care (ἀκηδέα
θυμὸν ἔχοντες, Hes. Op. 170), toil or strife (πόνων δὲ καὶ μαχᾶν ἄτερ, Pind.
Pyth. 10.42).56
In those passages in Pindar which refer to the innovative doctrine of
metempsychosis (Ol. 2.61-83 = OF445, frr. 129-31 = OF439-42),57 the picture is
just the same. The sun shines strongly (λάμπει μὲν σθένος ἀελίου, Pind. fr.
129 = OF439) in equal days and nights (ἴσαις δὲ νύκτεσσιν αἰεί, ἰσαις δ’ ἐν
55
On the Hyperboreans, in a very early poem (Kirkwood 1982: 235), which seems unlikely
to reflect anything but traditional views.
56
The main features of Greek utopias are summarised in Mace 1996: 237.
57
Chapter Five section 2.
95
2/3:
The topography of the afterlife
ἁμέραις ἅλιον ἔχοντες, Pind. Ol. 2.61-2 = OF445).58 There are sea breezes
(ὠκεανίδες αὖραι περιπνέοισιν, Pind. Ol. 2.71-2 = OF445), flowery meadows
(φοινικορόδοις ... λειμώνεσσι, Pind. fr. 129 = OF439, ἄνθεμα δὲ χρυσοῦ
φλέγει, Pind. Ol. 2.72 = OF445), and fruit in abundance (χρυσέοις καρποῖς
βεβριθός, Pind. fr. 129 = OF439). The inhabitants are entertained with music
(φορμίγγεσσι τέρπονται, Pind. fr. 129 = OF439) and occupy themselves with
the pastimes they enjoyed in life,59 such as riding, athletics and draughts (τοὶ
μὲν ἵπποις γυμνασίοις <τε>, τοὶ δὲ πεσσοῖς, Pind. fr. 129 = OF439). Here they
live without toil (λυσίπονον, Pind. fr. 131 = OF441).60
Who, then, qualified for this desirable fate? The sea-god Proteus in the
Odyssey explains to Menelaus that he will be selected as the husband of Helen
and so son-in-law of Zeus (οὕνεκ’ ἔχεις Ἑλένην καί σφιν γαμβρὸς Διός ἐσσι,
Od. 4.569).61 This criterion would leave a very select group of inhabitants; in
Homer even a great hero like Achilles with a divine mother remains in a
miserable condition in Hades (Od. 11.488-91). In Hesiod, however, it appears
that of his fourth race of heroes, some died (that is, went to Hades) and others
were allowed the better fate (τοὺς μὲν θανάτου τέλος ἀμφεκάλυψεν, τοῖς δὲ
δίχ’ ἀνθρώπων βίοτον καὶ ἤθε’ ὀπάσσας, Op. 166-7).62 He does not say who
were so privileged, or how they were selected. In later writers Achilles is
usually regarded as one of these,63 and Medea, who is said to have married
58
It is not clear what this means: perhaps perpetual sunshine, or day here while night on
earth, or unchanging seasons in perpetual equinox (Willcock 1995 ad loc).
59
Edmonds 2015: 556-7.
60
The main features of Greek utopias are summarised in Mace 1996: 237.
61
See West 1988 ad loc.
62
The distinction is omitted in some papyri; reasons for preserving it are given by West
1978 ad loc. Cf. Rohde 1925: 74-6.
63
Edwards 1985: 221.
96
2/3:
The topography of the afterlife
Achilles there.64 Harmodius the tyrannicide is another, joining Achilles and
Diomedes according to an Attic drinking song (PMG 894).
By Pindar the scope had further widened, as he speaks both of ‘the good’
(ἐσλοὶ, Ol. 2.63 = OF445), and of those who have undergone rites to release
them from toil (λυσίπονον τελετάν, fr. 131 = OF441), and Aristophanes
explicitly calls them initiates (οἱ μεμυημένοι, Ran. 159), here referring to
initiates of Eleusis.65 This is a significant development, and transforms what
started as mythology remote from humankind into something anyone can
achieve, as we shall see throughout this study.
The location of this paradise is, however, variable. In some cases, it seems to
be part of, or adjacent to, Hades itself.66 In the painting of Polygnotus (Paus.
10.28-31), and the parody of Aristophanes (Ran. 136-58, 312-59) those with a
happy fate are mixed up with those with an unpleasant one, though this may
be due to the demands of the dramatic or pictorial medium.
The most popular location, however, is the Isles of the Blessed (μακάρων
νῆσοι). We meet them in Hesiod (Op. 167-73), where they are located at the
ends of the earth (ἐς πείρατα γαίης, 168) by deep-whirling Ocean (171) under
the rule of Kronos (173a). Possibly ‘Isles of the Blessed’ originally meant ‘Isles
of the Blessed Gods’,67 but already in Hesiod, where they are described as ‘far
64
By Ibycus (fr. 291) and Simonides (fr. 588) in schol. Ap. Rhod. 4.814-15a.
65
As is shown by Graf 1974: 40-50; see also Brown 1991.
66
Edmonds 2013b: 261.
67
Rohde 1925: 74-6, West 1978: 193-4.
97
2/3:
The topography of the afterlife
from the immortals’ (τηλοῦ ἀπ’ ἀθανάτων, Op. 173a),68 the epithet must be
applied to the heroes who inhabit them.
An alternative was the Elysian plain (Ἠλύσιον πεδίον) 69 to which Menelaus
was destined in Homer (Od. 4.563), described as at the ends of the earth
(πείρατα γαίης), where Rhadmanthys rules.70 The name seems pre-Greek.71
Another possibility was the White Headland (λευκή ακτή, Eur. Andr. 1262, IT
436) or Island to which Achilles was carried when snatched from the pyre by
Thetis in the Aethiopis (ἡ Θέτις ἀναρπάσασα τὸν παῖδα εἰς τὴν Λευκὴν νῆσον
διακομίζει, Procl. Chrestomathia 199).72 The land of the Hyperboreans in the
far north seems to have had a similar function (Bacchyl. 3.58-61, Pind. Pyth.
10.38-44).73 By Hellenistic times, the idea had grown up of a kind of heaven in
the sky. Already in Aristophanes the dead might become stars: ‘Is it not how
they say, that we become like stars in the heavens when we die? Yes. So who’s
a star there now?’ (οὐκ ἦν ἄρ᾽ οὐδ᾽ ἃ λέγουσι, κατὰ τὸν ἀέρα ὡς ἀστέρες
γιγνόμεθ᾽, ὅταν τις ἀποθάνῃ; -- μάλιστα. -- καὶ τίς ἐστιν ἀστὴρ νῦν ἐκεῖ;, Ar.
Pax 832-3); a Pythagorean saying of uncertain date located the Isles of the
Blessed in the sun and moon (Iambl. VP 82).74
68
But see Rohde 1925: 76, West 1978 ad loc for the possibility that this line is an
interpolation.
69
The Elysian plain is also in Ibycus (fr. 291) and Simonides (fr. 588) in schol. Ap. Rhod.
4.814-15a.
70
For Rhadamanthys as indicating a Cretan origin, see West 1988 ad loc; contra SourvinouInwood 1995: 32-49.
Bremmer 2002: 137n47, correcting a supposed connection with ἐνηλύσιος, ‘struck by
lightning’.
71
72
Edwards 1985: 215, 221. For other such translations, see Rohde 1925: 64-5.
73
Brown 2011: 22-3.
74
Burkert 1972: 359-68.
98
2/3:
The topography of the afterlife
Generally, these locations were mutually exclusive alternatives, though in
Pindar (Ol. 2.56-83 = OF445), we do get two grades of idyll, one in or near
Hades and the other, for a more select group, on the Islands of the Blessed,
apparently his attempt to combine traditional ideas with the beliefs of his
patron on metempsychosis.75 Those, Pindar says, who successfully complete
three reincarnations76 follow the road of Zeus to the tower of Kronos (Διὸς
ὁδὸν παρὰ Κρόνου τύρσιν, Ol. 2.70 = OF445) on the islands. There is no
mention of a sea journey, so we perhaps should not take the reference to a
road too literally.77 Inhabitants include Rhadamanthys, Peleus, Cadmus and
Achilles (Pind. Ol. 2.75-83). Elsewhere in Pindar, we seem to be close to the
traditional Hades: after describing the ‘lovely place’ (ἐρατόν ... χῶρον) he adds
‘thence sluggish streams of murky night belch out unlimited dark’ (ἔνθεν τὸν
ἄπειρον ἐρεύγονται σκότον βληχροὶ δνοφερᾶς νυκτὸς ποταμοὶ, fr. 130 =
OF440).
Overall, then, we have a picture, vague and contradictory in many details, but
with a basic consistency, of what the topography of the afterlife was thought
to look like in mythology and traditional belief. The clear distinction that
emerged between the miseries of gloomy Hades and the idyllic fate of the
privileged is especially significant. How far this was considered to be a literally
true account of the afterlife, and how far just a kind of fairy tale, or something
in between the two, we do not know. It is what had been transmitted through
mythology, poetry and traditional tales, and must have formed part of
everyone’s world view, whether they accepted it or not. It is something like
75
Solmsen 1968.
76
Discussed below, Chapter Five section 2.
77
Burkert notes that some pictorial portrayals do, however, show the departing dead
accompanied by sea-creatures (Burkert 1972: 359-60).
99
2/3:
The topography of the afterlife
this that the clients of the private initiators were likely to have had in the backs
of their minds when offered the prospect of a better fate in the world to come.
100
2/4:
4:
Myths of Plato on the soul
Myths of Plato on the soul
The works of Plato constitute one of the main contemporary sources of
information on views of the soul and afterlife in the classical period. Their use,
however, presents certain methodological problems. In this section, I want to
analyse what these are and to come to a preliminary assessment of where this
material can be validly employed as evidence, which will inform its use in
subsequent discussions of particular topics.
Plato’s myths of the soul are scattered throughout his works, and give a very
varied picture, sometimes speaking of its fate in Hades, sometimes of its
reincarnation in a new body. As we shall see, they are all introduced by him
with a purpose, to support his arguments for the immortality of the soul and
the need to live a good life. Their interest for us in the present enquiry lies in
the fact that they seem to incorporate facets of contemporary beliefs on these
matters, and can therefore be used as evidence for them, if what is authentic
evidence can be disentangled from what is invented by Plato for his own
purposes. My aim here is to set out the principles on which this can be done,
and eventually arrive at certain conclusions as to what can be used as valid
evidence of contemporary belief and what can not.
I wish to look at various accounts of a more or less mythological nature, which
for simplicity I shall generally describe as myths, which are introduced by Plato
to support whatever philosophical argument he is engaged in at the time.
Some are comparatively brief passing references, while others are extended
and elaborated accounts; as we shall see, they are not intended to be
compatible with each other. I believe that thirteen, which I list in something
101
2/4:
Myths of Plato on the soul
like the order in which Plato may have written them,78 are relevant to the topic
of the soul and afterlife:
(i)
Gorgias 492e-493c = OF430, 434, 668. Are human beings really dead,
and is death really life? An ingenious Sicilian or Italian told a fable of the
uninitiated in Hades carrying water in a sieve.
(ii)
Gorgias 522e-527a = OF460. The three judges of the dead, Minos,
Rhadamanthus and Aeacus.79
(iii)
Meno 81a-c = OF424, 666. The soul is immortal and has been reborn
many times. Persephone, as Plato reports Pindar saying, accepts requital for
ancient wrongs and restores the souls of heroes to the sun.
(iv)
Phaedo 62b = OF429, 669. Life is a kind of prison or guard post, from
which we humans must not release ourselves by suicide.
(v)
Phaedo 63b-c. Socrates will go to the company of good men and gods
after death.
(vi)
Phaedo 69c-d = OF434, 549, 576, 669. The initiated will live with the
gods after death, while the uninitiated will lie in mud.
(vii)
Phaedo 70c-d = OF428. The souls of the dead are reborn and live again.
78
On the chronology, see Thesleff 1989, Howland 1991, Altman 2010. The broad
distinction between early, middle and late dialogues seems generally agreed, even if the
details are uncertain, and there is also the possibility of subsequent revision by Plato. As to
the possibility of a development in his views over time as reflected in these myths, one can
note that the later ones are longer and more elaborate, and that metempsychosis, though
present from the beginning, takes a more central role, but otherwise it seems difficult to
identify any change.
79
Discussion in Dodds 1959: 372-6, Annas 1982: 122-5.
102
2/4:
Myths of Plato on the soul
(viii)
Phaedo 80d-82c. Souls are reborn in bodies corresponding to their
former life; only the soul of the philosopher will live with the gods.
(ix)
Phaedo 107d-108c, 113d-114c.
The fate of the soul after death
depends on its good or bad actions in life. Five groups are distinguished, with
fates ranging from confinement in Tartarus to dwelling in places of
indescribable beauty.80
(x)
Republic 614b-621b = OF461-2, 1037, 1077. Myth of Er. Extended
account of how souls after death are punished or rewarded for their actions in
life. Each soul chooses its own reincarnation; some choose well, others
badly.81
(xi)
Phaedrus 246a-249b = OF459. The human soul is like two horses, one
divine, one earthly, and a charioteer. Souls are reincarnated in different forms,
according to their merits.
(xii)
Timaeus 42b-d, 91a-92c. Souls are created as stars, then incarnated as
men. Those who fail to live a good life are successively reborn as women and
animals.
(xiii)
Laws 903b-904d. Souls are joined now to one body, now another. Souls
of the good end up after death in the higher regions, of the wicked in lower
regions such as Hades.
It seems likely that much of the detail that Plato presents in these myths is
created by him, either with a view to supporting his argument or indeed
80
Discussion in Edmonds 2004: 159-220, Pender 2012.
81
For the myth of Er in general, see Annas 1981: 344-53, Annas 1982: 129-38, Ferrari 2009.
103
2/4:
Myths of Plato on the soul
through sheer pleasure in telling stories.82 Mythoi are generally characterised
by him as false but plausible.83 The afterlife in particular is an area where he
believes that truth is unattainable, but myths can be used instead not because
of their truth but because of the importance of the moral we can deduce from
them (Phd. 114d).84 I shall look at later some of the disclaimers he uses to
emphasise this point. Dodds has analysed the Gorgias myth to show how it
may have been constructed from a number of sources, including Homer,
Pindar and the Pythagoreans.85
The problem with using these myths as evidence can then be simply stated.
Plato has no interest in putting them forward for our information; he just
wishes to make and support a philosophical argument. The question I am
attempting to answer is how we distinguish what in his accounts is based on
current contemporary doctrines, that would be recognised as such by his
audience, or by some of his audience, and what is his own invention.86
I should like first to consider these accounts in three aspects. What is the
argument in which Plato is engaged at the point in the dialogue that he
introduces the myth? What is the source that he claims for his story? And
what view of the soul and the afterlife does it appear to be evidence for? We
can then proceed to make a preliminary estimate of their value.
82
See Wright 1979 for a general discussion.
83
Wright 1979: 364-6.
84
Wright 1979: 369.
85
Dodds 1959: 372-6.
86
For general surveys of the myths, see Brisson 1999, Morgan 2000, Inwood, M. 2009 and
Ward 2013. They are understandably concerned with the significance of the myths for
Plato’s philosophy, not as evidence for the history of religion. For an approach closer to my
own, see Edmonds 2004: 101-71 and Edmonds 2014. For the development of Plato’s
concept of the soul, see Claus 1981, Bremmer 1983 and Lorenz 2008.
104
2/4:
Myths of Plato on the soul
The arguments that Plato is engaged in when he introduces the myth, and
therefore the purpose for which he introduces it, are surprisingly consistent
between the dialogues. They can be reduced to two: the immortality of the
soul, and the value of living a virtuous and especially a philosophical life.
As was noted above,87 Plato regarded the immortality of the soul as a doctrine
that would not be readily accepted. He says that people generally believe that
when the soul leaves the body it no longer exists anywhere (Phd. 70a), and
Glaukon in the Republic is amazed when Socrates claims that it is undying
(Resp. 608d). Clearly, any myth of the afterlife at least presupposes survival
after death, and can therefore be brought in to support his claim. In the Meno
81a-c he first calls unnamed priests and Pindar88 as witnesses for immortality
and metempsychosis, and then goes on to treat this as proved (‘since
therefore the soul is immortal and has lived many times’, ἅτε οὖν ἡ ψυχὴ
ἀθάνατός τε οὖσα καὶ πολλάκις γεγονυῖα, 81c).89 The metaphor of the chariot
and the account of the judgment of souls in the Phaedrus 246a-249b is
preceded by a philosophical exposition of the doctrine of immortality (245c246a). A similar motive can be seen in the Phaedo 62b (argument against
suicide), 63b-c (why Socrates is not grieving at the approach of death) and 70cd, where an ancient account (παλαιὸς λόγος, 70c) of metempsychosis is put
forward as a sufficient proof (ἱκανὸν τεκμήριον, 70d) of the soul’s existence
after death.
Even more important is the use of these myths to support Plato’s arguments
for living a virtuous life. The myths in the Gorgias, here not involving
reincarnation, are explicitly said to be designed to induce Socrates’
87
Section 2.
88
See Bluck 1958b on reincarnation in Pindar.
89
Cf. Leg. 870d5-e2 = OF433; Betegh 2014: 157.
105
2/4:
Myths of Plato on the soul
interlocutor to choose an orderly over an intemperate life (ἀντὶ τοῦ ἀπλήστως
καὶ ἀκολάστως ἔχοντος βίου τὸν κοσμίως καὶ τοῖς ἀεὶ παροῦσιν ἱκανῶς καὶ
ἐξαρκούντως ἔχοντα βίον ἑλέσθαι, 493c), and to prevent him going to the next
world with injustice in his soul.90 The Meno myth is said to prove that you
should make your life as holy as possible (δεῖν δὴ διὰ ταῦτα ὡς ὁσιώτατα
διαβιῶναι τὸν βίον, 81b), and we find similar motives in the Phaedo (107d114c), the Timaeus (42b-d) and the myth of Er (Resp. 614b-621b). In each case,
the myth shows this by representing the fate of the virtuous after death as
different from and better than the rest. Luckily for Plato, the lot of the
philosopher is especially happy: ‘”the narthex bearers are many, the Bacchoi
few”, and these in my opinion are none other than the true philosophers’
(‘ναρθηκοφόροι μὲν πολλοί, βάκχοι δέ τε παῦροι:’ οὗτοι δ᾽ εἰσὶν κατὰ τὴν
ἐμὴν δόξαν οὐκ ἄλλοι ἢ οἱ πεφιλοσοφηκότες ὀρθῶς, Phd. 69c-d); ‘those
sufficiently purified by philosophy live altogether without bodies for the
succeeding time and come to even more beautiful dwellings’ (τούτων δὲ
αὐτῶν οἱ φιλοσοφίᾳ ἱκανῶς καθηράμενοι ἄνευ τε σωμάτων ζῶσι τὸ παράπαν
εἰς τὸν ἔπειτα χρόνον, καὶ εἰς οἰκήσεις ἔτι τούτων καλλίους ἀφικνοῦνται, Phd.
114c).
We can therefore see, by examining the arguments Plato was trying to support
by these accounts, what might be the kind of elaborations he would have had
a motive for importing into existing and traditional stories. Before considering
this, however, it may be instructive to examine the sources he alleges for his
myths. These are various. In some, it is a traditional tale (‘an old wives’ tale’,
μῦθός ... ὥσπερ γραὸς, Grg. 527a; ‘an old story we remember’, παλαιός τις
λόγος οὗ μεμνήμεθα, Phd. 70c), or simply ‘it is said’ (λέγεται, Phd. 107d).
‘The worst of all evils is for the soul to go to Hades full of much injustice. If you wish, I
should like to tell you a story to show this is so’, πολλῶν γὰρ ἀδικημάτων γέμοντα τὴν
ψυχὴν εἰς Ἅιδου ἀφικέσθαι πάντων ἔσχατον κακῶν ἐστιν. εἰ δὲ βούλει, σοὶ ἐγώ, ὡς τοῦτο
οὕτως ἔχει, ἐθέλω λόγον λέξαι, Grg. 522e.
90
106
2/4:
Myths of Plato on the soul
Sometimes it is some wise person, intelligent priests and priestesses, inspired
poets (ὅσοι θεῖοί εἰσιν) such as Pindar (both Meno 81a-b), or an ingenious man
(κομψὸς ἀνήρ) from Sicily or Italy (Grg. 493a). Sometimes it is a source
connected with the mysteries, whether Eleusis or private mysteries is not clear
(‘said in what is not to be repeated’, ἐν ἀπορρήτοις λεγόμενος, Phd. 62b;
‘those who established the mystery rites’, οἱ τὰς τελετὰς ἡμῖν οὗτοι
καταστήσαντες, Phd. 69c; ‘just as is said among the initiates’, ὥσπερ δὲ
λέγεται κατὰ τῶν μεμυημένων, Phd. 81a). In other cases, Plato simply puts
forward the story without giving a source (Phd. 63b-c, Resp. 614b, Phdr. 246a249b).
It may be that these sources, or some of them, are more or less genuine, and
scholars have spent some effort in attempts to trace, for example,
Pythagoreans behind the wise persons or Empedocles behind the ingenious
Sicilian.91 It is, however, difficult to see any clear relation between the myth
related and the alleged source, and it seems to me more plausible that all
these sources are merely inventions by Plato to lend an air of verisimilitude to
his stories. In the judgment of Most: ‘Even if it seems highly probable, or even
evident, to us that a certain myth was invented by Plato, he likes to pretend
that it is a genuine excerpt from the real reservoir of oral legends present in
Greek culture’.92 Possibly the source he invents will be one that he considers
most likely for his tale, as initiates for those mentioning initiation, or someone
from Magna Graecia for the metempsychosis associated with figures from that
area.
91
Pythagoreans: Burkert 1972: 78n157, Huffman 2013: 252-4. Sicilian or Italian: Kingsley
1995: 113-14, Edmonds 2013b: 272-3. ἀπορρήτοις: Strachan 1970.
92
Most 2012: 17.
107
2/4:
Myths of Plato on the soul
I suggest, therefore, that the myths are primarily inventions by Plato, which,
however, have a basis in a common stock of ideas that would be familiar both
to him and to his audience. I think that support for this view can be found in
the care he takes to add disclaimers to show that they are not to be taken
literally: ‘this is pretty ridiculous’ (ταῦτ’ ἐπιεικῶς μέν ἐστιν ὑπό τι ἄτοπα, Grg.
493c); ‘perhaps this seems to you a story an old woman might tell and you will
despise’ (τάχα δ’ οὖν ταῦτα μῦθός σοι δοκεῖ λέγεσθαι ὥσπερ γραὸς καὶ
καταφρονεῖς αὐτῶν, Grg. 527a); ‘what they say is as follows; you judge if it
seems to you true’ (ἃ δὲ λέγουσιν, ταυτί ἐστιν: ἀλλὰ σκόπει εἴ σοι δοκοῦσιν
ἀληθῆ λέγειν, Meno 81b); ‘to affirm confidently that these things are as I have
recounted would not be fitting for a man of sense’ (τὸ μὲν οὖν ταῦτα
διισχυρίσασθαι οὕτως ἔχειν ὡς ἐγὼ διελήλυθα, οὐ πρέπει νοῦν ἔχοντι ἀνδρί,
Phd. 114d).
The theme common to almost all these myths is that of rewards awaiting
certain people in the afterlife.93 Usually these are the virtuous, who have lived
a good life (Grg. 522e-527a, Phd. 63b-c, 107d-114c, Resp. 614b-621b, Phdr.
246a-249b). Sometimes, by contrast, they are initiates (Grg. 492e-493c, Phd.
69c-d, 81a), but even here Plato contrives to equate them with the virtuous
and philosophical: ‘these [initiates] in my opinion are none other than the true
philosophers’ (οὗτοι δ᾽ εἰσὶν κατὰ τὴν ἐμὴν δόξαν οὐκ ἄλλοι ἢ οἱ
πεφιλοσοφηκότες ὀρθῶς, Phd. 69d); ‘the thoughtless [he called] uninitiate’
(τοὺς δὲ ἀνοήτους ἀμυήτους, Grg. 493a); similarly, in Phaedo 81a the initiates
are equated with the philosophers.
The other major theme is that of metempsychosis (Meno 81a-c, Phd. 70c-d,
107d-114c, Resp. 614b-621b, Phdr. 246a-249b, Ti. 42b-d, 91a-92c). We also
learn of the body as a prison (Grg. 492e-493c, Phd. 62b, cf. Cra. 400b-c =
93
For an analysis of the typical narrative pattern, see Betegh 2009: 84-5.
108
2/4:
Myths of Plato on the soul
OF430, 667), and in the final myth of the Phaedo, which appears something of
a rag-bag of disparate contemporary beliefs, there is reference to personal
daimons for each living person (107d, also Resp. 620d-e), psychopomps
leading the soul to Hades (107e) and to funeral rites (θυσιῶν τε καὶ νομίμων,
108a) and their effect on the dead. The Platonic doctrine of anamnesis
appears in Meno 81c (ἀναμνησθῆναι, ἅ γε πρότερον ἠπίστατο, ‘to recollect
what she [the soul] knew before’), and probably again in Republic 621a.
It will not have escaped the reader’s notice that many of these myths are
incompatible with one another. The incompatibilities are of various types: (i)
details of the judgments and reincarnations in the longer accounts, (ii) the
contradiction between salvation for initiates and salvation for the good and
virtuous, (iii) incompatibility between the concept of metempsychosis, where
a soul’s deserts affect how or how often it is reborn,94 and the concept of a
fate in the other world where sinners go to Tartarus or Hades and the good to
the Isles of the Blessed, (iv) the contrast between the soul’s immortality and
an alternative theory put forward by Plato of the soul as a harmonic blending
of elements (Phd. 86b-d, 88d),95 (v) more generally, the whole relation of these
myths to the theory of Ideas.96 Again, we see that Plato is not outlining some
consistent underlying theory, but rather picking up scraps of various theories
he has heard and using them as a base for the invention of different persuasive
stories to bolster his arguments.97
94
Annas 1982: 129 raises the problem the soul’s forgetting its past lives might have for this.
95
Zhmud 2014: 106.
96
Rohde 1925: 468-9.
97
Bluck 1958a and 1958b assumes a consistent underlying theory, but gets into
considerable difficulty trying to reconcile everything. Proclus had already faced the same
problem in trying to construct a unified myth of reincarnation; Edmonds 2013b: 285-6.
109
2/4:
Myths of Plato on the soul
To summarise our conclusions so far, Plato uses these myths to support his
arguments that the soul is immortal and that the good, virtuous and
philosophical will be rewarded. He claims sources for them in traditional tales,
wise men, priests and poets, and the mystery rites, but we saw reason to
suspect that these sources may have been invented. The content of the myths
centres on rewards for the good, or sometimes the initiates, together with
metempsychosis, but they are not consistent with each other. Can we now go
ahead to conclude what in Plato’s myths is of value as evidence for
contemporary views of the soul and the afterlife? This will perhaps inevitably
involve an element of personal judgment, but I shall try to give an answer. I
should like to set out five conclusions:
1.
The basic ideas underlying the greater part of these myths were familiar
ones.
If they were not, then the superstructure that Plato builds on them would not
have been likely to be persuasive. By the basic ideas I mean the concept of an
afterlife in which some have a better fate than others and the concept of
transmigration of souls. It does not follow, of course, that everyone would
have accepted these ideas, but the fact that he introduces them again and
again without feeling the need to justify them as something new and
unfamiliar does indicate that he would expect his audience to have heard of
them.
2.
The details of the longer myths were inventions by Plato.
As I observed above, the details of what happens to the souls after death in
the Gorgias, Phaedo, Republic, Phaedrus and Timaeus are radically different
from each other.
In the Republic, Phaedrus and Timaeus they are
reincarnated; in the Gorgias and Phaedo they are sent to Tartarus or wherever
110
2/4:
Myths of Plato on the soul
according to their merits, though the details of their fate do not, however,
match between these latter two. Judgment in the Gorgias is by Minos,
Rhadamanthus and Aeacus (523e), but Er in the Republic is confronted by
judgment at the Spindle of Necessity (616c). The souls choose their own
reincarnation in the Republic, but in the Phaedrus they are allotted to nine
groups (perhaps meant to be illustrative of a larger number). These details
differ so much from each other that they must all be essentially inventions by
Plato.
3.
Anything especially adapted to Plato’s argument is suspect.
I think we should also look with suspicion on anything that seems especially
adapted to support the arguments he is making at this point in the dialogue.
That the good are rewarded after death and the bad punished is one of his
central themes, and while it might reflect a widespread contemporary view, it
is equally probable that it was brought in or emphasised by Plato to support
his case. The same would apply to what seem to be references in the Meno
myth to the doctrine of anamnesis expounded in that dialogue, that
knowledge is not only innate, but has been forgotten from a previous life, an
idea which may be original to Plato.98 It is again alluded to in the Republic,
where those with good sense (φρονήσει) drank sparingly of the waters of
forgetfulness (621a).
4.
Anything which conflicts with the case he is making is likely to be
authentic.
This is the converse of the previous conclusion. As we have seen, he feels it
necessary on occasion to mention the prospect of a better life for initiates
98
For anamnesis, see Scott 1987. For attempts to show that anamnesis is in fact
Pythagorean, see Kahn 2001: 50-1, Cornelli 2013: 26.
111
2/4:
Myths of Plato on the soul
rather than the good, but then to explain this away by claiming the initiates
are really the good. We might therefore conjecture that posthumous reward
for initiates was in fact more familiar to his audience than reward for the good.
Again, he introduces the doctrine that human life is a prison (ὡς ἔν τινι φρουρᾷ
ἐσμεν οἱ ἄνθρωποι), only to dismiss it as incomprehensible (οὐ ῥᾴδιος διιδεῖν,
Phd. 62b). As it adds nothing to his argument, it is likely to be a true report;
similarly, the σῶμα/σῆμα pun in the Gorgias (493a).
5.
Other casual references are likely to be authentic.
This is an extension of the previous conclusion. The concepts of a personal
daimon for each human, a psychopomp to lead the dead to Hades, or the
effect of funeral rites on the dead are introduced briefly into the Phaedo myth
(107d-108c) and add nothing significant to the story; similarly that the judges
of the dead are called Minos, Rhadamanthus and Aeacus (Grg. 523e) is
traditional.99 As Plato had no motive for supplying them, they are likely to be
ideas of common knowledge added for local colour.
These principles should provide a guide to distinguishing what is authentic in
Plato’s myths from what is his own invention and form a base on which Plato’s
evidence can be used to good effect in the chapters that follow.
99
Minos already in Homer Od. 11.568-71. For the development of his co-judges, see Rohde
1925: 246-8n13.
112
2/5:
5:
Eleusis and the public mysteries
Eleusis and the public mysteries
Fig. 1. The Telesterion at Eleusis
By Carole Raddato from FRANKFURT, Germany - Overall view of the Telesterion, the "place for
initiation", Eleusis, CC BY-SA 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=37877992
113
2/5:
Eleusis and the public mysteries
Fig. 2. The Niinion Tablet
By Carole Raddato from FRANKFURT, Germany - Terracotta votive plaque dedicated by Ninnion to
the two great goddesses of Eleusis, middle of 4th century BC, Archaeological Museum of Athens,
Greece, CC BY-SA 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=37877936
My focus in this study is on private initiators who offered the prospect of a
better fate in the next world. The best-known and most prestigious example
of this in the classical Greek world was, however, a public cult, that of Eleusis.
This was well established when the private practitioners appeared, and it is
reasonable to conjecture that it formed a pattern which they followed, at least
in part. It will therefore be useful as a comparison to say something about
what we know of the mysteries at Eleusis.100
100
Book-length studies include Foucart 1914, dated but still the fullest treatment of many
aspects, Mylonas 1961, Clinton 1974, Clinton 1992, Cosmopoulos 2014 and Cosmopoulos
114
2/5:
Eleusis and the public mysteries
Although preceded by Lesser Mysteries, which took place at Agrai in Athens in
the month of Anthesterion in the spring, about which we know little, the main
events occurred annually in the autumn, from the 15 th to the 22nd of
Boedromion. The sequence began in Athens and ended at the sanctuary of
Demeter and Kore in Eleusis, 18 km to the northwest, and part of Athenian
territory (Fig. 1). Initiation was open to non-Athenians, to women and to
slaves, only barbarians and murderers being excluded, and it seems likely that
several thousand people took part each year. Fees were payable to the
officials, and each initiand was allotted a mystagogue or guide. A sacred truce
was proclaimed across Greece to allow travel to the ceremony.
The
participants each washed a piglet in the sea before sacrificing it, as part of a
purification ritual.101 They proceeded on a subsequent day in elaborate
procession, on foot and in carriages, to Eleusis, with ceremonies including
ritual insults at the bridge over the Kephisos. At Eleusis the actual initiation
took place. Initiates had the option of returning the following year to advance
into a further grade, the epopteia.102
As befits a state festival, the priests had quasi-official, sometimes hereditary,
status. We have seen the contrast with the private initiators in the previous
chapter. The chief officiants, the Hierophant or shower of the sacred things
and the Dadouchos or torch-bearer, were hereditary in the Athenian families
2015. There are short introductory surveys in Parker 2005: 342-63, Bowden 2010: 26-48
and Bremmer 2014: 1-20, which has valuable references to more recent work. The
summary in the following paragraph is collected from all of the above.
101
See below, Chapter One section 3, on private practitioners who offered purification.
The one-year interval is clear from Plut. Dem. 26 (ἀπὸ τῶν μεγάλων ἐνιαυτὸν
διαλείποντες), so Foucart 1914: 432, Mylonas 1961: 274, Clinton 1992: 86. I do not know
why Bremmer (2014: 11) and Cosmopoulos (2015: 24) seem to assume that this formed
part of the original initiation.
102
115
2/5:
Eleusis and the public mysteries
of the Eumolpids and Kerykes respectively. Other officials included the
priestess of Demeter and Kore, two hierophantids and the sacred herald.103
It has sometimes been suggested that the origins of the cult of Demeter and
Kore at Eleusis go back to Mycenean times. Mylonas and Travlos, who
excavated the site, were of this opinion.104 Although there is indeed some
evidence of ritual practices in the Mycenean Megaron B at Eleusis, 105 there is
nothing to link this to Demeter, a goddess who is not mentioned in Linear B.106
Recent research has now revealed continuing, if limited, use of the site in the
succeeding period,107 but the main change may have coincided with the
architectural reorganisation that appears to have taken place around the
beginning of the sixth century.108
The role of Kore/Persephone as the daughter of Demeter also seems
comparatively late. In Homer (Od. 11-12) Persephone is just the queen of the
underworld.109 They first appear as mother and daughter in a continuation of
Hesiod of doubtful date (Th. 912-14).110 The earliest artistic representation of
the anodos or return to the upper world of Kore is not until the fifth century.111
The Homeric Hymn to Demeter,112 the best-known account of the myth of the
103
On all of these see Clinton 1974.
104
Mylonas 1961: 7-105, Travlos 1973.
105
Cosmopoulos 2003: 18-20.
106
Darcque 1981: 599.
107
Cosmopoulos 2015: 158-9, contra Darcque 1981: 599.
108
Sourvinou-Inwood 1997: 141, Cosmopoulos 2015: 164.
109
Binder 1998: 136-7.
110
West 1966: 397-9, Binder 1998: 137.
111
Edwards 1986: 313.
112
Richardson 1974, Clinton 1986, Clinton 1992: 28-37, 96-9, Foley 1994, Clay 2006.
116
2/5:
Eleusis and the public mysteries
abduction of Kore by Hades, the search for her by Demeter, and her return,
appears to date to the sixth century.113 There are, however, significant
differences between the story of the hymn and the version apparently current
at Eleusis, for example the episode of Demophon in the hymn, the major role
it has for Hekate and the minor role for Eumolpus,114 which might indicate that
at that date the cult was not well established.
The conquest of Eleusis by Athens and its taking over of the mysteries related
by Pausanias (1.38.3) is assigned by him to the mythical time of Erechtheus,115
and there is no reason to suppose it reflects any historical reality. 116 The
mysteries were in fact integrated into the religious system of the Athenian
polis and came under the archon basileus.117 The cult at Eleusis would fit well
into the pattern of countryside cults in Attica established by Athens, perhaps
as a way of marking out its territory.118 By the fifth century it was certainly
panhellenic (IG I3 6),119 something that it is tempting to link with the policies
of the Peisistratids in the late sixth century; there was a parallel and possibly
contemporaneous development towards establishing the Great Panathenaia
as a panhellenic festival.
113
Richardson 1974: 5-11.
Clinton 1986. It is therefore not quite accurate to describe the Hymn as ‘the foundation
myth of the Mysteries’ (Bremmer 2014: 10).
114
115
For similar accounts see Sourvinou-Inwood 1997: 141-2.
Herodotus (1.30) mentions a fight against the neighbours in Eleusis (μάχης πρὸς τοὺς
ἀστυγείτονας ἐν Ἐλευσῖνι), but this was probably against the Megarians.
116
117
Sourvinou-Inwood 1997: 145.
118
Parker 1996: 25.
119
Clinton 1994: 162-3.
117
2/5:
Eleusis and the public mysteries
As to what actually took place in the initiation ceremony, we know very little,
as secrecy was strictly enforced.120 Alcibiades was recalled from the command
of the Sicilian expedition on a charge of revealing the mysteries (Thuc. 6.27-8,
60, Plut. Alc. 19-21). There are reports of death sentences for even accidental
breaches of the rule of secrecy,121 and Pausanias (1.38.7) felt unable, after a
warning dream, even to describe the monuments of the sanctuary.
The site of Eleusis was excavated by Kouroniotes, Mylonas and others in the
1930s,122 but it is difficult to get much clue from the buildings as to what
occurred in them; at most certain possibilities can be ruled out as
impracticable.
There is a considerable body of inscriptions,123 but this
naturally relates to the public part of the cult. Artistic representations such as
the Niinnion Tablet (Fig. 2),124 the Regina Vasorum and the Lakrateides Relief
have been used as evidence,125 but these are difficult to interpret, and as they
were likely to be seen by non-initiates could not contain anything very
revealing.
Literary evidence is sparse. I have already mentioned the Homeric Hymn to
Demeter and suggested that it may differ in some ways from the developed
120
The problem is discussed in Foucart 1914: 358-65, Mylonas 1961: 224-8, Richardson
1974: 304-8 and Clinton 1992: 90-1. For explanations of the secrecy as due to the great
holiness of the rites see Bremmer 2014: 17-18, though this might seem to beg the question
of why these rites held this position when other religious acts did not.
121
Schol. Ar. Av. 1073-4 (Diagoras the Melian), Livy 31.14 (youths entering the sanctuary by
accident). Aeschylus was popularly supposed to have narrowly escaped a similar fate;
Mylonas 1961: 227, Lefkowitz 1981: 68.
122
Mylonas 1961; see also Travlos 1973, Darcque 1981, Binder 1998 and Cosmopoulos
2003, 2014, 2015.
123
Clinton 2005-8.
124
Or Ninnion Tablet. Demeter and Kore are shown top centre, but some of the other
identifications are disputed (Clinton 1992: 73-5).
125
Clinton 1992 is the major study of the iconography.
118
2/5:
Eleusis and the public mysteries
cult. There are references in many classical authors, but they seldom tell us
anything specific. Descriptions of the parodies of the mysteries with which
Alcibiades and Andocides were charged may provide clues about what they
are parodying.
The situation changes with the advent of Christianity. Church Fathers such as
Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Lactantius and Asterios were
obviously not constrained by any pagan prohibition, and tell us a great deal
about the mysteries that we do not find in any other source. The problem is
to decide how much of this is true. It is often far from clear what cult they are
describing, if they had any real knowledge of it, and how far in their polemical
zeal for their cause they had any concern to provide an accurate picture.
The one thing that is clear, however, is that the mysteries at Eleusis offered an
improved fate in the afterlife. Already in the Homeric Hymn, after Demeter
has established her rites there, we read:
ὄλβιος ὅς τάδ’ ὄπωπεν ἐπιχθονίων ἀνθρώπων·
ὅς δ’ ἀτελὴς ἱερῶν, ὁς τ’ ἄμμορος, οὒ ποθ’ ὁμοίων
αἶσαν ἔχει φθίμενός περ ὑπὸ ζόφῳ εὐρώεντι.
(Hymn. Hom. Cer. 480-2)
Whoever of men on earth sees these things is blessed, but he who does not
accomplish126 or share in the holy things does not have the same fate after
death beneath the mouldy darkness.
Richardson 1974 ad 481 would translate as ‘uninitiated’ (so also LSJ s.v. ἀτελής IV), but it
is not clear that the passage from Plato (Phdr. 248b) that he cites in support necessarily has
this meaning.
126
119
2/5:
Eleusis and the public mysteries
ὄλβιος, which I have translated as ‘blessed’, is used by Hesiod (Th. 96) in the
general sense of ‘happy, fortunate’, but later becomes almost a technical term
for the happiness of initiates in the mysteries.127
This is confirmed by other authors. ‘He who goes under earth having seen this
is blessed’, says Pindar (ὄλβιος ὅστις ἰδὼν κεῖν’ εἶς’ ὑπὸ χθόν’, fr. 137a =
OF444). Sophocles, too, says that ‘those mortals who have seen these rites
and go to Hades are thrice blessed, for they alone have life there, the others
have all evils’ (ὡς τρισόλβιοι κεῖνοι βροτῶν οἳ ταῦτα δερχθέντες τέλη μόλως’
ἐς Ἅιδου· τοῖσδε γὰρ μόνοις ἐκεῖ ζῆν ἔστι, τοῖς δ’ ἄλλοισι πάντ’ ἔχει κακά, fr.
837 Radt). Isocrates speaks of ‘the rite of which those participating have
pleasanter hopes for the end of life and all eternity’ (τὴν τελετήν, ἧς οἱ
μετασχόντες περί τε τῆς τοῦ βίου τελευτῆς καὶ τοῦ σύμπαντος αἰῶνος ἡδίους
τὰς ἐλπίδας ἔχουσιν, Paneg. 28).
Crinagoras, in the first century BC, recommends initiation ‘from which you will
have freedom from care in life and a lighter spirit when you join the dead’ (τῶν
ἄπο κὴν ζωοῖσιν ἀκηδέα, κεῦτ’ ἂν ἵκηαι ἐς πλεόνων, ἕξεις θυμὸν
ἐλαφρότερον, Anth. Pal. 11.42). Cicero says the mysteries provide not only
how to live in joy, ‘but even to die with a better hope’ (sed etiam cum spe
meliore moriendi, De leg. 2.36). The memorial to the second-century AD
hierophant Glaukos says ‘the mystery from the blessed ones is fine, that death
is not only not evil to mortals, but good’ (ἥ καλὸν ἐκ μακάρων μυστήριον, οὐ
μόνον εἶναι τὸν θάνατον θνητοῖς οὐ κακὸν, ἀλλ’ ἀγαθόν, IG II2 3661, II.5-6).
There therefore appear to be two things offered: a greater happiness in life
and the hope of a better fate after death. The nature of the greater happiness
127
Richardson 1974 ad 481 collects examples. The Latin equivalent is beatus; Apul. Met.
11.16.2. See also Lévêque 1982.
120
2/5:
Eleusis and the public mysteries
in life is not specified; it may mean that you will be happier in life if death holds
no terrors for you, or it may just refer to the joyous effects of the initiation
experience. Neither do we know precisely in what way the initiate would be
better off in the next life, just that their lot would be better than that of noninitiates.128
As to the actual ceremony, the name of the chief officiant, the hierophant,
must mean the one who shows the sacred things,129 whatever these may have
been, confirmed by the description of Alcibiades in his parody ‘wearing a robe
just like the hierophant wears when he shows the sacred things’ (ἔχοντα
στολὴν οἵανπερ ὁ ἱεροφάντης ἔχων δεικνύει τὰ ἱερά, Plut. Alc. 22.3). He also
spoke: Andocides, another accused, allegedly assumed the hierophantic robes
and ‘spoke what is forbidden’ (εἶπε τῇ φωνῇ τὰ ἀπόρρητα, [Lys.] 6.51), and we
hear of ‘the utterances from the anaktoron130’ (τὰς ἐξ ἀνακτόρου φωνὰς,
Philostr. VS 2.20) in connection with a hierophant.
The initiands may have been blindfolded during the proceedings.131 μύστης,
initiate, has been derived from μύω, to close the eyes or lips, and the implied
contrast with ἐπόπτης, spectator, the higher grade of initiate, has made the
128
For some inconclusive speculation see Mylonas 1961: 283-5, Richardson 1974 ad 367-9,
Burkert 1983: 293-6, Sourvinou-Inwood 1997: 154. Bremmer 2014: 18-19 suggests that the
importance of the eschatological aspects of the mysteries may have been overstated, and
that in many respects they were closer to a fertility ritual, with the return of Kore
symbolising the renewal of the crops. There were certainly elements of both, but the
hopes for the afterlife were well-attested, and it is these that concern me here.
129
Clinton 1974: 46.
130
Usually thought to be a part of the telesterion, or main temple of the site (Fig. 1), though
Clinton argues that it is a synonym for the telesterion itself (Clinton 1992: 126-32).
131
Clinton 1992: 86, Clinton 1993: 188-19, Clinton 2003: 50, Clinton: 2007: 343, Burkert
1983: 275, Dowden 1980: 413-17.
121
2/5:
Eleusis and the public mysteries
eyes seem more likely.132 The μυσταγωγός who was assigned to lead each
initiate would then have had a practical as well as a spiritual function.
A gong was apparently struck during the ceremony. According to Apollodoros,
in the second century BC, ‘the hierophant, when Kore is summoned,133 strikes
the so-called gong’ (τὸν ἱεροφάντην, τῆς Κόρης ἐπικαλουμένης, ἐπικρούειν τὸ
καλούμενον ἠχεῖον, FGrHist 244 F110). This is probably what is referred to by
Pindar, ‘bronze-rattling Demeter’ (χαλκοκρότου ... Δαμάτερος, Isthm. 7.3),134
and Velleius Paterculus, ‘a nocturnal sounding of bronze, such as is produced
in the rites of Ceres (nocturno aeris sono, qualis Cerealibus sacris cieri solet,
1.4.1).
An admittedly late source, Lactantius in the third to fourth century AD,
suggests that the initiands may have conducted a ritual search:135
His etiam Cereris simile mysterium est, in quo, facibus accensis, per noctem
Proserpina inquiritur, et ea inventa, ritus omnis gratulatione ac taedarum
iactatione finitur.
(Div. inst. epit. 23 = Migne P.L. vi.1030)
The mystery of Ceres is also similar in which with lighted torches they seek
Proserpina throughout the night, and when she is found the whole rite ends
with thanksgiving and throwing of torches.
132
Roussel 1930: 53-7, Dowden 1980: 413-17. On blindfolding on other initiatory cults:
Clinton 1992: 86, Clinton 2003: 70n2.
Not ‘calls for help’ as Foucart 1914: 462, taking ἐπικαλουμένης as middle; Mylonas
1961: 264n170.
133
134
For alternative interpretations see Clinton 1974: 47n276.
135
Dowden 1980: 486, Bremmer 2014: 10-11.
122
2/5:
Eleusis and the public mysteries
Ritual searches are known from other Greek cults: in Samothrace they
searched for Harmonia, in Samos for the statue of Hera, on Mount Larysion for
out-of-season grapes and at Chaironea for Dionysus.136
Bright light and torches were certainly connected with the climax of the
ceremony. The second most prominent sacred official was the dadouchos, or
torch-bearer.137 In the Homeric hymn Demeter carried torches (αἰθομένας
δαῖδας μετὰ χερσὶν ἔχουσα, 48, 61), they were associated in art with both
goddesses and with the minor Eleusinian deities Iacchus and Eubouleus138 and
they were carried by the initiates in the Frogs (λαμπάδας ἐν χερσὶ, Ar. Ran.
340). Later inscriptions speak of ‘torch-bearing Kore’ and ‘nights shining finer
than the sun’ (Κούρης δαιδηφόρου ... νύκτες ... ἠελίου κάλλει λαμπόμεναι, IG
II2 4058), ‘bright nights from the shining Anaktoron’ (ἀνακτόρου ἐκ
προφανέντα νυξίν ἐν ἀργενναῖς, IG II2 3811), ‘Demeter who brings light to
mortals’ (φαεσίμβροτα Δηοῦς, IG II2 3661) and ‘the hierophant from the
radiant Anaktoron’ (τῷ μὲν ἀπ’ αἰγλήεντος ἀνακτόρου ἱεροφάντῃ, IG II2
3709).139
Initiation is often held to be a fearful experience, based on this passage of
Plutarch, comparing the fears of the soul to those of the initiates:
πάσχει πάθος οἷον οἱ τελεταῖς μεγάλαις κατοργιαζόμενοι ... πλάναι τὰ πρῶτα
καὶ περιδρομαὶ κοπώδεις καὶ διὰ σκότους τινὲς ὕποπτοι πορεῖαι καὶ
136
Sourvinou-Inwood 2003: 31-2, Clinton 2003: 67. Cf. Aelius Aristides after the
destruction of the sanctuary, νῦν δέ σοι ζητεῖν ὁ νεώς λείπεται (Or. 19 p.422 Dindorf =
22.11 Behr).
137
Clinton 1974: 47-68.
138
Mylonas 1961: 210-13, Foley 1994: 38, Clinton 1992: 64-73.
139
Bremmer 2014: 14. See also Clement of Alexandria Protr. 2.22 = OF590, 12.92, Plutarch
De prof. virt. 81e and Lactantius Div. inst. epit. 23 cited above.
123
2/5:
Eleusis and the public mysteries
ἀτελεστοι, εἶτα πρὸ τοῦ τέλους αὐτοῦ τὰ δεινά πάντα, φρίκη καὶ τρόμος καὶ
ἰδρὼς καὶ θάμβος.
(fr. 178 = OF594)
[The soul] has experiences like those initiated into the great mysteries ... first
wanderings and going wearily round and endless apprehensive journeys
through darkness and before the end everything terrible, shivering and
trembling and sweating and amazement.
This is supported by references in Aelius Aristides to Eleusis as the most
terrible of things divine (φρικωδέστατον, Or. 19 p. 415 Dindorf = 22.2 Behr), in
Lucian to someone fearful and threatening with a torch (δᾳδουχοῦσά τις
φοβερόν τι καὶ ἀπειλητικὸν προσβλέπουσα, Kataplous 22) being reminiscent
of Eleusis, and in Proclus to unutterable apparitions in the rites (ἐν ταῖς
τελεταῖς τῶν ἀρρήτων φασμάτων, In Remp. 2.185.3-4).
It is not, however, clear that Plutarch was referring to Eleusis; we know he was
initiated into the Dionysiac mysteries (Cons. uxor. 611d). All this evidence is
also late. For the classical period, it has been suggested that the fear shown
by Metaneira at the epiphany of Demeter in the Homeric Hymn to Demeter
(χλωρὸν δέος, 190) is an aition for the fears in the rite,140 and that the Empousa
encountered by Dionysus in the Frogs of Aristophanes reflects a similar
apparition seen by the initiates.141 Plato refers to φάσματα in connection with
initiation (Phdr. 250c), but these are good apparitions (εὐδαίμονα). The case
is plausible but not proven.142
140
Richardson 1974 ad 188-90.
141
Brown 1991: 49-50.
142
Bremmer 2014: 13-14. The suggestion that hallucinogenic mushrooms were involved is
implausible; Bowden 2010: 43, Cosmopoulos 2015: 19-21.
124
2/5:
Eleusis and the public mysteries
Most scholars seem to agree that a central part of the secret ceremonies was
a sacred drama re-enacting the myth of Demeter and Kore. 143 The key
evidence for this is the statement of Clement of Alexandria (second-third
century AD):
Δηὼ δὲ καὶ Κόρη δρᾶμα ἤδε ἐγενέσθην μυστικόν, καὶ τὴν πλάνην καὶ τὴν
ἀρπαγὴν καὶ τὸ πένθος αὐταὶν Ἐλευσὶς δᾳδουχεῖ.
(Protr. 2.12)
Deo and Kore have now become a drama of the mysteries, and Eleusis
celebrates with torches their wandering and abduction and grief.
I believe, however, that this is very unlikely. I have not space in the present
study to set out my reasons in full, but in summary they are as follows. It is
not clear that Clement actually means to say this: the drama in the first half of
the sentence may not be the same as the celebration in the second half, 144 or
‘become’ (ἐγενέσθην) may imply that what he is saying is a recent
development, or δρᾶμα might just be a metaphor.145 Clement, as I shall make
clear later,146 in any case shows little knowledge of the various mysteries,
which he tends to confuse, and apparently got his information from a secondhand compilation. There are practical difficulties: the Telesterion (Fig. 1) had
42 internal columns a few metres apart, and does not seem suitable for the
presentation of a performance to an audience of thousands, 147 especially if
143
E.g. Foucart 1914: 457-74, Mylonas 1961: 261-72, Richardson 1974: 24-6, Clinton 1992:
84-90, Bowden 2010: 40-2, Bremmer 2014: 10.
It has been generally assumed that the two halves linked by καί form a hendiadys, but
they may just be two separate illustrations of Clement’s point.
144
145
So Wilamowitz-Moellendorff 1932: 473-4.
146
Chapter Seven section 5.
147
Dowden 1980: 425-7.
125
2/5:
Eleusis and the public mysteries
they are blindfolded, as I suggested above. The other evidence that has been
put forward to support Clement’s statement148 does not in fact do so.
We also rely on Clement for the synthema, the so-called password of the
Eleusinian mysteries:
κἄστι τὸ σύνθημα Ἐλευσινίων μυστηρίων· ἐνήστευσα, ἔπιον τὸν κυκεῶνα,
ἔλαβον ἐκ κίστης, ἐργασάμενος ἀπεθέμεν εἰς κάλαθον καὶ ἐκ καλάθου εἰς
κίστην.
(Protr. 2.18)
This is the password of the Eleusinian mysteries: I fasted, I drank the
kukeon,149 I took from the kiste,150 I performed and placed in the kalathos and
from the kalathos in the kiste.
Is this a genuine part of the ritual, perhaps a reply of the initiand to a priest
testifying that he or she has performed the first stages and can proceed to the
next?151 I think the main difficulty is the existence of a number of similar
statements relating to other cults: Clement again on the Phrygian rites of Attis
and Cybele,152 Arnobius referring to mysteries in general,153 Firmicus Maternus
148
Chiefly Apollodorus FGrHist 244 F110, Tertullian Ad. nat. 2.7, Lactantius Div. inst. epit. 23
and Proclus In Remp. 1.125-21-2.
149
The drink of barley grains and pennyroyal taken by Demeter in the Homeric hymn (20810).
150
Kiste and kalathos are types of basket.
151
Accepted by e.g. Roussel 1930: 72-3, Richardson 1974: 22-3, Burkert 1987: 94. Bremmer
2014: 3 suggests that the ritual acts must have been performed prior to the Greater
Mysteries, when there would not have been time for them, but I am not clear why in a
week-long festival this would not have been the case.
ἐκ τυμπάνου ἔφαγον· ἐκ κύμβάλου ἔπιον· ἐκερνοφόρησα· ὑπὸ τὸν παστὸν ὑπέδυν,
Protr. 2.14.
152
153
jejunavi atque ebibi cyceonem; ex cista sumpsi et in calathum remisi; accepi rursus, in
cistulam transtuli, Adv. gent. 5.26 = Migne P.L. v.1137.
126
2/5:
Eleusis and the public mysteries
on ‘a certain temple’154 and a scholiast to Plato on Eleusis again,155 to which
we can probably add the words επιον ... συνθημα ... τον καλαθον from the
apparently Dionysiac Gurôb Papyrus (P. Gurôb 1.25-8 = OF578).156 Either they
are all copying from each other, both in the statement and in the ritual, or
there is considerable confusion in the sources over the cult to which they
should be assigned. This is an interesting question to which I shall return in
my conclusion.
I shall finally mention a number of other things attributed to Eleusis by
Christian writers.157 The higher grade of initiates, the epoptai, are shown as
the great mystery a reaped ear of corn (τεθερισμένον στάχυν).158 The initiands
shout ‘Rain! Conceive!’ (ὕε κύε).159 There is a sacred marriage involving the
hierophant and priestess descending alone to an underground chamber
(καταβάσιον).160 The hierophant declares ‘The lady Brimo bore a holy boy
Brimos’ (ἱερὸν ἔτεκε πότνια κοῦρον Βριμὼ Βριμόν).161 Some of these claims
ἐκ τυμπάνου βέβρωκα, ἐκ κυμβάλου πέπωκα, γέγονα μυστικός, Err. prof. rel. 19 =
Migne P.L. xii.1022.
154
ἐκ τυμπάνου ἔφαγον, ἐκ κυμβάλου ἔπιον, ἐκερνοφόρησα, ὑπὸ τὸν παστὸν ὑπέδυν καὶ
τὰ ἐξῆς, schol. Pl. Grg. 497c.
155
156
This text is discussed below, Chapter Three section 10.
157
Bremmer 2014: 12-14.
158
Hippol. Haer. 5.8.39 = Migne P.G. xvi.3150, quoting a Gnostic of the Naassene sect.
159
Hippol. Haer. 5.7.34 = Migne P.G. xvi.3137, similarly Proclus In Ti. 293c and an Athenian
inscription IG II2 4876.
160
Asterios Hom. 10.113B = Migne P.G. xl.324. There was, however, no such underground
chamber at Eleusis; Mylonas 1961: 314.
161
Hippol. Haer. 5.8.40-1 = Migne P.G. xvi.3150, also from the Naassene. Brimo was a
name for Persephone (Burkert 1983: 289, Bremmer 2013: 40-1), though in Apollonius
Rhodius (3.1211) it refers to Hecate; the name also appears on gold leaf D3. It may be
relevant that there was an Alexandrian festival celebrating the birth of Aion to Kore (Fraser
1972: ii.336). Possibly the boy was Ploutos (Wealth), the son of Demeter in Hesiod (Th.
969); Clinton 1992: 92-3.
127
2/5:
Eleusis and the public mysteries
are quite plausible, but in the absence of either confirmatory or contradictory
evidence their value is difficult to assess.
The other public mysteries can be dealt with fairly briefly. 162 The best known
were the mysteries of the Great Gods at Samothrace.163 Like Eleusis, this had
μύσται and ἐπόπται,164 perhaps borrowing the terminology from what
appears to have been the older institution. 165 The earliest dated evidence is
from the fifth century, but most of our information on the Samothracian
mysteries is Hellenistic, following their increase in importance under the
patronage of Philip II of Macedon.166 The purpose of the ceremony was,
however, different from Eleusis: to keep the initiate safe from the perils of the
sea.167 The identity of the Great Gods (μεγάλοι θεοί), as they eventually
became known, was a secret, and seems to have confused contemporaries as
much as ourselves.168
The mysteries of the Kabeiroi169 were celebrated in various places, including
Imbros, Lemnos, Pergamon, Miletus and Thebes. Those of the Korybantes 170
seem to have originated in Rhodes and Kos, though they spread more widely
in the fifth century, eventually reaching Athens. Little is known about either;
possibly the Kabeiroi were associated with coming-of-age rituals and the
162
General surveys: Burkert 1987, Bowden 2010, Bremmer 2014.
163
Cole 1984, Bremmer 2014: 22-36, Constantinakopoulou 2015: 281-4.
164
Cole 1984: 27.
165
Graf in Graf and Johnston 2013: 238n20, Bremmer 2014: 21.
166
Cole 1984: 11, 16-20, Bremmer 2014: 22.
167
Bremmer 2014: 28-9, Constantinakopoulou 2015: 281-4.
168
Cole 1984: 1-4.
169
Bowden 2010: 55-66, Bremmer 2014: 37-48.
170
Voutiras 1996, Bremmer 2014: 48-53.
128
2/5:
Eleusis and the public mysteries
Korybantes with healing.171 The two were sometimes identified with each
other, or with the Kouretes or with the Great Gods of Samothrace. In
Hellenistic times a great many local mysteries developed in Greece; 172
Pausanias mentions eleven in Arcadia alone.173 Of most we know little more
than the name. Those of Andania in Messenia are the best-known.174
There is no mention in any of the references to these competitors to Eleusis of
the prospect of a better fate after death, though as our information on most
of them is so slight we cannot say that this was not offered. It seems indeed
to be this that was the principal legacy of Eleusis to the private initiations
which I shall be examining. I have suggested above that there possibly may be
some common ground in areas such as the fear felt by the participants or the
synthema or password, but otherwise we shall not find any evidence for
copying the details of the Eleusinian ritual. This is perhaps in itself puzzling, as
it might seem an obvious thing to do, but I do not have an explanation. 175
The Eleusinian mysteries possessed great prestige. The orator Isocrates,
speaking of the gifts given to Athens by Demeter, places them equal in value
to the invention of agriculture:
καὶ δούσης δωρεὰς διττὰς αἵπερ μέγισται τυγχάνουσιν οὖσαι, τούς τε
καρπούς, οἳ τοῦ μὴ θηριωδῶς ζῆν ἡμᾶς αἴτιοι γεγόνασι, καὶ τὴν τελετήν, ἧς
οἱ μετασχόντες περί τε τῆς τοῦ βίου τελευτῆς καὶ τοῦ σύμπαντος αἰῶνος
ἡδίους τὰς ἐλπίδας ἔχουσιν.
(Isoc. Paneg. 28)
171
Bremmer 2014: 54.
172
Bowden 2010: 72-82, Bremmer 2014: 81-99.
173
Bremmer 2014: 81.
174
Bowden 2010: 68-71, Bremmer 2014: 86-96, Kearns 2015: 34-6.
175
Alexander of Abonoteichus (Lucian Alex.) did imitate Eleusis, but this was much later.
129
2/5:
Eleusis and the public mysteries
and giving the two greatest gifts, the fruits of the earth, which are the cause
we do not live the life of the beasts, and the rite of which those participating
have pleasanter hopes for the end of life and all eternity.
There were occasional sceptical voices,176 but the general opinion had no
doubt that the rituals were efficacious in ensuring a better fate in the next
world. Certainly, the tens of thousands of initiates who had expended their
time and money in undergoing the process must have thought so. They
therefore performed a key function for the private initiators in validating their
own analogous rites.
176
E.g. Diogenes (D.L. 6.2.39); see also Chapter Five section 4 below.
130
2/6:
6:
Orphism
Orphism
Fig. 3. Head of Orpheus dictating
Attic red figure vase, dated to 410 BCE. The head of Orpheus speaks, a young man writes down the
text, while Apollo holds a protective hand above. Beazley catalog # 250142, Cambridge, Corpus
Christi College, Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, 103.25. Dictionnaire de Ch. Daremberg et E.
Saglio (1877).
It will not be part of my argument in this study that any of the topics under
consideration are connected with anything that may be called Orphism, or
indeed that anything called Orphism existed at this period, except in a few
narrowly defined senses. Nevertheless, a great deal of modern scholarship in
this area does refer to what it considers to be an Orphic sect and Orphic
doctrines, and therefore it seems necessary to set out the evidence for what
was believed of Orpheus in the classical period, what later-attested ideas have
been supposed also to have been current at this time, and why I believe that
we do not have good grounds for taking these into account.
131
2/6:
Orphism
It might be useful to begin with a brief, and very selective, sketch of the
fluctuations of modern scholarly opinion.177 One of the first serious studies,
Lobeck’s Aglaophamus of 1829, took a generally critical and sceptical view; the
key myth of the death of Dionysus (Zagreus), which I shall discuss below, he
characterised as a late and pathological obscaena fabula.178 Towards the end
of the century, however, the discovery of a number of funerary gold leaves179
led Comparetti to interpret them as ‘abstract[s] from a poem containing the
mystic beliefs of the ancient Orphics’,180 and this view of the existence of an
Orphic religion was broadly followed in influential works such as Rohde’s
Psyche (first edition 1890-4), Harrison’s Prolegomena to the study of Greek
religion (first edition 1903) and Guthrie’s Orpheus and Greek religion (first
edition 1935).181
Wilamowitz was, however, sceptical,182 and in 1941 Linforth in The arts of
Orpheus produced a detailed critical review of all sources in which the name
of Orpheus was actually mentioned in order to demonstrate that the idea of
the existence of an Orphic religion was in fact erroneous. Dodds in The Greeks
and the irrational (1951) was perhaps expressing the consensus of the period
when he called Orphism ‘a house of dreams’ and ‘a projection upon the screen
of antiquity of certain unsatisfied religious longings’.183
177
Torjussen 2010: 7-46, Edmonds 2013b: 11-70.
178
Lobeck 1829: 615-99, Gagné 2008: 112-13.
179
Discussed below, Chapter Four.
180
Comparetti in Smith and Comparetti 1882: 113.
181
Rohde 1925, Harrison 1922, Guthrie 1952.
182
Wilamowitz-Moellendorff 1932: 190-205.
183
Dodds 1951: 148.
132
2/6:
Orphism
The situation changed again in the later twentieth century, following the
discovery of the Derveni Papyrus, the Olbia bone tablets and yet more
funerary leaves. The name most closely associated with the revived concept
of Orphism is that of Bernabé, the editor of a new edition of the fragments
ascribed to, referring to or thought to refer to Orpheus and the Orphics,184 who
together with his pupils has produced a stream of articles over the last twentyfive years, shedding a great deal of light on these topics, but all posited on the
basic assumption of the existence in classical times of a group of Orphics
following a distinct way of life and believing in a form of the Orphic mythology
not clearly attested until the later Neoplatonists. Many other scholars have
also subscribed to a greater or lesser extent to this view.185
Taking the opposite tack, Edmonds, in a major critical re-assessment,186 has
returned to the scepticism of Linforth, pointing out the extent to which
Comparetti’s conception of Orphism was informed by contemporary debates
on Christianity. In a later book187 he has amplified his argument, putting
forward what he describes as an extended polythetic definition of Orphism to
include characteristics of strangeness, antiquity, sanctity and purity. 188 This
definition, however, has the disadvantage that it may create a mismatch
between the etic use of the term, that is to say by modern scholars, and the
emic use as it was actually employed in the period by contemporaries, and so
I shall not be following this approach.
184
Bernabé 2004-7, replacing that of Kern 1922.
185
See e.g. West 1983: 170-1, Parker 1995: 496, Most 1997: 131-2, Johnston in Graf and
Johnston 2013: 127, Bremmer 2014: 56-70.
186
Edmonds 1999, which I have generally followed in the account below. Similarly:
Torjussen 2010: 89-129.
187
Edmonds 2013b.
188
Edmonds 2013b: 71-92.
133
2/6:
Orphism
In examining the evidence for Orpheus in the classical period, I shall begin with
Orpheus the person. The Orpheus of myth is first attested in the sixth century
BC.189 He was a Thracian (Eur. Hyps. 1 iii.10 = OF972, 1007, 64.98 = OF1009)
lyre-player who went on the expedition of the Argonauts (Pind. Pyth. 4.176-7
= OF899, 1006). He could charm the beasts and the trees with his music
(Ὀρφεὺς κιθαρίζων σύναγεν δένδρεα μούσαις, σύναγεν θῆρας ἀγρώτας, Eur.
Bacch. 562-4 = OF947) and went to Hades in an attempt to fetch his wife (Pl.
Symp. 179d = OF983). He was finally torn to pieces by women (Pl. Resp. 620a
= OF1077), for what reason is not clear, and his severed head and lyre floated
to Lesbos, where they were buried.190
He was also known as a poet. In the Frogs of Aristophanes, the best traditional
poets (τῶν ποιητῶν οἱ γενναῖοι, 1031 = OF547) are listed as Orpheus,
Musaeus, Hesiod and Homer (1032-6). We read in Plato of books of Musaeus
and Orpheus (Resp. 364e = OF573),191 and there are a number of other
references in the period to Orpheus as a poet.192 There was some scepticism:
Aristotle speaks of the ‘so-called poems of Orpheus’ (τοῖς καλουμένοις
Ὀρφέυς ἔπεσιν, Gen. An. 734a = OF404), and Herodotus (2.53 = OF880)
appears to think them later than Homer and Hesiod. A number of ancient
writers thought that at least some of them were actually written by
Pythagoreans;193 these included works called Descent to Hades, Sacred
189
Linforth 1941: 1-38.
190
Although literary testimony for the story of the head is much later (Linforth 1941: 1289), it has been identified in art from the fifth century (Guthrie 1952: 33-9) (cf. Fig. 3).
191
Discussed above, Chapter One section 4.
192
Linforth 1941: 104-7.
193
Linforth 1941: 109-19, Dodds 1951: 149, West 1983: 7-15, Bernabé 2013b: 124.
134
2/6:
Orphism
doctrine, Robe and Nature (Εἰς Ἅιδου κατάβασις, Ἱερὸν λόγος, Πέπλος,
Φυσικά, Epigenes apud Clem. Al. Strom. 1.131 = OF1018).
As to their content, Isocrates says he especially treated (ὁ μάλιστα τούτων τῶν
λόγων ἁψάμενος) outrageous stories of the gods, such as thefts, adultery and
castration (Bus. 38-9 = OF26). Plato quotes this couplet:
Ὠκεανὸς πρῶτος καλλίρροος ἦρξε γάμοιο,
ὅς ῥα κασιγνήτην ὁμομήτορα Τηθὺν ὄπυιεν
(Pl. Cra. 402b-c = OF22)
Fair-flowing Ocean was the first to marry, who married Tethys, his sister
from the same mother
The poem ascribed to Orpheus which is commented on in the Derveni
Papyrus194 covers the coming to power of Zeus in Olympus.195 These all
suggest mythological works on the lines of the Theogony of Hesiod. This is
confirmed by his appearance in the third-century Argonautica of Apollonius
Rhodius, where he sings just such a song to the Argonauts (1.496-511 = OF67).
Orpheus is also credited with the foundation of sacred rites, τελεταί.196 As
explained in the previous chapter,197 the term covers many kinds of rites, and
is by no means confined to initiation. A fourth-century orator speaks of
‘Orpheus who introduced the holiest rites to us (ὁ τὰς ἁγιωτάτας ἡμῖν τελετὰς
καταδείξας Ὀρφεὺς, [Dem.] 25.11 = OF33, 512), and there are similar
statements in Aristophanes (Ὀρφεὺς μὲν γὰρ τελετὰς θ’ ἡμῖν κατέδειξε, Ran.
194
Below, Chapter Seven section 5.
195
I am not concerned here with much later works such as the Hymns or the Orphic
Argonautica (Linforth 1941: 165-260, Edmonds 2013b: 160-91); the subject matter of the
Rhapsodic theogony will be considered below.
196
The evidence is collected in Bernabé 2008: 14-25.
197
Chapter One section 5.
135
2/6:
Orphism
1032 = OF510, 547, 626) and a tragic poet of the fourth century (μυστήριων ...
ἔδειξεν Ὀρφεύς, [Eur.] Rhes. 943-4 = OF511).198 These may refer to Eleusis,199
but certainly by the time of Hecataeus of Abdera at the end of the century he
could be given responsibility for the rites of Dionysus, Isis and Osiris also (τῶν
μυστικῶν τελετῶν τὰ πλεῖστα, FGrHist 264 F25). I discuss below a passage in
Herodotus (2.81 = OF650) which seems to refer to some kind of rites (here
ὀργία) as Orphic.
There is evidence for an Orphic way of life, whose principal characteristic was
vegetarianism:200
Ὀρφικοί τινες λεγόμενοι βίοι ἐγίγνοντο ἡμῶν τοῖς τότε, ἀψύχων μὲν
ἐχόμενοι πάντων, ἐμψύχων δὲ τοὐναντίον πάντων ἀπεχόμενοι.
(Pl. Leg. 782c-d = OF625)
We lived then so-called Orphic lives, keeping entirely to the soulless and
conversely abstaining from everything ensouled.
Theseus in Euripides charges Hippolytus with being a follower of Orpheus
(Ὀρφέα τ᾽ ἄνακτ᾽ ἔχων, Eur. Hipp. 953 = OF627), which he seems to believe
entails chastity, vegetarianism, Bacchic rites and vaporous writings; he may,
however, be confusing different cults and practices,201 and certainly the
enthusiastic hunter Hippolytus seems an unlikely vegetarian. In Aristophanes,
Orpheus is praised for leading men away from bloodshed (φόνων τ’
ἀπέχεσθαι, Ran. 1032 = OF510, 547, 626), though this might mean a more
peaceful civilisation rather than vegetarianism. 202 A fourth-century comedy
198
Liapis 2012 ad loc.
199
Graf 1974: 22-39.
200
Edmonds 2013b: 217-25.
201
Cole 1980: 228.
202
Dover 1993 ad loc.
136
2/6:
Orphism
on the theme of Orpheus refers to stuffing with leaves (βύστραν τιν’ ἒκ
φύλλων τινῶν, Antiph. Orph. fr. 178 KA = OF631, 1149), perhaps meaning a
vegetarian diet.
Herodotus (2.81 = OF650) connects Orpheus with an
avoidance of woollen clothing, which may be a kind of vegan extension of the
same doctrine. Orpheus, like Pythagoras, became in later times closely
associated with vegetarianism, though there is considerable confusion in the
evidence for both.203
We now need to examine the case for the presence in the classical period of a
distinctive Orphic myth, one which has been frequently put forward by
Bernabé and others as underlying many aspects of contemporary private
initiation. The myth in question is best known from the Rhapsodic theogony
attributed to Orpheus, of which we have extensive quotations in the later
Neoplatonists, especially Proclus and Damascius.204 This theogony seems to
date from the first or second centuries AD and to be based on earlier Orphic
poems now lost.205 There are references to the myth from Hellenistic times:206
Callimachus (fr. 643 = OF36),207 Euphorion (frr. 13, 53 De Cuenca = OF36, 59)
Philodemus (Piet. 44 = OF59),208 Diodorus (3.62.6 = OF59, 5.75.4 = OF283),
203
Edmonds 2013b: 119-223; Betegh 2014: 154-9.
204
For reconstructions see West 1983: 70-5, 227-58; Bernabé 2003: 107-214. The earlier
theogonies of Eudemus and of Hieronymus and Hellanicus (Bernabé 2003: 49-61, 97-106)
do not seem to have included this myth.
205
West 1983: 246-7; Bernabé 2003: 109.
206
Johnston in Graf and Johnston 2013:73-80, Edmonds 2013b: 345-60.
Callimachus (fr. 43, 117 Pf. = OF34) also refers to υἷα Διώνυσον Ζαγρέα γειναμένη,
connected by the Byzantine etymologists (Et. Gen., Etym. Magn., Et. Sym. s.v. Ζαγρεύς)
with this story.
207
208
Henrichs 2011.
137
2/6:
Orphism
Plutarch (De esu carn. 996b = OF318), Pausanias (8.37.5 = OF39, 1113)209 and
Clement of Alexandria (Protr. 2.17.2 = OF306, 588).
The myth is as follows.210 Zeus was succeeded as ruler in Olympus by Dionysus,
sometimes referred to in this context as Zagreus, and here supposed to be his
son by Persephone. The Titans, incited by Hera, decoyed him with toys and
killed him. There are various versions of what happened to his different
members, but, according to one, the Titans boiled, roast and ate him.211 Zeus,
however, destroyed the Titans with his thunderbolt and restored Dionysus to
life.
A key contribution to the modern interpretation of the myth was made by the
sixth-century AD Alexandrian Neoplatonist Olympiodorus.212 Mankind, he said
(In Phd. 1.3-6 = OF320), was created from the remains (τῆς αἰθάλης τῶν
ἀτμῶν, ‘sublimate of the vapour’) of the Titans after their destruction by the
thunderbolt. Human beings have therefore inherited something of the divinity
of Dionysus, as he was inside them. It is not in fact clear how far this
interpretation was really an Orphic doctrine and how far an original idea of
209
Ascribing it to Onomacritus, but see Linforth 1941: 350-3 for scepticism.
210
Summarised in Guthrie 1952: 82-3; fuller versions in Graf and Johnston 2013: 66-93, and
with extracts from the Rhapsodies (in Spanish translation) in Bernabé 2003: 182-202;
critical discussion in Linforth 1941: 307-64.
211
For the significance of the cooking process, see Detienne 1979: 68-94.
212
Fullest treatment in Brisson 1992, but see the reassessment in Edmonds 1999, expanded
in Edmonds 2009a and Edmonds 2013b: 374-91, also Bernabé 2002: 404-6.
138
2/6:
Orphism
Olympiodorus,213 who seems to have been influenced by contemporary
alchemical ideas.214
The notion of the Titanic origin of man is attested in several sources. 215 Hesiod
(Th. 507-11) makes the Titan Iapetos the father of Prometheus and
Epimetheus. In the Homeric hymn to Apollo they are the ancestors of men and
gods (Τιτῆνές ... τῶν ἔξ ἄνδρες τε θεοί τε, 335-6). There are a number of other
references, generally much later. Oppian in the second century AD (H. 5.9-10
= OF320) suggests that man, if not created by Prometheus, may be born from
the blood of the Titans. The Orphic Argonautica (17-20 = OF320), on the other
hand, believes their216 sperm dropped from the sky to create mankind. The
Orphic Hymn to the Titans (OF320) has them ancestors of all living animals,
including man. In these examples, however, the descent is not peculiar to
man, as gods or other animals may be included, it is not from their ashes or
remains and it is not linked with the crime of the Titans and their blasting by
the thunderbolt.
There is, however, no trace in Olympiodorus of any claim that humanity
inherited the guilt of the Titans. There are suggestions in Plutarch (De esu carn.
1.996b = OF318) and in Olympiodorus’ older contemporary Damascius (In Plat.
Phd. 1.8.= OF320) that what is evil and irrational in our nature comes from the
213
Linforth 1941: 331-2, Edmonds 1999: 40-2, Bernabé 2002: 404-8.
Brisson 1992: 492-4. Contra Bernabé 2002: 405-6, who translates αἰθάλη in its original
sense as ‘soot’, but as Brisson makes clear, it was already used as an alchemical term by
Zosimus.
214
215
Bernabé 2002: 426-33 collects the references. See also Linforth 1941: 331-4, Edmonds
2013b: 296-303.
Γηγενεῖς, ‘earthborn’, an epithet of the Giants, who were, however, commonly confused
with the Titans by this period.
216
139
2/6:
Orphism
Titans, linking this with their killing of Dionysus, 217 but original sin is not a
conception directly attested in antiquity.218 Plato had indeed already spoken
of ‘the so-called ancient Titanic nature’ (τὴν λεγομένην παλαιὸν Τιτανικὴν
φύσιν, Leg. 701c = OF37) as something evil, but this was taken in antiquity as
referring to a different episode, the rebellion of the Titans against Zeus. 219 Dio
Chrysostom several centuries later also suggests that human beings are hated
by the gods because of our descent from the Titans and their opposition to
them in the Titanomachy.220
It is not until the nineteenth century that we find this idea made explicit. The
Italian scholar Domenico Comparetti, responding to the discovery of some of
the earliest gold leaves221 to be found, suggested that mankind inherited not
only something of the divinity of Dionysus, but also something of the guilt of
the Titans who killed him.222 The idea that mankind inherited the guilt of the
217
These and other less convincing examples are put forward by Bernabé 2002; for a
sceptical treatment, see Edmonds 2013b: 296-391.
218
Linforth 1941: 350, Edmonds 2009a: 514-16.
219
Cic. Leg. 2.3.5; Edmonds 2013b: 329.
‘All we humans are of the blood of the Titans. As they were the enemies of and fought
against the gods, we too are not friends of the gods’ (τοῦ τῶν Τιτάνων αἵματός ἐσμεν ἡμεῖς
ἅπαντες οἱ ἄνθρωποι. ὡς οὖν ἐκείνων ἐχθρῶν ὄντων τοῖς θεοῖς καὶ πολεμησάντων οὐδὲ
ἡμεῖς φίλοι ἐσμέν, Or. 30.10 = OF320, 429); Edmonds 2013b: 269-70.
220
221
Chapter Four.
‘The human soul is of divine origin, but the gods from whom she most directly proceeds
are the Titans. These having torn to pieces the sacred body of Zagreus, Zeus punished them
with his thunderbolt and reduced them to ashes, from which human souls emerged. But, as
the Titans had been eating from the flesh of Zagreus, a spark of good, pure divinity is in us
mixed with Titanic evil and impurity. This Titanic element is the original guilt for which the
human soul is excluded from the community of the other gods and from her blessed abode,
and is condemned to a succession of births and deaths’ (Comparetti in Smith and
Comparetti 1882: 116).
222
140
2/6:
Orphism
Titans has been seen by modern commentators as the cardinal myth of
Orphism, and the ancient equivalent of the Christian doctrine of original sin.223
It should be emphasised that there was no general view in antiquity that the
Titans were evil and guilty. In fact, the Titans can even be praised, as in the
Orphic Hymn to the Titans (OF320). Even in the mystery cults, for example, we
find that in Imbros the Titans seem to have been involved in the cult of the
Kabeiroi (IG XII 8.74), and in Lycosura a statue group represented the Titan
Anytus alongside Demeter, the mother of Persephone (Paus. 8.37.4-5).224
It is often assumed that the theogony quoted in the Derveni Papyrus,225
though it contains little trace of the story in the Rhapsodic theogony, was
nevertheless a different account of the same myth, simply because both claim
the authorship of Orpheus; the apparent differences are accounted for by the
fragmentary state of the Derveni text.226 This cannot, however, be proved.
There is no mention of Orpheus in the surviving papyrus apart from his
authorship of the theogony, which was very much the kind of poem that we
have seen he might be credited with, and though there are some kind of
initiates involved there is no mention of vegetarianism or the Orphic way of
life. The account as we have it centres very much on Zeus, with no mention of
the Titans or Dionysus.227
223
Alderink 1981: 13-15; Edmonds 1999.
224
Bremmer 2014: 37, 84.
225
Chapter Seven section 5.
‘The events of the Derveni Theogony’, says Rusten, ‘... can be assumed to be largely
identical with those in the later poem ascribed to Orpheus (called the Rhapsodies).’ (Rusten
1985: 122); for similar views see West 1983: 86-7, Brisson 2003: 19, KPT: 24, Kotwick 2017:
27.
226
227
For a more sceptical treatment, see Piano 1916: 242-6.
141
2/6:
Orphism
The case is similar with the funerary gold leaves to be discussed in a later
chapter.228 They are often referred to as Orphic.229 They do not, in fact,
anywhere actually mention Orpheus, while Dionysus or Bacchics only appear
briefly in four of over forty examples. I shall examine later the concept of
ποινή, which has been linked to this myth, and explain why I believe they are
not in fact related.230
It will therefore be seen that we have no unequivocal evidence for the myth
before the Hellenistic period,231 and it is doubtful if we have any at all for the
idea that mankind inherited the guilt of the Titans. That does not preclude the
existence of these concepts in earlier times, given the scanty evidence for
anything in this area, and the possibility that they might constitute some sort
of secret doctrine (ἐν ἀπορρήτοις, Pl. Phd. 62b = OF429, 669). In the absence,
however, of any real evidence for this, it must be accounted simply
speculation, and its adoption as apparently proven fact by many modern
scholars to owe more to preconceived ideas than to adherence to the
contemporary sources.
Were there any people in the classical period who would call themselves
‘Orphic’ (Ὀρφικοί)? Burkert identifies three different meanings of the term.232
First, it can signify the authors of works passing under the name of Orpheus.
The first recorded use of the term in this sense is not until the first century AD,
228
Chapter Four below.
‘Orphic gold tablets’ Bernabé and Jiménez San Cristóbal 2008, ‘”Orphic” gold tablets’
Edmonds 2011b.
229
230
Chapter Five section 7 below.
231
Sandin 2008: 8 suggests that the sparagmos of Dionysus is a late syncretistic borrowing
from Egyptian religion, presumably referring to the myth of Osiris, though sparagmos was
already associated with Dionysus in the story of Pentheus.
232
Burkert 1982: 3-4; Alderink 1981: 17-18 lists twelve possibilities.
142
2/6:
Orphism
when a passage included in pseudo-Apollodorus recounts that Asclepius raised
Hymenaeus from the dead ‘as the Orphics say’ (ὡς οἱ Ὀρφικοὶ λέγουσι, 3.10.3
= OF365).233 However, the periphrasis of Plato, ‘Orpheus and those around
him’ (οἱ ἀμφὶ Ὀρφέα, Prt. 316d, Cra. 400c = OF430, 667),234 who write religious
and prophetic works, might be considered equivalent.
Secondly, it can be used of those who perform Orphic mysteries, apparently
first in a fragment ascribed to Achilles Tatius in about the second century AD
(οἱ τὰ Ὀρφικὰ μυστήρια τελοῦντες, Comm. Arat. 17.11 Di Maria = OF114).235 I
have already examined the term Ὀρφεοτελστής, ‘celebrator of Orphic rites’,
which has been seen as having the same meaning.236
Burkert’s third meaning is that of members of a community founded on the
authority of Orpheus. Plato, as noted above, uses ‘Orphic’ as an adjective
describing the Orphic way of life (Ὀρφικοί τινες λέγομενοι βίοι, Leg. 782c =
OF625). The two chief pieces of evidence for its use as a substantive in the
period are, however, both from the fifth century.
Herodotus, in his description of Egyptian customs, says that they cannot enter
the temples or be buried in woollen clothing, adding:
ὁμολογέουσι δὲ ταῦτα τοῖσι Ὀρφικοῖσι καλεομένοισι καὶ Βακχικοῖσι, ἐοῦσι
δὲ Αἰγυπτίοισι καὶ Πυθαγορείοισι: οὐδὲ γὰρ τούτων τῶν ὀργίων μετέχοντα
ὅσιον ἐστὶ ἐν εἰρινέοισι εἵμασι θαφθῆναι.
(Hdt. 2.81 = OF650)
233
It appears to be an interpolation: Hard 1997: 173-4. For later references see Linforth
1941: 276-89.
234
Orpheus himself is included in οἱ ἀμφὶ Ὀρφέα; see Chapter Five section 6 below.
235
Linforth 1941: 225, 277, Burkert 1982: 4.
236
Chapter One section 5 above.
143
2/6:
Orphism
They agree in this with so-called Orphic[s] and Bacchic[s] [rites], which are
actually Egyptian[s] and Pythagorean[s]: for it is not holy for anyone
participating in these rites to be buried in woollen garments.
ὁμολογέουσι δὲ ταῦτα τοῖσι Ὀρφικοῖσι καλεομένοισι καὶ Βακχικοῖσι can either
be translated ‘they agree in this with the so-called Orphics and Bacchics’, thus
referring to some people called Orphics, or it may mean ‘they agree in this with
the so-called Orphic and Bacchic rites’. Herodotus does go on in the same
sentence to refer to ‘these rites’ (τοῦτων τῶν ὀργίων), which suggests that it
is rites to which he is referring, not people.237 In either case, Orphics and
Bacchics may refer to two different communities, or rites, or may be meant as
synonyms, in which case the ‘so-called’ (καλεομένοισι) may mean that ‘Orphic’
is a loose term for what are really Bacchic. All we can be certain of is that there
were at least some rites that could be called Orphic, but, as indicated above,
this could apply to any rites supposed to have been founded by Orpheus.
Also fifth century are three bone plaques found at Olbia (OF463-5), a Greek
colony on the north coast of the Black Sea (Fig. 5).238 Graffiti crudely scratched
on them include the name Dionysus several times, the words ‘life death life’
(βίος θάνατος βίος) and the letters ΟΡΦΙΚ or ΟΡΦΙΚΟ, possibly what remains
of Ὀρφικοί.239 This may be an adjective applying to some masculine noun, for
example λόγοι,240 or perhaps an epiclesis of Dionysus (‘Orphic Dionysus’).241 It
237
There is a long discussion in Linforth 1941: 38-50, including a consideration of the
differences between the Florentine and Roman manuscripts, into which I do not propose to
enter.
238
West 1982, Vinogradov 1991, Zhmud 1992. Sketch, text and translation in Graf and
Johnston 2013: 214-2. I consider them as possible evidence for Dionysiac initiation in
Chapter Three section 3 below.
The last letter is unclear (West 1982: 21-2) and Edmonds also doubts the Ο (Edmonds
2013b: 199).
239
240
Edmonds 2013b: 199-200.
241
Graf 2011: 55.
144
2/6:
Orphism
may alternatively refer to a group of people called Orphics. We know from
Herodotus (4.79 = OF563) that there was an active cult in the area of Dionysus,
who is mentioned on the plaques; perhaps this was a local name for the
followers of that cult. Even if so, however, we cannot safely extrapolate from
a group of Orphics at Olbia, on the fringes of the Greek world, to posit groups
of Orphics elsewhere with similar beliefs and practices.
The evidence for the existence in the classical period of a group or sect who
identified themselves as Orphics is therefore slight and doubtful. Indeed, as I
pointed out in the Introduction, the whole modern concept of a sect is largely
a product of Christianity and alien to Greek polytheism. There is warrant for
Orphic as an adjective describing poems thought to be written by Orpheus or
rites established by him or a vegetarian diet that he introduced, but not, at
least in this period, for people who called themselves Orphics or for a doctrine
or religious movement that we might describe as Orphism
145
3/1:
The question to be answered
Chapter Three
Dionysus, initiation and the afterlife
1:
1:
The question to be answered .......................................................... 146
2:
Early evidence .................................................................................. 151
3:
The bone tablets from Olbia ............................................................ 153
4:
The Cretans of Euripides .................................................................. 156
5:
Euripides’ Bacchae as hieros logos? ................................................. 158
6:
Dionysus in the gold leaves .............................................................. 164
7:
A saying in Plato ............................................................................... 169
8:
The activities of Aeschines’ mother ................................................. 171
9:
The Toledo Krater ............................................................................. 182
10:
Dionysus in Egypt ............................................................................. 185
11:
Later evidence .................................................................................. 192
12:
The development of Dionysiac initiation ......................................... 195
The question to be answered
146
3/1:
The question to be answered
Fig. 4. Dionysus with satyr and maenads
Black figure pottery (ampfora?). Dionysos, satyr with lyre and maenads, around 520 BC.
Archaeological Museum of Syracuse. By Zde - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0,
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=53944131
Private initiation has often been connected by modern scholars with the cult
of Dionysus, typically linked with Orphism in some such formulation as OrphicBacchic.1 However, although we know that Eleusis held out the prospect of a
better fate in the next world, the question of how far this applied to the
worship of Dionysus remains a more open one. ‘It would, however, be an
inadmissible generalization to claim that all bacchic teletai were concerned
exclusively or even primarily with the afterlife’ is the cautious conclusion of
Burkert.2 In this chapter, I should like to establish firstly if there did exist
1
See e.g. Burkert 1977, Graf and Johnston 2013, Bremmer 2014: 55-80.
2
Burkert 1985: 295.
147
3/1:
The question to be answered
Dionysiac initiation concerned with the afterlife, and secondly, if so, when and
where it came into being, as far as this is possible to determine.
It should not be assumed a priori that the nature of the cult was constant over
time and space, that what applied at one time or in one place was necessarily
valid everywhere or for all antiquity. In fact, it may be possible to distinguish
at least four different types of Dionysiac cult:
(i) the civic festivals of the wine god,
(ii) the mountain orgia of the women,
(iii) the initiation rites of the private practitioners,
(iv) the religious associations of Hellenistic and later times.
I shall not be concerned at all with the fourth type,3 which is out of my period,
but will deal briefly here with the first two, as it will be necessary to distinguish
them from the initiation rites that are our subject.
The civic festivals of Dionysus included at Athens the rural Dionysia, the
Anthesteria, a three-day Spring festival, and the Great Dionysia, open to all
Greeks since at least the Pisistratan period in the sixth century. 4 There were
Anthesteria also in other Ionian areas (Thuc. 2.15.4). All were well established
in the classical period and were usually wine-based in some way.5 None seem
3
Nilsson 1957a, Cazanove 1986, Burkert 1993., Slavova 2002, Jaccottet 2005, Bremmer
2014: 100-09.
4
Parker 2005: 291-326.
5
Burkert 1985: 163; Pickard-Cambridge 1968: 1-125. For the marriage of the basilinna to
the god at the sanctuary of Dionysus in the Marshes during the Anthesteria (Dem. 59.72-6),
see Kapparis 1999 ad loc.
148
3/1:
The question to be answered
to have any reference to the fate of the celebrants after death. It is generally
thought that on the third day of the Anthesteria at Athens the κῆρες, or spirits
of the dead, were abroad, but this has been disputed,6 and in any case would
be hard to connect with an initiation cult.
There are also the trieteric orgia7 on Mount Parnassus, dancing by groups of
women on the mountains in the winter of alternate years. 8 ‘The Thuiades’,
says Pausanias, ‘are Attic women who frequent Parnassus with the Delphic
women in alternate years and hold orgia for Dionysus’ (αἱ δὲ Θυιάδες γυναῖκες
μέν εἰσιν Ἀττικαί, φοιτῶσαι δὲ ἐς τὸν Παρνασσὸν παρὰ ἔτος αὐταί τε καὶ αἱ
γυναῖκες Δελφῶν ἄγουσιν ὄργια Διονύσῳ, 10.4.3).9 Attic vases from the sixth
century on show mythical thiasoi, processions of female maenads and male
satyrs following Dionysus, which may reflect contemporary ritual practice (Fig.
4).10 The festivals of the Lenaia at Athens and the Agrionia elsewhere seem
also to have had a maenadic element.11 Again, there is no trace of any
connection with the fate of the celebrants after death.12
6
Rohde 1925: 168; contra, Robertson 1993. They may have been Carian slaves (Κᾶρες)
rather than κῆρες; Parker 2005: 287. See also Johnston 1999: 63-71 on offerings to the
dead at the Anthesteria.
7
The word is used of rites in general, including sometimes those of Eleusis, but especially
for ecstatic rites; cf. Arist. Pol. 1342a ἐξοργιάζουσι τὴν ψυχὴν.
8
Nilsson 1957a: 4-8; Dodds 1960: xi-xx, Henrichs 1978.
9
See also Diod. 4.3.3.
10
Burkert 1985: 166, Isler-Kerényi 2009: 64. On maenads, see Parker 2005: 323-6.
11
Lenaia: Pickard-Cambridge 1968: 25-42, Parker 2005: 317. Agrionia: Henrichs 1978: 137,
Parker 2005: 28n85. Plutarch (Quaest. conv. 717a) describes the Agrionia as a ritual search
by women for Dionysus, followed by a meal and asking each other riddles, but it may have
become more sedate by his day.
12
Cf. Festugière 1935: 119-21.
149
3/1:
The question to be answered
I now want to examine those cases in which there may be, or has sometimes
been seen, a possible indication of a Dionysiac initiation cult offering a better
fate in the afterlife. In each case, I shall be looking for definite evidence that
we have here an initiation cult offerering a better fate after death, rather than
some other type of Dionysiac worship; of course, it will not normally be
possible to rule out that there was an associated initiation cult for which the
evidence has not survived. I shall review the evidence in an approximately
chronological order.
150
3/2:
2:
Early evidence
Early evidence
Dionysus is sometimes connected with the Eleusinian mysteries. This probably
arose because Iacchos, a personification of the cry ἴακχε, was the god presiding
over the procession to Eleusis, and was then confused with Iacchos as an
epiclesis of Dionysus.13 There is no indication that they were originally linked.
Heraclitus, at around the close of the sixth century, says that ‘Hades and
Dionysus, for whom they go mad and celebrate Bacchic rites, are the same’
(ὡυτὸς δὲ Ἀίδης καὶ Διόνυσος, ὅτεωι μαίνονται καὶ ληναΐζουσιν, DK22B15);
this does not suggest initiation. I have discussed above 14 his possible reference
to ‘night-walkers, magi, bacchoi, maenads and initiates’, (νυκτιπόλοις, μάγοις,
βάκχοις, λήναις, μύσταις, DK22B14), concluding that these are probably not
the actual words of Heraclitus, but have been introduced by Clement of
Alexandria many centuries later.
A fifth century inscription from a grave precinct at Cumae (IGASMG III 15 SEG
4.92) forbids non-bacchoi to be buried there (οὐ θέμις ἐντοῦθα κεῖσθαι (ε)ὶ μὲ
τὸν βεβαχχευμένον).15 Contemporary vases from South Italy often show
bacchic scenes.16 I do not see that the middle-passive perfect βεβαχχευμένον
(‘having become bacchic’) necessarily indicates initiation into the mysteries 17
13
Clinton 1992: 64-71; see also Mylonas 1961: 252-5, 275-8, 308-9, Graf 1974: 51-66,
Bremmer 2014: 6. On the identification of Dionysus with Ploutos see Richardson 1974:
319.
14
Chapter Two section 6.
Turcan 1986 argues on slender grounds that this indicates an ‘Orphic’ group; contra
Pailler 1995: 109-26, Casadio 2009 (with further bibliography at 43n14).
15
16
Burkert 1977: 3-4, Isler-Kerényi 2009.
17
So Turcan 1986: 237. He is right that the perfect implies that being bacchic is a
permanent state that they have attained, but there is no reason why, despite his assertion
151
3/2:
Early evidence
rather than, for example just having taken part in thiasoi and orgia, where the
participants were described as βακχεῖα (Diod. 4.3.3); thiasiotai might be
required to attend their fellows’ funerals.18 I do not know of any other case
where a good fate in the afterlife requires not just initiation, but also burial in
a certain place.19
The same reservation applies to the alleged Bacchic prohibition on burial in
wool reported by Herodotus (2.81 = OF43, 650).20 None of these have any
clear link to initiation or to the soul’s fate in the afterlife.
that ‘[l]e bacchant des thiases n’est bacchos que pour un temps’, they might not be so
described after having taken part in thiasoi and orgia. Euripides uses the passive to mean
‘driven mad’ (βεβάκχευται μανίαις, Or. 835), clearly not the meaning here, but showing
that the meaning could be much wider than initiation.
Sokolowski 1962: 210-12. Cf. οὗτον ἔθαψαν τὺ Διωνιουσιαστή (IG VII 686, Tanagra, after
200 BC).
18
In a sixth century tomb inscription from Cumae (IG XIV 871, IGDGG 18), the word ληνός
has been interpreted as Bacchic initiate (Jiménez San Cristóbal 2007); there are, as she
acknowledges, other interpretations of the word (‘sarcophagus’, personal name), but even
if ‘bacchic’ is correct, there is no warrant for initiation. Turcan 1986: 240-2 suggests as
motives for separate burial ensuring that the initiates are not buried in wool, and avoiding
the company of the ghosts of the uninitiate haunting their graves (as suggested by Plato
Phd. 81c-d); neither seem very convincing.
19
20
The interpretation of this passage has been much disputed; see Chapter Two section 6.
The conclusions of Linforth 1941: 38-50 are probably still valid.
152
3/3:
3:
The bone tablets from Olbia
The bone tablets from Olbia
Fig. 5. Olbia bone tablet [A]
West 1982: 18
There is, however, a hint of something different at Olbia, a colony of Miletus
founded at the beginning of the sixth century in Scythian territory on the
northern shore of the Pontus. The cult of Dionysus is attested at Miletus in
the third century,21 and it was doubtless from there it came to Olbia. It was
certainly established by the fifth century, as we find from Herodotus (4.78-80
= OF563). We are told that the Scythian king Skules, a lover of Greek customs,
participated in Bacchic rites in the town (ἐτελέσθη τῷ Βακχείῳ), following
which he joined a thiasos or procession in which he took part in Bacchic revelry
and was temporarily driven mad by the god (καὶ βακχεύει τε καὶ ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ
μαίνεται).22
So far, there is nothing much different from the wild dancing on Mount
Parnassus, or the processions on the Attic vases.
21
There have recently,
Henrichs 1969.
22
As Clinton 2003: 54-5 points out, there is no sign that he was involved in any initiation
into the mysteries.
153
3/3:
The bone tablets from Olbia
however, come to light three crudely scratched bone tablets from the tenemos
area at Olbia (OF463-5), dating from the fifth century BC.23 They bear the
following texts:
A:
βίος θάνατος βίος / ἀλήθεια / Δίο Ὀρφικ
B:
εἰρήνη πόλεμος / ἀλήθεα ψεῦδος / Διόν
C:
Διο / ἀλήθεια / σῶμα ψυχή
life death life / truth / Dio(nysus) Orphic(s)
peace war / truth lie / Dion(ysus)
Dio(nysus) / truth / body soul
Attention has focused on the first tablet, which has been held to prove the
existence of a group identifying themselves as Orphics (Orphikoi) and believing
in an afterlife (‘life death life’ being taken as a temporal sequence). 24 Here I
just want to consider the significance of the words ‘life death life’.
If taken as a temporal sequence, these words can be interpreted in at least
three ways:25 (i) as a reference to metempsychosis, where life and death
alternate, (ii) as indicating a new life after death, in the manner of the gold
leaves D1-2, to which I shall return in the next chapter, ‘Now you have died
and now you have been born ... on this very day’, (iii) as mortal life being an
interval, equivalent to death, in eternal life, as Euripides suggests (τίς δ᾽ οἶδεν,
23
West 1982, Vinogradov 1991, Zhmud 1992.
24
West 1982: 18-19; Burkert 1993: 259; Graf 1993: 242; discussed in Chapter Two section 6
above.
25
West 1982: 18-19.
154
3/3:
The bone tablets from Olbia
εἰ τὸ ζῆν μέν ἐστι κατθανεῖν, / τὸ κατθανεῖν δὲ ζῆν;, fr. 638, Pl. Grg. 492e).26
The second option seems the most popular among scholars.27
I do not, however, think that these words can be considered in isolation from
the other pairings on these tablets, ‘peace war’, ‘truth lie’ and ‘body soul’. Like
‘life death’ these constitute opposites. They cannot, however, plausibly refer
to a temporal sequence, in which lies always follow truth or soul always follows
body. Nor is it easy to see how any of them can encapsulate a fundamental
religious doctrine of the same kind as a new life awaiting the initiate after
death.28 We would therefore have to take one of the four pairs of opposites
as having a very different kind of meaning from the other three, and our only
justification for doing this is the repetition of the word ‘life’ in the pair.
The tablets are very crudely scrawled, almost like doodles, and the first βίος
starts halfway up the side, at right angles to θάνατος βίος, which may lead us
to doubt if they are meant to be read as one unit (Fig. 5). We may well be
dealing with what are simply random jottings. However great the temptation
to read back what we know from a later period into these enigmatic texts, we
do not have here unequivocal evidence for initiation rites.
26
Chapter Five section 6.
27
Graf 2011: 56. Porres Caballero (2011: 131) suggests that the reference is in fact to
Dionysus himself, dismembered by the Titans and then reborn. This of course depends on
the myth of dismemberment being known at this early date.
28
For an attempt at interpreting them in this way, see Bernabé 2007a: 177-8. It involves
rearranging the words on the tablets (his ‘Dion(iso) | mentira verdad | cuerpo alma’ is a
conflation of tablets B and C), ignoring one pair altogether (peace war), and forcing the
others into a meaning they do not obviously bear (that the body is a lie, that is, a false life).
155
3/4:
4:
The Cretans of Euripides
The Cretans of Euripides
The following fragment of Euripides’ Cretans, dating perhaps from the 430s
BC, has sometimes been put forward as an example of Dionysiac initiation:29
ἁγνὸν δὲ βίον τείνομεν ἐξ οὗ
Διὸς Ἰδαίου μύστης γενόμην,
καὶ νυκτιπόλου Ζαγρέως βούτης30
τὰς ὠμοφάγους δαίτας τελέσας
μητρί τ’ ὀρείῳ δᾷδας ἀνασχὼν
μετὰ31 κουρήτων
βάκχος ἐκλήθην
ὁσιωθείς.
πάλλευκα δ’ ἔχων εἵματα φεύγω
γένεσίν τε βροτῶν καὶ νεκροθήκης
οὐ χριμπτόμενος τήν τ’ ἐμψύχων
βρῶσιν ἐδεστῶν πεφύλαγμαι.
(Eur. fr. 472 Kannicht 9-19 = OF567)
I have led a pure life from the time I became an initiate of Idaean Zeus and a
herdsman of night-wandering Zagreus, performing his feasts of raw flesh,
and raising torches high to the mountain Mother among the Kouretes, I was
purified and called bacchos. Clad in white clothes, I avoid the birth of
mortals and do not approach the places of their dead, and I have guarded
myself against food of ensouled creatures.
Bremmer32 takes this as both Dionysiac and Orphic, the introduction of Idaean
Zeus and so on being merely a concession to the Cretan setting of the play,
with three grades of initiation (μύστης, βούτης, βάκχος),33 and Orphic
29
Bernabé 2004-7 ad loc summarises the varying views.
30
Emended Diels, Nauck for βροντὰς.
31
Emended Blaydes, Wilamowitz for καὶ.
32
Bremmer 2013: 42-3.
33
The argument relies on a combination of possible but unproven suppositions: (i) that the
apparently meaningless βροντὰς in l.11 should really be βούτης, (ii) that this is really the
156
3/4:
The Cretans of Euripides
vegetarianism and concern for purity. There seem, however, to be too many
contradictions in the passage to make it easy to take it as a consistent account.
The speaker (the chorus) is simultaneously a follower of Zeus, Dionysus
Zagreus, Cybele and the Kouretes. He is a strict vegetarian who also eats raw
flesh.34 The reference to initiate (μύστης) seems just another ingredient in this
composite picture. Certainly, there is no mention of the afterlife, and the
Dionysiac element does not go beyond the traditional dancing on mountains.
same as Βουκόλος, both meaning ‘herdsman’, (iii) that βουκόλος, attested much later (eg
OF585, 2nd century AD) as a Bacchic title, was so at this period (Eur. fr. 203, which has a real
herdsman, and a Cratinus title whose signficance is unknown are not much evidence for
this), (iv) that the narthex-bearers and bacchoi in Plato (Phd. 69c = OF576, section 7 below)
are two grades of initiates, rather than non-initiate followers of Dionysus and initiates, (v)
that the initiates and bacchoi in gold leaf B10 (section 6 below) are different rather than
synonyms, (vi) that the initiators subsequently dropped these distinctions through laziness.
34
Festugière 1935: 372-4.
157
Euripides’ Bacchae as hieros logos?
3/5:
5:
Euripides’ Bacchae as hieros logos?
The most extended treatment of the cult of Dionysus in literature (at any rate
until Nonnus, nearly a thousand years later) is in the Bacchae of Euripides,
produced after Euripides’ death in 406 BC. This is the subject of Seaford’s
article ‘Dionysiac drama and the Dionysiac mysteries’,35 where he seeks to
demonstrate that Euripides is constantly alluding to Dionysiac mysteries in the
play, which he thinks in part derives from an authoritative religious text or
ἱερὸς λόγος.36 I do not believe this conclusion to be correct. I shall first set
out my own view of the play, before considering Seaford’s article in detail.
The ritual described in the play is primarily orgiastic dancing by women on the
mountains. In the fullest description, in the messenger’s speech (677-74),
there are also supernatural phenomena, such as fountains of milk and wine,
and violence, notably the tearing to pieces of cattle. This corresponds, with a
certain amount of poetical licence, to the trieteric orgia in the contemporary
cult of Dionysus, which I described in the opening section.
There is no indication that this is an initiation cult offering benefits in the
afterlife. When Teiresias, an adherent of Dionysus in the play, is telling
Pentheus of the good things brought by the god (266-327), he lists only the
invention of wine, the power of prophecy and the ability to panic enemies in
battle. There are a number of references to teletai (22, 73, 238, 260, 465), but,
as I have shown,37 this can denote many kinds of rite, including orgia; what
35
Seaford 1981.
36
Seaford 1981: 252.
37
Chapter One section 5.
158
3/5:
Euripides’ Bacchae as hieros logos?
Pentheus calls τελετὰς in 465, Dionysus calls ὄργια in 470, the words being
clearly used as synonyms.
Only in two places might a possible allusion be seen to a better fate after
death. The chorus at 72 calls the god’s followers μάκαρ, ‘blessed’, a typical
way of describing such initiates, but nothing in their song subsequently has
any reference to the afterlife.38 Later, Pentheus asks what benefits sacrificing
to Dionysus might bring (ἔχει δ’ ὄνησιν τοῖσι θύουσιν τίνα;, 473), but Dionysus
claims he is not allowed to say (οὐ θέμις ἀκοῦσαί σ’, ἔστι δ’ ἄξι’ εἰδέναι, 474).
There is no sign that anything after death is meant. In any case, the purpose
as distinct from the nature of initiation would not be secret to non-initiates;
though the rites at Eleusis were secret, it was well-known that, in the words of
Isocrates, they offered ‘pleasant hopes for the end of life and all eternity’ (περὶ
τε τοῦ βίου τελευτῆς καὶ τοῦ σύμπαντος αἰῶνος ἡδίους τὰς ἐλπίδας ἔχουσιν,
Paneg. 28).
This is a different conclusion to that reached by Seaford in the article
mentioned above, where he seeks to demonstrate that Euripides is constantly
alluding to Dionysiac mysteries in the play. His arguments for this may be
summarised as follows, with my comments:
(i) There is likely to be continuity between the classical and later periods, when
the mysteries are better attested, as there was continuity at Eleusis, and
mysteries are anyway conservative.39 This is conjecture. As I have already
made clear, the cult of Dionysus was by no means confined to mystery rites.
38
For Seaford’s view see (iii) below.
39
Seaford 1981: 252-3.
159
3/5:
Euripides’ Bacchae as hieros logos?
(ii) There is an essential similarity between the Dionysiac mysteries and the
Eleusinian.40 This may be true, but does not seem relevant to Seaford’s thesis
here.
(iii) At 72-3, μάκαρ followed by τελετὰς must indicate initiation, especially
when followed in the same line by εἰδὼς (‘knowing’).41 I have dealt with μάκαρ
and τελετὰς above, and I cannot see that a reference to knowing, though it
may be used of initiation, is sufficiently characteristic of it.
(iv) ἀμαθής, ‘ignorant’, in 480 probably means ‘uninitiated‘ here.42 This is not
a usual meaning.43
(v) Mysteries feature, for the initiate, ‘shivering and trembling and sweating
and amazement’ (φρίκη καὶ τρόμος καὶ ἰδρὼς καὶ θάμβος, Plut. fr. 178 =
OF594), which parallels the experience of Pentheus.44 As Seaford himself
recognises, the difficulty here is that this would cast Pentheus in the role of
the initiate, whereas, so far from receiving inestimable benefits, he is torn to
pieces.
(vi) Pentheus dresses as a woman, and transvestism is a well-known feature
of initiatory ritual.45 He cites an inscription of the second century AD referring
to male and female bacchoi and bacchai wearing a girdle. His reference to Van
40
Seaford 1981: 253.
41
Seaford 1981: 253-4.
42
Seaford 1981: 254.
43
Not in LSJ s.v. Seaford cites a Byzantine compilation (Suda s.v.) for this meaning. The
only classical source he cites (Ar. Nub. 135) is not relevant, as the meaning there is clearly
‘ignorant’.
44
Seaford 1981: 255-8.
45
Seaford 1981: 258-9.
160
3/5:
Euripides’ Bacchae as hieros logos?
Gennep suggests that he may be here confusing initiation as as a rite of
passage, where there may be a role for Dionysiac transvestism, 46 with
initiation into the mysteries.47
(vii) The language at 902-5 has a liturgical ring.48 Even if this is the case, the
subject is merely being called ‘happy’ (εὐδαίμων); it is not specified in what
respect.
(viii) The strange sights seen by Pentheus, such as two suns (918), mark the
new identity of the initiate.49 I have already drawn attention to the difficulty
of seeing Pentheus as an initiate.50 In a later article he suggests that Pentheus
is confused by looking into a mirror, one of the toys used by the Titans to decoy
Dionysus, though he accepts that there is no actual mirror on the stage. 51
There is no evidence for this, and I am not sure about the logic of Dionysus
using the mirror that was used upon him.
(ix) There are references to the initiate dying to be reborn, which was a feature
of Dionysiac initiation.52 The supposed references are two. At 821, the female
dress Pentheus is to assume is of linen (βυσσίνους), which is the material of
46
Bremmer 1999b.
47
See Introduction above for the distinction.
48
Seaford 1981: 260; Dodds 1960 ad loc.
49
Seaford 1981: 259-60.
50
Seaford calls into support a comparison by Clement of Alexandria between Pentheus and
initiation into the mysteries of Christianity (Protr. 12.118.5). Clement wrote over five
hundred years after Euripides from a very different perspective, and contrary to the later
claim of Eusebius (Praep. Evang. 2.2.64), it is very unlikely that Clement had any personal
experience of the mysteries, but was instead relying on some now lost compilation;
Herrero de Jáuregui 2007: 20-3, 2010: 147-9.
51
Seaford 1987.
52
Seaford 1981: 260-2.
161
Euripides’ Bacchae as hieros logos?
3/5:
shrouds. It also, however, appears to have been characteristic of female
dress,53 and Pentheus’ response, ‘I shall be classed with women instead of as
a man?’ (ἐς γυναῖκας ἐξ ἀνδρὸς τελῶ;, 822), shows him to have understood it
in this sense. There is again the difficulty of identifying Pentheus with the
initiate.
At 860-1 Seaford gives Διόνυσον, ὅς πέφυκεν ἐν τέλει θεός,
δεινότατος, ἁνθρώποισι δ’ ἠπιώτατος54 the sense of ‘Dionysus, who is most
terrible in the initiation of the god, but to humans most gentle’, taking telos as
teletai, ‘rites’, a meaning it does not normally bear,55 the terror being caused
by the rebirth. I cannot, however, see that this quite fits with the contrast with
‘gentle to humans’. 56 His conjecture that rebirth was a feature of Dionysiac
initiation, on the other hand, though some of the evidence he provides for it
is either late or dubious, has received some confirmation in the Pelinna gold
leaves, discovered since his article was published, as I shall discuss below.
I have to conclude, therefore, that Seaford’s arguments all fall into the
category of ingenious special pleading, and that there is no sign either that an
initiation cult is being described here or that there is any reference to the
afterlife. As I noted above, in cults like Eleusis that did offer benefits in the
next world, there was no secret about the aim as distinct from the means: in
the words of the Homeric hymn to Demeter, ‘Happy is he of men on earth who
sees these things; he who is uninitiated and has no part of these rites has not
53
Dodds 1960 ad loc.
54
Punctuation of Dodds 1960; Seaford omits the comma after θεὸς.
55
Not in LSJ s.v., but there are parallels: see Richardson 1974: 314.
The meaning is perhaps ‘who is a god in power’ (LSJ s.v τέλος 2); see Dodds 1960 ad loc
for other possibilities.
56
162
3/5:
Euripides’ Bacchae as hieros logos?
the same fate when he perishes under the murky gloom’.57 We must therefore
reject the Bacchae as any kind of hieros logos.
ὄλβιος, ὃς τάδ᾽ ὄπωπεν ἐπιχθονίων ἀνθρώπων: /ὃς δ᾽ ἀτελὴς ἱερῶν ὅς τ᾽ ἄμμορος,
οὔποθ᾽ ὁμοίων /αἶσαν ἔχει φθίμενός περ ὑπὸ ζόφῳ ἠερόεντι, 480-2.
57
163
3/6:
6:
Dionysus in the gold leaves
Dionysus in the gold leaves
We next turn to the gold leaves found in graves in various parts of the Greek
world, which have been dated from the fourth century BC onwards. 58 As I shall
demonstrate in the next chapter, the gold leaves have many incompatibilities
between themselves, so that evidence for one cannot be taken to apply to all
the others. There are just four that mention Dionysus or bacchics.
The gold leaf from Hipponion, a Greek colony in Calabria, dating from about
400 BC, is probably the earliest gold leaf we possess (B10). In the main, this is
quite a normal text of the B type, with directions to the newly departed soul
about the way it should take among the cypresses and springs of the infernal
landscape. It is clearly, therefore, concerned with the afterlife. It ends,
however, in a unique way:
καὶ δὴ καὶ σὺ πιὼν ὁδὸν ἔρχεα<ι> ἄν τε καὶ ἄλλοι
μύσται καὶ βάχχοι ἱερὰν στείχουσι κλε<ε>ινοί.
and you too, having drunk, will go along the sacred road that the other
famed initiates and bacchics travel.
Here we have for the first time an unequivocal testimony that the bacchics are
initiates who go to a special place after death.59 It shows that Dionysiac
initiation was established in South Italy by the end of the fifth century.
58
See Chapter Four for further details.
59
Bernabé and Jiménez San Cristóbal (2008: 52-3) suggest that the initiates and bacchics in
this text are two different groups, and that the bacchics here are Orphic bacchics, differing
from Dionysiac bacchics in that they pursue a lasting condition, not a temporary ecstasy,
and differing from those described here as initiates, who they say are also Orphics, in being
initiates who have in addition followed the ascetic and ritual prescriptions of the Orphic
164
3/6:
Dionysus in the gold leaves
The other cases are later, and from Thessaly. D4, from around 300 BC, simply
identifies the dead person as a priestess of Dionysus (εὐαγὴς ἱερὰ Διονύσου
Βακχίου). The remaining two (D1-2), from Pelinna, are slightly later.60 They
are in the shape of ivy leaves,61 itself suggesting Dionysus, and begin
identically:
νῦν ἔθανες καὶ νῦν ἐγένου, τρισόλβιε, ἄματι τῶιδε.
εἰπεῖν Φερσεφόναι σ’ ὅτι Βάκχιος αὐτὸς ἔλυσε.
Now you have died and now you have been born, thrice fortunate one, on
this very day. Say to Persephone that Bacchios himself released you.
After some lines in both on falling into milk as a bull or ram and having wine
as an honour, one of them (D1) concludes:
καὶ σὺ μὲν εἶς ὑπὸ γῆν τελέσας ἅπερ ὄλβιοι ἄλλοι62
and you will go under earth having celebrated rites just as the other
fortunate ones
The dead person, then, has celebrated rites, here plausibly referring to
initiation, and comes after death before Persephone free and fortunate, a
process in which Dionysus has been instrumental. There is no doubt that this
is Dionysiac initiation offering a better fate in the afterlife. There are two
especially striking features.
The first is the terminology of ‘releasing’ (ἔλυσε). Lusios was a well-known
epiclesis of Dionysus (e.g. Paus. 2.2.5, 2.7.6, Orph. H. 50), which has been
life. They provide no evidence for this, and it seems confused. At any rate, the rewards
after death appear to be the same for both. See also Jiménez San Cristóbal 2009.
60
For a general survey, see Segal 1990.
61
Bernabé and Jiménez San Cristóbal 2008: 61, with a drawing in Merkelbach 1999: 11.
62
There are, however, variant readings; see Bernabé and Jiménez San Cristóbal 2008: 90-1.
165
3/6:
Dionysus in the gold leaves
explained as the liberating effect of drunkenness or bacchic frenzy.63 There is
an explanation of this, accepted by Bernabé and Jiménez San Cristóbal, 64 in
Damascius, who says that Dionysus is called Luseus, ‘for he is the one who
releases the bond of those he wishes, as he is also responsible for the
individual life’ (οὗτος γάρ ἐστιν ὁ λύων τὸν δεσμὸν ὧν ἂν ἐθέλῃ, ἅτε καὶ αἴτιος
ὢν τῆς μερικῆς ζωῆς). He then proceeds to quote some lines ascribed to
Orpheus:
ἄνθρωποι δὲ τεληέσσας ἑκατόμβας
πέμψουσιν πάσῃσιν ἐν ὥραις ἀμφιέτῃσιν
ὄργιά τ’ ἐκτελέσουσι λύσιν προγόνων ἀθεμίστων
μαιόμενοι· σὺ δὲ τοῖσιν ἔχων κράτος, οὕς κε θέλῃσθα
λύσεις ἔκ τε πόνων χαλεπῶν καὶ ἀπείρονος οἴστρου
(Dam. In Plat. Phd. 1.11 (on 62b3-4) = OF350)
Men will send perfect hecatombs in all seasons year by year, and they will
perform orgia, striving after release from unlawful ancestors. But you having
power over them, you will release whomever you wish from difficult suffering
and limitless frenzy.
Damascius, however, was writing from a Neoplatonist viewpoint some 800
years after the gold leaf was buried, and was heavily influenced by the later
Orphic Rhapsodic theogony,65 from which his quotation is likely to come, so I
do not think his explanation can necessarily be relied on to apply eight
centuries earlier. At any rate, Plutarch, midway between the two, though an
initiate of Dionysus, knows nothing of this, but explains Lusios merely as
‘releasing the soul through employing truth and freedom of speech towards
others’ (ἀπολύων τῆς ψυχῆς ἀληθείᾳ καὶ παρρησίᾳ χρῆσθαι πρὸς ἀλλήλους,
Quaest. conv. 716b-c). It may be that ἔλυσε in the gold leaf is simply a play on
63
Dodds 1951: 76, Santamaría 2013: 50-1.
64
Bernabé and Jiménez San Cristóbal 2008: 75-6.
65
Brisson 1991.
166
3/6:
Dionysus in the gold leaves
words, alluding to Dionysus’ well-established but otherwise unconnected
epithet.
The second striking feature is the reference to rebirth after death: ‘now you
have died and now you have been born, thrice fortunate one, on this very
day’.66 The closest parallel in the gold leaves is A4, ‘hail, having suffered the
experience which you have never previously suffered’ (χαῖρε παθὼν τὸ
πάθημα τὸ δ’ οὔπω πρόσθ’ ἐπεπόνθεις); this of course would be true just of
death, at least if we rule out metempsychosis, but there is perhaps an
implication of something more. We might also compare those texts in which
the deceased is said to have become a god from a mortal (A4 again, A1, A5).67
Seaford, writing before the publication of the Pelinna gold leaves, but perhaps
presciently identifying rebirth after death as a feature of Dionysiac initiation,
has further suggested that this was reflected in a mock death in the ritual
itself.68 His evidence for this is, however, not entirely conclusive, consisting of:
(a) A4, cited above, where the pathema seems clearly to allude to actual death
rather than to part of the ritual;
(b) a reference in Theocritus (26.27-9), where a child apparently being initiated
into Dionysiac mysteries might suffer a worse fate than Pentheus (χαλεπώτερα
τῶνδ᾽ ἐμόγησεν), taken by Seaford as an allusion to a mock death, which is a
plausible suggestion;
For the phrasing, cf. Sophocles OT 438 ἥδ᾽ ἡμέρα φύσει σε καὶ διαφθερεῖ, with other
examples in Herrero de Jáuregui 2011.
66
67
See also Chapter Four section 4 (g) below.
68
Seaford 1981: 262.
167
3/6:
Dionysus in the gold leaves
(c) a reference in Livy (39.8.8) to murders connected with Bacchic rites in 186
BC, assumed to be a distorted account of the ritual;
(d) the flagellation shown in the frescoes in the Villa of the Mysteries (Fig. 8)
in Pompeii,69 which may represent Dionysiac ritual of some kind, but only
relevant in this connection if the mock death were by whipping.
The evidence for a ritual mock death is therefore uncertain, though the
possibility cannot be ruled out.
We therefore have good evidence for Dionysiac initiation meant to affect fate
in the afterlife for South Italy around 400 BC and for Thessaly for the early third
century. As I said above, in view of the diversity of the gold leaves, this cannot
be taken automatically to apply to the other leaves, or to all times and places.
If they were indeed all Dionysiac, it is strange that the key role of Dionysus in
releasing the soul from the worse fate was only mentioned in two of the forty
or so that have been found.
69
Nilsson 1957a: 66-76.
168
3/7:
7:
A saying in Plato
A saying in Plato
Fig. 6. Dionysus holding a thyrsos
Harvard Art Museums, Cambridge. Harvard 1960.347. Beazley Archive No. 217539. Attic Red
Figure. Hydria, Kalpis. Attributed to the Class of Brussels A3099. ca 410 - 400 B.C. www.theoi.com.
There are a number of references in Plato to private cults, initiations and
religious practitioners, such as the agurtai and manteis of Republic 364b =
OF573,70 which may or may not be Dionysiac. The following, however, appears
to be the only actual mention of Dionysus or bacchics in this connection:
καὶ κινδυνεύουσι καὶ οἱ τὰς τελετὰς ἡμῖν οὗτοι καταστήσαντες οὐ φαῦλοί
τινες εἶναι, ἀλλὰ τῷ ὄντι πάλαι αἰνίττεσθαι ὅτι ὃς ἂν ἀμύητος καὶ ἀτέλεστος
εἰς Ἅιδου ἀφίκηται ἐν βορβόρῳ κείσεται, ὁ δὲ κεκαθαρμένος τε καὶ
τετελεσμένος ἐκεῖσε ἀφικόμενος μετὰ θεῶν οἰκήσει. εἰσὶν γὰρ δή, ὥς φασιν
οἱ περὶ τὰς τελετάς, ‘ναρθηκοφόροι μὲν πολλοί, βάκχοι δέ τε παῦροι:’ οὗτοι
δ᾽ εἰσὶν κατὰ τὴν ἐμὴν δόξαν οὐκ ἄλλοι ἢ οἱ πεφιλοσοφηκότες ὀρθῶς.
70
Chapter One section 4 above.
169
3/7:
A saying in Plato
(Pl. Phd. 69c-d = OF434)
Probably those who established the teletai were not thoughtless, but
suggested of old that whoever goes to Hades uninitiated and without the rites
will lie in mud, but that he who is purified and has undergone the rites will
live with the gods. For as they say about the teletai, ‘the narthex-bearers are
many, the bacchoi few’. These are in my opinion no others than those who
practice philosophy rightly.
The narthex is the dried stalk of the giant fennel, or thyrsos, borne by the
participants in Dionysiac thiasoi (Fig. 6). It may be argued that ‘the narthexbearers are many, the bacchoi few’ is just a traditional saying of the ‘many are
called, but few are chosen’ type that Plato is using with no special relation to
what he is describing;71 the saying was, or became, a well-known proverb that
could be used in other contexts (e.g. Anth. Pal. 10.106, Diogenian. 7.86 =
OF576). However, the existence of the proverb must itself imply that there
were two grades of followers of Dionysus, and it is difficult to see who the
higher grade could be, if not initiates. Coupled with the specific link here with
teletai and the fate in Hades of initiated and uninitiated, the strong probability
must be that this does connect Dionysiac initiation with the afterlife. 72 This
would then be the first evidence for Athens.
71
For similar proverbial sayings, see López Martínez 2011: 283-4.
72
For a suggestion that the saying is Orphic rather than Dionysiac, see Jiménez San
Cristóbal 2009: 47-50.
170
The activities of Aeschines’ mother
3/8:
8:
The activities of Aeschines’ mother
The most detailed account of a private τελετή known to us (the officiant is
described as τελούσῃ and the participants as τοὺς τελουμένους) is in the
speech of Demosthenes On the crown, dating from 330 BC. In the course of
an attack on his opponent Aeschines he scornfully describes the ceremonies
at which Aeschines is said to have assisted his mother Glaucothea in his youth.
It is generally treated as a reliable description of rites in the cult of Sabazios
(or perhaps of Dionysus, or of a Sabazios identical with Dionysus).73 There are
three questions that need to be answered before we can assess the evidence
it provides. Which is the god whose cult is being described? What is the date
of the evidence? Can we regard it as reliable?
I believe that that the nature and status of this passage have been
misunderstood, that it has little connection with either Sabazios or Aeschines’
mother, that it refers to a much later date than usually thought and is not a
coherent account at all, but that nevertheless it does provide us with reliable
evidence.
The passage runs as follows:
ἀνὴρ δὲ γενόμενος τῇ μητρὶ τελούσῃ τὰς βίβλους ἀνεγίγνωσκες καὶ τἄλλα
συνεσκευωροῦ, τὴν μὲν νύκτα νεβρίζων καὶ κρατηρίζων καὶ καθαίρων τοὺς
τελουμένους καὶ ἀπομάττων τῷ πηλῷ καὶ τοῖς πιτύροις, καὶ ἀνιστὰς ἀπὸ τοῦ
καθαρμοῦ κελεύων λέγειν ‘ἔφυγον κακόν, εὗρον ἄμεινον,’ ἐπὶ τῷ μηδένα
πώποτε τηλικοῦτ᾽ ὀλολύξαι σεμνυνόμενος (καὶ ἔγωγε νομίζω· μὴ γὰρ οἴεσθ᾽
αὐτὸν φθέγγεσθαι μὲν οὕτω μέγα, ὀλολύζειν δ᾽ οὐχ ὑπέρλαμπρον), ἐν δὲ ταῖς
ἡμέραις τοὺς καλοὺς θιάσους ἄγων διὰ τῶν ὁδῶν, τοὺς ἐστεφανωμένους τῷ
μαράθῳ καὶ τῇ λεύκῃ, τοὺς ὄφεις τοὺς παρείας θλίβων καὶ ὑπὲρ τῆς κεφαλῆς
73
Brown 1991: 44n13 summarises the scholarly support for this view.
171
3/8:
The activities of Aeschines’ mother
αἰωρῶν, καὶ βοῶν ‘εὐοῖ σαβοῖ,’ καὶ ἐπορχούμενος ‘ὑῆς ἄττης ἄττης ὑῆς,’
ἔξαρχος καὶ προηγεμὼν καὶ κιττοφόρος καὶ λικνοφόρος καὶ τοιαῦθ᾽ ὑπὸ τῶν
γρᾳδίων προσαγορευόμενος, μισθὸν λαμβάνων τούτων ἔνθρυπτα καὶ
στρεπτοὺς καὶ νεήλατα, ἐφ᾽ οἷς τίς οὐκ ἂν ὡς ἀληθῶς αὑτὸν εὐδαιμονίσειε
καὶ τὴν αὑτοῦ τύχην;
(Dem. 18.259-60 = OF577)
When you became a man you read out the books while your mother
performed the ceremony and you assisted with the other preparations.
During the night you took the fawn skin,74 mixed the wine and purified the
participants and wiped them with mud and bran and after the purification
raised them up and told them to say ‘I have escaped the bad and found the
better’, piquing yourself that no-one ever uttered so loud a holy cry (and I
believe it; don’t think he can talk as loud as he does and not be magnificent
at that too). In the day you led the fine procession, garlanded with fennel and
white poplar, through the streets, rubbing the pareias snakes and raising
them above your head, and shouting ‘euoi saboi’ and dancing to ‘hues attes
attes hues’, addressed by the old women as leader and basket-bearer (or ivybearer) and liknon-bearer, and receiving for this sops and twisted cakes and
new-ground barley groats. On these terms who would not truly congratulate
themselves and their fortune?
In a further speech he refers to Aeschines reading the books while his mother
conducted the rites and, though still a child, rolling in the drunken procession
(τὸ μὲν ἐξ ἀρχῆς τὰς βίβλους ἀναγιγνώσκοντά σε τῇ μητρὶ τελούσῃ, καὶ παῖδ᾽
ὄντ᾽ ἐν θιάσοις καὶ μεθύουσιν ἀνθρώποις καλινδούμενον, Dem. 19.199), and
to Glaucothea purifying the participants (καὶ ταύτης ἔπι’ τελοῦσα μὲν ἡ μήτηρ
αὐτοῦ καὶ καθαίρουσα, Dem. 19.249) and leading the procession (καὶ
Γλαυκοθέας τῆς τοὺς θιάσους συναγούσης, Dem. 19.281).
This information can be supplemented from Harpocration (OF577), the
(probably) second century AD compiler of a glossary for the Attic orators, who
74
It is not clear if he is donning a skin himself or clothing the participants in them;
Harpocration (s.v. νεβρίζων) gives alternative explanations. The order in which his
activities are given might favour the first, as otherwise two operations on the participants,
clothing and purifying, would be rather oddly separated by the mixing of the wine (for the
libations), but certainty is impossible.
172
3/8:
The activities of Aeschines’ mother
seems to be drawing on an ancient commentary on On the crown.75 He has
explanations for the things worn, fawn skins and garlands (νεβρίζων, λεύκη),
the things carried, basket, liknon and snakes (κιττοφόρος, λικνοφόρος,
παρεῖαι ὄφεις), the things eaten (ἔνθρυπτα, νεήλατα, στρεπτοὺς), the wiping
with mud and bran (ἀπομάττων) and the cries (Ἄττης, εὐοῖ Σαβοῖ).
Harpocration’s explanations tend to connect the rites that Demosthenes is
describing with Dionysus. The white poplar, he says, is a garland of those
celebrating Bacchic rites (τὰ βακχικὰ) (s.v. λεύκη), the smearing with mud and
bran he connects with the myth of Dionysus and the Titans (s.v. ἀπομάττων),
and κιττοφόρος, which in any case in its normal meaning of ‘ivy-bearing’ is a
standard epithet of Dionysus,76 is explained as a variant of κιστοφόρος,
bearing the sacred kiste or basket of Dionysus. Even without this information
the ritual seems securely connected with Dionysus by the characterisation of
Aeschines as liknon-bearer. The liknon, or winnowing fan, was part of the cult
of Dionysus at least from the third century BC; the statue of the god in the
grand procession of Ptolemy Philadelphus was followed by women carrying
them (τὰ λίκνα φέρουσαι, Ath. 198e).77
There is, however, an alternative offered. The mysterious cries of ‘euoi saboi’
and ‘hues attes hues’ that Aeschines is said to have uttered clearly puzzled the
readers of Demosthenes, and seem to have puzzled Harpocration and his
sources. I shall return to his suggestion for attes later. For saboi he somewhat
tentatively suggests the following:
75
Burkert 1987: 141n34.
76
E.g. Pind. Ol. 2.27. For the general connection of Dionysus with ivy, see Dodds 1960 ad
81.
77
See Nilsson 1957a: 21-45 for a full survey of the cult use of the liknon and its association
with Dionysus.
173
3/8:
The activities of Aeschines’ mother
Σαβοί: Δημοσθένης ὑπὲρ Κτησιφῶντος. οἱ μὲν Σαβοὺς λέγεσθαι τοὺς
τελουμένους τῷ Σαβαζίῳ, τουτέστι τῷ Διονύσῳ, καθάπερ τοὺς τῷ Βάκχῳ
Βάκχους. τὸν αὐτὸν δὲ εἶναι Σαβάζιον καὶ Διόνυσόν φασιν ἄλλοι τε καὶ
Νύμφις βʹ περὶ Ἡρακλείας. οὕτω δέ φασι καὶ τοὺς Ἕλληνάς τινες τοὺς
Βάκχους Σαβοὺς καλεῖν. Μνασέας δὲ ὁ Παταρεὺς υἱὸν εἶναί φησι τοῦ
Διονύσου Σαβάζιον.
Saboi: Demosthenes For Ctesiphon. The Saboi are said to be the initiates of
Sabazios, that is Dionysus, just as the Bacchoi of Bacchos. That Sabazios and
Dionysus are the same say amongst others Nymphis in his second book about
Herakleia. So also some say the Greeks call Bacchoi Saboi. Mnaseas of Patara
says that Sabazios is the son of Dionysus.
Nymphis of Herakleia Pontica and Mnaseas of Patara in Lycia are Hellenistic
authors of the third and second centuries BC. This explanation, though put
forward by Harpocration with cautious reservations (‘some say’) and
alternative versions, was widely adopted in antiquity, as we shall see, and has
been found convincing, or partly convincing, by modern scholars. 78 It raises a
number of questions, which I think have not previously been systematically
addressed.79 Is Sabazios really the same as Dionysus? If not, which of them
was involved in Glaucothea’s cult? Why also are there apparent references to
both, as well as to Attis from yet another cult? I shall try to provide an answer.
Sabazios was a Phrygian deity first mentioned in a Greek context by
Aristophanes in the late fifth century (Vesp. 8-10, Av. 875-6, Lys. 388-90). On
E.g. ‘she was an expert in Bacchic or Sabazian rites’ (Loeb: Vince and Vince 1926 ad loc);
‘a helper of his mother in the cult of Sabazios’ (Nilsson 1957a: 23); ‘Sabazios, who is set side
by side with Dionysus ... the mother of the orator Aeschines appeared as a priestess in
some such circle’ (Burkert 1985: 179).
78
79
My explanation is developed from Lane 1980: 22-4 on Sabazios and Bremmer 2004: 5401 on Attis.
174
The activities of Aeschines’ mother
3/8:
the question of his identity with Dionysus, the evidence can be classified into
five groups:80
(a)
Sabazios is said to be definitely identical with Dionysus. We have seen
that Harpocration reported the historian Nymphis (second century BC) as
being of this opinion.
There are similar statements in the Byzantine
Etymologicum magnum (s.v.) and Etymologicum Gudianum (as Sabandios,
ἐπώνυμον Διονύσου) and in the twelfth century Homeric commentaries of
Bishop Eustathius (Il. 16.627). It seems to be implied in Orphic hymn 49 (date
uncertain, possibly second century AD) to Hipta, nurse of Dionysus, of whom
it is said she glories in the mystic rites of Sabos (μυστιπόλοις τελεταῖσιν
ἀγαλλομένην Σάβου ἁγνοῦ). We might also include Cicero in the first century
BC, who says in the De natura deorum that the Sabazia were instituted in the
honour of one of the five gods called Dionysus he believed to have existed
(3.58(23)).
(b)
It is reported that some say that Sabazios and Dionysus are the same.
The identity of those claiming this is not revealed, and our immediate source
does not himself explicitly endorse this, as in Harpocration above. There are
similar formulations in Diodorus Siculus (Διόνυσον ... ὑπό τινων Σαβάζιον
ὀνομαζόμενοι, 4.4.1) in the first century BC, in Plutarch in the second century
AD (Quaest. conv. 671e-f = OF591), in Macrobius in the fifth century (Sat.
1.18.11), in Lydus in the sixth century (Mens. 4.51) and in the scholia to
Aristophanes (Av. 874, Lys. 388, Vesp. 9).
(c)
Sabazios is not identical to Dionysus, but is said to stand in some relation
to him. We have seen that Mnaseas (third century BC) thought him the son of
80
I follow the general approach indicated by Lane 1980: 22-4. See also Festugière 1935:
196-7.
175
The activities of Aeschines’ mother
3/8:
Dionysus. Strabo (first century BC – first century AD) brings in Cybele, the
originally Phrygian Mother of the Gods: ‘Sabazios too is of the Phrygians and
in a way the child of the Mother, he too passing on the cult of Dionysus’ (καὶ ὁ
Σαβάζιος δὲ τῶν Φρυγιακῶν ἐστι καὶ τρόπον τινὰ τῆς μητρὸς τὸ παιδίον
παραδοὺς τὰ τοῦ Διονύσου καὶ αὐτός, 10.2.15)
(d)
It is implied that Sabazios and Dionysus are different. We could perhaps
include here the Aristophanic references, such as the ‘mob of Sabazians’ in
Lysistrata (χοὶ πυκνοὶ Σαβάζιοι, 388), which do not mention Dionysus. The
reference of Theophrastus to an initiate of Sabazios (τελούμενος τῷ Σαβαζίῳ,
Char. 27.8, cf. 16.4) might also suggest a difference. Cicero, too, in another
place, refers to ‘Sabazios and other foreign gods’ in Aristophanes, which must
exclude an identification with Dionysus (Sabazius et quidam alii dei peregrini,
Leg. 2.37).
(e)
Sabazios is identified with Zeus. The first attestation of this is in a
second-century BC inscription from Sardis (OGIS 331);81 the first literary
reference (Sabazi Iovis) seems to be in the first-century AD Valerius Maximus
(1.3.2).82
It should be clear from this analysis that there is a rough reverse chronological
gradient.
The earliest examples give no hint that Sabazius is not an
independent god. The later suggestions that he was the same as Dionysus are
tentative at first, more confident later. The fact that he could also be identified
with Zeus proves that the equation with Dionysus was still not generally
accepted some centuries after Demosthenes. We may conclude that the
identity of the two was a product of Hellenistic syncretism, and might indeed
81
Lane 1979: 37-8.
82
For the textual problems see Lane 1979; for other references see Lane 1980: 32n34.
176
The activities of Aeschines’ mother
3/8:
have been suggested by attempts to explain this passage of Demosthenes. It
has no relevance to the activities of the mother of Aeschines.
This then raises the question of why the cry of ‘euoi saboi’ is appearing in what
we have shown to be an otherwise Dionysiac context. Before examining this,
I should like to look briefly at the other cry in Glaucothea’s procession, ‘hues
attes attes hues’. This is explained by Harpocration as follows:
Ἄττης: Δημοσθένης ὑπὲρ Κτησιφῶντος. ὁ Ἄττης παρὰ Φρυξὶ μάλιστα τιμᾶται
ὡς πρόσπολος τῆς μητρὸς τῶν θεῶν. τὰ δὲ περὶ αὐτὸν δεδήλωκε Νεάνθης·
μυστικὸς δὲ ὁ λόγος.
Attes: Demosthenes For Ctesiphon. Attes among the Phrygians is especially
honoured as the servant of the mother of the gods. Neanthes has explained
about him. The story is connected with the mysteries.
Neanthes was the probably early third century BC author of a work on teletai
(Περὶ τελετῶν), though there is no indication he was referring to the
Demosthenes passage. The identification of ‘attes’ with the Attis prominent
in the cult of Cybele, Mother of the Gods, was an obvious one, but there are
difficulties. The worship of Cybele originated in Phrygia before it came to
Greece, but there is no trace of Attis there.83 The story of Atys in Herodotus
(1.34-43) does not seem connected.84 The earliest secure evidence for Attis in
Greece comes from a mid-fourth century votive stele from the Piraeus (IG II2
4671).85 Aeschines was born in the early years of the century, and was
apparently an adolescent at the time described (παῖδ’ ὄντ’, 19.199, ἀνὴρ δὲ
83
Bøgh 2007: 319-22. See also Roller 1994 and 1999.
84
Bremmer 2004: 536-40.
85
Roller 1994: 246-9.
177
3/8:
The activities of Aeschines’ mother
γενόμενος, 18.259), so the appearance of Attis in cult here seems suspiciously
early. The significance of the ‘hues’ part of the cry is uncertain. 86
There are therefore serious inconsistencies in the passage, in the early date
for the cult of Attis, and in the apparent presence of elements of that cult and
those of Sabazios and Dionysus, whom we have shown to be unconnected at
that time, mixed up together. For an explanation, we have to take account of
the circumstances in which it was composed. 87 In its context in On the crown
it is designed to show Aeschines in a ridiculous and rather discreditable role.
Demosthenes was some years younger than Aeschines, who, as noted above,
was an adolescent at the time referred to, which must therefore be some forty
or fifty years earlier. It is not likely that the child Demosthenes followed him
through the streets, making notes of the actions of his future opponent. It is
not much more likely that he had accurate accounts of exactly what happened
in this private cult so long before.
All that Demosthenes was likely to have known, or at least have heard a
rumour of, was that Aeschines helped his mother Glaucothea in her cult
practices. The colourful details of what went on he simply supplied from what
he knew or had heard of cult practices of the time he was making the speech,
without much regard to consistency or chronology; he was, after all, a
rhetorician not a historian of religion. The account is therefore not a coherent
one, but a patchwork or bricolage from different sources, perhaps, as the
86
Hue appears somewhere in Aristophanes (fr. 878), according to Pausanias the
lexicographer listed among the foreign gods (ξενικοῖς θεοῖς, s.v.). Proclus reports that in
the Eleusinian mysteries, ‘they look up to the sky and shout “rain! [hue]” and then down to
the ground, “conceive! [kue]”’ (ἐις τὸν οὐρανὸν ἀποβλέψαντες ἐβόων· ὕε, καταβλέψαντες
δέ εἰς τὴν γῆν· κύε, In Ti. 293c); this, however, is eight hundred years after Demosthenes
and it is not clear how it would relate to Attis. Zeus is of course often associated with rain
(e.g. Hes. Op. 488), and hue has also been linked to Dionysus (Plut. De Is. et Os. 364d),
Semele (Pherec. FGrHist 3 F46a) and Osiris (Hellanic. FGrHist 608a F7).
87
I follow and extend the suggestion of Bremmer 2004: 540-1.
178
The activities of Aeschines’ mother
3/8:
review above might suggest, mainly Dionysiac. We can treat what he says as
reliable evidence for what he and his audience thought might take place in
some of these private rituals in 330 BC, but we cannot ascribe it all to a single
cult, whether of Sabazios or of any other god.88
After this long preliminary survey of the evidence, it must be admitted that the
testimony it may provide concerning the afterlife is both brief and difficult to
interpret. As part of the ritual, Aeschines is supposed to have, in a loud voice,89
told the participants to say ‘I have escaped the bad and found the better’
(ἔφυγον κακόν, εὗρον ἄμεινον, 18.259). In accordance with the interpretation
of the whole passage outlined above, we can take it that this was part of some
ritual, probably Dionysiac, in late fourth century Athens. It is less clear what it
might mean.
The saying appears again in a collection of Alexandrian proverbs, doubtfully
attributed to Plutarch.90
Ἔφυγον κακὸν, εὗρον ἄμεινον: ἐπὶ τῶν μεταβολὴν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς κρείττονα
οἰωνιζομένων. Ἀθήνησι γὰρ ἐν τοῖς γάμοις ἔθος ἦν ἀμφιθαλῆ παῖδα ἀκάνθας
μετὰ δρυΐνων καρπῶν στέφεσθαι, καὶ λίκνον ἄρτων πλήρη περιφέροντα
λέγειν, Ἔφυγον κακὸν, εὗρον ἄμεινον. Ἐσήμαινον δὲ ὡς ἀπεώσαντο μὲν τὴν
ἀγρίαν καὶ παλαιὰν δίαιταν, εὑρήκασι δὲ τὴν ἥμερον τροφήν.
(Proverbia Alexandrina 16)
I have escaped the bad and found the better: about the change in one’s affairs
with better omens. For at Athens in marriages it was the custom for a child
88
Brown 1991: 45n19 reaches a similar conclusion.
Is the ‘loud voice’ an echo of the ‘shout and cry’ (βοᾷ καὶ κέκραγε, Hippol. Haer. 5.8.40-1)
of the hierophant at the climax of the Eleusinian Mysteries, thus adding Eleusis to the
bricolage of Aeschines’ ritual? On this, see Bremmer 2014: 14-16.
89
90
Mentioned and dismissed in Nilsson 1957a: 23. The phrase is also in Carmina popularia
(PMG) fr. 9, without explanation, and in the lexicographers, who are clearly dependent on
the Proverbia Alexandrina.
179
3/8:
The activities of Aeschines’ mother
with both parents living to be garlanded with thorns and acorns and carrying
around a liknon full of loaves to say, I have escaped the bad and found the
better. They meant that they had rejected the old diet of wild things and had
discovered cultivated food.
There is a possible link with Dionysus in the liknon. Despite this, however, it is
doubtful if it is relevant. Whatever activities Demosthenes was describing,
they certainly did not include a marriage, and the transition to cultivated food
would rather be associated with Demeter or Triptolemos, the bringers of grain,
of whom there is no other sign in this passage.91
It might therefore be better to look to parallels from Eleusis, where a happier
fate after death is offered to initiates: ‘a different fate after death’ (οὔ ποθ’
ὁμοίων αἶσαν ἔχει φθίμενός περ, Hymn. Hom. Cer. 481-2), ‘going to Hades
they alone have life there’ (μόλως ές Ἅιδου τοῖσδε γὰρ μόνοις ἐκεῖ ζῆν ἔστι,
Soph. fr. 837 Radt ), ‘pleasanter hopes for the end of life and all eternity’ (περὶ
τῆς τοῦ βίου τελευτῆς καὶ τοῦ σύμπαντος αἰῶνος ἡδίους τὰς ἐλπίδας, Isoc.
Paneg. 28), ‘a lighter spirit when dead’, (κεῦτ’ ἄν ἵκηαι ἐς πλεόνων, ἔξεις
θυμὸν ἐλαφρότερον, Crin. Anth. Pal. 11.42), ‘to die with a better hope’ (spe
meliore moriendi, Cic. Leg. 2.36), ‘death is not only not evil to mortals, but
good’ (οὐ μόνον εἶναι τὸν θάνατον θνητοῖς οὐ κακὸν, ἀλλ’ ἀγαθόν, memorial
to the hierophant Glaukos IG II2 3661). Similarly in the gold leaves: ‘I flew out
of the painful circle of heavy grief and came with swift feet to the desired
crown’ (κύκλου δ’ ἐξέπταν βαρυπενθέος ἀργαλέοιο, ϊμερτοῦ δ’ ἐπέβαν
στεφάνου ποσὶ καρπαλίμοισι, A1), or even ‘you shall be a god instead of a
mortal’ (θεὸς δ’ ἔσηι ἀντὶ βροτοῖο, A1).
91
Fabiano 2010 makes an ambitious attempt to combine in a single model the liknon, the
punishment of carrying water in a sieve in Hades, the mud to which non-initiates are
condemned there, the mud used in the purification in Demosthenes’ account, the saying,
the marriage and the loaves, together with initiation, but I do not think the connections are
close enough to make her case convincing.
180
3/8:
The activities of Aeschines’ mother
If ‘I have escaped the bad and found the better’ is the equivalent of these, and
it is indeed part of the ritual of Dionysus as the greater part of the passage
seems to be, then we have here evidence for the introduction of hopes for the
afterlife into the cult of Dionysus at Athens by 330 BC.92
92
Herrero de Jáuregui 2015: 678-9 suggests that this is not a genuine part of some ritual,
but a parody by Demosthenes, but even if this is so, a parody implies the existence of
something similar that is being parodied.
181
3/9:
9:
The Toledo Krater
The Toledo Krater
Fig. 7. The Toledo Krater
Volute Krater (Mixing Vessel) with Dionysus Visiting Hades and Persephone. Attributed to The
Darius Painter (Greek). About 330 BCE. Taranto, Italy. Toledo Museum of Art, Toledo, Ohio.
1994.19. Gift of Edward Drummond Libbey, Florence Scott Libbey, and the Egypt Exploration
Society, by exchange.
It is very unusual to find an artistic depiction of Dionysus in the underworld. 93
An exception is the Toledo Krater (Fig. 7), an Apulian funerary krater dating to
about 330 BC.94 Hades and Persephone are shown in their palace. The seated
Hades is shaking hands with Dionysus, who stands just outside. They are
clearly identified by name labels. Among the other characters shown are
93
There are, however, fifth-century Locrian reliefs showing Dionysus offering Persephone
and Hades wine and a vine; Moret 1993: 300, Torjussen 2006: 94, Torjussen 2010: 188. For
Dionysus in Etruscan tomb painting see Mitterlechner 2016: 527-32.
94
Fuller descriptions in Moret 1993: 295-8, Johnston and McNiven 1996: 25-7, Olmos 2008:
291-3, Torjussen 2010: 187-8.
182
3/9:
The Toledo Krater
Hermes and several associated with Dionysus, such as Pentheus and various
satyrs and maenads.
This has been interpreted as the artistic equivalent of some of the gold leaves
to be considered in the next chapter,95 where the soul is told to ‘say to
Persephone that Bacchios himself has freed you’ (εἰπεῖν Φερσεφόναι σ’ ὅτι
Βάκχιος αὐτὸς ἔλυσε, D1-2); the handshake would then be Hades’
acknowledgement of Dionysus’ power in his realm.96 The resemblance is not
very close, however, as Dionysus himself is not actually present on the gold
leaves, and they also have Persephone, not Hades, in the leading role.97 It has
alternatively been suggested that the handshake only means that Dionysus is
about to depart,98 or that the vase is just a representation of Dionysiac festivity
with no eschatological significance,99 or that the scene may portray Dionysus’
visit to the underworld to lead his mother, in this case Semele, to Olympus. 100
It is not really possible to say what is meant to be represented here. It does,
however, certainly place Dionysus in connection with the afterlife, and
therefore could possibly refer to some kind of Dionysiac initiation. If so, the
Italian origin may be significant, given that the first real evidence we have for
95
Chapter Four section 4.
96
Johnston and McNiven 1996, following Graf 1993: 256.
97
Torjussen 2006, 2010: 181-95. Johnston and McNiven 1996: 33-4 unconvincingly suggest
that Dionysus does not shake hands with Persephone as she is his mother (according to the
Orphic myth) and a handshake would be too formal for a mother-son relationship, and so
he shakes hands with Hades instead.
98
Moret 1993: 318.
99
Slater 2004.
100
Torjussen 2006, 2010: 181-95.
183
3/9:
The Toledo Krater
this, the gold leaf from Hipponion (B10),101 is also from Italy (about 300 km
from Tarentum where the krater was found).
101
Section 6 above.
184
3/10:
10:
Dionysus in Egypt
Dionysus in Egypt
In the Grand Procession of Ptolemy Philadelphus, an account of which is
preserved in Athenaeus, the most prominent part seems to have been that
devoted to Dionysus.102 Although its themes were largely structured around
his conventional myth, and show no discernible connection with initiation or
the afterlife, this does demonstrate the importance of the cult of Dionysus in
Egypt under the Ptolemies in the third century BC. Although this is slightly
later than the classical period, evidence from this time may well reflect
developments in the preceding centuries.
Theocritus was at Alexandria during the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus (see
Idylls 15, 17). His Idyll 26 is primarily concerned with retelling the death of
Pentheus, as in the Bacchae, but has a couple of points that may be relevant
to us. Agave and her companions open a kiste, a chest containing sacred
objects (26.7), which we have seen Demosthenes claimed Aeschines carried in
the procession, and was certainly later associated with initiation. 103 There is
also a reference to someone in their ninth or tenth year (26.29), which it has
been suggested was a common age for initiating children.104 These may be
indications that Theocritus was sufficiently familiar with Dionysiac cult in an
initiatory context to allude to it even though it was not directly relevant to his
story.
102
Rice 1983: 45-115.
103
Nilsson 1957a: 57.
104
Seaford 1981: 262.
185
3/10:
Dionysus in Egypt
It is under Ptolemy IV Philopator (221-204 BC) that we get clearer references
to Dionysiac initiation in Egypt. ‘Not uninitiated’, says Euphronius, ‘you
celebrants of the mysteries of the New Dionysus’ (οὺ βέβηλος, ὦ τελεταὶ τοῦ
νέου Διονύσου),105 the New Dionysus being of course Ptolemy.106 The king
himself, according to Plutarch, celebrated the rites (τελετὰς τελεῖν) with
ecstatic cries (ὀλολυγμοὺς) and beating of the tumpanon (Cleom. 33.2,
Quomodo adulator ab amico internoscatur 56e). This might simply refer to
riotous processions of the kind joined by Skules in Olbia two centuries before,
but there is a suggestive papyrus fragment, apparently a later copy of a
Ptolemaic original:107
ὦ Τριπτόλεμε, ... οὐ σοὶ νῦν μεμύηκα· οὐ γὰρ τὴν Κόρην εἶδον ἠρπασμένην
οὐδὲ τῆν Δήμετρα λελυκημένην, ἀλλὰ νεικηφόρους βασιλέας.
(P. Antinoopolis 18)
Triptolemos, not for you have I now initiated; for I did not see Kore
abducted or the grieving Demeter, but victorious kings.
This seems to say that initiation (μεμύηκα) equivalent to that provided in
Eleusis by Demeter, Kore and Triptolemos is now provided by the kings, and
this may refer to the activities of Philopator; we cannot be certain.108
There are, however, two very interesting documents from the mid or late third
century. The first is a Ptolemaic royal edict, quite possibly from the reign of
105
Powell 1925: 176.
106
Powell 1925 ad loc for other examples of this identification.
107
Delatte 1952; Nilsson 1957b; Burkert 1993: 269.
108
Diodorus (1.22.7 = OF46) says the rites of Dionysus were introduced to Greece from
Egypt, which though not in fact true may be taken to indicate their prominence in that
country; see also Sánchez Ortiz de Landaluce 2011.
186
3/10:
Dionysus in Egypt
Philopator (P. Berlin 11774).109 It is addressed to ‘those who perform rites to
Dionysus in the country’ (τοὺς κατὰ τὴν χώραν τελοῦντας τῶι Διονύσωι), and
orders them to sail to Alexandria within a certain period, depending on their
distance from the city, to report to the authorities and ‘immediately both
make clear from whom they inherited the sacred objects, for up to three
generations, and give in their holy text’ (διασαφεῖν δὲ εὐθέως καὶ παρὰ τίνων
παρειλήφασι τὰ ἱερὰ ἕως γενεῶν τριῶν καὶ διδόναι τὸν ἱερὸν λόγον), the text
to be signed and sealed by them.
The people to whom the edict was addressed were scattered around the
country, as the provision for different time limits according to their location
makes clear. They are unlikely to have been regular priests attached to
temples, as these were already required to report in person at Alexandria
annually.110 It seems, therefore, that they must have been peripatetic private
practitioners. They had been established for some time, if they could claim
three generations behind them.111 They had sacred objects that had been
passed down to them, which we can perhaps identify with the contents of the
kiste used in the rites, as mentioned above.
They also had a hieros logos, a term used by Herodotus for a religious reason
for a certain observance (2.48, 51, 62, 81 = OF43, 650; cf. Paus. 8.15.4 =
OF649), but later by Iamblichus (VP 146 = OF1144) for a Pythagorean treatise
on the gods (τὸν περὶ θεῶν λόγον, ὃν καὶ ἱερὸν διὰ τοῦτο ἐπέγραψεν).112
What it might mean here is unknown, but Pausanias, describing the worship
109
Zuntz 1963 gives the text and full discussion; translation in Graf and Johnston 2013: 21819.
110
Zuntz 1963: 263-7.
111
Though ἕως γενεῶν τριῶν is a technical legal term; Zuntz 1963: 231.
112
Henrichs 2003; Casadesús 2013: 158.
187
3/10:
Dionysus in Egypt
of the Great Gods at Andania, speaks of the rite, or telete, being written down
(ἐνταῦθα τῶν Μεγάλων θεῶν ἐγέγραπτο ἡ τελετή, 4.26.8; ἡ τελετή ...
κατετίθεντο ἐς βίβλους, 4.27.5),113 and again, he says that when the people of
Pheneos celebrate the Greater Rites at the sanctuary of Demeter, they take
out writings concerning the rites (γράμματα ... ἔχοντα ἐς τὴν τελετὴν) and read
them in the hearing of the initiates (ἐς ἐπήκοον τῶν μυστῶν )(8.15.2). These
are public cults, but given that those concerned in Ptolemy’s edict were τοὺς
τελοῦντας, and the source of the sacred objects they used in the rites was also
required, this would be a plausible meaning here. We shall see a possible
example shortly.
We do not know why the edict was issued, whether it was to encourage, to
regulate or to suppress those to whom it applied.114 Nor do we have specific
information on what the rites involved, or whether they referred to the
afterlife. A class of private Dionysiac initiators promising a better fate after
death would, however, be at least consonant with what we have seen to be
the case by the third century BC.
The second document may be related. This is a papyrus from Gurôb in the
Fayum (P. Gurôb 1 = OF578), dating probably to the middle of the century.115
Thirty incomplete lines survive, together with a few letters in a second column.
Some parts of the text appear to be in hexameters. As far as can be made out,
the contents appear to be a mixture of invocations, prayers and ritual
instructions to various deities.
113
Henrichs 2003: 245-50.
114
Zuntz 1963: 228, 237-9.
115
Hordern 2000 has photograph, text and commentary; translation in Graf and Johnston
2013: 217-18.
188
3/10:
Dionysus in Egypt
After a reference to raw meat, presumably from a sacrifice (l.2), we have
‘through the telete’ (δια την τελετην, l.3, cf. ιερα καλα, l.9), so we are dealing
with some kind of rite or initiation. Then there is something about penalties
and fathers: ποινας πατε (l.4). The term poine occurs elsewhere in a number
of contexts connected with fate after death (P. Derv. VI.5, Pind. Ol. 2.58 =
OF445, fr. 133 = OF443, gold leaves A2-3), and I shall discuss in a later chapter
what this might mean.116 Here I will just note that West’s supplement, often
found persuasive,117 of πατε to πατε[ρων αθεμιστον, ‘lawless ancestors’,118
has no authority beyond a wish to bring the papyrus into harmony with the
‘Orphic’ myth put forward by Olympiodorus in the sixth century AD.119
The papyrus goes on, amid much that is obscure, to invoke Brimo, Demeter,
Rhea, the Kouretes, Eubouleus, Pallas, Irikepaios (ll.5-22) and finally ‘one
Dionysus’ (εις διονυσος, l.23).120 This is immediately followed by the word
συμβολα, ‘tokens’ (l.23), which together with συνθεμα, ‘password’ a little later
(l.26) may refer to the kind of statement (‘I fasted, I drank the kukeon, I took
from the kiste, I performed and placed in the kalathos and from the kalathos
in the kiste’)121 which Clement of Alexandria (Protr. 2.18) reports as a
synthema spoken by the initiates at Eleusis.122 The lines which follow may then
116
Chapter Five section 7.
117
E.g. Graf and Johnston 2013: 150, 217.
118
Hordern 2000: 136.
119
Brisson 1992.
120
Brimo is used of Persephone and other chthonic goddesses; Bernabé and Jiménez San
Cristóbal 2008: 156, Bremmer 2013: 40-1. Eubouleus is prominent in the Eleusinian
mysteries, but is also an epithet of Dionysus and Hades; Bernabé and Jiménez San Cristóbal
2008: 102-4, Bremmer 2013: 37-40. Erikepaios may be connected with a Dionysus cult;
Hordern 2000: 138.
121
The kukeon is a barley-water drink; the kiste and kalathos are different types of baskets.
122
Cf. Plautus, Miles gloriosus 1016, cedo sígnum, si harunc Báccharum es. See also
Chapter Two section 6 above.
189
3/10:
Dionysus in Egypt
be what remains of similar statements; there is an ‘I drank’ (επιον) in l.25 and
a kalathos in l.28. One phrase, ‘god through the bosom’ (θεος δια κολπου,
l.24) is a sumbolon of the Sabazian mysteries, according to Clement (Protr.
2.16).123
The text ends with references to a bull-roarer, knucklebones and a mirror
(ρομβος αστραγαλοι ... εσοπτρος, ll. 29-30), which have been identified with
the toys used by the Titans in the myth to decoy the child Dionysus, and seem
to have been used as cult objects, though our first subsequent reference to
them, again in Clement of Alexandria (Protr. 2.17-18 = OF306), is several
centuries later than the Gurôb papyrus.124 We should not lose sight of the
possibility that this part of the myth was invented as an aition for the
otherwise inexplicable cult objects.
It is certainly clear that the papyrus is concerned with some kind of rite,
probably with initiation, and with Dionysus. The presence of so many other
divine beings is a puzzle. It might be some kind of ritual to more than one
god,125 but there seem rather too many, and this kind of syncretism more often
takes place where the gods are actually identified with each other, which could
not be the case with Dionysus, Demeter and Pallas Athene, for example, and
in any case is mostly later than the third century. I suggest that it is a rite to
Dionysus in which the other gods are invoked in prayer to add their power to
what is being performed.
123
As I noted above, Sabazios and Dionysus were often identified by this period, and
Clement was in any case a Christian polemicist prone to confuse the different types of
pagan mysteries with one another.
124
Levaniouk 2007.
125
Graf and Johnston 2013: 151.
190
3/10:
Dionysus in Egypt
It is possible, therefore, that here we have a hieros logos of the type Ptolemy
was collecting. If, as I proposed above, this was essentially instructions for the
ritual, it would consist of a mixture of actions to be performed, such as
collecting the meat after the sacrifice, prayers and invocations to be uttered,
sacred objects like the bull-roarer and mirror to be displayed, and formula,
sumbola or sunthemata, to be recited by the initiates. Whether it was
concerned with the afterlife we do not know, but that would certainly be
consonant with what else we know of Dionysiac initiation cults.
191
3/11:
11:
Later evidence
Later evidence
Fig. 8. Flagellation scene from Pompeii
Fresco from the Sala di Grande Dipinto, Scene VII in the Villa de Misteri (Pompeii). By
WolfgangRieger - Filippo Coarelli (ed.): Pompeji. Hirmer Verlag, München 2002, ISBN 3-7774-9530-1.
p. 357, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=6006470
It will be useful to give a brief indication of the chief later evidence. There is a
lurid account of the Roman Bacchanalia in Livy, relating to the year 186 BC. 126
One of the conspirators, in her confession, says that initiation originally took
place three times each year, by day, for women only, but subsequently it was
extended to men, and happened five times a month, by night (39.13.7-9). They
then devoted themselves to all kinds of depraved orgies, being killed if they
refused (39.13.10-11). It is difficult to know how much of this to believe, but
126
Nilsson 1957a: 12-21.
192
3/11:
Later evidence
it does not sound much like the kind of initiation that we have previously been
discussing.
The frescoes in the Villa of the Mysteries at Pompeii have often been thought
to depict Dionysiac initiation.127 They do include a Silenus and a woman
uncovering a liknon, as well as a winged female engaged in flagellation (Fig.
8),128 but even if they reflect Dionysiac themes, it is not clear if they represent
an actual initiation, and are in any case difficult to interpret.
Plutarch, addressing words of consolation to his wife after the loss of their
child, says:
Καὶ μὴν ἃ τῶν ἄλλων ἀκούεις, οἳ πείθουσι πολλοὺς λέγοντες ὡς οὐδὲν
οὐδαμῇ τῷ διαλυθέντι κακὸν οὐδὲ λυπηρόν ἐστιν, οἶδ’ ὅτι κωλύει σε
πιστεύειν ὁ πάτριος λόγος καὶ τὰ μυστικὰ σύμβολα τῶν περὶ τὸν Διόνυσον
ὀργιασμῶν, ἃ σύνισμεν ἀλλήλοις οἱ κοινωνοῦντες.
(Cons. uxor. 611d = OF595)
And as to what you hear from others, who convince many when they say that
nothing bad or distressing happens to the deceased in any way, I know that
the words of our ancestors prevent you believing it, and the tokens of the
mysteries of the rites of Dionysus, which we both know and share in.
This is a clear statement that Plutarch was an initiate, and that initiation dealt
with fate in the afterlife. We might add to this a reference by Celsus, preserved
by Origen. to those who ‘introduce apparitions and terrible things in the
Bacchic rites’ (ἐν ταῖς Βακχικαῖς τελεταῖς τὰ φάσματα καὶ τὰ δείματα
προεισάγουσι, c. Cels. 4.10 = OF595).
127
Nilsson 1957a: 66-76.
128
See Chapter Eight section 6 below for a possible link to the Erinyes and hostile daimons.
193
3/11:
Later evidence
It seems, however, that in the Roman period the role of private initiators was
no longer prominent, and the Dionysiac mysteries became integrated into
polis society, with the term μύστης perhaps now denoting a member of a
religious association rather than an initiate.129 We come across expressions
like οἱ πρὸ πόλεως μύσται, indicating that they are seen in some sense as
protectors of the city.130
129
Jaccottet 2005, Bremmer 2014: 100-09.
130
References in Jaccottet 2005 n32.
194
3/12:
12:
The development of Dionysiac initiation
The development of Dionysiac initiation
The first question I posed at the beginning of this chapter, if there was a
Dionysiac initiation cult concerned with the afterlife, is therefore answered.
The second question, when and where it came into being, is more difficult. I
shall try to sum up the conclusions of the preceding review of the evidence.
The civic festivals of Dionysus and the revels of women on the mountains that
were established at the start of the classical period show no trace of an
initiatory cult or of any interest in the afterlife. The passing reference in
Heraclitus shows only that the revellers were considered unorthodox and
regarded with disapproval, at least by Heraclitus. The restriction on burial at
Cumae is not clearly connected with fate after death. The bone tablets at Olbia
are more problematic, but a reference to the afterlife depends on three
scrawled words, and is difficult to reconcile with the rest of the text. Olbia also
is a very distant part of the Greek world, and what took place there is not
necessarily a guide to what was the case elsewhere. Even by the end of the
fifth century in Athens131 I do not believe that there is any sign of an initiation
cult concerned with the afterlife in Euripides’ Bacchae.
The first real sign of something different comes shortly after this, with the
mention of bacchics together with initiates in the gold leaf from Hipponion,
evidence for initiation affecting fate in the afterlife in Italy around 400 BC. For
Athens, later in the century, we have Plato’s saying ‘the narthex-bearers are
many, the bacchoi few’, and that we find in Demosthenes, ‘I have escaped the
bad and found the better’, both of which appear to imply something similar.
131
The Bacchae may have been written in Macedonia, but Euripides had lived in Athens
until the last year or two of his life; Dodds 1960: xxxix.
195
3/12:
The development of Dionysiac initiation
In the third century, the Pelinna gold leaves from Thessaly give Dionysus a
leading role when the soul comes before Persephone, and in Egypt the
Ptolemaic edict and Gurôb papyrus show that Dionysiac initiation was active
there, plausibly also concerned with the afterlife.
It seems then that the development can be dated to somewhere around the
beginning of the fourth century. The reasons we can only guess, perhaps the
example of Eleusis and the rise of private religious practitioners. The place is
more difficult, but the first evidence is from Italy, and then Athens. We could
also ask why the cult was associated with Dionysus. Heraclitus (DK22B15) had
identified the god with Hades, but this does not seem to have been usual. In
Magna Graecia, however, he was often associated in art with Demeter and
Persephone in a triad of chthonic deities,132 and this may be another pointer
to an Italian origin.
Of course, the civic festivals for Dionysus continued alongside private
initiation, as did the trieteric orgia, at least to the time of Pausanias in the
second century AD. Whether all initiation was concerned with the afterlife is
not certain; as we have seen, some of the evidence, for example that from
Egypt, does not mention fate after death. There is, however, no clue to what
else might be the purpose of initiation, and it seems a reasonable assumption
here that where explicit testimony is lacking this is just due to the fragmentary
state of the evidence. It can also be assumed that these cults were all private,
as we never hear of Dionysiac initiation or the afterlife in connection with
public cults, where the evidence is likely to be more easily available.
132
Nilsson 1957a: 12, 120.
196
3/12:
The development of Dionysiac initiation
In the course of this investigation, we have come across some suggestions as
to what might be involved in the initiation process, including:
(i) sacred objects (section 10),
(ii) a hieros logos of instructions for the process read out to the candidates for
initiation (sections 8, 10).
(iii) the promise that the initiate will not lie in mud after death as the noninitiates will (section 7),
(iv) absolution from ancestral guilt (section 10),
(v) the prospect of a rebirth after death, with perhaps a mock death in the
initiation (section 6),
(vi) purifications with mud and bran (section 8),
(vii) prayers to other deities for their aid (section 10),
(viii) a formula to be recited by the initiates (sections 8, 10),
(ix) processions through the streets after initiation (section 8),
(x) gold leaves with instructions for the soul after death placed in the tomb
(section 6).
Not all of these are reliably connected with Dionysus, and not all of these may
have applied to the same initiation rites at the same time, but they do give us
some pointers as to what might have occurred.
197
4/1:
Introduction
Chapter Four
Unity and variation in the funerary gold leaves
1: Introduction .................................................................................................. 198
2: The A and B groups ....................................................................................... 201
3: The case for unity .......................................................................................... 205
4: Variation in the gold leaves........................................................................... 210
5: A new model for the gold leaves .................................................................. 219
1:
Introduction
Fig. 9. Gold leaf B9
Gold Tablet (Thessaly-The Getty Villa, Malibu) 4th century BC. By Remi Mathis (2011), CC BY-SA 3.0,
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=17688621
A number, currently around forty, of small (4-8 x 1-3 cm) inscribed gold leaves
have been discovered in graves in various parts of the Greek world, principally
198
4/1:
Introduction
Magna Graecia, Thessaly and Crete. They can mostly be dated from the fourth
to the first centuries BC, though the latest (A5) is from the third century AD.
The texts, which are partly in hexameters, seem all to relate to the afterlife.1
There has, however, been no consensus on their significance and origin,
though most scholars connect them with a variously-defined group they
identify as Orphics.2 For this reason, they are often referred to as Orphic gold
leaves (or tablets or plates or lamellae).3 As they do not, in fact, anywhere
actually mention either Orphics or Orpheus, I shall call them simply funerary
gold leaves.
Their importance lies in the fact that they constitute with the Derveni Papyrus
one of the two main unmediated sources of alternative views of the afterlife
in the classical period. However difficult they may be to interpret, these are
written not by poets, philosophers or orators observing from the outside, but
by the practitioners themselves.
In this chapter, I want to investigate them from one particular point of view,
as a case study which might throw some light on how far the phenomena we
are considering are based on a single coherent doctrine. In a later part of this
study,4 I shall argue that some of the gold leaves share with other sources an
1
There are convenient recent editions in Bernabé and Jiménez San Cristóbal 2008 (with full
apparatus based on Bernabé’s Teubner Orphicorum fragmenta, Bernabé 2004-7), Edmonds
2011b and Graf and Johnston 2013. Unfortunately these all use completely different
numbering systems, as indeed do all previous editions. I have adopted the numeration of
Edmonds, which arranges them into groups (A-F) according to similarity of content. I
include a concordance table as an appendix.
2
See Bernabé and Jiménez San Cristóbal 2008: 1-8 for a physical description, and Edmonds
2011a and Graf in Graf and Johnston 2013: 50-65 for a history of the scholarship. On
Orphism, see Chapter Two section 6 above.
‘Orphic gold tablets’ Bernabé and Jiménez San Cristóbal 2008; ‘”Orphic” gold tablets’
Edmonds 2011b; ‘Bacchic gold tablets’ Graf and Johnston 2013.
3
4
Chapter Seven section 4 and Chapter Eight.
199
4/1:
Introduction
underlying deep structure in their conception of initiation and the afterlife.
Here I want to consider the question of how far the leaves themselves form a
unity, and how far they are just a patchwork or bricolage of disparate and
incompatible elements. I shall try to show that the view that all the leaves are
extracts from a single unitary text is misguided, and that they do in fact exhibit
considerable and radical variations.
I shall first outline the contents of the two chief groups of gold leaves, and
explain why the original supposition that they were of separate origin has
more recently tended to be replaced by the view that they are based on a
single group with a single primary text. I shall then describe two attempts at
reconstructing this, those of Bernabé and Jiménez San Cristóbal and of
Riedweg. I shall then put forward my own analysis of the variations in the
texts, both between and within groups, concluding that the unitary hypothesis
is not viable. Finally, I shall make some suggestions on the model of Greek
religion which underpins the arguments for unity, and offer my own
alternative.
200
4/2:
2:
The A and B groups
The A and B groups
It has long been observed that the gold leaves fall into two main groupings,
called by Zuntz, followed by Edmonds, A and B.5 In the published texts of the
B group, currently numbering twelve,6 the addressee, apparently the soul in
Hades, is directed to drink from a certain spring, flowing from the lake of
Memory, often after having avoided another spring; one of the springs is
marked by a white cypress. Before it can drink, it must identify itself to
guardians of the spring as the child of earth and starry heaven. As an example,
I quote one of the fuller of the B leaves, from Petelia in Magna Graecia, dating
from the fourth century BC:
Εὑρήσ{σ}εις δ’ Ἁίδαο δόμων ἐπ’ ἀριστερὰ κρήνην,
πὰρ δ’ αὐτῆι λευκὴν ἑστηκυῖαν κυπάρισσον·
ταύτης τῆς κρήνης μηδὲ σχεδὸν ἐμπελάσειας.
εὑρήσεις δ’ ἑτέραι, τῆς Μνημοσύνης ἀπὸ λίμνης
ψυχρὸν ὕδωρ προρέον· φύλακες δ’ ἐπίπροσθεν ἔασιν.
εἰπεῖν· ‘Γῆς παῖς εἰμὶ καὶ Οὐρανοῦ ἀστερόεντος,
αὐτὰρ ἐμοὶ γένος οὐράνιον· τόδε δ’ ἴστε καὶ αὐτοί.
δίψηι δ’ εἰμὶ αὔη καὶ ἀπόλλυμαι. ἀλλὰ δότ’ αἶψα
ψυχρὸν ὕδωρ προρέον τῆς Μνημοσύνης ἀπὸ λίμνης’.
καὐτ[οι] σ[ο]ι δώσουσι πιεῖν θείης ἀπ[ὸ κρή]νης,
(B1)
You will find in the halls of Hades a spring on the left, and standing by it, a
glowing white cypress tree; do not approach this spring at all. You will find
another, from the lake of Memory refreshing water flowing forth. But
guardians are nearby. Say: ‘I am the child of Earth and starry Heaven; but my
race is heavenly; and this you know yourselves. I am parched with thirst and
5
Zuntz 1971: 277-393, Edmonds 2011b, Graf and Johnston 2013: 61-3.
6
There are further unpublished ones; Edmonds 2011b: 34.
201
4/2:
The A and B groups
I perish; but give me quickly refreshing water flowing forth from the lake of
Memory.’ And then they will give you to drink from the divine spring.7
In the A group (five texts), the soul seems to be addressing Persephone and
the other deities of the underworld. It claims to be pure and of the same race
as those it addresses. There may be references to striking with lightning, to
having paid recompense (ποινὰν) for unjust deeds,8 to becoming a god instead
of a human, and, most puzzling of all, to falling as a kid into milk (ἔριφος ἐς
γάλ’ ἔπετον, A1, A4).9 My example is also from fourth century Magna Graecia,
this time from Thurii:
Ἔρχομα<ι> ἐ<κ> κα<θα>ρῶν {σχονων} καθαρά, χ<θ>ονίων βαςίλ{η}ει<α>,
Εὖκλε καὶ Εὐβουλεῦ {ι} καὶ θεοὶ <καὶ> δαίμο<ν>ε<ς> ἄλλοι·
καὶ γὰρ ἐγὼν ὑμῶν γένο<ς> εὔχομαι ὄλβιον εἶναι
πο<ι>νὰν δ’ ἀνταπέ{ι}τε{σε}ι<σ>’ ἔργων ἕνεκ’ {α} οὔτι δικα<ί>ων.
εἴτε με Μο<ῖ>ρ’ {α} ἐδάμας<σ>’ {ατο} εἴτ’ {ε} ἀστεροπῆτα κ<ε>ραυνῶν.
νῦν δ’ ἱκέτι<ς> ἥκω πα<ρα>ὶ ἁγνὴ<ν> Φε<ρ>σεφόνε<ι>αν,
ὥς με{ι} πρόφ<ρ>ω<ν> πέμψη<ι> ἕδρας ἐς εὐαγέ{ι}ων.
(A2)
Pure I come from the pure, Queen of those below the earth, and Eukles and
Eubouleus and the other gods and daimons; for I also claim that I am of your
blessed race. Recompense I have paid on account of deeds not just; either
Fate mastered me or the thunderer flinging the lightning bolt. Now I come, a
suppliant, to holy Phersephoneia, that she, gracious, may send me to the
seats of the blessed.10
The division between the two groups was clear to Zuntz in 1971, who
concluded that ‘the A- and B- texts cannot be taken for excerpts from one
7
Translation of Edmonds 2011b. I have omitted the last three lines, which are incomplete.
8
See Chapter Five section 7 below.
9
Lambin 2015 surveys the various explanations that have been offered for this, none
particularly convincing.
10
Translation of Edmonds 2011b.
202
4/2:
The A and B groups
continuous poem’.11 The remaining texts then known (Edmonds groups C, E,
F) were either simple names of the deceased, greetings to Persephone, or, in
one case, apparently random Greek words separated by meaningless letters
(C1).12 The situation changed with further discoveries.13 These widened the
context in which the gold leaves could be seen by references to the mysteries
of Dionysus (B10, D1, D2, D4), Brimo, perhaps a name for Demeter or possibly
Persephone (D3), Demeter Chthonia and the Mountain Mother (Cybele) (both
D5).
More significantly for the question we are now considering, the new leaves
suggested that the A and B groups were in fact linked. D1 and D2 both refer
to animals falling or leaping into milk (a bull and a ram) in the same way as the
A group’s A1 and A4 (a kid). They both also refer to Dionysus (‘say to
Persephone that Bacchios himself has freed you’, εἰπεῖν Φερσεφόναι σ’ ὅτι
Βάκχιος αὐτὸς ἔλυσε), as does indirectly the new B10, otherwise a normal
member of the B group (‘you too will go along the sacred road that the other
famed initiates and bacchics travel’, ὁδὸν ἔρχεαι ἅν τε καὶ ἄλλοι μύσται καὶ
βάκχοι ἱερὰν στείχουσι κλεενοί). They thus have links both to the A and to the
B group. Graf sees a further connection in the use of the infinitive εἰπεῖν as an
imperative (B1, B2, D1, D2),14 but this may seem rather tenuous. There are
also common references to joining the company of the other fortunate ones,
11
Zuntz 1971: 384.
12
See column 2 of Table 2.1 in Edmonds 2011b: 40 for the publication dates of each tablet.
13
Graf 1991, Graf 1993, Graf and Johnston 2013: 62-4, 131-3.
14
Graf 1991: 93.
203
4/2:
The A and B groups
heroes, initiates or blessed (A2, A3, B1,15 B10, D1, D5),16 which perhaps do no
more than confirm that they all come from an initiation context.
I do not agree with Ferrari 2011d: 210 that ἄλλοισι μεθ’ ἡρώεσσιν ἀνάξεις (B1.11) means
ruling over the other heroes, rather than with them. Though this is indeed its normal
meaning in epic (perhaps as ‘holding the rulership among’), it makes little sense here, and
when re-using the epic formula it might naturally be reinterpreted as closer to the
contemporary usage of μετά as ‘with’.
15
16
Johnston in Graf and Johnston 2013: 131-2.
204
4/3:
3:
The case for unity
The case for unity
The appearance of what seem to be links between the two groups then raises
the question of whether they represent a common belief and can be combined
into a continuous narrative. Although some scholars have expressed a certain
scepticism on this point,17 this has become a seriously held view, and before
examining the evidence I should like to review the two cases where it has been
worked out in detail.
Bernabé and Jiménez San Cristóbal, at the end of their detailed commentary
on the leaves, put together what, with some reservations, they describe as ‘a
partial but coherent picture of what the initiates believed’, and attempt to
‘reconstruct a common scheme on the basis of all these mentions’. 18 During
their lifetime, according to Bernabé and Jiménez San Cristóbal, the bearers of
the tablet must become aware of both their divine origin and prior guilt, for
which a punishment has been paid, have undergone ecstatic rites of initiation
and purification, and have preserved this purity by observing certain taboos.
The grounds for this are: A1 et al. ‘for I also claim that I am of your blessed
race’ (καὶ γὰρ ἐγὼν ὑμῶν γένος ὄλβιον εὔχομαι εἶμεν) for divine origin, A2 et
al. ‘Recompense I have paid on account of deeds not just’ (ποινὰν δ’
ἀνταπέτεισ’ ἔργων ἕνεκ’ οὔτι δικαίων) for prior guilt and punishment, D1
‘having celebrated rites just as the other happy ones’ (τελέσας ἅπερ ὄλβιοι
ἄλλοι) for rites, B10 ‘the other initiates’ (ἄλλοι μύσται) for initiation, and A1
Graf 1991: 97 (‘les différences restent trop grandes’); Edmonds 2004: 35-7; Bowden
2010: 153-5; Johnston in Graf and Johnston 2013: 131 (‘a consistency of broader ideas’,
but not a single poem). The reconstructions of Janko 1984, 2016a are confined to the B
group.
17
18
Bernabé and Jiménez San Cristóbal 2008: 169-78; quotes from 169 and 171.
205
4/3:
The case for unity
et al. ‘Pure I come from the pure’ (Ἔρχομαι ἐκ κοθαρῶν κοθαρά) for purity.
That the initiation rites are ecstatic, that purity is achieved through ritual and
observance of taboos and that the mention of ποινή, ‘recompense’, is
evidence for both primal guilt and its punishment are their conjectures.
The first part of the soul’s journey through Hades after death falls, they
believe, into four stages: (1) to select the right road (the one on the right),
avoiding the other spring (the lake of Forgetfulness) by the white cypress, (2)
give the correct answer to the guardians of the fountain of Mnemosyne, ‘I am
the son of Earth and starry Heaven’ (Γῆς παῖς εἰμι καὶ Οὐρανοῦ ἀστερόεντος),
identifying the soul as an initiate who knows the sacred story, (3) drink the
water of Mnemosyne, to retain knowledge of the initiation and perhaps also
of previous lives, (4) travel the sacred way on to Persephone. This is of course
all based on the B-group texts; I shall discuss the difficulties with it when I come
to my own analysis.
In the second part of the journey, represented by the A-group, the soul is now
before Persephone. It again claims divine origin, and further alludes to what
the authors call ‘a rite of passage, defined as being struck by lightning’;19 this
is based on the statement ‘either Fate subdued me or the thunderer throwing
lightning’ (ἔιτε με Μοῖρα ἐδάμασ’ ἔιτε άστεροπῆτα κεραυνῶν, Α2, similarly
A1, A3), but I am not sure what ‘a rite of passage, defined as being struck by
lightning’ means.20 The soul has at any rate, they believe, reached the end of
its punishment for primal guilt, which is the cycle of reincarnation, denoted by
‘the cycle ... of wearying heavy grief’ (κύκλου ... βαρυπενθέος ἀργαλέοιο, A1)
and ‘recompense ... on account of deeds not just’ (ποινὰν ... ἔργων ἕνεκ’ οὔτι
19
Bernabé and Jiménez San Cristóbal 2008: 173.
20
The extended discussion in their commentary (Bernabé and Jiménez San Cristóbal 2008:
111-14) does not make it much clearer.
206
4/3:
The case for unity
δικαίων, A2-3), having been freed by Dionysus (D1-2). The authors are puzzled
by the passwords in D3 (Ἀνδρικεπαιδόθυρσον. Ἀνδρικεπαιδόθυρσον. Βριμώ.
Βριμώ.), which they decide must either be part of the last stage of the
interview with Persephone, or be used in an alternative version.
The soul’s final destiny is to go with the other mystai and bacchoi, heroes,
happy or limpid21 ones (A2, A3, B1, B10, D1, D4), have wine as an honour
(εὐδαίμονα τιμὴν, D1-2) and join an underworld procession (A4,22 D5), enter
the sacred meadows (A4) and become a god instead of a mortal (A1, A4, A5).
The authors believe the meadows are similar to, but not identical with, the
Elysian Fields and Isles of the Blessed, and the wine is for the perpetual
banqueting alluded to by Plato (Republic 363c-d). Here they will become
happy, glorious and heroes, though the transformation to a god is not in their
opinion to be taken literally. Their new life may, they say, also be ‘represented
as’ a rebirth in the bosom of Persephone (‘I passed under the bosom of the
underworld mistress queen’, δεσποίνας δ’ ὑπὸ κόλπον ἔδυν χθονίας
βασιλείας, A1), and as a divine kid suckled by her (‘a kid I fell into milk’, ἔριφος
ἐς γάλ’ ἔπετον); it is not clear from the term ‘represented as’ whether they
mean that this is another metaphor like the apotheosis or whether something
more literal is implied.23
21
Their translation of εὐαγής, perhaps better ‘unpolluted’ (LSJ s.v. εύαγής A).
22
This is a disputed reading; see the apparatus in Bernabé and Jiménez San Cristóbal 2008.
They translate ὑπὸ κόλπον ἔδυν as ‘I plunged beneath the lap’, and from the
commentary (Bernabé and Jiménez San Cristóbal 2008: 130-2) it does seem as if they do
indeed envisage the happy soul diving under Persephone’s robe and entering her womb, to
be ejected again in a new birth. κολπός, however, can variously mean ‘bosom’, ‘lap’,
‘womb’ or ‘fold of a robe’ (LSJ s.v). The commentary notes analogues for their view from
other cultures, but the Homeric parallels adduced by Zuntz 1971: 319 (similarly, Bremmer
2016: 42) for the meaning ‘came under the protection of’ seem more pertinent. See also
Kingsley 1995: 267-8, Edmonds 2009b: 91-2n30.
23
207
4/3:
The case for unity
A second attempt at reconstructing a single continuous narrative on which all
the funerary gold leaves are based has been made by Riedweg.24 He believes
that they all stem from a single hexametric poem, a Hieros logos used in an
initiation ceremony, whose content he summarises as follows:25
I. DEATH AND KATABASIS OF THE SOUL: the beginning of the narrative,
represented mainly by one verse in A4 (but cf. also B10; B1; B11); the
omniscient narrator starts speaking (his substitute within the realm of the
ritual of initiation is most likely the hierophant).
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE TOPOGRAPHY IN THE PALACE OF HADES: the two
springs, the first ‘trial’: not to quench one’s thirst with the water flowing from
the first spring; dialogue with the guardians at the second spring; the path of
the mystai and bakkhoi (leading first towards Persephone, but finally aiming
at entering the ‘meadows and groves of Persephone’; cf. V.). Principal
witnesses to this scene: the leaves of group B.
III. MEETING WITH PERSEPHONE AND THE OTHER GODS: the omniscient
narrator (the hierophant) requests the mystes to address Persephone (III.a.);
the mystes tells his or her story, his alienation and reintegration, his fall and
liberation, and his desire to enter the ‘meadow’ (III.b.). Principal witnesses:
the leaves of group A, moreover Pelinna line 2 [D1-2] and the prosaic leaves
with greetings to the god(s) of the underworld [E group].
IV. EXCHANGE OF THE ORAL SYMBOLS: dialogue with other guardians which
forms the last ‘trial’ before the admission to the ‘holy meadow’ of
Persephone. Witness: the leaf from Pherai (D3); cf. now also D5.
V. DESCRIPTION OF THE SITUATION OF THE BLESSED: which is alluded to in
A4, D1-2 and B1.
VI. FINAL ADMONITION OF THE INITIATED: the omniscient narrator (or in the
case of the initiation the hierophant) urges that the person he is speaking to
guard with great care the things (s)he has learned. Witness: A4.
24
Riedweg 2011: 246-52; an earlier version in Riedweg 2002.
25
Riedweg 2011: 247; I have omitted the footnotes and changed the tablet references to
the form I am using.
208
4/3:
The case for unity
Both the versions of Bernabé and Jiménez San Cristóbal and of Riedweg, which
obviously have much in common, are impressive attempts at recreating a
unified original that lies behind all the funerary gold leaves. They are,
however, predicated on the assumption that such a unified original does exist,
and perhaps therefore underplay some serious discrepancies between the
leaves. I should like now to look at the evidence without this presupposition,
which may lead to different conclusions.
209
4/4:
4:
Variation in the gold leaves
Variation in the gold leaves
The results of this analysis are as follows:
(a)
C, E and F groups
The above reconstructions have been based almost entirely on the A, B and D
groups. The one C group leaf, C1, is a mass of apparently meaningless letters
in which may possibly be embedded a number of Greek words.26 The E group
(5 texts) each consist of a few words hailing (χαίρειν) Persephone, or
Persephone and Plouton (e.g. Φιλίστη Φερσεφόνηι χαίρειν, E3). The F group
(13 texts) are even shorter, just giving a name, presumably of the deceased,
sometimes with ‘initiate’ (μύστης) added (e.g. Βοττακός, F10). None of these
can be easily fitted into the reconstructions above. This of course does not
preclude the A, B and D leaves forming a unity, but it does at least show that
a general assumption that all texts on these funerary gold leaves must be of
the same kind is not valid; at least some of them must have a different origin
or function.
(b)
Changes of speaker
Another inconsistent characteristic of the gold leaves is the change in the
speaker of the texts.27 This is the case between groups, within groups and
within individual texts. In the longer B group texts, the dead person, or the
soul of the dead person, is addressed in the second person: ‘When you are
26
Bernabé and Jiménez San Cristóbal 2008: 137-50.
27
For narratological analysis see Riedweg 1998, Riedweg 2011: 225-30. Ferrari 2011d: 21115 discusses the implications for the ritual context.
210
4/4:
Variation in the gold leaves
about to die ... Do not go near to this spring at all’ (ἐπεὶ ἄν μέλληισι θανεῖσθαι
... ταύτας τᾶς κράνας μηδὲ σχεδὸν ἐγγύθεν ἔλθηις, B10, similarly B1, B2, B11).
Later the soul is told what to say to the guardians of the spring: ‘Say “I am the
child of Earth ....”’ (εἶπον· ‘Γῆς παῖς εἰμι ...). In the shorter B-texts (B3-9) the
opening is omitted and we begin in the first person with the soul addressing
the guardians (‘I am parched with thirst ...’, Δίψαι αὖος ἐγὼ ...), before
suddenly switching into dialogue: ‘”Who are you? From where are you?” “I
am the son of Earth ...”’ (‘τίς δ’ ἐσσί; πὼ δ’ ἐσσί;’ ‘Γᾶς υἱός ἠμι ...’). B12,
however, starts in the third person (‘He is parched with thirst ...’, Δίψαι αὖος
...) before switching to the first (‘But give me to drink ...’, ἀλλὰ πιέν μοι ...) and
proceeding as the other short texts, giving three changes of speaker in three
lines.
In the interview with Persephone in the A-group, on the other hand, most of
the fourth-century texts are in the first person, with the soul addressing the
goddess: ‘Pure I come from the pure ...’ (Ἔρχομαι ἐκ κοθαρῶν κοθαρά ...). At
the end of A1 there is a sudden unheralded switch into the second person
before returning equally abruptly to the first: ‘I passed beneath the bosom of
the Mistress ... A god you shall be instead of a mortal ... A kid I fell into milk’
(ὑπὸ κόλπον ἔδυν χθονίας βασιλείας ... θεὸς δ’ ἔσηι ἀντὶ βροτοῖο ... ἔριφος ἐς
γάλ’ ἔπετον). A4, though, gives similar content in the second person (‘A kid
you fell into milk’, ἔριφος ἐς γάλα ἔπετες), while the late text A5 is mostly in
the third (‘Pure she comes from the pure ...’, Ἔρχεται ἐκ καθαρῶν καθαρά ...).
Finally D1-2, also dealing with the interview with Persephone, are in the
second person.
I do not want to over-emphasise the significance of this variation, but it does
make it difficult to see these as all extracts from a single poem. At least,
whatever the original or originals the writers of the leaves were working from,
some or all of them must have been considerably mangled before reaching the
211
4/4:
Variation in the gold leaves
state in which we now have them. Also, if we are considering them as all part
of one continuous narrative, it is certainly suspicious that a primarily secondperson text in the B-group has switched to a primarily first-person one in the
A-group.
(c)
The topography of Hades: springs and cypresses
One might of course say that details of who is speaking are a superficial aspect
of the presentation; what is essential is the accuracy of the instructions to the
departing soul. The B-group texts give very clear and specific instructions on
the topography of the underworld and what the soul must do. Unfortunately,
the texts by no means agree among themselves as to what this is.
There are in fact four versions:
(i) There are two springs. The one to avoid (‘Do not go near this spring at all’,
ταύτας τᾶς κράνας μηδὲ σχεδὸν ἐγγύθεν ἔλθηις) is on the right, marked by a
white cypress.28 Further along (πρόσσω)29 is the spring from which the soul
must drink. (B2, B10, B11).
(ii) There are two springs. The one to avoid is on the left, marked by a white
cypress. The other spring is the one to drink from. (B1).
(iii) There is just one spring, the one to drink from. It is on the right, marked
by a white cypress. (B3-8).
28
There is no such tree, cypresses all being dark. Bernabé and Jiménez San Cristóbal 2008:
25-8 review the various speculations that have been made as to its significance, none
particularly convincing, as Bremmer 2016: 35-6 notes.
Except in B10, where we have πρόσθεν, ‘before’, though this is still translated as ‘further
along’ in all the editions cited; see Janko 1984: 94 for discussion.
29
212
4/4:
Variation in the gold leaves
(iv) There is just one spring, the one to drink from. We are not told if it is on
the left or right, but to the right of the spring there is a white cypress. (B9,
B12).
To summarise: there is one spring (8 leaves) or two (4 leaves); you must avoid
the spring on the right (3 leaves) or the left (1 leaf); the spring on the right is
to be drunk from (6 leaves) or avoided (3 leaves); the cypress marks the good
spring (8 leaves) or the bad spring (4 leaves). It is hard to see how you might
get a greater variety of contradictory instructions in so limited a number of
texts. Apart from the generally homogeneous group of version (iii), all Cretan
and relatively late, there is no observable correlation of date and place.30
I do not see how any hypothesis of successive copying errors from an original
authoritative text could account for such radical divergences. In a literary
treatment of myth, it was possible, and even customary, for a poet to adapt
the myth according to his personal preferences. This, however, is presented
as an authoritative religious text giving the essential instructions for the
salvation of the deceased, in which one might imagine faithfulness and
accuracy of transmission were vital.31
(d)
Changes in the sequence
30
Version (i) Italy / Sicily / Thessaly 5th/4th/3rd century BC; version (ii) Italy 4th century BC;
version (iii) Crete 2nd/1st century BC; version (iv) Thessaly / Crete 4th/2nd/1st century BC.
31
For half-hearted attempts to explain away the variants, see Zuntz 1971: 367-70, Janko
1984: 93, Bernabé and Jiménez San Cristóbal 2008: 22-3 (‘this divergence, which, in any
case, is minor’), Johnston in Graf and Johnston 2013: 99. Suggestions such as that the
spring was switched to the right because right is usually good, left bad, or that a second
spring was added from a wish to discriminate between the initiates and the ordinary dead
(though the two-spring versions are the earlier, see previous note), assume that the
authors could alter the authoritative religious text at will, which, as I argue here, should not
be the case. There is no warrant in the texts for Johnston’s hypothesis (Graf and Johnston
2013: 100-3) of a threefold division of the souls (Torjussen 2010: 62-3).
213
4/4:
Variation in the gold leaves
In the reconstructions, there is a clear sequence. After drinking from the
spring, the soul goes on to the interview with Persephone, claims its divine
heritage and proceeds to its fortunate destination. There are, however,
elements which do not fit in to this pattern:
(i) D3 lists passwords the soul presumably must speak (‘Andrikepaidothurson.
Brimo.’, Ἀνδρικεπαιδόθύρσον.
Βριμώ.), as does B11 (actual passwords
missing). There seems no place for these in the reconstructed sequence.
(ii) In D1-2, the soul goes straight to Persephone without drinking from any
spring (‘Now you have died ... on this very day. Say to Persephone ...’, Νῦν
ἔθανες ... ἄματι τῶιδε. εἰπεῖν Φερσεφόναι ...). Also, instead of the claim to
divine race, the soul is instructed to ‘say to Persephone that Bacchios himself
freed you’ (εἰπεῖν Φερσεφόναι σ’ ὅτι Βάκχιος αὐτὸς ἔλυσε).
(iii) There are two references to the sacred meadows (λειμῶνας ἱεροὺς) to
which the soul is bound, presumably the same as the seats of the pure (A2, A3)
to which it is sent by Persephone. In A4, however, the soul goes there directly,
without seeing Persephone, and in D3 immediately after reciting the
passwords.
(e)
New gods
As noted above, in D1-2 the soul has to tell Persephone it has been freed by
Bacchios himself.32 This seems to give a key role to Dionysus, which makes it
strange that he is not mentioned elsewhere (there are brief references to
bacchics in B10 and to a priestess of Dionysus in D4). In D5, by contrast, two
βάκχαι and βάκχοι were the frenzied worshippers of Dionysus, and βάκχιος or βακχεῖος
an epithet of Dionysus meaning ‘god of the bacchoi’, though later βάχκος came to be used
for the god himself; Santamaría 2013: 39-45.
32
214
4/4:
Variation in the gold leaves
different divinities, Demeter and Cybele,33 provide the warrant for salvation:
‘Send me to the thiasos of the initiates. I have seen the festivals of Demeter
Chthonia, and the rites of the Mountain Mother’ (πέμπε με πρὸς μυστῶν
θιάσους· ἔχω ὄργια [ἰδοῦσα] Δήμετρος Χθονίας τε τέλη καὶ Μητρὸς ὀρείας).34
Demeter and Cybele may also be concealed among the meaningless letters of
C1 (ΕΠΑΚΥΒΕΛΕΙΑΚΟΡΡΑΟΣΕΝΤΑΙΗΔΗΜΗΤΡΟΣΗΤ).35
(f)
Double claim to divine race
More fundamentally for the structure, it is striking that in the reconstructed
unified sequence, the soul has to identify itself as of divine lineage not once,
but twice. To the guardians of the spring in the B-group it must say ‘I am the
child of Earth and starry Heaven; but my race is heavenly; and this you know
yourselves’ (Γῆς παῖς εἰμι καὶ Οὐρανοῦ ἀστερόεντος, αὐτὰρ ἐμοὶ γένος
οὐράνιον, B1).36 Then to Persephone, in the A-group, it claims ‘I also am of
your blessed race’ (καὶ γὰρ ἐγὼν ὑμῶν γένος ὄλβιον εὔχομαι εἶμεν, A1-3).
That we never get both claims in the same leaf suggests that they are
alternative versions.
(g)
Apotheosis
As the Mountain Mother (Μητρὸς Ὀρεί[ας]), which seems to be a Greek translation of
the Phrygian matar kubileya, which came into Greek as Κυβέλη and Latin as Cybele; Roller
1999: 66-8.
33
34
Johnston in Graf and Johnston 2013: 200-5 attempts to connect them with Dionysus by
proposing what she describes as a ‘mythic complex’ and a ‘multi-generational saga’ that
would involve them all; this is unattested.
35
Bernabé and Jiménez San Cristóbal 2008: 137-50.
‘But’ (αὐτὰρ) seems to imply an opposition between being the child of Heaven (παῖς
Οὐρανοῦ) and being of heavenly race (γένος οὐράνιον), but see Chapter Seven section 4
below for discussion.
36
215
4/4:
Variation in the gold leaves
The soul which has successfully navigated its way through the springs and
cypresses or spoken the right words when required will join the other happy
ones (ὄλβιοι, D1), heroes (ἡρώεσσιν, B1), initiates (μύσται, B10, D5) and
bacchoi (βάχχοι, B10) in the seats of the pure (ἕδρας εὐαγέων, A2-3). In three
cases, however, it undergoes something more than this: ‘a god you shall be
instead of a mortal’ (θεὸς δ’ ἔσηι ἀντὶ βροτοῖο, Α1), ‘a god you have become
from a human’ (θεὸς ἐγένου ἐξ ἀνθρώπου, A4), ‘come, having become a
goddess by the law’ (νόμωι ἴθι δῖα γεγῶσα, A5).
Johnston explains this as an extension of the claim to divine lineage, and
Bernabé and Jiménez San Cristóbal as not to be taken literally,37 but neither
explanation is really convincing: they have clearly changed status and
‘become’ a god, not always were one, and if it were a figure of speech we
would expect ‘become like a god’ or something of the kind.38 There is in fact
a radical difference between an ordinary human becoming happy, blessed or
even a hero and becoming a god, something very unusual in Greek religion,
apart from the case of Hellenistic rulers. The notable exception is Empedocles,
who claimed to go around as ‘an immortal god, no longer mortal’ (θεὸς
ἄμβροτος οὐκέτι θνητός, DK31B112) and believed eminent men would
become divine (DK31B146).39 We seem, then, to have a sub-group of the
leaves which take a similar position to his.40
37
Johnston in Graf and Johnston 2013: 124; Bernabé and Jiménez San Cristóbal 2008: 178.
E.g. βῆ δ’ ἴμεν ἐκ θαλάμοιο θεῷ ἐναλίγκιος ἄντην, ‘and went on his way from the
chamber like a god in presence’, Od. 2.5 = 4.310; φαίνεταί μοι κῆνος ἴσος θέοισιν, ‘he
seems to me equal to the gods’, Sappho 31.1; ζήσεις δὲ ὡς θεὸς ἐν ἀνθρώποις, ‘you will
live as a god among men’, (Epicurus) D.L. 10.135.
38
39
See Wright 1995 ad locc.; Panagiotou 1983. Kingsley 1995: 251-69 makes the connection
between Empedocles and the gold leaves, but assumes that this applies to all the leaves.
40
I note a further possible divergence regarding reincarnation in Chapter Five Section 5
below.
216
4/4:
Variation in the gold leaves
We can now sum up the results of this analysis:
(a) Many of the gold leaves (the C, E and F groups) cannot be fitted into a
unified reconstruction.
(b) The changes of speaker between first and third person suggest both that
the A and B groups have a different origin and that the texts had undergone
considerable variation.
(c) There are radical differences in the crucial instructions on drinking from the
spring, which are difficult to explain merely by mistakes in copying.
(d) There are also a number of divergences in the sequence of events.
(e) Some leaves give a key role to gods not otherwise mentioned, notably
Dionysus.
(f) Claims to divine lineage are made both in the B group and in the A group,
which might more likely be taken as alternative versions than as a double
claim.
(g) A few leaves make the unusual assertion that the deceased has become a
god.
The variation is therefore both extensive and of many different kinds. We
began by considering the simple question of whether the A and B groups were
separate or formed a unity. We are now in a position to refine this a little. We
should first acknowledge that all the gold leaves that are intelligible and are of
more than a few words have some things in common. They all deal with the
actions of the soul after death. Many of them, from all groups, refer to the
soul’s divine lineage. And they all seem to offer that soul a happy fate if it
217
4/4:
Variation in the gold leaves
performs certain actions, whether this is drinking from a spring or making
certain statements.
There is, however, no evidence that the A and B groups have a common origin
or are part of the same sequence. They are obviously set in different scenery,
one in a landscape of springs and trees and the other in the presence of the
underworld deities.41 One is primarily in the second person, the other in the
first. One has a key role for memory, the other for purity. They have duplicate
claims to the soul’s divine lineage. There are also many significant variants
within each group. The key instructions in the B group on which spring to drink
from are contradictory. There are sometimes claims to apotheosis in the A
group, and the otherwise similar D group introduces passwords and appeals
to the rites of Dionysus and other gods.
41
Herrero de Jáuregui 2015: 685-92 draws an interesting contrast between the gradual
change to a better state implied by progress along a path in the B texts and the abrupt
change implied in the A text vocabulary of falling into milk or flying out of the cycle.
218
4/5:
5:
A new model for the gold leaves
A new model for the gold leaves
There is a further significant point to consider. The poor quality of these texts
has frequently been commented on: ‘not highly literate’ (Bernabé and Jiménez
San Cristóbal), ‘horrible hybrid forms’ (Janko), ‘numerous writing errors and
violations of metric rules’ (Riedweg).42 A few examples: in A1 the words καὶ
ἀθάνατοι θεοὶ ἄλλοι which end line 2 have been accidently repeated in line 4,
where they make little sense; in a highly constricted space (51 x 36 mm) on a
very valuable material this argues a good deal of carelessness. In B12, only
four lines long, the last line is so corrupt that its sense is probably
unrecoverable. In B4 ἀπόλλυμαι has been rendered ἀπόλλυμαμαι. In B5
αὗος, ‘parched’, is followed by the meaningless λαυσς, apparently an
incompetent repetition.43 It seems likely, therefore, that those who inscribed
or supervised the inscriptions had only an imperfect understanding of what
they were copying.
We should at this point mention the theory of Janko, that the B texts were all
based on a single archetype taught to each initiate by the initiator, and
subsequently transcibed from memory on to the gold leaves by the initiates
themselves, their failure to remember the text correctly accounting for the
variations.44 In support of this, he reconstructs the first three lines as follows:45
Μνημοσύνης τόδε ἔργον· ἐπεὶ ἂν μελλησι θανεῖσθαι
42
Bernabé and Jiménez San Cristóbal 2008: 2; Janko 1984: 90; Riedweg 2011: 221.
43
There are further examples in Janko 1984.
44
Janko 1984, 2016a.
Janko 2016a: 107-10, 124 (Janko’s translation). See also on these lines Ferrari 2011d:
206-10.
45
219
4/5:
A new model for the gold leaves
ἐν χρυσίῳ τόδε γραψάσθω μεμνημένος ἥρως,46
μὴ τὸν γ’ ἐκπάγλως ὑπάγοι σκότος ἀμπφικαλύψας.
This is the task of Memory. When a hero faces death, let him recall and get
this graved on gold, lest the murk cover him and lead him down in dread.
I find this theory difficult to accept. The supposed preamble is based on
fragmentary texts of only three leaves,47 of which one transcriber (B10) seems
to have forgotten that the work of Memory is to prepare a gold leaf, and thinks
it is what he is to do in Hades, and another (B1) has forgotten that the
preamble comes at the beginning and tacks it on at the end. Nor do bad
memories account for the repetitions noted above. While it is plausible that
they might misremember conventional or unfamiliar phrases, it is less so that
they would confuse key information such as which spring to approach, at least
if they took the matter at all seriously.
In fact, it seems unlikely in itself that they would be told to copy from memory,
rather than being given the correct text as they must have been for the
initiation ceremony. It also seems odd that they are addressed as ‘hero’, as
apart from legendary figures like Achilles and Ajax, who are obviously not in
question here, anyone called a hero is normally dead.48 Janko presumably
takes this as a proleptic use, as if describing someone approaching death as
‘the deceased’. I do not think that he has made a sufficient case.
Cf. the earlier suggestion of West (1975: 232) ἐν πίνακι χρυσέῳ] τ̣όδε γραψ]άτω ἠδὲ
φορείτω.
46
B1.12-14 νης τοδ ερ ... θανεισθ / τοδε γραψ / παγλως υπα οι σκοτος αμφικαλυψας,
B10.1-2 Μναμοςύνας τόδε ἔργον. ἐπεὶ ἂν μέλλῃσι θανεὶσθαι / εἰς Ἀίδαο δόμους εὐήρεας,
B11.1-3 ληισι θανεισθαι / εμνημενος ηρως / σκοτος αμφικαλυπσας. I cite the text of
Bernabé and Jiménez San Cristóbal 2008. For doubts on the authenticity of B11, known
only through the transcription in Frel 1994, see Janko 2016a: 100-1.
47
48
Ekroth 2015.
220
4/5:
A new model for the gold leaves
Returning to the reconstructions of Bernabé and Jiménez San Cristóbal and
Riedweg, there seems to lie behind them a model, never made entirely
explicit, of some kind of priests of some kind of sect, copying, perhaps at
several removes from the original, an authoritative religious text, a Hieros
logos.49 The errors and variants would then stem partly from the priests’ own
limited literacy and command of Greek, partly perhaps from some desire to
vary the literary form, and partly by the errors introduced by successive
copying. I believe that this cannot plausibly account for the extent of the
variation that I have outlined, and that therefore we should look to a different
model.50
It is a natural, if usually unspoken, assumption of those trying to interpret the
fragmentary evidence for phenomena in the ancient world that the
participants themselves must have understood what they were doing, that our
problems are due to our own ignorance, and so that if we could interrogate
those buried with the gold leaves, or certainly those responsible for writing
them, all would be made clear. I should like to suggest that this may not be
true, at least in this case. The model I propose is one in which the texts are
copied by individual practitioners from texts handed down by their family or
49
The term as used by Riedweg 2011: 238, 246 may be anachronistic. It is used by
Herodotus (2.48, 51, 62, 81 = OF43, 650) in the narrow sense of a religious reason for a
certain observance; its significance in the perhaps late 3rd century Ptolemaic decree
concerning those who perform rites for Dionysus (P. Berlin 11774, see Chapter Three
section 10 above) is more uncertain. See Henrichs 2003. Iamblichus (VP 146 = OF1144)
ascribes a work called hieros logos to Pythagoras (Casadesús 2013:158), but even if he did
in fact write it the title may be later.
50
This chapter was written before I came across the work of Torjussen 2010: 61-88, who
reaches very similar conclusions to my own. For other suggestions of the importance of
bricolage in the gold leaves, see Edmonds 2004: 4, Ferrari 2011d: 205-10, Johnston in Graf
and Johnston 2013: 94.
221
4/5:
A new model for the gold leaves
masters, texts deriving from a wide variety of original sources, without much
understanding of what they are copying.51
There would doubtless be cross-contamination between them as they sought
to emulate rival practitioners. A possible example of what I mean is the
extension of the kid falling into milk, whatever this means, that appears in A1
and A4, to the even stranger (as they are adult animals) bull and ram falling or
jumping into milk in D1 and D2. Perhaps the authors of the latter had no idea
what the phrase meant, but were just trying to make their version sound more
impressive by varying and multiplying the animals.52 That is of course just one
possible explanation, but it is as plausible as any other that has been put
forward.
This model would, I believe, better account for the variations and errors that
we have seen. What they are evidence for, then, is not the secret and coherent
doctrine of an unnamed sect, but rather a miscellaneous selection of different
and not necessarily compatible contemporary views and initiatory practices.
A useful comparison might be with a group of texts on lead tablets associated
with the Ephesia Grammata, a sequence of apparently meaningless words
(ἄσκι, κατάσκι, λίξ, τϵτράξ, δαμναμϵνϵύς, αἴσιον) well known throughout
antiquity and credited with considerable magical force.53 Bernabé considers
the formula to have been produced by successive corruptions of an original
51
Bowden 2010: 155 suggests that they were copied by the goldsmiths who provided the
gold leaf, but there would surely have been some kind of direction from a religious expert,
at least initially.
‘[H]yperbolic and grotesque variations of an original ἔριφος-phrase’ (Tsantsanoglou and
Parássoglou 1987: 13).
52
53
Bernabé 2013a; texts of tablets (and one papyrus) at 78-83.
222
4/5:
A new model for the gold leaves
hexameter incantation of which parts survive on the lead tablets. 54 For
example, the meaningless κατάσκι woud come from the original meaningful
κατὰ σκιαρω̑ν ὀρέων (‘down the shady mountains’); both versions are found
on the tablets.55 He suggests that references in these texts to a goat from the
garden of Persephone being milked connect them to the groves of Persephone
(A4) and a kid or other animal falling into milk (A1, A4, D1-2) in the gold leaves.
However, as Edmonds points out,56 falling into milk is by no means the same
thing as being milked; also, the groves are the destination of the deified soul,
not some kind of pasture. While a connection with the gold leaves is quite
plausible, the groves, goats and milk must have been picked up and used in
quite a different way, just as I have argued occurs with the gold leaves
themselves.
A further conclusion might be drawn from this study of unity and variation.
The only substantial evidence for the unity of the A and B groups, apart from
their promise of a happier life after death, is, as I described above, that the
more recently discovered leaves show that Dionysus or bacchics may
occasionally be involved in either group. Therefore, it is assumed, they both
emanate from a Bacchic sect.
This view is not confined to those who argue for the unity of the two groups;
even those, like Graf and Johnston, who think the groups of different origin
believe all the texts to be Bacchic on the basis of the four that mention
54
Bernabé 2013a: 84-5.
The corruption must have occurred at an early stage, as κατάσκι is already found on
tablets from the fifth and fourth centuries BC (Bernabé tablets C, E, F); the intelligible form
κατὰ σκιαρω̑ν ὀρέων is surprisingly still current six centuries later (tablet A).
55
56
Edmonds 2013a: 104.
223
4/5:
A new model for the gold leaves
Dionysus or bacchics (D1-2, B10, D4).57 Graf’s argument is essentially that the
texts must all be produced by the same cult, and as a few mention Dionysus
and no other cult seems likely, then this is probably Dionysiac. 58 I have
examined in the previous chapter the evidence for a Dionysiac mystery cult
concerned with the afterlife, but there is nothing to connect it with any of the
gold leaves apart from these four.59 The assumption that all the texts must be
produced by the same cult is of course basic to making the connection.
Behind this assumption, I suggest, lies a paradigm of Greek religion patterned
on a monotheistic religion such as Christianity, where there are clearly-defined
and differentiated groups with non-overlapping adherents, doctrines and
rites. If, in fact, Dionysus might be introduced in many different contexts by
many different groups, then this argument collapses. There is no evidence
that the monotheistic model is appropriate for the kind of phenomena we are
discussing, or for Greek religion as a whole.60
57
Graf and Johnston 2013; their title is Ritual texts for the afterlife: Orpheus and the
Bacchic gold tablets.
58
Graf and Johnston 2013: 137-66.
59
Schlesier 2001: 170-2 sees other parallels with Dionysus, such as the lightning in A1-2 and
the lightning that struck Semele, or the lake of Memory in the B texts and the sanctuary of
Dionysus in the Marshes at Athens, but, as these examples suggest, none are especially
close.
60
See Burkert 1982 for an illuminating discussion.
224
5/1:
Introduction
Chapter Five
Metempsychosis and related matters
1:
1:
Introduction ............................................................................................... 225
2:
Sources for metempsychosis before Plato ................................................ 228
3:
Varieties of metempsychosis .................................................................... 238
4:
Plato, metempsychosis and justice ........................................................... 246
5:
Memory and release from the cycle ......................................................... 255
6:
The body as tomb of the soul .................................................................... 261
7:
Penalty and recompense ........................................................................... 271
8:
Conclusion ................................................................................................. 287
Introduction
In this chapter I want to examine the doctrine sometimes held in classical
Greece that the human soul does not perish after death, but returns to earth
reincarnated in another body.
This came to be called μετεμψύχωσις,
μετενσωμάτωσις or παλιγγενεσία,1 though these terms seem all to date to
after the classical period.2
In English it is variously referred to as
metempsychosis, reincarnation or transmigration of souls. As will become
apparent, there are many variations in the details of how this is said to have
occurred.
1
Bartoš 2015: 213.
μετεμψύχωσις and παλιγγενεσία are used in a citation from Aristoxenus in [Iambl.] (fr. 12
= Theol. Ar. 40 p. 52, 8 de Falco) but this is quite likely not Aristoxenus’ original
terminology; otherwise the first attested uses seem to be in Chrysippus.
2
225
5/1:
Introduction
I shall also try to see how it relates to other concepts such as the existence of
justice in the afterlife and the idea of the soul as a harmony. It will be
convenient to discuss here some ideas that are often linked with
metempsychosis, those of the body as the tomb of the soul and the soul’s
payment of a penalty. A large part of the scanty evidence for this belief in
metempsychosis comes in the references to it in the works of Plato, and I shall
link this to my earlier discussion of Plato’s myths of the soul.3 I shall also
comment on how metempsychosis might relate to private initiation offering
the prospect of a better fate after death.
The origin of these ideas is completely uncertain. They are sometimes
attributed to a foreign source, or to unspecified ancient theologians (παλαιοὶ
θεολόγοι, Philol. DK44B14 = OF430) or the like,4 but this does not appear to
be based on any real knowledge. Herodotus (2.123 = OF423) says the
Egyptians were the first to hold this theory, but he was inclined to believe that
all wisdom originated in Egypt, and in fact there is no evidence for
metempsychosis there.5 India, where there was indeed such a doctrine, might
seem more likely, but, though the dates are uncertain, it appears to have really
taken hold there only after its appearance in Greece. 6 There is no sign of it in
Siberian shamanism, with which it has sometimes been connected.7 The
fourth century BC historian Theopompus traces the idea to the Persian magi,
3
Chapter Two section 4.
4
Edmonds 2013b: 283.
5
Long 1948: 5-6.
6
Keith 1909; Bremmer 2002: 24.
7
Dodds 1951: 135-78 for the suggestion, refuted by Obeyesekere 2002: 200-1.
226
5/1:
Introduction
but this is also very doubtful.8 The origin of the theory is, however, not directly
relevant to my purpose of examining its occurrence in classical Greece.
As in the last chapter, I shall try to demonstrate that we are not dealing with
the coherent and consistent doctrine of some sect, but rather with a
patchwork of often incompatible ideas that were taken up by different people
at different times.
8
ὃς καὶ ἀναβιώσεσθαι κατὰ τοὺς Μάγους φησὶ τοὺς ἀνθρώπους καὶ ἀθανάτους ἔσεσθαι,
καὶ τὰ ὄντα ταῖς αὐτῶν ἐπικλήσεσι διαμενεῖν. ταῦτα δὲ καὶ Εὔδημος ὁ Ῥόδιος ἱστορεῖ.
(FGrH 115 F64 = D.L. 1.9 = OF472, 656) ‘He says that according to the Magi humans will live
again and be immortal, and the things that are will endure through their invocations.
Eudemus of Rhodes also recounts this.’ On the magi, see Chapter One section 6 above.
227
5/2:
2:
Sources for metempsychosis before Plato
Sources for metempsychosis before Plato
Before going on to discuss particular topics, it may be useful to summarise the
sources on which we rely for our knowledge of metempsychosis in classical
Greece.9 Plato forms a special case with which I shall deal separately below. 10
The name with which metempsychosis is especially associated is Pythagoras.11
Pythagoras, however, left no writings, and much of what we are told of him
comes from the Neoplatonic lives written many centuries later, which combine
older sources with an accumulation of legend and Neopythagorean
speculation. Porphyry says that he taught that the soul changes into other
kinds of living things (μεταβάλλουσαν εἰς ἄλλα γένη ζῷων) and was the first
to introduce these teachings into Greece (εἰς τὴν Ἑλλάδα τὰ δόγματα πρῶτος
κομίσαι ταῦτα Πυθαγόρος, VP 19 = DK14A8); the master himself had once
been the minor Homeric hero Euphorbus (VP 26). Iamblichus makes similar
statements (VP 63, 85).
The evidence from the classical period itself is very limited. The earliest is an
epigram by Xenophanes (Anth. Pal. 7.120), a later contemporary of
Pythagoras, which represents him as recognising the soul of a dead friend in a
dog someone was beating.12 This is clearly satirical, but would have no point
unless Pythagoras was thought to believe in metempsychosis. Empedocles,
9
Long 1948 is still the fullest general survey. See also Casadio 1991, Bernabé 2013b: 12732.
10
Section 4.
11
Surveys of the evidence in Long 1948: 13-28, Burkert 1972: 120-4.
καὶ ποτέ μιν στυφελιζομένου σκύλακος παριόντα / φασὶν ἐποικτεῖραι, καὶ τόδε φάσθαι
ἔπος: / παῦσαι, μηδὲ ῥάπιζ᾽, ἐπειὴ φίλου ἀνέρος ἐστὶ / ψυχή, τὴν ἔγνων, φθεγξαμένης
ἀίων.
12
228
5/2:
Sources for metempsychosis before Plato
slightly later, refers to a wise man whose experience covers ten or twenty
generations (DK31B129), but the identity is uncertain, though it was later
assumed to be Pythagoras.13
Aristotle speaks of ‘the tales of the Pythagoreans that any soul might clothe
itself in any body’ (κατὰ τοὺς Πυθαγορικοὺς μύθους τὴν τυχοῦσαν ψυχὴν εἰς
τὸ τυχὸν ἐνδύεσθαι σῶμα, De an. 407b); ἐνδύεσθαι is commonly used in the
context of metempsychosis.14 Another fourth century author, Heraclides of
Pontus, recounts how Pythagoras gave a full list of his earlier incarnations in
addition to Euphorbus (D.L. 8.1.4-5); Heraclides was a writer of Platonic
dialogues,15 and may well have been inventing this as part of the setting of his
dialogue in the same way as Plato does, but again it shows that Pythagoras had
the reputation of a believer in reincarnation.
Theophrastus says that
Pythagoras believed animals to have the same souls as humans (εἰ φαίνοντο
κατὰ Πυθαγόραν καὶ τὴν ψυχὴν τὴν αὐτὴν εἰληχότα τὰ ζῷα, Porph. Abst. 3.26),
which is at least consistent with metempsychosis.
It is clear, then, that metempsychosis was known in Greece by at least the
beginning of the fifth century, and was associated with Pythagoras. It was not
the only view of the soul associated with him: Plato (Phd. 86b-c) describes a
theory plausibly attributed to the Pythagorean Philolaus in which the soul is a
mixture and harmony of the elements (κρᾶσιν εἶναι καὶ ἁρμονίαν αὐτῶν
τούτων τὴν ψυχὴν ἡμῶν) and if the harmony is broken by disease it must
13
Wright 1995 ad loc.
14
Burkert 1972: 121n5.
15
Gottschalk 1980: 8-9, 114-17, Dillon 2014: 257-60.
229
5/2:
Sources for metempsychosis before Plato
perish (τὴν μὲν ψυχὴν ἀνάγκη εύθὺς ὑπάρχει ἀπολωλέναι).16 This is clearly
not compatible with metempsychosis.
The situation with other Presocratics is less clear. The evidence for Heraclitus
rests primarily on one fragment: ‘For souls it is death to become water, for
water it is death to become earth; out of earth water comes to be, and out of
water soul’.17 This has something in common with the idea that the soul goes
through a cycle of reincarnations in all types of species, but is clearly not
identical with it.
Parmenides says of his goddess that she ‘sends the souls, now from the visible
into the invisible, now back again’ (καὶ τὰς ψυχὰς πέμπειν ποτὲ μὲν ἐκ τοῦ
ἐμφανοῦς εἰς τὸ ἀειδές, ποτὲ δὲ ἀνάπαλίν φησιν, DK28adB13), which seems
most naturally interpreted as referring to reincarnation. She also ‘rules the
hateful birth and copulation of all things’, (πάντα γὰρ <ἣ> στυγεροῖο τόκου καὶ
μίξιος ἄρχει, DK28B12), where the term στυγερός, ‘hateful’, seems to convey
an element of disgust that would be inappropriate in a mere reference to the
pains of labour, and can therefore be connected with the concept, which I shall
explore further below, of the cycle of reincarnation as a punishment from
which the soul has to be freed.18 Although it is therefore plausible to link
16
Discussion at Barnes 1979: ii.186-93.
ψυχῆσιν θάνατος ὕδωρ γενέσθαι, ὕδατι δὲ θάνατος γῆν γενέσθαι· ἐκ γῆς δὲ ὕδωρ
γίνεται, ἐξ ὕδατος δὲ ψυχή, DK22B36. Cf. also fragment 60 (‘the way up and down is one
and the same’) and fragment 62 discussed in section 6 below. See Santamaría 2011: 24350.
17
18
Burkert 1972: 283-5. Cf. Empedocles DK31B115.12 quoted below. I examine this
question in section 5.
230
5/2:
Sources for metempsychosis before Plato
Parmenides with metempsychosis,19 we have no further clue to what this
might entail for his philosophy.
In the case of Empedocles, I believe there can be little doubt of his adherence
to metempsychosis.20 He says that no wise man could believe that before and
after what they call a lifetime (τὸ δὴ βίοτον καλέουσι) they were nothing (πρὶν
δὲ πάγεν καὶ ἐπεὶ λύθεν, οὐδὲν ἀρ’ εἰσίν, DK31B15). He refers to mortals who
die many times (θνητῶν ... πολυφθερέων ἀνθρώπων, DK31B113), and to
clothing something, presumably the soul, in an unfamiliar garment of flesh
(σαρκῶν ἀλλογνῶτι περιστέλλουσα χιτῶνι, DK31B126 = OF450). He describes
how he himself has been ‘before now once boy and girl and bush and bird and
a mute fish in the sea’ (ἤδη γάρ ποτ’ ἐγὼ γενόμην κοῦρός τε κόρη τε θάμνος
τ’οἰωνός τε καὶ ἔξαλος ἔλλοπος ἰχθύς, DK31B117). Two fragments (DK31B127
= OF451, 146) seem to refer to selected souls becoming incarnated as laurels
among trees, lions among beasts and as prophets, leaders and so forth among
men, before eventually becoming gods.
The fullest statement of this belief is the following:
ἔστιν Ἀνάγκης χρῆμα, θεῶν ψήφισμα παλαιόν,
ἀίδιον, πλατέεσσι κατεσφρηγισμένον ὅρκοις·
εὖτέ τις ἀμπλακίηισι φόβῳ φίλα γυῖα †μιν† [φόνῳ φίλα γυὶα μιήνῃ],21
†ὅς καὶ† ἐπίορκον ἁμαρτήσας ἐπομόσσῃ,
δαίμονες οἵτε μακραίωνος λελάχασι βίοιο
τρίς μιν μυρίας ὧρας ἀπὸ μακάρων ἀλάλησθαι,
φυομένους παντοῖα διὰ χρόνου εἴδεα θνητῶν
He is also an alternative candidate to Pythagoras for Empedocles’ wise man knowing ten
or twenty generations (DK31B129); Wright 1995 ad loc.
19
20
On Empedocles and metempsychosis, see Long 1948: 45-62, Zuntz 1971: 181-274, Wright
1995, Obeyesekere 2002: 216-32, Primavesi 2008, Megino Rodríguez 2011b. For
references to more sceptical views, see Megino Rodríguez 2011b: 269, Primavesi 2008:
265-6.
21
For discussion of this crux, see section 4 below.
231
5/2:
Sources for metempsychosis before Plato
ἀργαλέας βιότοιο μεταλλάσσοντα κελεύθους.
αἰθέριον μὲν γάρ σφε μένος πόντονδε διώκει,
πόντος δ’ ἐς χθονὸς οὖδας ἀπέπτυσε, γαῖα δ’ ἐς αὐγὰς
ἠελίου φαέθοντος, ὁ δ’ αἰθέρος ἔμβαλε δίναις·
ἄλλος δ’ ἐξ ἄλλου δέχεται, στυγέουσι δὲ πάντες.
τῶν καὶ ἐγὼ νῦν εἰμι, φυγὰς θεόθεν καὶ ἀλήτης,
νείκεϊ μαινομένῳ πίσυνος.
(DK31B115 = OF449)
There is an oracle of Necessity, an ancient decree of the gods, eternal, sealed
by broad oaths: whenever one in error, from fear, ? his own limbs [defiles his
own limbs through murder],22 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 countless seasons, 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.
The term ‘daimon’ is unusual here.23 In antiquity, it was taken as simply
Empedocles’ idiosyncratic terminology for soul (e.g. ‘δαίμονας’ τὰς ψυχὰς
λέγων ‘μακραίωνας’, Hippol. Haer. 7.29.14),24 and this remains a plausible
interpretation.25 The word, however, has also been taken in its normal
meaning of ‘divine being’.26 Without attempting to decide the question here,
it is clear that the daimon, whatever it may be, goes through a series of
reincarnations (φυομένους παντοῖα διὰ χρόνου εἴδεα θνητῶν, ‘born
22
See note on text above.
He also uses the term in DK31B59, αὐτὰρ ἐπεὶ κατὰ μείζον ἐμίσγετο δαίμονι δαίμων,
‘but when daimon further mingled with daimon’.
23
24
Cf. also Inwood 2009: 80-1 on Diogenes of Oenanda.
25
Argued for by Megino RodrÍguez 2011b: 269-73.
Wright 1995 ad loc, Primavesi 2008: 261-2 (‘an Olympian god in exile’); see Chapter Six
below.
26
232
5/2:
Sources for metempsychosis before Plato
throughout the time as all kinds of mortal forms’). It is therefore a theory of
metempsychosis in some form.
Pindar does not normally give any indication of a belief in metempsychosis,27
but there are two exceptions.28 The clearest occurs in the Second Olympian,
significantly written for Theron, tyrant of Acragas, home town of Empedocles,
who would have been a youth at the time of its writing. In the section of the
ode that would normally be devoted to myth he gives a distinctive picture of
the afterlife: ‘the hapless souls of those who have died here immediately pay
the penalty, and one under earth judges the crimes in that realm of Zeus’
(θανόντων μὲν ἐνθάδ᾽ αὐτίκ᾽ ἀπάλαμνοι φρένες ποινὰς ἔτεισαν, τὰ δ᾽ ἐν τᾷδε
Διὸς ἀρχᾷ ἀλιτρὰ κατὰ γᾶς δικάζει τις, Ol. 2.57-9 = OF445). The good have a
life there free from toil (ἀπονέστερον ἐσλοὶ δέκονται βίοτον, 62-3), while the
others have toil hateful to see (67). ‘Those who have endured staying three
times on either side to hold their soul wholly from injustice’ (ὅσοι δ᾽
ἐτόλμασαν ἐστρὶς ἑκατέρωθι μείναντες ἀπὸ πάμπαν ἀδίκων ἔχειν ψυχάν, 6870), follow the road of Zeus to the tower of Kronos on the Isles of the Blessed,
where they will find heroes like Peleus, Cadmus and Achilles (70-84). I shall
examine in the following sections some of the questions of interpretation that
this passage raises, but it is clear that those who avoid wrongdoing three times
on either side are undergoing reincarnation.
The second passage is a fragment of a threnos:
ὅισι δὲ Φερσεφόνα ποινὰν παλαιοῦ πένθεος
δέξεται, εἰς τὸν ὕπερθεν ἅλιον κείνων ἐνάτῳ ἔτεϊ
ἀνδιδοῖ ψυχὰς πάλιν,
ἐκ τᾶν βασιλῆες ἀγαυοὶ
27
Willcock 1995: 139-40.
28
Long 1948: 29-44, Demand 1975: 353-4, Kirkwood 1982, Lloyd-Jones 1985, Willcock
1995, Holzhausen 2004.
233
5/2:
Sources for metempsychosis before Plato
καὶ σθένει κραιπνοὶ σοφίᾳ τε μέγιστοι
ἄνδρες αὔξοντ᾽: ἐς δὲ τὸν λοιπὸν χρόνον ἥρωες ἁγνοὶ
πρὸς ἀνθρώπων καλεῦνται.
(fr. 133 = OF443)
Those from whom Persephone will receive the recompense of ancient grief,
in the ninth year she gives back to the sun above; from these arise illustrious
kings and men swift in strength and great in wisdom, and in the time to come
they are called by men pure heroes.
As we shall see, the interpretation of this passage is much debated,29 but if
Persephone is returning the persons concerned to the sunlight to become
kings and so forth, they must be being reincarnated; we can compare the
passage of Empedocles referred to above where souls ‘come among men on
earth as prophets and poets and doctors and leaders’ (μάντεις τε καὶ
ὑμνόπολοι καὶ ἰητροὶ καὶ πρόμοι ἀνθρώποισιν ἐπιχθονίοισι πέλονται,
DK31B146).
In the second book of Herodotus, in which he describes the manners and
customs of the Egyptians, we read the following:30
πρῶτοι δὲ καὶ τόνδε τὸν λόγον Αἰγύπτιοι εἰσὶ οἱ εἰπόντες, ὡς ἀνθρώπου ψυχὴ
ἀθάνατος ἐστί, τοῦ σώματος δὲ καταφθίνοντος ἐς ἄλλο ζῷον αἰεὶ γινόμενον
ἐσδύεται, ἐπεὰν δὲ πάντα περιέλθῃ τὰ χερσαῖα καὶ τὰ θαλάσσια καὶ τὰ
πετεινά, αὖτις ἐς ἀνθρώπου σῶμα γινόμενον ἐσδύνει: τὴν περιήλυσιν δὲ
αὐτῇ γίνεσθαι ἐν τρισχιλίοισι ἔτεσι. τούτῳ τῷ λόγῳ εἰσὶ οἳ Ἑλλήνων
ἐχρήσαντο, οἳ μὲν πρότερον οἳ δὲ ὕστερον, ὡς ἰδίῳ ἑωυτῶν ἐόντι: τῶν ἐγὼ
εἰδὼς τὰ οὐνόματα οὐ γράφω.
(Hdt. 2.123 = OF423)
The Egyptians were the first who maintained the following doctrine, too, that
the human soul is immortal, and at the death of the body enters into some
29
Section 7 below. Sandin 2008: 8 claims it is not by Pindar, but Hellenistic, but provides
no evidence for this suggestion.
30
Long 1948: 21-5, Burkert 1972: 126, Obeyesekere 2002;193-4, Bernabé 2011: 192-3,
Bernabé 2013b: 129-30.
234
5/2:
Sources for metempsychosis before Plato
other living thing then coming to birth; and when it has passed through all
creatures of land, sea, and air, it enters once more into a human body at birth,
a revolution which it completes in three thousand years. There are Greeks
who have used this doctrine, some earlier and some later, as if it were their
own; I know their names, but do not record them.
As I noted above, there is in fact no evidence for this belief in Egypt, so
Herodotus was wrongly attributing to them something held by the Greeks. We
have no clue as to which Greeks these might be,31 though modern scholars
have speculated that they might be groups they believe to have existed at the
time called Orphics32 or Pythagoreans.33
There is also a plausible reference to reincarnation in a fourth-century BC gold
leaf from Thurii (A1), which speaks of leaving a ‘circle of heavy grief’. I shall
look at this in more detail below.34
I should briefly consider the suggestion of Bartoš that a version of
metempsychosis, stemming from Orphic and Pythagorean sources, can be
found in the Hippocratic corpus, in the late fifth or early fourth century treatise
Περὶ διαίτης (De victu, On regimen).35 He relies on the statement that ‘from
the dead come nourishment, growth and seed; these to enter the body pure
signifies health’ (ἀπὸ γὰρ τῶν ἀποθανόντων αἱ τροφαὶ καὶ αὐξήσεις καὶ
σπέρματα γίνεται· ταῦτα δὲ καθαρὰ ἐσέρπειν ἐς τὸ σῶμα ὑγιείην σημαίνει,
Vict. 4.92), arguing that the seeds are what the author also calls soul (ψυχή).
31
Sandin 2008 provides a useful survey of the cases where Herodotus suppresses
information for religious reasons, though his ascription of them all to a death taboo is not
altogether convincing.
32
Bernabé 2011: 192-3; see Chapter Two section 6 above.
33
Long 1948: 21-5.
34
Section 5.
35
Bartoš 2015: 212-17.
235
5/2:
Sources for metempsychosis before Plato
The author elsewhere defines ψυχή as a physical concept not dissimilar to
sperm, ‘a mixture of fire and water, parts of the human body’
(ἐσέρπει δὲ ἐς ἄνθρωπον ψυχή· πυρὸς καὶ ὕδατος ξύγκρησιν ἔχουσα, μοῖραν
σώματος ἀνθρώπου, Vict. 1.7).
This should, however, be seen in the context of his general view of the physical
world. He believes that ‘everything human and divine proceeds up and down
by exchange’ (χωρεῖ δὲ πάντα καὶ θεῖα καὶ ἀνθρώπινα ἄνω καὶ κάτω
ἀμειβόμενα, De vict. 1.5), so that there is either ‘light for Zeus, darkness for
Hades’or ‘light for Hades, darkness for Zeus’ (φάος Ζηνὶ, σκότος Ἅιδῃ, φάος
Ἅιδῃ, σκότος Ζηνὶ, De vict. 1.5); ‘those come here, these go there, mixing with
each other, fulfilling their allotted fate, both to the greater and to the less’
(φοιτεόντων δ’ ἐκείνων ὧδε, τῶν δέ τε κεῖσε, συμμισγομένων πρὸς ἄλληλα,
τὴν πεπρωμένην μοίρην ἕκαστον ἐκπληροῖ, καὶ ἐπὶ τὸ μέζον καὶ ἐπὶ τὸ μεῖον,
De vict. 1.5). He is therefore saying that nothing is created or destroyed, but
only recombines, and in this sense life comes from what has died. The
connection with the kind of metempsychosis we have been considering above
seems tenuous.
This is all the evidence of any substance for this period. Other examples that
have sometimes been put forward are not convincing.
The late Byzantine
Suda (s.v. Φερεκύδης) attributes the doctrine to Pherecydes, but this is likely
to be due to the tradition that he was the teacher of Pythagoras; Cicero, citing
Pherecydes on the immortality of the soul, does not mention it (Tusc.
1.16.38).36 The Olbia bone tablets (OF463), with their cryptic mention of ‘life
death life’ (βίος θάνατος βίος) have sometimes been considered as a reference
to metempsychosis, but they are more usually taken to relate to a new life in
36
Long 1948: 13-14, Bernabé 2013b: 127, Santamaría 2011: 235-9.
236
5/2:
Sources for metempsychosis before Plato
the other world after death,37 and, as I argued above,38 need to be assessed in
the context of the other pairs of opposites in the tablet. A new life after death
is also the explanation of the statement in the gold leaves, ‘now you have died
and now you have been reborn ... on this very day’ (νῦν ἔθανες καὶ νῦν ἐγένου
... ἄματι τῶιδε, D1-2).39
Finally, the ascription of metempsychosis to a
supposed group of Orphics40 rests on the evidence of the Neoplatonists of the
fifth and sixth century AD (e.g. Procl. In Remp. 2.338.10-339.9 = OF338).41
We have now established the evidence base for the subsequent discussion.
Apart from Plato, to be considered later,42 we have six attested cases of belief
in metempsychosis in the classical period: Pythagoras, Parmenides,
Empedocles, Pindar, the supposed Egyptians of Herodotus and the Thurii gold
leaf. Even for these, the evidence is limited, fragmentary and not always easy
to interpret. I shall now proceed to discuss some particular topics it raises, and
consider how it relates to other concepts of the afterlife.
37
Bernabé 2007a: 177-8, Graf 2011: 56, Edmonds 2013b: 289, Betegh 2014: 156-7.
38
Chapter Three section 3.
39
Betegh 2014: 157.
40
Argued most fully by Bernabé 2011: 181-4, Bernabé 2013b: 130-2. For a range of views,
see Rohde 1925: 341-5, Long 1948: 89-92, Dodds 1951: 149, Burkert 1972: 126.
41
There may be a reference to Orphic metempsychosis in Diogenes of Oenanda in the
second century AD (fr. 40 Smith = OF427), where, however, Ὀρφεῖ]οͅιͅ is Smith’s conjecture.
Plutarch (De esu carn. 996c = OF318), without actually mentioning Orphics, associates the
characteristically Orphic myth of the dismemberment of Dionysus with rebirth
(παλιγγενεσίαν).
42
Section 4 below.
237
5/3:
3:
Varieties of metempsychosis
Varieties of metempsychosis
It is clear that we are not dealing with a unified and consistent doctrine, and
that there were multiple models of reincarnation circulating in Greece at this
time.43 I shall try to indicate some of the variations, in particular those
concerned with transmigration into animals and plants, whether there was a
prescribed cycle through a hierarchy of creatures, the time periods involved,
and whether metempsychosis was combined with the traditional Hades.
One reasonably consistent element is that souls could transmigrate into
animals as well as into humans. This is implicit in our earliest evidence, the
epigram of Xenophanes (Anth. Pal. 7.120), where Pythagoras is supposed to
have recognised the soul of a friend in a dog; Theophrastus says Pythagoras
believed animals to have the same soul as humans (τὴν ψυχὴν τὴν αὐτὴν,
Porph. Abst. 3.26). Empedocles speaks of ‘being born as all kinds of mortal
forms’ (φυομένους παντοῖα ... εἴδεα θνητῶν, DK31B115 = OF449), and
mentions birds, fish and lions as examples.44 According to the doctrine
ascribed by Herodotus to the Egyptians, the soul passes through all creatures
of land, sea and air (πάντα περιέλθῃ τὰ χερσαῖα καὶ τὰ θαλάσσια καὶ τὰ
πετεινά, Hdt. 2.123 = OF423) before returning to a human body.
Transmigration into animals was incorporated by Plato in his various myths of
metempsychosis (Phd. 81a-82b, Phdr. 248d = OF459, 249b, Resp. 618a, 620d,
Ti. 42b-d).
43
Burkert 1972: 133-5, Obeyeskere 2002: 197.
44
DK31B117, DK31B127.
238
5/3:
Varieties of metempsychosis
There were, however, some difficulties. Empedocles seems to have taken the
logical step of advocating strict vegetarianism, rejecting the ‘cruel deeds of
flesh-eating’ (σχέτλι’ ἔργα βορᾶς, DK31B139 = OF637) and comparing the
eating of meat at sacrifice with fathers eating sons and sons fathers (φίλας
κατὰ σάρκας ἔδουσιν, DK31B137 = OF640). The testimonies for Pythagoras
range from normal meat eating to complete vegetarianism. 45 There is also a
suggestion that he solved the problem by supposing that human souls only
entered into animals that were not sacrificed (Iambl. VP 85). From a different
point of view, Plato saw a problem with an irrational animal soul becoming
human, and had to stipulate that souls could only pass from animals to humans
if they had been humans originally, (Phdr. 249b). This was such a difficulty for
the later Platonists46 that some. like Porphyry (August. De civ. D. 10.30, 13.19),
rejected human reincarnation as animals altogether.
Empedocles, however, went one step further, and extended reincarnation to
plants: souls of sufficient stature are born as laurels among trees (δάφναι δ’
ἐνὶ δένδρεσιν ἠυκόμοισιν, DK31B127 ), and he himself was once a bush
(θάμνος, DK31B117 = OF451). This view was also ascribed to Pythagoras by
Heraclides (φυτὰ καὶ ζῷα, D.L. 8.1.4) and by a scholion to the Iliad (γεννωμένῳ
σώματι ἦ φυτῷ, schol. T Il. 16.857), but otherwise seems peculiar to
Empedocles.47 It is not clear why in this case he should not forbid the eating
of plant food as well as animals.48
45
Betegh 2014: 155-6.
46
Rohde 1925: 483n40.
47
Burkert 1972: 133n74.
48
Edmonds 2013b: 284n134. He does forbid the use of laurels, one of the plants he
specifically mentions (δάφνης [τῶν] φύλλων ἄπο πάμπαν ἔχεσθαι, DK31B140), but it seems
unlikely that he meant reincarnation to be confined to this one plant alone.
239
5/3:
Varieties of metempsychosis
It should also be noted that Pindar gives no indication of rebirth as an animal:
the soul has just to keep free of wrongdoing three times on either side (Ol.
2.68-70 = OF445), and may be reborn as some kind of eminent man in the ninth
year (fr. 133 = OF443). This may possibly be a function of the genre in which
he was working, alluding to the belief rather than setting out a comprehensive
theory, but it does suggest that there may not have been general agreement
as to what kind of being was subject to the laws of metempsychosis.
A further question is whether reincarnation is purely random, or whether
there was some kind of cycle through the various forms of being. According
to Aristotle, it was possible, in the Pythagorean stories (μύθους) for ‘any soul
to clothe itself in any body’ (τὴν τυχοῦσαν ψυχὴν εἰς τὸ τυχὸν ἐνδύεσθαι
σῶμα, De an. 407b). So too, a later scholiast ascribes to Pythagoras the view
that ‘the retiring soul is born in whatever body or plant it might encounter’
(Πυθαγόρας φησίν, ὡς ἀναχωροῦσα ἡ ψυχὴ ἐν ἐκείνῳ γίνεται [ἐν] ᾧ ἂν
γεννωμένῳ σώματι ἦ φυτῷ καταντήσῃ, schol. T Il. 16.857).
On the other hand, in Herodotus the soul ‘when it has passed through all
creatures of land, sea, and air, enters once more into a human body at birth’
(ἐπεὰν δὲ πάντα περιέλθῃ τὰ χερσαῖα καὶ τὰ θαλάσσια καὶ τὰ πετεινά, αὖτις
ἐς ἀνθρώπου σῶμα γινόμενον ἐσδύνει, Hdt. 2.123 = OF423), a process he
describes as a cycle or revolution (περιήλυσιν). This sounds like a deliberate
progression, not something that is random. Empedocles (DK31B115 = OF449)
speaks of being born in all kinds of mortal forms (παντοῖα ... εἴδεα θνητῶν),
passing from air to sea to earth to sun to air again; these categories of course
correspond to Empedocles’ four elements,49 and may be just illustrating all the
possibilities, but there is probably also the suggestion of a requirement to
experience all forms of life.
49
Pythagoras himself, in a similar way, was
Wright 1995 ad loc.
240
5/3:
Varieties of metempsychosis
sometimes said to hold that ‘the soul exchanging in a cycle of necessity is
bound now in this, now in that creature’ (τὴν ψυχὴν κύκλον ἀνάγκης
ἀμείβουσαν ἄλλοτ’ ἄλλοις ἐνδεῖσθαι ζῴοις, D.L. 8.1.14).
A gradation in the forms of human reincarnation is also possible. Empedocles
says:
εἰς δὲ τέλος μάντεις τε καὶ ὑμνόπολοι καὶ ἰητροί καὶ πρόμοι ἀνθρώποισιν
ἐπιχθονίοισι πελονται· ἔνθεν ἀναβλαστοῦσι θεοὶ τιμῇσι φέριστοι.
(DK31B146)
And at the end they come among men on earth as prophets and poets and
doctors and leaders, and from these they shoot up as gods, highest in honour.
Even if this applies only to the select few, it is clearly a directed rather than
random selection.50 Similarly in Pindar we find an analogous group:
ἐκ τᾶν βασιλῆες ἀγαυοὶ
καὶ σθένει κραιπνοὶ σοφίᾳ τε μέγιστοι
ἄνδρες αὔξοντ᾽: ἐς δὲ τὸν λοιπὸν χρόνον ἥρωες ἁγνοὶ
πρὸς ἀνθρώπων καλεῦνται.
(fr. 133 = OF443)
From these arise illustrious kings and men swift in strength and great in
wisdom, and in the time to come they are called by men pure heroes.
It seems, therefore, that even excluding Plato, whose idiosyncratic treatment
will be considered below,51 there are clearly significant differences of opinion
as to whether reincarnation has to progress through all kinds of creatures,
singles out different categories of human, or is entirely random.
There is also no kind of agreement on how long this process of successive
reincarnation might last. According to a tradition preserved in the anonymous
50
Probably the same group become laurels among trees and lions among animals
(DK31B127).
51
Section 4.
241
5/3:
Varieties of metempsychosis
numerological work ascribed to Iamblichus, and perhaps going back to the
fourth century BC musicologist Aristoxenus (Aristox. fr. 12 = [Iambl.] Theol. Ar.
40 p. 52, 8 de Falco),52 the successive transmigrations (μετεμπψυχώσεις) of
Pythagoras took place at intervals of 216 years, this being the cube of six. In
Pindar’s Second Olympian, the soul that is to succeed in reaching the Isles of
the Blessed must avoid wrongdoing three times on either side (ἐστρὶς
ἑκατέρωθι, Ol. 2.68-9 = OF445); the meaning has been much disputed,53 but
most plausibly refers to three successive reincarnations. In the same poet’s
fragment 133 (OF443), on the other hand, only one reincarnation is
mentioned, to take place in the ninth year (ἐνάτῳ ἔτει).54
The daimon of Empedocles wanders from the blessed ones being continually
reborn for three myriad seasons (τρίς ... μυρίας ὧρας, DK31B115 = OF449).
This is literally thirty thousand seasons (ὥρα may mean years or parts of years,
LSJ s.v. ὥρα) but we might suspect that this is just a way of indicating a large
number, as we might say ‘thousands and thousands of years’.55 The Egyptians
of Herodotus are said by him to believe the soul completes a revolution
(περιήλυσιν) through all types of creature back to human again in three
thousand years (Hdt. 2.123 = OF423).
If we are looking for a common element in all these, the only one I can find is
that they all involve some multiple of the number three, though I do not know
what the significance of this might be.56 Plato varies it a little: in the Phaedrus
52
Huffman 2014: 288.
53
Long 1948: 35, Fritz 1957: 86, McGibbon 1964, Kirkwood 1982: 73.
54
For the interpretation of this passage, see section 7 below.
55
Wright 1995 ad loc.
Catenacci 2014-15: 25 suggests that the number is frequent in ‘Orphic-Pythagorean’
beliefs, and also in Pindar’s Second Olympian.
56
242
5/3:
Varieties of metempsychosis
it is three periods of a thousand years for the privileged philosopher (249a) but
for the others a myriad of years (ἐτῶν μυρίων, 248e = OF459), again perhaps
‘thousands of years’ rather than exactly ten thousand. The Republic refers to
tenfold penances of hundred-year units, thus lasting a thousand years (615ab).57
A related question is whether the process of metempsychosis is supposed to
take place directly from body to body, doing away with the need for the
traditional underworld, or whether Hades still has a role, perhaps as a resting
place between reincarnations.58
The evidence for Pythagoras is again
confused. One source seems to imply a direct process: ‘the retiring soul is born
in whatever body or plant it might encounter’ (ἀναχωροῦσα ἡ ψυχὴ ἐν ἐκείνῳ
γίνεται [ἐν] ᾧ ἂν γεννωμένῳ σώματι ἦ φυτῷ καταντήσῃ, schol. T Il. 16.857).
References to Hades in connection with Pythagoras are rather more frequent,
as in Heraclides Ponticus (‘all the soul experienced in Hades’, ὅσα ἡ ψυχὴ ἐν
Ἅιδῃ ἔπαθε, D.L. 8.1.4), allusions to earthquakes being caused by the assembly
of the dead, who must therefore be below the earth (Ael. V.H. 4.17) and to
‘those in Tartarus’ (τοῖς ἐν τῷ ταρτάρῳ, Arist. An. Post. 94b33) and the story,
probably however not appearing before the third century BC, of the katabasis
of Pythagoras to Hades.59 The 216-year gap of Aristoxenus (fr. 12) between
reincarnations must imply some time elsewhere, presumably in Hades. It is,
however, difficult to know how much of this is later elaboration of the
Pythagoras legend.
57
Compare the thousand-year period before reincarnation given by Virgil in the Aeneid: ubi
mille rotam volvere per annos (6.748).
58
Burkert 1972: 134.
59
Zhmud 2012: 216.
243
5/3:
Varieties of metempsychosis
There is, however, no mention of either Hades or any gap between successive
reincarnations in either Herodotus or Empedocles. It is true that Empedocles
does make gnomic allusions to weeping and wailing on coming to an unfamiliar
place (κλαυσά τε καὶ κώκυσα ἰδὼν ἀσυνήθεα χῶρον, DK31B118 = OF452), to
a joyless place (ἀτερπέα χῶρον, DK31B121), and to coming under a roofed
cave (ἄντρον ὑπόστεγον, DK31B120), which have sometimes been interpreted
as referring to Hades.60 There is nothing specific, however, to sustain the
identification, and they can more plausibly be taken as meaning this world
under the rule of Strife.
Pindar, on the other hand, in the Second Olympian, concentrates on his picture
of the afterlife, referring to metempsychosis only briefly (Ol. 2.56-83 = OF445).
Although his focus is on the Isles of the Blessed, whose flowers and ocean
breezes (ὠκεανίδες αὖραι, Ol. 2.71-2) sound as if they are above ground, the
judge under the earth (ἀλιτρὰ κατὰ γᾶς, Ol. 2.59) must be in the traditional
Hades. In fragment 133 (OF443), too, Persephone restores the souls to the
sun above in the ninth year (εἰς τὸν ὕπερθεν ἅλιον κείνων ἐνάτῳ ἔτεϊ ἀνδιδοῖ
ψυχὰς πάλιν), implying that until then they remained in Persephone’s realm
of Hades. Parmenides, also, sending the souls back and forth between the
visible and the invisible (ἐκ τοῦ ἐμφανοῦς εἰς τὸ ἀειδές, DK28adB13), implies
a stay in some invisible realm of the dead. Plato, as we shall see, 61 combines
Hades and metempsychosis in his presentations.
We can therefore conclude that even in the few sources available to us there
is no kind of consistency in such matters as reincarnation in plants, whether
the process is a random one, the length of time involved and whether
60
For some contributions to the debate, see Rohde 1925: 381, Long 1948: 59-61, Dodds
1951: 174n114, Zuntz 1971: 255, Wright 1995 ad locc.
61
Section 4 below.
244
5/3:
Varieties of metempsychosis
metempsychosis can be combined with the traditional Hades. It seems we
cannot be dealing with a unified doctrine, or even with an initially unified
doctrine that has developed variant forms, but more likely with a simple idea
that has been taken up separately by different people and elaborated by them
each in their own idiosyncratic way.
245
5/4:
4:
Plato, metempsychosis and justice
Plato, metempsychosis and justice
I have postponed the consideration of Plato’s portrayals of metempsychosis
until now, although it constitutes a substantial portion of the evidence from
the classical period, as I believe they are in many ways a special case, and I
thought it preferable first to review the pre-Platonic data on its own merits
rather than run the danger of retrojecting Plato’s conceptions on to it. I shall
try to show that these latter are essentially inventions to support his
argument, and are linked to his desire to demonstrate that there is justice in
the afterlife.
I first want to outline briefly the idea that human beings are judged in the
afterlife, and specifically that wrongdoers are punished.62 In Homer, we learn
only of punishment for three mythological figures, Tityus, Tantalus and
Sisyphus (Od. 11.576-600), condemned for what were later identified as
crimes against the gods63 to picturesque fates (liver eaten by vultures, food
and drink snatched away, perpetually rolling a stone uphill); there is no
suggestion of a general judgment of souls.64 Other similar figures, such as Ixion
and his wheel, were later added.65
There is a suggestion of a more general conception of post-mortem
punishment in the Homeric hymn to Demeter, where Hades states that
wrongdoers will receive eternal punishment (τῶν δ’ ἀδικησάντων τίσις
62
There are short accounts in Rohde 1925: 238-40 and Edmonds 2013b: 257-9.
63
Heubeck 1989 ad loc, Burkert 2009: 152-5.
64
Sourvinou-Inwood 1995: 67-9.
65
Rohde 1925: 246n11.
246
5/4:
Plato, metempsychosis and justice
ἔσσεται ἤματα πάντα, 367), though the wrongdoers then seem to be equated
with those who fail to sacrifice to Persephone (οἵ κεν μὴ θυσίαισι τεὸν μένος
ἱλάσκωνται, 368). Possibly the meaning is that sacrifice to Persephone,
referring here to initiation at Eleusis, enables the wrongdoers to escape the
punishment they would otherwise deserve.66
There is certainly a more general conception in Aeschylus: ‘there, the story
goes, another Zeus makes a last judgment on their faults among the dead’
(κἀκεῖ δικάζει τἀπλακήμαθ’, ὡς λόγος, Ζεὺς ἄλλος έν καμοῦσαν ὑστάτας
δίκας, Supp. 230-1), ‘for Hades is mighty in holding mortals to account under
the earth’ (μέγας γὰρ Ἅιδης ἐστὶν εὔθυνος βροτῶν ἔνερθε χθονός, Eum. 2734). Polygnotus at Delphi depicted the punishment in Hades of those who
wronged their fathers and committed sacrilege (Paus. 10.28.5).67
In
Aristophanes, those who have committed a list of offences including perjury
and assaulting their parents, as well as more comical and bathetic ones, are
condemned to lie in dung (Ran. 145-51).
Demosthenes, too, describes an opponent as ‘one not likely to find the gods
in Hades propitious, but to be thrust out among the impious because of the
wickedness of his life’ (εἶθ᾽ ὃν οὐδὲ τῶν ἐν Ἅιδου θεῶν εἰκός ἐστιν τυχεῖν
ἵλεων, ἀλλ᾽ εἰς τοὺς ἀσεβεῖς ὠσθῆναι διὰ τὴν πονηρίαν τοῦ βίου, Dem. 25.53).
Plato represents the old man who used to laugh at ‘the stories told of those in
Hades, that those who have done wrong here must be punished there’ (οἵ τε
γὰρ λεγόμενοι μῦθοι περὶ τῶν ἐν Ἅιδου, ὡς τὸν ἐνθάδε ἀδικήσαντα δεῖ ἐκεῖ
διδόναι δίκην, Resp. 330d-e), as giving them more credence as death
approaches.
66
Discussion in Richardson 1974 ad loc.
67
Edmonds 2015: 557-8.
247
5/4:
Plato, metempsychosis and justice
This belief in justice in the afterlife is sometimes used as a criticism of the
Eleusinian mysteries, which require only initiation, not virtue, for a better fate
after death, as in the saying ascribed to the Cynic Diogenes:
ἀξιούντων Ἀθηναίων μυηθῆναι αὐτὸν καὶ λεγόντων ὡς ἐν ᾄδου προεδρίας
οἱ μεμυημένοι τυγχάνουσι, ‘γελοῖον,’ ἔφη, ‘εἰ Ἀγησίλαος μὲν καὶ
Ἐπαμεινώνδας ἐν τῷ βορβόρῳ διάξουσιν, εὐτελεῖς δέ τινες μεμυημένοι ἐν
ταῖς μακάρων νήσοις ἔσονται.’
(D.L. 6.2.39 = OF435)
When the Athenians urged him to become initiated, saying that those who
have been initiated have a privileged place in Hades, he said ‘It would be
ludicrous if Agesilaus and Epaminondas are to live in the mud, while worthless
people who have been initiated will be in the Isles of the Blessed.’68
If the idea of a judgment after death is difficult to link with initiation, it is also
not at first sight easy to combine with metempsychosis. Empedocles does say
the transmigration process is started by an error (ἀμπλακίῃσι, DK31B115 =
OF449) of the daimon, but this seems bound up with his doctrine of the
alternation of Love and Strife, his error being to trust in raving Strife (νείκει
μαινομένῳ πίσυνος). Otherwise, we have only yet seen the combination in
Pindar. I shall discuss the ποινή paid to Persephone in fragment 133 below, 69
but in Olympian 2 ‘the hapless souls of those who have died here immediately
pay the penalty, and one under earth judges the crimes in that realm of Zeus’
(θανόντων μὲν ἐνθάδ᾽ αὐτίκ᾽ ἀπάλαμνοι φρένες ποινὰς ἔτισαν, τὰ δ᾽ ἐν τᾷδε
Διὸς ἀρχᾷ ἀλιτρὰ κατὰ γᾶς δικάζει τις, Ol. 2.57-9 = OF:445).70 They have
intolerable toil, while those who have kept themselves from wrongdoing for
Other versions: Plutarch Adolescens 21f, Julian Or. 7.25 238a; Rohde 1925: 239. Mylonas’
claim (Mylonas 1961: 266n74) that the reference is to Orphics, not Eleusis, is refuted by
Graf 1974: 81n34. Plato makes a similar point in the Republic (363a-366b) in connection
with private initiators.
68
69
Section 7.
70
See Long 1948: 32-4 for various interpretations of this passage in the scholia.
248
5/4:
Plato, metempsychosis and justice
three reincarnations go on to the tower of Kronos and the Isles of the
Blessed.71 What is envisaged is not entirely clear from Pindar’s words, but
most likely people have three attempts at living a virtuous life; if they fail in
any of them they go no further, but are condemned to endless toil in Hades,
while only the successful ones go on to further lives and then to permanent
felicity.
In Plato’s versions of metempsychosis, however, justice becomes a major
theme. I have already considered Plato’s myths of the soul as evidence for
contemporary views of the afterlife,72 and I shall briefly recapitulate here the
chief results of that investigation. I identified thirteen relevant passages
setting out or alluding to myths of the soul and afterlife; these myths were
mutually incompatible in many respects. They were employed in passing to
support Plato’s arguments in the dialogue in question, specifically his
arguments in favour of the immortality of the soul and the value of living a
virtuous, and especially a philosophical, life. I concluded that they were
basically ad hoc inventions by Plato, which however drew on a common stock
of ideas familiar to himself and his audience. Although the details were his
own invention, with anything especially adapted to his argument particularly
suspect, the root idea and perhaps some of the details irrelevant to or
conflicting with the case he is making are likely to reflect beliefs current at the
time.
A number of these myths have no reference to metempsychosis. These
include Gorgias 492e-493c (OF434) (the uninitiated in Hades carrying water in
a sieve), Gorgias 522e-527a (OF460) (Minos, Rhadamanthus and Aeacus as
71
Kirkwood 1982: 71 observes that this is the first passage to link reward after death to
justice and moral excellence.
72
Chapter Two section 4 above. In addition to the works cited there, see Long 1948: 63-86
for specific consideration of Plato and metempsychosis.
249
5/4:
Plato, metempsychosis and justice
judges of the dead), Phaedo 63b-c (Socrates will join the company of good men
and gods after death), Phaedo 69c-d (OF434) (the initiated will live with the
gods after death, while the uninitiated will lie in mud), and Phaedo 107d-108c,
113d-114c (souls will be assigned to Tartarus, abodes of bliss or intermediate
places according to their good or bad actions in life). I shall consider Phaedo
62b (life as a kind of prison or guard-post) below.73
This still, however, leaves us with seven cases to examine. In the Meno (81ac = OF424) he gives unidentified men and women, priests and priestesses wise
in divine matters (ἀνδρῶν τε καὶ γυναικῶν σοφῶν περὶ τὰ θεῖα πράγματα) as
his authority for saying the soul is immortal, at one time dying and at another
being born again (τοτὲ μὲν τελευτᾶν ... τοτὲ δὲ πάλιν γίνεσθαι). Consequently,
Socrates concludes, one should live as holy a life as possible (ὡς ὁσιώτατα
διαβιῶναι τὸν βίον). After citing the passage of Pindar to be discussed
below,74 he adds an argument for Platonic anamnesis, in that the experience
of many lives allows the soul to recollect what it learnt about virtue and such
like (περὶ ἀρετῆς καὶ περὶ ἄλλων οἷον τ’ εἶναι αὐτὴν ἀναμνησθῆναι). Here
then we have the simple possibility of metempsychosis, without any details as
to the process of its operation, being used as a reinforcement for standard
Platonic arguments.
At Phaedo 70c (OF428), an old story (παλαιὸς μὲν οὖν ἔστι τις λόγος) that souls
return here and are born from the dead (πάλιν γε δεῦρο ἀφικνοῦνται καὶ
γίγνονται ἐκ τῶν τεθνεώτων) is mentioned in passing as something which, if it
were really true (εἰ τοῦθ᾽ οὕτως ἔχει), would prove the immortality of the soul.
This use is therefore analogous to that in the Meno. A little later in the same
dialogue (80d-82c), Socrates supposes that the souls of those who have been
73
Section 6.
74
Section 7.
250
5/4:
Plato, metempsychosis and justice
slaves to their passions pass into the bodies of the appropriate animal, as
robbers into wolves and so on, only the more worthy becoming humans and
only philosophers coming to live with the gods. Again, the purpose is to
reinforce Socrates’ argument for a virtuous and philosophical life.
The
distinctive feature here, reincarnation in the appropriate animal, is presented
as speculation by Socrates, using such phrases as ‘it is likely’ (εἰκός), not as
something learned from old stories or the wise, so appears to be an invention
by Plato.
The myth of Er in the Republic (614b-621b = OF461-2, 1037, 1077)75 is much
longer and more elaborate than anything we have examined so far. When the
souls after death arrives in some other-worldly region (τόπον τινὰ δαιμόνιον,
614c), judges separate the just from the unjust (δικαίους ... ἀδίκους, 614c),
sending the former above, the latter below. The unjust are punished tenfold
for their crimes in hundred-year periods (ἑκατονταερίδα, 615a).76 Both groups
then return for reincarnation: ‘Souls that live for a day, the beginning of
another mortal cycle of death-bearing birth’ (ψυχαὶ ἐφήμεροι, ἀρχὴ ἄλλης
περιόδου θνητοῦ γένους θανατηφόρου, 617d). They each choose their own
type of animal or human life, with those who have experienced punishment
and suffering generally choosing more wisely than those who have come from
heaven. They are each allotted a daimon to lead them through life (δαίμονα,
τοῦτον φύλακα συμπέμπειν τοῦ βίου, 620d-e) and, after drinking from the
river of forgetfulness (τὸν Ἀμέλητα ποταμόν, 621a) to forget everything, they
are carried up to their birth.
75
Annas 1981: 344-53, Annas 1982: 129-38, Ferrari 2009.
76
The total is also said to be a thousand years (χιλιέτη, 615a, 621d); perhaps this is meant
as an example or an approximate figure.
251
5/4:
Plato, metempsychosis and justice
This is an interesting combination of metempsychosis with a judgment and
punishment after death. There is no hint of an end to the process here; people
apparently carry on being alternately reincarnated and judged for ever. A
particularly striking feature is that they can not only choose their own new
incarnation, but that they often choose wrongly. This indeed seems the key
point of the story for Plato:
ἔνθα δή, ὡς ἔοικεν, ὦ φίλε Γλαύκων, ὁ πᾶς κίνδυνος ἀνθρώπῳ, καὶ διὰ ταῦτα
μάλιστα ἐπιμελητέον ὅπως ἕκαστος ἡμῶν τῶν ἄλλων μαθημάτων ἀμελήσας
τούτου τοῦ μαθήματος καὶ ζητητὴς καὶ μαθητὴς ἔσται, ἐάν ποθεν οἷός τ᾽ ᾖ
μαθεῖν καὶ ἐξευρεῖν τίς αὐτὸν ποιήσει δυνατὸν καὶ ἐπιστήμονα, βίον καὶ
χρηστὸν καὶ πονηρὸν διαγιγνώσκοντα,
(618b-c)
And there, dear Glaucon, it appears, is the supreme hazard for a man, and
this is the chief reason why it should be our main concern that each of us,
neglecting all other studies, should seek after and study this thing—if in any
way he may be able to learn of and discover the man who will give him the
ability and the knowledge to distinguish the life that is good from that which
is bad.
The two aspects of the myth are therefore both necessary for Plato’s message:
reincarnation so that they can make their own choice of life, and judgment so
that they are rewarded for a good choice. There is no hint of anything like this
kind of arrangement in the earlier evidence for metempsychosis; even in
Pindar, there is no suggestion of any kind of choice of new life. On the
principles of interpretation that I laid out earlier, the myth of Er is so well
adapted to the moral Plato is trying to draw that we must consider it an
invention of his, a kind of parable which simply uses metempsychosis as the
peg on which to hang his story.
The myth in the Phaedrus (248c-249b = OF459) describes how the originally
winged soul loses its wings and passes into one of nine categories of human,
ranked from philosopher down to tyrant. At the end of this life they are
252
5/4:
Plato, metempsychosis and justice
judged, and either go to heaven or to a place under the earth to receive their
punishment (εἰς τὰ ὑπὸ γῆς δικαιωτήρια ἐλθοῦσαι δίκην ἐκτίνουσιν, 249a).
After a thousand years they enter a new life, human or animal, each choosing
whatever it wishes (αἵρεσιν τοῦ δευτέρου βίου αἱροῦνται ὃν ἂν θέλη ἑκάστη,
249b). ‘Whoever lives justly obtains a better fate, whoever unjustly a worse’
(ὃς μὲν ἂν δικαίως διαγάγῃ ἀμείνονος μοίρας μεταλαμβάνει, ὃς δ᾽ ἂν ἀδίκως,
χείρονος, 248e).
After ten thousand years, or three thousand for a
philosopher, they regain their wings and return to their original state. There
are obvious parallels with the myth of Er, as metempsychosis and judgment
are again combined to encourage us to lead a just life.
The two remaining myths have the same rationale and can be dealt with more
briefly. In the Timaeus (42b-d, 91a-92c), the souls, originally on the stars, are
first incarnated as men. Those who fail to master their passions and live
unjustly will be born again as women and animals, but the just will return to
their star of origin. In the Laws (903b-904d), the soul is assigned now to one
body, now to another (ψυχὴ συντεταγμένη σώματι τοτὲ μὲν ἄλλῳ, τοτὲ δὲ
ἄλλῳ, 903b), and according to whether it changes in the direction of justice or
injustice, it goes towards Hades or towards a higher region; the details here
are not worked out.
Some conclusions can now be drawn. In the first place, the details of all these
myths are very different: do souls have wings or come from stars, are robbers
reborn as wolves and so forth, are they alternately reincarnated and judged,
does the process take a thousand years or ten thousand, does it end or
continue indefinitely, can the soul choose its own reincarnation? It does not
seem plausible that these were all different versions of the metempsychosis
doctrine that were current in Plato’s time, and that Plato selected a different
one for each dialogue. It seems rather that Plato had a fertile and inventive
253
5/4:
Plato, metempsychosis and justice
mind, and produced on each occasion a new elaboration of the same basic
idea.
The basic idea in this case was the combination of metempsychosis with
judgment after death, and the purpose of all these stories was to encourage
his audience to live a good and just life. Whether he actually had any belief in
the doctrine of reincarnation must be open to question. The existence in his
earlier dialogues of myths of the afterlife not involving metempsychosis, and
the use of such phrases as ‘if it were really true’ (εἰ τοῦθ᾽ οὕτως ἔχει, Phd. 70c)
might lead us to doubt it, but certainty is impossible. Whether or not he was
a believer, he made use of it as a kind of rhetorical device to reinforce his
argument.
If, then, the combination of judgment after death and metempsychosis was
simply adopted by Plato to support his argument, and if the varying details of
how it operated were invented by him, we have to conclude that despite the
quantity of evidence on the topic that we have from his works, which is much
greater than the total from all his predecessors, as reviewed in the earlier
sections of this chapter, he really adds nothing to our knowledge of
metempsychosis as a contemporary religious belief. At most, he simply
confirms that it existed and that he might have expected his audience to have
heard of it. In fact, there is no indication that he knew anything more about it
than we do ourselves two thousand years later.
254
5/5:
5:
Memory and release from the cycle
Memory and release from the cycle
Two fundamental question for the belief in metempsychosis are: can human
beings remember their previous lives? and, are they eventually released from
the cycle of reincarnation?
The question of memory highlights a fundamental ambiguity at the heart of
the theory. If people are allowed to remember previous lives, why is this not
the common experience?
And if they cannot, in what sense can the
reincarnated soul be said to retain its identity?
Pythagoras does seem to remember his previous incarnations. He was usually
said to remember his life as Euphorbus, a minor character in the Iliad (Porph.
VP 26, Iambl. VP 63).77 A full list of his earlier incarnations in addition to
Euphorbus seems to have originated with the fourth-century BC writer of
Platonic dialogues Heraclides Ponticus (D.L. 8.1.4-5),78 who may be suspected
of inventing them as local colour for his dialogues. If the wise man of
Empedocles whose experience covers ten or twenty generations (DK31B129)
is Pythagoras, then this would confirm that he had the reputation of
remembering his previous lives.79
Empedocles himself claimed to have
previously been boy, girl, bush, bird and fish (DK31B117 = OF451), though it is
not clear if he is remembering this or simply deducing that he would have
been.80
77
For similar reports, see Burkert 1972: 139n108.
78
Gottschalk 1980: 8-9, 114-17, Dillon 2014: 257-60.
79
Long 1948: 17-21, Lloyd 2014: 29-30.
80
Long 1948: 48-50 assumes memory, Wright 1995 ad loc prefers deduction.
255
5/5:
Memory and release from the cycle
Pythagoras and Empedocles were, however, by no means ordinary humans.
Empedocles called himself an immortal god (θεὸς ἄμβροτος, DK31B112), and
Pythagoras, according to Heraclides, had once been the son of Hermes, who
granted him the gift of retaining a memory of his experiences through life and
death (ζῶντα καὶ τελευτῶντα μνήμην ἔχειν τῶν συμβαινόντων, D.L. 8.1.4). We
do not hear of this kind of recollection in other sources.
In some of the gold leaves, we find the soul directed to drink from the spring
of Memory and avoid the spring at which other souls are drinking, presumably
that of Forgetfulness (B group); they are also prefixed by the statement ‘This
is the work of Memory’ (Μναμοσύνας τόδε ἔργον).81 I shall discuss this more
fully in a later chapter,82 but I doubt if it is relevant to metempsychosis.83 The
soul who follows the instructions of the gold leaf and drinks the waters of
Memory is clearly destined not for reincarnation but for permanent bliss, and
it is difficult to see how the act of remembering its previous life would in some
way bring this about.
Plato normally ignores the question, but there are two exceptions. In the most
fully developed of his reincarnation myths, the story of Er in the Republic, after
selecting their new lives, the souls proceed to the Plain of Lethe (Λήθης πεδίον,
621a) and drink from the River of Forgetfulness (Ἀμέλητα ποταμόν. 621a), ‘and
each as they drank forgot everything’ (τὸν δὲ ἀεὶ πιόντα πάντων
ἐπιλανθάνεσθαι, 621a-b = OF462).84 He adds that ‘those not saved by their
understanding drank more than the measure’ (τοὺς δὲ φρονήσει μὴ
81
Cf. A5, ‘accept this gift of Memory’ (δέχεσθε Μνεμοσύνης τόδε δῶρον).
82
Chapter Seven section 4.
83
Contra Zuntz 1971: 380-1; see also Bernabé and Jiménez San Cristóbal 2008: 32-3,
Johnston in Graf and Johnston 2013: 117-19.
84
On Lethe, see Rohde 1925: 249-50n21.
256
5/5:
Memory and release from the cycle
σῳζομένους πλέον πίνειν τοῦ μέτρου, 621a), without elaborating on this
remark.
It is perhaps, however, explained by his other reference to recollection and
metempsychosis, in the Meno:
ἅτε οὖν ἡ ψυχὴ ἀθάνατός τε οὖσα καὶ πολλάκις γεγονυῖα, καὶ ἑωρακυῖα καὶ
τὰ ἐνθάδε καὶ τὰ ἐν Ἅιδου καὶ πάντα χρήματα, οὐκ ἔστιν ὅτι οὐ μεμάθηκεν:
ὥστε οὐδὲν θαυμαστὸν καὶ περὶ ἀρετῆς καὶ περὶ ἄλλων οἷόν τ᾽ εἶναι αὐτὴν
ἀναμνησθῆναι, ἅ γε καὶ πρότερον ἠπίστατο.
(Meno 81c)
Seeing then that the soul is immortal and has been born many times, and has
seen all things both here and in Hades, there is nothing it has not learnt; so
that it is no wonder that it should be able to recollect about virtue and other
things, which indeed it knew before.
This is Plato’s solution of the problem of memory in metempsychosis, by
appealing to his theory of anamnesis.85 The reincarnated soul does not
remember any details of its previous lives, but does retain things like
knowledge of virtue or ideas. It is a specifically Platonic solution, designed to
reinforce Platonic concepts, and there is no indication that it was grounded in
anything he had learned of the belief from others.
The other fundamental question is whether the process of reincarnation goes
on indefinitely, or whether there is an eventual release from the process. This
is often linked with the idea of reincarnation as a cycle, perhaps reading back
from Proclus in the fifth century AD, who reports that the Orphics who perform
the rites of Dionysus and Persephone pray to ‘end the cycle and rest from evil’
85
There is a considerable literature on Platonic anamnesis; see e.g. Scott 1987.
257
5/5:
Memory and release from the cycle
(κύκλου τ’ ἂν λήξαι καὶ ἀναπεύσαι κακότητος, Procl. In Ti. 3.297.3 = OF348).86
Here again, there is no uniformity in the sources.
In fact, there is not a close association between the concept of a κύκλος and
release from the cycle of metempsychosis. Diogenes Laertius ascribes the
term to Pythagoras: ‘they say he was the first to declare the soul undergoes
changes in a cycle of necessity, bound at one time to one creature, at another
to another’ (πρῶτόν τέ φασι τοῦτον ἀποφήναι τὴν ψυχὴν κύκλον ἀνάγκης
ἀμείβουσαν ἄλλοτ’ ἄλλοις ἐνδεῖσθαι ζῴοις, D.L. 8.1.14). There is, however,
no sign that Pythagoras believed that the soul could be released from this
circle.87 Porphyry reports him teaching that there is a different kind of cycle
(here using the term περίοδος), in which ‘in certain cycles events occur again’
(κατὰ περιόδους τινὰς τὰ γενόμενά ποτε πάλιν γίνεται, Porph. VP 19 =
DK14A8); again, there is no suggestion that people may be released from it.
Herodotus (2.123 = OF423) refers to a three-thousand-year cycle (this time
περιήλυσις) in which the soul passes through all kinds of creatures before
returning to a human body, but the process apparently continues indefinitely.
The strongest case for a link between κύκλος and release from the cycle of
reincarnation is in this fourth century BC gold leaf from Thurii:
ἔρχομαι ἐκ κοθαρῶν, κοθαρὰ χθονίων βασίλεια,
Εὐκλῆς, Εὐβουλεύς τε καὶ ἀθάνατοι θεοὶ ἄλλοι·
καὶ γὰρ ἐγὼν ὑμῶν γένος ὄλβιον εὔχομαι εἶμεν,
ἀλλά με Μοῖρα ἐδάμασσε καὶ ἀθάνατοι θεοὶ ἄλλοι καὶ ἀστεροβλῆτα
κεραυνόν.
κύκλου δ’ ἐξέπταν βαρυπενθέος ἀργαλέοιο,
ἱμερτοῦ δ’ ἐπέβαν στεφάνου ποσὶ καρπαλίμοισι,
Δεσποίνας δὲ ὑπὸ κόλπον ἔδυν χθονίας βασιλείας·
86
Zuntz 1971: 320-2, Bernabé and Jiménez San Cristóbal 2008: 117-21, Bernabé 2013b:
136.
87
Zhmud 2012: 232.
258
5/5:
Memory and release from the cycle
ἱμερτοῦ δ’ ἀπέβαν στεφάνου ποσὶ καρπαλίμοισι.
‘ὄλβιε καὶ μακαριστέ, θεὸς δ’ ἔσηι ἀντὶ βροτοῖο’.
ἔριφος ἐς γάλ’ ἔπετον.
(A1)
I come pure from the pure, queen of the underworld, Eukles, Eubouleus and
the other immortal gods, and I claim that I am of your blessed race, but Fate
subdued me and the other immortal gods and the star-flung thunderbolt. I
have flown out of the hard cycle of heavy grief. I have approached on swift
feet the desired crown. I have sunk beneath the bosom of the Lady, queen of
the underworld. I have approached on swift feet the desired crown.
‘Fortunate and blessed, you will be a god instead of a mortal.’ A kid I fell into
milk.88
The soul after death is appealing to the chthonic powers for a good fate in the
afterlife, desired, fortunate and blessed, after which it will no longer be mortal.
The ‘hard circle of heavy grief’ (κύκλου ... βαρυπενθέος ἀργαλέοιο) which it
has flown out of must therefore be the human life or lives it has left behind.
The question is therefore whether more than one life must be meant. κύκλος
is also used by various authors to refer to the vicissitudes of life without any
reference to reincarnation, as in ‘human affairs form a cycle’ (κύκλον εἶναι τὰ
ἀνθρώπινα πράγματα, Arist. Phys. 223b).89 We have, however, just seen it
linked with metempsychosis in Herodotus and the Pythagorean sources, and
the emphasis on the grief and harshness of the cycle suggests something more
than the ups and downs of life. I shall suggest below 90 that there are
similarities in vocabulary with other possible references to reincarnation. The
‘desired crown’ would then indeed be a release from the cycle. 91
88
For commentary, see Bernabé and Jiménez San Cristóbal 2008: 100-32.
89
Edmonds 2004: 96-7, Edmonds 2013b: 289-90.
90
Section 7.
If the phrase in another fourth-century leaf from Thurii, ‘hail, having experienced the
experience you have not experienced before’ (χαῖρε παθών τὸ πάθημα τὸ δ’ οὔπω
πρόσθ’{ε} ἐπεπόνθεις, A4.3) is taken, as seems most natural, as referring to death, this
would obviously not be compatible with repeated lives and be another instance of variation
91
259
5/5:
Memory and release from the cycle
Pindar also envisages a final release from reincarnation. In the Second
Olympian (OF445), the Isles of the Blessed are clearly the ultimate resting
place of those who have avoided wrongdoing for three incarnations, and
fragment 133 (OF443) the souls become holy heroes for all future time (ἐς δὲ
τὸν λοιπὸν χρόνον ἥρωες ἁγνοὶ). Empedocles, too, expects to return to the
company of the blessed after three myriad years (DK31B115 = OF449), though
the picture is complicated by the alternating rule of Love and Strife; perhaps
this all recurs in each iteration of the cycle. 92 In Plato, the situation varies in
each version of the myth that he produces: in the myth of Er (Resp. 621b) the
process seems to continue indefinitely, but in the Meno (81c), Phaedo (82b-c)
and possibly Phaedrus (248e = OF459)93 the soul can earn its exit.
We can also find the notion of a release without metempsychosis, in
connection with the idea of the body as a prison, which I discuss below.94 This
seems to be the case in Plato’s Cratylus (400c = OF430), and, though somewhat
later than our period, in Dio Chrysostom.95
It therefore seems that the idea of a release from the cycle is not so intimately
bound up with the doctrine of metempsychosis as is sometimes assumed. 96
in the gold leaves to add to those in Chapter Four. However, there are a number of other
possible interpretations (Bernabé and Jiménez San Cristóbal 2008: 97).
92
See Primavesi 2008: 264-5 for one interpretation, though I do not see the evidence for
the descending and ascending series of incarnations that he posits.
93
Bluck 1958a suggests that this is not necessarily a final release, but that the process may
be repeated.
94
Section 6.
‘Those of us who die, being already sufficiently punished, are released and depart’ (τοὺς
δὲ ἀποθνῄσκοντας ἡμῶν κεκολασμένους ἤδη ἱκανῶς λύεσθαί τε καὶ ἀπαλλάττεσθαι, Or.
30.10-11 = OF320, 429).
95
96
Obeyesekere 2002: 199-200; cf. Parker 1983: 300-1.
260
5/6:
6:
The body as tomb of the soul
The body as tomb of the soul
I should now like to turn to the idea that the body (σῶμα) is the tomb (σῆμα)
of the soul, together with apparently related ideas such as the body as the
prison of the soul, or that life is really death. These ideas, along with
metempsychosis, are often associated with supposed groups of Orphics or
Pythagoreans. Is the soma/sema idea in fact linked with the theory of
reincarnation? Is it also linked with initiatory rites? We shall need to review
the evidence we have for this concept;97 once again, we shall find that the
greater part comes from Plato.
The name with which the idea is often associated is, however, Pythagoras. The
Pythagorean Philolaus is quoted by Clement of Alexandria as saying that ‘the
ancient theologians and seers also testify that through certain punishments
the soul is yoked together with the body as if buried in this tomb’
(μαρτυρέονται δὲ καὶ οἱ παλαιοὶ θεολόγοι τε καὶ μάντιες, ὡς διά τινας
τιμωρίας ἁ ψυχὰ τῶι σώματι συνέζευκται καὶ καθάπερ ἐν σάματι τούτωι
τέθαπται, DK44B14 = Clem. Al. Strom. 3.3.17.1 = OF430).
Another
Pythagorean, Euxitheus, is credited with the statement that ‘the souls of all
were bound in the body and the life here for the sake of punishment’ (ἔλεγεν
ἐνδεδέσθαι τῷ σώματι καὶ τῷ δεῦρο βίῳ τὰς ἁπάντων ψυχὰς τιμωρίας χάριν,
Ath. 5.45 157c = OF430), adding that the god had decreed that they should
stay there until he released them. One of the maxims of Pythagoras himself
was ‘we come for punishment and must be punished’ (ἐπὶ κολάσει γὰρ
ἐλθόντας δεὶ κολασθῆναι, Iambl. VP 85).
97
For some general surveys, see Rohde 1925: 396n36, Rehrenböck 1975, Ferwerda 1985,
Bernabé 2013b: 134-6, Huffman 2013: 252, Edmonds 2013b: 269-82.
261
5/6:
The body as tomb of the soul
The evidence, however, is less certain than it seems. The maxims (σύμβολα)
of Pythagoras were reported by Iamblichus many centuries after his death, and
although he seems to have drawn on collections of the classical period, that in
itself is no guarantee of authenticity.98 Moreover, the form of this one is unlike
the usual forms of these sayings, which normally answer the questions ‘What
is ... ?’, ‘What is the most ... ?’, ‘What should be done?’ (τί ἔστι; τί μάλιστα; τί
πρακτέον;).99 We know of Euxitheus only in the account of the Peripatetic
Clearchus, and he may well be fictitious.100 The authenticity of the Philolaus
fragment has been much debated, generally with a negative conclusion. 101 In
any case, he ascribes the view to unnamed ancient theologians, not to
Pythagoras.
In fact, the term σἢμα, literally ‘sign’, originally meant in this context a grave
monument, rather than tomb in the sense of structure containing the body, as
we see for example in τοῦ δὲ τάφον καὶ σῆμ’, ‘the grave and monument’ (Hes.
Sc. 477); the extension of meaning to the actual tomb seems later than the
time of Pythagoras.102
It must therefore be a question whether these
apparently early Pythagorean instances of the soma/sema concept are not
later inventions.
98
Zhmud 2012: 192-205.
99
Zhmud 2012: 231.
100
So Burkert 1972: 124n21, Zhmud 2012: 231
101
Against: Burkert 1972: 248n47, Rehrenböck 1975: 18-19, Ferwerda 1985: 270-1,
Huffman 1993: 402-6. For: Bernabé 1995: 229-30, Casadesús 2013: 171n73. Scepticism
has centred on its incompatibility with what else is known of Pythagorean attitudes to the
body, and on what appear to be signs of Platonic influence.
Ferwerda 1985: 271, LSJ s.v. σῆμα 3. Ferwerda’s citation of Pl. Phd. 81d is, however,
incorrect, as the term used there is μνῆμα not σῆμα.
102
262
5/6:
The body as tomb of the soul
The next evidence is, once again, from Plato, who refers to the idea several
times in various forms.
The fullest discussion is in the Cratylus, the
interpretation of which has been much disputed:103
Ἑρμογένης: ἀλλὰ δὴ τὸ μετὰ τοῦτο πῶς φῶμεν ἔχειν;
Σωκράτης: τὸ σῶμα λέγεις;
Ἑρμογένης: ναί.
Σωκράτης: πολλαχῇ μοι δοκεῖ τοῦτό γε: ἂν μὲν καὶ σμικρόν τις παρακλίνῃ,
καὶ πάνυ. καὶ γὰρ σῆμά τινές φασιν αὐτὸ εἶναι τῆς ψυχῆς, ὡς τεθαμμένης ἐν
τῷ νῦν παρόντι: καὶ διότι αὖ τούτῳ σημαίνει ἃ ἂν σημαίνῃ ἡ ψυχή, καὶ ταύτῃ
‘σῆμα’ ὀρθῶς καλεῖσθαι. δοκοῦσι μέντοι μοι μάλιστα θέσθαι οἱ ἀμφὶ Ὀρφέα
τοῦτο τὸ ὄνομα, ὡς δίκην διδούσης τῆς ψυχῆς ὧν δὴ ἕνεκα δίδωσιν, τοῦτον
δὲ περίβολον ἔχειν, ἵνα σῴζηται, δεσμωτηρίου εἰκόνα: εἶναι οὖν τῆς ψυχῆς
τοῦτο, ὥσπερ αὐτὸ ὀνομάζεται, ἕως ἂν ἐκτείσῃ τὰ ὀφειλόμενα, τὸ ‘σῶμα,’
καὶ οὐδὲν δεῖν παράγειν οὐδ᾽ ἓν γράμμα.
(Pl. Cra. 400b-c = OF430)
Now what shall we say about the next word? You mean ‘body’? Yes. I think
this admits of many explanations, if you were to alter it a very little; for some
say it is the tomb of the soul, which is as it were buried in what it is now; and
again, because by its means the soul gives any signs which it gives, it is for this
reason also properly called ‘sign’. However, Orpheus and those around him
seem to me most likely to have given it this name with the idea that the soul
is undergoing punishment for something, and that it has the body as an
enclosure so that it remains safe, like a prison, and that this is, as the name
itself denotes, the ‘safe’ for the soul, until it pays what is due, and not even
one letter needs to be changed.
The first point to be made is that the Cratylus includes over a hundred farfetched etymologies, which most scholars have assumed are not meant to be
103
Rohde 1925: 342, 355n43, Wilamowitz-Moellendorff 1932: 197, Linforth 1941: 147-8,
Long 1948: 73-5, Dodds 1951: 169-70n87, Guthrie 1952: 156-7, Rehrenböck 1975: 21-8,
Ferwerda 1985: 268-70, Bernabé 1995: 204-18, Edmonds 2013b: 268-72, Betegh 2014:
157n15. What may be called the traditional reading of the passage, which distinguishes the
τινές from the οἱ ἀμφὶ Ὀρφέα, appears to me to be incorrect; my interpretation follows the
general lines laid out by Bernabé.
263
5/6:
The body as tomb of the soul
taken seriously.104 It certainly seems likely that they were largely devised by
Plato, whether he actually believed them or not. Bearing this in mind, my
analysis of the passage is as follows:
1
Some (τινες) say the body (σῶμα) is the tomb (σῆμα) of the soul
1.1
They mean that the soul is buried in the body in our present life
2
The body (σῶμα) can also appropriately be called sign (σῆμα) as the
soul makes signs through it
3
Orpheus and those around him seem (δοκοῦσι) to me to have given
(θέσθαι dependent on δοκοῦσι) it this name (i.e. σῆμα) because the soul is
being punished (which is equivalent to:)
3.0
Orpheus and those around him gave it this name
3.1
They seem to me (Socrates) to have done so because the soul is
being punished
3.2
(They also seem to me to have done so, with ἔχειν dependent on
δοκοῦσι) because the body is like a prison
3.3
(They also seem to me to have done so, with εἶναι dependent on
δοκοῦσι) because the body is the safe (σῶμα) of the soul
We therefore learn from (1) and (3.0) that some call the body the tomb of the
soul and that Orpheus and those around him gave it this name, and are
therefore the τινες referred to in (1). (1.1) just restates (1) in slightly different
104
Ferwerda 1985: 268. For a contrary view, see Sedley 1998.
264
5/6:
The body as tomb of the soul
words. (2), (3.1), (3.2) and (3.3) are more or less implausible etymological
explanations of this in the general style of the Cratylus; the last three are
explicitly attributed to the Socrates of the dialogue. (2), which is not attested
elsewhere, and seems quite in the style of Plato, as well as according with the
view of sign and language put forward elsewhere in the dialogue,105 is probably
Platonic too.
If I have seemed to labour this point unnecessarily, it is because many scholars
have taken a different view, often vehemently so. 106 As to the identity of
‘Orpheus and those around him’ (οἱ ἀμφὶ Ὀρφέα),107 Orpheus was credited
with the authorship of a range of hexameter verse, as well as with the
foundation of various rites.108 While the expression may perhaps be taken as
referring to a group known as ‘Orphics’,109 it might also indicate, for example,
verses attributed to Orpheus which Plato does not believe were actually
written by him,110 or to anonymous verses in the style of those attributed to
Orpheus.
105
Ferwerda 1985: 272.
E.g. ‘This hoary error has in recent years been exposed again and again’, Dodds 1951:
169n87. They take δοκοῦσι to apply to the fact of οἱ ἀμφὶ Ὀρφέα coining the phrase, not
to the possible reasons they might have done so. There is a slight change in the
construction, as what is likely moves from ὡς δίκην διδούσης in 3.1 to the infinitives in 3.2
and 3.3, but it seems to me a natural one.
106
Radt (Radt 1980, 1988) has shown that οἱ περὶ + acc., with which οἱ αμφὶ is synonymous,
literally ‘those around’ x, always actually includes the person in question (except in the
cases of pronouns or where those accompanying are in some sense a different species); in
fact it is sometimes even used as a periphrasis for that person alone. See also KühnerGerth §403d. Translations such as Edmonds’ ‘those connected with Orpheus’ (Edmonds
2013b: 270) are therefore inaccurate.
107
Plato elsewhere uses the expression οἱ ἀμφὶ Ὀρφέα in connection with rites and
prophecies (τελετάς τε καὶ χρησμῳδίας, Prt. 316d); Edmonds 2013b: 95-191. See Chapter
Two section 6 above.
108
109
Bernabé 1995: 223-9, but see Edmonds 2013b: 200, 270-1.
110
So Burkert 1982: 3-4, who suggests that the plural indicates scepticism.
265
5/6:
The body as tomb of the soul
We can therefore compare Plato’s use of this concept with the use he made
of the idea of metempsychosis: he has picked up the idea, without giving
evidence of knowing much about it in detail, and used it as a focal point around
which to develop ideas of his own. This is confirmed by his reference to what
seems the same or a similar concept:
ὁ μὲν οὖν ἐν ἀπορρήτοις λεγόμενος περὶ αὐτῶν λόγος, ὡς ἔν τινι φρουρᾷ
ἐσμεν οἱ ἄνθρωποι καὶ οὐ δεῖ δὴ ἑαυτὸν ἐκ ταύτης λύειν οὐδ᾽
ἀποδιδράσκειν, μέγας τέ τίς μοι φαίνεται καὶ οὐ ῥᾴδιος διιδεῖν·
(Pl. Phd. 62b = OF429)
Now the doctrine that is taught in secret about this matter, that we humans
are in a kind of prison/guard-post and must not set ourselves free or run
away, seems to me to be weighty and not easy to understand.
This is an incidental remark in an argument against suicide, and so far from
being especially adapted to Plato’s argument, it appears that he does not know
quite what to make of it. On the principles of interpretation which I set out
earlier,111 it is therefore unlikely to be his own invention.
It will be observed that the metaphor has changed here, and we have a
φρουρά instead of a tomb.
The meaning of φρουρά has been much
debated.112 Its normal meaning is something like ‘garrison’ (LSJ s.v. φρουρά),
more usually in fact referring to the personnel than to the place in which they
are stationed.113 Subsequently, however, in authors influenced by Plato, it
111
Chapter Two section 4 above.
112
Rohde 1925: 396n36, Boyancé 1963, Strachan 1970, Ferwerda 1985: 274-5, Bernabé
1995: 218-23, Edmonds 2013b: 275-80.
113
The pseudo-Platonic Axiochus, clearly depending on this passage, feels the difficulty, and
changes the word to φρούριον, ‘fort’: ἡμεῖς μὲν γὰρ ἐσμεν ψυχή, ζῷον ἀθάνατον ἐν θνητῷ
καθειργμένον φουρίῳ· τὸ δὲ σκῆνος τουτὶ πρὸς κακοῦ περιήρμοσεν ἡ φύσις, ‘For each of
us is a soul, an immortal being shut up in a mortal fortress; and Nature has put this hut
together for evil’, 371d.
266
5/6:
The body as tomb of the soul
seems clearly to have been interpreted as prison.114 The decisive evidence
comes in Plato’s other instance of the term, where it must mean something
like prison. The judge of the underworld sentences the guilty soul, and
‘immediately sends it away without honour to the φρουρά, to endure there
when it arrives the appropriate sufferings’ (ἀτίμως ταύτην ἀπέπεμψεν εὐθὺ
τῆς φρουρᾶς, οἷ μέλλει ἐλθοῦσα ἀνατλῆναι τὰ προσήκοντα πάθη, Grg. 525a).
This is confirmed by the combination of tomb and prison in the Phaedrus:
‘being pure and unentombed (ἀσήμαντοι) in this which carrying about we call
the body, imprisoned (δεδεσμευμένοι) like an oyster’ (καθαροὶ ὄντες καὶ
ἀσήμαντοι τούτου ὃ νῦν δὴ σῶμα περιφέροντες ὀνομάζομεν, ὀστρέου τρόπον
δεδεσμευμένοι, 250c). ἀσήμαντοι is a pun, twisting the usual meanings of
‘unmarked, unintelligible, insignificant’ (LSJ s.v. ἀσήμαντος) to one derived
from σῆμα, ‘tomb’.
We also saw δεσμωτήριον, ‘prison’, used as an
explanation of σῆμα in the Cratylus.
Are prison and tomb just variants of the same basic idea, or do they express
different concepts?
Here we perhaps should remember Plato’s fanciful
etymologies in the Cratylus. They move from the original pejorative sense of
the soul entombed in the body, through the neutral meaning of the body as
neque auras dispiciunt clausae tenebris et carcere caeco, ‘closed in the blind darkness of
this prison they do not see out to the winds of air’, Verg. Aen. 6.733-4; ὡς οὖν ἄφθαρτον
οὖσαν τὴν ψυχὴν διανοοῦ ταὐτὸ ταῖς ἁλισκομέναις ὄρνισι πάσχειν, ‘the soul, being
incapable of death, is afflicted in the same manner as birds that are kept in a cage’, Plut.
Cons. uxor. 611d = OF595; εἶναι δὲ τὸν μὲν τόπον τοῦτον, ὃν κόσμον ὀνομάζομεν,
δεσμωτήριον ὑπὸ τῶν θεῶν κατεσκευασμένον χαλεπόν τε καὶ δυσάερον, ‘this place which
we call the universe, they tell us, is a prison prepared by the gods’, Dio Chrys. Or. 30.11 =
OF320, 429. For other examples, see Boyancé 1963: 8-10. For the guard-post
interpretation: vetatque Pythagoras iniussu imperatoris, id est dei, de praesidio et statione
vitae decedere, ‘Pythagoras bids us stand like faithful sentries and not quit our post until
God, our Captain, gives the word’, Cic. Sen. 73.
114
267
5/6:
The body as tomb of the soul
sign of the soul, to an actually positive one of the body keeping the soul safe.115
I suggest, therefore, that though Plato picked up the soma/sema idea as a
potentially fruitful one – the pun doubtless appealed to him – he was unhappy
with its negative connotations, and therefore changed the tomb to the weaker
form of a prison, and even to the actually positive form of a safe. If this is
correct, then the tomb version is the only one original in contemporary
religious thought, and the prison due to Plato himself.
Plato has yet another expression of this idea:116
οὐ γάρ τοι θαυμάζοιμ᾽ ἂν εἰ Εὐριπίδης ἀληθῆ ἐν τοῖσδε λέγει, λέγων – ‘τίς δ᾽
οἶδεν, εἰ τὸ ζῆν μέν ἐστι κατθανεῖν, τὸ κατθανεῖν δὲ ζῆν;’ καὶ ἡμεῖς τῷ ὄντι
ἴσως τέθναμεν: ἤδη γάρ του ἔγωγε καὶ ἤκουσα τῶν σοφῶν ὡς νῦν ἡμεῖς
τέθναμεν καὶ τὸ μὲν σῶμά ἐστιν ἡμῖν σῆμα,
(Grg. 492e-493a = Eur. fr. 638 = OF430, 457)
For I should not wonder if Euripides did not speak the truth when he said
‘Who knows if to live is to be dead and to be dead to live?’, and we are
perhaps really dead; for I once heard from the wise that we are dead now and
the body is our tomb
The Euripides quotation also appears in Aristophanes (Ran. 1082, 1477) and a
number of later sources.117 The idea that, in addition to being dead in this life,
humans are also really alive when they are dead is new, however, and it may
be that Plato has combined two similar-sounding concepts from different
sources. Heraclitus says something similar: ‘Immortals are mortals, mortals
immortals; living their death, dying their life’ (ἀθάνατοι θνητοί, θνητοὶ
ἀθάνατοι, ζῶντες τὸν ἐκείνων θάνατον, τὸν δὲ ἐκείνων βίον τεθνεῶτες,
115
For the body as a protection for the soul, see also Ti. 73b, 74a; Ferwerda 1985: 275,
Edmonds 2013b: 278.
116
Bernabé 2007a.
117
Dover 1993: 328.
268
5/6:
The body as tomb of the soul
DK22B62 = OF455).
Possibly these are ad hoc paradoxes invented by
Heraclitus and Euripides, unconnected to soma/sema.
The final piece of evidence for this concept in the classical period comes from
a fragment of the Protrepticus of Aristotle. After alluding to a saying of ‘the
ancients’ (οἱ ἀρχαιότεροι) that we live for punishment, which we shall examine
further in the next section, he adds:
πάνυ γὰρ ἡ σύζευξις τοιούτῳ τινὶ ἔοικε πρὸς τὸ σῶμα τῆς ψυχῆς, ὥσπερ γὰρ
τοὺς ἐν τῇ Τυρρηνίᾳ φασὶ βασανίζειν πολλάκις τοὺς ἁλισκομένους
προσδεσμεύοντας κατ’ ἀντικρὺ τοῖς ζῶσι νεκροὺς ἀντιπροσώπους ἕκαστον
πρὸς ἕκαστον μέρος προσαρμόττοντας, οὕτως ἔοικεν ἡ ψυχὴ διατετάσθαι
καὶ προσκεκολλῆσθαι πᾶσι τοῖς αἰσθητικοῖς τοῦ σώματος μέλεσιν.
(Arist. fr. 60 Rose = Protrepticus 44 = OF430)
For the conjunction of the soul with the body looks very much like a thing of
this sort; for as the Tyrrhenians are said to torture their captives often by
chaining corpses right onto the living, face to face, fitting limb to limb,
similarly the soul seems to be extended through and stuck onto all the
sensitive members of the body.
This gruesome image seems to express the same point of view as the wordplay
on σῶμα and σῆμα.
To return to the questions that I posed at the start of this section: is the
soma/sema concept linked to metempsychosis? Dodds sees the common
element as a puritan horror of the body, 118 though, as Bernabé observes,
Pythagoras seems to have been glad to recall his previous incarnations. 119 The
idea of the body as a garment of the soul, which we saw in Empedocles
(‘clothing it in a strange garment of flesh’, σαρκῶν ἀλλογνῶτι περιστέλλουσα
118
Dodds 1951: 152.
119
Bernabé 2013b: 136; as I remarked in section 2 above, however, many of these come via
Heraclides Ponticus, and may be suspected of being fictional.
269
5/6:
The body as tomb of the soul
χιτῶνι, DK31B126 = OF450), also appears in Epictetus and a variety of other
contexts unconnected with reincarnation.120 Obeyesekere has suggested that
the reference is not to incarnation in the present human body, but to the
whole cycle of rebirth,121 but there is no hint of this in the evidence reviewed
above. The metaphor in soma/sema is in fact ill adapted to metempsychosis:
a tomb is normally seen as a final resting place, not as somewhere you leave
and then return to. As we have seen, there is no real evidence for a link.
The evidence, then, for the soma/sema concept of the body as a tomb comes
primarily from Plato. There is one reference in Aristotle, but the sources that
ascribe it to Pythagoras may be later inventions. If we discard Plato’s own
etymological speculations, it does not appear that he knew much beyond the
bare phrase, except that its origin had some connection with Orpheus. The
variant of the body as prison rather than tomb may be Plato’s own adaptation.
The Euripidean paradox that death is life and life death, though juxtaposed
with these by Plato, is not clearly connected.
Although a link with
metempsychosis has sometimes been suggested, there is little evidence for
this, and the two concepts do not seem altogether compatible.
120
Edmonds 2013b: 281-2.
121
Obeyeskere 2002: 199-200; cf. Parker 1983: 300-1.
270
5/7:
7:
Penalty and recompense
Penalty and recompense
It is noticeable that in the evidence that we examined in the previous section
there is frequent reference to some kind of punishment. Aristotle stated that
in the initiation rites (τὰς τελετὰς) they say that everyone is by nature (φύσει)
made for punishment (ἐπὶ τιμωρίᾳ), and that the ancients (οἱ ἀρχαιότεροι) say
that the soul is punished (διδόναι τιμωρίαν) and that human beings live for
the chastisement of certain great faults (ζῆν ἡμᾶς ἐπὶ κολάσει μεγάλων τινῶν
ἁμαρτημάτων).122 Plato suggested that the reason that the equation of the
body to a tomb was originally made was that the soul is being punished for
something (ὠς δίκην διδούσης τῆς ψυχῆς ὧν ἕνεκα δίδωσιν, Cra. 400c =
OF430).
The Pythagoreans Euxitheus and Philolaus, if the quotations from them are
genuine, or else those later writers who invented them, 123 say that ‘the souls
of all were bound in the body and the life here for the sake of punishment’
(ἔλεγεν ἐνδεδέσθαι τῷ σώματι καὶ τῷ δεῦρο βίῳ τὰς ἁπάντων ψυχὰς
τιμωρίας χάριν, Euxitheus ap. Ath. 5.45 157c = OF430), and that ‘the ancient
theologians and seers also testify that through certain punishments the soul is
yoked together with the body as if buried in this tomb’ (μαρτυρέονται δὲ καὶ
οἱ παλαιοὶ θεολόγοι τε καὶ μάντιες, ὡς διά τινας τιμωρίας ἁ ψυχὰ τῶι σώματι
συνέζευκται καὶ καθάπερ ἐν σάματι τούτωι τέθαπται, Philol. DK44B14 = Clem.
Al. Strom. 3.3.17.1 = OF430). Iamblichus credits Pythagoras with the maxim
τίς ἂν οὖν εἰς ταῦτα βλέπων οἴοιτο εὐδαίμων εἶναι καὶ μακάριος, οἳ πρῶτον εὐθὺς
φύσει συνέσταμεν, καθάπερ φασὶν οἱ τὰς τελετὰς λέγοντες, ὥσπερ ἂν ἐπὶ τιμωρίᾳ πάντες;
τοῦτο γὰρ θείως οἱ ἀρχαιότεροι λέγουσι τὸ φάναι διδόναι τὴν ψυχὴν τιμωρίαν καὶ ζῆν
ἡμᾶς ἐπὶ κολάσει μεγάλων τινῶν ἁμαρτημάτων. (fr. 60 Rose = Protrepticus 43-4 = OF430)
122
123
Section 2 above.
271
5/7:
Penalty and recompense
‘we come for punishment and must be punished’ (ἐπὶ κολάσει γὰρ ἐλθόντας
δεὶ κολασθῆναι, Iambl. VP 85).124 We see also in Dio Chrysostom that humans
are not dear to the gods, but ‘are punished by them and have been born for
chastisement, being indeed in a prison in life for as long a time as we each live’
(κολαζόμεθά τε ὑπ’ αὐτῶν καὶ ἐπὶ τιμωρίᾳ γεγόναμεν, ἐν φρουρᾷ δὴ ὄντες ἐν
τῷ βίῳ τοσοῦτον χρόνον ὅσον ἕκαστοι ζῶμεν, Or. 30.10 = OF320, 429).
It is difficult to tell with a number of these sources how far they go back to the
classical period, and how far they reflect post-Platonic and neo-Pythagorean
ideas. The idea of punishment, however, is already present in Empedocles,
where a divine decree condemns the guilty daimon, or soul, to an extended
period of reincarnation in various forms (DK31B115 = OF449). It is not clear
what the daimon is guilty of. The text is uncertain: ‘whenever one in error,
from fear, ? his own limbs [defiles his own limbs through murder], having by
his error made false the oath he swore’ (εὖτέ τις ἀμπλακίηισι φόβῳ φίλα γυῖα
†μιν† [φόνῳ φίλα γυὶα μιήνῃ], †ὅς καὶ† ἐπίορκον ἁμαρτήσας ἐπομόσσῃ).
φόνῳ φίλα γυὶα μιήνῃ (‘defiles his own limbs through murder’), is an
emendation of the sixteenth-century editor Stephanus.125 Stephanus was
doubtless influenced by Plutarch, who says that Empedocles presented an
allegory of souls punished for murders and eating flesh and each other (φόνων
καὶ βρώσεως σαρκῶν καὶ ἀλληλοφαγίας δίκην τίνουσι, De esu carn. 1.7 996bc = OF318).126 Empedocles does, however, include himself among the guilty
See also Iamblichus De mysteriis 4.4, where ‘powers greater than us’ (οἱ μέντοι
κρείττονες ἡμῶν) ‘impose some punishment’ (τινα δὴ τιμωρίαν ἐπάγουσιν) on the soul for
its offences (ἁμρτημάτων).
124
125
Wright 1995 ad loc.
126
Edmonds 2013b: 334-6. Primavesi, however, sees the daimon as a guilty Olympian god,
with a cycle of punishment paralleling the Empedoclean cosmic cycle (Primavesi 2008: 251,
261-5). Although Empedocles does indeed say that he is no longer mortal, but an immortal
god (ἐγὼ δ’ ὑμῖν θεὸς ἄμβροτος οὐκέτι θνητὸς πωλεῦμαι, DK31B112 = OF447), I find it
difficult to believe that he is intending to add himself to the Olympian pantheon.
272
5/7:
Penalty and recompense
daimons, which would seem to entail on this reading that he was confessing
to murder. The interpretation that reincarnation is the punishment for eating
animals because animals may be reincarnated humans punished for eating
animals is suspiciously circular. We cannot really tell why the daimon was
punished.
There is another term used by Pindar, which occasionally also appears in
contexts not obviously connected to the idea of the body as tomb. This is
ποινή, a word with a range of meanings including ‘penalty’, ‘reward’,
‘satisfaction’, ‘redemption’ and ‘recompense’ (LSJ s.v. ποινή). Although it only
occurs in a few sources concerned with the afterlife, it has been seen as a key
concept in a certain interpretation of those sources, and therefore requires
closer examination.
First, I shall briefly list the five relevant occurrences of the term in this
context.127 Pindar, in the Second Olympian, says that ‘the hapless souls of
those who have died here immediately render the ποινή’ (θανόντων μὲν
ἐνθάδ᾽ αὐτίκ᾽ ἀπάλαμνοι φρένες ποινὰς ἔτεισαν, Ol. 2.57-8 = OF445). In
fragment 133 (OF443, he speaks of those ‘from whom Persephone will receive
the ποινή of ancient grief’ (ὅισι δὲ Φερσεφόνα ποινὰν παλαιοῦ πένθεος
δέξεται). Moving further afield, in the sixth column of the Derveni Papyrus128
we read ‘the magi make offerings, as if, as it were, paying a ποινή’ (τὴν θυσίαν
... ποιοῦσιν οἱ μάγοι, ὡσπερεὶ ποινὴν ἀποδιδόντες). Two fourth century BC
funerary gold leaves129 from Thurii (A2-3) contain the words, addressed by the
soul to Persephone, ‘ποινή I have repaid on account of deeds not just’ (ποινὰν
Expressions such as δίκην ἐκτεῖσαι (Pl. Leg. 870e = OF433) may be meant as an
equivalent, but are more difficult to pick out.
127
128
Chapter Seven section 5.
129
Chapter Four section 2.
273
5/7:
Penalty and recompense
δ’ ἀνταπέτεισ’ ἔργων ἕνεκ’ οὔτι δικαίων).
Finally, the Gurôb Papyrus
(OF578)130 has ποινας followed by πατε (l.4), presumably the start of a
reference to fathers.
The explanation of this term frequently put forward, most notably by Bernabé,
but also by others,131 is that it refers to the Orphic myth of the killing of
Dionysus by the Titans, whose guilt has been inherited by humanity. The
presence of the myth has been seen in the sources listed above.
As I established in my earlier discussion of Orphism,132 we have no unequivocal
evidence for the myth before the Hellenistic period, and certainly none for the
idea that mankind inherited the guilt of the Titans. That does not preclude
their existence in earlier times, given the scanty evidence for anything in this
area, and the possibility that they might constitute some sort of secret
doctrine, (ἐν ἀπορρήτοις, Pl. Phd. 62b = OF429, 669). It is precisely this that
Bernabé and those that follow him believe to account for the allusions to ποινή
and punishment and indeed for metempsychosis seen itself as a
punishment.133 In view of the lack of direct evidence, we shall need to examine
critically each case.
I shall look at the five instances of ποινή listed above, at the references to
punishment that we examined earlier, and at other allusions from the classical
period that have been considered relevant. It must be recalled that the word
ποινή can bear a number of different meanings (penalty, reward, satisfaction,
130
Chapter Three section 10.
131
See e.g. West 1983: 170-1, Parker 1995: 496, Most 1997: 131-2, Johnston in Graf and
Johnston 2013: 127.
132
Chapter Two section 6 above.
133
Set out most fully in Bernabé 2002. For metempsychosis, see Bernabé 2011: 185-90,
following Proclus In Remp. 2.338.11-12 Kroll = OF338.
274
5/7:
Penalty and recompense
redemption, recompense), and that we need not assume that the meaning is
the same in each instance, or that the ποινή is incurred for the same reason.
In each case, we need to decide, as far as is possible, what is the meaning of
ποινή, in what does it consist, why it is incurred and what evidence there might
be of a connection to the guilt of the Titans.
(i)
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:
(Pind. Ol. 2.56-60 = OF445)
If one has and knows the future, that the hapless souls of those who have
died here immediately pay the ποινή, and one under earth judges the crimes
committed in this realm of Zeus, passing judgment with hateful necessity.
ἔτεισαν, from ‘to pay (a penalty)’ (LSJ s.v. τίνω 1), guarantees the meaning
‘penalty’ for ποινή here. The scholia on this passage are divided on whether
this is in effect a hendiadys, and the judgment of the anonymous judge is
precisely the imposition of the penalty, or whether we have a more
complicated situation with two separate groups.134 In any event, there is no
reason to doubt that the misdeeds for which the penalty is paid are those of
the person in question. There is nothing to suggest the Titans or inherited
guilt.
134
Long 1948: 32-4, Willcock 1995 ad loc, Bernabé 2007b: 163, Catenacci 2014-15. The
interpretation of Chrysippus, that the penalty was paid at the hands of the dead
(θανόντων) does not seem possible Greek (Χρύσιππος οὕτως ἀκούει ἐνθάδε μὲν ὑπὸ τῶν
θανόντων ἐτιμωρήθησαν, schol. vet. 104b), but it is interesting that he thought that the
dead as enforcers of justice plausible. See on this Megino Rodríguez 2019: 37-42.
275
5/7:
Penalty and recompense
(ii)
ὅισι δὲ Φερσεφόνα ποινὰν παλαιοῦ πένθεος
δέξεται, εἰς τὸν ὕπερθεν ἅλιον κείνων ἐνάτῳ ἔτεϊ
ἀνδιδοῖ ψυχὰς πάλιν,
(Pind. fr. 133 = OF443)
Those from whom Persephone will receive the ποινή of ancient grief, in the
ninth year she gives back to the sun above
This passage has been the subject of an ingenious analysis by Rose. 135 He takes
ποινή here to mean something like ‘compensation for’.136 The grief referred
to, he argues,137 cannot be the souls’, as they would not pay compensation for
their own grief, so must be Persephone’s. As gods cannot be grieved by mortal
actions, it must be caused by a god. It cannot be caused by her rape by
Hades,138 as humans have no responsibility for this. The only other divine
crime known that could be relevant is the killing of her son Dionysus by the
Titans, so this must have caused the grief. But if human souls have to pay
compensation for it, Pindar must have known of the Titans eating Dionysus
and man springing from their ashes, as otherwise they would have had no
guilt.
135
Rose 1936; see also Linforth 1941: 345-50, Rose 1943, Long 1948: 39-41, Bluck 1958a:
161, Holzhausen 2004: 32-4, Edmonds 2013b: 304-26.
As Rose sees, the meaning ‘penalty for the cause of grief’ for ποινὰν πένθεος would not
be normal Greek usage. The genitive for the offence after ποινή would be normal (LSJ s.v.
ποινή), but the use of πένθος for the cause of grief would not, despite LSJ’s citation of Pi.
Isthm. 7.37 (s.v. πένθος II), where the meaning ‘grief’ in fact makes perfect sense. Rohde’s
equation of πένθος with guilt (Rohde 1925: 442n34) is also not acceptable. If ‘penalty’
were to be retained, I would prefer an appositional genitive (Smyth 1956 §1322; Linforth
1941: 347), with ‘penalty of grief’ meaning ‘penalty consisting of grief’, but this would still
not explain why the penalty was imposed.
136
137
Rose 1936: 84-8.
138
As argued by Holzhausen 2004: 32-4, Edmonds 2013b: 304-26. Holzhausen suggests an
Eleusinian context for the fragment, but I see no sign of this.
276
5/7:
Penalty and recompense
Rose’s arguments have been generally accepted,139 but there are a number of
difficulties. His conclusion depends on a long chain of reasoning, even if each
individual step might seem plausible. It is strange that Persephone is still
exacting retribution from mankind. The actual perpetrators of the crime were
punished at the time, which ought to have settled the matter, and the victim
himself, Dionysus, seems to bear no grudge against humanity. I also find it
difficult to believe that the expression ‘ancient grief’ could be used of
something fairly temporary rather than something continuing. Dionysus was
quickly restored to life again, so the grief would have rapidly disappeared.
We should look at how Pindar uses the word ποινή elsewhere. It appears four
times in the epinicians.140 We have already seen it with the meaning ‘penalty’
in Olympian 2 ((i) above). In two cases the meaning is something like ‘reward’:
reward in the afterlife (Nem. 1.70) and reward in the form of Pindar’s own
song (Pyth. 1.59).141 In the Fourth Pythian, however, the meaning is closer to
‘remedy, release’: Battus, the stammering ruler of Kyrene, ‘asking the gods if
there is some ποινή for his ill-sounding speech’ (δυσθρόου φωνᾶς
ἀνακρινόμενον ποινὰ τίς ἔσται πρὸς θεῶν, Pyth. 4.63). This was read in
antiquity as equivalent to ‘change or release’ (ἀμοιβὴ ἢ λύσις, schol. vet. 111),
and this has been generally followed.142 The connecting logic is perhaps that
of ποινή as paying off or discharge.
In a context that clearly refers to reincarnation, as the souls are given back to
the sun above, we can then take ποινή πένθεος as release from the pains of
139
E.g by Burkert 1985: 298, Bernabé and Jiménez San Cristóbal 2008: 72, Graf and
Johnston 2013: 68-9.
140
Also fr. 52f.
‘Reward’ is also the usual meaning for the virtual synonym ἄποινα (Ol. 7.16, Pyth. 2.14,
Nem. 7.16, Isthm. 3/4.7, Isthm. 8.4); Edmonds 2013b: 307-8.
141
142
LSJ s.v.ποινή I.4, and e.g. Bowra 1969 ‘release’, Kirkwood 1985 ‘remedy’.
277
5/7:
Penalty and recompense
birth and rebirth.143 It is true that the immediate result is another incarnation,
but this is as rulers, athletes and philosophers, who ‘in the time to come are
called by men pure heroes’ (ἐς δὲ τὸν λοιπὸν χρόνον ἥρωες ἁγνοὶ πρὸς
ἀνθρώπων καλεῦνται). This then would be their final good incarnation before
achieving a permanent status as heroes.
I think there may be confirmation of this interpretation in a vocabulary cluster
centring on the concept of reincarnation. Empedocles (DK31B115 = OF449) by
an ancient (παλαιόν) decree exchanges one hard path of life for another
(ἀργαλέας βιότοιο μεταλλάσσοντα κελεύθους). In the fourth-century BC gold
leaf (A1) the soul who comes to Persephone (χθονίων βασίλεα) has flown out
of the hard cycle of heavy grief (κύκλου δ’ ἐξέπταν βαρυπενθέος ἀργαλέοιο),
which I have suggested refers to the cycle of reincarnation.144 There are
suggestive links in vocabulary (ἀργαλέος, παλαιός, πένθος) between Pindar,
Empedocles and the gold leaf, as well as the reference to Persephone. Both
παλαιός and πένθος are here linked with reincarnation.
ποινή, then, in this instance most plausibly refers to discharge from the
hardships and sorrows of reincarnation. It will be received or accepted
(δέξεται) by Persephone, in her capacity as queen of the world below, so it is
not initiated or decreed by her. We are not told by what mechanism or agency
this discharge comes about. Plato does cite this passage as a reason for living
as holy a life as possible (ὡς ὁσιώτατα διαβιῶναι τὸν βίον, Meno 81b = OF424),
which may mean he thinks the ποινή a reward for a virtuous life,145 though
So Linforth 1941:347, however taking ποινή as ‘penalty’. See also Seaford 1986: 7-8,
who suggests the reincarnated ones are the Titans themselves, for which there is no
evidence.
143
144
Section 5 above, and see (iv) below.
145
Bluck 1958a: 161n4.
278
5/7:
Penalty and recompense
Plato, as we have seen,146 was prone to reinterpret initiates as the virtuous
(Phd. 69d = OF576, 81a, Grg. 493a = OF434). If we reject Rose’s interpretation,
as I think we must, there is no trace of the Titans or the guilt inherited from
them.
(iii)
I shall deal in greater detail with the Derveni Papyrus in subsequent
chapters.147 Here I shall only look at the reference to ποινή, anticipating to
some extent my conclusions there.
The sixth column describes how hindering daimons (δαίμονες ἐμποδών) block
the way of the souls of the initiates, until they are removed or changed
(μεθιστάναι) by the incantations of the magi. ‘For this reason, the magi make
offerings, as if, as it were, paying a ποινή’ (τὴν θυσίαν τούτου ἕνεκεν ποιοῦσιν
οἱ μάγοι, ὡσπερεὶ ποινὴν ἀποδιδόντες, VI.4-5). They offer many-knobbed
cakes with wineless libations of water and milk.
This use of ποινή has also been linked by Bernabé to the crime of the Titans.148
As I noted above, it is a feature of his theory that the Derveni theogony is
supposed to be an early version of the Rhapsodic theogony which contains this
myth. There is no trace of the myth in what we have, however, and indeed it
emphasises the primacy of Zeus,149 not Dionysus, who is not mentioned.
It is clear that ποινή is not used here in the same way as (i) or (ii) above, being
neither a sentence of a judge on an individual, nor a release from
reincarnation. There is in fact no mention of either judges or metempsychosis
146
Section 4.
147
Chapter Seven section 5 and Chapter Eight below.
148
Bernabé 2014: 45-6; see also Parker 1995: 496, Most 1997: 131-2.
149
Betegh 2004: 182-223.
279
5/7:
Penalty and recompense
in this document, any more than there is of hindering daimons or magi in
Pindar. We are dealing with a very different picture of the afterlife. The
offerings are not actually said to be a ποινή, but just to be similar (ὡσπερεί) to
one. I suggest that the meaning might be something like ‘recompense’ or
‘redemption’, in the sense of what is due to the daimons in order to neutralise
them.150
(iv)
In three fourth century BC funerary gold leaves from Thurii (A1-3) with
similar text, the soul of the deceased comes before Persephone and the other
deities of the underworld, asking that it may be sent to the seats of the
blessed. In support of this request, the soul makes, among others, the
following statements: ‘I also claim I am of your blessed race’ (καὶ γὰρ ἐγὼν
ὑμων γένος ὄλβιον εὔχομαι εἶμεν, A1-3), ‘ποινή I have repaid on account of
deeds not just’ (ποινὰν δ’ ἀνταπέτεισ’ ἔργων ἕνεκ’ οὔτι δικαίων, A2-3), ‘I flew
out of the hard circle of heavy grief’ (κύκλου δ’ ἐξέπταν βαρυπενθέος
ἀργαλέοιο, A1).
As the soul has already repaid (ἀνταποτίνω) the ποινή when it appears before
Persephone, it is natural to suppose that it has done this before its death. The
reference to exiting the cycle of heavy grief may be to the cycle of
reincarnation. Again, we are not told either the nature of the unjust deeds or
the means of expiating them. It seems clear, however, that it cannot relate to
humanity’s descent from the Titans, as the soul’s lineage is put forward as a
boast (εὔχομαι) to recommend it to Persephone, which would be impossible
if it were the cause of their guilt and Persephone’s grief.
150
Johnston 1999: 138 suggests that it is intended to atone for the deaths of the daimons
themselves, the reasoning for which I do not follow.
280
5/7:
Penalty and recompense
We can look at this in conjunction with gold leaf D3, from 4th century BC Pherai,
which after giving a number of passwords 151 goes on: ‘Enter the sacred
meadow. For the initiate is ἄποινος.’ (εἴσιθι ἱερὸν λειμῶνα. ἄποινος γὰρ ὁ
μύστης). Here it is made explicit that the state which leads to the better fate
is the result of initiation. The rare word ἄποινος,152 presumably meaning
something like ‘without ποινή to pay’, may imply that the initiate has already
paid the ποινή in the initiation, thus harmonising with the statements in A1-3,
or it may represent the slightly different conception that because of the
initiation he or she has no penalty to pay at all. As we saw in the previous
chapter, we cannot assume that the gold leaves all have the same origin or are
consistent among themselves.
(v)
The final example that actually uses the word ποινή comes from Egypt,
the third century BC Gurôb Papyrus (P. Gurôb 1 = OF578), which I discussed in
an earlier chapter.153 The fourth line preserves just the words α τεμον ποινας
πατε, which places ποινή in connection with fathers or ancestors. West’s
supplementation of --πατε to πατέρων ἀθεμίστων, ‘lawless ancestors’, is
designed to link this with the Orphic myth of the Titans (προγόνων ἀθεμίστων,
‘lawless ancestors’, Dam. In Plat. Phd. 1.11 = OF350). Later in the text, there
are references to ‘one Dionysus’ (εις διονυσος, l.23), and to a bull-roarer,
151
σύμβολα· Ἀνδρικεπαιδόθυρσον. Ἀνδρικεπαιδόθυρσον. Βριμώ. Βριμώ.
ἄποινος in this sense appears to be a hapax. There is a noun ἄποινα (by haplology from
ἀπόποινα, LSJ s.v.) used in Homer for ‘ransom’ and generally with meaning similar to ποινή,
a possible adjective ἀποίνιμος (conjectured for Hes. fr. 124 MW = schol. Pl. Symp. 183b as
an opposite of ἐμποίνιμος) meaning an offence ‘not incurring punishment’ (of breaking
lover’s oaths), and a later-attested adjective ἄποινος with the meaning ‘wineless’
(libations) (Eust. Il. 8.518). Translations offered for ἄποινος in D3 include ‘has paid the
price’ (Bremmer 2002: 22) ‘sine poena’ (Bernabé 2004-7 ad OF493), ‘free from punishment’
(Bernabé and Jiménez San Cristóbal 2008: 157), ‘without penalty’ (Edmonds 2011b: 37) and
‘is redeemed’ (Graf and Johnston 2013: 39). See also Bernabé and Jiménez San Cristóbal
2008: 157-8, Edmonds 2013: 319n60.
152
153
Chapter Three section 10. Text: Hordern 2000; translation: Graf and Johnston 2013:
217-8.
281
5/7:
Penalty and recompense
knucklebones and a mirror (ρομβος αστραγαλοι ... εσοπτρος, ll.29-30), which
were named several centuries later by Clement of Alexandria (Protr. 2.17-18 =
OF306) as the toys used by the Titans to decoy Dionysus. In contrast to the
earlier passages, this does at least combine several features connected to the
myth.
The papyrus, however, contains a great deal of other material interspersed
with this, including a reference to a possibly initiatory rite, invocations of
Demeter, Rhea, the Kouretes, Eubouleus, Pallas and Irikepaios, and what seem
to be passwords or formulaic statements made by initiates. It may be a hieros
logos of the kind mentioned in a Ptolemaic edict (P. Berlin 11774). Even if, as
I found plausible in my earlier discussion, it is connected with a Dionysiac
initiation cult, it certainly includes a number of decidedly eclectic elements.
We just do not have sufficient context to say what ποινή means here.
(vi)
Passing to other sources which do not use the word ποινή, but have
been linked to it, we have first of all the references to punishment that I listed
above.
As these were connected with the soma/sema concept, the
punishment must be normal human life on earth.
The reason for these punishments is never specified, and indeed seems to be
left deliberately indefinite and vague.154 We find such phrases as ‘certain great
faults’ (μεγάλων τινῶν ἁμαρτημάτων, Arist. fr. 60 = OF430), ‘punishment for
that it is punished for’ (δίκην διδούσης ... ὧν ἕνεκα δίδωσιν, Pl. Cra. 400c =
OF430), ‘certain punishments’ (τινας τιμωρίας, Philol. DK44B14 = OF430), and
later in Cicero ‘some crimes’ (scelera, Hortensius fr. 88). We might also
compare ‘on account of deeds not just’ (ἔργων ἕνεκ’ οὔτι δικαίων) in the gold
leaves ((iv) above). This studied reticence seems more than accidental. It may
154
Bianchi 1966: 117-8.
282
5/7:
Penalty and recompense
be that it was a secret doctrine that they were not allowed to reveal, though
it is not clear what the source would be of a prohibition that would bind all
these disparate authors. It may simply be that they did not know, that they
had heard of the saying that human life was a punishment, but knew no more
than that.
(vii)
Plato remarks in the Phaedrus that ‘diseases and the greatest troubles
have fallen on certain families through ancient guilt’ (νόσων γε καὶ πόνων τῶν
μεγίστων, ἃ δὴ παλαιῶν ἐκ μηνιμάτων ποθὲν ἔν τισι τῶν γενῶν, 244d =
OF575). In the Republic, he refers to travelling priests who can cure (ἀκεῖσθαι)
‘wrongs committed by a man or his ancestors’ (ἀδίκημά του γέγονεν αὐτοῦ ἢ
προγόνων, 364c = OF573).155 These are in both cases clearly the misdeeds of
human ancestors.156 Elsewhere Plato ascribes temple robbing to an evil
neither human nor divine (οὐκ ἀνθρώπινόν ... κακὸν οὐδὲ θεῖον) bred in
humans from ancient unpurified wrongdoing (ἐμφυόμενοις ἐκ παλαιῶν καὶ
ἀκαθάρτων τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ἀδικημάτων, Leg. 854b = OF37), which also may
denote crimes of ancestors.157
(viii)
Some references to the Titans have been seen as relevant. Xenocrates
said that the φρουρά of the Cratylus was ‘Titanic and culminates in Dionysus’
(Τιτανική ἐστιν καὶ εἰς Διόνυσον ἀποκορυφοῦται, fr. 219 = OF38). It appears,
however, that he subscribed to the doctrine that the human race had existed
forever (semper humanum genus fuisse, Censorinus D.N. 4.3 = fr. 59 Heinze),158
in which case he could not have been referring to its Titanic origin. He must
155
Chapter One section 4.
156
Gagné 2013: 351, 361.
‘Neither human nor divine’ is puzzling. Dodds (1951: 177n133) sees a reference to the
Titans. Edmonds (2013b: 330-2) suggests the Erinyes.
157
158
Linforth 1941: 339.
283
5/7:
Penalty and recompense
have just meant that the prison was as secure as that of the Titans in Tartarus
(Hes. Th. 717-814): as far below the earth as would take an anvil ten days to
fall, they are hidden in a mouldy dark place walled in bronze and may never
leave (τοῖς οὐκ ἐξιτόν ἐστι, 732).
Plato in the Laws describes the worst kind of men as ‘showing and imitating
the old Titanic nature we are told of, reverting to the same things and passing
a hard existence not ceasing from evil’ (τὴν λεγομένην παλαιὰν Τιτανικὴν
φύσιν ἐπιδεικνῦσι καὶ μιμουμένοις, ἐπὶ τὰ αὐτὰ πάλιν ἐκεῖνα ἀφικομένους,
χαλεπὸν αἰῶνα διάγοντας μὴ λῆξαί ποτε κακῶν, 701c = OF37).159 ‘Imitating’
(μιμουμένοις) implies that the men are not Titanic themselves, and Cicero
interprets the passage as referring to their war against the gods in the
Titanomachy (illi caelestibus ... adversentur, Leg. 3.2.5).
(ix)
In some gold leaves from Pelinna, third century BC the soul of the
deceased is instructed to tell Persephone that Bacchios himself has freed it
(Βάκχιος αὐτὸς ἔλυσε) (D1-2).160 This is usually read in conjunction with an
Orphic fragment preserved by one of the later Neoplatonists, which says that
Dionysus is called Lusios,161 as he has power over (τοῖσιν ἔχων κράτος) lawless
ancestors (προγόνων ἀθεμίστων) and can release men from harsh suffering
and boundless frenzy (Dam. In Plat. Phd. 1.11 = OF350). The gold leaves
presumably refer to a Dionysiac initiation. The Orphic fragment does bring
Dionysus for once into contact with ancestral guilt, but it is difficult to see how
this could refer to the Titans. As they have been destroyed, in what sense
159
Bernabé 2002: 418-20 argues for a reference to the Orphic myth, Linforth 1941: 339-45
and Edmonds 2013b: 326-34 against.
160
Graf 1991: 89-91, Graf 1993: 243-4, Parker 1995: 498, Edmonds 1999: 54-5, Bernabé and
Jiménez San Cristóbal 2008: 66-76, Bernabé and Jiménez San Cristóbal 2011: 79-81,
Edmonds 2013b: 322-4.
161
See Chapter Three section 6.
284
5/7:
Penalty and recompense
could he have power over them? There is no reason why ordinary human
ancestors should not be meant.
To sum up then, although the word ποινή recurs in a number of contexts, five
in all, relating to the afterlife, and has therefore been seen as representing a
consistent and significant concept, it is used in normal Greek to cover a wide
range of meanings and does not appear to have the same meaning in all these
instances.
It most probably means a penalty for one’s own misdeeds in (i), a discharge
from the cycle of reincarnation in (ii), the recompense due to the hindering
daimons to neutralise them in (iii), and perhaps the whole cycle of
reincarnation in (iv); we do not know what it means in (v). Except in (v), there
is no mention of and nothing that could plausibly link to the Titans, as is also
the case with other references to punishments and crimes (vi, vii, ix). Where
ancestors are mentioned, they are clearly human ones (vii), and other allusions
to the Titans are not connected (viii).
There is much that remains unexplained. As I have observed, we are never
actually told why the punishments of imprisonment in the body, or indeed of
those exacted by Pindar’s judge below the earth, are incurred. We have seen,
however, no reason to doubt that they are due to the normal wrongdoing of
the human subjects themselves.
There are also the crimes of their human ancestors whose guilt they inherit, a
recurrent theme in classical Greece recently analysed by Gagné.162 Already in
Solon, ‘But one pays the penalty immediately, another later, and those who
escape themselves, and the doom of the gods does not overtake, it certainly
162
Gagné 2013.
285
5/7:
Penalty and recompense
comes again; the innocent pay, either the children or the subsequent family.’
(ἀλλ’ ὁ μὲν αὐτίκ’ ἔτεισεν, ὁ δ’ ὕστερον· οἳ δὲ φύγωσιν / αὐτοί, μηδὲ θεῶν
μοῖρ’ ἐπιοῦσα κίχηι, / ἤλυθε πάντως αὖτις· ἀναίτιοι ἔργα τίνουσιν / ἢ παῖδες
τούτων ἢ γένος ἐξοπίσω, fr. 13.29-32). Although the idea seems to have owed
some of its popularity to its adoption by the tragedians as a kind of literary
trope,163 it was certainly well established by the fourth century, when, for
example, orators could speak of those punished ‘for their ancestors’ faults’
(διὰ τὰ τῶν προγόνων ἁμαρτήματα, [Lys.] 6.20) and of a ‘punishment deferred
to their children’ (εἰς τοὺς παῖδας ἀναβληθήσεσθαι τὰς τιμωρίας, Isoc. Bus.
25).164 We have seen similar remarks in Plato (vii above).
163
Gagné 2013: 344-51.
164
Isocrates is contrasting the Egyptians, who do not believe this, with the Greeks who do;
Gagné 2013: 465.
286
5/8:
8:
Conclusion
Conclusion
There are six sources for the theory of metempsychosis in the classical period
before Plato. Pythagoras was early associated with the idea, but it is difficult
to disentangle what he might have believed from the later accretion of legend
and Neopythagorean speculation.
Parmenides and Empedocles also
subscribed to the doctrine, but the remarks of Parmenides are too brief to be
very enlightening, and in Empedocles metempsychosis is bound up with his
idiosyncratic theory of the cosmic cycle of Love and Strife. We have also brief
references in Pindar, in Herodotus, wrongly attributing the idea to the
Egyptians, and in a gold leaf, all difficult to interpret. It is clear that we are not
dealing with a consistent system common to these six sources, as there are
major differences in such matters as its extension to plants as well as animals,
whether reincarnation was random or went in a prescribed cycle, the time
periods involved and whether the process was a direct one or interspersed
with periods in the traditional Hades.
The idea that human beings are judged in the afterlife, of which there is little
trace in earlier times, seems to have been fairly well established by the fifth
and fourth centuries BC, as we find it in Aeschylus, Aristophanes and
Demosthenes; it is combined with metempsychosis in Pindar.
In Plato,
however, it takes centre stage, as a chief motive behind Plato’s myths of the
afterlife, including those involving metempsychosis, is to support his case for
living a good and virtuous life, which requires that humans should be punished
or rewarded as appropriate. It is not clear that Plato actually believed that this
was anything more than a salutary fable; certainly, he appears to have
invented the details in his different accounts, and it is unlikely that he knew
much more about metempsychosis as a religious doctrine than we do.
287
5/8:
Conclusion
It was not usually supposed that people could remember their previous lives;
Pythagoras may be an exception, but this is possibly later legend. Plato’s
account of anamnesis seems to be using metempsychosis as a kind of
rhetorical device to support a characteristically Platonic theory. There is a
difference of view as to whether humans are ever released from reincarnation:
apparently so in Pindar and perhaps Empedocles, but not in Pythagoras and
Herodotus. Only in a single gold leaf do we find a close association between
release and the concept of reincarnation as a cycle.
For the idea of the body as the tomb of the soul, apart from a passing remark
in Aristotle and some Pythagorean references which may be later inventions,
we are dependent on Plato. Analysis of the main source in the Cratylus shows
that he took the idea from ‘Orpheus and those around him’; the various
etymologies he suggests for it are his own, as probably is the variant of the
body as prison. The Euripidean paradox that life is death and death life is very
likely not connected. It is difficult to see, however, how the body as tomb of
the soul can be combined with metempsychosis.
This concept of the body as a tomb is frequently linked with the idea that
humans are being punished in this life. A connection has also been made with
the term ποινή, which occurs twice in Pindar, in the Derveni Papyrus, in one of
the gold leaves and in the Gurôb Papyrus. An explanation has been offered
based on the Orphic myth of the murder of Dionysus by the Titans, from which
mankind has inherited a guilt they need to expiate. However, there is no clear
evidence of this in the classical period, and the term ποινή appears to bear
different meanings in the instances cited. The only guilt involved seems to be
that incurred by the subject’s own wrongdoing, or that of his human ancestors.
288
5/8:
Conclusion
We finally need to consider if there is any link between these ideas and private
initiation offering a better fate in the afterlife. 165
We saw that
metempsychosis does not necessarily involve a release from the cycle, which
would be an essential component of this. There are two significant allusions
in Plato. In the Meno, the doctrine that the soul dies and is born again, but
never perishes, is ascribed to men and women learned in divine matters
(ἀνδρῶν τε καὶ γυναικῶν σοφῶν περὶ τὰ θεῖα πράγματα, 81a = OF424, 666),
comprising poets such as Pindar and ‘those of the priests and priestesses who
have taken the trouble to give the reason for what they practise’ (τῶν ἱερέων
τε καὶ τῶν ἱερειῶν ὅσοις μεμέληκε περὶ ὧν μεταχειρίζονται λόγον οἵοις τ᾽ εἶναι
διδόναι, 81a-b). Although this does not actually specify private practitioners,
metempsychosis was not a part of any known public cult. Also, the language
strongly recalls the strictures of the Derveni Papyrus (col. XX) against those
who perform the rites without explaining what they are doing, and are
described as professionals (παρὰ τοῦ τέχνην ποιουμένου τὰ ἱερά) contrasted
with those concerned with the public rites in cities (πόλεσιν ἐπιτέλεσαντες).
In the Laws, too, he refers to the punishment of those who return here again
from Hades (πάλιν ἀφικομένοις δεῦρο, 870d = OF433) as something heard
from ‘those who consider such things seriously in the rites’ (τῶν ἐν ταῖς
τελεταῖς περὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα ἐσπουδακότων, 870d), again seeming to distinguish
them from more ignorant practitioners.
Plato also says that the doctrine that humans are in a φρουρά is something
taught in secret (ἐν ἀπορρήτοις, Phd. 62b = OF429, 669), and contrasts those
initiated (ἐτελοῦντο τῶν τελετῶν, μυούμενοι, Phdr. 250b-c) with those
165
Burkert 1972: 126, Casadesús 2011: 294-6, Huffman 2013: 244-6, Betegh 2014: 154-5,
Palmer 2014: 204-5. Lloyd-Jones 1985: 255 points out some Pindaric references to τελεταί
(fr. 131a, Ol. 3.41), but these are not necessarily connected with metempsychosis.
289
5/8:
Conclusion
entombed and imprisoned in the body.166 Aristotle says that they say in the
τελεταί (καθάπερ φασὶν οἱ τὰς τελετὰς λέγοντες, fr. 60 Rose = OF430) that
humans are all formed for punishment (ἐπὶ τιμωρίᾳ πάντες).
Most
interestingly, there is a comment by Xenocrates on Plato’s use of φρουρά: he
says it is ‘Titanic and culminates in Dionysus’ (Τιτανική ἐστιν καὶ εἰς Διόνυσον
ἀποκορυφοῦται, fr. 219 = OF38).167 As noted above, this is likely to refer to
their prison in Tartarus (Hes. Th. 717-814), but the appearance of Dionysus is
difficult to explain, and may plausibly be a reference to Dionysiac initiation.
I shall suggest below168 that initiation may also be involved in the Derveni
Papyrus and the in the gold leaves.
To sum up, then, we are not dealing with either a widespread or a systematic
doctrine, nor with one associated with any particular group. The belief was an
uncommon one, and the details not consistent between those who did hold it;
in particular, they did not agree on whether a release from the cycle of
reincarnation was possible. The myths of Plato, the most extensive body of
evidence, in fact tell us very little about his sources. The idea of the body as
the tomb or prison of the soul, with the associated concept of this life as a
punishment, may not be connected. The term ποινή, sometimes seen as the
key to all this, has different meanings in the few instances it appears in this
context, and cannot be proved to have any link with the later Orphic myth of
the Titans. Although metempsychosis was not always associated with private
166
The characterisation as the most blessed (μακαριωτάτην) of mysteries and the
vocabulary (μυούμενοι, ἐποπτεύοντες), however, here suggests he has Eleusis in mind.
167
Strachan 1970: 218-20.
168
Chapter Eight.
290
5/8:
Conclusion
initiation rites offering a release from the cycle, it certainly seems to have been
so in some cases, as was also the body as a tomb.
The picture, then, is not one of a single secret underground doctrine, but
rather of a number of ideas in circulation, being picked up by different people
and being developed by them in different ways. These people included the
private religious practitioners we examined in an earlier chapter.
291
6/1:
Introduction
Chapter Six
Daimons and Erinyes
1:
1:
Introduction ............................................................................................... 292
2:
Daimon as lesser divine being ................................................................... 294
3:
Daimon as soul of the dead ....................................................................... 297
4:
Personal daimon ........................................................................................ 300
5:
Bad daimons .............................................................................................. 303
6:
Erinyes ....................................................................................................... 306
7:
Eumenides ................................................................................................. 312
8:
Conclusion ................................................................................................. 314
Introduction
In the next two chapters, I want to examine four different sources, the
Pythagorean Notebooks, the lex sacra of Selinous, the funerary gold leaves and
the Derveni Papyrus, and to argue that in fact they have a great deal in
common in their view of the afterlife. One of these common elements is the
role of supernatural beings who are sometimes called daimons and Erinyes.
To show this, it is first necessary to analyse what is normally meant by these
terms in other sources of the classical period.
The usage of the term daimon in the classical period was various and not
precisely defined. I shall start with what seems to be its original meaning of a
lesser divine being, and then focus on three significant characteristics that it
subsequently acquired: the notion of daimons as souls of the dead, the
concept of a personal daimon for each of us and the idea of bad and hostile
292
6/1:
Introduction
daimons. In each case, I want to bring out what has perhaps been overlooked,
or at least not emphasised, namely the fact all of these uses of the term,
though grounded in earlier ideas, were comparatively late developments that
only appear in our sources in their full form in the fourth century. Although
precise dating is impossible, this will be relevant to our discussion in the next
chapter.
The Erinyes are often thought to be primarily concerned with murder of blood
kin, but I hope to show that this is not their basic function, but rather a literary
construct of the tragic poets, which may make the role that we shall see them
playing in the afterlife more comprehensible. Finally, it is also necessary to
discuss the Eumenides, as they are usually identified with the Erinyes, I think
rightly.
293
6/2:
2:
Daimon as lesser divine being
Daimon as lesser divine being
Fig. 10. Winged daimon
Collection of Classical Antiquities at the Altes Museum, Berlin: Mythological figure of a winged
daemon pictured in Corinthian plate (digital restoration)}. By
Korinthischer_Teller_mit_geflügeltem_Dämon_.JPG: Photographer: Marcus Cyronderivative work:
Excalibursword - This file was derived from: Korinthischer Teller mit geflügeltem Dämon.JPG:, CC BYSA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=19929754
A daimon (Fig. 10) in general usage was some kind of divine being, especially
one of lesser status than an actual god.1 The term could occasionally be used
of the gods themselves, as when Homer says of Aphrodite ἦρχε δὲ δαίμων (Il.
3.420), or the gold leaves refer to ‘the gods and other daimons’ (θεοὶ καὶ
δαίμονες ἄλλοι, A2-3).2 Homer also uses the term for a god or divine power
1
For general surveys, see Burkert 1985: 179-81, Algra 2009: 361-2, Sfameni Gasparro 2015.
This might, however, be taken as a compressed way of saying ‘the gods and the other
divine powers, the daimons’.
2
294
6/2:
Daimon as lesser divine being
that the speaker cannot identify: ‘a daimon was devising ill’ (κακὰ μήδετο
δαίμων, Od. 12.295), ‘a daimon misled me’ (παρά μ’ ἤπαφε δαίμων, Od.
14.488). In Hesiod or his continuator the offspring of a goddess and a mortal
man, ‘like to the gods’ (θεοῖς ἐπιείκελα, Th. 968), could be called a daimon (Th.
991). Socrates in Xenophon calls the unseen power of the gods τὸ δαιμόνιον
(Mem. 4.3.14). Plato ranks the daimons between the gods and the heroes
(Leg. 717b), and in the Symposium he calls Eros a δαίμων μέγας (202d) and
asserts that all daimons belong between gods and mortals (πᾶν τὸ δαιμόνιον
μεταξύ ἐστι θεοῦ τε καὶ θνητοῦ, 202d-e), with a special responsibility for
interpreting humans to gods and gods to humans through divination and ritual
(202e-203a).
In the Academy after Plato, their intermediate status was reflected in their
physical location. The Epinomis ascribed to Plato calls them a race of the air,
δαίμονας, ἀέριον δὲ γένος (984e), immediately below the stars, with which
we can connect the references of the Academician Xenocrates to invisible
sublunary daimons (ὑποσελήνους δαίμονας ἀοράτους, fr. 213 Isnardi Parente
= fr. 15 Heinze) and to great and powerful beings surrounding us (εἶναι φύσεις
ἐν τῷ περιέχοντι μεγάλας μὲν καὶ ἰσχυράς, Plut. De Is. et Os. 361c).3
An alternative and probably older conception of daimons below the earth is
seen in the one case where a daimon received cult: the agathos daimon, or
good daimon, was represented in the form of a snake, and sometimes holding
a cornucopia, and so as a wealth-producing chthonic spirit.4 It was invoked
On the questions surrounding Xenocrates’ view of daimons, see Detienne 1958, 1963,
Schibli 1993. Similar views are ascribed to the Persian magi by Diogenes Laertius: ‘they say
the air is full of images which flowing out by exhalation penetrate the eyes of the clearsighted’ (ἀλλὰ καὶ εἰδώλων πλήρη εἶναι τὸν ἀέρα, κατ’ ἀπόρροιαν ὑπ’ ἀναθυμιάσεως
εἰσκρινομένων ταῖς ὄψεσι τῶν ὀξυδερκῶν, D.L. 1.7). Cf. Apul. De deo Soc. 8, quin in eo
quoque aeria animalia gignerentur.
3
4
Burkert 1985: 180, Parker 2005: 421-2.
295
6/2:
Daimon as lesser divine being
when unmixed wine was served at a meal (ὅταν ἄκρατος οἶνος ἐπιδιδῶται,
προσεπιλέγειν ἀγαθοῦ δαίμονος, Diod. 4.3.4).5 I shall not be discussing this
further, as it is not relevant to the present study.
In general, however, it is clear that the concept of the daimon as an
intermediate being, or Zwischenwesen,6 was persistent throughout the
classical period. There are parallels from other cultures, such as Egypt and
Mesopotamia.7
5
Cf. Ar. Eq. 85, Vesp. 525.
6
Sonik 2013: 103-4.
7
Egypt: Lucarelli 2011: 109-12; Mesopotamia: Sonik 2013: 109-14, Verderame 2013.
296
6/3:
3:
Daimon as soul of the dead
Daimon as soul of the dead
The first trace of the notion of daimons as souls of the dead is in Hesiod, whose
gold race become daimons after death:
αὐτὰρ ἐπεὶ δὴ τοῦτο γένος κατὰ γαῖα κάλυψεν,
τοὶ μὲν δαίμονές εἰσι Διὸς μεγάλου διὰ βουλάς
ἐσθλοί, ἐπιχθόνιοι, φύλακες θνητῶν ἀμθρώπων,8
(Op. 121-3)
But when earth covered up this race, they are now daimons through the
counsel of great Zeus, noble, upon the earth, guardians of mortal men
Though this only applies to a vanished race of superior beings, it may have
suggested a more general application. Though they are under the earth (κατὰ
γαῖα κάλυψεν), they are also on it (ἐπιχθόνιοι), which may just reflect
conventional epic diction,9 or may reflect a certain confusion as to the location
of daimons in general.
There are a number of examples from the poets of those distinguished in life
becoming daimons after death: Phaethon (δαίμονα δῖον, Hes. Th. 991),
Ganymede (μιν ἔθηκεν δαίμονα, Th. 1346-7), Darius (δαίμονα Δαρεῖον, Aesch.
Pers. 620-1), Alcestis (νῦν δ’ ἔστι μάκαιρα δαίμων, Eur. Alc. 1003), Rhesus
(ἀνθρωποδαίμων10 κείσεται, [Eur.] Rhes. 971 = OF548).
They are all
exceptional people: Phaethon the son of a goddess seized by Aphrodite,
I follow West’s text for this disputed passage; see discussion in West 1978 ad loc. The
variants are not significant for my purpose.
8
9
E.g. κατὰ γαῖα καλύπτοι, Il. 6.464; ἀνθρώποισιν ἐπιχθονίοισιν, Od. 8.479.
On the oxymoron ἀνθρωποδαίμων (‘human divine being’), a hapax before the
Byzantines, see Plichon 2001: 20, Liapis 2012 ad loc. I take it to mean just a human who
has become divine, the paradoxical expression perhaps an indication of the rarity of the
situation.
10
297
6/3:
Daimon as soul of the dead
Ganymede taken to Olympus by Zeus, Darius a great king, Alcestis who gave
her life for her husband and Rhesus the son of a Muse. I think that what is
suggested is a kind of quasi-divinity rather than anything that would apply to
ordinary mortals.
The significant change appears in Plato. In the Cratylus he cites Hesiod on the
golden race and goes on to say ‘I therefore too hold to be a daimon every man
who is good, living and dead, and rightly to be called a daimon’. 11 In the
Republic he speaks of men exceptional for goodness in their life (ὅσσοι ἄν
διαφερόντως ἐν τῷ βίῳ ἀγαθοὶ, 469b), who have daimonic or divine qualities
(τοὺς δαιμονίους τε καὶ θείους, 469a) and whose graves should be honoured
as for a daimon (ὡς δαιμόνων, οὕτω θεραπεύσομέν τε καὶ προσκυνήσομεν
αὐτῶν τὰς θήκας, 469a-b). As daimons do not normally have graves, this might
suggest that he is assimilating them to heroes, for whom grave cults were well
established.12 Although Plato thus greatly extends the scope of post-mortem
daimon status, we seem still to be talking about exceptional cases.
For the Stoics, however, this could be the normal situation: ‘if souls persist,
they become the same as daimons’ (εἰ οὖν διαμένουσιν αἱ ψυχαί, δαίμοσιν αἱ
αὐταὶ γίνονται, Sext. Emp. Math. 9.74).13 There was indeed a question
whether all souls survived death, at least until the next conflagration, as
Cleanthes thought, or only the virtuous, as Chrysippus held. 14 Heroes were
defined as the surviving souls of the good (καὶ ἥρωας τὰς ὑπολελειμμένας τῶν
ταύτῃ οὖν τίθεμαι καὶ ἐγὼ τὸν δαήμονα πάντ᾽ ἄνδρα ὃς ἂν ἀγαθὸς ᾖ, δαιμόνιον εἶναι
καὶ ζῶντα καὶ τελευτήσαντα, καὶ ὀρθῶς ‘δαίμονα’ καλεῖσθαι, 389c.
11
12
Burkert 1985:203-8.
13
Megino Rodríguez 2019: 37-42.
Κλεάνθης μὲν οὖν πάσας ἐπιδιαμένειν μέχρι τῆς ἐκπυρώσεως, Χρυσίππος δὲ τὰς τῶν
σοφῶν μόνον, D.L. 7.157; Algra 2009: 371.
14
298
6/3:
Daimon as soul of the dead
σπουδαίων ψυχάς, D.L. 7.151).15 Plutarch also refers to souls becoming
daimons through virtue (δι’ ἀρετὴν ψυχῆς γενόμενοι δαίμονες, De gen.
593e).16
Before the fourth century, therefore, only the super-human in some sense, the
gold race, heroes and the like, became daimons after death. From Plato on
this became normal for ordinary humans, at least for the good ones.
15
Kalaitzi has shown that Macedonian tombstones have increasingly frequent heroising
aspects from the second century BC (Kalaitzi 2016: 507-9).
16
Detienne 1963: 107-8, who ascribes this view to the Pythagoreans.
299
6/4:
4:
Personal daimon
Personal daimon
The idea of a personal daimon for each of us is put most clearly by the Stoic
Epictetus: Zeus ‘has placed by each person a steward, their daimon, to whom
he has committed the guardianship of the man, one who never sleeps and is
never deceived’.17 This is a kind of internal daimon; 18 in the words of Seneca,
‘a holy spirit sits within us, witness and guardian of our good and bad deeds’. 19
We should, however be cautious in assuming that this Stoic concept was
prevalent at an earlier period. The examples usually quoted to support an
earlier use,20 at least before Plato, which I shall now consider, are mostly just
quasi-metaphors for fortune, character or the soul.
In the poets and tragedians throughout the classical period, what has been
taken as a personal daimon is normally a personification of fate or fortune:
‘whatever be your lot, work is best for you’ (δαίμονι δ᾽ οἷος ἔησθα, τὸ
ἐργάζεσθαι ἄμεινον, Hes. Op. 314), ‘I shall honour in my mind the fortune that
always attends me’ (τὸν ἀμφέποντ’ αἰεὶ φρασὶν δαίμον’ ἀσκήσω, Pind. Pyth.
3.108-9), ‘what mortal can boast that he was born with undamaged fortune
when he hears this?’ (τίς ἂν ἐξεύξαιτο βροτῶν ἀσινεῖ δαίμονι φῦναι τάδ’
ἀκούων;, Aesch. Ag. 1341-2), ‘the hard lot to which I have been yoked’
(στερρόν τε τὸν ἐμὸν δαίμον’ ᾧ συνεζύγην, Eur. Andr. 98-9), and ‘for I with my
own good fortune will take command of the army’ (ἐγὼ γὰρ δαίμονος τοὐμοῦ
ἐπίτροπον ἑκάστῳ παρέστησεν τὸν ἑκάστου δαίμονα καὶ παρέδωκεν φυλάσσειν αὐτὸν
αὐτῷ καὶ τοῦτον ἀκοίμητον καὶ ἀπαραλόγιστον (Dissertationes 1.14.12-13).
17
18
Algra 2009: 365-9.
19
Sacer intra nos spiritus sedet, malorum honorumque nostrorum observator et custos (Ep.
41.2).
20
For example, in KPT: 146, Ferrari 2011a: 51.
300
6/4:
Personal daimon
μέτα στρατηλατήσω, Eur. Supp. 592-3). Pindar also refers to a δαίμων
γενέθλιος (Ol. 13.105), apparently a kind of family daimon.
In philosophy, however, a personal daimon is often the equivalent of
someone’s soul or character. Already in Heraclitus we have ‘character is a
man’s daimon’ (ἦθος ἀνθρώπῳ δαίμων, DK22B119), and Empedocles
identified himself as a daimon (DK31B115 = OF449).21 Plato says ‘concerning
the chief type of the soul with us, we have to think of it like this, that the god
has given it to each one as a daimon’ (τὸ δὲ δὴ περὶ τοῦ κυριωτάτου παρ᾽ ἡμῖν
ψυχῆς εἴδους διανοεῖσθαι δεῖ τῇδε, ὡς ἄρα αὐτὸ δαίμονα θεὸς ἑκάστῳ
δέδωκεν, Ti. 90a). Aristotle quotes a saying of Xenocrates, that ‘fortunate is
he who has a virtuous soul, for this is the daimon of each one’ (εὐδαίμονα
εἶναι τὸν τὴν ψυχὴν ἔχοντα σπουδαίαν· ταύτην γὰρ ἑκάστου εἶναι δαίμονα,
Top. 112a).22
In none of these cases do we have the idea of a daimon that is both a separate
being and allotted to watch over us. In Plato, however, we do have such a
being. In the Phaedo the dead soul is led to judgment by a psychopomp who
is ‘the daimon of each to whom they had been allotted in life’ (ὁ ἑκάστου
δαίμων, ὅσπερ ζῶντα εἰλήχει, 107d), and in the myth of Er in the Republic, the
reborn souls are allotted a similar being by Lachesis: ‘she sent with each the
daimon they had chosen as guardian of their life and fulfiller of their choice’
(ἐκείνην δ᾽ ἑκάστῳ ὃν εἵλετο δαίμονα, τοῦτον φύλακα συμπέμπειν τοῦ βίου
καὶ ἀποπληρωτὴν τῶν αἱρεθέντων, 620d-e). Plato’s philosophical myths are,
however, very idiosyncratic, and there is no evidence that this was a general
conception, either among philosophers or among the general public. It may
therefore be that Plato originated this idea, combining the daimon as soul as
21
Wright 1995: 69-76.
22
The same idea still in Marcus Aurelius: ὁ δαίμων ... ὀ ἑκάστου νοῦς καὶ λόγος (5.27).
301
6/4:
Personal daimon
described above with Hesiod’s myth of the deceased golden race becoming
daimons and guardians of mankind in general (φύλακες θνητῶν ἀνθρώπων,
Op. 123), and that he in turn was a source for the Stoics. The divine voice
(δαιμόνιον ... φωνή, Ap. 31d) that spoke to Socrates to stop him doing what
he should not, although δαιμόνιον rather than an actual δαίμων, and peculiar
to Socrates rather than universal (Resp. 496c),23 will have influenced the
development of the concept.
The same idea seems to be present in Menander: ‘a daimon stands by every
man as soon as he is born, a good mystagogue of his life’ (ἅπαντι δαίμων ἀνδρὶ
συμπαρίσταται εὐθὺς γενομένωι μυσταγωγὸς τοῦ βίου ἀγαθός, fr. 714). The
term μυσταγωγὸς does not, I think, imply that this is specific to initiates, for
we are told it applies to everyone, but is simply a metaphor from the Eleusinian
mysteries, where every initiate (μύστης) had a μυσταγωγὸς as a kind of
sponsor24 who would lead him to a better life as would Menander’s daimon.
The evidence for a personal guardian daimon on the Stoic model in classical
times is in fact limited to the idiosyncratic myths of Plato and to Menander.
Again, as we saw with the dead as daimons, it seems that an idea that is first
originated in a speculative manner by Plato, perhaps rooted in the earlier
concepts of the daimon as fortune or character, has been taken up and
become standard.
23
Also in Xenophon, e.g. Mem. 1.1.2.
24
Mylonas 1961: 237.
302
6/5:
5:
Bad daimons
Bad daimons
So far, the daimons we have been considering have been generally beneficent
and good: semi-divinities, guardians of mankind in general or in particular, and
the souls of the eminent and virtuous. Philo, translating Greek concepts into
Jewish terms, was able to consider them the equivalent of biblical angels.25
The cases of daimon meaning fortune or character are more ambiguous, but
they are not by nature hostile to humans.26 A medical writer does refer to
those afflicted with imaginary terrors, who ‘think they see daimons hostile to
them’ (ὁρῆν δοκέειν δαίμονάς τινας ἐφ᾿ ἑωυτῶν δυσμενέας, Hippoc. De
virginum morbis VIII 466 Littré), but I am not aware of other instances from
the classical period.
By the time of Plutarch and Porphyry, however, this has changed, and we hear
of daimons that are bad (φαῦλος), working evil (κακοεργός), perverse
(δυστράπελος) or villainous (μοχθηρός).27 There is admittedly no consensus
on why some daimons are bad: Pseudo-Plutarch thinks they are the souls of
bad people (ἀγαθοὺς μὲν τὰς ἀγαθὰς κακοὺς δὲ τὰς φαύλας, Placita
philosophorum 882b), while Porphyry says the general opinion is that they
become angry through being neglected (χολωθεῖεν ἐπὶ τῷ παρορᾶσθαι, Abst.
2.37), though he himself thinks it is because they are overcome by the
‘Those other philosophers usually call daimons, Moses calls angels; they are souls flying
through the air’ (οὓς ἄλλοι φιλόσοφοι δαίμονας, ἀγγέλους Μωυσῆς εἴωθεν ὀνομάζειν·
ψυχαὶ δ’ εἰσὶ κατὰ τὸν ἀέρα πετόμεναι, De gigantibus 6).
25
Examples of the daimon as evil fortune or character are ‘another daimon turning to evil’
(δαίμων δ’ ἕτερος ἐς κακὸν τρέψαις, Pind. Pyth. 3.34-5), ‘the thrice-fattened daimon of the
race’ (τὸν τριπάχυιον δαίμονα γέννης, Aesch. Ag. 1476-7).
26
φαῦλος: Plut. De def. or. 417c, 419a, [Plut.] Placita philosophorum 882b, Porph. Abst.
2.36 = OF635; κακοεργός: Porph. Abst. 2.38; δυστράπελος, μοχθηρός: Plut. De def. or.
419a.
27
303
6/5:
Bad daimons
pneumatic substance (ὅσαι δὲ ψυχαὶ τοῦ συνεχοῦς πνεύματος οὐ κρατοῦσιν,
ἀλλ’ ὡς τὸ πολὺ καὶ κρατοῦνται, Abst. 2.38).
It has, however, long been recognised that in the passage where Plutarch
introduces the idea of bad daimons he is drawing on Xenocrates as his source,
which takes us back yet again to the fourth-century Academy.28 Detienne
believes that Xenocrates in turn based himself on Pythagorean sources,29 but
his evidence is weak. He argues that the existence of a bad daimon is
presupposed by references to a good daimon, such as the common word
εὐδαίμων, ‘fortunate’, Aristoxenus in discussing fortune (περὶ τύχης, fr. 41)30
and the Axiochos on those who heed a δάιμων ἀγαθὸς (371c), though all of
these can be classed under the usages of daimon as fortune or character that
we have already examined. His other examples, the Pythagorean Golden
verses (οἵῳ τῷ δαίμονι χρῶνται, 62), the spurious prologue of Zaleucus in
Stobaeus (ἐὰν δέ τῳ παραστῇ δαίμων κακὸς, 44.20 = 4.2.19), and the
Byzantine writer Lydus (δοιοὶ δαίμονές εἰσι κατ’ ἀνέρα, Mens. 4.101) are all
very late and rely on the supposition that they are here reflecting early
Pythagorean sources.
Iamblichus refers in his work on the mysteries to wicked daimons, δαίμονας
πονεροὺς, who are, however, unable to be an impediment (ἐμπόδιον) to the
practitioner of sacred rites (οὐδὲν ἐμπόδιον γίγνεται ἀπὸ τῶν κακῶν
28
The arguments for this are set out by Schibli 1993: 147-8, 155n54, with references to
earlier work, to which I have nothing to add. Although Plutarch also mentions Plato as a
source for his views (De def. or. 419a), there is nothing in the Platonic corpus to confirm
this; Schibli 1993: 147n23. Smith 1978: 435-6 offers a diagrammatic model, but leaves the
question of origins open.
29
Detienne 1958: 276-8.
30
Fourth-century ethics, rather than Pythagoreanism, according to Burkert 1972: 108.
304
6/5:
πνευμάτων, Myst. 3.31).31
Bad daimons
This has been connected with the figure of
Empousa.32 Empousa appears most vividly in the Frogs of Aristophanes, as a
horrible shape-changing being who confronts Dionysus and Xanthias in the
underworld: ‘terrible – it becomes all kind of things – now an ox, now a mule,
now a beautiful woman’.33 In Ecclesiazousai 1056 the name is applied to an
interfering old woman. Demosthenes says that Glaucothea, the mother of
Aeschines, was called Empousa (18.130); the reason he advances for this, that
she did and experienced everything (ἐκ τοῦ πάντα ποιεῖν καὶ πάσχειν),
suggests a sexual slur based on the idea of Empousa as a shape-changer.34 The
fourth-century BC writer Idomeneus of Lampsacus says Empousa was sent by
Hecate, and connects the name with ἐμποδίζειν, ‘to hinder’ (Ἔμπουσα δὲ ὑπὸ
τοῦ ἐμποδίζειν τοὺς ἀνθρώπους, fr. 17 = FGrH 338 F2). Later sources at least
believe her a kind of daimon (φάσμα δαιμονιῶδες, Hsch. s.v. Ἔμπουσα;
φάντασμα δαιμονιῶδες, schol. Ar. Ran. 293; τῆς δαίμονος, schol. Ap. Rhod.
3.861). We have here, therefore, as in Iamblichus, a hindering daimon, which
we shall encounter again in the Derveni Papyrus (δαίμονας ἐμποδών, col. VI).
31
πνεῦμα in the sense of δαίμων was first introduced in biblical Greek; LSJ s.v. πνεῦμα V.
32
Johnston 1999: 133-5. Álvarez-Pedrosa Núñez 2011 suggests a connection with the
Iranian daena, but the resemblance does not seem close.
δεινόν· παντοδαπὸν γοῦν γίγνεται τοτὲ μέν γε βοῦς, νυνὶ δ᾽ ὀρεύς, τοτὲ δ᾽ αὖ γυνὴ
ὡραιοτάτη τις, 289-91. For the suggestion that this reflects practice at Eleusis, see Brown
1991.
33
34
Brown 1991: 43-4.
305
6/6:
6:
Erinyes
Erinyes
Fig. 11. Erinyes
Apulian red-figure krater c. 340 BC. Badisches Landesmuseum, Karlsruhe. www.theoi.com
Another kind of hostile supernatural beings is the Erinyes (Fig. 11). The Erinyes
already appear in the Knossos Linear B tablets (e-ri-nu, KN Fp 1+, e-ri-nu-we,
KN V 52+), but our first information about them comes from the dozen
mentions in Homer.35 In several cases they are referred to as a single Erinys,
once described as a goddess.36 They come from Erebus (ἐξ Ἐρέβεσφιν) under
35
Heubeck 1986: 145-59.
36
Il. 9.454, 9.571, 19.87, Od. 15.234 (θεὰ); Heubeck 1986: 162-3.
306
6/6:
Erinyes
the earth (ὑπὸ γαῖαν),37 and are hateful (στυγεράς)38 and have implacable
hearts (ἀμείλιχον ἦτορ).39 They work covertly (ἠεροφοῖτις, walk in mist)40 and
cause blind infatuation (ἄτη)41 and sterility.42 Sometimes the motive for their
actions is obscure to us, as when they make Agamemnon take Briseis from
Achilles, stop the horse Xanthus speaking, and afflict Melampus with ἄτη.43
Usually, however, their function is to take revenge, whether on oath-breakers,
on Ares for deserting the Achaeans, or on Antinous for throwing a stool at
Odysseus.44
In several cases this revenge is associated with the family: they are invoked by
his father on Phoenix for sleeping with his father’s mistress, by his mother on
Meleager for killing his uncle, by his mother on Telemachus if he were to turn
her out, by his mother on Oedipus after her suicide.45 We are also told that
the Erinyes always favour the elder child (πρεσβυτέροισιν Ἐρινύες αἰὲν
ἕπονται).46 The claim that they were primarily associated with blood kin 47 is,
however, in view of the equal number of examples I quoted earlier unrelated
37
Il. 9.572, 19.259.
38
Il. 9.454, Od. 2.135, 20.78.
Il. 9.572. They are also called δασπλῆτις (Od. 15.234), of uncertain meaning; see
Hoekstra 1989 ad loc.
39
40
Il. 9.571, 19.87.
41
Il. 19.88, Od. 15.233.
42
Il. 9.954-6.
43
Il. 19.86-9, 19.418 (discussion in Johnston 1992), Od. 15.232-4.
44
Il. 19.260, 21.412-14, Od. 17.475-6.
45
Il. 9.453-6, 9.569-72, Od. 2.134-6, 11.279-80.
46
Il. 15.204.
47
Johnston 1999: 251-8.
307
6/6:
Erinyes
to this, not justifiable for the Erinyes in Homer, whatever may have been the
case later.
There are two cases where Homer gives us an intriguing glimpse of a further
possibility. In Book 3 of the Iliad, Agamemnon calls as witnesses to his oath
those who take vengeance on oath-breakers; the text (Il. 3.278-80) is
disputed:48
καὶ οἳ ὑπένερθε καμόντας [or καμόντες]
ἀνθρώπους τίνυσθον ὅτις κ᾽ ἐπίορκον ὀμόσσῃ,
ὑμεῖς μάρτυροι ἔστε,
With this should be compared the similar oath in Book 19, where Agamemnon
swears by, among others, the Erinyes (Ἐρινύες, αἵ θ᾽ ὑπὸ γαῖαν ἀνθρώπους
τίνυνται, ὅτις κ᾽ ἐπίορκον ὀμόσσῃ, 19.259-60); this has suggested that
τίνυσθον in Book 9 may be a mistake for τίνυνται.
There are three intelligible ways of reading this:
(i) with καμόντας (accusative) and τίνυσθον (dual), the two, presumably Hades
and Persephone, punish the oath-breakers after their death;
(ii) with καμόντας (accusative) and τίνυνται (plural), they, probably the Erinyes
by analogy with Book 19, punish the oath-breakers after their death;
(iii) with καμόντες (nominative) and τίνυνται (plural), the dead punish the
oath-breakers.
The difficulty with (i) and (ii) is that there is no evidence for punishment after
death in Homer, apart from the traditional folk-tale-like cases of Tityus,
48
Kirk 1985 ad loc., on which the following discussion is based.
308
6/6:
Erinyes
Tantalus and Sisyphus (Od. 11.576-600). It appears that vengeance comes
from the underworld, not to it; if ‘under earth’ from the Book 19 oath (ὑπὸ
γαῖαν, Il. 19.259) may be thought ambiguous as to whether it refers to the
Erinyes or the humans, ‘the Erinys heard from Erebus’ (Ἐρινὺς ἔκλυεν ἐξ
Ἐρέβεσφιν, Il. 9.571-2) is not. What seems conclusive is that later in this
passage in Book 3 we are specifically told that the oath-breakers and their
children will come to a bloody end and their wives be enslaved (Il. 3.299-301),
a punishment on the living not the dead. This leaves us with reading (iii),
where the dead themselves take vengeance. Also, if the analogy with the
nearly identical Book 19 oath holds, they do so in the guise of the Erinyes. 49
One other passage may be relevant to this. In Book 20 of the Odyssey
Penelope tells how the orphaned Pandareid maidens were showered with gifts
by the gods and about to be married, when they were, for what reason is not
clear, snatched by the Harpies who ‘gave them to the hateful Erinyes as
attendants’ (καὶ ῥ’ ἔδοσαν στυγερῆσιν ἐρινύσιν ἀμφιπολεύειν, 20.78). The
verb ἀμφιπολεύειν seems to imply they became some kind of assistants, as in
Hesiod, where the Erinyes themselves assist at the birth of Horkos the bane of
oath-breakers (φασιν Ἐρινύας ἀμφιπολεύειν Ὅρκον γεινόμενον, Op. 803-4),
and Johnston has suggested that they should be classed with the ἄωροι who
die prematurely before marriage and become a threat to the living. 50 Here
again there is an implication that the Erinyes are recruited from the dead.
The occasional classical references to the Erinyes outside Homer and tragedy
do not add much to the picture: Rhea invokes them on Kronos for his
49
Rohde 1925: 178-9 also suggested that the Erinyes were the dead, though he connected
this with their role in revenging murder, which as we have seen is not their primary
function in Homer.
50
Johnston 1999: 228-31.
309
6/6:
Erinyes
treatment of his father and sons,51 and they are behind the fraternal strife in
Thebes.52 In most cases there is no connection to family and the blood kin:
they are born from earth, assist at the birth of the personified Oath, punish
oath-breakers and keep the sun within its limits.53
It is with tragedy that they move into a leading role, and here the link with
murder in the family is almost universal.54 Their most frequent association is
of course with Orestes,55 but they are also prominent in the Theban saga,56
and occasionally appear with Heracles, Ajax and Medea.57 They are vividly and
memorably portrayed as ‘many-footed and many-handed’ (πολύπους καὶ
πολύχειρ, Soph. El. 489), ‘thickly entwined with snakes’ (πεπλεκτανημέναι
πυκνοῖς δράκουσιν, Aesch. Cho. 1049-50); they ‘snore with repulsive breath
and drip foul drops from their eyes’ (ῥέγκουσι δ’ οὐ πλατοῖσι φυσιάμασιν· ἐκ
δ’ ὀμμάτων λείβουσι δυσφιλῆ λίβα, Aesch. Cho. 53-4) and will ‘roll you like a
wheel in maddened wandering’ (τροχηλατήσουσ’ ἐμμανῆ πλανώμενον, Eur.
El. 1253).
I should like, however, to suggest that our familiarity with the striking images
of tragedy may have skewed our view of the Erinyes. It seems to me arguable
51
Hes. Th. 472.
52
Thebais fr.2, Pind. Ol. 2.41, Hdt. 4.149.
53
Hes. Th. 184-5 (other theogonies at Epimenid. frr. 7,19, Bacchyl. fr. 24), Op. 803-4, Alc. fr.
129.13-14, Heraclit. DK22B94.
54
The number of references to the Erinyes in the three tragedians greatly outweighs the
number of references elsewhere in the classical period. I cite only a few examples below.
55
E.g. Aesch. Ag. 1432-3, Cho. 1048-54, Eum. 46-59 and passim; Soph. El. 110-16; Eur. El.
1252-3, IT 78-81, Or. 37-8.
56
E.g. Aesch. Sept. 695-701 and passim; Eur. Phoen. 1502-4.
57
E.g. Soph. Trach. 807-9 (Heracles), Aj. 835-44 (Ajax, an instance unconnected with the
family); Eur. Med. 1389-90 (Medea).
310
6/6:
Erinyes
that they were adopted by Aeschylus simply as a literary device, and taken
over by the others from him as a by now traditional part of the story. Gagné
has described a similar phenomenon in the case of ancestral fault, which does
not appear to feature prominently in previous myth, but seems rather to have
been introduced by the tragedians as a kind of literary trope.58 Their supposed
close association with blood kin murder, which as we have seen is not strongly
marked in the earlier sources, would then be a function of our reliance on
tragedy for our portrayal of the Erinyes, and the more open picture we get
from Homer probably a truer reflection of their role in popular belief, at any
rate before this in turn became influenced by the tragedies.
In one case in tragedy, there is again the implication that the Erinyes might be
the dead. In the Seven against Thebes, Aeschylus refers to the ‘revered shade
of Oedipus, the black Erinys’ (πότνια τ’ Οἰδίπου σκιά, μέλαιν’ Ἐρινύς, 978-9,
and similarly 886-7, πατρὸς Οἰδιπόδα πότνι’ Ἐρινὺς). It is difficult to interpret
this in any other way than that the dead Oedipus has become one of the
Erinyes.59 I shall discuss the relationship between daimons, the Erinyes and
the dead more fully in the succeeding chapters.
58
Gagné 2013: 344-51.
59
Johnston objects that this is just poetry, and that the ghosts of males would not become
female spirits (Johnston 1999: 274), but we know too little about the matter to be sure of
this.
311
6/7:
7:
Eumenides
Eumenides
In the Eumenides of Aeschylus, the Erinyes are transformed into the
Eumenides, and this is often assumed to be just another name for them, their
more propitiatory equivalent, although this connection cannot be traced
before Aeschylus.60 They did receive cult,61 which was not normal for the
Erinyes,62 and were specially connected with agrarian fertility, human
reproduction, heroes, Zeus Meilichios and the world of the dead. 63 In Athens
they were known as the Semnai Theai.64
The equation of the Erinyes and the Eumenides is certainly accepted by
Euripides, who unusually calls his maddening goddesses of vengeance
Eumenides (Or. 37, 321, 836). It is implied by Sophocles, who says of them
‘the people here would call them the all-seeing Eumenides, but elsewhere
other names are approved’ (τὰς πάνθ᾽ ὁρώσας Εὐμενίδας ὅ γ᾽ ἐνθάδ᾽ ἂν εἴποι
λεώς νιν: ἄλλα δ᾽ ἀλλαχοῦ καλά, OC 42-3); this may refer to the Semnai Theai,
but the reluctance to specify the alternative name suggests something more
unpleasant. The equation is also accepted by the fourth-century orator
Dinarchus: ‘so too they call the Erinyes Eumenides’ (οὕτω δὲ καὶ τὰς Ἐρινύας
Εὐμενίδας λέγουσιν, Or. 6 fr. 7*). We can conclude that whether or not the
identification originated with Aeschylus, it was generally accepted by the
60
Johnston 1999: 272-3.
61
Paus. 2.11.4, 7.25.1, 7.25.7, 8.34.1-3.
62
But see Hdt. 4.149 for Sparta, Paus. 8.25 for Demeter Erinyes; Henrichs 1994: 37-9,
Johnston 1999: 270, Piano 2016: 98n59, and for wineless libations to propitiate the Erinyes,
Chapter Seven section 5 below.
63
Henrichs 1984: 263.
64
Paus. 1.28.6; Parker 2005: 102, 406,442.
312
6/7:
Eumenides
fourth century. Janko has suggested a possible connection between the
Eumenides and the dead, when Plato says the souls of the dead are naturally
well-disposed (εὐμενεῖς) towards those who respect them (τὰς τῶν
κεκμηκότων ψυχάς, αἷς ἐστιν ἐν τῇ φύσει ... τιμῶσίν τε αὐτοὺς εὐμενεῖς, Leg.
927b),65 but this is perhaps not conclusive.
65
Janko 2008: 46.
313
6/8:
8:
Conclusion
Conclusion
It is clear that daimons are basically divine, or semi-divine, beings of various
kinds. It certainly is the case, as is generally accepted, that they eventually
acquired the additional roles of souls of the dead, of personal daimons
attached to each human, and of bad and hostile spirits. Our chronological
analysis of the references to these, however, has thrown up the interesting
conclusion that there is really only evidence for these developed roles from
the fourth century, in particular in Plato and the early Academy.
Before Plato, we have only the special cases of daimons as souls of the dead
in the Hesiodic gold race and in the elevation to semi-divine status of a few
eminent individuals. From Plato on this applies to good ordinary mortals, a
concept fully developed in the Stoics. Again, the personal daimon before Plato
is really only a kind of metaphorical expression for fortune or lot in the poets
and for character or soul in the philosophers. The crucial step to a separate
tutelary being comes with Plato, and is again extended by the Stoics. Finally,
the bad or wicked daimon seems to have been introduced by one of Plato’s
successors, Xenocrates, at least as far as our admittedly somewhat inadequate
evidence goes. The Empousa is more difficult to date, but seems to form a
precedent for the hindering daimons.
Interpreting the significance of these changes is not easy, but I hope to show
in the following chapters that they are concepts that lie behind the sources I
shall be discussing and may be part of changes in the conceptualisation of the
afterlife that took place at a broadly similar time.
Our examination of the sources for the Erinyes has suggested that our usual
view of them as primarily avengers of crime in the blood-kin is in fact a product
314
6/8:
Conclusion
of our reliance on the literary devices of the tragedians, and that actually their
scope as revengers and enforcers was much wider, covering oath-breakers and
a variety of other things, even including throwing stools at beggars. There
should consequently be no surprise in seeing them take a prominent role in
enforcing arrangements in the afterlife. We have also found three possible
references (Il. 3.278-80, Od. 20.78, Aesch. Sept. 978-9), all difficult to interpret,
to the revenging Erinyes as the dead,66 a topic we shall consider further
below.67 The Eumenides appears to be another name for the Erinyes.
Compare also Chrysippus on Pindar, Ol. 2.57-8, θανόντων ... ποινὰς ἔτεισαν, which he
interprets as ‘pay a penalty at the hands of the dead’ (Long 1948: 32-4). θανόντων for
ὑπὸ θανόντων does not seem to be possible Greek, but it is interesting that Chrysippus
thought it a plausible reading.
66
67
Chapter Eight section 8.
315
7/1:
Introduction
Chapter Seven
Four sources for the afterlife
1:
Introduction ............................................................................................... 316
2:
The Pythagorean Notebooks ..................................................................... 318
3:
The lex sacra of Selinous ........................................................................... 323
4:
Funerary gold leaf ...................................................................................... 337
5:
The Derveni Papyrus.................................................................................. 344
1:
Introduction
I want in this and the following chapter to put forward the thesis that there is
evidence in a number of scattered sources for a picture of the afterlife in
classical Greece that differed significantly from that in conventional polis
religion, at least excluding the Eleusinian mysteries. It involved the survival of
the soul after death, a division between those with a better and a worse fate
after death, enforced by hostile daimons, and an initiation cult to neutralise
the daimons and secure for its adherents the better outcome.
The four sources that I shall be considering are the Pythagorean Notebooks
transmitted by Alexander Polyhistor, the lex sacra of Selinous, the funerary
gold leaves of the B type and the Derveni Papyrus. Although scholarly studies
of each individual source have from time to time alluded to the others as
comparative evidence, they have not previously been studied together as a
group.
I am certainly not suggesting that these four disparate sources
represent a single cult or give a mutually consistent picture in every respect.
What I do hope to show is that despite the differences in detail and
316
7/1:
Introduction
terminology, there were distinctive elements common to all four. I believe
that this common structure can be plausibly linked to, and indeed underlies,
the activities of the private initiators.
In order to do this, I need to examine the four sources both individually and
comparatively. In this chapter, I shall look at each of them in turn, to describe
their nature, clear up preliminary issues of their interpretation and set the
elements that I intend to pick out in context. In the next chapter, I shall
present a comparative treatment of the four, bringing together the evidence
they provide for their common elements.
317
7/2:
2:
The Pythagorean Notebooks
The Pythagorean Notebooks
The Pythagorean Notebooks1 come to us at third hand.2 Diogenes Laertius, in
his probably third century AD Lives of the philosophers, quotes extensively
(8.25-33) in his life of Pythagoras from a work called the Successions of
philosophers by Alexander Polyhistor (‘polymath’) of Miletus, who worked in
Rome in the first century BC. He in turn says he is quoting from the otherwise
unknown3 Pythagorean Notebooks (φησὶ δ’ ὁ Ἀλέξανδρος ἐν ταῖς τῶν
φιλοσόφων διαδοχαῖς καὶ ταῦτα εὑρηκέναι ἐν Πυθαγορικοῖς ὑπομνήμασιν,
8.24).
Their content is very varied. They cover among other things the origin of
everything from the monad and indefinite dyad, the theory of opposites, a
geocentric astronomy, three kinds of aether, embryology, a tripartite division
of the soul that is not the same as Plato’s and ritual precepts and taboos. Some
of this is not paralleled elsewhere, and they do not seem to align in general
either with what is known of early Pythagoreanism or with later Pythagorean
pseudepigrapha.
This has made them very difficult to date. Alexander Polyhistor in the first
century BC provides a terminus ante quem. Wellmann and Delatte thought
they provided evidence for early Pythagoreanism, but Festugière, comparing
1
ὑπομνήματα can also be translated as Notes, Memoirs or Commentaries.
2
For general surveys, see Wellmann 1919, Delatte 1922, Festugière 1945, Laks 2013
(summarised in Laks 2014: 370-7), Long 2013.
The occasional references to ὑπομνηματα in the later sources (e.g. Iambl. VP 157) do not
seem connected. See, however, Burkert 1972: 459n63 on a possible connection with the
spurious Letter of Lysis, with Laks 2013: 372n6 (where Letter to Lysis should be Letter of
Lysis).
3
318
7/2:
The Pythagorean Notebooks
their doctrines with Plato and fourth century BC medical writers such as
Diocles of Carystos, concluded that they could not be earlier than the late
fourth century.4 Laks believes them to be a mixture of theories of various
periods, of which some, such the ritual precepts and the doctrine of opposites,
may well go back to the early followers of Pythagoras.5 Kahn thinks the
Notebooks probably originate in an otherwise unattested Hellenistic
Pythagorean community,6 while Long suggests that they are an elaborate
literary forgery by Alexander Polyhistor himself.7 It is of course quite possible
that both Alexander and Diogenes made changes, for example in terminology,
when reproducing their source. I think that there is no doubt that they are
eclectic, combining doctrines from a number of sources, including medical
writers and the Academy, but I see no way of more precisely dating what they
say of the soul and afterlife, which is what I am concerned with here.
The Notebooks’ doctrine of soul (D.L. 8.28-32) is in fact an original one, at least
as far as our knowledge goes. Soul is not possessed by all living things, for
example plants,8 but, for those that have it, it is a detached part of the
immortal aether: ‘soul is distinct from life; it is immortal, since that from which
it is detached is immortal’ (διαφέρειν τε ψυχὴν ζωῆς: ἀθάνατόν τ᾽ εἶναι αὐτήν,
ἐπειδήπερ καὶ τὸ ἀφ᾽ οὗ ἀπέσπασται ἀθάνατόν ἐστι, 8.28).9 They therefore
4
Wellmann 1919, Delatte 1922, Festugière 1945.
5
Laks 2013: 374-6.
6
Kahn 2001: 83.
7
Long 2013: 159, following an alternative proposal of Kahn (Kahn 2001: 83n31).
8
I follow here the interpretation of Long 2013: 153.
On the Stoic use of ἀπόσπασμα see Long and Sedley 1987: 2.321; the Stoic terminology
may be due to Alexander or Diogenes.
9
319
7/2:
The Pythagorean Notebooks
differ from Plato (Ti. 77b) and Aristotle (De. An. 414a) in denying soul to plants,
and from the Stoics in giving it immortality.10
The soul is divided by them into three parts: thumos, located in the heart, nous
and phrenes, which are both in the brain (8.30); thumos and nous are mortal
and possessed by all animals, but phrenes11 are peculiar to man and immortal.
This classification is unique to the Notebooks, and is certainly not Platonic or
neo-Pythagorean; phrenes is not normally given a higher rank than nous.12
Philolaus has a slightly similar division, but with different names and
distribution;13 the Letter of Lysis (Iambl. VP 77) thinks of the phrenes (here
presumably ‘diaphragm’) as the seat of the soul, rather than part of it. 14
The soul, says the Notebooks, is nourished by the blood, its bonds (δεσμά) are
veins, arteries and sinews, and its logoi (perhaps ‘principles’) are winds, as
they, like the soul and the aether, are invisible (8.30-1).
another possible connection with winds.15
I shall refer later to
When the soul is cast
(ἐκριφθεῖσαν) on the earth it wanders in the air like the body (πλάζεσθαι ἐν
τῷ ἀέρι ὁμοίαν τῷ σώματι) (8.31). This must, it seems to me, refer to the
τὴν δὲ ψυχὴν γενετήν τε καὶ φθαρτὴν λέγουσιν, Euseb. Praep. Evang. 15.20.6; Long
2013: 153.
10
11
‘Diaphragm’ or ‘mind’; obviously the latter here.
12
Delatte 1922: 222-3 compares a number of classifications.
Nous, the highest faculty, in the head, psyche and aisthesis in the heart: κεφαλὰ μὲν
νόου, καρδία δὲ ψυχᾶς καὶ αἰσθήσιος, DK44B13.
13
14
A late medical writer (Anon. Lond., 2nd century AD) does identify the phrenes with the
reasoning part of the soul (τὸ λογιστικὸν μέρος τῆς ψυχῆς); quoted in Festugière 1945: 445.
15
Section 3 below and Chapter Eight section 2.
320
7/2:
The Pythagorean Notebooks
dead.16 In fact, the whole air is full of souls (εἶναι τε πάντα τὸν ἀέρα ψυχῶν
ἔμπλεον), called daimons and heroes, who send humans 17 dreams, omens,
signs of disease and purifications (8.32). There is finally a very interesting
statement (8.31) concerning what happens to souls after death:
τὸν δ᾽ Ἑρμῆν ταμίαν εἶναι τῶν ψυχῶν καὶ διὰ τοῦτο πομπαῖον λέγεσθαι καὶ
πυλαῖον καὶ χθόνιον, ἐπειδήπερ οὗτος εἰσπέμπει ἀπὸ τῶν σωμάτων τὰς
ψυχὰς ἀπό τε γῆς καὶ ἐκ θαλάττης: καὶ ἄγεσθαι τὰς μὲν καθαρὰς ἐπὶ τὸν
ὕψιστον, τὰς δ᾽ ἀκαθάρτους μήτ᾽ ἐκείναις πελάζειν μήτ᾽ ἀλλήλαις, δεῖσθαι δ᾽
ἐν ἀρρήκτοις δεσμοῖς ὑπ᾽ Ἐρινύων.
(D.L. 8.31)
Hermes is the steward of souls, and for that reason is called Escort and
Gatekeeper and of the Underworld, since it is he who brings in the souls from
their bodies from land and sea. The pure are led into the uppermost region,
but the impure cannot approach them or each other, but are bound in
unbreakable bonds by the Erinyes.
Hermes as psychopomp and keeper of the boundary between the living and
the dead is familiar from the second nekyia in the Odyssey (24.1-14), where he
leads the souls of the suitors down to Hades, and from elsewhere. 18 The
questions raised by the rest of the passage I shall discuss in the next chapter.
At the moment, I just want to emphasise that these are the views of some
unknown person or group of unknown date, but before the first century BC;
whether they actually identified themselves as Pythagoreans is also impossible
to determine, and not, for my purposes, really important.
Delatte 1922: 223 would confine this to the βιαιοθάνατοι who died through violence,
citing Aen. 6.433, describing suicides in the underworld, and Lucian Philops. 29, a ghost
story. I do not see any evidence for this here.
16
17
Also sent to sheep and cattle, which Detienne 1963: 32-7 believes indicates an origin in a
small agricultural community, but nowhere in ancient Greece was very far from the farm.
18
Delatte 1922: 225; Burkert 1985: 157-8.
321
7/2:
The Pythagorean Notebooks
There is no direct evidence for the involvement of the private initiators here,
though I shall argue in the following chapter that the terms used in the
Notebooks for pure and impure (καθαρὰς, ἀκαθάρτους) may in fact mean
initiated and uninitiated in this context.19 The alternative would be that simply
the actions or religious observances of human beings during their life led,
according to the Notebooks, to their separation after death into two exclusive
and unalterable (ἀρρήκτοις δεσμοῖς) classes with apparently very different
fates. I shall try to show that the Notebooks in fact share with other sources
unequivocally connected to initiation a common deep structure in their
conception of the afterlife, a structure which underlies the whole rationale of
initiation.
19
Chapter Eight section 3.
322
7/3:
3:
The lex sacra of Selinous
The lex sacra of Selinous
A large lead tablet discovered in Selinous in Sicily, formerly in the Getty
Museum and now in the Museo Civico Selinunte, contains a set of religious
regulations dating from the mid-fifth century BC.20 It has conventionally been
called a lex sacra or sacred law, a vague term covering a wide and disparate
range of prescriptive religious documents.21 Two parts are of interest for our
purposes.
[A8-16] το͂ι Εὐμενεῖ θύ[ε]ν̣ [καὶ] / ταῖϲ Εὐμενίδεϲι : τέλεον, καὶ το͂ι Διὶ : τôι
Μιλιχίοι tο͂ι : ἐν Mύϲϙο : τέλεον : τοῖϲ Τρ-/[10]ιτοπατρεῦϲι · τοῖϲ · μιαροῖϲ
hόϲπερ τοῖς hερόεϲι, ϝοῖνον hυπολhεί-/ψαϲ · δι’ ὀρόφο · καὶ τᾶν μοιρᾶν · τᾶν
ἐνάταν · κατακα-/ίεν · μίαν. θυόντο θῦμα : καῖ καταγιζόντο hοῖϲ hοϲία · καὶ
περιρά-/ναντεϲ καταλινάντο : κἔπειτα : τοῖϲ κ<α>θαροῖϲ : τέλεον θυόντο :
μελίκρατα hυπο-/λείβον · καὶ τράπεζαν καὶ κλίναν κἐνβαλέτ̣ο καθαρὸν hε͂μα
καὶ ϲτεφά-/[15]νοϲ ἐλαίαϲ καὶ μελίκρατα ἐν καιναῖϲ ποτερίδε̣[ϲ]ι καὶ :
πλάϲματα καὶ κρᾶ κάπ-/απξάμενοι κατακαάντο καὶ καταλινάντο τὰϲ
ποτερίδαϲ ἐνθέντεϲ.
To Zeus Eumenes [and] the Eumenides sacrifice a full-grown (sheep), and to
Zeus Meilichios in the (plot) of Myskos a full-grown (sheep). (Sacrifice) to the
Tritopatores, the impure, as (one sacrifices) to the heroes, having poured a
libation of wine down through the roof, and of the ninth parts burn one. Let
those to whom it is permitted perform sacrifice and consecrate, and having
performed aspersion let them perform the anointing, and then let them
sacrifice a full-grown (sheep) to the pure (Tritopatores). Pouring down a
libation of honey mixture, (let him set out) both a table and a couch, and let
him put on (them) a pure cloth and crowns of olive and honey mixture in new
20
Edited by Jameson, Jordan and Kotansky 1993 (hereafter JJK). See also Ianucci, Muccioli
and Zaccarini 2015.
21
Sokolowski 1962, Carbon and Pirenne-Delforge 2012, Carbon 2015: 167.
323
7/3:
The lex sacra of Selinous
cups and cakes and meat; and having made offerings let them burn (them),
and let them perform the anointing having put the cups in.
The major question raised by this passage is that of the identity of the
Tritopatores, and as the traditional interpretation has recently been disputed,
it will be necessary to consider the matter in some detail. Evidence for their
cult, all from the fifth and fourth centuries BC, comes primarily from Athens,
but also from Delos, Troizen and Kyrene as well as here.22 Mainly consisting of
boundary stones and sacrificial calendars, it gives little indication of the
Tritopatores’ nature. In Kyrene, they appear in a provision of the lex sacra
concerning purity; unfortunately, it is not at all clear what it means, or if its
mention of pure and profane provides a parallel to the pure and impure
Tritopatores in Selinous.23
The fullest literary source is Harpocration (s.v. Τριτοπάτορες = OF802):24
Δήμων ἐν τῇ Ἀτθίδι φησὶν ἀνέμους εἶναι τοὺς Τριτοπάτορας· Φιλόχορος δὲ
τοὺς Τριτοπάτορας πάντων γεγονέναι πρώτους· τὴν μὲν γὰρ γῆν καὶ τὸν
ἥλιον, φησὶν, ὃν καὶ Ἀπόλλωνα καλεῖν, γονεῖς αὐτῶν ἠπίσταντο οἱ τότε
ἄνθρωποι, τοὺς δὲ ἐκ τούτων τρίτους πατέρας. Φανόδημος δὲ ἐν ϛʹ φησὶν ὅτι
μόνοι Ἀθηναῖοι θύουσί τε καὶ εὔχονται αὐτοῖς ὑπὲρ γενέσεως παίδων, ὅταν
γαμεῖν μέλλωσιν· ἐν δὲ τῷ Ὀρφέως Φυσικῷ ὀνομάζεσθαι τοὺς Τριτοπάτορας
Ἀμαλκείδην καὶ Πρωτοκλέα καὶ Πρωτοκρέοντα, θυρωροὺς καὶ φύλακας
22
Summarised in JJK: 107-11.
[§ 5.] [21] Ἅ̣ κα μαντίων ὁαία παντ̣ὶ καὶ ἁγνῶι καὶ βαβάλω̣[ι], | πλὰν ἀπ’ ἀνθρώπω
Βάττω τῶ {τω} ἀρχαγέτα καὶ | Τριτοπατέρων καὶ ἀπὸ Ὀνυμάστω τῶ Δελ̣φῶι, | ἀπ’ ἄλλω,
ὁπῆ ἄνθρωπος ἔκαμε, οὐκ ὁσία ἁγνῶ[ι], ‖ [25] τῶν δὲ ἱαρῶν ὁαία παντί. | (Kyrene. Lex
sacra SEG ix.72, Rhodes-Osborne 2003 97, Buck 1955 115) ‘Right to participate is granted to
anyone, either pure or profane, with regard to Akamanties. Except in the case of the man
Battus the founder and the Tritopateres and in the case of Onymastus the Delphian, in the
case of any other man that has died there is no right to participate for a pure man; but in
the case of the sacred ones, there is a right to participate for anyone.’ Discussion: Parker
1983: 336-9, JJK: 111n36.
23
24
Copied by the Suda and Etymologicum magnum and the basis for the entries of
Hesychius and Photius. Texts of this and the other literary sources are given in Gagné
2007: 2-4.
324
7/3:
The lex sacra of Selinous
ὄντας τῶν ἀνέμων· ὁ δὲ τὸ Ἐξηγητικὸν ποιήσας Οὐρανοῦ καὶ Γῆς φησιν
αὐτοὺς εἶναι, ὀνόματα δὲ αὐτῶν Κόττον, Βριάρεων καὶ Γύγην.
Demon in the Atthis says the Tritopatores are winds [FGrHist 327 F2], but
Philochorus the first of all to have come into being, for he says that people
then understood the earth and the sun, which they also called Apollo, to be
their progenitors, and those born of them the third fathers [FGrHist 328 F12].
Phanodemus in the sixth book says that the Athenians alone sacrificed and
prayed to them for procreation when they were about to marry [FGrHist 325
F6]. In the Physics of Orpheus the Tritopatores are called Amalkeides and
Protokles and Protokreon, being doorkeepers and guardians of the winds.
The writer of the Exegetikon says they were the children of Sky and Earth, and
their names were Kottos, Briareus and Gyges [FGrHist 352 F1].
It is clear from the disagreements here that not only Harpocration in the first
century AD knew little of a cult that had died out some centuries earlier, but
that even the contemporary Atthidographers whom he quotes lacked reliable
information. The sets of three names (the last three are the Hekatoncheires
of Hesiod, Th. 149) sound like inventions on the assumption the name meant
‘three fathers’. The connection with procreation may equally come from the
name and a confusion with the enigmatic saying ‘may my child be tritogenes,
not tritogeneia’ (παῖς μοι τριτογενὴς εἴη, μὴ τριτογένεια, schol. T Il. 9.39).25
The references to the winds are less easy to explain. In addition to those in
Harpocration, we also have Photius calling them children of the winds (ἀνέμων
παῖδας, s.v. Τριτοπάτωρ = OF802), and a scholion to the Odyssey, where
Amalkeides and Protokles and Protokreon of the Orphic poem are called
masters of the winds, perhaps a gloss on doorkeepers and guardians, choosing
which to confine in a bag and which to allow to blow (οὕτως οὖν ἔφασαν
αὐτοὺς δεσπότας εἶναι ἀνέμων, ὡς καὶ δέειν ἀσκῷ ὃν ἂν βούλοιντο αὐτῶν,
τοῦς δ’ ἄλλους ἐᾶν πνεῖν, schol. P Od. 10.2 = OF802 = schol. Lycophr. 738).
25
See Gagné 2007: 3n11 for the many contradictory ancient explanations of this.
325
7/3:
The lex sacra of Selinous
This is not quite the same as saying that the Tritopatores are themselves
winds, as Demon does.26
They are, however described in several places as ancestors. Hesychius calls
them ‘founders of the race, forefathers’ (γενέσεως ἀρχηγούς. οἱ δὲ τοὺς
προπατέρας, s.v. Τριτοπάτερας), the Lexica Segueriana suggests ‘third from
the father, that is great-grandfather’ (τρίτους ἀπὸ τοῦ πατρός, ὅ πέρ ἐστι
προπάππους, s.v. Τριτοπάτορες, Anecd. Bekk. 307, 16), and Pollux says ‘the
father of the grandfather or grandmother is the great-grandfather, so
Isocrates; perhaps this is what Aristotle calls the Tritopator’ (ὁ δὲ πάππου ἢ
τήθης πατὴρ πρόπαππος, ὡς Ἰσοκράτης· τάχα δ’ ἂν τοῦτον τριτοπάτορα
Ἀριστοτέλης καλοῖ, 3.17-18 = Arist. fr. 415 Rose). The idea seems to be that
the third fathers are the fathers of the fathers of the fathers, or greatgrandfathers, and so by extension ancestors in general. 27 This identification
has been generally accepted,28 and I shall follow it here.
Robertson, however, has recently published a substantial study of the leges
sacrae of Selinous and Kyrene which takes a very different view of the
Tritopatores.29 He believes them to have nothing to do with ancestors, but to
be wind gods, worshipped for their fertilising power. As we have seen, there
is indeed a strong connection with winds in the sources. I believe that
Robertson’s arguments are unsound and his theory mistaken, but as it is
essential to my use of the Selinous evidence that the Tritopatores are
26
For scepticism regarding attempts to link this with procreation through the supposed
generative power of winds, see Gagné 2007: 5-6.
27
Rohde 1925: 203-4n123.
28
So Farnell 1921: 343-60, JJK: 112, Clinton 1996:172, Johnston 1999: 51-2, Parker 2005:
31-2, Bendlin 2006, Gagné 2007: 1-2. Robertson 2010: 168, although disagreeing, concedes
that it is ‘a definition endorsed by many and disputed by none’.
29
Robertson 2010: 167-84.
326
7/3:
The lex sacra of Selinous
ancestors, not wind gods, it will be necessary to undertake a critical
examination of what he puts forward. His chief arguments are these:
(i)
The Tritopatores were worshipped alongside agrarian deities.30 This is
doubtless the case, but is not surprising in a largely agrarian society, and hardly
proves that they were fertility gods, let alone wind gods.
(ii)
They are associated with the Akamantes, which must mean ‘untiring’
and so must be winds.31 This is in the Kyrene inscription quoted above, and
also in an inscription from Marathon (SEG 50.168 IG II2 1358). This is possible;
the winds Notos and Boreas are called ἀκάμαντος by Sophocles (Tr. 112-13).
The word and its synonym ἀκάματος were, however, applied to many other
things apart from winds (LSJ s.vv.), the reading in Kyrene is uncertain, the
juxtaposition in Marathon may be accidental and the alternative meaning ‘not
dead’ instead of ‘untiring’ has also been suggested.32
(iii)
In one case (deme of Erchia, SEG 21.541), the sacrifice follows that for
Leukaspis, ‘white shield’, and a buffeting wind is like a hoplite pressing on the
enemy with his shield.33 This is flimsy in the extreme.
(iv)
Undoubted wind gods are worshipped with offerings in bothroi,
underground installations, just like the Tritopatores.34 The only evidence I
know for this is from Corinth, where there was an altar to the winds (βωμός
ἐστιν ἀνέμων) and a priest performed an annual sacrifice involving four pits
30
Robertson 2010: 172-4.
31
Robertson 2010: 172-3.
32
Parker 1983: 336-7.
33
Robertson 2010: 173-4; inscription at JJK: 108-9.
34
Robertson 2010: 175.
327
7/3:
The lex sacra of Selinous
(βόθρους) (Paus. 2.12.1), together with a bothros in the Athenian Agora which
Hampe has suggested is connected with a wind cult.35 Robertson gives no
references, except to Hampe. Neither is there any mention of underground
installations in connection with the Tritopatores except at Selinous, and there
it is made explicit that we are dealing with a roofed structure (‘having poured
a libation of wine down through the roof’, ϝοῖνον hυπολhείψαϲ · δι’ ὀρόφο),
not an open pit.
(v)
The quotation from Philochorus refers to winds, not ancestors, and
means that earth and sun were the source of all life, and winds were produced
from them, and so third, speaking inclusively, after them. 36 According to
Harpocration (above), ‘Philochorus [called them] the first of all to have come
into being, for he says that people then understood the earth and the sun,
which they also called Apollo, to be their progenitors, and those born of them
the third fathers.’ This does not mention winds, and does mention ancestors.
I do not understand what he means by third speaking inclusively. Greeks
normally counted both the beginning and end of a sequence, so a penteteric,
‘five year’, festival took place every four years, but this does not seem to apply
at all here.
(vi)
They were prayed to for procreation because of the fertilising power of
winds, a worldwide belief exemplified at Athens by the myth of Boreas and
Oreithyia.37 He provides no further evidence for the belief in fertilising winds
in the Greek world at this time. Gagné’s analysis has shown that it was at first
confined to a few instances, specifically mares and birds, and to philosophical
35
Hampe 1967: 18-22.
36
Robertson 2010: 175-6.
37
Robertson 2010: 175, 180-4.
328
7/3:
The lex sacra of Selinous
circles, and did not become a general belief until late antiquity. 38 The north
wind Boreas married Oreithyia the daughter of Erechtheus, who produced
twins, but this is not much evidence for his general fertilising power. I have
suggested above that the prayer for procreation alluded to by Phanodemos
may be due to a confusion with tritogeneia. The fact is that we do not know
the reason for this prayer to the Tritopatores.
(vii)
The Exegetikon says they are warders of winds with the names of
Hesiod’s Hekatoncheires, who are warders of windy Tartarus and are
elemental forces who fling rocks from their hundred hands, and so represent
strong winds.39 As I read Harpocration, the claim that they are warders
(φύλακας) applies only to the preceding citation from the Orphic Physics, and
not to the Exegetikon. Hesiod’s Tartarus is windy (πρὸ θύελλα θυέλλης, Th.
742), though Homer’s is not (οὔτ’ ἀνέμοισι, Il. 8.481). That the Hundredhanders represent winds is an ingenious conjecture, but is certainly not made
explicit by Hesiod. There seems to be a confusion between the winds and their
warders; Kottos, Briareus and Gyges are indeed in Hesiod warders set by Zeus
over Tartarus (φύλακες πιστοὶ, Th. 735), but winds can surely not be
themselves the warders of winds.
(viii)
Tritopatreis means ‘having third fathers’ (or second fathers, counting
inclusively), not ‘being third fathers’.40 Τριτοπατρεῖς is the form preferred by
Robertson; Τριτοπάτερες at Kyrene, which he admits would not bear his
meaning, is ‘no doubt a misunderstanding’. He offers no explanation of what
38
Gagné 2007: 5-6.
39
Robertson 2010: 177-9.
40
Robertson 2010: 179-80.
329
7/3:
The lex sacra of Selinous
‘having third (or second) fathers’ might mean (but see (ix) below). Again, I do
not understand his ‘inclusive’ counting.
(ix)
Wind gods are insistently characterised as sons-in-law, so Tritopatores
means having the father-in-law as third father, the others being the father and
grandfather.41 Boreas, destroying the Persian fleet (Hdt. 7.189), is indeed
described as the son-in-law of Athens (τὸν Βορέην γαμβρὸν εἶναι), as he had
married the daughter of Erechtheus. His other examples of this ‘insistent’
characterisation are Phineus being the son-in-law of Boreas (Ap. Rhod. 2.2349), where in fact the wind is actually the father-in-law, and the Hundredhander Briareus marrying the daughter of Poseidon (Hes. Th. 817-19), which is
only relevant if you accept Robertson’s doubtful identification of the
Hekatoncheires as winds ((vii) above). The consequent explanation of the
term Tritopatores does not sound plausible; it is not clear who the father and
grandfather of the winds would be in this scenario, no parallels to such a usage
are given and it contradicts the explanation given in (v) above.
Wind gods that we know about in fact look very different to the Tritopatores. 42
They comprise: (a) the Olympian gods, especially Zeus but also others such as
Artemis at Aulis in Aeschylus,43 (b) overlapping with the previous category,
cults for favourable winds such as Zeus Ourios or Euanemos, or for calming
stormy winds such as the Anemokoitai in Corinth or the Heudanemoi in
Athens,44 (c) Aeolus, god of the winds in Homer, who does not seem to have
41
Robertson 2010: 180-4.
42
See the useful survey in Phillips 2006, on which the following analysis is based, together
with Hampe 1967: 7-16.
43
Zeus: Sol. fr. 13 17-19; Artemis: Aesch. Ag. 214-5.
44
Zeus Ourios: Aesch. Supp. 594; Zeus Euanemos: Paus. 3.13.8; Anemokoitai: Hsch. s.v.
ἀνεμοκοῖται; Heudanemoi: Hsch. s.v. Εὑδάνεμος.
330
7/3:
The lex sacra of Selinous
received cult,45 (d) individual winds, of which only the north wind Boreas and
the west wind Zephyrus received cult,46 (e) cults of the winds in general, which
come closest to Robertson’s conception.
I know only three clear examples of the latter.47 The Lacedaimonians sacrifice
a horse to the winds on Mount Taygetus, burn it, and let the ashes scatter in
the wind (Festus, s.v. October equus). In Corinth, a priest sacrifices on an altar
of the winds once a year and performs rites in four pits (Paus. 2.12.1); this is
thought by Pausanias to be to calm the winds. In Arcadia, they sacrifice to
thunder, lightning and storm winds (θυέλλαις, Paus. 8.29.1). None of this
sounds much like the Tritopatores of Selinous. None appear to have anything
to do with fertility.
None of them feature distinctively named and
characterised wind gods, but just refer to the winds in general.
I do not think, therefore, that Robertson has provided any convincing evidence
that the Tritopatores are wind gods, nor has he put forward any plausible
explanation of the name. Though it certainly seems that they have some
connection with the winds, a point I shall return to in the next chapter, it must
be remembered that they are mostly referred to as children, warders or
masters of the winds; only Demon says they are winds themselves. The
traditional identification as ancestors, if not certain, is much more plausible,
and it is the one I shall adopt.
Returning to the Selinous text, the Tritopatores receive sacrifice ‘as to the
heroes’ (hόϲπερ τοῖς hερόεϲι). The Tritopatores therefore dwell underground,
45
Od. 10.21.
46
Boreas: Paus. 8.36.6; Zephyrus: Paus. 1.37.2; see also PMG 858, a Spartan paean to
Eurus, with Burkert 1985: 175.
47
But see also Hampe 1967: 18-22 on the possible role of a bothros in the Athenian agora
in a wind cult.
331
7/3:
The lex sacra of Selinous
like the dead heroes.48 This is confirmed by the fact that the libations are
poured down (hυπολείβω)49 into the ground for them, of wine for the impure,
honey mixture for the pure. In the first case, it is specified that they are poured
through the roof, which suggests some low roofed structure, and that may well
apply in the second case, whether it is a second structure or the same one.
Parallels for this are limited. The Phocians poured blood through a hole into
the grave of a local hero (Paus. 10.4.10).50 There is a low cylindrical structure
on Delos, not however roofed, inscribed Τριτοπάτωρ (IDélos I 66), which may
be comparable.51 The pure Tritopatores also receive theoxenia, entertaining
the gods to a meal.52
The most striking feature of this ritual is the division of the Tritopatores into
what are usually translated as ‘pure’ (καθαροῖς) and ‘impure’, ‘foul’ or
‘polluted’ (μιαροῖς). This, however, raises wider questions, and can best be
dealt with in relation to all four of my sources in the next chapter.
The second extract from the Selinous lex sacra can be dealt with at less length.
It is from column B.
[B] [2-3]..ἄν̣θ̣ρο
̣ ̣πο
̣ ϲ̣ [6-7] ..τ.[.(?)ἐλ]αϲτ̣έρ
̣ ο
̣ ν ἀποκα[θαίρεϲθ]./[ αι], προειπὸν
hόπο κα λε͂ι̣ κ̣αὶ το͂ ϝέ̣[τ]ε̣οϲ hόπο κα λε͂ι καὶ [το͂ μενὸϲ] / hοπείο κα λε͂ι καῖ
<τᾶι> ἀμέραι hοπείαι κα λ<ε͂>ι, π{ο}ροειπὸν hόπυι κα λε͂ι, καθαιρέϲθο̣, [3-4?
hυ]-/ποδεκόμενοϲ ἀπονίψαϲθαι δότο κἀκρατίξαϲθαι καῖ hάλα το͂ι αὐ[το͂ι] /
[5][κ]αὶ θύϲαϲ το͂ Δὶ χοῖρον ἐξ αὐτο͂ ἴτο καὶ περιϲτ[ι]ραφέϲθο vacat/ καῖ
ποταγορέϲθο καὶ ϲῖτον hαιρέϲθο καὶ καθευδέτο hόπε κ̣-/α λε͂ι αἴ τίϲ κα λε͂ι
48
For hero cult see Rohde 1925: 115-55, Burkert 1985: 203-8, Whitley 1994: 220-22, Ekroth
2015; discussion of the Selinous evidence by Scullion 2000.
49
JJK: 71n4.
50
JJK: 31.
51
JJK: 110, Robertson 2010: 159.
52
JJK: 67-70.
332
7/3:
The lex sacra of Selinous
ξενικὸν ἔ πατρο͂ιον, ἔ ‘πακουϲτὸν ἔ ’φορατὸν / ἔ καὶ χὄντινα καθαίρεσθαι,
τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον̣ κ̣αθαιρέϲθο / hόνπερ hοὐτορέκταϲ ἐπεί κ’ ἐλαϲτέρο
ἀποκαθάρεται. vacat / [10]hιαρεῖον τέλεον ἐπὶ το͂ι βομο͂ι το͂ι δαμαϲίοι θύϲαϲ
καθαρὸ-/ϲ ἔστο. διορίξαϲ hαλὶ καὶ χρυϲο͂ι ἀπορανάμενοϲ ἀπίτο. / hόκα το͂ι
ἐλαϲτέροι ζρέζει θύεν, θύεν hόϲπερ τοῖϲ vacat / ἀθανάτοιϲι. ϲφαζέτο δ’ ἐϲ
γᾶν. vacat
[If a ... ] man [wishes] to be purified from elasteroi, having made a
proclamation from wherever he wishes and whenever in the year he wishes
and in whatever [month] he wishes and on whatever day he wishes, having
made the proclamation withersoever (i.e., to whatever directions) he wishes,
let him purify himself. [And on] receiving (him, i.e. the elasteros), let him give
(water) to wash with and a meal and salt to this same one, and having
sacrificed a piglet to Zeus, let him go out from it, and let him turn around; and
let him be addressed, and take food for himself and sleep wherever he
wishes. If anyone wishes to purify himself, with respect to a foreign or
ancestral one (sc. elasteros), either one that has been heard or one that has
been seen, or anyone at all, let him purify himself in the same way as the
autorrektas (homicide?) does when he is purified of an elasteros. Having
sacrificed a full-grown (sheep) on the public altar, let him be pure. Having
marked a boundary with salt and having performed aspersion with a golden
(vessel), let him go away. Whenever one needs to sacrifice to the elasteros,
sacrifice as to the immortals. But let him slaughter (the victim so that the
blood flows) into the earth.53
The first question is obviously what an elasteros might be.54 The term in this
form and as a substantive occurs only here. There was, however, a Zeus
Elasteros (Ζεὺς Ἐλάστερος) on Paros and a Zeus Alasteros (Ζεὺς Ἀλάστερος) on
Thasos, as we know from inscriptions, though they give little clue to the
significance of the epiclesis.55 This in turn takes us to the better-known term
alastor, defined by Hesychius as a vindictive daimon (πικρὸς δαίμων, s.v.
ἀλάστωρ), and familiar from numerous references in tragedy, such as the
53
Translation of JJK. I shall deal with disputed points of the translation in the discussion.
The following is largely based on JJK: 116-20. I discuss Robertson’s dissenting view
below. See also Salvo 2012: 136-42.
54
55
JJK: 116-18.
333
7/3:
The lex sacra of Selinous
‘ancient harsh alastor’ (παλαιὸς δριμὺς ἀλάστωρ, Aesch. Ag. 1501) that
incarnates in Clytemnestra to revenge the sins of Atreus. The term is one that
could be used both for the sinner and the avenger.56
At Selinous, we find that an elasteros could also afflict an autorektas
(αὐτορέκτας),57 another new term which might be translated ‘doer by one’s
own hand’, and seems similar to words like αὐτοφόνος and αὐθέντης which
mean ‘killer’.58 As the subject at Selinous has to act in the same way as the
autorektas (hόνπερ hοὐτορέκταϲ, B9), he cannot himself be a homicide.
We can, therefore, identify the elasteros as an avenging daimon, afflicting the
guilty. There is a parallel in the hikesios at Kyrene, particularly the third type,
for a murderer (αὐτοφόνος), for which purification is also required, so it may
be that the two terms refer to the same being.59 The purification is through
theoxenia, inviting the elasteros to a meal, and sacrifice; the blood from the
sacrifice is to flow into the earth, marking the elasteros as a chthonic figure of
‘Guilty murderers, those that are polluted, or great sinners’ (παλαμναῖοι, οἱ μιάσμασιν
ἐνεχόμενοι. ἢ οἱ μεγάλα ἁμαρτάνοντες, Hsch. s.v. ἀλάστορες); Parker 1983: 107-11.
56
Clinton 1996: 175-6, reading αὐ[τορέκται] for αὐ[το͂ι] in B4, thinks the first part of the
B column also refers to an autorektas, and that in B3-4 it is not the victim receiving
the elasteros in a theoxenia, but the victim’s host, as purifier, receiving the victim.
Whether or not this is so, there is no doubt from B9 that an elasteros might afflict
an autorektas.
57
Parker 1983: 351, JJK: 44-5. Robertson’s suggestion that the word means that the
sacrificer butchered the animal personally, instead of using a professional butcher
(Robertson 2010: 225-8), does not fit the context well, and is not supported by any parallels
for this meaning; the parallels he offers for the practice, such as the Bouphonia at Athens,
seem to involve a community effort and are rather different.
58
59
SEG ix.72 (Rhodes-Osborne 2003 97, Buck 1955 115); Stukey 1937, Parker 1983: 332-51,
JJK: 119. Clinton, however, sees the hikesios as a human ghost and therefore ineligible for
sacrifice like the divine elasteros (Clinton 1996: 179), a doubtful distinction in view of the
evidence for daimons as souls of the dead presented in the previous chapter.
334
7/3:
The lex sacra of Selinous
the underworld.60 The elasteros may be either xenikon or patroion (ξενικὸν ἔ
πατρο͂ιον). Interpretations suggested for these terms include (killers of)
strangers and kin,61 (killers of) guest-friend and family,62 and entertained
(referring to the theoxenia) and customary;63 we have in fact no way of telling
what they mean.
In view of the strong case for the elasteros as some kind of avenging daimon,
I need deal only briefly with Robertson’s view that it was actually a god of
lightning, a ‘frightening power of nature, itself conceived as a pollution’, 64
though he gives no examples of other natural forces seen as pollutions. This
lightning god, he says, is invited to a meal,65 surely making a somewhat
alarming table companion,66 and the sacrifice το͂ι ἐλαϲτέροι is not ‘to the
elasteros’, but to Zeus ‘for [i.e. to placate] the elasteros’,67 though no examples
of this usage are given, and I am not clear why you would want to placate
lightning, except in a thunderstorm. He derives the term from ἐλαύνω and
gives it the meaning of ‘striker’,68 which may be possible, but is not backed up
by any strong evidence. This unsupported conjecture can be dismissed.
60
JJK: 61-76; as noted above, Clinton 1996: 175-6 thinks that purification by a host is
involved, not theoxenia.
61
JJK: 44.
62
Clinton 1996: 178-9; see also Johnston 1999: 49.
63
Robertson 2010: 221-2, but this would mean that the theoxenia was being explicitly
identified on the inscription as a non-customary innovation. I would rather expect any
innovation to be presented as something traditional.
64
Robertson 2010: 215.
65
Robertson 2010: 215-6.
66
Admittedly, this might also apply to a vengeful daimon.
67
Robertson 2010: 224-5.
68
Robertson 2010: 232-40.
335
7/3:
The lex sacra of Selinous
If elasteros is indeed derived from ἐλαύνω or its epic equivalent ἐλαστρέω,
then it is significant that these terms do occur in descriptions of the Erinyes:69
‘those of the Erinyes not persuaded by law drove me continually in unsettled
courses’(ὅσαι δ᾽ Ἐρινύων οὐκ ἐπείσθησαν νόμῳ, δρόμοις ἀνιδρύτοισιν
ἠλάστρουν μ᾽ ἀεί, Eur. IT 970-1), ‘just as in the tragedies, the goddesses of
vengeance drive and punish’ (καθάπερ ἐν ταῖς τραγῳδίαις, Ποινὰς ἐλαύνειν
καὶ κολάζειν, Aeschin. 1.190). The identification of elasteroi as vengeful
daimons thus seems to present them as a variation of, or perhaps simply
another term for, the Erinyes.
Again, as in the Notebooks, we hear of the pure (καθαροί) and impure, though
the meaning is perhaps more difficult to determine here; we have also seen
references to propitiation and what seem to be vengeful daimons. These are,
however, some kind of public religious regulations, and are clearly rather
different from the private initiations that we have looked at so far. I shall
discuss in the next chapter how far they might share a common underlying
structure.
69
JJK: 117.
336
7/4:
4:
A funerary gold leaf
A funerary gold leaf
Fig. 12. Gold leaf B10
Orphic Gold Tablet (Hipponion-Museo Archeologico Statale Capialbi, Vibo Valentia). By sconosciuti http://www.sbvibonese.vv.it/sezionec/pag249_c.aspx, Public Domain,
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=4782985
Μναμοσύνας τόδε ἔργ̣ον. ἐπεὶ ἄν̣ μέλληισι θανεῖσθαι
εἰς Ἀί̈δαο δόμους εὐηρέας, ἔστ’ ἐπὶ δ<ε>ξιὰ κρήνα,
πὰρ δ’ αὐτὰν ἑστακῦα λευκὰ κυπάρισ<σ>ος·
ἔνθα κατερχόμεναι ψυχαὶ νεκύων ψύχονται.
ταύτας τᾶς κράνας μηδὲ σχεδὸν ἐγ̣γύθ̣εν ἔλθηις.
πρόσθεν δὲ εὑρήσεις τᾶς Μναμοσύνας ἀπὸ λίμνας
ψυχρὸν ὕδωρ προρέον· φύλακες δ’ ἐπύπερθεν ἔασι.
οἵ δέ σε εἰρήσονται ἐν<ὶ> φρασὶ πευκαλίμαισι
ὅτ<τ>ι δὴ ἐξερέεις Ἄϊδος σκότος ὀρφ<ν>ήεντος.
ἔιπον· Γῆς παῖ<ς> εἰμι καὶ Οὐρανοῦ ἀστερόεντος·
δίψαι δ’ εἰμ’ αὖος καὶ ἀπόλλυμαι· ἀλ<λ>ὰ δότ’ ὦκ̣α̣
ψυχρὸν ὕδωρ πιέναι τῆς Μνημοσύνας ἀπὸ λίμ<ν>α̣ς.̣
καὶ δή τοι ἐρέουσιν {ι} ὑποχθονίωι βασιλεί<αι>·
καὶ {δή τοι} δώσουσι πιεῖν τᾶς Μναμοσύνας ἀπ[ὸ] λίμνας
καὶ δὴ καὶ σὺ πιὼν ὁδὸν ἔρχεα<ι> ἄν τε καὶ ἄλλοι
μύσται καὶ βάκ̣χοι ἱερὰν στείχουσι κλε<ε>ινοί.
(B10)70
70
Text of Bernabé and Jiménez San Cristóbal 2008. Although I do not always agree with
either their assumptions or their speculations, their comprehensive commentary must
337
7/4:
A funerary gold leaf
This is the work of Memory. When you are about to die [you will go] to the
well-built halls of Hades. A spring is on the right, and standing by it a white
cypress; there the souls of the dead go down and refresh themselves. Do not
go near this spring at all. Further along you will find, from the lake of Memory,
cold water flowing forth. But there are guards over it. They will ask you, with
penetrating minds, what you seek in the darkness of murky Hades. Say: ‘I am
the son of earth and starry sky. I am parched with thirst and I perish, but give
me quickly cold water to drink from the lake of Memory.’ And they will
indeed speak to the ruler of the underworld and will give you to drink from
the lake of Memory, and you too, having drunk, will go along the sacred road
that the other glorious initiates and bacchics travel.
This funerary gold leaf (Fig. 12) is from Hipponion in Calabria, from the cistgrave of a female, dating from around 400 BC; it was first published in 1974.71
I have selected it as a representative of the twelve leaves of the B group with
similar text as the fullest of them. It is the only one to include the final
reference to initiates and bacchics. Three others are relatively full and
specifically name the guards (φύλακες) before the spring;72 the remaining
eight are much shorter,73 but include an unnamed interlocutor (‘Who are you?
Where are you from?’, τίς δ’ ἐσί; πῶ δ’ ἐσί;) and the claim in response of the
soul to be the child of earth and sky.
The dead person is addressed in hexameters. Though the grave seems to be
that of a female, he speaks of himself as male, which might suggest that the
leaf was a standard production, rather than tailor-made for this particular
deceased. The text consists of instructions for the dead soul on its arrival in
form the basis for any understanding of the text. I have also found the treatment of
Johnston (Graf and Johnston 2013: 94-136) useful. On the gold leaves, see Chapter Four.
71
Details of the burial in Edmonds 2011b: 43.
72
B1, B2, B11, ranging from Magna Graecia to Thessaly and the fourth to the third
centuries BC.
73
Mostly late (after 200 BC) and from Crete, though including one (B9) of the fourth
century BC from Thessaly.
338
7/4:
A funerary gold leaf
Hades. It is to avoid the spring at which the souls normally refresh themselves
and pass on to another spring, flowing from the lake of Memory. This,
however, is guarded, and the soul must give the correct response, identifying
itself as the child of earth and heaven, before the guards obtain permission
from the king or queen of the underworld (the gender depends on the
supplement chosen)74 to let the soul drink and proceed along the sacred road
travelled by the other initiates and bacchics.
The initiates and the guards will form a major topic of the next chapter, so I
shall not consider them here. Questions may also occur, however, about other
matters, in particular the significance of the soul’s response and of the role of
Memory, which I shall try to make clearer here.
The soul has to reply to the guards: ‘I am the son of earth and starry sky’ (Γῆς
παῖς εἰμι καὶ Οὐρανοῦ ἀστερόεντος). This is clearly an echo of Hesiod, who
refers to the main race of gods in almost identical terms (οἱ Γῆς ἐξεγένοντο καὶ
Οὐρανοῦ ἀστερόεντος, Th. 106). Three overlapping interpretations have been
put forward:75 that the soul is claiming to be divine, that it is claiming descent
from the Titans who murdered Dionysus in the Orphic myth, and that it is
claiming dual origin, an earthly and a heavenly part.
That the soul is claiming divinity is supported by beliefs such as ‘gods and
mortal men come from the same origin’ (ὁμόθεν γεγάασι θεοὶ θνητοὶ τ’
ἄνθρωποι, Hes. Op. 108)76 and ‘he states the common parents of all are
Merkelbach’s suggestion that the king or queen is the deceased his- or herself
(Merkelbach 1975: 9) seems unlikely; Edmonds 2004: 87.
74
75
Bernabé and Jiménez San Cristóbal 2008: 39-45. See also Edmonds 2009b, Bremmer
2016: 37-41.
76
See West 1978 ad loc. Johnston in Graf and Johnston 2013: 111-12 compares the happy
fate of our initiates to that of Hesiod’s golden race.
339
7/4:
A funerary gold leaf
heaven and earth’ (κοινοὺς ἁπάντων δείκνυσι γονεῖς οὐρανὸν καὶ γῆν, Eur. fr.
1004 Kannicht).77 We also find in other gold leaves claims such as (to
Persephone) ‘I also am of your happy race’ (καὶ γὰρ ἐγὼν ὑμῶν γένος ὄλβιον
εὔχομαι εἶμεν, A1-3), which seems a convincing parallel. Statements of the
type ‘a god you have become from a man’ (θεὸς ἐγένου ἐξ ἀνθρώπου, A4) are
not altogether parallel, as they involve a change in status rather than a claim
to have been divine all along.78
The connection with the Titans is again based on the preconception that the
gold leaves must reflect the Orphic myth of their murder of Dionysus.79 There
is nothing else to recall the Titans in this passage, and the obvious objection is
that a descent from the killers of the son of the underworld queen, as Dionysus
is in the myth, cannot be a recommendation to her.
The third possibility, that the soul is saying that it has a mortal part, descended
from earth, and a divine part, descended from heaven, should be seen in the
context of the expanded version in a fourth-century leaf from Petelia (B1),
which follows the standard claim of lineage from earth and starry sky with the
line ‘but my race is of the sky; this you know yourselves’ (αὐτὰρ ἐμοὶ γένος
οὐράνιον· τόδε δ’ ἴστε καὶ αὐτοί).80 The ‘but’ (αὐτὰρ) might seem to make
little sense (‘I am the child of the sky but my race is of the sky’), 81 but it could
Bremmer 2016: 40 also puts forward Euripides fragment 484, ‘heaven and earth were a
single form, but when they split from each other they gave birth to everything’
(οὐρανός τε γαῖά τ’ ἦν μορφὴ μία· ἐπεὶ δ’ ἐχωρίσθησαν ἀλλήλων δίχα, τίκτουσι πάντα),
plants, animals and humans; gods, however, are not included.
77
78
See Chapter Four section 4 above.
79
For: Bernabé and Jiménez San Cristóbal 2008: 41-2; against: Zuntz 1971: 364-7, Edmonds
2004: 75-80, Johnston in Graf and Johnston 2013: 115.
80
Also B9, ‘but my race is of the sky’, and B2, ‘my name is starry’ (ἀστέριος ὄνομα).
81
Zuntz indeed takes it to be an ignorant late addition (Zuntz 1971: 366-7).
340
7/4:
A funerary gold leaf
perhaps be defended as meaning ‘I am the child of both earth and sky, but it
is my descent from the sky that is important’.82 In any case, whether or not
the soul is alluding to a mortal, earthy, part, it seems clear that it is claiming a
divine lineage.83
The text opens by announcing itself as the work of Memory (Μνημοσύνη),84
and the act of drinking from the waters of Memory, only available to those
who know the right spring to go to and what to say to the guards, seems an
essential step in the soul’s progress along the sacred road. The significance of
this is not at all clear. It would be natural to assume that the soul needs
memory to remember its instructions, but the sequence is wrong, as the
waters of Memory are not drunk until after it has gone to the correct spring
and claimed its lineage. The first spring, the one to avoid where everyone else
drinks, is presumably that of Lethe, or forgetfulness, where memory is erased
on death, which is well attested from other sources,85 but in that case you
might suppose that simply not drinking there would avoid this erasure,
without a further drink being required.
There is another reference to Memory in the very late gold leaf of Caecilia
Secundina (‘accept this gift of Memory’, δέχεσθε Μνημοσύνης τόδε δῶρον,
A5), but this is from a different type of text, the A series, and so far removed
82
Guthrie 195: 174, Janko 2016a: 118.
83
Edmonds 2010: 119-21.
ἔργον, ‘work’, is uncertain (Bernabé and Jiménez San Cristóbal 2008: 12-15), but none of
the proposed alternatives are more plausible. Calame 2006: 237-8, reading ἠρίον, ‘tomb’,
suggests that ‘c’est la lamelle elle-même qui devient un tumulus métaphorique’, which I do
not find altogether convincing. For Janko’s interpretation, see Chapter Four section 5.
Whatever the actual word was, it seems clear that the importance of Memory is being
stated at the commencement of the text.
84
85
Pl. Resp. 621a-b, IKnidos 303.11, schol. Hom. Od. 11.51, Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 8.52.4,
Lucian Luct.5; Bernabé and Jiménez San Cristóbal 2008: 30-1, Johnston in Graf and
Johnston 2013: 117, Jiménez San Cristóbal 2011.
341
7/4:
A funerary gold leaf
in time (2nd or 3rd century AD) as to make doubtful evidence.86 A spring of
Memory was attached to the oracle of Trophonius in Lebadeia (ὕδατος πηγὰς
... Λήθης ... Μνηεμοσύνης, Paus. 9.39.7-8); the enquirer drank the waters of
forgetfulness to forget everything in his mind up to then, and the waters of
memory to remember what he had learned from the oracle.87 There does not
appear to be any connection with the gold leaf apart from the name.
Zuntz connected the spring of Memory with the cycles of reincarnation, 88 but
it is not clear how this would be applicable here. The soul who drinks its waters
seems destined not for reincarnation but for a permanent and blessed place
in the afterlife, so this is nothing to do with the question of whether the
reincarnated soul can remember its previous life. We would have to suppose
that the act of memory in itself in some way stopped the cycle of reincarnation,
and there is no clue to this in the text, or, as we have seen, in any of the other
evidence on reincarnation.
Other theories have been suggested: that it was because Mnemosyne presides
over the poetic function, or that she was the grandmother of Orpheus in the
genealogies, or that memory is the instrument of salvation by the recall and
atonement for past sins, or that it is a guarantee of immortality, or that
memory of one’s past life is necessary for full enjoyment of the blessed state.89
They are speculations, poorly supported by evidence. My own suggestion is
also speculative, but appears to cover the facts. I showed in an earlier chapter
that there was considerable inconsistency among the gold leaves, and that this
86
Zuntz 1971: 335; Bernabé and Jiménez San Cristóbal 2008: 134-5.
87
Zuntz 1971: 379, Edmonds 2004: 107, Bernabé and Jiménez San Cristóbal 2008: 31.
88
Zuntz 1971: 380-1; see also Bernabé and Jiménez San Cristóbal 2008: 32-3, Johnston in
Graf and Johnston 2013: 117-19.
89
Bernabé and Jiménez San Cristóbal 2008: 15-19, Johnston in Graf and Johnston 2013:
119-20.
342
7/4:
A funerary gold leaf
might be taken as evidence that their authors had only an imperfect grasp of
what they were writing. I suggest, therefore, that this text was the work of an
incompetent bricoleur, who has patched together the fountain of Lethe, the
waters of the Book of the dead, to which I shall refer in the next chapter,90 and
the concept of forgetting past lives on reincarnation without much regard to
the coherency and logic of the result.91
We are certainly, however, dealing with initiates (μύσται), who have been
supplied, presumably for a fee, with instructions allowing them to achieve a
better fate in the afterlife, whether in conjunction with or as an alternative to
an initiation ceremony. This is therefore another variant of the activities of
the private initiators.
90
Chapter Eight, section 6.
91
Johnston in Graf and Johnston 2013: 119 refers to a lack of homogeneity in beliefs and
practices outside civic religion.
343
7/5:
5:
The Derveni Papyrus
The Derveni Papyrus
Fig. 13. The Derveni Krater
Derveni Krater. Chalcidice, vers 330-320 avant Jésus Christ. Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki.
By © Michael Greenhalgh http://rubens.anu.edu.au/raider5/greece/thessaloniki/museums/archaeological/metalwork/derveni
_krater/views/With full permission, transmitted to permissions@wikipedia.org, CC BY-SA 2.5,
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=597597
Fig. 14. The Derveni Papyrus
Derveni Papyrus. Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki. Public Domain,
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=1962248
344
7/5:
The Derveni Papyrus
In January 1962, road works about 10 kilometres north of Thessaloniki, close
to the mountain pass of Derveni, uncovered a group of graves from the end of
the fourth century BC, possibly forming an outlying cemetery of the ancient
city of Lete. Among the many objects found there were a number, such as
spear-heads and greaves, with military associations, as well as (in Tomb B) the
Derveni Krater (Fig. 13), a bronze crater richly decorated with scenes of
Dionysus.92 Also found, among the debris of the funeral pyre covering Tomb
A, was a partially carbonised papyrus roll (Fig. 14), clearly intended to have
been burnt with the corpse, but having perhaps fallen off the pyre. 93 Following
a difficult process of conservation and a prolonged process of editing, the
editio maior was finally published in 2006.94 It was the first papyrus to be
discovered on the Greek mainland, and at that time the oldest anywhere.95
The surviving text consists of 26 columns96 in the standard edition, all damaged
and incomplete. Its contents can be divided into three parts. (1) Columns I-VI
92
Ignatiadou 2014 suggests a symbolic religious significance for this. Her earliest attested
case of such a usage is Plato Ti. 41d. There is no reason why it should not relate to a
traditional symposium context.
93
Tsantsanoglou 2014: 11-12 suggests that it may have been a passport to the underworld,
of a superior kind to the gold leaves, but its length and emphasis on philosophical
interpretation seem ill-adapted to this role. Most likely, it was just a valuable possession
like the krater.
94
Kouremenos, Parássoglou and Tsantsanoglou 2006 (hereafter KPT). The text and
translation are by Parássoglou and Tsantsanoglou and the commentary by Kouremenos.
95
This account is based on that of Tsantsanoglou in KPT: 1-19. See also Funghi 1997a,
Betegh 2004: 56-73, Janko 2016b, Kotwick 2017: 12-23, Macfarlane and Del Mastro 2019
and Piano 2016: 5-58, who plausibly suggests that this was the tomb of a senior
commander of Philip or Alexander, and draws parallels with Dionysiac and afterlife themes
in other Macedonian tombs (it was, however, only later that it became common in
Macedonia to regard the dead as heroes; Kalaitzi 2016: 507-9). For a comprehensive and
up-to date bibliography of the papyrus see Funghi 1997b and Santamaría 2019b.
96
Janko 2016b: 11-13 followed by Kotwick 2017 has introduced a completely different
numbering of the columns, based on his calculation of the amount of text completely lost
from the beginning of the document, which in turn is based on a single character in the
345
7/5:
The Derveni Papyrus
and XX discuss various religious practices in which the reader, and perhaps the
author, of the text might be expected to take part. (2) Embedded in the other
columns are about twenty-four quotations from and allusions to an old work
of theogony in hexametric verse, apparently ascribed to Orpheus.97 (3) Finally,
the bulk of the text in these columns is a commentary on this theogony by the
Derveni author, in which he interprets it as an allegory of a kind of pre-Socratic
physics. His work, in a mixed Attic-Ionic dialect, appears to date to the late
fifth century;98 the theogony itself is significantly older. We do not know the
identity either of the actual author of the theogony or of the Derveni author
himself.
The main text that I want to examine here is that of column VI, in the first part
of the above division. First, however, I want briefly to refer to the evidence of
the preceding columns. Unfortunately, as the outer layers of the roll, they
constitute the most severely damaged part of the papyrus, and often only
scattered words can be made out with any confidence. 99 In order to limit the
discussion to what is reasonably certain, I shall generally ignore disputed
readings and supplements.
It is clear, however, that there are several
mentions of daimons and Erinyes.
In column III, among much that is uncertain, there seems to be the beginning
of a statement that ‘daimons under the earth never ...’ (δ]α̣ίμονες οἱ κατὰ̣ [γῆς
surviving papyrus, which he interprets as a stichometric mark (disputed by Piano, paper at
FIEC/CA conference, London, July 2019). Even if his calculation is correct, it seems
unnecessary to change the well-established KPT numbering as a referencing convention,
and I shall accordingly continue to use this.
97
The references to Orpheus as presumed author are in XVIII.2, 6.
98
Bremmer (forthcoming) plausibly conjectures that the commentary was written in
Athens, which would of course suggest that the religious practices he describes may have
been Athenian also.
99
See Appendix: The Derveni Papyrus: a note on the text.
346
7/5:
The Derveni Papyrus
ο]ύδέ̣κ̣οτ̣’, III.6, Ferrari version),100 followed by references to ‘servants of the
gods’ (θ̣εῶν ὐπηρέται, III.7) and possibly also the ‘unjust’ (ἄ̣δικοι̣,101 III.8). It
seems that these may be underworld daimons who act as servants of the gods
against the unjust.102
The idea that col. III also contains a reference to a personal guardian daimon 103
is very doubtful, and seems a product of a preconceived idea and imaginative
supplementation.104 I have already shown105 that the concept of a personal
daimon as a separate being allotted to watch over us was not, as is often
assumed, a ‘widespread concept’106 at this time, but in fact is not attested
before Plato and only became common with the later Stoics. In a fifth century
Ferrari 2011a: 50. Janko ap. Kotwick 2017, however reads οἱ] δὲ [δ]αίμονες, οἳ κατὰ
[τοὺς μ]ά̣γους τιμὰς [ἀ]έ̣ξο
̣ υ
̣ σι [τῶν] θεῶν ὑπερέται δ[ίκης, ‘[Die] Daimones aber, die
gemäss [den] Magoi als Diener des Rechts die Ehren [der] Götter vermehren’ (Kotwick).
Under either reading we have daimons who serve the divine, whether the gods in general
or Justice in particular.
100
101
Piano: ἀδίκουͅ (Piano 1916: 77, Piano 2019: 23). Not read by Janko ap. Kotwick 2017.
Janko ap. Kotwick 2017 reads ‘the daimons ... are great oaths’ (ὅρκοι μεγάλοι εἰσίν),
‘verkörperte Schwüre bezeichnet’, comparing Hesiod ‘[the Styx] was made the great oath
of the gods’ (αὐτὴν μὲν γὰρ ἔθηκε θεῶν μέγαν ἔμμεναι ὅρκον, Th. 400). This, however,
clearly means that they swore by the Styx, not that the Styx was an oath personified.
102
103
Repeated in the commentaries by Tsantsanoglou 1997: 105, Jourdan 2003 ad loc,
Betegh 2004: 86-7, KPT ad loc, Ferrari 2011a: 51-2, Bernabé 2014: 34.
The relevant versions of the text of III.4 are Parássoglou/Tsantsanoglou: [δαίμ]ω̣ν
γίνετα[ι ἑκά]σ̣τωι ἰα̣τ[̣ ρὸς (KPT), Janko: .....(.)]ων γίνετα[ι.....(.)]τιμῶϲι (Janko ap. Kotwick
2017, similarly Janko 2008: 45), Ferrari: δαίμ]ω̣γ γίνετα[ι ἑκά]c̣τωι ἵλ̣ε[̣ ωc (Ferrari 2011a:
50); Piano follows Ferrari, but also gives an alternative version in which this is followed by ἤ
ἀλ[άστωρ (Piano 2016: 73). There is not much agreement, and the key parts are
supplements.
104
105
Chapter SIx section 4 above.
106
Tsantsanoglou 1997: 105.
347
7/5:
The Derveni Papyrus
text such as the one we are considering it would at least be a remarkable first
appearance.107
Erinyes are mentioned several times without any context remaining; 108 in III.5,
they follow ἐξώλεας, ‘pernicious (men)’, which might suggest that the Erinyes
are punishing them.109 The most intriguing reference is in col. IV, where the
Derveni author quotes Heraclitus (DK22B94) as saying that the sun is the width
of a human foot, and if it exceeds the proper boundaries of its width
(ὑπε̣ρβάλλων εἰκ̣ότας οὔρους εὔρους, IV.8), ‘the Erinyes, assistants of justice,
will find it out’ (Ἐρινύε̣ς νιν ἐξευρήσου̣σι, Δίκης ἐπίκουροι, IV.9).110 I do not
know either what Heraclitus means by this or why the Derveni author is
quoting him,111 but it is clear that the Erinyes must play a significant part in the
system he is outlining.112 I shall have more to say on the Erinyes in the next
chapter.
There is finally a mention of ‘in the terrors of Hades’ in the fifth column, which
is concerned with the consultation of oracles (ἐν Ἅιδου δεινὰ V.6).113
107
Megino Rodríguez 2019: 32 also concludes that there is no reference to a personal
daimon here, suggesting that guides during life would not occur in a context of the afterlife.
108
I.6 (not Janko ap. Kotwick 2017), II.3 = Piano Soluzione 1 I.3 (Piano 1916: 69) (not Janko),
III.3 (only Janko).
Piano’s apparatus for this (Piano 2016: 77) is: ἐξώλεαςͅ (vel ἐξώλεα σ[ in comm.) Ts1, KPT
[οὐ μ]έͅτεͅ ιͅ ͅσͅιͅ legi et supplevi, οὐ monente Most, νουθ]ετεῖ δι’ KPT, ἐξώλεα σ[ίνεται] εἰ ἔτεισ’
Fe (σ[ίνεται] at longius), ἐξώλε’ ἀσ[ινέ’ ὃς] ἔτεισ’ Fe2, ἑκ[ὰς] coni. Most, ἕκα[στ’ Fe,
ἑκά[στης τῶν KPT Ἐρινύω[ν KPT, Ἐρινύσ[ι Fe
109
Δίκης ἐπίκουροι is the usual supplement from the quotation in Plutarch De exil. 604a,
not, however, accepted by Piano.
110
111
See Kirk 1954: 284-8, Sider 1997, Jourdan 2003 ad loc, KPT ad loc.
112
Tsantsanoglou 2014: 3 believes that the author gives them an expanded role, upgrading
their function from social to cosmic, but we have already seen (Chapter 6 section 6 above)
that their role was wider than usually conceived.
Janko’s correction of KPT’s ἆρ’ to ἐν is accepted by Tsantsanoglou 2018: 15-16. For
further discussion of this passage, see above Chapter One section 6.
113
348
7/5:
The Derveni Papyrus
Whatever the precise meaning of this in the context, which is problematic, it
is clear that the terrors of Hades were considered real and had some significant
role in what is being described.
The sixth column is fortunately much better preserved than the earlier ones,
and I give it here in full.114
[ c.8 εὐ]χ̣αὶ̣ 115 καὶ θυσ[ί]α̣ι μ[ειλ]ί̣σσ
̣ ̣ο̣υσι τ̣ὰ[̣ ς ψυχάς,]116
ἐπ̣[ωιδὴ δ]ὲ̣ μάγων δύν[α]ται δ̣αίμονας ἐμ[ποδών]
γι̣[νομένο]υ̣ς μεθιστάν̣αι· δαίμον̣ες ἐμπο[δών δ' εἰσὶ]117
ψ[υχαῖς ἐχθ]ρ̣οί118. τὴν θυσ[ία]ν̣ τούτου̣ ἕνεκε[ν] π̣[οιοῦσ]ι̣[ν]
5 οἱ μά̣[γο]ι̣, ὡ̣σ̣περεὶ ποινὴν̣ ἀποδιδόντες. τοῖ[ς] δὲ
ἱεροῖ[ς] ἐπισπένδουσιν ὕ[δω]ρ καὶ γάλα, ἐξ ὧνπερ καὶ τὰς
χοὰς ποιοῦσι. ἀνάριθμα̣ [κα]ὶ̣ πολυόμφαλα τὰ πόπανα
θύουσιν, ὅτι καὶ αἱ ψυχα[ὶ ἀν]ά̣ριθμοί̣ ε̣ἰσι. μύσται
Εὐμεν̣ίσι προθύουσι κ[ατὰ τὰ] α̣ὐτὰ μ̣άγ̣ οις· Εὐμενίδες γὰρ
10 ψυχαί ε̣ἰσ
̣ ιν. ὧν ἕνεκ̣[εν τὸν μέλλοντ]α θεοῖς θύειν
ὀ̣[ρ]ν̣ί̣θ[̣ ε]ιον119 πρότερον [
c.11 ] ̣ιc̣ π
̣ ̣τ̣ε[̣ ̣ ]̣ ται
̣ ο
[ ̣ ̣ ̣]ω[ ]̣ τε καὶ τὸ κα̣[
]ου ̣ ̣ [̣ ̣ ]̣ ι̣ ̣
εἰσὶ δὲ [ ̣ ̣ ̣] ι̣ ̣ ̣ [̣
]τουτο [̣
ὅσαι δὲ [
]ων ἀλλ̣[
φ̣ο̣ρο
̣ υ[
] ̣ ̣ ̣[
(P. Derv., col. VI)
… [prayers? libations?] and offerings appease [the souls? the (Persian)
heroes?] … the incantation of the magi is able to remove/change the
114
See Appendix: The Derveni Papyrus: a note on the text.
‘prayers’; χοὴ’ (‘libations’) Ferrari after Tsantsanoglou; [χοαὶ γάρ, εὐ]χαὶ (‘libations,
prayers’) Bernabé, δω]ρ̣εα̣ί (‘gifts’) Janko ap. Kotwick 2017.
115
116
‘souls’; τὰ[ς ἀ]ρτάδ[ας (‘(Persian) heroes’) Ferrari.
117
δαίμονͅες ἐμπο[δίζουσι ὡς (‘sono d’ostaculo como’) Piano.
‘hostile’; τιμω]ροῖ (‘vengeful’) Tsantsanoglou 1997: 113 conj.; φρου]ροί (‘guarding’)
Tsantsanoglou 1997: 113 conj.; δει]νοί (‘good at’) Ferrari; κλητ]εοί (‘called [souls]’) Janko
2016b: 21; νοητ]έοι (‘[als Seelen] verstanden’) Janko ap. Kotwick 2017.
118
‘of a bird’; φ[ο]ρ̣τί̣ ον (‘burden’) Janko ap. Kotwick 2017; φὶ̣ ῥ̣υ̣τί̣ ον (‘to them a drinkinghorn’) Tsantsanoglou 2018: 17.
119
349
7/5:
The Derveni Papyrus
hindering daimons; hindering daimons [hostile to? vengeful against?
guarding? good at (hindering)? hinder like?] souls. For this reason, the magi
make offerings, as if, as it were, paying an atonement. They pour on the
offerings water and milk, from which they also make libations. The cakes they
offer are countless and many-knobbed, for the souls too are countless. The
initiates make preliminary offerings to the Eumenides in the same way the
magi do, for the Eumenides are souls. For this reason, … sacrifice to the gods
… bird first …
This fascinating text raises many difficult questions of interpretation. I shall
try to deal with as many of these as possible, before going on, in the next
chapter, to place it in relation to the three previous sources.
It may be helpful to begin with a summary of what seems to be occurring,
before looking at individual points in more detail. There are two groups
performing religious rites, initiates and magi.120 I have already discussed the
identity of the magi.121 The magi chant incantations, make offerings of cakes
and make libations of milk and water. These are connected with the souls of
the dead, and at least partly directed at thwarting hindering daimons, who
have some relationship with the souls. The initiates make offerings to the
Eumenides, who also are souls, in a similar way.122
In the first line of the column, the ritual actions are appeasing some beings in
a lacuna of the text, which is normally and plausibly supplemented as souls,
τάς ψυχάς. Ferrari, however, has suggested τὰς ἀρτάδας, a rare word derived
120
Obbink 1997: 51 seems to suggest that the initiates are not involved in the rites, but are
only mentioned as a comparison to explain what the magi are doing, but this is not a
natural way of reading the passage and as far as I am aware has not found any supporters.
121
Chapter One section 6.
I have not considered the reference to something connected with birds, ὀρνίθειον, in
line 11. There is a full discussion in Piano 2016: 207-16, who suggests that they are being
freed not sacrificed, and are symbols of the soul. It is probably better to admit our
ignorance of what this word might mean here. Janko 2017b: 21-2, however, does not read
the word at all.
122
350
7/5:
The Derveni Papyrus
from the Iranian artavan, ‘those who possess truth’, or ‘heroes’,123 as an
alternative, based on the supposition, which I discussed above, 124 that the
magi are Iranians.125 There is little positive evidence for this conjecture. Piano
doubts that the artavan, which she translates as ‘giusti’, would be appeased
rather than honoured, and points out the difficulty with the feminine form
rather than the masculine ἀρταῖοι.126 The offerings of cakes which we shall
come to shortly must be made to the souls, or there would be little point in
the comparison of their countless knobs to the countless souls, and it seems
reasonable to suppose that the souls are being referred to here too. 127
The offerings are made ‘as if, as it were, paying an atonement’ (ὡσπερεὶ
ποινὴν ἀποδιδόντες, VI.5). I have already discussed the possible significance
of ποινή.128 Bernabé, again relating everything to late Orphic myth, sees here
a reference to the crime of the Titans,129 but there is nothing in the text to
specifically link it to this.
Johnston has suggested that the purpose is to purge the initiands of contagious
blood-guilt; although it is not credible, she admits, that they were all in fact
murderers, the persuasive initiator will have convinced them that there is a
strong likelihood that an ancestor or even fellow-townsman would have been,
οἱ δίκαιοι, ὑπὸ μάγων, Hesych. s..v. ἀρτάδες; οἱ ἥρωες, παρὰ Πέρσαις, Hesych. s.v.
ἀρταῖοι.
123
124
Chapter One section 6.
125
Ferrari 2011b: 77-9, 2014: 63-5. See also Tsantsanoglou 1997: 110n25. Contra: Bernabé
2014: 29.
126
Piano 2016: 193-9.
127
Johnston 2014: 98.
128
Chapter Five section 7.
129
Bernabé 2014: 45-6.
351
7/5:
The Derveni Papyrus
and that they had better undergo the process to be sure. 130 There is no
evidence in the text to support this conjecture, which does not seem very
plausible.
The rites consist of incantations, offerings of cakes and libations. The ἐπῳδαι,
‘incantations’,131 of VI.2 are presumably the same as the εὐχαί, ‘prayers’, of
VI.1, if that word can be read there (see text above). There are references
elsewhere in the papyrus to something set to music (ἁρμοστοὺς τῆι μουσικῆι,
II.8)132 and to hymns (ἐν τοῖς Ὕμνοις, XXII.11).133 Incantations at this period
were generally associated with γόηται, sorcerers, rather than magi (e.g. γόης
έπῳδὸς, ‘chanting sorcerer’, Eur. Bacch. 234).134 Herodotus (1.132) does,
however, describe the Persian magi making theogonic incantations at
sacrifices,135 which has led to the suggestion that the incantation referred to
here was none other than the Orphic theogony on which the author of the
Derveni Papyrus comments,136 though it is not clear why telling a mythological
story might be supposed to have an apotropaic effect on the daimons.
Theopompus says that it is through the invocations of the magi that the things
130
Johnston 2014: 99-100; see also Johnston 1999: 132-6.
Tsantsantoglou 1997: 111 suggests ἔντομα, ‘sacrificial victims’, as an alternative, but as
Jourdan 2003: 6 observes, this would not be appropriate to the bloodless offerings that are
otherwise being described.
131
132
This, however, is not preserved in Piano’s alternatives (Piano 2016: 68-75).
133
Obbink 1997: 48-9.
134
For other examples, see Johnston 1999: 111.
135
See also Plut. Quaest. conv. 706d on their use by Persian magi on the possessed (τοὺς
δαιμονιζομένους); Bernabé 2007b: 163-4.
136
Tsantsanoglou 1997: 111, Kotwick 2017: 140-1.
352
7/5:
The Derveni Papyrus
that are will endure (τὰ ὄντα ταῖς αὐτῶν ἐπικλήσεσι διαμενεῖν, FGrH 115
F64).137
I translate θύω as ‘make offerings’, rather than the usual ‘sacrifice’, as its
semantic range covers not only the killing of animals, but also the offering to
a divine power, or to the dead, of natural produce, food and drink.138 Here we
have cakes, πόπανα, with knobs, ὀμφαλοί, a common offering to many
different divine powers.139 Clement of Alexandria (Protr. 2.22 = OF590)
includes many-knobbed cakes, πόπανα πολυόμφαλα, in his list of the contents
of a mystic chest, κίστη μυστική,140 but, as often with Clement, he is confused
about which mysteries he is describing, beginning by seeming to offer an
explanation of the Eleusinian mysteries, but then referring to the snake of
Dionysus.141 The reason given in the papyrus for the use of cakes, that they
are countless and many-knobbed because the souls are countless (VI.7-8),
seems to be an interpretation by the Derveni author himself, and cannot be
regarded as the authentic reason for their presence.
Like many of his
interpretations of the Orphic theogony, it is not very convincing, and is perhaps
best seen, as Betegh suggests, as just a vague analogy.142
137
See Hicks 1925 ad loc for alternative texts and interpretations.
E.g. ἔξελε τὸ πόπανον, ὅπως λαβοῦσα θύσω τοῖν θεοῖν, ‘take out the cake, so that I can
take it and offer it to the two goddesses’, Ar. Thesm. 284-5; KPT: 170.
138
139
For details, see Henrichs 1984: 260-1, Kearns 1994. Tsantsanoglou 1997: 114 compares
the Iranian frasast. The cakes (πόπανα) are linked with preliminary offerings (προθύματα)
in Aristophanes (Plut. 660).
140
Jourdan 2003: 38-9.
141
Contrary to the later claim of Eusebius (Praep. Evang. 2.2.64), it is very unlikely that
Clement had any personal experience of the mysteries, but was instead relying on some
now lost compilation; Herrero de Jáuregui 2007: 20-3, 2010: 147-9. For Clement’s motives,
see Jourdan 2010.
142
Betegh 2004: 84.
353
7/5:
The Derveni Papyrus
The magi make wineless libations, of water and milk. If we read χοή or χοαί in
VI.1 (see text above for variant readings) these are also specifically part of the
appeasement, along with the offerings and incantations. There is an earlier
reference in column II to libations in drops (χοαὶ σταγόσιν, II.5),143 which is odd
as libations are normally poured out on the ground. 144 Janko’s different
reconstruction of the earlier columns reads this as being to the Erinyes (χοαὶ
σταγόσιν Ἐρινύων, III.4).145 An unplaced fragment may also refer to wineless,
νηφ[άλιος, libations.146
Wineless libations were frequently made in Greek religion to a wide range of
Olympian and other divinities.147 This includes the Eumenides, or Semnai
Theai, where the mixture was water and honey.148 It also includes the
Erinyes.149 In the Eumenides the ghost of Clytemnestra says to the chorus of
Erinyes ‘you have indeed licked up many of mine, wineless libations, sober
propitiations’,150 and in Apollonius Rhodius, Circe ‘within by the hearth was
burning propitiatory cakes with wineless offerings to stop the anger of the
143
= Piano Soluzione 1 I.5, Soluzione 2 3bis.5 (Piano 2016: 69,74).
144
Tsantsanoglou 1997: 102.
145
Janko 2008: 45, Janko ap. Kotwick 2017.
146
I 78, KPT: 124, Bernabé 2014: 30; cf. Ferrari 2007: 203.
147
See the survey in Henrichs 1983: 93-100. This included offerings to the winds (Ἀνέμοις),
IG II2 1367.19-20, but this is just one in a long list of other divine powers.
Soph. OC 100, 158-60, 481. The scholiast on 159 links μειλιχίων, ‘propitiatory’, with
μέλιτος, ‘honeyed’. See also Callim. fr. 681, schol. Aesch. 1.188; Henrichs 1984: 258-60,
Tsantsanoglou 1997: 102-3, Piano 2016: 228-31.
148
Bernabé 2014: 30-1; Tsantsanoglou’s statement (1997: 103) that no information on
libations to the Erinyes has survived is wrong.
149
ἦ πολλὰ μὲν δὴ τῶν ἐμῶν ἐλείξατε, χοάς τ᾽ ἀοίνους, νηφάλια μειλίγματα, Aesch. Eum.
106-7.
150
354
7/5:
The Derveni Papyrus
terrible Erinyes’.151 Libations to the dead, however, or to heroes, were
generally not wineless.152 At Selinous, as we saw in section 3, the impure
Tritopatores received wine, the pure a wineless honey mixture (μελίκρατα,
A13).153
The incantations, offerings of cakes and wineless libations are therefore in
themselves in no way exceptional in Greek religion. What might be more
exceptional is what they are used for, which again raises a number of
questions.
Who are the hindering daimons?
Whom or what are they
hindering?
What is it that the magi are able to do to them by their
incantations? What is their relation to the other beings mentioned in the
papyrus, the Erinyes, the Eumenides and the souls?
These questions will be considered in the next chapter, when I shall try to bring
out what the four sources that we have just examined have in common.
It is, however, clear that we are dealing both with initiates (μύσται, VI.8) and
with persons claiming religious authority (μάγοι) who take action against
hostile divine beings, and apparently also are religious professionals (τέχνην
ποιουμένου τὰ ἱερά, XX.4) who charge fees (τὴν δαπάνην προσανηλῶσθαι,
XX.9).154 These are therefore private initiators.
ἡ δ᾽ εἴσω πελάνους μείλικτρά τε νηφαλίῃσιν καῖεν ἐπ᾽ εὐχωλῇσι παρέστιος, ὄφρα
χόλοιο σμερδαλέας παύσειεν Ἐρινύας, 4.712-14. Bernabé 2014: 30-1 also cites the Orphic
Argonautica 572-5, but this is very late (perhaps 5th century AD).
151
152
For examples and bibliography, see Henrichs 1983: 99, Tsantsanoglou 1997: 103,
Johnston 1999: 41n12.
153
JJK: 70-3.
154
Chapter One section 6 above.
355
8/1:
Introduction
Chapter Eight
A common conception of the afterlife
1:
1:
Introduction ............................................................................................... 356
2:
Souls survive after death ........................................................................... 358
3:
Dead souls are divided into two classes .................................................... 363
4:
One class has a better fate after death ..................................................... 368
5:
The division is the result of initiation ........................................................ 371
6:
The division was enforced by hostile daimons ......................................... 374
7:
The hostile daimons are neutralised by the initiation .............................. 381
8:
The hostile daimons may have been souls of the dead too ..................... 383
9:
Conclusion ................................................................................................. 392
Introduction
In the preceding chapter, we looked at four sources of disparate origin. The
Pythagorean Notebooks is an account of certain doctrines ascribed, whether
correctly or not, to the early followers of Pythagoras. The lex sacra of Selinous
is a set of religious regulations from Sicily. The third source is a gold leaf found
in a south Italian grave giving instructions for the soul after death. Finally, we
have a papyrus from Macedonia containing fragmentary details of what seems
an otherwise unknown cult.
Though the first is difficult to date, the others appear to come from the midto late- fifth-century. There is no indication that any of them knew of the other
three. There can be no question of them all representing the same cult,
sharing a common and consistent doctrine. In one we have public sacrifices
356
8/1:
Introduction
regulated by the authorities, in another the rites are performed by people
called magi, in a third the responsibility seems to be on each individual after
their death. In one the dead are led by Hermes into the air, in another they
are among the springs and cypresses of Hades, in a third they seem to be
menaced by hindering daimons.
Nevertheless, it seems to me that the four do share a basic view of the afterlife
and of the individual’s relation to it that is unusual, at least outside the
Eleusinian mysteries. Having examined the problems of each of the four
sources individually, I now want to look at them together and try to bring out
what these things are that they have in common. I shall be contending that
they draw on a similar view of the afterlife, in which:
(i) souls survive after death,
(ii) dead souls are divided into two classes,
(iii) one class has a better fate after death,
(iv) the division is the result of initiation,
(v) the division was enforced by hostile daimons,
(vi) the hostile daimons are neutralised by the initiation,
(vii) the hostile daimons may have been souls of the dead too.
357
8/2:
2:
Souls survive after death
Souls survive after death
Any doctrine of the afterlife is naturally predicated on the assumption that
something of us survives after death. This, however, was far from a universal
belief in classical Greece. I have outlined the development of the ancient
Greek concept of the soul above.1 Although something of us, called the ψυχή
but only partly equivalent to the later idea of soul, does survive after death in
Homer, it has a shadowy existence as one of the ‘strengthless heads of the
dead’ (νεκύων ἀμενηνὰ κάρηνα, Od. 10.521). By the fifth century, this idea
had faded, and though ψυχή was sometimes used in the context of the
afterlife, it was also quite natural to speak of it as something that perished.
Plato certainly regarded the immortality of the soul as a doctrine that was not
generally believed and would not be readily accepted (Phd. 70a, Resp. 608d).
The Pythagorean Notebooks clearly state that the soul is immortal (ἀθάνατον
τ’ εἶναι αὐτήν, D.L. 8.28). When the soul is cast (ἐκριφθεῖσαν) on the earth,
that is, when it dies, it wanders in the air like the body (πλάζεσθαι ἐν τῷ ἀέρι
ὁμοίαν τῷ σώματι, D.L. 8.31). They add that the air is full of souls (ψυχῶν
ἔμπλεον, D.L. 8.32), which are called daimons and heroes (ταύτας δαίμονάς τε
καὶ ἥρωας ὀνομάζεσθαι, D.L. 8.32), and were responsible for things like
dreams, divination and purifications. Heroes were illustrious dead.2 It is not
clear if this implies that all dead souls are daimons and heroes, or just a select
group, or indeed whether the daimons and heroes are the same or two
1
Chapter Two section 2.
2
Farnell 1921, Rohde 1925: 115-55, Burkert 1985: 203-8, Whitley 1994: 220-22, Ekroth
2015.
358
8/2:
Souls survive after death
different groups.3 The idea that souls in general become daimons is a late
development, as I demonstrated earlier,4 but it was certainly current among
the Stoics, who may have been one of the sources of the doctrines of the
Notebooks.5
In Selinous, there is sacrifice to the Tritopatores, who as we determined in the
previous chapter were ancestors, and so another form of the dead. If they
were able to receive sacrifice, they must have survived in some form. The
same is naturally true of the select band of heroes to whom their rites are
compared (hόϲπερ τοῖς hερόεϲι, A10), but here there is no indication that we
are not dealing with all ancestors, and therefore all the dead. As noted also in
the previous chapter, there is some evidence of the cult of the Tritopatores in
Attica and Kyrene, and although we have no details of what was involved
there, it is natural to assume that this was a similar ancestor cult.
The gold leaves, of course, are instructions to the soul after death, and so
obviously assume its survival.
The souls referred to several times in the Derveni Papyrus are certainly also
the souls of the dead. This was a normal non-philosophical meaning of ψυχή.6
Their description as countless (αἱ ψυχαὶ ἀνάριθμοί εἰσι, VI.8) is peculiarly
characteristic of the dead, who are often called ‘the majority’, οἱ πλείους (e.g.
Ar. Eccl. 1073),7 are described as ‘myriad tribes’ (ἔθνε᾽ ... μυρία νεκρῶν, Hom.
3
Delatte 1922: 227. Pythagoras is said elsewhere to have distinguished a hierarchy of gods,
daimons, demigods or heroes and men (Iambl. VP 37), but this ‘Pythagoras’ is not
necessarily closely connected with the ‘Pythagoreans’ of the Notebooks.
4
Chapter Six section 3.
5
Chapter Seven section 2.
6
Claus 1981: 111-21, Bremmer 1983: 70-124, Henrichs 1984: 262.
7
Rohde 1925: 570n124.
359
8/2:
Souls survive after death
Od. 11.632) and ‘swarms’ (ἑσμός, Aesch. fr. 273a; σμῆνος, Soph. fr. 879),8 and
equated by some Pythagoreans with the stars of the Milky Way (κατὰ
Πυθαγόραν αἱ ψυχαί, ἃς συνάγεσθαι φησὶν εἰς τὸν γαλαξίαν, Porph. De antr.
nymph. 28).9 Although the offerings and libations are here connected with the
souls, as the cakes offered are said to be countless because the souls are
countless (VI.7-8), it is not clear that the offerings are actually made to the
souls, as at Selinous. I shall try to disentangle the various types of soul referred
to in the papyrus in section 8 below.
Two further points are worth noting. The origin of the soul is twice referred
to. In the Pythagorean Notebooks it is said to be immortal, since it is a
detachment (ἀπόσπασμα, a Stoic term)10 from the aether, and that from
which it is detached is immortal (D.L. 8.28). In the Hipponion gold leaf, the
soul says it is the child of earth and starry sky (Γῆς παῖς εἰμι καὶ Οὐρανοῦ
ἀστερόεντος), suggesting a claim to some kind of divine origin. The two claims
are difficult to interpret and not altogether compatible, but they perhaps have
something in common, in proposing a more than mortal origin.
There is also the apparent allusion in two of the sources to winds. The
Pythagorean Notebooks say that the principles of the soul are winds, and that
the soul and its principles are invisible, since the aether too is invisible (τοὺς
δὲ λόγους ψυχῆς ἀνέμους εἶναι. ἀόρατόν τ᾽ εἶναι αὐτὴν καὶ τοὺς λόγους, ἐπεὶ
καὶ ὁ αἰθὴρ ἀόρατος, D.L. 8.30). I hesitantly translate λόγοι as ‘principles’,
without knowing quite what this would mean, as alternative translations such
8
Henrichs 1984: 262n30.
9
KPT: 170. On souls and the Milky Way in Heraclides of Pontus, see Kupreeva 2009: 10814.
10
Long and Sedley 1987: 2.321. As I noted above, the terminology might be due to one of
the intermediate authors who transmitted the text, Alexander Polyhistor or Diogenes
Laertius.
360
8/2:
Souls survive after death
as ‘reason’ or ‘word’ would be even less intelligible.
We also saw in
Harpocration and other lexicons the identification of the Tritopatores with
winds, or more frequently with children, masters, doorkeepers or guardians of
the winds.11
It is not easy to see how the winds come in here, but there may be a
connection with the medical theory of pneuma, a kind of vital breath
throughout the body, maintained by Diocles of Carystos and later by the
Stoics.12 Also, Anaximenes says ‘As our soul, being air, governs us, so too
breath and air surround the whole world’ (οἵον ἠ ψυχή, φησίν, ἡ ἠμετέρα άήρ
οὖσα συγκρατεῖ ἡμᾶς, καὶ ὄλον τὸν κόσμον πνεῦμα καὶ ἀὴρ περιέχει,
DK13B2). Later, Diogenes of Apollonia identified intelligence with air (καί μοι
δοκεῖ τὸ τὴν νόησιν ἔχον εἶναι ὁ ἀὴρ καλούμενος ὑπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων,
DK64B5).13
The commentator of the Derveni Papyrus identified Zeus with air (ἀὲρ δὲ Ζεύς,
XXIII.3), and Betegh and Piano have both conjectured that he would have
thought that souls, too, are composed of the same element. 14 It should be
noted, however, that there is no direct evidence for this in what we have of
the papyrus. It is an extrapolation from his identification of the divine with
Zeus, or air, and seems therefore to imply that our souls too are identical with
the divine Zeus, which, if it is the commentator’s view, is not explicitly stated.
Piano’s reference to epic descriptions of the Erinyes as clothed in or walking in
ἀήρ (ἠέρα ἐσσάμενοι, Hes. Op. 125, 255, ἠεροφοῖτις, Hom. Il. 9.571, 19.87) do
not support her case, as being clothed in air is not the same as actually being
11
Chapter Seven section 3 above.
12
Festugière 1945: 52, Nutton 2004: 122, Lloyd 2007, Megino Rodríguez 2011a.
13
For the influence of Diogenes on the Derveni commentator, see Betegh 2004: 306-21.
14
Betegh 2004: 346, Piano 2016: 269-73.
361
8/2:
Souls survive after death
air, and in any case ἀήρ at this early period meant ‘mist’; the meaning is that
they come unseen to bring retribution.
The use of the term ‘winds’ (ἄνεμοι) here is odd, but the Hippocratic treatise
On breaths (Περὶ φύσων) does identify air and wind as external pneuma,
breath as internal pneuma, both being necessary to life (Flat. 3), and the
Pythagorean Notebooks (D.L. 8.28) say that the soul has been broken off from
the aether, which is another kind of airy substance. Aristotle cites a so-called
Orphic source (ἐν τοῖς Ὀρφικοῖς καλουμένοις) for the view that ‘the soul
comes in from the whole in breathing, borne by the winds’ (τὴν ψυχὴν ἐκ τοῦ
ὅλου εἰσιέναι ἀναπνεόντων, φερομένην ὑπὸ τῶν ἀνέμων, De an. 410b =
OF421), and a quotation attributed to Orpheus by the second century AD
astrologer Vettius Valens, says that the divine human soul is rooted in the
aether and drawn in from the air (ψυχὴ δ’ ἀνθρώποισιν ἀπ’ αἰθέρος
ἐρρίζωται. καὶ ἄλλως· ἀέρα δ’ ἕλκοντες ψυχὴν θείαν δρεπόμεσθα, 9.1.42-4 =
OF422, 436).15 The semantic ranges of φῦσα, πνεῦμα, ἄνεμος, ἀήρ and αἰθήρ
overlap.16
There is no doubt, then, that all four sources maintain the survival of the soul
after death, by no means a universal belief at the time, and one which
underpins everything that follows. Common allusions to an immortal or divine
origin and to the soul as air, wind or pneuma are also possible.
15
Bernabé 2011: 194-6, Bernabé 2013b: 133-4, Edmonds 2013b: 287-8.
16
For Mesopotamian parallels see Minen 2019.
362
8/3:
3:
Dead souls are divided into two classes
Dead souls are divided into two classes
In the Pythagorean Notebooks we read:
τὸν δ᾽ Ἑρμῆν ταμίαν εἶναι τῶν ψυχῶν καὶ διὰ τοῦτο πομπαῖον λέγεσθαι καὶ
πυλαῖον καὶ χθόνιον, ἐπειδήπερ οὗτος εἰσπέμπει ἀπὸ τῶν σωμάτων τὰς
ψυχὰς ἀπό τε γῆς καὶ ἐκ θαλάττης: καὶ ἄγεσθαι τὰς μὲν καθαρὰς ἐπὶ τὸν
ὕψιστον, τὰς δ᾽ ἀκαθάρτους μήτ᾽ ἐκείναις πελάζειν μήτ᾽ ἀλλήλαις, δεῖσθαι δ᾽
ἐν ἀρρήκτοις δεσμοῖς ὑπ᾽ Ἐρινύων.
(D.L. 8.31)
Hermes is the steward of souls, and for that reason is called Escort and
Gatekeeper and of the Underworld, since it is he who brings in the souls from
their bodies from land and sea. The pure are led into the uppermost region,
but the impure cannot approach them or each other, but are bound in
unbreakable bonds by the Erinyes.
All souls after death are therefore divided into two classes, pure (καθαραί) and
impure (ἀκάθαρτοι). It seems clear from the way this is expressed that there
are not any unassigned souls, any intermediate class, or any different degrees
of impurity.
Similarly, at Selinous the sacrifices are to two kinds of
Tritopatores, to the polluted (τοῖς μιαροῖς) and to the pure (τοῖς καθαροῖς).
In the other two sources, the two groups are not distinguished by such
identifying terms. It is easy to see, however, that two groups are implied in
each case. In the gold leaves the other souls of the dead are described as
drinking from the first spring, probably that of Lethe, or Forgetfulness; those
following the instructions on the gold leaf, however, are to avoid this and go
to the spring of Memory. Again, then, we have two mutually exclusive groups.
Although the Derveni Papyrus is less explicit, we can deduce from the presence
of initiates (μύσται, VI.8) the existence of a corresponding group of noninitiates, which it is reasonable to suppose formed a significant distinction in
the afterlife.
363
8/3:
Dead souls are divided into two classes
This raises two obvious questions. What do pure and impure mean here? And
is this distinction really of the same kind as that in the two last sources, those
initiated or possessing the gold leaf and the others?
The debate on the meaning of pure and impure has largely centred on the
Tritopatores of Selinous. Opinion has divided on whether they are different
groups, or the same group before and after purification. The first editors think
them the same, and that the pollution was probably caused by homicide within
the kin group transferred from the killers to their ancestors. 17 Johnston,
agreeing that they are the same, is sceptical of divinities being polluted by
humans, and thinks the pollution caused by the ancestors’ own transgressions;
she refers to the itinerant priests of Plato who offer purifications from evildoing (καθαρμοὶ ἀδικημάτων) for both the living and the dead (ἔτι ζῶσιν ...
καὶ τελευτήσασιν, Resp. 364e-365a = OF573).18 Clinton, however, believes
them two distinct groups, like the black and white goddesses of Megalopolis
(Paus. 8.34.1-3); if they had been the same, he argues, they would have been
referred to as ‘as pure’ (hος καθαροῖς) not ‘the pure’ (τοῖς καθαροῖς), placing
perhaps excessive emphasis on the choice of a single word. 19 Robertson
agrees that there are two groups, connecting the difference with the
improvement in the weather during the summer months, an argument I am
unable to follow.20
As perhaps will be apparent from the variety of these theories, none of them
have any very conclusive support, though Johnston makes an important
connection to the private practitioners. In putting forward an explanation, I
17
JJK: 29-30.
18
Johnston 1999: 52-4.
19
Clinton 1996: 172.
20
Robertson 2010: 156-7.
364
8/3:
Dead souls are divided into two classes
should like to focus on the meaning of the term καθαρός. Like many such
words, its import could be quite varied, including such meanings as ‘unmixed’,
‘genuine’, or ‘free from debt’ (LSJ s.v. καθαρός). In a religious sense it is often
translated as ‘pure’. As Zuntz observed, however, it has a different semantic
range from words like ὅσιος or ἁγνός, and often carries the implication of
‘purified’ or ‘cleansed from pollution’.21
So Orestes, after his ritual purification for the murder of Clytemnestra, is
described as a ἱκέτης ... καθαρὸς ἁβλαβὴς, ‘a purified and harmless suppliant’
(Aesch. Eum. 474). Iphigenia performs ritual purification of the temple of
Artemis, so that καθαρὸν οἰκήσεις δόμον, the goddess ‘shall inhabit a purified
dwelling’ (Eur. IT 1231). There is therefore an implication that the καθαροί
have not just maintained a pure state, for example because of a certain mode
of life, but have gone through a process designed to make them pure.
As to what this process might be, there is a significant link in Plato:
καὶ κινδυνεύουσι καὶ οἱ τὰς τελετὰς ἡμῖν οὗτοι καταστήσαντες οὐ φαῦλοί
τινες εἶναι, ἀλλὰ τῷ ὄντι πάλαι αἰνίττεσθαι ὅτι ὃς ἂν ἀμύητος καὶ ἀτέλεστος
εἰς Ἅιδου ἀφίκηται ἐν βορβόρῳ κείσεται, ὁ δὲ κεκαθαρμένος τε καὶ
τετελεσμένος ἐκεῖσε ἀφικόμενος μετὰ θεῶν οἰκήσει.
(Phd. 69c = OF434)
And very likely too those who established our mysteries were not ignorant,
but in fact long ago hinted that he who comes to Hades uninitiated will lie in
filth, but he who comes there purified and initiated will dwell with the gods.
21
Zuntz 1971: 307. For a theory of how this meaning might have evolved, see De Bock
Cano 1982: 122-6.
365
8/3:
Dead souls are divided into two classes
Here, having been purified (κεκαθαρμένος) is equated with having been
initiated (τετελεσμένος) in the mysteries.22 Similarly, in the Phaedrus, the
initiates (μυούμενοι) are identified with the pure (καθαροί):
ὁλόκληρα δὲ καὶ ἁπλᾶ καὶ ἀτρεμῆ καὶ εὐδαίμονα φάσματα μυούμενοί τε
καὶ ἐποπτεύοντες ἐν αὐγῇ καθαρᾷ, καθαροὶ ὄντες
(Phdr. 250c)
Initiated and seeing as an initiate perfect and simple and calm and happy
apparitions in a pure light, being ourselves pure
We can also add the evidence of a different type of gold leaf, those of the A
series, in which the soul begins by stating Ἔρχομαι ἐκ καθαρῶν καθαρά, ‘I
come purified from the purified’.23 This kind of polyptoton is a common Greek
idiom, though more usually expressing parentage, as ἀγαθοὶ ἐξ ἀγαθῶν, ‘fine
sons of fine fathers’ (Andoc. De myst. 109).24 Here it does not seem likely that
the soul would be claiming that its parents had also undergone purification,
and so it might reasonably be interpreted as referring to the initiates in which
the dead person was also included.25
There is evidence, then, that καθαρός could mean ‘initiated’ in certain
contexts. If so, there is no problem about the use of ἀκάθαρτος, its negative,
for ‘uninitiated’ in the Pythagorean Notebooks. μιαρός at Selinous is more
difficult. Although it also can be seen as a negative of καθαρός, it does carry a
22
Clinton 2003: 53, however, believes that they are not synonyms, but are being
distinguished as two separate processes. Purification was a preliminary to initiation at
Eleusis, but it is difficult to see why Plato would single it out for special mention. Leg. 815c,
which Clinton also cites, clearly refers to Bacchic dancing rather than initiation into the
mysteries.
23
A1-3; A5 is similar.
24
Translation of MacDowell 1962. For other examples, see Zuntz 1971: 307, Liapis 2012:
115.
25
As by Bernabé and Jiménez San Cristóbal 2008: 100-2, who also suggest vegetarianism
and other observances, and Johnston in Graf and Johnston 2013: 121-2.
366
8/3:
Dead souls are divided into two classes
strong sense of ‘defiled, disgusting, shameless’,26 which might seem
inappropriate when applied to the merely uninitiated. I shall return to the
likelihood of an initiation cult at Selinous below.27
It is clear, therefore, that in all four sources the dead souls are divided into two
classes, and there is some indication that despite the different vocabulary of
purity and initiation the criteria for this division might possibly be the same.
26
Parker 1983: 3-5.
27
Section 5.
367
8/4:
4:
One class has a better fate after death
One class has a better fate after death
The idea of being able to achieve a better fate in the next world, one available
not only to illustrious heroes, but also to ordinary people, is particularly
associated with the Eleusinian mysteries.28 ‘He who goes under earth having
seen this is blest’, says Pindar (ὄλβιος ὅστις ἰδὼν κεῖν’ εἶς’ ὑπὸ χθόν’, fr. 137a
= OF444). Sophocles, too, says that ‘those mortals who have seen these rites
and go to Hades are thrice blessed, for they alone have life there, the others
have all evils’ (ὡς τρισόλβιοι κεῖνοι βροτῶν οἳ ταῦτα δερχθέντες τέλη μόλως’
ἐς Ἅιδου· τοῖσδε γὰρ μόνοις ἐκεῖ ζῆν ἔστι, τοῖς δ’ ἄλλοισι πάντ’ ἔχει κακά, fr.
837 Radt). Isocrates speaks of ‘the rite of which those participating have
pleasanter hopes for the end of life and all eternity’ (τὴν τελετήν, ἧς οἱ
μετασχόντες περί τε τῆς τοῦ βίου τελευτῆς καὶ τοῦ σύμπαντος αἰῶνος ἡδίους
τὰς ἐλπίδας ἔχουσιν, Paneg. 28).
As we have seen in an earlier chapter,29 there had also come into being the
practice of Dionysiac initiation concerned with the afterlife. As far as the
evidence there examined goes, this seems to have been in existence by the
beginning of the fourth century, slightly later than the sources we are looking
at here, as far as they can be dated. I demonstrated there, however, that there
is clear evidence that it too promised a better fate after death.
There is no support for this from Selinous, but in the Pythagorean Notebooks,
after Hermes has led in the souls, the pure are taken into the uppermost region
(τὸν ὕψιστον, D.L. 8.31), while the impure are bound by the Erinyes. Clearly,
28
Chapter Two section 5 above.
29
Chapter Three.
368
8/4:
One class has a better fate after death
the pure have a better fate than the impure, and it is reasonable to suppose
that the highest region is also the best.
In the gold leaf, the soul who has successfully answered the guards and drunk
from the waters of Memory proceeds along the sacred road (ὁδὸν ... ἱερὰν)
that the other initiates and bacchics travel. We are not told where the sacred
road leads to,30 but as it is sacred, those who travel it are glorious (κλεινοί),
and it can only be reached by passing a test not even attempted by common
souls, it must surely lead to some kind of abode of the blessed.
There is no explicit mention of a better fate in the Derveni Papyrus, but I think
it can be assumed from the presence of initiates and the requirement for the
magi to neutralise the hindering daimons. Non-initiates that cannot command
the services of the magi are presumably abandoned to the daimons. There is
also an earlier reference to the terrors of Hades (Ἅιδου δεινά, V.6), which it
seems that the readers of the papyrus were required to believe in, doubtless
indicating the fate of those not in the privileged class.
The precise location of all this is difficult to specify. The action of the gold leaf
takes place in the well-built halls of Hades (Ἀίδαο δόμους εὐηρέας), though
we hear of no actual buildings, but only a pleasant parkland of springs and
trees. Presumably this is in the traditional location of Hades, underground. 31
We do not know if the sacred road leads to another part of Hades, or out of it
altogether. The Tritopatores at Selinous, both pure and impure, must be
underground, as libations to them are poured down. The mention in the
But compare Pindar (Ol. 2.70 = OF445) where the road of Zeus (Διὸς ὁδὸν) leads to the
Isles of the Blessed.
30
31
On the geography of the underworld, see Chapter Two section 3 above.
369
8/4:
One class has a better fate after death
Derveni Papyrus of daimons under the earth (δαίμονες οἱ κατὰ γῆς, III.6
Ferrari)32 seems to identify the scene as subterranean also.
The exception is the Pythagorean Notebooks, where the souls, daimons and
heroes, inhabit the air, and the pure are led into the uppermost region.
Delatte suggests that this is the highest celestial sphere, that of the fixed
stars,33 but it is not precisely identified here. Confusingly, Hermes, the
psychopomp who leads them there, is called χθόνιον, ‘of the underworld’
(8.31); either the geography is more complex than it seems at first sight, or this
is a purely conventional epithet.
It seems in general, then, that the purpose of the division of the dead souls
into two classes was to assign one class a better fate after death.
γῆς is a supplement, but they are definitely under something, and it is difficult to see
what else it might be but earth.
32
33
Delatte 1922: 226-7. He rightly rejects an influence from Jewish sources.
370
8/5:
5:
The division is the result of initiation
The division is the result of initiation
Both the Derveni Papyrus and the gold leaf clearly refer to initiation, as is
proved by the appearance of initiates (μύσται) in a significant role in both,
making offerings in the papyrus and travelling along the sacred road in the gold
leaf.34
Henrichs has put forward the suggestion that the initiates in the Derveni
Papyrus might be Eleusinian, relying in part on Graf’s observation that μύσται
always referred to Eleusis in fifth-century Athens.35 This ignores the possibility
that we might have something new here.36 The activities described bear no
relation to the Eleusinian ritual,37 and the magi cannot by any stretch of the
imagination represent the Eleusinian hierophant,38 so this suggestion must be
rejected. Johnston makes a similar suggestion for the gold leaf, 39 but again
there is nothing in the text that is in any way characteristic of Eleusis, and it
seems unlikely either that the scene of springs and guards was a previously
unsuspected component of those mysteries, or that it would be accepted as
an addition to the long-established rites.
34
On initiation as the ritual context in the gold leaves, see Torjussen 2010: 131-67.
35
Henrichs 1984: 266-8; Graf 1974: 29-30. With different views: Obbink 1997: 51
(Eleusinian or Dionysiac), Tsantsanoglou 1997: 115-17 (possibly Eleusinian or Baccchic, but
probably neither), Bernabé 2014: 35 (Orphic-Bacchic).
36
See Chapter Three above for the evidence for the introduction of Dionysiac mysteries at
about this time.
37
Wineless libations may have been involved at Eleusis, as Henrichs suggests (Henrichs
1984: 266-7), but there is nothing else in the rites described to suggest Eleusis.
38
Bernabé 2014: 35.
39
Graf and Johnston 2013: 120-1.
371
8/5:
The division is the result of initiation
The soul in the gold leaf that has successfully passed the guard proceeds along
the sacred road travelled by the other glorious initiates and bacchics (ἄλλοι
μύσται καὶ βάκχοι).40 The reference to other (ἄλλοι) clearly implies that the
soul addressed here is one of them. The road is sacred, and reserved to
privileged groups, and to those, presumably in fact the same, who have
correctly followed these instructions. What then is the relationship of the
bacchics to the initiates? They could be identical, or a sub-group of the
initiates, or a separate group.41
Bacchics are normally associated with
Dionysus, but Bernabé and Jiménez San Cristóbal propose that these are not
traditional Dionysiac bacchics, but are a sub-group of what they believe are
Orphic initiates, comprising those of the initiates who also follow the ascetic
and ritual prescriptions of the Orphic life.42 They provide no evidence for or
parallels to this interpretation, which seems invented to reconcile the text with
their preconception that the gold leaves were produced by an Orphic sect.
Their bacchics in this theory do not seem to gain by their piety, as their fate is
the same as the ordinary initiates.
The obvious solution is that this is a hendiadys, and the two terms are
synonymous. The gold leaf is therefore connected with a Dionysiac initiation,
and in fact forms probably the earliest evidence for such initiation, as I
observed above.43 We have therefore evidence that in one case at least this
initiation was Dionysiac.
40
Compare D3, ἄποινος γὰρ ὁ μύστης, considered in Chapter Five section 7 (iv) above,
41
See Chapter Three section 6 above for discussion of the bacchics in the gold leaves in the
context of Dionysiac initiation.
42
Bernabé and Jiménez San Cristóbal 2008: 52-3. See also Jiménez San Cristóbal 2009.
43
Chapter Three section 6.
372
8/5:
The division is the result of initiation
We have no direct evidence of initiation at Selinous or in the Pythagorean
Notebooks. We have therefore to rely on analogy with the other two, and on
the possibility, examined above44 that the term καθαρός used in both is here
synonymous with initiate. The case of Selinous is the more difficult. I have
already drawn attention to the apparent unsuitability of μιαρός, used there as
the opposite of καθαρός, to mean ‘non-initiate’. There is the further problem
that the evidence from Selinous comes from what are probably public
regulations, whereas the initiation that we have been discussing was normally
private.
However, we do not know the precise context of the Selinous tablet;45 it
certainly included rites to take place at home (οίϙοι, A21). Moreover, the
mysteries at Eleusis were of course a civic institution, the Derveni Papyrus
refers to those celebrating rites in the cities (ἀνθρώπων ἐν πόλεσιν
ἐπιτελέσαντες, XX.1), contrasted with private practitioners who would have
the chance to explain what they were doing, and Plato speaks of practitioners
who persuade not only individuals but even cities (πείθοντες οὐ μόνον ἰδιώτας
ἀλλὰ καὶ πόλεις, Resp. 364e = OF573). We cannot therefore exclude the
possibility that this was a public initiation cult.
There is certainly clear evidence, then, of initiation in two of the four sources,
and there are grounds for believing that that may have been the case in the
other two as well.
44
Section 3.
45
Carbon 2015: 166-73 discusses the question.
373
8/6:
6:
The division was enforced by hostile daimons
The division was enforced by hostile daimons
The Pythagorean Notebooks state that the Erinyes bind the impure souls: ‘the
impure cannot approach [the pure souls] or each other, but are bound in
unbreakable bonds by the Erinyes’.46 As we saw in an earlier chapter,47 the
Erinyes are primarily instruments of vengeance and punishment in general in
classical Greece, their usual association among modern scholars with blood kin
murder being largely a creation of the tragic poets. Heraclitus, quoted in the
Derveni Papyrus, calls them assistants of justice (Δίκης ἐπίκουροι, IV.9 =
DK22B94). There is therefore nothing surprising in finding them in this role
here.48
The evidence for Selinous is much weaker. We did indeed see there avenging
daimons called elasteroi, which seemed to be similar to or identical with the
Erinyes. In what is preserved in the lex sacra (column B), however, the
elasteros afflicts a living man who himself has to take action, by sacrifice and
theoxenia, to purify himself (καθαίρεσθαι). The elasteros could also attach
itself to a homicide, if that is what αὐτορέκτας means. There is, however, no
suggestion in what we have that it could affect the dead. Certain elasteroi are
described as being ξενικόν or πατρο͂ιον (B7),49 and one might take πατρο͂ιον to
τὰς δ᾽ ἀκαθάρτους μήτ᾽ ἐκείναις πελάζειν μήτ᾽ ἀλλήλαις, δεῖσθαι δ᾽ ἐν ἀρρήκτοις
δεσμοῖς ὑπ᾽ Ἐρινύων, D.L. 8.31.
46
47
Chapter Six section 6.
48
We may also compare the flagellating figure in the Villa of the Mysteries at Pompeii (Fig.
8), often connected with Dionysiac initiation, with depictions of the Erinyes such as the 4th
century BC Apulian krater illustrated above (Fig. 11). The wings, short tunic and boots are
common to both, which suggests that we may have here a portrayal of a hostile daimon in
action. (I owe the suggestion of a link to Richard Janko, paper at the FIEC/CA conference,
London, July 2019.)
49
See Chapter Seven section 3 for suggested explanations of these terms.
374
8/6:
The division was enforced by hostile daimons
mean ‘ancestral’ and therefore relating to the dead, but it would be hard to
account for ξενικόν in this context, and these elasteroi are still ones that are
afflicting the living.
In the Derveni Papyrus we have the presence of hindering daimons:
ἐπ̣[ωιδὴ δ]ὲ̣ μάγων δύν[α]ται δ̣αίμονας ἐμ[ποδών]
γι̣[νομένο]υ̣ς μεθιστάν̣αι· δαίμον̣ες ἐμπο[δών δ' εἰσὶ]50
ψ[υχαῖς ἐχθ]ρ̣οί51.
(VI.2-4)
the incantation of the magi is able to remove/change the hindering daimons;
hindering daimons [hostile to? vengeful against? guarding? good at
(hindering)? hinder like?] souls
Various suggestions have been put forward as to the identity of these
hindering daimons.52
They include the unjust men (ἄδικοι) apparently
referred to in an earlier column (III.8),53 vengeful souls of the dead in the
service of Justice,54 souls who interfere with the rites of sacrifice,55 or beings
who demand a penalty for the guilt of each soul before allowing it to pass to
the afterlife.56 Parallels have been drawn with the souls who bar the way to
the soul of the unburied Patroclus (τῆλέ με εἴργουσι ψυχαί, εἴδωλα καμόντων,
Il. 23.72),57 or with the Empousa (‘hinderer’) of Aristophanes’ Frogs (29250
δαίμονͅες ἐμπο[δίζουσι ὡς (‘sono d’ostaculo como’) Piano.
‘hostile’; τιμω]ροῖ (‘vengeful’) Tsantsanoglou 1997: 113 conj.; φρου]ροί (‘guarding’)
Tsantsanoglou 1997: 113 conj.; δει]νοί (‘good at’) Ferrari.
51
ἐμποδών is an adverb, ‘in the way’, but most naturally rendered by an adjective in
English.
52
53
KPT: 168.
54
Jourdan 2003: 6.
55
Henrichs 1984: 257.
56
Bernabé 2014: 34.
57
Tsantsanoglou 1997: 112.
375
8/6:
The division was enforced by hostile daimons
305).58 Tsantsanoglou, in accordance with his view of the magi as Persians,
looks to Persian sources: he considers and rejects the daêvas, or evil spirits, in
favour of the Fravashis, or guardian spirits, though the resemblance does not
seem close.59 Ferrari notes the differences between Iranian cult and Derveni,
and suggests they are due to some kind of cross-cultural adaptation.60
Tsantsanoglou61 has also suggested a parallel between the hindering daimons
and the daimons of Empedocles (DK31B115 = OF449), but I think he
misinterprets Empedocles’ text. The passage describes the punishment by
exile of beings who have committed a fault (what exactly is disputed).
Tsantsanoglou says that the μακραίονες δαίμονες (‘long-lived daimons’)62
keep the guilty away from the blessed ones, but in fact δαίμονες is in
apposition to the previous part of the sentence, and is Empedocles’ term for
the guilty ones themselves: ‘whoever having erred swears a false oath – one
of the spirits who have been allotted long-lasting life – he shall wander thrice
ten thousand seasons away from the blessed ones’. 63 There is therefore no
parallel.
58
Bernabé 2014: 34; Brown 1991 links this with the Eleusinian mysteries. See also Piano
2016: 234-7.
59
Tsantsanoglou 1997: 112-13. Ahmadi 2014 tries to make a case for the daēvas, who seek
a role as the gatekeepers of Mazda (Ahmadi 2014: 499). There may, of course, be multiple
sources for some of these concepts.
60
Ferrari 2011b: 80-82.
61
Tsantsanloglou 1997: 112.
He prefers the version of Plutarch, μακραίονες agreeing with δαίμονες, to the normally
accepted text of Hippolytus, μακραίονος agreeing with βίοιο, ‘long life’ (as in e.g. Soph. OT
518); Wright 1995 ad loc. This is, however, not necessary for his interpretation.
62
ὅς καὶ ἐπίορκον ἁμαρτήσας ἐπομώσει, δαίμονες οἵτε μακραίωνος λελάχασι βίοιο, τρὶς
μὲν μυρίας ὥρας ἀπὸ μακάρων ἀλάλησθαι. Translation of Barnes 1987: 194. My
interpretation is that of Hippolytus (Haer. 7.29.14), followed by Wright 1995 ad loc and
every translation I have been able to consult. I do not understand what the syntax would
be in Tsantsanoglou’s version.
63
376
8/6:
The division was enforced by hostile daimons
Martín Hernández and Bernabé have drawn attention to passages in the De
defectu oraculorum of Plutarch.64 They are, however, incorrect in actually
ascribing these to his account of the mysteries; concerning those, he says, his
lips are sealed (εὔστομά μοι κείσθω, 417c), but he adds that there were also
other festivals and sacrifices (ἑορτὰς δὲ καὶ θυσίας) involving eating raw flesh
and a great deal of noise, which he believed were to avert evil daimons
(δαιμόνων δὲ φαύλων ἀποτροπῆς ἕνεκα). A little later, he refers to ‘people
making libations and performing actions to purify and soothe the anger of
daimons whom they call blood avengers, as if they proceeded against the
memories of some unforgettable ancient pollution’.65 The evidence is late,
and does not correspond very closely to the specifics of our text.
I have already mentioned66 other occurrences of cognates of ἐμποδών: the
shape-changing Empousa (Ἔμπουσα) of the Frogs, described in late sources as
a kind of daimon (δαιμονιῶδες, Hesych. s.v. Empousa, schol. Ar. Ran. 293), and
the wicked daimons of Iamblichus, potentially hindering (ἐμπόδιον, Myst.
3.31) those performing sacred rites. It is not clear, however, how far the use
of the term is coincidental, and how far there is a real parallel.
As may emerge from the range of the conjectures above, there is no clear
indication in the papyrus of the identity and function of the hindering daimons.
It is, however, reasonable to conclude that it is the souls that they are
hindering. The text (VI.3-4)67 makes some kind of statement about their
relationship to souls, and there seems no plausible alternative. They are
64
Martín Hernández 2006: 493, Bernabé 2014: 42-3.
χοάς τινας χεῖσθαι καὶ δρᾶν ἃ δρῶσιν ἄνθρωποι μηνίματα δαιμόνων ἀφοσιούμενοι καὶ
πραΰνοντες, οὓς ἀλάστορας καὶ παλαμναίους ὀνομάζουσιν, ὡς ἀλήστων τινῶν καὶ
παλαιῶν μιασμάτων μνήμαις ἐπεξιόντας, 418b-c.
65
66
Chapter Six section 5.
67
See text above for alternative versions.
377
8/6:
The division was enforced by hostile daimons
therefore acting in a similar way to the Erinyes in the Pythagorean Notebooks.
I shall discuss the relationship of the Erinyes and the hindering daimons
below.68
The hostile daimons in the gold leaf are of rather different appearance. They
are represented by the guards at the spring of Memory who bar the way of the
soul unless it correctly answers their questions.
It has sometimes been claimed that the guards or guardians mentioned here
appear elsewhere in similar contexts.69 On examination, however, the cases
cited are rather different. The same word, φύλακες, does indeed appear in
Hesiod (‘guardians of mortal men’, φύλακες θνητῶν ἀνθρώπων, Op. 123, 253),
Heraclitus (‘become vigilant guardians of the living and the dead’, φύλακας
γίνεσθαι ἐγερτὶ ζώντων καὶ νεκρῶν, DK22B63 = OF456) and Plato (‘sent as the
guardian of his life’, φύλακα συμπέμπειν τοῦ βίου, Resp. 620d-e).70 The
function of these guardians, however, is quite distinct: they are guardians of
humanity, not of the underworld. They watch protectively over mortals in life,
as well as in death, not try to bar their way as in the gold leaves.
Nor are the shrewdly questioning guards of the spring of Memory much like
an inarticulate monster of the underworld such as the multi-headed Cerberus
of Hesiod (Th. 311-12).71 In fact, although the role of Cerberus was later
68
Section 8.
‘recurrent in Antiquity’ (Bernabé and Jiménez San Cristóbal 2008: 35-6); ‘encountered
frequently in ancient Mediterranean eschatological texts and in related documents’
(Johnston in Graf and Johnston 2013: 112).
69
70
Bernabé and Jiménez San Cristóbal 2008: 35-6.
71
Johnston in Graf and Johnston 2013: 112; contra Edmonds 2004: 63.
378
8/6:
The division was enforced by hostile daimons
expanded in connection with the myth of Heracles, his primary function was
to keep the dead in, not keep them out:
ἐς μὲν ἰόντας
σαίνει ὁμῶς οὐρῇ τε καὶ οὔασιν ἀμφοτέροισιν,
ἐξελθεῖν δ’ οὐκ αὖτις ἐᾷ πάλιν, ἀλλὰ δοκεύων
ἐσθίει, ὅν κε λάβῃσι πυλέων ἔκτοσθεν ἰόντα.
(Th. 770-3)
He fawns on those going in with his tail and both ears together, but he will
not let them go out again, but watches and eats those he might capture going
out through the gates.
Bernabé and Jiménez San Cristóbal also suggest that an oriental archer
depicted on a lost fourth or third century amphora from Vulci is a visual
representation of the guards,72 but we have insufficient details to be able to
say.
Parallels from other cultures are more promising. We can perhaps dismiss the
late and eclectic Mithras liturgy,73 with its proliferation of bull- and snakeheaded gods each requiring their own password, as this dates from many
centuries after the gold leaves and doubtless drew on many different sources.
More striking is the Egyptian Book of the dead.74 This has both the thirst of the
dead with refreshment from a spring, and the guards that the soul has to pass.
However, as Zuntz observed, the two are here separate, with the drink being
freely given and the guards appearing later, at the gates; also, the guards are
to be intimidated into letting the soul pass, rather than requiring a password
72
Bernabé and Jiménez San Cristóbal 2008: 36.
73
PGM 4.625-710; Johnston in Graf and Johnston 2013: 234n24.
74
Zuntz 1971: 37-6, Lucarelli 2010, Dousa 2011; cf. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff 1932: 200,
Edmonds 2004: 48n56.
379
8/6:
The division was enforced by hostile daimons
or claim of lineage.75 The soul in the Book of the dead may also be threatened
by gangs of malevolent demons.76 If this is a source, the elements have been
recombined into something significantly different. The same could be said of
the Mesopotamian gatekeeper of the seven gates of the netherworld.77
The guards at the spring, then, represent something uncommon in the classical
Greek picture of the afterlife, and although their form may be very different
from the Erinyes of the Pythagorean Notebooks, they function as daimons
hostile to the lower class of souls in a similar way. Although the daimons are
in each case hostile to the souls, they are essentially instruments of justice,
and should therefore be distinguished from daimons that are bad, evilworking, perverse or villainous (φαῦλος, κακοεργός, δυστράπελος,
μοχθηρός); as we saw above,78 these are not clearly attested until much later
than the classical period.
There is therefore evidence in at least three of the four sources of hostile
daimons of different kinds enforcing the division of souls.
75
Dousa also notes that the chronology does not fit well; Dousa 2011: 139-40.
76
Lucarelli 2011: 115-16.
77
Cooper 1992: 24-5, Scurlock 1995: 1886.
78
Chapter Six section 5.
380
8/7:
7:
The hostile daimons are neutralised by the initiation
The hostile daimons are neutralised by the initiation
There is no evidence for this in the Pythagorean Notebooks. In the gold leaf,
the neutralisation is effected by the soul’s knowledge of the correct response
to the guards’ questions, due to its possession of the instructions on the gold
leaf. This must have been supplied by some religious practitioner, whether as
the culmination of some initiation ceremony or merely as a cash transaction
we do not know.
The offerings in the Derveni Papyrus are having some kind of propitiatory
effect: θυσίαι μειλίσσουσι ... (VI.1). Unfortunately there is then a lacuna, so
that we have to guess whom or what they are propitiating, but this is
immediately followed by a statement about the magi, who are presumably the
ones making the offerings, and the hindering daimons, who are clearly hostile
beings, and therefore likely to need propitiating. It seems likely, then, that is
the daimons who are being propitiated.
The incantations of the magi are able to μεθιστάναι the hindering daimons
(VI.2-3). μεθίστημι can mean ‘change’, ‘set free’, ‘kill’ or ‘remove’ (LSJ s.v.).
Proposals for its meaning here include put out of the way, transform,79 modify
their intentions,80 and maintain at a distance.81 It is clear that the effect must
be to stop them hindering, whether by removing them physically, or by
changing their nature. I shall pursue the implications of this second possibility
further in the next section.
79
Both Tsantsanoglou 1997: 111-12.
80
Jourdan 2003: 6.
81
Bernabé 2014: 39.
381
8/7:
The hostile daimons are neutralised by the initiation
The inscription at Selinous begins: ‘To Zeus Eumenes [and] the Eumenides
sacrifice a full-grown (sheep), and to Zeus Meilichios in the (plot) of Myskos a
full-grown (sheep)’ (το͂ι Εὐμενεῖ θύ[ε]ν̣ [καὶ] / ταῖϲ Εὐμενίδεϲι : τέλεον, καὶ το͂ι
Διὶ : τôι Μιλιχίοι tο͂ι : ἐν Mύϲϙο : τέλεον :, A8-9). Meilichios (‘gentle’, ‘mild’,
and so ‘appeasing‘, ‘propitiatory’) is a widespread epiclesis of Zeus, and
received cult at Selinous.82 The associated verb, μειλίσσω, can be used of
propitiating the dead (Il. 7.410), and we saw above that the same word,
μειλίσσουσι, is used for the propitiation in the Derveni Papyrus.
Zeus Eumenes is not otherwise known.83 He is here associated with the
Eumenides, who, as we saw above,84 may be identical with the Erinyes, who
are sometimes said to have, in another word from the same root, ‘implacable
hearts’ (ἀμείλιχον ἦτορ, Il. 9.454). These sacrifices are presented together,
and so appear, from the conventions of the inscription, to be related rites. 85 It
is possible, then, that Zeus Eumenes is another aspect of Zeus Meilichios, and
propitiates the Erinyes to convert them into Eumenides.86
There is therefore evidence in three out of the four sources of some kind of
propitiatory or neutralising activity directed against those we have identified
as hostile daimons.
82
JJK: 81-103, 132-6, Robu 2015: 87-9.
83
Except in Eumenid Pergamon, where the meaning is different; JJK: 77.
84
Chapter Six section 7.
85
Initial asyndeton for each set of prescriptions; JJK: 21, Clinton 1996: 165-6.
86
JJK: 79-80.
382
8/8:
8:
The hostile daimons may have been souls of the dead too
The hostile daimons may have been souls of the dead too
We have so far established across our four sources that they share a common
view of the afterlife. Souls survive after death, and the dead souls are divided
into two classes. One class has a better fate after death, and the division is the
result of initiation. It was enforced by hostile daimons, which, however, were
neutralised for the initiates.
The final proposition that I am going to put forward depends entirely on the
evidence of the Derveni Papyrus. It is therefore an open question whether it
is a peculiar belief of those who produced that document, or whether it is in
fact one also shared by the other sources, though not reflected in the
fragmentary evidence that has survived. It concerns the origin of the hostile
daimons who enforce their fate on the souls of the dead. There is a strong
case that they may have been souls of the dead also.
The Derveni Papyrus has a confusing range of beings whose relation to each
other is not at first at all clear. There are:
(i) souls (ψυχαί, VI.4, VI.8, VI.10);
(ii) beings appeased by offerings (VI.1), for which the editors suggest ‘souls’
(ψυχάς) and Ferrari a word of Persian origin meaning roughly ‘heroes’
(ἀρτάδας);
(iii) daimons under the earth, servants of the gods (δαίμονες οἱ κατὰ γῆς ...
θεῶν ὑπερέται, III.6-7);
(iv) the hindering daimons (δαίμονες ἐμποδών, VI.2-3);
383
8/8:
The hostile daimons may have been souls of the dead too
(v) the Erinyes (I.6, II.3, III.5, IV.9), assistants of justice (Δίκης ἐπίκουροι, IV.9);
(vi) the Eumenides (VI.9).
Before putting forward my own explanation, it will be useful to review the way
in which the problem has previously been approached by scholars.87
Tsantsanoglou was the first to be able to consider the first six columns, in his
own reading, in the form of a commentary on them.88 The souls, he says, are
the dead, which include the Erinyes and Eumenides, who seem to be the same.
The Erinyes are the souls of the righteous, as are the daimons; presumably he
means the daimons are another name for the Erinyes. The righteous are here
identified with the initiates, by an extension from the evidence of
distinguished persons like Alcestis becoming daimons after death. 89 Honours
are paid to the Erinyes/Eumenides in the form of libations, bird sacrifice and
hymns. The hindering daimons are like the Iranian Fravashis and hinder sinful
souls. Justice punishes the unrighteous in some way. From his supplement of
ἑκάστωι in III.4, everyone is said to have a personal daimon.90
I think this account is on the right lines, but it has a number of inadequacies.
From what do the hindering daimons hinder the sinful souls? If daimons are
the souls of initiates, and everyone has a personal daimon, how do the two
sets of daimons relate to each other? Can not being initiated be equated to a
sin punishable by Justice? If the Erinyes are the souls of the righteous, who
are equivalent to the initiates, and the Erinyes receive libations and sacrifices,
Bernabé 2014: 41-4 helpfully reviews what he describes as a ‘complex demonological
theory’, without, however, coming to very definite conclusions.
87
88
Tsantsanoglou 1997: 96-113.
89
Chapter Six section 4.
90
See Chapter Six section 4 and Chapter Seven section 5 for my criticism of this.
384
8/8:
The hostile daimons may have been souls of the dead too
then it seems to follow that the initiates themselves will receive cult after
death. He does not draw this conclusion explicitly or consider its implications.
Johnston considers the question in her study of the relations between the
dead and the living in ancient Greece.91 The souls are again the dead, who
might easily have been referred to as daimons, and the Eumenides are
specifically identified as souls.
The Erinyes, however, are different, the
traditional avenging spirits, either functioning like the hindering daimons or
punishing the unjust. They are therefore not the same as the Eumenides. The
hindering daimons are transformed (μεθιστάναι, VI.3) into Eumenides. It is
peculiar, she admits, for dead souls to become deities, so she suggests that
this must be some idiosyncratic idea of the Derveni author.
The most awkward part of this theory is the assumption that there are two
different sets of hostile spirits, the Erinyes and the hindering daimons. It is
difficult to differentiate their functions. The ones changed into the Eumenides
are not the Erinyes, as one might expect from the traditional identification, but
the hindering daimons.
This would also leave the Erinyes presumably
untransformed and active, so one would have perhaps to assume that they
attacked only the bad souls, while the hindering daimons attacked the good,
or both kinds, which is getting some way beyond what we have warrant for in
the text.
Betegh produced the first full-length monograph on the papyrus.
His
conclusions on the first columns are, however, very tentative.92 The souls,
daimons, Erinyes and Eumenides, he believes, are all groups of the dead. It
appears that the daimons are a sub-group of the dead, though I am not clear
91
Johnston 1999: 276-9.
92
Betegh 2004: 85-9.
385
8/8:
The hostile daimons may have been souls of the dead too
how or why this sub-group is supposed to be constituted. Cautiously following
Tsantsanoglou, he thinks that the Erinyes are the souls of the righteous, or
initiates, referring to their association with maenads in tragedy. They are
probably the same as the Eumenides and are a functional sub-group of the
daimons, presumably the same as the hindering daimons, and play a not
clearly specified part in funerary or initiatory ritual. The daimons may also be
allotted to each individual, and may also receive the souls into the
netherworld; again, he does not say how this might relate to their other
functions. I do not think that this has been worked out in sufficient detail.
Janko takes a radically different view, based in part on his own readings of the
papyrus.93 That the daimons are servants of the gods or of Justice is, he
believes, just the opinion of the magi, Persian or Greek, whom the author is
attacking (κατὰ τοὺς μάγους, III.5 Janko). The libations people make to the
Erinyes, as vengeful agents of the dead, are mistaken, as they do not exist;
instead, they are placating the angry dead94 directly. The daimons, Erinyes and
Eumenides are all the same, but on the Derveni author’s rationalist view, Janko
maintains, none of them exist.
I do not think that Janko’s view of the author as a rationalist sceptic can be
sustained. It is true that in column XX he attacks performers of sacred rites
(τοῦ τέχνην ποιουμένου τὰ ἱερά, XX.3-4), but this seems to be because they
do not explain what they are doing, not because their rites are ineffective.
There is no sign of scepticism in column VI. Janko’s interpretation does depend
heavily on his own readings of the text. It might also be observed that there
are limits to the Derveni author’s rationalism in Janko’s version, if he cannot
93
Janko 2008: 45-6.
94
ἐξώλεας, III.4 Janko ap. Kotwick 2017, more usually translated as ‘pernicious (men)’.
386
8/8:
The hostile daimons may have been souls of the dead too
believe in the Erinyes but can believe in angry souls of the dead bent on
vengeance.
Piano takes the daimons, Erinyes and Eumenides all to be souls, or more
precisely particular categories of soul.95 They are intermediate between the
human and divine, as explained by Plato’s Diotima (Symp. 202e-203a), and can
be regarded as a pathway for humans to attain divinity. 96 This seems to
underplay their hindering function. She also places strong emphasis on their
punishment of the unjust, the ἐξώλεις of column III,97 and does not explain
how this relates to the initiates, the μύσται of column VI. Are the daimons
distinguishing between the good souls and the bad souls, or between the
initiated and uninitiated?
There is a certain amount of common ground between most of these theories.
In putting forward my own solution, I shall try to build on their conjectures by
working logically through the evidence and its implications. My argument can
be reduced to four propositions:
(i) The Erinyes are the hindering daimons
The Erinyes must have been frequently mentioned in the earlier columns, as
they appear four times in the few scraps that survive. 98 They must therefore
play a significant part in the Derveni eschatology, and there is no indication of
what this role might be if they are not the hindering daimons. As I have already
argued, it is unlikely that there would be two distinct sets of hostile spirits,
95
Piano 2016: 258.
96
Piano 2016: 255-63; see also Chapter Seven section 5 above.
97
Piano 2016: 131-8, 144-7.
98
Chapter Seven section 5 above.
387
8/8:
The hostile daimons may have been souls of the dead too
whose nature and functions would be easily confused. The daimons appear to
be called servants of the gods (δαίμονες ... θεῶν ὑπερέται, III.6-7) and the
Erinyes are called assistants of justice (Δίκης ἐπίκουροι, IV.9), which sound
very similar.99 I have already made the point that the Erinyes are not closely
connected with blood kin murder outside tragedy.100 We have, of course,
already seen them play a role similar to the hindering daimons in the
Pythagorean Notebooks, binding the impure souls in unbreakable bonds (D.L.
8.31).
(ii) The Eumenides are the same as the Erinyes
As I discussed above,101 this is a traditional identification, generally accepted
by at least the fourth century. I have not come across any case where the two
are mentioned together but are somehow distinguished as separate beings.
In column VI, the offerings by the initiates to the Eumenides are placed in close
association with those of the magi to appease the hindering daimons. The
magi make their offerings to the daimons, and then ‘the initiates make
preliminary offerings to the Eumenides in the same way the magi do’ (μύσται
Εὐμενίσι προθύουσι κατὰ τὰ αὐτὰ μάγοις, VI.8-9). If we suppose that the
Erinyes are transformed into benevolent Eumenides by the offerings and
incantations, then μεθιστάναι (VI.3) must mean ‘transform’ rather than
‘remove’.102
(iii) The Eumenides are souls of the dead
99
Megino Rodríguez 2019: 32-3.
100
Chapter Six section 6.
101
Chapter Six section 7.
102
See section 7 above.
388
8/8:
The hostile daimons may have been souls of the dead too
This is explicitly stated: Εὐμενίδες γὰρ ψυχαί εἰσιν (VI.9-10).
(iv) The hindering daimons are souls of the dead
This follows from (i) – (iii).
In fact, if we accept the usual supplementation of line 1, this has effectively
already been stated at the beginning of the column: the offerings are said to
appease the souls (μειλίσσουσι τὰς ψυχάς, VI.1), and this is followed by the
description of the incantations and offerings of the magi against the hindering
daimons.
It does not, however, follow that all dead souls, and specifically those of the
newly dead that I believe the hindering daimons were trying to hinder, are
themselves also daimons. This cannot be deduced from the text we have, and
I have already shown that before Plato the status of daimon appears to be
granted only to a few exceptional persons after death.103
We have seen several cases where there was a plausible case for the Erinyes
being the dead: Iliad 3.278-30, where the dead (οἳ ὑπένερθε καμόντες) seem
to take vengeance on oath-breakers in a similar way to the Erinyes at 19.25960, Odyssey 20.78, where the Pandareids are given to the Erinyes as assistants
(ἀμφιπολεύειν), presumably after death, and Seven against Thebes 886-7,
978-9 where Aeschylus seems to say that the shade of Oedipus (πότνια τ’
Οἰδίπου σκιά) has become one of the Erinyes.104
Rohde had long ago
identified the origin of the Erinyes with the souls of the dead, though his
further conjecture that they were the souls of the murdered does not seem to
103
Chapter Six section 3. See, however, section 2 above on the possibility that this is the
case in the Pythagorean Notebooks.
104
See Chapter Six section 6 for full discussion.
389
8/8:
The hostile daimons may have been souls of the dead too
correspond here.105 Certainly, this role for the dead could be accepted by the
Stoics: ‘it is not implausible, said [Chrysippus], that the living are punished by
the dead’ (οὐκ ἀπίθανον δέ, φησιν, ὑπὸ τῶν τελευτησάντων τιμωρεῖσθαι τοὺς
ζῶντας, schol. vet. 104b).106
This conclusion does, however, bring with it its own difficulties. We now seem
to have two types of souls, the newly dead, further divided into initiates and
non-initiates, and the hindering daimons or Erinyes that enforce the
separation. The question obviously arises as to why some of the dead became
these hostile daimons. As I noted above, 107 the notion of bad or wicked
daimons seems a fairly late development, and in any case the daimons here,
though hostile to the non-initiates, are not wicked but servants of justice.
Johnston has studied certain categories of the dead who became hostile to the
living.108 The βιαιοθάνατοι were those who died a violent death.109 The ἄωραι
were girls who died prematurely, especially before childbirth, and became
frightening bogy figures with names such as Μορμώ, Γελλώ, Γοργώ and
Λάμια.110 Both groups were invoked in magic and curses. 111 Hostility to the
living is, however, different to having a role among the dead. Homer does put
them in a special category in Hades (Od. 11.38-41), but they clearly have no
105
Rohde 1925: 179.
106
Megino Rodríguez 2019: 37-8.
107
Chapter Six section 5.
108
Following Rohde 1925: 210-11n148, 590-5.
109
Johnston 1999: 127-60.
110
Johnston 1999: 161-99.
111
Rohde 1925: 603-5, Johnston 1999: 120-1.
390
8/8:
The hostile daimons may have been souls of the dead too
special powers or functions.112 There is nothing to indicate the presence of
either group in what survives of the papyrus.
I cannot suggest any answer to this question, and so perhaps to a certain
extent the conclusion that the hostile daimons were also souls of the dead
must remain problematic. It does, however, seem to be the only logical way
of interpreting the evidence of the text. As I remarked at the start of the
section, even if it is accepted it will remain an open question whether this is
simply a peculiarity of the Derveni eschatology, or whether it would also be
reflected in the other sources we have been considering, were the evidence
less fragmentary.
112
Bremmer 1983: 103. Cf. Henriks 1980: 201-5.
391
8/9:
9:
Conclusion
Conclusion
This completes the programme I set out at the beginning of the chapter. I
believe I have now established the following common characteristics in the
view of the afterlife of the four sources we have been considering, the
Pythagorean Notebooks, the lex sacra of Selinous, the Hipponion funerary gold
leaf and the Derveni Papyrus:
Souls survive after death
All four sources believe in the immortality of the soul, which was possibly a
minority view at the period. The Pythagorean Notebooks explicitly call it
immortal. At Selinous, there are sacrifices to the Tritopatores, who are
ancestors, and have therefore survived after death. The gold leaf contains
instructions to the dead soul. The Derveni Papyrus refers to numberless souls,
who must be the dead. We have also noted in some of the sources a
relationship of the soul to winds or pneuma, and a claim to some kind of
immortal or divine origin.
Dead souls are divided into two classes
In the Pythagorean Notebooks and the lex sacra there are pure (καθαρός)
souls or Tritopatores and their impure opposite. In the gold leaf, those who
possess the leaf drink from the spring of Memory, while the other dead drink
from the other spring. Initiates appear in the Derveni text, and must therefore
be distinguished from non-initiates. I have suggested that these distinctions
may essentially be the same, and that καθαρός, with its implications of
‘purified’ rather than simply ‘pure’, may mean initiated here, a sense in which
it is used by Plato.
392
8/9:
Conclusion
One class has a better fate after death
In the Pythagorean Notebooks, the pure souls attain the upper regions, while
the rest are bound by the Erinyes; unusually, this takes place in the air, rather
than in the underworld as with the others.
The soul who follows the
instructions on the gold leaf will travel along the sacred road. It is reasonable
to assume the Derveni initiates will be rewarded with a better fate and avoid
the hindering daimons. There is no evidence on this point from Selinous. The
obvious comparator is the Eleusinian mysteries, which promise the initiate a
better fate in the afterlife.
The division is the result of initiation
There are explicit references to initiates (μύσται) in the Derveni Papyrus and
the gold leaf. The divergence between what is described there and what we
know of Eleusis makes it reasonably certain that these are not Eleusinian
initiates. Although μύσται are not explicitly mentioned in the other two
sources, it may be, as I suggested above, that this is what is meant by καθαρός
here. It is more difficult to envisage private initiation in the context of the
apparently public regulations at Selinous, but it may be either that they do
refer to private mysteries or that we are here dealing with a public initiation
cult.
The division was enforced by hostile daimons
The Erinyes in the Pythagorean Notebooks bind the impure souls. The
hindering daimons in the Derveni Papyrus seem to perform a similar role.
There is no clear evidence for Selinous; although the elasteroi seem to be the
equivalent of the Erinyes, they are not said to take any action in relation to the
souls. The guards in the gold leaf, although superficially different, do carry out
393
8/9:
Conclusion
the same function as the Erinyes in enforcing the division between the two
classes of souls.
The hostile daimons are neutralised by the initiation
This is made clear in the Derveni Papyrus, where the incantations and offerings
of the magi are effective against the hindering daimons. At Selinous, this is
less certain, but can be conjectured from the sacrifices to Zeus Meilichios (‘the
appeaser’), Zeus Eumenes and the Eumenides. The gold leaf, supplied by the
initiators, provides the directions for the soul to pass the guards. There is no
evidence for the Pythagorean Notebooks.
The hostile daimons may have been souls of the dead too
This relies on the Derveni evidence. Analysis of this shows that the Erinyes are
the hindering daimons, the Eumenides are the same as the Erinyes, the
Eumenides are souls of the dead, and therefore the hindering daimons are
souls of the dead. Although this conclusion is generally plausible, it does have
the difficulty that it leaves us with two types of soul, the newly dead and those
acting as enforcers, which is not easy to explain. Even if it is accepted, it is an
open question whether it is an idiosyncrasy of this one source, or is applicable
to them all.
I set out to show that there is evidence in a number of scattered sources for a
picture of the afterlife in classical Greece that differed significantly from that
in conventional polis religion, at least excluding the Eleusinian mysteries. It
involved the survival of the soul after death, a division between those with a
better and a worse fate after death, enforced by hostile daimons, and a rite of
initiation to neutralise the daimons and secure for its adherents the better
394
8/9:
Conclusion
outcome. Although the nature of the evidence is fragmentary and often
problematic, I believe I have now accomplished this.
There remains, of course, the question of who was responsible for these rites
and beliefs, which as will be apparent were very different in detail, however
much they shared common preconceptions. I believe they are linked to the
practitioners of private initiation which I examined in an earlier chapter, and I
shall discuss this further in my conclusion.
395
Conclusion
Conclusion
The first point that we needed to establish was that private initiators, defined
as private religious practitioners offering rites to ensure a better fate after
death, did in fact exist during this period. The evidence is limited but
conclusive.
Plato refers in one place (Phd. 69c-d) to the uninitiated (ἀμύητος καὶ
ἀτέλεστος) in the rites of Dionysus lying in mud in Hades while the initiated
live with the gods (Chapter One section 1, Chapter Three section 7). In the
Republic (362e-367e = OF573) he talks of those who go to the doors of the rich
and offer them rites which free them from the terrible things that wait for
everyone else after death (Chapter One section 4). I have suggested that what
seems to be a composite picture of various cult activities presented by
Demosthenes (Dem. 18.259-60 = OF577) includes a reference to initiation
(Chapter Three section 8). Shortly after this period, there is plausible evidence
for initiation in Egypt, with the Ptolemaic edict (P. Berlin 11774) on performers
of Dionysiac rites and the Gurôb Papyrus (OF578) (Chapter Three section 10).
The funerary gold leaves clearly deal with the afterlife, and one (B10) speaks
of initiates (μύσται) there travelling down a sacred road (πιών ὁδὸν) which
must represent a better fate (Chapter Three section 6, Chapter Seven section
4). The requirement in many of the leaves for giving the correct answer or
password also carries the same implication (Chapter Four, Chapter Seven
section 4). The Derveni Papyrus, too, refers to initiates in what seems to be an
afterlife context (col. VI) and to those who celebrate rites privately for a fee
(col. XX) (Chapter One section 6, Chapter Seven section 5). I have argued that
396
Conclusion
by analogy the same may apply to the Pythagorean Notebooks and the lex
sacra of Selinous (Chapter Eight section 5).
The private initiators, then, did exist. I do not think we know what they were
called, or even if they had any specific name. Plato’s ‘beggar priest’ (ἀγύρτης,
Resp. 364b = OF573) was probably just an insult (Chapter One section 4),
‘Orphic initiator’ (Ὀρφεοτελεστής) is only clearly attested with this meaning at
a later date (Chapter One section 5), and magus (μάγος) only appears in one
source, the Derveni Papyrus (col. VI) (Chapter One section 6) and we have no
evidence that it was in general use for an initiator.
As far as we can date the evidence, the earliest, such as the Derveni Papyrus
or the gold leaf from Hipponion (B10), seems to come from the late fifth or the
early fourth century. I have suggested that there may have been fertile ground
for such a development for some time before this date. The concept of the
soul had developed into something that both contained the essence of our
personality and might survive after death (Chapter Two section 2), the popular
picture of the afterlife now included not only the miseries of Hades but also
the idyllic Isles of the Blessed (Chapter Two section 3), there had come into
being a range of private religious practitioners of various kinds among which
the initiators could easily find a place (Chapter One section 3), and, probably
the most important, the mysteries at Eleusis had provided a widely-known and
prestigious example of rites offering a better fate in the world to come
(Chapter Two section 5).
There are faint indications that this development may have originated in
Magna Graecia, source of the Hipponion gold leaf (Chapter Three section 6),
and of the Toledo Krater (Chapter Three section 9) but we do not really know.
The Derveni Papyrus may possibly come from an Athenian environment
(Chapter Seven section 5), but in general the prominence of Athens in the
397
Conclusion
sources is no greater than its prominence in the sources for the period in
general.
We do not know anything about their professional organisation, but an
analogy with physicians seems plausible for private religious practitioners in
general, and if this holds good for the initiators they will have entered their
craft and learned their tenets and techniques through a mixture of hereditary
transmission and some kind of apprenticeship (Chapter One section 7).
They appear to have co-existed with the more mainstream forms of polis
religion, at least if we can rely on negative evidence, as there is no sign of any
conflict. I have suggested a model in which private initiation was an optional
and voluntary choice, not connected to the civic social and political structure,
offered by itinerant practitioners, placing a greater emphasis on personal
experience and on a personal benefit to the participants, and so different from
but not opposed to polis religion (Chapter One section 2).
There were many other types of private religious practitioner active at this
time, whose names and functions may well have overlapped (Chapter One
section 3). The private initiators may perhaps also have shared names and
functions with other groups, though we do not have enough evidence to say.
There does certainly seem a connection with the cult of Dionysus, as seen in
certain of the gold leaves, in Plato and Demosthenes and in the evidence from
Egypt (Chapter Three section 12).
As to the content of their rites we know very little. Plato mentions sacrifices,
incantations, feasts and what he calls childish pleasures (θυσίαις τε καὶ ἐπῳδῖς
and ἡδονῶν καὶ ἑορτῶν and θυσιῶν καὶ παιδιᾶς ἡδονῶν, Resp. 364b-c, 364e365a = OF573) (Chapter One section 5). The magi of the Derveni Papyrus also
perform incantations (ἐπωιδὴ δὲ μάγων, VI.2), and make offerings of water,
398
Conclusion
milk (ὕδωρ καὶ γάλα, VI.6) and many-knobbed cakes (πολυόμφαλα τὰ πόπανα,
VI.7) (Chapter Seven section 5). The rites at Selinous, though they seem public
rather than private, involve the sacrifice of sheep and libations of wine and
honey mixture (μελίκρατα) (Chapter Seven section 3). The gold leaves were
obviously intended for burial with the deceased, but we do not know if they
formed a component of a larger ritual, or if so whether they were an essential
part of it.
Other things that may be associated (Chapter Three sections 8-9) include
sacred objects such as bull-roarers or mirrors (P. Gurôb = OF578), a hieros
logos or authoritative religious text, possibly ascribed to Musaeus or Orpheus
(P. Berlin 11774, P. Gurôb = OF578, Paus. 4.26.8, 4.27.5, 8.15.2 = OF649, Pl.
Resp. 364e = OF573), purifications with mud or bran and processions through
the streets (Dem. 18.259-60 = OF577), prayers to other deities for their aid (P.
Gurôb = OF578), a formula to be recited by the initiates (Dem. 18.259-60, P.
Gurôb), the consultation of oracles (P. Derv. col. V) (Chapter One section 6) and
possibly even a mock death (Chapter Three section 6). The overall impression
is once again of an eclectic mix varying greatly from practitioner to
practitioner.
Turning to their views on what the afterlife might be like, it was obviously basic
to what they were offering that the soul survived after death, and might then
obtain a better or a worse fate. Apart from that, there was no uniformity. The
worse fate might be described as the horrors of Hades (Ἅιδου δεινά, P. Derv.
V.6) (Chapter Seven section 5), as lying in the mud (βορβόρου κείσεται, Pl. Phd.
69c = OF434, βόρβορον πολὺν, Ar. Ran. 145) (Chapter Two section 3, Chapter
Three section 7), or as bound by the Erinyes (δεῖσθαι δ’ ἐν ἀρρήκτοις δεσμοῖς
ὑπ’ Ἐρινύων, D.L. 8.31) (Chapter Seven section 2). The better fate may be
described as the thiasos of the initiates (μυστῶν θιάσους, gold leaves D5), the
sacred road (πιών ὁδὸν, B10), the seats of the pure (ἕδρας ... εὐαγέων, A2-3),
399
Conclusion
the sacred meadows and groves of Persephone (λειμῶνάς θ’ ἱεροὺς καὶ ἄλσεα
Φερσεφονείας, A4) or the uppermost region of the air (τὸν ὕψιστον, D.L. 8.31)
(Chapter Four, Chapter Seven section 2). Those who go there may live with the
gods (μετὰ θεῶν οἰκήσει, Pl. Phd. 69c = OF434), or actually become gods
themselves (gold leaves A1,4,5) (Chapter Three section 7, Chapter Four).
Some private initiators seem to have introduced other, incompatible,
doctrines (Chapter Five section 8).
There were priests and priestesses,
presumably private practitioners, who believed that the soul returns here from
Hades and that it dies and is born again, but never perishes (Pl. Meno 81a-b =
OF424, Leg. 870d = OF433). A further doctrine, that human beings are formed
for punishment and in a prison was taught in the rites (τελεταί, Arist. fr. 60 =
OF433) and in secret (ἐν ἀπορρήτοις, Pl. Phd. 62b = OF429, 669).
The situation of the soul after death might also be portrayed very differently.
It might, for example, be challenged by guards in a landscape of springs and
trees (gold leaves B group) (Chapter Four, Chapter Seven section 4), or be called
to account before Persephone and the gods of the underworld (gold leaves A
group) (Chapter Four), or inhabit the air around us (D.L. 8.31) (Chapter Seven
section 2) or be menaced by hindering daimons (P. Derv. col. VI) (Chapter Seven
section 5, Chapter 8 sections 6-8). I have shown that in areas such as the gold
leaves or the doctrine of metempsychosis, where one might at first expect a
unified theory, there were in fact a great variety of inconsistent views (Chapter
Four, Chapter Five).
We have seen throughout this investigation a number of references to
Orpheus (Chapter Two section 6). He wrote religious or mythological poetry,
such as that commented on in the Derveni Papyrus (P. Derv. col. XVIII, Pl. Resp.
364e = OF573, Prt. 316d = OF549, Cra. 400c = OF430) (Chapter One section 4,
Chapter Seven section 5). He introduced many kinds of sacred rites (τελεταί),
400
Conclusion
such as those patronised by the superstitious man of Theophrastus (Theophr.
Char. 16 = OF654) (Chapter One section 5). There was an Orphic way of life,
including vegetarianism and perhaps avoidance of wool (Hdt. 2.81 = OF43).
Orpheus and those around him (οἱ ἀμφὶ Ὀρφέα) or so-called Orphics (τοῖς
Ὀρφικοῖς καλουμένοις) held that the body was the tomb of the soul (Pl. Cra.
400b-c = OF430) (Chapter Five section 6), and that the soul was breathed in on
the wind (Arist. De an. 410b = OF421) (Chapter Eight section 2). Something
Orphic seems to have been connected with Dionysus in Olbia (OF463), on the
evidence of the bone tablets.
Can we then say that private initiation was in some sense Orphic? Orpheus
was a recognised religious authority, and for a private practitioner to say that
Orpheus originated the rites or wrote the text he was using would add to their
prestige. These allusions, which are not in any case very closely connected
with either initiation or our fate after death, can all be accounted for in this
way. If there was anything more than this, some kind of underlying Orphic
system or doctrine, the evidence for it has not survived.
It is, on the other hand, clear that in many instances private initiation was
bound up with the cult of Dionysus (Chapter Three). Even here, however, this
does not appear to have been universally the case. Dionysus is not mentioned
in what we have of the Derveni Papyrus or the Pythagorean Notebooks, in the
lex sacra of Selinous or in all but a few of the gold leaves that have been found.
Again, if private initiation were indeed always Dionysiac the evidence to prove
this has not survived.
It seems, then, that the private initiators employed a great variety of different
and inconsistent doctrines and myths and that the connection of some of them
with Orpheus and Dionysus was just part of the patchwork, rather than
something fundamental to them all. There is no evidence for a group of
401
Conclusion
Orphics or for the later Orphic myth of the Titans at this time (Chapter Two
section 6, Chapter Five section 7). I have argued that the whole notion of a
sect is not appropriate for Greek polytheism in the classical period (Chapter
One section 1), and certainly we have found nothing to cast serious doubt on
this conclusion.
I did, however, note in my preliminary survey of the Eleusinian mysteries
(Chapter Two section 5) that there was a striking similarity in the synthema or
password attributed by late sources to a variety of different mysteries, all
referring to eating or drinking something and then taking something from a
basket. This might suggest that, at least by this late stage, that they were all
borrowing from each other.
I believe, therefore, that I have demonstrated that the doctrines and practices
of the private initiators were very various and a kind of bricolage of mutually
inconsistent views. In what might seem a paradox, I have also tried to show
(Chapters Seven-Eight) that there is a fundamental unity. I suggest that there
is at a more basic level a common picture of the afterlife that differed
significantly from that in conventional polis religion, apart from the Eleusinian
mysteries. Its main features were the survival of the soul after death, a division
between those with a better and a worse fate after death, enforced by some
kind of hostile daimons, and an initiation ritual to neutralise the daimons and
secure for its adherents the better outcome. The Pythagorean Notebooks, the
lex sacra of Selinous, the funerary gold leaves and the Derveni Papyrus are
then different instantiations of a common deep structure that emerged at this
period.
There is obviously much that remains unknown about the private initiators and
their concepts of the afterlife, but this is as far as the surviving evidence can
take us.
402
Bibliography
Bibliography
Ahmadi, A. 2014. ‘The magoi and daimones in column VI of the Derveni
Papyrus’, Numen 61: 484-508.
Albinus, L. 2000. The house of Hades: studies in ancient Greek eschatology.
Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.
Alderink, L.J. 1981. Creation and salvation in ancient Orphism. Chico:
Scholars Press.
Algra, K. 2009. ‘Stoics on soul and demons: reconstructing Stoic
demonology’, in D. Frede and B. Reis (eds), Body and soul in ancient
philosophy. Berlin: De Gruyter, 360-87.
Altman, W.H.F. 2010. ‘The reading order of Plato’s dialogues’, Phoenix 64:
18-51.
Álvarez-Pedrosa Núñez, J.A. 2011. ‘The etymology of Gk. Ἔμπουσα (OF 71316)’, in M. Herrero de Jáuregui [et al.] (eds), Tracing Orpheus: studies
of Orphic fragments in honour of Alberto Bernabé. Berlin: Walter de
Gruyter, 293-6.
Andueza Pérez, E. 2010. ‘República 2.364b-35a3. Algunas reflexiones sobre
el orfismo en Platón‘, in A. Bernabé, F. Casadesús and M.A. Santamaría
(eds), Orfeo y el orfismo : nuevas perspectivas. Alicante: Biblioteca
Virtual Miguel de Cervantes, 360-71.
http://www.cervantesvirtual.com/obra/orfeo-y-el-orfismo-nuevasperspectivas--0/
403
Bibliography
Annas, J. 1981. An introduction to Plato’s Republic. Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
Annas, J. 1982. ‘Plato’s myths of judgement’, Phronesis 27: 119-43.
[Anonymous] 1982. ‘Der orphische Papyrus von Derveni‘, Zeitschrift für
Papyrologie und Epigraphik 47: 1-12 [301-12].
Assmann, M.M. 1926. ‘De vocabulis quibus Herodotus in singulis operis sui
partibus mentem animumque significat’, Mnemosyne 54: 188-29.
Barnes, J. 1979. The Presocratic philosophers. 2 vols. London: Routledge &
Kegan Paul.
Barnes, J. 1987. Early Greek philosophy. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Bartoš, H. 2015. Philosophy and dietetics in the Hippocratic On regimen: a
delicate balance of health. Leiden: Brill.
Bendlin, A. 2006. ‘Tritopatores’, in Brill’s New Pauly.
http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-newpauly/tritopatores [Accessed: 20/03/2017]
Bernabé, A. 1995. ‘Una etimología platónica: ΣΩΜΑ-ΣΗΜΑ’, Philologus 139:
204-37.
Bernabé, A. 2002. ‘La toile de Pénélope: a-t-il existé un mythe orphique sur
Dionysus et les Titans?’, Revue de l’histoire des religions 219: 401-33.
Bernabé, A. 2003. Hieros logos: poesía órfica sobre los dioses, el alma y el
más allá. Madrid: Ediciones Akal.
Bernabé, A. 2004-7. Poetae epici Graeci : testimonia et fragmenta. Pars 2:
Orphicorum et Orphicis similium testimonia et fragmenta. 3 vols.
Munich/Berlin: Saur/De Gruyter.
404
Bibliography
Bernabé, A. 2006. ‘Μάγοι en el Papiro de Derveni: ¿Mago persascharlatanes
u oficiantes órficos?’, in E. Calderón, A. Morales and M. Valverde (eds),
Koinòs lógos. Homenaje al profesor José García López. Murcia:
Universidad de Murcia, 99-109.
Bernabé, A. 2007a. ‘La muerte es vida: sentido de una paradoja órfica‘, in A.
Bernabé and I. Rodriguez Alfageme (eds), Φίλου σκιά: studia
philologiae in honorem Rosae Aguilar ab amicis et sodalibus dicata.
Madrid: Universidad Complutense, 175-81.
Bernabé, A. 2007b. ‘Sur la rite décrit dans les colonnes II et VI du Papyrus de
Derveni: que peut-on faire avec un oiseau?’, Les études classiques 75:
157-69.
Bernabé, A. 2008. ‘Orfeo y Eleusis‘, Synthesis 15: 13-36.
Bernabé, A. 2011. ‘La transmigración entre les órficos’, in A. Bernabé, M.
Kahle and M.A. Santamaría (eds), Reencarnación: la transmigración de
las almas entre Oriente y Occidente. Madrid: Abada, 179-210.
Bernabé, A. 2013a. ‘The Ephesia Grammata: genesis of a magical formula’,
in C.A. Faraone and D. Obbink (eds), The Getty hexameters: poetry,
magic and mystery in ancient Selinous. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 71-95.
Bernabé, A. 2013b. ‘Orphics and Pythagoreans: the Greek perspective’, in G.
Cornelli, R. McKirahan and C. Macris (eds), On Pythagoreanism.
Berlin: De Gruyter, 117-51.
Bernabé, A. 2014. ‘On the rites described and commented upon in the
Derveni Papyrus, columns I-VI’, in I. Papadopoulou and L. Muellner
(eds), Poetry as initiation: the Center for Hellenic Studies Symposium
405
Bibliography
on the Derveni Papyrus. Washington, D.C.: Center for Hellenic Studies,
19-52.
Bernabé, A. and Jiménez San Cristóbal, A.I. 2008. Instructions for the
netherworld: the Orphic gold tablets. Leiden: Brill.
Bernabé, A. and Jiménez San Cristóbal, A.I. 2011. ‘Are the “Orphic” gold
leaves Orphic?’, in R.G. Edmonds (ed.), The “Orphic” gold tablets and
Greek religion: further along the path. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 68-101.
Betegh, G. 2004. The Derveni Papyrus: cosmology, theology and
interpretation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Betegh, G. 2009. ‘Tale, theology and teleology in the Phaedo’, in C. Partenie
(ed.), Plato’s myths. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 77-100.
Betegh, G. 2014. ‘Pythagoreans, Orphism and Greek religion’, in C.A.
Huffman (ed.), A history of Pythagoreanism. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 149-66.
Bianchi, U. 1966. ‘Péché originel et péché <<antécédent>>’, Revue de
l’histoire des religions 170: 117-26.
Binder, J. 1998. ‘The early history of the Demeter and Kore sanctuary at
Eleusis’, in R. Hägg (ed.), Ancient Greek cult practice from the
archaeological evidence. Stockholm: Svenska Institutet i Athen, 131-9.
Bluck, R.S. 1958a. ‘The Phaedrus and reincarnation’, American journal of
philology 79: 156-64.
Bluck, R.S. 1958b. ‘Plato, Pindar, and metempsychosis’, American journal of
philology 79: 405-14.
406
Bibliography
Bøgh, B. 2007. ‘The Phrygian background of Kybele’, Numen 54: 304-39.
Bowden, H. 2003. ‘Oracles for sale’, in P. Derow and R. Parker (eds),
Herodotus and his world: essays from a conference in memory of
George Forrest. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 256-74.
Bowden, H. 2008. ‘Before superstition and after: Theophrastus and Plutarch
on Deisidaimonia’, Past & present 199 supplement 3: 56-71.
Bowden, H. 2010. Mystery cults in the ancient world. London: Thames and
Hudson.
Bowra, C.M. 1969. The odes of Pindar. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Boyancé, P. 1963. ‘Note sur la ΦΡΟΥΡΑ platonicienne’, Revue de philologie
37: 7-11.
Bremmer, J.N. 1983. The early Greek concept of the soul. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Bremmer, J.N. 1999a. ‘The birth of the term “magic”’, Zeitschrift für
Papyrologie und Epigraphik 126: 1-12.
Bremmer, J.N. 1999b. ‘Transvestite Dionysos‘, Bucknell review 43: 183-200.
Bremmer, J.N. 2002. The rise and fall of the afterlife: the 1995 ReadTuckwell Lectures in the University of Bristol. London: Routledge.
Bremmer, J.N. 2004. ‘Attis: a Greek god in Anatolian Pessinous and Catullan
Rome’, Mnemosyne 57: 534-73.
Bremmer, J.N. 2010. ‘Manteis, magic, mysteries, and mythography: messy
margins of polis religion?’, Kernos 23: 13-35.
407
Bibliography
Bremmer, J.N. 2013. ‘Divinities in the Orphic gold leaves: Euklês, Eubouleus,
Brimo, Kybele, Kore and Persephone’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und
Epigraphik 187: 35-48.
Bremmer, J.N. 2014. Initiation into the mysteries of the ancient world.
Berlin: De Gruyter.
Bremmer, J.N. 2016. ‘The construction of an individual eschatology: the case
of the Orphic gold leaves‘, in K. Waldner, R. Gordon and W.
Spickermann (eds), Burial rituals, ideas of afterlife and the individual in
the Hellenistic world and the Roman Empire. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner,
31-51.
Bremmer, J.N. (forthcoming). ’The first columns of the Derveni Papyrus and
polis religion’, Eirene 55.
Brisson, L. 1991. ‘Damascius et l’Orphisme’, in P. Borgeaud (ed.), Orphisme
et Orphée, en l’honneur de Jean Rudhardt. Geneva: Droz, 157-209.
(Reprinted in L. Brisson, Orphée et l’Orphisme dans l’antiquité grécoromaine, Aldershot: Variorum, 1995.)
Brisson, L. 1992. ‘Le corps <<dionysiaque>>: l’anthropogonie décrite dans le
Commentaire sur le Phédon de Platon (1, par. 3-6), attribué à
Olympiodore est-elle orphique?’, in ΣΟΦΙΗΣ ΜΑΙΗΤΟΡΕΣ Chercheurs
de sagesse: hommage à Jean Pépin. Paris: Institut d’Etudes
Augustiniennes, 481-99. (Reprinted in L. Brisson, Orphée et
l’Orphisme dans l’antiquité gréco-romaine, Aldershot: Variorum,
1995.)
Brisson, L. 1999. Plato the myth maker. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
408
Bibliography
Brisson, L. 2003. ‘Sky, sex and sun: the meanings of αἰδοῖος/αἰδοῖον in the
Derveni Papyrus’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 144: 1929.
Brown, C.G. 1991. ‘Empousa, Dionysus and the mysteries: Aristophanes,
Frogs 285ff’, Classical quarterly 41: 41-50.
Brown, C.G. 2011. ‘To the ends of the earth: Sappho on Tithonus’, Zeitschrift
für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 178: 21-5.
Buck, C.D. 1955. The Greek dialects. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
(Reprinted: London: Bristol Classical Press, 1998.)
Burkert, W. 1972. Lore and science in ancient Pythagoreanism. Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Burkert, W. 1977. Orphism and Bacchic mysteries: new evidence and old
problems of interpretation. Berkeley: Center for Hermeneutical
Studies in Hellenistic and Modern Culture, 1-8. = W. Burkert, Kleine
Schriften. III: Mystica, Orphica, Pythagorica. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht, 2006, 37-46.
Burkert, W. 1982. ‘Craft versus sect: the problem of Orphics and
Pythagoreans’, in B.F. Meyer and E.P. Sanders (eds), Jewish and
Christian self-definition. London: SCM Press, 3: 1-22.
Burkert, W. 1983. ‘Itinerant diviners and magicians: a neglected element in
cultural contexts’, in R. Hägg (ed.), The Greek renaissance of the eighth
century BC: tradition and innovation. Stockholm: Åströms, 115-19.
Burkert, W. 1985. Greek religion: archaic and classical. Oxford: Blackwell.
Burkert, W. 1987. Ancient mystery cults. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
409
Bibliography
Burkert, W. 1992. The orientalizing revolution: Near Eastern influence on
Greek culture in the early archaic age. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Burkert, W. 1993. ‘Bacchic teletai in the Hellenistic age’, in T.H. Carpenter
and C.A. Faraone (eds), Masks of Dionysus. Ithaca: Cornell University
Press, 259-75. = W. Burkert, Kleine Schriften. III: Mystica, Orphica,
Pythagorica. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006, 120-36.
Burkert, W. 2009. ‘Pleading for hell: postulates, fantasies, and the
senselessness of punishment’, Numen 56: 141-60.
Calame, C. 2006. Pratiques poétiques de la mémoire: représentations de
l’espace-temps en grèce ancienne. Paris: Éditions la Découverte.
Calvo Martínez, J.L. 2007. ‘¿ Magos griegos o persas ? : los usos más
antiguos del término magos: Heráclito, Sófocles, Eurípides y el Papiro
de Derveni’, Μῆνη 7: 301-14.
Carbon, J.-M. 2015. ‘Rereading the ritual tablet from Selinous’, in A. Ianucci,
F. Muccioli and M. Zaccarini (eds), La città inquieta: Selinunte tra lex
sacra e defixiones. Milan: Mimesis, 165-204.
Carbon, J.-M. and Pirenne-Delforge, V. 2012. ‘Beyond Greek “sacred laws”’,
Kernos 25: 163-82.
Casadesús, F. 2011. ‘Platón y la noción de transmigración de las almas’, in A.
Bernabé, M. Kahle and M.A. Santamaría (eds), Reencarnación: la
transmigración de las almas entre Oriente y Occidente. Madrid:
Abada, 283-304.
410
Bibliography
Casadesús, F. 2013. ‘On the origin of the Orphic-Pythagorean notion of the
immortality of the soul’, in G. Cornelli, R. McKirahan and C. Macris
(eds), On Pythagoreanism. Berlin: De Gruyter, 153-76.
Casadio, G. 1991. ‘La metempsicosi tra Orfeo e Pitagora‘, in Borgeaud, P.
(ed.), Orphisme et Orphée: en l’honneur de Jean Rudhardt. Geneva:
Droz, 119-55.
Casadio, G. 2009. ‘Dionysus in Campania: Cumae’, in G. Casadio and P.A.
Johnston (eds), Mystic cults in Magna Graecia. Austin, TX: University
of Texas Press, 3-45.
Catenacci, C. 2014-15. ‘Pindar’s Olympian 2 and “Orphism” (with an
appendix on the colometry of Pindar’s text)’, Αριάδνη 20-21: 15-32.
Cazanove, O. de (ed.). 1986. L’association dionysiaque dans les sociétés
anciennes. Rome: École Française de Rome.
Cherniss, H.F. 1935. Aristotle’s criticism of Presocratic philosophy.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Choksy, J.K. 2005. ‘Zoroastrianism’, in L. Jones (ed.), Encyclopedia of religion.
Detroit, MI: Macmillan Reference USA, 9988-10008.
Christidis, A.-PH., Dakaris, S., Vokotopoulou, I. 1999. ‘Magic in the oracular
tablets from Dodona’, in D.R.Jordan, H.Montgomery and E.Thomassen
(eds), The world of ancient magic: papers from the first International
Samsen Eitrem Seminar at the Norwegian Institute at Athens, 4–8 May
1997. Bergen: The Norwegian Institute at Athens, 67–72.
Claus, D.B. 1981. Toward the soul: an inquiry into the meaning of ψυχὴ
before Plato. New Haven: Yale University Press.
411
Bibliography
Clay, J.S. 2006. The politics of Olympus: form and meaning in the major
Homeric Hymns. 2nd ed. London: Bristol Classical Press.
Clinton, K. 1974. The sacred officials of the Eleusinian mysteries.
Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society.
Clinton, K. 1986. ‘The author of the Homeric Hymn to Demeter’, Opuscula
Atheniensia 16: 43-9.
Clinton, K. 1992. Myth and cult: the iconography of the Eleusinian mysteries.
Stockholm: Svenska Institutet i Athen.
Clinton, K. 1993. ‘The sanctuary of Demeter and Kore at Eleusis’, in N.
Marinatos and R. Hägg (eds), Greek sanctuaries: new approaches.
London: Routledge, 110-24.
Clinton, K. 1994. ‘The Eleusinian Mysteries and panhellenism in democratic
Athens’, in W.D.E. Coulson (ed.), The archaeology of Athens and Attica
under the democracy. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 161-72.
Clinton, K. 1996. ‘A new lex sacra from Selinous: kindly Zeuses, Eumenides,
impure and pure Tritopatores, and Elasteroi’, Classical philology 91:
159-79.
Clinton, K. 2003. ‘Stages of initiation in the Eleusinian and Samothracian
mysteries’, in M.B. Cosmopoulos (ed.), Greek mysteries: the
archaeology and ritual of ancient Greek secret cults. London:
Routledge, 50-78.
Clinton, K. 2005-8. Eleusis, the inscriptions on stone: documents of the
sanctuary of the two goddesses and public documents of the deme. 2
vols. Athens: Archaeological Society of Athens.
412
Bibliography
Clinton, K. 2007. ‘The mysteries of Demeter and Kore’, in D. Ogden (ed.), A
companion to Greek religion. Oxford: Blackwell, 342-56.
Cole, S.G. 1980. ‘New evidence for the mysteries of Dionysus’, Greek,
Roman and Byzantine studies 21: 223-38.
Cole, S.G. 1984. Theoi megaloi: the cult of the Great Gods at Samothrace.
Leiden: Brill.
Collobert, C. 2002. ‘Aristotle’s review of the Presocratics: is Aristotle finally a
historian of philosophy?’, Journal of the history of philosophy 40: 28195.
Constantinakopoulou, C. 2015. ‘Regional religious groups, amphictionies
and other leagues’, in E. Eidinow and J. Kindt (eds), The Oxford
handbook of ancient Greek religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
273-89.
Cooper, J.S. 1992. The fate of mankind: death and afterlife in ancient
Mesopotamia’, in H. Obayashi (ed.), Death and afterlife: perspectives
of world religions. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 19-33.
Cornelli, G. 2013. ‘Pythagoreanism as an historiographical category’, in G.
Cornelli, R. McKirahan and C. Macris (eds), On Pythagoreanism.
Berlin: De Gruyter, 3-45.
Cosmopoulos, M.B. 2003. ‘Mycenean religion at Eleusis: the architecture
and stratigraphy of Megaron B’, in M.B. Cosmopoulos (ed.), Greek
mysteries: the archaeology and ritual of ancient Greek secret cults.
London: Routledge, 1-24.
Cosmopoulos, M.B. 2014. The sanctuary of Demeter at Eleusis: the Bronze
Age. 2 vols. Athens: Archaeological Society of Athens Library.
413
Bibliography
Cosmopoulos, M.B. 2015. Bronze age Eleusis and the origins of the
Eleusinian mysteries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Darque, P. 1981. ‘Les vestiges mycéniens découverts sous le télésterion
d’Eleusis’, Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 105: 593–605.
De Bock Cano, L. 1982. ‘Καθαρός, ἁγνός, ἀεικής: algunos correcciones a los
lexicos desde el punto de vista de la semántica estructural’, Emerita
50: 121-3.
De Jong, A. 1997. Traditions of the Magi: Zoroastrianism in Greek and Latin
literature. Leiden: Brill.
Delatte, A. 1922. La vie de Pythagore de Diogène Laërce. Brussels: Maurice
Lamertin.
Delatte, A. 1952. ‘Le papyrus d’Antinoopolis relatif aux mystères’, Comptes
rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 96:
251-8.
Demand, N. 1975. ‘Pindar’s Olympian 2, Theron’s faith, and Empedocles’
Katharmoi’, Greek, Roman and Byzantine studies 16: 347-57.
Denniston, J.D. 1950. The Greek particles. 2nd ed.; revised by K.J. Dover.
Oxford: Clarendon Press. (Reprinted: London: Bristol Classical Press,
1996.)
Detienne, M. 1958. ‘Xénocrate et la démonologie pythagoricienne‘, Revue
des études anciennes 60: 271-9.
Detienne, M. 1963. De la pensée religieuse á la pensée philosophique: la
notion de daïmôn dans la pythagorisme ancien. Paris: Les Belles
Lettres.
414
Bibliography
Detienne, M. 1979. Dionysus slain. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University
Press.
Dickie, M. 2001. Magic and magicians in the Greco-Roman world. London:
Routledge.
Diggle, J. 2004. Theophrastus. Characters. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Dillery, J. 2005. ‘Chresmologues and manteis: independent diviners and the
problem of authority’, in S.I. Johnston and P.T. Struck (eds), Mantikê:
studies in ancient divination. Leiden: Brill, 167-231.
Dillon, J. 2014. ‘Pythagoreanism in the Academic tradition’, in C.A. Huffman
(ed.), A history of Pythagoreanism. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 250-73.
Dodds, E.R. 1951. The Greeks and the irrational. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Dodds, E.R. 1959. Plato: Gorgias. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Dodds, E.R. 1960. Euripides: Bacchae. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Dousa, T.M. 2011. ‘Common motifs in the “Orphic” B tablets and Egyptian
funerary texts: continuity or convergence?’, in R.G. Edmonds (ed.), The
“Orphic” gold tablets and Greek religion: further along the path.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 120-64.
Dover, K. 1993. Aristophanes. Frogs. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993.
Dowden, K. 1980. ‘Grades in the Eleusinian Mysteries’, Revue de l’histoire
des religions 4: 409-27.
415
Bibliography
Edelstein, L. 1943. The Hippocratic oath: text, translation and
interpretation. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.
Edmonds, R.G. 1999. ‘Tearing apart the Zagreus myth: a few disparaging
remarks on Orphism and original sin’, Classical antiquity 18: 35-73.
Edmonds, R.G. 2004. Myths of the underworld journey: Plato, Aristophanes
and the ‘Orphic’ gold tablets. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Edmonds, R.G. 2008. ‘Extra-ordinary people: mystai and magoi, magicians
and Orphics in the Derveni Papyrus’, Classical philology 103:16-39.
Edmonds, R.G. 2009a. ‘A curious concoction: tradition and innovation in
Olympiodorus’ “Orphic” creation of mankind’, American journal of
philology 130: 511-32.
Edmonds, R.G. 2009b. ‘Who are you? Mythic narrative and identity in the
“Orphic” gold tablets’, in G. Casadio and P.A. Johnston (eds), Mystic
cults in Magna Graecia. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 73-94.
Edmonds, R.G. 2010. ‘The children of Earth and starry Heaven: the meaning
and function of the formula in the “Orphic” gold tablets’, in A.
Bernabé, F. Casadesús and M.A. Santamaría (eds), Orfeo y el orfismo:
nuevas perspectivas. Alicante: Biblioteca Virtual Miguel de Cervantes,
98-121. http://www.cervantesvirtual.com/obra/orfeo-y-el-orfismonuevas-perspectivas--0/
Edmonds, R.G. 2011a. ‘Who are you? A brief history of the scholarship’, in
R.G. Edmonds (ed.), The “Orphic” gold tablets and Greek religion:
further along the path. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 3-14.
Edmonds, R.G. 2011b. ‘The “Orphic” gold tablets: texts and translations,
with critical apparatus and tables’, in R.G. Edmonds (ed.), The “Orphic”
416
Bibliography
gold tablets and Greek religion: further along the path. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 15-50.
Edmonds, R.G. 2011c. ‘Festivals in the afterlife: a new reading of the Petelia
tablet (OF 476.11)’, in M. Herrero de Jáuregui [et al.] (eds), Tracing
Orpheus: studies of Orphic fragments in honour of Alberto Bernabé.
Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 185-8.
Edmonds, R.G. 2013a. ‘The Ephesia Grammata: logos Orphaïkos or Apolline
alexima pharmaka?’, in C.A. Faraone and D. Obbink (eds), The Getty
hexameters: poetry, magic and mystery in ancient Selinous. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 97-106.
Edmonds, R.G. 2013b. Redefining ancient Orphism. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Edmonds, R.G. 2014. ‘A lively afterlife and beyond: the soul in Plato, Homer,
and the Orphica’, Études Platoniciennes 11.
Edmonds, R.G. 2015. ‘Imagining the afterlife’, in E. Eidinow and J. Kindt
(eds), The Oxford handbook of ancient Greek religion. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 551-63.
Edwards, A.T. 1985. ‘Achilles in the underworld: Iliad, Odyssey and
Aethiopis’, Greek, Roman and Byzantine studies 26: 215-27.
Edwards, C.M. 1986. ‘The running maiden from Eleusis and the early
classical image of Hekate’, American journal of archaeology 90: 30718.
Eidinow, E. 2011. ‘Networks and narratives: a model for ancient Greek
religion’, Kernos 24: 9-38.
417
Bibliography
Eidinow, E. 2015. ‘Ancient Greek religion: “embedded” ... and embodied’, in
C. Taylor and K. Vlassopoulos (eds), Communities and networks in the
ancient Greek world. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 54-79.
Eidinow, E. 2017. ‘In search of the “beggar-priest”’, in G. Richard, G.
Petridou and J. Rüpke (eds), Beyond priesthood: religious
entrepreneurs and Innovators in the Roman Empire. Berlin: De
Gruyter, 255-75.
Ekroth, G. 2015. ‘Heroes – living or dead?’ , in E. Eidinow and J. Kindt (eds),
The Oxford handbook of ancient Greek religion. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 383-96.
Fabiano, D. 2010. ‘”Ho fuggito il male, ho trovato il meglio”: le punizione dei
non iniziati nell’ aldilà greco’, Archiv für Religionsgeschichte 12: 14965.
Faraone, C.A. 2008. ‘Mystery cults and incantations: evidence for Orphic
charms in Euripides’ Cyclops 646-48?’, Rheinisches Museum für
Philologie 151: 127-42.
Farnell, L.R. 1921. Greek hero cults and ideas of immortality. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Ferrari, F. 2007. ‘Note al testo della colonne II-VII del Papiro de Derveni’,
Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 162: 203-11.
Ferrari, F. 2010. ‘Democrito a Derveni? PDerv. col. 4, 1-6’, Parole del
passato 65: 137-55.
Ferrari, F. 2011a. ‘Frustoli erranti: per una ricostruzione delle colonne 1-3
del Papiro di Derveni’, Papiri filosofici: miscellanea di studi 6: 39-54.
418
Bibliography
Ferrari, F. 2011b. ‘Rites without frontiers: magi and mystae in the Derveni
Papyrus’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 179: 71-83.
Ferrari, F. 2011c. ‘La donna di Pelinna e i simposi oltremondani’,
Prometheus 37: 97-106.
Ferrari, F. 2011d. ‘Oral bricolage and ritual context in the golden tablets’, in
A.P.M.H. Lardinois, J.H. Blok, M.G.M. van der Poel (eds), Sacred words:
orality, literacy and religion. Leiden: Brill, 205-16.
Ferrari, F. 2014. ‘Democritus, Heraclitus, and the dead souls: reconstructing
columns I-VI of the Derveni Papyrus’, in I. Papadopoulou and L.
Muellner (eds), Poetry as initiation: the Center for Hellenic Studies
Symposium on the Derveni Papyrus. Washington, D.C.: Center for
Hellenic Studies, 53-66.
Ferrari, G.R.F. 2009. ‘Glaucon’s reward, philosophy’s debt: the myth of Er’,
in C. Partenie (ed.), Plato’s myths. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 116-33.
Ferwerda, R. 1985. ‘The meaning of the word σῶμα in Plato’s Cratylus
400C’, Hermes 113: 266-79.
Festugière, A.J. 1935. ‘Les mystères de Dionysos’, Revue biblique 44: 192211, 366-96.
Festugière, A.J. 1945. ‘Les “Mémoires pythagoriques” cités par Alexandre
Polyhistor’, Revue des études grecques 58: 1-65. = Études de
philosophie grecque. Paris: Vrin, 371-435.
Flower, M.A. 2008. The seer in ancient Greece. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
419
Bibliography
Flower, M.A. 2015. ‘Religious expertise’, in E. Eidinow and J. Kindt (eds), The
Oxford handbook of ancient Greek religion. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 293-307.
Foley, H.P. 1994. The Homeric Hymn to Demeter: translation, commentary
and interpretive essays. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Foucart, P. 1914. Les Mystères d’Éleusis. Paris: Picard.
Fraser, P.M. 1972. Ptolemaic Alexandria. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Frel, J. 1994. ‘ Una nuova laminella “orfica”’, Eirene 30: 183-4.
Fritz, K. von. 1957. ‘Ἐστρὶς ἑκατέρωθι in Pindar’s Second Olympian and
Pythagoras’ theory of metempsychosis’, Phronesis 2: 85-9.
Funghi, M.S. 1997a. ‘The Derveni Papyrus’, in A. Laks and G.W. Most (eds),
Studies on the Derveni Papyrus. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 25-37.
Funghi, M.S. 1997b. ‘Bibliography of the Derveni Papyrus‘, in A. Laks and
G.W. Most (eds), Studies on the Derveni Papyrus. Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 175-85.
Gagné, R. 2007. ‘Winds and ancestors: the Physika of Orpheus’, Harvard
studies in classical philology 103: 1-23.
Gagné, R. 2008. ‘The sins of the fathers: C.A. Lobeck and K.O. Müller’,
Kernos 21: 109-24.
Gagné, R. 2013. Ancestral fault in ancient Greece. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Gershevitch, I. 1964. ‘Zoroaster’s own contribution’, Journal of Near Eastern
studies 23:12-38.
420
Bibliography
Gottschalk, H.B. 1980. Heraclides of Pontus. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Graf, F. 1974. Eleusis und die orphische Dichtung Athens in vorhellenisticher
Zeit. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Graf, F. 1991. ‘Textes orphiques et rituel bacchique: à propos des lamelles
de Pélinna’, in P. Borgeaud (ed.), Orphisme et Orphée en l’honneur de
Jean Rudhardt. Geneva: Droz, 87-102.
Graf, F. 1993. ‘Dionysian and Orphic eschatology: new texts and old
questions’, in T.H. Carpenter and C.A. Faraone (eds), Masks of
Dionysus. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 239-58.
Graf, F. 1997. Magic in the ancient world. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Graf, F. 2003. ‘Initiation: a concept with a troubled history’, in D.B. Dodd
and C.A. Faraone (eds), Initiation in ancient Greek rituals and
narratives: new critical perspectives. London: Routledge, 3-24.
Graf, F. 2011. ‘Text and ritual: the Corpus Eschatologicum of the Orphics’, in
R.G. Edmonds (ed.), The ‘Orphic’ gold tablets and Greek religion:
further along the path. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 5367.
Graf, F. 2014. ‘Derveni and ritual’, in I. Papadopoulou and L. Muellner (eds),
Poetry as initiation: the Center for Hellenic Studies Symposium on the
Derveni Papyrus. Washington, D.C.: Center for Hellenic Studies, 67-88.
Graf, F. and Johnston, S.I. 2013. Ritual texts for the afterlife: Orpheus and
the Bacchic gold tablets. 2nd ed. London: Routledge.
Graham, D.W. 2014. ‘Philolaus’, in C.A. Huffman (ed.), A history of
Pythagoreanism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 46-68.
421
Bibliography
Guthrie, W.K.C. 1952. Orpheus and Greek religion: a study of the Orphic
movement. 2nd ed. London: Methuen. (Reprinted: Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1993.)
Guthrie, W.K.C. 1957. ‘Aristotle as historian’, Journal of Hellenic studies 77:
35-41. (Reprinted in D.J. Furley and R.E. Allen (eds), Studies in
Presocratic philosophy 1: 239-54.)
Hampe, R. 1967. Kult der Winde in Athen und Kreta. Heidelberg: Winter.
Hard, R. 1997. Apollodorus. The library of Greek mythology. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Harrison, J.E. 1922. Prolegomena to the study of Greek religion. 3rd ed.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Reprinted: Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press, 1991.)
Harrison, T. 2015. ‘Beyond the polis?: new approaches to Greek religion’,
Journal of Hellenic studies 135: 165-80.
Henrichs, A. 1969. ‘Die Maenaden von Milet’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und
Epigraphik 4: 223-41.
Henrichs, A. 1978. ‘Greek maenadism from Olympias to Messalina’, Harvard
studies in classical philology 82: 121-60.
Henrichs, A. 1983. ‘The “sobriety” of Oedipus: Sophocles OC 100
misunderstood’, Harvard studies in classical philology 87: 87-100.
Henrichs, A. 1984. ‘The Eumenides and the wineless libations in the Derveni
Papyrus’, in Atti del XVII Congresso Internazionale di Papirologia.
Napoli: Centro Internazionale per lo Studio dei Papiri Ercolanesi, 25568.
422
Bibliography
Henrichs, A. 1994. ‘Anonymity and polarity: unknown gods and nameless
altars at the Areopagos’, Illinois classical studies 19: 27-58.
Henrichs, A. 2003. ‘Hieroi logoi and hierai biblai: the (un)written margins of
the sacred in ancient Greece’, Harvard studies in classical philology
101: 207-66.
Henrichs, A. 2011. ‘Dionysos dismembered and restored to life: the earliest
evidence (OF 59 I-II)‘, in M. Herrero de Jáuregui [et al.] (eds), Tracing
Orpheus: studies of Orphic fragments in honour of Alberto Bernabé.
Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 61-8.
Henriks, I.H.M. 1980. ‘Griechische Inschriften aus dem Nachlass G. Cupers
(I)‘, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 40: 187-206.
Herrero de Jáuregui, M. 2007. ‘Las fuentes de Clem. Alex., Protr. II 12-22: un
tratado sobre los misterios y una teogonía órfica’, Emerita 75: 19-50.
Herrero de Jáuregui, M. 2010. Orphism and Christianity in late antiquity.
Berlin: De Gruyter.
Herrero de Jáuregui, M. 2011. ‘OF485-486: “On this day”’, in M. Herrero de
Jáuregui [et al.] (eds), Tracing Orpheus: studies of Orphic fragments in
honour of Alberto Bernabé. Berlin: De Gruyter, 189-95.
Herrero de Jáuregui, M. 2015. ‘The construction of inner religious space in
wandering religion of classical Greece’, Numen 62: 596-626.
Heubeck, A. 1986. ‘ἐρινύς in der archaischen Epik’, Glotta 64: 143-65.
Heubeck, A. 1989. ‘Books ix-xii’, in A. Heubeck and A. Hoekstra, A
commentary on Homer’s Odyssey. Vol II: Books ix-xvi. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 3-143.
423
Bibliography
Heubeck, A. 1992. ‘Books xxiii-xxiv’, in J. Russo, M. Fernandez-Galiano and A.
Heubeck, A commentary on Homer’s Odyssey. Vol III: Books xvii-xxiv.
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 313-418.
Hicks, R.D. 1925. Diogenes Laertius. Lives of eminent philosophers.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hoekstra, A. 1989. ‘Books xiii-xvi’, in A. Heubeck and A. Hoekstra, A
commentary on Homer’s Odyssey. Vol II: Books ix-xvi. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 147-287.
Holzhausen, J. 2004. ‘Pindar und die Orphik: zu Frg. 133 Snell/Maehler’,
Hermes 132: 20-36.
Hordern, J. 2000. ‘Notes on the Orphic papyrus from Gurôb (P. Gurôb 1:
Pack2 2464)’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 129: 131-40.
Hort, A. 1916. Theophrastus. Enquiry into plants, and minor works on
odours and weather signs. New York: Putnam’s Sons.
Howland, J. 1991. ‘Re-reading Plato: the problem of Platonic chronology’,
Phoenix 45: 189-214.
Huffman, C.A. 1993. Philolaus of Croton, Pythagorean and Presocratic: a
commentary on the fragments and testimonia with interpretive essays.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Huffman, C.A. 2013. ‘Plato and the Pythagoreans’, in G. Cornelli, R.
McKirahan and C. Macris (eds), On Pythagoreanism. Berlin: De
Gruyter, 237-70.
Huffman, C.A. 2014. ‘The Peripatetics on the Pythagoreans’, in C.A. Huffman
(ed.), A history of Pythagoreanism. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 274-95.
424
Bibliography
Ianucci, A., Muccioli, F. and Zaccarini, M. (eds) 2015. La città inquieta:
Selinunte tra lex sacra e defixiones. Milan: Mimesis.
Ignatiadou, D. 2014. ‘The symbolic krater’, Cahiers du Corpus Vasorum
Antiquorum, France 2: 43-59.
Inwood, B. 2009. ‘Empedocles and metempsychôsis: the critique of
Diogenes of Oenoanda’, in D. Frede and B. Reis (eds), Body and soul in
ancient philosophy. Berlin: De Gruyter, 71-86.
Inwood, M. 2009. ‘Plato’s eschatological myths’, in C. Partenie (ed.), Plato’s
myths. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 28-50.
Ireland, S. and Steel, F.L.D. 1975. ‘Φρένες as an anatomical organ in the
works of Homer’, Glotta 53: 183-95.
Isler-Kerényi, C. 2009. ‘New contributions of Dionysiac iconography to the
history of religions in Greece and Italy’, in G. Casadio and P.A.
Johnston (eds), Mystic cults in Magna Graecia. Austin, TX: University
of Texas Press, 61-72.
Jaccottet, A-F. 2005. ‘Du thiase aux mystères: Dionysos entre le <<privé>> et
<<l‘officiel>>’, in V. Dasen and M. Piérart (eds), Ἰδίᾳ καὶ δημοσίᾳ: les
cadres <<privés>> et <<publics>> de la religion grecque antique. Liège:
Presses Universitaires de Liège, 191-202.
Jameson, M.H., Jordan, D.R. and Kotansky, R.D. 1993. A Lex Sacra from
Selinous. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Janko, R. 1984. ‘Forgetfulness in the golden tablets of memory’, Classical
quarterly 34: 89-100.
Janko, R. 2001. ‘The Derveni Papyrus (Diagoras of Melos, Apopyrgizontes
logoi?), a new translation’, Classical philology 96: 1-32.
425
Bibliography
Janko, R. 2002. ‘The Derveni Papyrus: an interim text’, Zeitschrift für
Papyrologie und Epigraphik 141: 1-62.
Janko, R. 2008. ‘Reconstructing (again) the opening of the Derveni Papyrus’,
Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 166: 37-51.
Janko, R. 2016a. ‘Going beyond multitexts: the archetype of the Orphic gold
leaves’, Classical quarterly 66: 100-27.
Janko, R. 2016b. ‘Parmenides in the Derveni Papyrus: new images for a new
edition‘, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 200:3-23.
Jiménez San Cristóbal, A.I. 2007. ‘Un iniziato sotto un tumulo a Cuma?’,
Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 161: 105-114.
Jiménez San Cristóbal, A.I. 2008. ‘Los orfeotelestas y la vida órfica’, in A.
Bernabé and F. Casadesús (eds), Orfeo y la tradición órfica: un
reencuentro. Madrid: Akal, 771-99.
Jiménez San Cristóbal, Α.Ι. 2009. ‘The meaning of βάκχος and βακχεύειν in
Orphism’, in G. Casadio and P.A. Johnston (eds), Mystic cults in Magna
Graecia. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 46-60.
Jiménez San Cristóbal, A.I. 2011. ‘Do not drink the water of Forgetfulness
(OF 474-477)’ , in M. Herrero de Jáuregui [et al.] (eds), Tracing
Orpheus: studies of Orphic fragments in honour of Alberto Bernabé.
Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 165-70.
Jiménez San Cristóbal, A.I. 2019. ‘Rites and officiants in Col. XX of the
Derveni Papyrus’, in M.A. Santamaría (ed.), The Derveni Papyrus:
unearthing ancient mysteries. Leiden: Brill, 129-142.
Johnston, S.I. 1992. ‘Xanthus, Hera and the Erinyes (Iliad 19.400-418)’,
Transactions of the American Philological Association 122: 85-98.
426
Bibliography
Johnston, S.I. 1999. The restless dead: encounters between the living and the
dead in ancient Greece. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Johnston, S.I. 2008. Ancient Greek divination. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Johnston, S.I. 2014. ‘Divination in the Derveni Papyrus’, in I. Papadopoulou
and L. Muellner (eds), Poetry as initiation: the Center for Hellenic
Studies Symposium on the Derveni Papyrus. Washington, D.C.: Center
for Hellenic Studies, 89-105.
Johnston, S.I. and McNiven, T.J. 1996. ‘Dionysos and the underworld in
Toledo’, Museum Helveticum 53: 25-36.
Jouanna, J. 1999. Hippocrates. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Jourdan, F. 2003. Le Papyrus de Derveni. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.
Jourdan, F. 2010. ‘Dionysos dans le Protreptique de Clément d’Alexandrie’,
in A. Bernabé, F. Casadesús and M.A. Santamaría (eds), Orfeo y el
orfismo : nuevas perspectivas. Alicante: Biblioteca Virtual Miguel de
Cervantes, 515-32. http://www.cervantesvirtual.com/obra/orfeo-y-elorfismo-nuevas-perspectivas--0/
Kahn, C.H. 1997. ‘Was Euthyphro the author of the Derveni Papyrus?’, in A.
Laks and G.W. Most (eds), Studies on the Derveni Papyrus. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 55-63.
Kahn, C.H. 2001. Pythagoras and the Pythagoreans. Indianapolis: Hackett.
Kalaitzi, M. 2016. ‘The theme of the banqueter on Hellenistic Macedonian
tombstones’, in C.M. Draycott and M. Stamatopoulou (eds), Dining
and death: interdisciplinary perspectives on the ‘funerary banquet’ in
ancient art, burial and belief. Leuven: Peeters, 481-521.
427
Bibliography
Kapparis, K.A. 1999. Apollodoros ‘Against Neaira’ [D59]. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Kearns, E. 1994. ‘Cakes in Greek sacrifice regulations’, in R. Hägg (ed.),
Ancient Greek cult practice from the epigraphical evidence:
proceedings of the Second International Seminar on Ancient Greek
Cult. Stockholm: Svenska Instituet i Athen, 65-70.
Kearns, E. 2015. ‘Old vs. new’, in E. Eidinow and J. Kindt (eds), The Oxford
handbook of ancient Greek religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
29-37.
Keith, A.B. 1909. ‘Pythagoras and the doctrine of transmigration’, Journal of
the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland 41: 569-606.
Kern, O. 1922. Orphicorum fragmenta. Berlin: Weidmann.
Kindt, J. 2012. Rethinking Greek religion. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Kindt, J. 2015. ‘Personal religion: a productive category for the study of
ancient Greek religion?’, Journal of Hellenic studies 135: 35-50.
Kingsley, P. 1995. Ancient philosophy, mystery and magic: Empedocles and
Pythagorean tradition. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Kirk, G.S. 1954. Heraclitus: the cosmic fragments. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Kirk, G.S. 1985. The Iliad: a commentary. Volume I: books 1-4. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Kirkwood, G. 1982. Selections from Pindar. Chico, CA: Scholars Press.
Kotansky, R. 1991. ‘Incantations and prayers for salvation on inscribed
Greek amulets’, in C.A. Faraone and D. Obbink (eds), Magika hiera:
428
Bibliography
ancient Greek magic and religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
107-17.
Kotansky, R. 2019. ‘ Textual amulets and writing traditions in the ancient
world’, in D. Frankfurter (ed.), Guide to the study of ancient magic.
Leiden: Brill, 507-54.
Kotwick, M.E. 2017. Der Papyrus von Derveni: griechisch-deutsch, engeleitet,
übersetzt und kommentiert von Mirjam. E. Kotwick, basierend auf
einem griechischen Text von Richard Janko. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Kouremenos, T., Parássoglou, G.M. and Tsantsanoglou, K. 2006. The Derveni
Papyrus. Firenze: Olschki, 2006.
Kühner, R. and Gerth, B. 1898-1904. Ausführliche Grammatik der
griechischen Sprache : Satzlehre. 3. Aufl. Hannover: Hahnsche Buchh.
Kupreeva, I. 2009. ‘Heraclides’ On soul (?) and its ancient readers’, in W.W.
Fortenbaugh and E. Pender (eds), Heraclides of Pontus: discussion.
New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 93-138.
Laks, A. 1997. ‘Between religion and philosophy: the function of allegory in
the Derveni Papyrus’, Phronesis 42: 121-42.
Laks, A. 2013. ‘The Pythagorean hypomnemata reported by Alexander
Polyhistor in Diogenes Laertius (8.25-33)’, in G. Cornelli, R. McKirahan
and C. Macris (eds), On Pythagoreanism. Berlin: De Gruyter, 371-84.
Laks, A. 2014. ‘Diogenes Laertius’ Life of Pythagoras’, in C.A. Huffman (ed.),
A history of Pythagoreanism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
360-80.
Laks, A and Most, G.W. 2016. Early Greek philosophy. 9 vols. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
429
Bibliography
Lambin, G. 2015. ‘« Je suis tombé dans du lait » : à propos des formules
dites orphiques’, Gaia 18: 507-19.
Lane, E.N. 1979. ‘Sabazius and the Jews in Valerius Maximus: a reexamination’, Journal of Roman studies 69: 35-8.
Lane, E.N. 1980. ‘Towards a definition of the iconography of Sabazius’,
Numen 27: 9-33.
Lefkowitz, M.R. 1981. The lives of the Greek poets. London: Duckworth.
Levaniouk, O. 2007. ‘The toys of Dionysos’, Harvard studies in classical
philology 103: 165-202.
Lévêque, P. 1982. ‘Ὄλβιος et la félicité des initiés’, in L. HadermannMisguich, G. Raepsaet and G. Cambier (eds), Rayonnement grec:
hommages à Charles Delvoye. Bruxelles: Éditions de l’Université de
Bruxelles, 113-26.
Liapis, V. 2012. A commentary on the Rhesus attributed to Euripides.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
LiDonnici, L.R. 1995. The Epidaurian miracle inscriptions: text, translation
and commentary. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press.
Linforth, I.M. 1941. The arts of Orpheus. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Lloyd, G. 1979. Magic, reason and experience: studies in the origin and
development of Greek science. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Lloyd, G. 2007. ‘Pneuma between body and soul’, Journal of the Royal
Anthropological Institute 13: S135-46.
430
Bibliography
Lloyd, G. 2014. ‘Pythagoras’, in C.A. Huffman (ed.), A history of
Pythagoreanism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 24-45.
Lloyd-Jones, H. 1985. ‘Pindar and the afterlife’, Entretiens sur l’antiquité
classique 31:245-83. = Greek epic, lyric and tragedy. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1990, 80-109.
Lobeck, C.A. 1829. Aglaophamus, sive De theologiae mysticae Graecorum
causis libri tres. Königsberg: Bormtraeger.
Long, A.A. 2013. ‘The eclectic Pythagoreanism of Alexander Polyhistor’, in
M. Schofield (ed.), Aristotle, Plato and Pythagoreanism in the first
century BC. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 139-59.
Long, A.A. and Sedley, D.N. 1987. The Hellenistic philosophers. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Long, H.S. 1948. A study of the doctrine of metempsychosis: from
Pythagoras to Plato. Princeton: [n. pub.].
López Martínez, M.P. 2011. ‘Synesius, Dio 7 (OF 674)’, in M. Herrero de
Jáuregui [et al.] (eds), Tracing Orpheus: studies of Orphic fragments in
honour of Alberto Bernabé. Berlin: De Gruyter, 283-8.
Lorenz, H. 2008. ‘Plato on the soul’, in G. Fine (ed.), The Oxford handbook of
Plato. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 243-66.
Lucarelli, R. 2010. ‘The guardian-demons of the Book of the Dead’, British
Museum studies in ancient Egypt and Sudan 15: 85-102.
Lucarelli, R. 2011. ‘Demonology during the late Pharaonic and Greco-Roman
periods in Egypt’, Journal of ancient Near Eastern religions 11: 109-25.
431
Bibliography
Lynch, J.P. and Miles, G.B. 1980. ‘In search of thumos: toward an
understanding of a Greek psychological term’, Prudentia 17:3-9.
MacDowell, D.M. 1962. Andokides: On the mysteries. Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
Mace, S. 1996. ‘Utopian and erotic fusion in a new elegy by Simonides (22
West2)’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 113: 233-47.
Macfarlane, R.T. and Del Mastro, G. 2019. ‘Problems pertaining to the
restoration, conservation and reproduction of the Derveni Papyrus’, in
M.A. Santamaría (ed.), The Derveni Papyrus: unearthing ancient
mysteries. Leiden: Brill, 1-15.
Mackie, C.J. 1999. ‘Scamander and the rivers of Hades in Homer’, American
journal of philology 120: 485-501.
Martín Hernández, R. 2006. El orfismo y la magia. Doctoral thesis. Madrid:
Universidad Complutense. http://biblioteca.ucm.es/tesis/fll/ucmt29556.pdf
McGibbon, D. 1964. ‘Metempsychosis in Pindar‘, Phronesis 9: 5-11.
Megino Rodríguez, C. 2011a. ‘Presence in Stoicism of an Orphic doctrine on
the soul quoted by Aristotle (De anima 410b 27 = OF 421)’ , in M.
Herrero de Jáuregui [et al.] (eds), Tracing Orpheus: studies of Orphic
fragments in honour of Alberto Bernabé. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter,
139-46.
Megino Rodríguez, C. 2011b. ‘ La transmigración en la poesía de
Empédocles’, in A. Bernabé, M. Kahle and M.A. Santamaría (eds),
Reencarnación: la transmigración de las almas entre Oriente y
Occidente. Madrid: Abada, 269-82.
432
Bibliography
Megino Rodríguez, C. 2019. ‘Daimons in the Derveni Papyrus and in early
Stoicism’, in M.A. Santamaría (ed.), The Derveni Papyrus: unearthing
ancient mysteries. Leiden: Brill, 30-44.
Merkelbach, R. 1975. ‘Bakchisches Goldtäfelchen aus Hipponion‘, Zeitschrift
für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 17: 8-9.
Merkelbach, R. 1999. ‘Die goldenen Totenpässe: Ägyptisch, orphisch,
bakchisch’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 128: 1-13.
Minen, F. 2019. ‘A gust from the East to the West: Mesopotamian ideas
related to winds and their parallels in Western cultural tradition‘,
Mnemosyne: the Warburg Institute blog Jun 12 2019.
https://warburg.blogs.sas.ac.uk/ Accessed: 17 July 2019.
Mitterlechner, T. 2016. ‘The banquet in Etruscan funerary art and its
underlying meaning’, in C.M. Draycott and M. Stamatopoulou (eds),
Dining and death: interdisciplinary perspectives on the ‘funerary
banquet’ in ancient art, burial and belief. Leuven: Peeters, 524-52.
Moret, J.-M. 1993. ‘Les départs des Enfers dans l'imagerie apulienne’, Revue
archéologique 293-351.
Morgan, K.A. 2000. Myth and philosophy from the Presocratics to Plato.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Most, G.W. 1997. ‘The fire next time. Cosmology, allegoresis, and salvation
in the Derveni Papyrus’, Journal of Hellenic studies 117: 117-35.
Most, G.W. 2012. ‘Plato’s exoteric myths’, in C. Collobert, P. Destrée and F.J.
Gonzalez (eds), Plato and myth: studies on the use and status of
Platonic myths. Leiden: Brill, 13-24.
433
Bibliography
Mylonas, G.E. 1961. Eleusis and the Eleusinian mysteries. Princeton, N.J.:
Princeton University Press.
Nehring, A. 1947. ‘Homer’s descriptions of syncopes’, Classical philology 42:
106-21.
Nilsson, M.P. 1957a. The Dionysiac mysteries of the Hellenistic and Roman
age. Lund: Gleerup. (Reprinted: New York: Arno Press, 1975.)
Nilsson, M.P. 1957b. ‘Royal mysteries in Egypt’, Harvard theological review
50: 65-6.
Nittis, S. 1940. ‘The authorship and probable date of the Hippocratic Oath:
linguistic and philological considerations of the συγγραφή with a short
history of Greek fraternal societies’, Bulletin of the history of medicine
8: 1012-21.
Nock, A.D. 1972. ‘Paul and the Magus’, in Essays on religion and the ancient
world. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1: 308-30. (Originally published in
F.J.F. Jackson and K. Lake (eds), The beginnings of Christianity.
London: Macmillan,1933. 5: 164-88.)
Nodar Domínguez, A. 2011. ‘Theophrastus, Characters 16.12: Orphism or
rhetoric? (OF 654)’, in M. Herrero de Jáuregui [et al.] (eds), Tracing
Orpheus: studies of Orphic fragments in honour of Alberto Bernabé.
Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 275-81.
Nutton, V. 2004. Ancient medicine. Abingdon: Routledge.
Obbink, D. 1997. ‘Cosmology as initiation vs. the critique of Orphic
mysteries’, in A. Laks and G.W. Most (eds), Studies on the Derveni
Papyrus. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 39-54.
434
Bibliography
Obbink, D. 2011. ‘Poetry and performance in the Orphic gold leaves’, in R.G.
Edmonds (ed.), The “Orphic” gold tablets and Greek religion: further
along the path. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 291-309.
Obeyesekere, G. 2002. Imagining karma: ethical transformation in
Amerindian, Buddhist and Greek rebirth. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Olmos, R. 2008. ‘Iconographical notes on the Orphic tablets’, in A. Bernabé
and A.I. Jiménez San Cristóbal, Instructions for the netherworld: the
Orphic gold tablets. Leiden: Brill, 273-326.
Pailler, J.-M. 1995. Bacchus: figures et pouvoirs. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.
Palmer, J. 2014. ‘The Pythagoreans and Plato’, in C.A. Huffman (ed.), A
history of Pythagoreanism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
204-26.
Panagiotou, S. 1983. ‘Empedocles on his own divinity’, Mnemosyne 36:27685.
Parker, R. 1983. Miasma: pollution and purification in early Greek religion.
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Parker, R. 1995. ‘Early Orphism’, in A. Powell (ed.), The Greek world.
London: Routledge, 483-510.
Parker, R. 1996. Athenian religion: a history. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Parker, R. 2005. Polytheism and society at Athens. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Pender, E. 2012. ‘The rivers of Tartarus: Plato’s geography of dying and
coming-back-to life’, in C. Collobert, P. Destrée and F.J. Gonzalez (eds),
435
Bibliography
Plato and myth: studies on the use and status of Platonic myths.
Leiden: Brill, 199-233.
Phillips, C.R. 2006. ‘Winds. II. Wind cult. B. Greece’, in Brill’s New Pauly.
http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-pauly/winds
[Accessed: 08/08/2016]
Piano, V. 2016. Il Papiro di Derveni tra religione e filsofia. Firenze: Olschki.
Piano, V. 2019. ‘Some textual issues on Column III (ed. Piano)’ , in M.A.
Santamaría (ed.), The Derveni Papyrus: unearthing ancient mysteries.
Leiden: Brill, 19-29.
Piano, V. (forthcoming). L‘inizio del Papiro di Derveni: il rotolo e il testo.
Firenze: Olschki.
Pickard-Cambridge, A. 1968. The dramatic festivals of Athens. 2nd ed.,
revised by J. Gould and D.M. Lewis. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Plichon, C. 2001. ‘Le Rhésos et l’orphisme’, Kernos 14: 11-21.
Porres Caballero, S. 2011. ‘Dionysus’ definitive rebirth’, in M. Herrero de
Jáuregui [et al.] (eds), Tracing Orpheus: studies of Orphic fragments in
honour of Alberto Bernabé. Berlin: De Gruyter, 127-32.
Powell, J.U. 1925. Collectanea Alexandrina: reliquiae minores poetarum
graecorum aetatis ptolemaicae 323-146 A.C., epicorum, elegiacorum,
lyricorum, ethicorum. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Primavesi. O. 2008. ‘Empedocles: physical and mythical divinity‘, in P. Curd
and D.W. Graham (eds), Oxford handbook of Presocratic philosophy.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 250-268.
436
Bibliography
Radt, S.L. 1980. ‘Noch einmal Aischylos, Niobe Fr. 162 N.2 (278 M.)‘,
Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 38:47-58.
Radt, S.L. 1988. ‘Οἱ (αἱ etc.) περὶ + acc. nominis proprii bei Strabon’,
Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 71: 35-40.
Rehrenböck, G. 1975. ‘Die orphische Seelenlehre in Platons Kratylos’,
Wiener Studien 88: 17-31.
Rhodes, P.J. and Osborne R. 2003. Greek historical inscriptions, 404-323 BC.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rice, E.E. 1983. The grand procession of Ptolemy Philadelphus. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Richardson, N.J. 1974. The Homeric Hymn to Demeter. Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
Richardson, N.J. 2010. Three Homeric hymns: to Apollo, Hermes and
Aphrodite. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Riedweg, C. 1998. ‘Initiation – Tod – Unterwelt: Beobachtungen zur
Kommunikationssituation und narrativen Technik der orphischbakchischen Goldblättchen’, in F. Graf (ed.), Ansichten griechischer
Rituale: Geburtstags-Symposium für Walter Burkert. Stuttgart:
Teubner, 359-98.
Riedweg, C. 2002. ‘Poésie orphique et rituel initiatique: éléments d’un
<<Discours sacré>> dans les lamelles d’or’, Revue de l’histoire des
religions 219: 459-81.
Riedweg, C. 2005. Pythagoras: his life, teaching and influence. Ithaca:
Cornell University Press.
437
Bibliography
Riedweg, C. 2011. ‘Initiation – death – underworld: narrative and ritual in
the gold leaves’, in R.G. Edmonds (ed.), The “Orphic” gold tablets and
Greek religion: further along the path. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 219-56.
Robertson, N. 1993. ‘Athens’ festival of the new wine’, Harvard studies in
classical philology 95: 197-250.
Robertson, N. 2010. Religion and reconciliation in Greek cities: the sacred
laws of Selinus and Cyrene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Robu, A. 2015. ‘Sélinonte et les deux Mégara‘, in A. Ianucci, F. Muccioli and
M. Zaccarini (eds), La città inquieta: Selinunte tra lex sacra e
defixiones. Milan: Mimesis, 79-99.
Rohde, E. 1925. Psyche: the cult of souls and belief in immortality among the
Greeks. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner.
Roller, L.E. 1994. ‘Attis on Greek votive monuments: Greek god or
Phrygian?’, Hesperia 63: 245-62.
Roller, L.E. 1999. In search of God the Mother: the cult of Anatolian Cybele.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Rose, H.J. 1936. ‘The ancient grief: a study of Pindar, Fragment 133 (Bergk),
127 (Bowra)’, in Greek poetry and life: essays presented to Gilbert
Murray on his seventieth birthday, January 2, 1936. Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 79-96.
Rose, H.J. 1943. ‘The grief of Persephone’, Harvard theological review 36:
247-50.
Rosenthal, F. 1956. ‘An ancient commentary on the Hippocratic Oath’,
Bulletin of the history of medicine 30: 52-87.
438
Bibliography
Roussel, P. 1930. ‘L’initiation préalable et le symbole éleusinien’, Bulletin de
correspondance hellénique 54: 51-74.
Rowett, C. 2014. ‘The Pythagorean society and politics’, in C.A. Huffman
(ed.), A history of Pythagoreanism. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 112-30.
Rüpke, J. 2013. ‘Individualization and individuation as concepts for historical
research’, in J. Rüpke (ed.), The individual in the religions of the
ancient Mediterranean. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3-38.
Russell, J.R. 2001. ‘The magi in the Derveni Papyrus’, Nāme-ye Irān-e Bāstān
1: 49-59.
Rusten, J.S. 1985. ‘Interim notes on the papyrus from Derveni’, Harvard
studies in classical philology 89: 121-40.
Salvo, I. 2012. ‘A note on the ritual norms of purification after homicide at
Selinous and Cyrene‘, Dike 15: 125-57.
Sánchez Ortiz de Landaluce, M. 2011. ‘ΑΙΓΥΠΤΙΟΝ ΙΕΡΟΣ ΛΟΓΟΣ (OF 40-63)’,
in M. Herrero de Jáuregui [et al.] (eds), Tracing Orpheus: studies of
Orphic fragments in honour of Alberto Bernabé. Berlin: Walter de
Gruyter, 55-9.
Sandin, P. 2008. ‘Herodotus, Dionysus and the Greek death taboo. The
Homeric hymn to Demeter and the construction of the “chthonic” in
Greek literary tradition’, Symbolae Osloenses 83: 2-17.
Santamaría, M.A. 2011. ‘La transmigración del alma en Grecia de Ferecides
de Siros a Pindaro (siglos VI-V a.C.)’ , in A. Bernabé, M. Kahle and M.A.
Santamaría (eds), Reencarnación: la transmigración de las almas entre
Oriente y Occidente. Madrid: Abada, 233-67.
439
Bibliography
Santamaría, M.A. 2013. ‘The term βάκχος and Dionysos Βάκχιος’, in A.
Bernabé [et al.] (eds), Redefining Dionysos. Berlin: De Gruyter, 38-57.
Santamaría, M.A. 2019b. ‘Bibliography of the Derveni Papyrus (1997-2018)’,
in M.A. Santamaría (ed.), The Derveni Papyrus: unearthing ancient
mysteries. Leiden: Brill, 151-7.
Schibli, H.S. 1993. ‘Xenocrates’ daimons and the irrational soul’, Classical
quarterly 43: 143-67.
Schlesier, R. 2001. ‘Dionysos in der Unterwelt: zu den
Jenseitskonstruktionen der bakchischen Mysterien‘, in R. von Hoff and
S. Schmidt (eds), Konstruktionen von Wirklichkeit: Bilder im
Griechenland des 5. und 4. Jahrhunderts. Stuttgart: Steiner, 157-72.
Schuddeboom, F.L. 2009. Greek religious terminology - telete & orgia: a
revised and expanded English edition of the studies by Zijderveld and
Van der Burg. Leiden: Brill.
Scott, D. 1987. ‘Platonic anamnesis revisited’, Classical quarterly 37: 346-66.
Scullion, S. 2000. ‘Heroic and chthonian sacrifice: new evidence from
Selinous’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 132: 163-71.
Scurlock, J.A. 1995. ‘Death and the afterlife in ancient Mesopotamian
thought’, in J.M. Sasson (ed.), Civilisations of the ancient Near East.
Vol. 3. New York: Scribner, 1883-93.
Seaford, R. 1981. ‘Dionysiac drama and the Dionysiac mysteries’, Classical
quarterly 31: 252-75.
Seaford, R. 1986. ‘Immortality, salvation and the elements’, Harvard studies
in classical philology 90: 1-26.
440
Bibliography
Seaford, R. 1987. ‘Pentheus‘ vision: Bacchae 918-22’, Classical quarterly 37:
76-8.
Sedley, D. 1998. ‘The etymologies in Plato’s Cratylus’, Journal of Hellenic
studies 118: 140-54.
Segal, C. 1990. ‘Dionysus and the gold tablets from Pelinna’, Greek, Roman
and Byzantine studies 31: 411-19.
Sfameni Gasparro, G. 2015. ‘Daimonic power’, in E. Eidinow and J. Kindt
(eds), The Oxford handbook of ancient Greek religion. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 413-27.
Sider, D. 1997. ‘Heraclitus in the Derveni Papyrus’, in A. Laks and G.W. Most
(eds), Studies on the Derveni Papyrus. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 12948.
Slater, W.J. 2004. ‘Life as a party: a Pindaric look at Dionysus in the
underworld’, Mediterranean archaeology 17: 223-9.
Slavova, M. 2002. ‘Mystery clubs in Bulgarian lands in antiquity: Greek
epigraphical evidence’, Opuscula Atheniensia 27: 137-49.
Smith, J.Z. 1978. ‘Towards interpreting demonic powers in Hellenistic and
Roman antiquity’, Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt II
16.1: 425-39.
Smith, C. and Comparetti, D. 1882. ‘The Petelia gold tablet’, Journal of
Hellenic studies 3: 111-18.
Smyth, H.W. 1956. Greek grammar. Rev. ed. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press.
441
Bibliography
Sokolowski, F. 1962. Lois sacrées des cités grecques. Supplement. Paris:
Boccard.
Solmsen, F. 1968. ‘Two Pindaric passages on the hereafter’, Hermes 96: 5036.
Sonik, K. 2013. ‘Mesopotamian conceptions of the supernatural: a
taxonomy of Zwischenwesen’, Archiv für Religionsgeschichte 14: 10316.
Sourvinou-Inwood, C. 1995. ‘Reading’ Greek death: to the end of the
classical period. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sourvinou-Inwood, C. 1997. ‘Reconstructing change: ideology and religion
at Eleusis’, in M. Golden and P. Toohey (eds), Inventing ancient
culture: historicism, periodization and the ancient world. London:
Routledge, 132-64.
Sourvinou-Inwood, C. 2000a. ‘What is polis religion?’, in R. Buxton (ed.),
Oxford readings in Greek religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1337. (First published 1990 in O. Murray and S. Price (eds), The Greek
city from Homer to Alexander. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 295-322.)
Sourvinou-Inwood, C. 2000b. ‘Further aspects of polis religion’, in R. Buxton
(ed.), Oxford readings in Greek religion. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 38-55. (First published 1988 in AION (archeol) 10: 259-74.)
Sourvinou-Inwood, C. 2003. ‘Festivals and mysteries: aspects of the
Eleusinian cult’, in M.B. Cosmopoulos (ed.), Greek mysteries: the
archaeology and ritual of ancient Greek secret cult. London:
Routledge, 25-49.
442
Bibliography
Strachan, J.C.G. 1970. ‘Who did forbid suicide at Phaedo 62b?’, Classical
quarterly 20: 216-20.
Stukey, H.J. 1937. ‘The Cyrenean hikesioi’, Classical philology 32: 32-43.
Sullivan, S.D. (Darcus, S.M.) 1979. ‘A person’s relation to ψυχή in Homer,
Hesiod and the Greek lyric poets’, Glotta 57: 30-9.
Sullivan, S.D. (Darcus, S.M.) 1980. ‘How a person relates to θυμός in Homer’,
Indogermanische Forschungen 85: 135-50.
Sullivan, S.D. 1988. Psychological activity in Homer: a study of phren.
Ottawa: Carleton University Press.
Sullivan, S.D. 1989a. ‘Prapides in Homer’, Glotta 65: 182-93.
Sullivan, S.D. 1989b. ‘The psychic term Noos in Homer and the Homeric
Hymns’, Studi italiani de filologia classica 7: 152-95.
Sullivan, S.D. 1996. ‘The psychic term ἦτορ: its nature and relation to person
in Homer and the Homeric Hymns’, Emerita 64: 11-29.
Thesleff, H. 1989. ‘Platonic chronology’, Phronesis 34: 1-26.
Torjussen, S.S. 2006. ‘Dionysos in the underworld: an interpretation of the
Toledo Krater’, Nordlit 20: 85-101.
Torjussen, S.S. 2010. Metamorphoses of myth: a study of the ‘Orphic’ gold
tablets and the Derveni Papyrus. Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag.
Travlos, J. 1973. ‘Eleusis: the origins of the sanctuary’, in E. Melas (ed.),
Temples and sanctuaries of ancient Greece. London: Thames and
Hudson, 75-87.
443
Bibliography
Tsantsanoglou, K. 1997. ‘The first columns of the Derveni Papyrus and their
religious significance’, in A. Laks and G.W. Most (eds), Studies on the
Derveni Papyrus. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 93-128.
Tsantsanoglou, K. 2008. ‘Magi in Athens in the fifth century BC?’, in S.M.R.
Darbandi and A. Zournatzi (eds), Ancient Greece and ancient Iran:
cross-cultural encounters. Athens: National Hellenic Research
Foundation, 31-9.
Tsantsanoglou, K. 2014. ‘Some desiderata in the study of the Derveni
Papyrus’, in I. Papadopoulou and L. Muellner (eds), Poetry as
initiation: the Center for Hellenic Studies Symposium on the Derveni
Papyrus. Washington, D.C.: Center for Hellenic Studies, 1-18.
Tsantsanoglou, K. 2017. ‘Parmenides in the Derveni Papyrus?’, Zeitschrift für
Papyrologie und Epigraphik 203: 24.
Tsantsanoglou, K. 2018. ‘The Derveni Papyrus and illusions’, Zeitschrift für
Papyrologie und Epigraphik 205: 15-23.
Tsantsanoglou, K. and Parássoglou, G.M. 1987. ‘Two gold lamellae from
Thessaly’, Ἑλληνικά 38: 3-16.
Turcan, R. 1986. ‘Bacchoi ou Bacchants? De la dissidence des vivants à la
ségrégation des morts’, in O. de Cazanove (ed.), L’association
dionysiaque dans les sociétés anciennes. Rome: École française de
Rome, 227-46.
Ussher, R.G. 1993. The Characters of Theophrastus. Rev. ed. London: Bristol
Classical Press.
444
Bibliography
Verderame, L. 2013. ‘Their divinity is different, their nature is distinct!:
origin and features of demons in Akkadian literature’, Archiv für
Religionsgeschichte 14: 117-28.
Vince, C.A. and Vince, J.H. 1926. Demosthenes: De corona and De falsa
legatione XVIII, XIX. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vinogradov, J.G. 1991. ‘Zur sachlichen und geschichtlichen Deutung der
Orphiker-Plättchen von Olbia‘, in Borgeaud, P. (ed.), Orphisme et
Orphée: en l’honneur de Jean Rudhardt. Geneva: Droz, 77-85.
Voutiras, E. 1996. ‘Un culte domestique des Corybantes’, Kernos 9: 243-56.
Wagenvoort, H. 1971. ‘The journey of the souls of the dead to the Isles of
the Blessed’, Mnemosyne 24: 113-61.
Waldner, K. 2013. ‘Dimensions of individuality in ancient mystery cults:
religious practice and philosophical discourse’, in J. Rüpke (ed.), The
individual in the religions of the ancient Mediterranean. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 215-42.
Ward, S.P. 2013. Penology and eschatology in Plato’s myths. New ed.
[Bloomington]: Xlibris.
Warden, J. 1971. ‘ψυχή in Homeric death-descriptions’, Phoenix 25: 95-103.
Wellmann, M. 1919. ‘Ein Pythagoreische Erkunde des IV. Jahrhunderts V.
Chr.’, Hermes 54: 225-48.
West, M.L. 1966. Hesiod: Theogony. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
West, M.L. 1975. ‘Zum neuen Goldblättchen aus Hipponion‘, Zeitschrift für
Papyrologie und Epigraphik 18: 229-36.
West, M.L. 1978. Hesiod: Works and days. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
445
Bibliography
West, M.L. 1982. ‘The Orphics of Olbia’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und
Epigraphik 45: 17-29.
West, M.L. 1983. The Orphic poems. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
West, M.L. 1997. ‘Hocus-pocus in east and west: theogony, ritual and the
tradition of esoteric commentary’, in A. Laks and G.W. Most (eds),
Studies on the Derveni Papyrus. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 81-90.
West, S. 1988. ‘Books i-iv’, in A. Heubeck, S. West and J.B. Hainsworth, A
commentary on Homer’s Odyssey. Vol I: Introduction and Books i-viii.
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 49-145.
Whitley, J. 1994. ‘The monuments that stood before Marathon: tomb cult
and hero cult in archaic Attica’, American journal of archaeology
98:213-30.
Wilamowitz-Moellenéorff, U. von. 1932. Der Glaube der Hellenen. Vol. 2.
Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung.
Willcock, M.M. 1995. Pindar: victory odes. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Wright, M.R. 1979. ‘How credible are Plato’s myths?’, in G.W. Bowersock,
W. Burkert, M.C.J. Putnam (eds), Arktouros : Hellenic studies presented
to Bernard M. W. Knox on the occasion of his 65th birthday. Berlin: De
Gruyter, 364-71.
Wright, M.R. 1995. Empedocles: the extant fragments. 2nd ed. London:
Bristol Classical Press.
Zhmud, L. 1992. ‘Orphism and graffiti from Olbia’, Hermes 120: 159-68.
446
Bibliography
Zhmud, L. 2012. Pythagoras and the early Pythagoreans. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Zhmud, L. 2014. ‘ Sixth-, fifth- and fourth-century Pythagoreans’, in C.A.
Huffman (ed.), A history of Pythagoreanism. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 88-111.
Zuntz, G. 1963. ‘Once more: the so-called “Edict of Philopator on the
Dionysiac mysteries” (BGU 1211)’, Hermes 91: 228-39. = Opuscula
selecta. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1972, 88-101.
Zuntz, G. 1971. Persephone: three essays on religion and thought in Magna
Graecia. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
447
Appendix
Appendix
The Derveni Papyrus: a note on the text
There are earlier versions of the KPT text in [Anonymous] 1982, Tsantsanoglou
1997, Janko 2002, Jourdan 2003, Betegh 2004 and Bernabé 2004-07.
Improved readings of the text in KPT are suggested in Janko 2008, Ferrari 2010,
2011a, 2011b, 2014, Janko 2016b (with new photographs), Tsantsanoglou
2017, 2018 (commenting on Janko), Piano 2016: 65-82 (summarising Piano
forthcoming), Laks and Most 2016: 6.373-435 (Piano), Janko ap. Kotwick 2017
and Piano 2019.
The Center for Hellenic Studies online edition
(http://chs.harvard.edu/CHS/article/display/5418) includes a comparative
version. New editions have been announced as in preparation by Janko (Janko
2016b: 5) and Bernabé and Piano (Piano 2019: 20).
Piano and Janko have each used their papyrological expertise to produce
significantly changed readings of the earlier lacunose columns. Unfortunately
their results are in many cases completely different from each other, and I am
not competent to decide which, if either, is correct. In any case, much of the
text in the passages that I shall be examining is not in dispute. Rather,
therefore, than either giving an unreadable text incorporating multiple
alternatives which are not relevant here, or adding an unnecessarily detailed
apparatus criticus, I have thought that the least unsatisfactory solution is to
follow the KPT text, with those variants proposed by others that are significant
for my interpretation added in footnotes.
448
Concordances
Concordances
Orphicorum fragmenta Bernabé OF - Kern
OF
Kern
OF
Kern
OF
Kern
OF
Kern
22
15-16
428
6
475
-
577
205T
26
17
429
7
476
32a
578
31
33
23
430
8
477
-
585
-
34
210
431
4
478
32b
588
34
37
9
432
-
479
32b
590
-
38
-
433
10
480
32b
591
-
39
194T
434
45
481
-
594
-
43
216T
435
-
482
-
595
-
46
-
436
228a
483
-
596
-
59
36 301
439
-
484
-
625
90T
213
440
-
484a
-
67
29
441
-
485
-
114
55 56 60
442
-
486
-
76
443
-
487
32f
627
213T
283
210 303
444
-
488
32c
631
214T
306
34 214
445
142
489
32d
635
-
318
34 35
447
-
490
32e
637
-
210 214
449
-
491
32g
640
-
220
450
-
492
47
649
219T
62 140
451
-
493
-
650
216T
215 220
452
-
493a
-
653
203T
210T
455
-
496n
-
654
207T
224T
456
-
510
90T
655
208T
338
224
457
-
511
91T
656
-
348
229 230
459
20
512
23
657
-
350
232
460
-
547
90T
666
-
365
40
461
-
548
-
667
8
404
26
462
-
549
5 92T
668
-
421
27
463
-
563
-
669
5 7 55
422
228b
464
-
567
p230
423
-
465
-
573
3
802
318
424
-
472
-
575
3
814
83T
427
28
474
-
576
5 235
818
85T
320
449
p230
626
90T
111T
92T
Concordances
OF
Kern
OF
Kern
819
323 85T
983
60T
880
10T
1006
58T
899
22T 58T
1007
78T
114T
1009
79T
947
38T 49T
1018
220-5T
972
-
Kern
OF
Kern
OF
3
573 575
32e
4
431 434
5
OF
1037
Kern
OF
Kern
p355
1144
222T
60T
248T
139T
249aT
1077
139T
250T
1113
186T
449T
256aT
194T
1149
254T
Kern
OF
Kern
OF
490
228a
436
32f
487
228b
422
91T
511
434 549
32g
491
229
348
92T
549 669
576 669
34
306 318
230
348
111T
626
588
232
350
114T
899
139T
1037
625 626
6
428
7
429 669
35
318
235
576
8
430 667
36
59
301
59
9
37
40
365
303
283
186T
1113
10
433
47
492
318
802
194T
39 1113
15
22
55
114 669
323
819
203T
653
16
22
56
114
10T
880
205T
577
17
26
60
114
22T
899
207T
654
20
459
62
320
38T
947
208T
655
23
33 512
76
114
49T
947
210T
320
26
404
140
320
58T
899
213T
627
27
421
142
445
1006
214T
631
28
427
210
34 283
983
216T
43 650
29
67
1037
219T
649
31
578
213
59
79T
1007
220T
1018
32a
476
214
306 318
79T
1009
221T
1018
32b
478-80
215
320
83T
814
222T
1018
32c
488
220
318 320
85T
818
32d
489
224
338
90T
510 547
60T
318
450
1077
1144
223T
1018
Concordances
Kern
OF
Kern
OF
Kern
OF
224T
320
248T
1144
254T
1149
1018
249aT
1144
256aT
1018
1018
250T
1144
449T
1144
225T
451
Concordances
Gold leaves
Edmonds
2011b
A1
A2
A3
A4
A5
B1
B2
B3
B4
B5
B6
B7
B8
B9
B10
B11
B12
C
D1
D2
D3
D4
D5
OF
488
489
490
487
491
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
474
475
484a
492
485
486
493
496n
493a
Bernabé & Jiménez
San Cristóbal 2008
L9
L10a
L10b
L8
L11
L3
L4
L5a
L5b
L5c
L5d
L5e
L5f
L6
L1
L2
L6a
L12
L7a
L7b
L13
L16n
L13a
452
Graf & Johnston
2013
5
7
6
3
9
2
25
10
11
12
16
13
14
29
1
8
18
4
26a
26b
27
30
28
Concordances
Empedocles DK – Wright
DK
Wright
15
106
59
51
111
101
112
102
113
105
115
107
117
108
118
112
120
115
121
113
126
110
127
131
129
99
137
124
139
120
140
127
146
132
453
Index locorum
Index locorum
Ach. Tat.
Comm. Arat.
17.11 ........................... 45, 143
Ael.
V.H.
4.17 ................................... 243
Aesch.
fr. 273a ............................ 53, 360
Ag.
214-5 ................................. 330
1195 .................................... 38
1273 .................................... 38
1274 .................................... 41
1341-2 ............................... 300
1432-3 ............................... 310
1476-7 ............................... 303
1501 .................................. 334
Cho.
53-4 ................................... 310
1048-54 ............................. 310
1049-50 ............................. 310
Eum.
46-59 ................................. 310
62-3 ..................................... 29
106-7 ................................. 354
273-4 ................................. 247
474 .................................... 365
Pers.
620-1 ................................. 297
Sept.
695-701 ............................. 310
886-7 ......................... 311, 389
978-9 ......................... 311, 315
Supp.
230-1 ................................. 247
594 .................................... 330
Aeschin.
1.190 ..................................... 336
Alc.
fr. 129 .................................... 310
Alex. Polyh.
Pythagorean notebooks 85, 318–
21, 356–95, 397, 399, 400
Anac.
4... ............................................ 85
Anaxag.
DK59B6 .................................... 86
DK59B9 .................................... 86
DK59B11 .................................. 86
DK59B14 .................................. 86
Anaximen.
DK13B2 ............................ 86, 361
Andoc.
De myst.
109..................................... 366
Anon. Lond. ............................... 320
Anth. Pal.
6.217-20 .................................. 42
6.234........................................ 42
6.237........................................ 42
7.25.......................................... 93
10.106.................................... 170
11.42...................................... 180
Antiph.
Orph.
fr. 178 ................................ 137
Antiphil.
Anth. Pal.
7.630...................................... 4
Ap. Rhod.
1.496-511 .............................. 135
2.234-9 .................................. 330
3.1211.................................... 127
4.712-14 ................................ 355
Ap. Ty.
Ep.
16......................................... 54
Apollod.
FGrHist 244 F110 ........... 122, 126
[Apollod.]
454
Index locorum
3.10.3 .................................... 143
Apul.
Apol.
27 ........................................ 54
De deo Soc.
8... ..................................... 295
Met.
11.16.2 .............................. 120
Ar.
fr. 504 ...................................... 37
fr. 878 .................................... 178
Av.
875-6 ................................. 174
Eccl.
1056 .................................. 305
1073 .................................. 359
Eq.
85 ...................................... 296
Lys.
388 .................................... 176
388-90 ............................... 174
Nub.
135 .................................... 160
Pax
419-20 ................................. 45
832-3 ................................... 98
1046-7 ................................. 33
Plut.
660 .................................... 353
Ran.
136-58 ................................. 97
136-72 ................................. 92
143-7 ................................... 93
145 .............................. 94, 399
145-51 ................................. 37
145-51 ............................... 247
154 ...................................... 95
154-6 ................................... 95
155 ...................................... 95
156 ................................ 95, 96
159 ...................................... 97
186 ...................................... 93
288-95 ................................. 93
289-91 ............................... 305
292-305 ............................. 376
293..................................... 377
312-59 ................................. 97
340..................................... 123
449-59 ................................. 95
450....................................... 95
455-6 ................................... 95
460-78 ................................. 94
467-8 ................................... 94
470-1 ................................... 93
1031-6 ............................... 134
1032................................... 136
1082................................... 268
1477................................... 268
Thesm.
284-5 ................................. 353
Vesp.
8-10 ................................... 174
525..................................... 296
Arist.
fr. 15 ........................................ 25
fr. 32 ........................................ 57
fr. 60 ...... 269, 271, 282, 290, 400
fr. 415 .................................... 326
An. Post.
94b33 ................................ 243
Ath. Pol.
1........................................... 30
De an.
403b-405b ........................... 86
407b .................... 87, 229, 240
410b .......................... 362, 401
De. An.
414a ................................... 320
Gen. An.
734a ................................... 134
Phys.
223b .................................. 259
Pol.
1342a................................. 149
Rh.
1401a15............................... 45
455
Index locorum
1405a .................................. 41
Top.
112a .................................. 301
[Arist.]
Μαγικός
fr. 36 .................................... 54
Aristid.
Or.
19 .............................. 123, 124
Aristox.
fr. 12 .............................. 242, 243
fr. 41 ...................................... 304
Arn.
Adv. gent.
5.26 ................................... 126
Asterios
Hom.
10.113B ............................. 127
Ath.
5.45 ............................... 261, 271
198e ...................................... 173
541e ........................................ 41
August.
De civ. D.
10.30 ................................. 239
13.19 ................................. 239
Bacchyl.
3.58-61 .................................... 98
11.47-8 .................................... 85
fr. 24 ...................................... 310
Callim.
fr. 43 ...................................... 137
fr. 643 .................................... 137
fr. 681 .................................... 354
Censorinus
D.N.
4.3 ..................................... 283
Cic.
Hortensius
fr. 88 .................................. 282
Leg.
2.3.5 .................................. 140
2.36 ........................... 120, 180
2.37.................................... 176
3.2.5................................... 284
Nat. D.
3.58.................................... 175
Sen.
73....................................... 267
Tusc.
1.16.38 ........................ 88, 236
Clearch.
fr. 47 ........................................ 41
Clem. Al.
Protr.
2.12.................................... 125
2.14.................................... 126
2.16.................................... 190
2.17-18 ...................... 190, 282
2.17.2................................. 138
2.18............................ 126, 189
2.22...................... 51, 123, 353
12.118.5 ............................ 161
12.120 ............................... 123
Strom.
1.131.................................. 135
3.3.17.1 ..................... 261, 271
Cratin.
fr. 62 .................................. 41, 42
Crin.
Anth. Pal.
11.42.......................... 120, 180
Cumae. Inscriptions .......... 151, 152
D.L.
1.2 ............................................ 50
1.7 .......................................... 295
1.8 ............................................ 54
2.45.......................................... 57
3.25.......................................... 57
6.1.4......................................... 48
6.2.39....................... 37, 130, 248
7.151...................................... 299
7.157...................................... 298
8.1.4....................... 239, 243, 256
8.1.4-5 ................................... 229
8.1.4-5 ................................... 255
456
Index locorum
8.1.14 .................................... 241
8.1.14 .................................... 258
8.24 ....................................... 318
8.25-33 ..........................See Alex.
Polyh.:Pythagorean
notebooks
10.4 ................................... 31, 77
Dam.
In Plat. Phd.
1.8 ..................................... 139
1.11 ................... 166, 281, 284
Dem.
18.130 ................................... 305
18.259 ..................................... 30
18.259-60 ..... 2, 77, 171–84, 396,
399
19.199 ........................... 172, 177
19.249 ................................... 172
19.281 ................................... 172
25.11 ..................................... 135
25.52-3 .................................... 94
25.53 ..................................... 247
25.79 ................................. 35, 77
59.72-6 .................................. 148
Demon
FGrHist 327 F2 ....................... 325
Din.
Or. 6
fr. 7* .................................. 312
Dio Chrys.
Or.
30.10 ......................... 140, 272
30.10-11 ............................ 260
30.11 ................................. 267
36.41 ................................... 54
Diod.
1.22.7 .................................... 186
1.86.7 ...................................... 93
3.62.6 .................................... 137
4.3.3 .............................. 149, 152
4.3.4 ...................................... 296
4.4.1 ...................................... 175
5.75.4 .................................... 137
Diog. Apoll.
DK64B5 .................................. 361
Diog. Oen.
fr. 40 ...................................... 237
Diogenian.
7.86........................................ 170
Dion. Hal.
Ant. Rom.
8.52.4................................. 341
Diph.
fr. 126 ...................................... 31
Emp.
DK31B15 ................................ 231
DK31B59 ................................ 232
DK31B111 ................................ 33
DK31B112 .............. 216, 256, 272
DK31B113 .............................. 231
DK31B115 ..... 232, 238, 240, 242,
248, 260, 272, 278, 301, 376
DK31B117 .............. 231, 239, 255
DK31B118 .............................. 244
DK31B120 .............................. 244
DK31B121 .............................. 244
DK31B126 ...................... 231, 270
DK31B127 .............. 231, 239, 241
DK31B129 .............. 229, 231, 255
DK31B137 .............................. 239
DK31B139 .............................. 239
DK31B140 .............................. 239
DK31B146 ...... 216, 231, 234, 241
Ephor.
FGrHist 70 F 104 ...................... 32
Epict.
Dissertationes
1.14.12-13 ......................... 300
Epidaurus. Iamata ...................... 68
Epimenid.
fr. 7... ..................................... 310
fr. 19 ...................................... 310
Et. Gen.
s.v. Ζαγρεύς ........................... 137
Et. Gud.
s.v. Σαβάνδιος ....................... 175
457
Index locorum
Et. Sym.
s.v. Ζαγρεύς........................... 137
Etym. Magn.
s.v. Ζαγρεύς........................... 137
s.v. Σαβάζιος ......................... 175
Eub.
fr. 57 ........................................ 41
Euph.
fr. 13 ...................................... 137
fr. 53 ...................................... 137
Euphron..................................... 186
Eur.
fr. 203 .................................... 157
fr. 472 .................................... 156
fr. 484 .................................... 340
fr. 638 ............................ 155, 268
fr. 1004 .................................. 340
Alc.
1003 .................................. 297
Andr.
98-9 ................................... 300
1262 .................................... 98
Bacch. .............................. 158–63
234 .................................... 352
491 ...................................... 53
562-4 ................................. 134
Cyc.
646-8 ................................... 78
El.
1252-3 ............................... 310
1253 .................................. 310
Hec.
21-2 ..................................... 88
1026 .................................... 85
Hipp.
952-4 ................................... 25
953 .................................... 136
1038 .................................... 34
Hyps.
1 iii.10 ................................ 134
64.98 ................................. 134
IT
78-81 ................................. 310
436....................................... 98
959....................................... 45
970-1 ................................. 336
1231................................... 365
1337..................................... 50
Med.
1183....................................... 4
1389-90 ............................. 310
Or.
37....................................... 312
37-8 ................................... 310
321..................................... 312
835..................................... 152
836..................................... 312
1497-8 ................................. 50
Phoen.
1502-4 ............................... 310
Supp.
592-3 ................................. 301
1011..................................... 32
1109-10 ............................... 67
1110..................................... 50
[Eur.]
Rhes.
503....................................... 41
716....................................... 41
943-4 ................................. 136
971..................................... 297
Euseb.
Praep. Evang.
2.2.64......................... 161, 353
15.20.6 .............................. 320
Eust.
Il.
8.518) ................................ 281
16.627 ............................... 175
Exegetikon
FGrHist 352 F1 ............... 325, 329
Festus
s.v. October equus ................. 331
Firm. Mat.
Err. prof. rel.
19....................................... 127
458
Index locorum
Gal.
De anat. admin.
2.1 ................................. 72, 73
Gold leaves .......... 164–68, 198–395
A... ......................................... 400
A1 ..... 2, 167, 180, 235, 259, 278,
400
A1-3 ....................... 280, 340, 366
A2-3 ............... 189, 273, 294, 399
A4 ............ 78, 167, 259, 340, 400
A4-5 ....................................... 400
A5 ............ 78, 167, 256, 341, 366
B... ................................. 256, 400
B1 ...................... 37, 78, 338, 340
B2 ...................................... 2, 338
B2 .......................................... 340
B9 .................................. 338, 340
B10 ..... 53, 77, 157, 184, 337–43,
396, 397, 399
B11 ........................................ 338
B10 .................................. 356–95
D1-2 ............... 154, 183, 237, 284
D3 .................................. 127, 281
D5 .......................................... 399
Gorg.
Hel.
fr. 11 .................................... 51
Harp..................................... 171–84
s.v. Τριτοπάτορες .................. 324
Hdt.
1.1.32 ...................................... 49
1.27 ......................................... 85
1.30 ....................................... 117
1.34-43 .................................. 177
1.46 ......................................... 32
1.49 ......................................... 32
1.101 ....................................... 50
1.107 ....................................... 49
1.132 ..................................... 352
1.140 ....................................... 49
2.48 ............................... 187, 221
2.51 ............................... 187, 221
2.53 ....................................... 134
2.62................................ 187, 221
2.81....... 136, 137, 143, 152, 187,
221, 401
2.123..... 226, 234, 238, 240, 242,
258
3.131........................................ 68
3.155........................................ 85
4.8.2......................................... 91
4.78-80 .................................. 153
4.79........................................ 145
4.149.............................. 310, 312
5.92.......................................... 32
7.6.3-4 ..................................... 29
7.19.......................................... 49
7.37.......................................... 49
7.43.......................................... 49
7.142........................................ 69
7.143.3..................................... 29
7.189...................................... 330
7.191........................................ 49
8.134........................................ 32
Hecat. Abd.
FGrHist 264 F25 ..................... 136
Hellanic.
FGrHist 608a F7 ..................... 178
Heraclit.
DK22B14 .......................... 51, 151
DK22B15 .................. 53, 151, 196
DK22B36 .......................... 86, 230
DK22B45 .................................. 86
DK22B60 ................................ 230
DK22B62 ................................ 269
DK22B63 ................................ 378
DK22B94 ................ 310, 348, 374
DK22B117 .......................... 85, 86
DK22B118 ................................ 86
DK22B119 .............................. 301
Hes.
fr. 37 .................................. 30, 67
fr. 124 .................................... 281
Op.
108..................................... 339
121-3 ................................. 297
459
Index locorum
123 ............................ 302, 378
125 .................................... 361
153 ...................................... 94
166-7 ................................... 96
167-73 ........................... 95, 97
170 ...................................... 95
172 ...................................... 95
173a .................................... 98
253 .................................... 378
255 .................................... 361
314 .................................... 300
488 .................................... 178
803-4 ......................... 309, 310
Sc.
477 .................................... 262
Th.
96 ...................................... 120
106 .................................... 339
119 ...................................... 91
149 .................................... 325
184-5 ................................. 310
311-12 ......................... 94, 378
400 .................................... 347
455 ...................................... 91
472 .................................... 310
507-11 ............................... 139
717-814 ..................... 284, 290
720-44 ................................. 91
728 ...................................... 91
735 .................................... 329
742 .................................... 329
767-8 ................................... 94
769-74 ................................. 94
770-3 ................................. 379
775-7 ................................... 92
787-9 ................................... 92
817-19 ............................... 330
912-14 ............................... 116
968 .................................... 295
969 .................................... 127
991 ............................ 295, 297
1346-7 ............................... 297
Hippo
DK38A3 .................................... 86
Hippoc.
Acut.
8..................................... 28, 67
Aër.
24......................................... 87
De virginum morbis
VIII 466 .............................. 303
Flat.
3......................................... 362
Jus. ........................................... 72
Lex
2........................................... 72
4........................................... 69
Morb. sacr.
1...... 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 41, 53,
68, 70
18......................................... 71
Nat. hom.
2........................................... 69
Vict. ....................................... 235
1.12...................................... 67
1.25...................................... 88
4.86-8 .................................. 88
4.87................................ 39, 68
4.89...................................... 68
Hippol.
Haer.
5.7.34................................. 127
5.8.39................................. 127
5.8.40-1 ..................... 127, 179
7.29.14 ...................... 232, 376
Hom.
Il.
1.93-100 ........................ 30, 67
1.103.................................... 83
1.593.................................... 83
1.608.................................... 83
2.730-1 ................................ 71
3.278-30 ............................ 389
3.278-80 .................... 308, 315
3.299-301 .......................... 309
3.420.................................. 294
460
Index locorum
20.169 ................................. 84
21.412-14 .......................... 307
22.452 ................................. 84
22.467 ................................. 81
22.475 ................................. 83
23.72.................................. 375
23.72-3 ................................ 82
23.73.................................... 92
23.74.................................... 94
23.103-4 .............................. 82
23.190 ................................. 84
Od.
2.134-6, ............................. 307
2.135.................................. 307
4.561-9 ................................ 95
4.563.................................... 98
4.566.................................... 95
4.567.............................. 95, 96
4.569.................................... 96
4.703.................................... 84
8.479.................................. 297
10.21.................................. 331
10.508-15 ............................ 91
10.509 ................................. 91
10..512 ................................ 94
10.513-14 ............................ 92
10.515 ................................. 93
10.521 ......................... 84, 358
11-12 ................................. 116
11.14-15 .............................. 91
11.38-41 ............................ 390
11.49.................................... 90
11.156-9 .............................. 92
11.157 ................................. 92
11.279-80 .......................... 307
11.485-6 .............................. 82
11.488-91 ............................ 96
11.539 ................................. 93
11.541-67 ............................ 82
11.568-71 .......................... 112
11.576-600 ................ 246, 309
11.632 ............................... 360
11.649 ................................. 92
4.46 ..................................... 84
4.309 ................................... 83
5.449-50 .............................. 82
5.513 ................................... 83
5.685-6 ................................ 82
5.887 ................................... 84
6.326 ................................... 83
6.464 ................................. 297
6.523-4 ................................ 84
7.309 ................................... 84
7.410 ................................. 382
8.13-16 ................................ 91
8.202 ................................... 83
8.481 ................................. 329
9.408-9 ................................ 82
9.423 ................................... 83
9.453-6 .............................. 307
9.454 ................. 306, 307, 382
9.569-72 ............................ 307
9.571 ................. 306, 307, 361
9.571-2 .............................. 309
9.572 ................................. 307
9.954-6 .............................. 307
10.220 ................................. 84
13.442 ................................. 84
14.518 ................................. 82
15.204 ............................... 307
16.468 ................................. 83
16.504 ................................. 83
16.505 ................................. 82
16.529 ................................. 83
17.111 ................................. 84
17.451 ................................. 83
19.86-9 .............................. 307
19.7 ................................... 361
19.87 ......................... 306, 307
19.88 ................................. 307
19.259 ....................... 307, 309
19.259-60 .......................... 308
19.259-60 .......................... 389
19.260 ............................... 307
19.418 ............................... 307
20.133 ................................. 83
461
Index locorum
12.295 ............................... 295
14.488 ............................... 295
15.223-81 ............................ 27
15.232-4 ............................ 307
15.233 ............................... 307
15.234 ....................... 306, 307
17.382-6 .............................. 66
17.475-6 ............................ 307
18.344 ................................. 84
19.284 ................................. 41
20.78 ......... 307, 309, 315, 389
24.1-14 .............................. 321
24.1-204 .............................. 90
24.11 ................................... 93
24.12 ................................... 91
24.13 ................................... 93
24.14 ................................... 82
24.204 ........................... 91, 94
Hsch.
s.v. ἀλάστωρ ......................... 333
s.v. ἀνεμοκοῖται .................... 330
s.v. Ἔμπουσα ......................... 305
s.v. Εὑδάνεμος ...................... 330
Hymn. Hom. Ap.
335-6 ..................................... 139
Hymn. Hom. Cer. ............... 116, 118
48 .......................................... 123
61 .......................................... 123
190 ........................................ 124
208-10 ................................... 126
367 ........................................ 247
480 .......................................... 63
480-2 ............................. 119, 163
481-2 ..................................... 180
Hymn. Hom. Merc.
42 ............................................ 82
Iambl.
Myst.
3.31 ........................... 305, 377
4.4 ..................................... 272
VP
37 ...................................... 359
63 .......................... 3, 228, 255
77............................... 318, 320
82......................................... 98
85............... 228, 239, 261, 272
146............................. 187, 221
157..................................... 318
[Iambl.]
Theol. Ar.
40............................... 225, 242
Ibn Abi Uṣaybi’ah
1, 2419-31 ............................... 73
Ibyc.
fr. 291 ................................ 97, 98
IDélos
I 66 ......................................... 332
Idomeneus
fr. 17 ...................................... 305
IG
I3 6 ......................................... 117
II2 1358 .................................. 327
II2 1367 .................................. 354
II2 3661 .................. 120, 123, 180
II2 3709 .................................. 123
II2 3811 .................................. 123
II2 4058 .................................. 123
II2 4671 .................................. 177
II2 4876 .................................. 127
VII 686 ................................... 152
XII 8.74................................... 141
XIV 871 .................................. 152
IKnidos
303.11.................................... 341
Ion
DK36B4 .................................... 88
Isoc.
19.5-6 ...................................... 74
19.5-7 ...................................... 28
19.45........................................ 75
Bus.
25....................................... 286
38-9 ................................... 135
Paneg.
28. 45, 120, 129, 159, 180, 368
Julian.
462
Index locorum
33 ........................................... 135
34 ........................................... 137
36 ........................................... 137
37 ........................... 140, 283, 284
38 ................................... 283, 290
39 ........................................... 138
43 ................... 152, 187, 221, 401
46 ........................................... 186
59 ........................................... 137
67 ........................................... 135
114................................... 45, 143
283......................................... 137
306......................... 138, 190, 282
318................. 138, 139, 237, 272
320 138, 139, 140, 141, 260, 267,
272
338................................. 237, 274
348......................................... 258
350......................... 166, 281, 284
365......................................... 143
404......................................... 134
421................................. 362, 401
422......................................... 362
423. 226, 234, 238, 240, 242, 258
424...... 64, 77, 101–12, 250, 278,
289, 400
427......................................... 237
428........................... 101–12, 250
429.. 101–12, 140, 142, 260, 266,
267, 272, 274, 289, 400
430...... 3, 101–12, 109, 143, 226,
260, 261, 263, 268, 269, 271,
282, 290, 400, 401
431..................................... 36–43
432........................................... 37
433................. 105, 273, 289, 400
434..18, 36–43, 101–12, 101–12,
170, 249, 250, 279, 365, 399
435................................... 37, 248
436......................................... 362
439..................................... 95, 96
439-42 ..................................... 95
440..................................... 92, 99
Or.
7.25 238a .......................... 248
Knossos
Linear B tablets ..................... 306
Kyrene. Lex sacra .............. 324, 334
Lactant.
Div. inst. epit.
23 ...................... 122, 123, 126
Lex. Seg.
s.v. Τριτοπάτορες .................. 326
Livy
31.14 ..................................... 118
39.8.8 .................................... 168
39.13 ..................................... 192
Lucian
Alex........................................ 129
Cat.
22 ...................................... 124
Dial. Mort.
13.6 ..................................... 93
Luct.
5... ..................................... 341
Philops.
29 ...................................... 321
Lydus
Mens.
4.51 ................................... 175
4.101 ................................. 304
[Lys.]
6.20 ....................................... 286
6.51 ....................................... 121
M. Ant.
5.27 ....................................... 301
Macrob.
Sat.
1.18.11 .............................. 175
Men.
fr. 714 .................................... 302
Phasm.
52-3 ..................................... 31
OF
22 .......................................... 135
26 .......................................... 135
463
Index locorum
588......................................... 138
590................................. 123, 353
591......................................... 175
594................................. 124, 160
595................................. 193, 267
596......................................... 193
625................................. 136, 143
626................................... 46, 136
627................................... 25, 136
631......................................... 137
635......................................... 303
637......................................... 239
640......................................... 239
649................................. 187, 399
650. 136, 137, 143, 152, 187, 221
653........................................... 47
654............................. 25, 46, 401
655........................................... 47
656......................................... 227
657............. 30, 34, 53, 68, 70, 71
666............... 64, 77, 101–12, 289
667................................. 109, 143
668................................... 101–12
669....101–12, 101–12, 142, 274,
289, 400
802................................. 324, 325
814........................................... 78
818........................................... 54
819........................................... 54
880......................................... 134
899......................................... 134
947......................................... 134
972......................................... 134
983......................................... 134
1006....................................... 134
1007....................................... 134
1009....................................... 134
1018....................................... 135
1037......................... 101–12, 251
1077................. 101–12, 134, 251
1113....................................... 138
1144............................... 187, 221
1149....................................... 137
441 .................................... 96, 97
443 ... 3, 189, 234, 240, 241, 242,
244, 260, 273, 276
444 .......................... 63, 120, 368
445 95, 96, 97, 99, 189, 233, 240,
242, 244, 248, 260, 273, 275,
369
447 ........................................ 272
449 232, 238, 240, 242, 248, 260,
272, 278, 301, 376
450 ................................ 231, 270
451 ........................ 231, 239, 255
452 ........................................ 244
455 ........................................ 269
456 ........................................ 378
457 ........................................ 268
459 .. 101–12, 238, 243, 252, 260
460 .......................... 101–12, 249
461-2 ....................... 101–12, 251
462 ........................................ 256
463 ................................ 236, 401
463-5 ............................. 144, 154
472 ........................................ 227
474-96 ... See Concordance: Gold
leaves
510 .................................. 46, 136
511 ........................................ 136
512 ........................................ 135
547 .......................... 46, 134, 136
548 ........................................ 297
549 .......................... 101–12, 400
551 .......................................... 26
563 ................................ 145, 153
567 ........................................ 156
573 . 2, 30, 32, 34, 36–43, 68, 78,
134, 169, 283, 364, 373, 396,
397, 398, 399, 400
575 ............................ 30, 68, 283
576 ..... 18, 78, 101–12, 157, 170,
279
577 .. 2, 30, 77, 171–84, 396, 399
578 127, 188, 274, 281, 396, 399
585 ........................................ 157
464
Index locorum
Olbia. Bone tablets .. 144, 154, 236,
401
Olymp.
In Phd.
1.3-6 .................................. 138
Opp.
H.
5.9-10 ................................ 139
Origen
c. Cels.
4.10 ................................... 193
Orph.
A.
17-20 ................................. 139
572-5 ................................. 355
H.
37 .............................. 139, 141
49 ...................................... 175
50 ...................................... 165
P. Antinoopolis
18 .......................................... 186
P. Berlin
11774 .... 187, 221, 282, 396, 399
P. Derv. ...................................... 135
col. I ....................................... 384
col. II ...................................... 354
col. III .... 346, 370, 375, 383, 384,
386, 388
col. IV..................... 348, 374, 384
col. V.......... 59, 64, 348, 369, 399
col. VI.... 3, 49–65, 189, 273, 279,
305, 344–95, 356–95, 396,
397, 398, 400
col. XVIII ........................ 346, 400
col. XX ...... 62, 289, 373, 386, 396
col. XXIII ................................. 361
P. Gurôb ... 127, 188, 274, 281, 396,
399
Parm.
DK28B12 ................................ 230
DK28adB13 .................... 230, 244
Paus.
1.34.4 ...................................... 34
1.37.2..................................... 331
1.38.3..................................... 117
1.38.7..................................... 118
2.2.5....................................... 165
2.7.6....................................... 165
2.11.4..................................... 312
2.12.1............................. 328, 331
3.13.8..................................... 330
4.26.8............................. 188, 399
4.27.5............................. 188, 399
7.25.1..................................... 312
7.25.7..................................... 312
8.15.2............................. 188, 399
8.15.4..................................... 187
8.25........................................ 312
8.29.1..................................... 331
8.34.1-3 ......................... 312, 364
8.36.6..................................... 331
8.37.4-5 ................................. 141
8.37.5..................................... 138
9.30.4....................................... 26
9.39.7-8 ................................. 342
9.39.8....................................... 93
10.4.3..................................... 149
10.4.10................................... 332
10.28-31 ............................ 90, 97
10.28.1..................................... 92
10.28.4-5 ................................. 94
10.28.5................................... 247
10.28.7..................................... 93
10.31.11-12 ............................. 94
Paus. Gr.
s.v. ὕε .................................... 178
PGM
4.625-710 .............................. 379
Phanod.
FGrHist 325 F6 ....................... 325
Pherec.
FGrHist 3 F46a ....................... 178
Pherecr.
fr. 113 ...................................... 37
Philo
De gigantibus
465
Index locorum
6... ..................................... 303
Philoch.
FGrHist 328 F12 ............. 325, 328
Philol.
DK44B13 ................................ 320
DK44B14 ........ 226, 261, 271, 282
Philostr.
VS
2.20 ................................... 121
Phld.
fr. 181 ...................................... 47
Piet.
44 ...................................... 137
Σύνταξις τῶν φιλοσόφων
III.15 .................................... 57
Phot.
s.v. Τριτοπάτωρ ..................... 325
Pind.
fr. 129 ................................ 95, 96
frr. 129-31 ............................... 95
fr. 130 ................................ 92, 99
fr. 131 ................................ 96, 97
fr. 131a .................................. 289
fr. 133 ....... 3, 189, 234, 240, 241,
242, 244, 260, 273, 276
fr. 137a .................... 63, 120, 368
Isthm.
3/4.7 .................................. 277
7.3 ..................................... 122
8.4 ..................................... 277
Nem.
1.70 ................................... 277
7.16 ................................... 277
9.32-3 .................................. 85
Ol.
2.27 ................................... 173
2.41 ................................... 310
2.56-83 .......... 95, 99, 244, 260
2.56-60 .............................. 275
2.57-8 ................................ 273
2.57-9 ........................ 233, 248
2.58 ................................... 189
2.61-2 .................................. 96
2.63...................................... 97
2.68-70 .............................. 240
2.68-9 ................................ 242
2.70.............................. 99, 369
2.71-2 .................................. 96
2.72...................................... 96
2.75-83 ................................ 99
3.41.................................... 289
7.16.................................... 277
10.53.................................... 45
13.105 ............................... 301
Pyth.
1.59.................................... 277
2.14.................................... 277
3.34-5 ................................ 303
3.51-3 .................................. 67
3.61-2 .................................. 88
3.108-9 .............................. 300
4.63.................................... 277
4.176-7 .............................. 134
9.97...................................... 45
10.37-44 .............................. 95
10.38.................................... 95
10.38-44 .............................. 98
10.39.............................. 95, 96
10.42.............................. 95, 96
Pl.
Ap.
31d .................................... 302
Cra.
389c ................................... 298
399d-e ................................. 82
400b-c................ 109, 263, 401
400c ... 143, 260, 271, 282, 400
402b-c................................ 135
Epin.
984e................................... 295
Euthyd.
288b .................................... 31
Grg.
492e-493c...... 37, 101–12, 249
492e-493a ..................... 3, 268
492e................................... 155
466
Index locorum
81d .................................... 262
82b-c.................................. 260
86b-c............................ 87, 229
86b-d ................................. 109
89d .................................... 109
107d .................................. 301
107d-108c ................... 101–12
107d-114c ......................... 250
112e-113c...................... 91, 93
113d-114c ................... 101–12
114d .......................... 104, 108
248e................................... 243
249a ................................... 243
Phdr.
244d ............................ 30, 283
244e..................................... 68
245c-246a.......................... 105
246a-249b ................... 101–12
248b .................................. 119
248c-249b ......................... 252
248d .................................. 238
248e................................... 260
249b .......................... 238, 239
250b-c.......................... 25, 289
250c ........................... 267, 366
Plt.
280e..................................... 50
Prt.
311b-c.................................. 74
316d .................. 143, 265, 400
339e..................................... 58
Resp.
330d-e ............................... 247
362e-367e ......................... 396
363c-365a...................... 36–43
364b-365a ............................. 2
364b ...................... 8, 169, 397
364b-c................................ 398
364c ................................... 283
364e-365a ........... 78, 364, 398
364e........... 134, 373, 399, 400
380d .................................... 31
469a-b ............................... 298
493a .................................. 279
522e-527a ........... 101–12, 249
525a .................................. 267
Leg.
701c ........................... 140, 284
717b .................................. 295
782c ................................... 143
782c-d ............................... 136
815c ................................... 366
854b .................................. 283
870d .......................... 289, 400
870d5-e2 ........................... 105
870e .................................. 273
903b-904d ........... 101–12, 253
908d .................................... 34
909b ........................ 30, 32, 34
927b .................................. 313
932e .................................... 32
933b .............................. 32, 68
Menex.
235a .................................... 31
Meno
81a-c.................... 101–12, 250
81a-b ..................... 64, 77, 400
81a .................................... 289
81b .................................... 278
81c ............................. 257, 260
Phd.
62b ..... 101–12, 142, 266, 274,
289, 400
63b-c ................... 101–12, 250
69c-d 18, 37, 78, 101–12, 170,
250, 396
69c ............. 157, 365, 399, 400
69d .................................... 279
70a ...................... 89, 105, 358
70c ............................. 250, 254
70c-d ........................... 101–12
72b ...................................... 58
80d-82c ............... 101–12, 250
81c-d ................................. 152
81a .................................... 279
81a-82b ............................. 238
467
Index locorum
496c ................................... 302
572e .................................... 50
584a .................................... 31
608d .................... 89, 105, 358
614b-621b ........... 101–12, 251
615a-b ............................... 243
618a .................................. 238
618b-c ............................... 252
620a .................................. 134
620d .................................. 238
620d-e ............................... 301
620d-e ............................... 378
621a .................................... 93
621a-b ............................... 256
621a-b ............................... 341
621b .................................. 260
621c ..................................... 93
Soph.
234c ..................................... 31
235a .................................... 31
241b .................................... 31
Stat.
291c ..................................... 31
303c ..................................... 31
Symp.
179d .................................. 134
202d .................................. 295
202e-203a ......................... 387
Ti.
41d .................................... 345
42b-d ........... 101–12, 238, 253
77b .................................... 320
90a .................................... 301
91a-92c ............... 101–12, 253
[Pl.]
Alc. 1
122a .................................... 50
Ax.
371c ................................... 304
371d .................................. 266
Plaut.
Miles gloriosus
1016 .................................. 189
Plut.
fr. 178 ............................ 124, 160
Adolescens
21f ..................................... 248
Alc.
19-21 ................................. 118
22.3.................................... 121
Apopth. Lacon.
224d .................................... 47
Cleom.
33.2.................................... 186
Cons. uxor.
611d .................. 124, 193, 267
De def. or.
417c ........................... 303, 377
418b-c................................ 377
419a ........................... 303, 304
De esu carn.
996b .......................... 138, 139
996b-c................................ 272
996c ................................... 237
De exil.
604a ................................... 348
De gen.
593e................................... 299
De Is. et Os.
361c ................................... 295
364d .................................. 178
De prof. virt.
81e..................................... 123
De sera
560e-f .................................. 32
Per.
6.2-4 .................................... 28
Quaest. conv.
671e-f ................................ 175
706d .................................. 352
716b-c................................ 166
717a ................................... 149
Quomodo adulator ab amico
internoscatur
56e..................................... 186
Sol.
468
Index locorum
12 ........................................ 30
[Plut.]
Placita philosophorum
882b .................................. 303
Prov.
16 ...................................... 179
PMG
858 ........................................ 331
894 .................................... 97, 99
Poll.
3.17-18 .................................. 326
Porph.
Abst.
2.36 ................................... 303
2.37 ................................... 303
2.38 ........................... 303, 304
3.26 ........................... 229, 238
De antr. nymph.
28 ...................................... 360
VP
19 .............................. 228, 258
26 ...................................... 255
Procl.
Chrestomathia
199 ...................................... 98
In Remp.
1.125-21-2 ......................... 126
2.185.3-4 ........................... 124
2.338.10-339.9 .................. 237
2.338.11-12 ....................... 274
In Ti.
3.297.3 .............................. 258
293c ........................... 127, 178
[Pythag.]
Golden verses
62 ...................................... 304
Sardis. Inscriptions ................... 176
schol.
Aesch. 1.188 .......................... 354
Ap. Rhod. 3.861 ..................... 305
Ap. Rhod. 4.814-15a ......... 97, 98
Ar. Av. 1073-4 ....................... 118
Ar. Av. 521 ............................... 33
Ar. Av. 874 ............................. 175
Ar. Lys. 388 ............................ 175
Ar. Plut. 883 ............................. 50
Ar. Ran. 293 ........................... 305
Ar. Vesp. 9 ............................. 175
Dem. 19.281 ...................... 35, 77
Hom. Il. 16.857 ...... 239, 240, 243
Hom. Il. 9.39 .......................... 325
Hom. Od. 10.2 ....................... 325
Hom. Od. 11.51 ..................... 341
Lycophr. 738 .......................... 325
Pind. Ol. 2.56-60 ............ 275, 390
Pind. Ol. 2.57-8 ...................... 315
Pind. Pyth. 4.63 ..................... 277
Pl. Grg. 497c .......................... 127
Pl. Symp. 183b ....................... 281
Soph. OC 159 ......................... 354
SEG
4.92........................................ 151
9.72................................ 324, 334
21.541.................................... 327
50.168.................................... 327
Selinous. Lex sacra .... 323–36, 355,
356–95, 397, 399
Sen.
Ep.
41.2.................................... 300
58.31.................................... 57
Sext. Emp.
Math.
9.74.................................... 298
Simon.
fr. 588 ................................ 97, 98
Sol.
fr. 13 ...................................... 330
fr. 13.29-32 ............................ 286
Soph.
fr. 34 ........................................ 31
fr. 837 .............. 63, 120, 180, 368
fr. 879 .................................... 360
Aj.
835-44 ............................... 310
Ant.
469
Index locorum
317 ...................................... 85
559-60 ................................. 88
El.
110-16 ............................... 310
489 .................................... 310
OC
42-3 ................................... 312
100 .................................... 354
158-60 ............................... 354
481 .................................... 354
OT
387 ...................................... 50
388 ...................................... 41
438 .................................... 167
518 .................................... 376
Tr.
112-13 ............................... 327
Trach.
807-9 ................................. 310
Stob.
44.20 ..................................... 304
Strab.
7a.1.18 .................................... 32
10.2.15 .................................. 176
Suda
s.v. γοητεία ............................. 34
s.v. Φερεκύδης...................... 236
s.v.ἀμαθής ............................ 160
Tert.
Ad. nat.
2.7 ..................................... 126
Thebais
fr.2 ......................................... 310
Theoc.
Id.
15 ...................................... 185
17 ...................................... 185
26 ........................ 53, 167, 185
Theophr.
Char.
16 ................ 8, 25, 45, 77, 401
16.4.................................... 176
27.8.................................... 176
Theopomp.
FGrH 115 F64 ................. 227, 353
FGrH 115 F103 ......................... 72
Thuc.
1.34.......................................... 32
1.49.3....................................... 85
2.15.4..................................... 148
6.27-8 .................................... 118
6.60........................................ 118
8.1.1......................................... 33
Val. Max.
1.3.2....................................... 176
Vell. Pat.
1.4.1....................................... 122
Verg.
Aen.
6.433.................................. 321
6.733-4 .............................. 267
6.748.................................. 243
Vett. Val.
9.1.42-4 ................................. 362
Xen.
An.
4.5.4..................................... 28
5.7.35................................... 28
Cyr.
8.3.11................................... 49
8.7.18................................... 88
8.7.19................................... 86
Mem.
1.1.2................................... 302
4.3.14................................. 295
Xenocr.
fr. 213 .................................... 295
fr. 219 ............................ 283, 290
Xenoph.
Anth. Pal.
7.120.......................... 228, 238
470
Stuart Rawson