The Authors Named Pherecydes Author(s): Robert L. Fowler Reviewed work(s): Source: Mnemosyne, Fourth Series, Vol.

52, Fasc. 1 (Feb., 1999), pp. 1-15 Published by: BRILL Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4432925 . Accessed: 25/11/2012 07:36
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Mnemosyne.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.218 on Sun, 25 Nov 2012 07:36:03 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE

AUTHORS

NAMED

PHERECYDES

BY

ROBERT

L. FOWLER

The First Athenian Prose Fifty years ago Felix Jacoby published refuted he decisively Wilamowitz' Writer1)^ in which thesis2) that works of Ionic mythography were ascribed generally to 'Pherecydes' in the same manner as medical treatises were ascribed to Hippocrates tion or laws to Solon. was only historical person behind the tradiof Syrus; the work assigned to Pherecydes the Pherecydes indeed a separate was book, by Eratosthenes, though The

Athenian

of tales from various hands. The Athenian was merely a miscellany on invented Eratosthenes the basis the of of Attic by predominance material in the book. Wilamowitz5 view, to be sure, has never found was mighty, and Jacoby was justified in favour, but his authority devoting seemed one of his typically to the matter. It discussions thorough settled that the Syrian and the Athenian were conclusively two different authors3). Recently, D.L. Toye has challenghowever, ed this consensus, not indeed by reviving Wilamowitz' thesis, but by edited as FGrHist 3 and the fragarguing that the fragments Jacoby ments normally to the come from one and the assigned philosopher same book, and one and the same author4). A brief examination of Toye's arguments will lead to the conclusion that Jacoby was right.

1) Mnem. 3.13 (1947), 13-64 = Abhandlungenzur griechischenGeschichtsschreibung (Leiden 1956), 100-143. Hereafter Jacoby'. SPAW 1926, 125-146 = Kleine 2) U. von W?amowitz-Moellendorff, Pherekydes, 5.2 127-156 from the cite Schriften (Berlin 1937), (I latter). 3) Pherecydes the Lerian, whose existence is attested by the Suda alone, is very shadowy; he is dated to before the Persian Wars, but two of his three book tides sound Hellenistic (pe?? ?????, pe?? ?f??e?e???, pe?? t?? ???????? e??t??; even the first has a Hellenistic form, but might disguise a fifth-century local history). Scholars have been tempted from time to time to ascribe this or that fragment to him. He will be largely ignored in the following discussion. Jacoby also successfully isolated the forgery of Antiochus/Pherecydes (FGrHist 333). 4) D.L. Toye, Pherecydesof Syros: Ancient Theologianand Genealogist,Mnem. 50 1 (1997), 530-560. This revives the view of J. GefFcken, Griechische Literaturgeschichte (Heidelberg 1926), 98 with note 106, who, however, misrepresented or misunderstood Wilamowitz. ? Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 1999 Mnemosyne,Vol. LU, Fase. 1

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.218 on Sun, 25 Nov 2012 07:36:03 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ROBERT L. FOWLER Toye begins by setting up his case in a somewhat he writes (531), "inferred" the existence ner. Jacoby, of three "from the testimony Pherecydes Eratosthenes which he means the Hellenistic of Halicarnassus ers Dionysius with identified this Athenian was listed 81st in Eusebius' chronicle B.C.)". manprejudicial of the Athenian

authors", by and the Augustan writand Strabo5). He continues, "Jacoby who named an historian Pherecydes and whose This makes acme was assigned to the the process of identifica-

Hellenistic

(456/3 Olympiad tion sound much more

than it is. Toye consigns to a footprecarious the numerous citations of both authors note on the following page wide citations come from a These variety of sources. The separately. authors are cited for quite different kinds of material. Apart from the like of late chronographers, the Suda, and people typical muddles There is therefore a strong prima Tzetzes, they are never confused. on the writers, which does not depend facie case for distinguishing work. clever detective of the says that there are only nine citations and five by a single author Athenian (Philodemus), Pherecydes, he says, there are 224 of the Syrian; by contrast, eleven citations of Jacoby without ethnic "in the collections citations of 'Pherecydes' In his note Toye and Diels" (though Toye knows of Schibli's edition, he does not use to the Athenian: There are in fact 14 references it for this purpose). Astr. 2.21 and in the 7 90d T2, 4, 5, (twice, Hyg. (= F156), F35c, 14 Cat. p. 4 Rehm), 91, parallel material offered by ps.-Eratosthenes in F83, 99 (see Rehm again), 130, 162, 165, 166, 169. In addition, it becomes a???t?[? p??[? ??a??????] supplement * instead of oc ? to Fe?e??d?? ????a?] a???t?[? possible supplement of which 6 are the total to t?? 15, ???]??, bringing Philippson's Suda article) and T4 Even eliminating T2 (a confused Philodemus. with Schober's whom Toye (Eratosthenes references to the Athenian. to Pherecydes the Syrian, we are left with 13 regards as tendentious) In Schibli's edition I count 44 references the earliest of which are Aristode and An-

= 3 T4 = Pher. Syr. 5) Eratosth. apud Diog. Laert. 1.119 = FGrHist 241 FIO F43 Schibli ('Andron of Ephesus says there were two Pherecydes's of Syrus, one an astrologer, the other a theologian, the son of Babys, whose pupil was Pythagoras; but Eratosthenes says there was only one, and another one, an Athenian g?n?alo= FGrHist 3 T7 (Pheregiste text and discussion below); Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 1.13.1 a and was one of the ancient of Athens ?????afe?? genealogist Second to cydes none'); Strab. 10.5.8 p. 487 = FGrHist 3 T5 (Syrus was the home of Pherecydes son of Babys; Pherecydes the Athenian was younger than he).

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.218 on Sun, 25 Nov 2012 07:36:03 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE AUTHORS NAMED PHERECYDES dron identified as 'Pherecydes the teacher of Pythagoras', which comes to the same thing (since several teslink these two facts), but perhaps timonia that is begging the question. At any rate, these numbers are considerably than higher Toye for the Syrian. reports, especially that 'Pherecydes' is usually cited without ethnic, Toye observes but draws a most surprising from this fact. "The absence inference of the ethnic in the majority of the citations"6), he writes (532), to indicate that ancient authors were not compelled "appears many to distinguish one Pherecydes from another, that thereby suggesting knew of a author with that name". Even they only single Toye's lower numbers would not support such a claim; for the absence of ethnic suggests nothing of the kind. The argument would compel us to identify many homonymous authors of different birthplaces. The situation Toye describes is in fact the norm. Andron of Halicarnasis only so identified twice out of some 20 fragments, sus, for instance, in spite of the existence of other Andrones. The Milesian and Abderite and coundess are the same. Even when Hecataei, others, authors wrote on similar subjects (as the Hecataei on homonymous the Hyperboreans) ancient sources do not always take care to disTo give or not to give the ethnic is often a matter of For instance, in a sincaprice, though some patterns are identifiable. a or of scholia such as those to Apollonius, where gle author, corpus tinguish the ado. source Where Athenian ever is a constant think would the Syrian never, and no one source, is written without further otherwise, 'Pherecydes' Hecataeus of Miletus in Stephanus of Byzantium, the of the fragments, is simply 'Hecataeus'. who is meant, identifiers are normally omitof the writers is often what makes confusion grammarian vs. Plato the vs. Aristophanes comic poet, the Alcaeus comic them. of Ephesus; he is also often

Similarly of three-quarters there

is no doubt

genres the unlikely (Aristophanes poet, Plato the philosopher

ted; the different

the the philosolyric poet vs. Alcaeus the comic poet, and?Pherecydes the mythographer). When the author's name is pher vs. Pherecydes common or there are a lot of identifiers are norvery homonyms, included Demetrius of where few mally (e.g. Phalerum). Conversely, homonyms identifiers exist or one are omitted figure is far and away the more famous, for one and given for the other (e.g. Aeschylus

6) In the Syrian's case, only a slim majority.

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.218 on Sun, 25 Nov 2012 07:36:03 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ROBERT L. FOWLER of Alexandria). The obviously vs. Aeschylus stronger tenif anything, dency to cite the Syrian with his ethnic might indicate, unadorned meant the knew that 'Pherecydes' that most people of Athens Athenian, ferentiate. scribes) informed where to difciting the other one it was desirable that scholars of in to think But, (to say nothing general, or when were fully apprised of the facts about homonymns, so that when felt "compelled" is warranted. to distinguish, is to place confidence

none

for many references to the Athenian, accounts Since Philodemus his evidence, since he distinfor Toye to discount it is important on and drew reliable sources guishes the two authors in his citations for the Athenian, Eudemus, ultimately probably but for Wilamowitz' no This thesis, problem presents Apollodorus)7). it is fatal for Toye, who writes (p. 544): "Only one fragment supports of Syros each of Athens and Pherecydes the view that Pherecydes (for the Syrian, wrote is quesof this fragment separate works, and the authenticity of the name Pherecydes H. Diels accepted the restoration tionable. On Piety in the conline of Philodemus' of Syros to one fragmentary is valid, If the restoration citation of authorities... text of Philodemus' would have been aware of two different authors since he Philodemus also cited where the Athenian. tion is missing, since the restoration the content of this restored citaHowever, of the the text papyrus breaks off at the point occurs, making it therefore very speculative. without cited simply 'Pherecydes' Philodemus suggests to that he did not feel compelled of the author another from Pherecydes

Moreover, an ethnic

elsewhere, epithet, which his Athenian

distinguish same name."

because is hopelessly On this showing, confused, poor Philodemus but has been misled he really thinks there is only one Pherecydes, is Athenian?even into he Eratosthenes though Eratosthinking by thenes' two The Athenian Pherecydes's. only citation only as a part of his theory that there were the facts about Philodemus. let us examine without the ethnic is F83, where as I have already exists But

to be restored. Even if it is not, is probably as he had the epithet, for omitting Philodemus may be forgiven conIn point of fact, Philodemus sentence! given it in the previous remarked 'the Athenian' 7) ?. Henrichs, GRBS 13 (1972), 78 note 28 (after G.S. Kirk); id., Cron.Erc. (1975), 5 ff.

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.218 on Sun, 25 Nov 2012 07:36:03 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE AUTHORS NAMED PHERECYDES sistently gives the ethnic8). As for his citation of the Syrian, although of the passage is coswhat he said is lost in the hole, the context ? [Ci>]pioc is not "very speculaso that the supplement mogonical, tive" but certain; ? [??] ???? is the merest of theoretical possibilities, to him. by the book titles attributed unsupported to note, as Jacoby cites the Sydid, that Herodian Herodian and Choeroboscus?i.e., (F62 Schibli), again?cites is also the source for the citation of the Athenian (F162); Herodian It is important rian F169 mowitz "wenn of the Athenian knew marians to II. 2.592. So the gramWilatoo9). This is weighty testimony. tried to play it down by saying lamely of Choeroboscus Verla? ist". He also ignored F169. nur auf das Distinktiv in the ?-scholium the difference

Toye similarly tries to play it down when in the course of listing the authors who cite Pherecydes the Athenian he remarks (541 note 34): "It is evident that at least three of these authors [Dionysius, Strabo, and Hyginus] with the works of Eratoswere directly acquainted thenes and Eratosthenes, book Hyginus' his opinion". The first two certainly knew repeated but Dionysius also knew the early writers first-hand. translates Catasterisms, not Erapseudo-Eratosthenes' is probably a connection. footnote Toye's under the too, and like everytwo dif-

there tosthenes', though and the sources of Philodemus sweeps the grammarians Of the course knew Eratosthenes carpet. grammarians would were that Toye perhaps argue they duped by him, body else?except ferent books. that their citations must have come

from

Since Toye considers the Athenian an invention of Eratosthenes, it is important for him to question He the Alexandrian's credibility. claims it is a "flaw" in Jacoby's case that he has "complete faith in the testimony of Eratosthenes" (533), since "Hellenistic scholarship was and less empirical than Jacoby speculative supin be his statement must cautious as posed" {ibid). accepting scholar who was often fact since Eratosthenes was a controversial "We 8) The ethnic must sometimes be restored but there is never any real doubt. This observation led me in the first place to restore it in F83. I have had the benefit, through the editor's kindness, of consulting Dirk Obbink's forthcoming edition of this part of the De Pietate;like Schober (whose edition in CronErc 18 [1988], 67125 Toye does not cite), Diels, and others, he accepts [??]????. 9) Jacoby, 15 = 101 note 6. The grammarians did not routinely mine mythography, so the citations are scarce, but enough to prove the point. much more

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.218 on Sun, 25 Nov 2012 07:36:03 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ROBERT L. FOWLER by ancient critics for his errors" (540)10). This is to misplace of proof. One may readily concede that Alexandrian scholars were not as rigorously as we one and must empirical might wish, be ever vigilant, but it is quite another matter to disbelieve all their attacked the onus until given reason to believe them. Sound method rejudgments quires us to identify what is genuine tradition and to accept it unless good reasons can be found to reject it, the burden of proof lying with those genuine positive thenes' with a himself, who we must identify what is not do so. Conversely, and require those who would believe it to furnish reasons. Toye is not justified in implying that all of Eratosin the second We are dealing statements belong category. of authorship simple attribution by the librarian of Alexandria would tradition which There one should is none. accept unless there is reason to call it into him. When Toye No one ever contradicted of ancient sources do in fact refer to Phere-

suspicion. writes that

"a number

as either an historian or as the author of cydes of Syros specifically a work on heroic myths and genealogies" (550), and adds that "such if indeed a scenario have been highly unlikely Hellenistic would scholars same had name" Strabo, two distinct universally recognized he confusion note mistakes 63), (ibid, and invites us to reject Eratosthenes, and Herodian "number in favour of ancient authors with the for and ignorance DioPhilodemus, and of Eusebius, Helladius,

contradiction, nysius,

whose credibility sources", pseudo-Lucian?his he seeks to enhance, that oddly enough, by saying they were familThe of chronomistakes iar with Hellenistic frequent scholarship11). a late are secure for not foundation and any thegraphers compilers ory. Pseudo-Lucian does indeed list the historians such as Hellanicus long-lived attributed is identified as ?????afe??; Pherecydes' Jacoby plausibly and in between the list confusion to ?????afe?? appearance of Syrian in the company and Polybius, but the group

10) A good many victims of the odium philobgicum might be tarred with that brush. 11) Euseb. (Hieron.) Ol. 59.4 (a. 541/0) p. 103n Helm = Pher. F6 Schibli, cf. Georg. Sync. Eel. Chron.p. 285.10 Mosshammer, Cyril!. Adv. lui 1.13 (PG 76 521b); Helladius apud Phot. Bibl. 279 p. 533a2 = Pher. p. 179 Schibli; ps.-Luc. Macrob. 22 = Pher. F8 Schibli. He chides Jacoby that he "ignored or dismissed" such references. He ignored only Helladius, by simple oversight (the passage is not in his edition); the others he precisely estimated. Jacoby writes truthfully (27 = 111 note 35): "Wilamowitz (to put it crudely) rejected the whole of the Hellenistic tradition in favour of this late confusion of the Syrian with the Athenian".

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.218 on Sun, 25 Nov 2012 07:36:03 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE AUTHORS NAMED PHERECYDES the IcTopiK?c12). Schibli (p. 3) writes out the sources that distinguish the Syrian) from the first historian first prose writer (s????afe??, This disof Miletus or Hecataeus). the forged Cadmus (alternatively junction difficulty for Toye, since he wants the poses an unaddressed an as historian just like the Athenian; Syrian to be recognized yet these sources, which make the Syrian the first prose writer but someone else the first historian, are perfectly aware of the difference. a widemade an unsound conjecture contradicting it is odd to no held most hear echo of remonstration consensus, ly etc. which drew the myriad l?xica, scholia, among hypomnemata, If Eratosthenes upon No one even sits on the fence by citscholarship. or the confusion in the Athenian5 Syrian (compare ing 'Pherecydes Plutarch Mor. 604 the ethHerodotus' over manuscripts reported by Alexandrian nic in the first line). We conclude view was never that Eratosthenes' finds the smoking questioned. Toye presumably gun of controversy in the fragment itself: "??d??? d* o 'Ecp?ci?c (FHG 2.347 F5) f??? d?? t?? ?e?????a? Fe?e??da? Cup?oDC, t?? ?e? ??t???????, ???? Ba?\)oc, ? ?a? ???a???a? ??????a?* ??at??????? 241 FIO) e?a ?????, ?a? ?te??? '????a??? ?e?ea?????. d? ?e?????? d' (FGrHist In the first

it reports one between place, ?f this is the report of a disagreement, a successor Eratosthenes not that between and and a predecessor, if whose or Eratosthenes, aberrant, judgment, irresponsible, poorly should either have died a quiet death or met with congrounded, a target of criticism, he was frequendy Instead, though his ever secured assent his view for complete among and In the second the vigilant captious colleagues. place fragment does not have the form it needs to have for Toye's purposes. It needs tradiction. Eratosthenes to say 'Andron as Eratosthenes says is that Eratosthenes one, taken a Syrian, wheresays there was only one Pherecydes, and a Syrian'. What it says there was an Athenian to Andron there were two Syrians, but to according there

an Athenian.

was only one Syrian Pherecydes, and another first Syrian, the astrologer, Andron's is normally to be a surmise based on a fallacious connection the between solstice-marker (????t??p???) and Od. 15.403 f. (Syrie and

Syrian's

12) Jacoby, 27 = 111 note 35; ApollodorsChronik (Berlin 1902), 213 note 10; A.A. Tradition(LewisMosshammer, The Chronicleof Eusebius and the GreekChronographical burg and London 1979), 282. On p. 544 Toye feels able to write "...most ancient scholars recognized Pherecydes of Syros as one of the first prose writers and historians, and as the author of both a theogony and heroic genealogies"!

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.218 on Sun, 25 Nov 2012 07:36:03 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ROBERT L. FOWLER

the t??pa? ?e?????)13). Andron soned that the solstice-marker the Pherecydes wrote; therefore and must be distinguished from know whether he and

identified was

Syrie and Syrus and reaalready in place when Homer who invented it antedated Homer the son of Babys. Now we do not argued about two or three peo-

Eratosthenes

ple, about one book or two. Andron had no reason to affirm or deny the existence of the Athenian, or even to mention him. His assessnor entails any opinion on the ment of the Syrian neither precludes and Eratosthenes' Athenian, opinion about connection Andron's invention with essary tosthenes there have written the Athenian of a second like 'Andron has no necSyrian. Erawas wrong,

something might was only one Syrian; but there were in fact two Pherecydes's, and Syrian. My reasons are as follows', except they were Athenian reand one can see how people might assume that the discussion volved He a single book; but that is to beg the question. to set out a few facts. might simply have taken the opportunity it seems far more likeIn fact, however, it is just as likely?indeed, around

for the colloor his source is the one responsible Diogenes no two men. took between the that ever and cation, place argument In writing his biography noted Andron's of the Syrian, Diogenes ly?that were two; puzzled, or something dependent chronography Syrian, 'and another one, an Athenian'. statement cy in the typical which another', marks form that there he looked up Eratosthenes' on it, and found only one He recorded the discrepan? says one thing, but ? says

of the scholiast, his reof course need not imply that ? addressed is Illustration to A or took any notice of him whatsoever.

Apollodohardly needed, but to take one example among thousands, in the Argonaut rus Bibl. 1.9.19, discussing Hercules' participation [FGrHist 31 F41a] says that he expedition, reports that 'Herodorus expedition however Pherecydes, in when Thessaly Aphetai time; sustain his weight'. didn't join the at all, but [Filla], the Argo It would have been at the serving Omphale at he was that left behind says she couldn't and said spoke up was difficult to disfor Pherecydes might have disputed one source independent his text, we cannot

Herodorus pute an opinion of Herodorus. of Pherecydes, but he might have had a quite at all. Without of Pherecydes and not thought 13) So Wilamowitz, Jacoby, and Schibli.

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.218 on Sun, 25 Nov 2012 07:36:03 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE AUTHORS NAMED PHERECYDES tell; perhaps even with it we could not. The other half of Pherecydes on Ap. Rhod. who beFill is quoted by the scholium 1.1289-9la, Hesiod Hercules moves to diswith then on Herodorus, (F263: gins then Antiembarked at Aphetai to fetch water and got left behind), = 69 Matthews: the Argo was foundering so he machus (F58 Wyss was left behind), 'whom Poseidippus fol[SH 703] and Pherecydes low'. The order and manner of citation is determined not original scholiast. he set contexts about in the authors but by the needs his researches turned in the usual and purposes up a ??t??a, by the of the which

So too Diogenes; trying to solve If this assessment the existence

manner

authorities.

has "inferred"

is correct, then from of the Athenian

by looking up it is not Jacoby who the testimony have inferred of

and others who it is Wilamowitz the Eratosthenes; of a quarrel. Eratosthenes, existence with writing his chronography to learn that the two books before him, would have been amazed there The was anything inferential about what he did. also arises, who view did Eratosthenes question think was the Syrian? Toye argues (537 ff.) that Eratosthenes dated the Syrian to the early sixth century of his reputation as because under his name teacher, but dated the book circulating Pythagoras' on to the fifth century on stylistic grounds. Since, Toye's hypothesis, there was no other book, Eratosthenes must have believed that nothof the Syrian's work. He must not have realized that ing survived with Pythagoras the whole origin of the association was precisely the book. He must have thought the that all the stories of Pherecydes all wonder-worker and one of the Seven Wise Men, the accounts of his philosophical all the researches doctrines, ed on oral tradition or some vanished book of the Peripatos, restto look (that happened to the contrary, exacdy like the extant one), and that all appearances were who the as the of this sage. deluded cited work they Theology Another of any biois Wilamowitz', that the absence argument is surprising, if he tradition about the Athenian Pherecydes graphical wrote an such of reference. At conwork best this really important stitutes a negative reason for questioning the separate identity of the for identifying two; no positive reason has been advanced them, and as there are many positive reasons for keeping them separate, we must either accept the oddity or find a reason for it. Jacoby already pointed out that biographical information about other early mythoin Toye's

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.218 on Sun, 25 Nov 2012 07:36:03 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

10

ROBERT L. FOWLER or nonexistent14). were often Theirs destined to be information, plundered,

is scarce graphers of basic handbooks

workaday

absorbed, and forgotten. book, like the others, was in superseded Pherecydes' His book would have looked to no way tendentious or philosophical. the scholiasts a primary graphy. between (cosToye also attempts to efface the difference theology which, he writes, "were not so distinct as mology) and mythography, as Jacoby fields of study in antiquity assumed". Hardly an assumpa of writers who in rather lists number an fact. tion, Toye empirical as if this proves the of theology cite the early historians, by the overidentity of the genres and is not adequately explained All the difference in the two in the area of theogony. lap between discussions the world exists between the theology of the Syrian otherwise Toye argues graphy and the Syrian ments assigned to the Athenian Modern who similar. commentators appears fragments assigned to the Syrian Pherecydes an innovative and creative mythographer reflects the influence of Hesiod. The of the Athenian. and the mytho(554 f.): "In the fragto myth the approach have examined the agreed work that he was nonetheless like their There own source. scholarly productions, reason was no particular a secondary, not to write his bio-

have whose

fragments belong ing with heroic myths and genealogies the basic outfollowed this same description. 'Pherecydes' Although he with line of the Hesiodic the Ehoiai on cerdisagreed genealogies, a new stemma for heroes." tain points and recorded A note accurately reports that the Athenian slightly "altered" Heassumed quite The Syrian's alterations, siodic genealogies. however, of Hea radical overhaul His was different theogony proportions. siod's, with enormous philosophical struction is conveniendy summarized one who peruses it will find himself reconSchibli's implications. his f. on pp. 128 of book; anyin a completely different world ascrib-

of 'Pherecydes' dealto an author who fits

from that of mythography. There is nothing in the fragments to suggest a thinker anything like this. ed to the Athenian The distribution book of material also raise and the manner of awkward of citation questions. hypothesized a number

of the Why

14) 36 f. = 120. To his examples of Dionysius of Miletus and Acusilaus one may add Andron of Halicarnassus, Antiochus of Syracuse, Agias/Dercylus of Argos, Creophylus of Ephesus, etc.

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.218 on Sun, 25 Nov 2012 07:36:03 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE AUTHORS NAMED PHERECYDES are no fragments of heroic legend none of the distinctive theological Athenian? Why are no th?ogonie in his History'? Why are no heroic cited from the Syrian? ever cited cited from

11 are the

doctrines fragments

Why from

'Pherecydes cited from 'Pherecydes fragments in his Theology\ which Toye argues is the proper title of the book15)? ever cited from book one of the fragments Why are no th?ogonie the Syrian'? ten-book work, being all cited simply from 'Pherecydes Why cited are so many heroic fragments (41, many with composite parts) from one through ten? How did so much with book-numbers, into book one, and still leave room for all the theology get squeezed genealogy There calculation on the of the Athenian's is also the question first five fragments, also from book one? of the date of the book. Apollodorus'

placed Ol. 45 (600/597), in Ol. 59. Rohde's harmonizes

of Pherecydes' is no doubt based floruit of Ol. 59 (544/1) tradition whose floruit he that he was Pythagoras' teacher, in Ol. 62 (532/29)16). The Suda says Pherecydes was born in but that is rather simple has been emendation early if he was to reach his abne of the Suda (??' for ?e'), which accepted by most scholars. Pseudo-

the reports,

15) Toye, 546-549. One fragment of the Athenian (54) is cited by the scholia to Apollonius from the 'Theogony', and Toye makes much play with this (p. 547); but the subject is Typhon, whence the mistake (Schibli p. 80 after Jacoby). The question of the tide is to some extent a red herring, since it is rarely used for either work; neither had one from its author's hand. Placing all his confidence in the list of alternative titles in the Suda s. Fe?e??d?e ... O?pioc (TTieogonia, Heptamychos, Theokrasia?not, however, Historial, even though this Pherecydes is supposed to be the first historian; nor, as Toye says, Theology), Toye concludes from F54's reference to the Theogony that all the other citations in the Apollonian scholia, which he says (falsely, see below) do not cite the book's title, must come from the work the Suda calls the Theogony.The three places (F2, F181, F35a) where the book is called Historiai he dismisses as meaningless because Historial is just one of several alternative titles bestowed on these early books by later scholars. That is certainly true, but if they consistently bestowed the title Historiai it was not without reason. In the scholia to Apollonius F41a is cited as ?? t? ? ?st???a, which may count as another example of the title Historiai (cf. for this locution the reading of cod. L at schol. Ap. Rhod. 2.178-82C = Hes. F254, the reading of cod. ? at schol. Eur. Ale. 1 = Pher. F35a, and Acus. Fl). The book of heroic genealogies was thus clearly identified; F35a is particularly important because F35c is one of the places where the ethnic 'Athenian' is given. The Syrian's book is called Theobgy actually only once, by Apollonius Dyscolus (F70 Schibli); in the Suda the three other titles are given, and the book is then described as a ?e?????a. If there was only one book, my question about the failure to cite th?ogonie fragments from the Historiesis justified by the greater frequency of that title. 16) FGrHist 244 F338 with commentary. For the data about the Syrian's life see Schibli, 1 ff., Toye, 554 ff.

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.218 on Sun, 25 Nov 2012 07:36:03 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

12 Lucian 500.

ROBERT L. FOWLER Macrob. 22 says he lived to be 85, so that he died shortly after If the association with Pythagoras, based perhaps pardy on oral but mosdy on the book, how anecdotes placing circulate. If there was the only basis for the dating, him as early as the seventh cenfor the association other

tradition it explains tury could than we can

was no basis

nature of Pherecydes' ideas, then Pythagorean hardly hope to gain an exact idea of his dates. He might have been either teacher or pupil, or totally independent. Although the tradition of their assocation is universal and clamorous, and not would be to its discount let us lay everyone willing utility altogether, for the present purpose. One firm datum of Pherecydes' book as the first in prose. argues that the dating of the book must in FGrHist remains: the rep-

the apparendy

it aside utation Toye reference

from the proceed 3 F174, quoted by Clement and attributed to the Syrian, to an incident in Darius' campaign the against Scythians of ca. 513 B.C. The attribution of this fragment has long been a puzin thus privileging a risky procedure zle, and Toye is adopting (once evidence of a late compiler, indeed making again) the controversial it a crucial part of his case. Such an historical narrative accords with nothing that we know of the Syrian's book from the other fragments attributed to him by name, nor indeed with what we know of the Athenian's. with Toye is able to offer only a flimsy connection FGrHist 3 F2, the Philaid genealogy (attributed only to 'Pherecydes') which ends with Miltiades the parallel involvement the Persian account in Herodotus the oikist, by observing that shortly after the historian mentions the 4.131-2 then in the Chersonese, with Miltiades, tenuous link is insufficient to remove the can first

of the younger This campaign.

strong probability More seriously accord

possibly book in prose17). Prosam oranonem condere Pherecydes Syrius instituit Cyri with and regis aetate says Pliny (NH 7.205), perfecdy consistendy on Apollodorus. "It is necessary to understand", probably drawing Toye writes (559), "that even respected literary critics in antiquity sometimes extract ignored biographical such in their efforts to references chronological information from their subjects' works". He

that Clement's is simply aberrant. attribution Toye does not explain how such a late dating with ancient scholars' belief that this was the

17) S. West, JHS 108 (1988), 210 discussing F174: "a reputation he could hardly have achieved if he had mentioned an incident in the reign of Darius".

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.218 on Sun, 25 Nov 2012 07:36:03 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE AUTHORS NAMED PHERECYDES means the connection with Pythagoras.

13

Theopompus, Hermippus, or ignored the reference

by the time the Great be placed in this group as well, he must have believed that the book was written when he upon which Pherecydes' reputation depended was above 65 years of age, making nonsense of his role as teacher of Pythagoras. But Toye specifically cites Apollodorus as an exam-

By his own account Aristode, and Eratosthenes all missed Dicaearchus, to Darius and put Pherecydes in his grave is not to King took up arms. If Apollodorus

ple of one who inferred the date of Pherecydes merely from his role as the philosopher's So Apollodorus missed it too. teacher18). also followed Eratosthenes in to Apollodorus dating the Athenian the next century; as Toye must believe, without seen having anyfor thing to support the dating19). To support his early chronology the place the Athenian, Toye must counter his activity in the time of Cimon of scholars who arguments son of Miltiades, not far off that F146, mentioning the 'deme5

Apollodorus'

floruit. The argument Daidalidai, reforms, is obprovides a terminus post quern of Cleisthenes5 weak could have been called a deme already before), and (it viously the descent of Hippocrates from Asclepius (F59), for which Phere-

cited by Soranus, is no help either, cydes is one of several authorities since Pherecydes have been for only the beginning might responsible of the stemma. discounts these but he neToye righdy possibilities, to respond to Huxley's for a Cimonian glects completely arguments date usual based on the mention of Telam?n of Oulios in F6020). in frr. 2 and 149, and the unparentage I close with

two considerations, on which one style and dialect, not place much weight, as the evidence is insufficient; noneare suggestive. theless, the indications Toye stresses the similarity of with others, generally as style of the two books, which he describes, should "simple and clear Ionic prose" (545). This description would, how-

18) Contrast Toye's confidence in Apollodorus at AJP 116 (1995), 293, where he argues that Hellanicus FGrHist 4 Fl 71-172 must be spurious because Apollodorus would not have dated Hellanicus when he did if he had known these fragments. 19) Unless he, like Eratosthenes in the unlikely scenario we explored above, also thought that nothing of the Syrian survived, and that all fragments ascribed to Pherecydes were the Athenian's; but then it is even more impossible that he should have said that Pherecydes was the first prose writer, or placed the Athenian's ahne in Ol. 81 (456/53) when he mentioned an incident in the reign of Darius. 20) G.L. Huxley, The Date of Pherecydes of Athens, GRBS 14 (1973), 137-143.

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.218 on Sun, 25 Nov 2012 07:36:03 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

14

ROBERT L. FOWLER of the period as well. S. Lilja21) thought in the Syrian and the Athenian of the use of tenses, the use subordination, repbetween device comment "whereby added remains, an essential afterwards" never item is (127? in the Athen-

ever, apply to other authors she could detect differences respect etition,

placed twice in the Syrian

of syntactical the use of the stylistic first and explanatory despite

his meagre

ian), alliteration, dactylic rhythms, poetic words, the order of subject Some of these must be and the types of adjectives. and predicate, from both authors, because the number of lines surviving illusory, for statistical small the is too Toye natpurposes. Syrian, especially of the urally points out that Lilja's analysis assumes the correctness but then he does not explain why the Syrian traditional attributions, his style from one part of his book to the other. would have changed can always quibble with some of Lilja's subjective judgments, nor even as Toye does, but he does not address all her arguments of poeticisms and dacthe most telling ones (the greater frequency as the his in the to be by position explained Syrian, tylic rhythms One pioneer of prose)22). Finally, the dialect23). is rendered quotations; rather The job of assessing the dialect of any writer we have difficult by several circumstances: in almost every case those we do have are which means that than papyrus fragments, of

of this period few verbatim book

they and Atticization Athenaeus, about what

quotations have been

to an extensive process of homogenization subjected reads like Attic in the epitome Hecataeus (even

FGrHist Ionic

1 F15); Alexandrian editors had their own ideas in the tradilooked like, which led to distortions

Ionic itself assumed forms, tion; most importandy, many different in morphology, orvariations and even within the same community show. as were and inscriptions possible, thography pronunciation Finally, Ionic was under pressure from without, precisely from Attic, It is difthough not so much in the period of the earlier Pherecydes. ficult enough for an editor to decide how to present Herodotus to

21) On the Style of the Earliest GreekProse (Helsinki 1968); synkrisis on pp. 120 ft. 22) It must be said, however, that the identification of poeticisms requires great care. For all these topics (poeticisms, rhythm, dialect) see now K.J. Dover, The Evolutionof GreekProse Style (Oxford 1997). 23) For an excellent guide to the problems of identifying the original Ionic underneath the distortions of tradition see M.L. West, Studiesin Greek Elegy and Iambus (Berlin and New York 1974), 77-112.

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.218 on Sun, 25 Nov 2012 07:36:03 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE AUTHORS NAMED PHERECYDES

15

the world, let alone the early mythographers; but one thing one would not say is that they all wrote "Ionic", and conclude without closer examination that because the Athenian and the Pherecydes Syrian used ? for a they wrote in the same dialect. It is suspicious, even allowing for Atticization in the course of transmission, that the of the Syrian, F68 Schibli, looks much more long papyrus fragment Ionic Athenian. attributed to the any of the verbatim normally quotations that a papyrus fragment of the Athenhowever, Granted, ian might contain as many features of Ionic orthography as this paof the ii col. line 10 offers the telltale Ionic word ???, pyrus Syrian, which does not appear in the verbatim of the Athenian24) fragments in spite of many opportunities to use it. One can believe that many of the eo's and ed's turned into oo's in the course of transmission, but odd that all the ???'8 were replaced or by a?t?? and all the awo\>c. a?t??, ccpeac's by As I said, one would not place too much stress on these last two but the others seem to me absolutely conclusive. The separate identity of these two writers was already obvious to Vossius in the seventeenth Nor did Wilamowitz the exiscentury. dispute tence of two different books. Let us hope the issue is setded once and arguments; for all. BRISTOL, UK BS8 1TB, Department Road tory, 11 Woodland of Classics and Ancient Hisit is a litde than

24) I mean normally attributed to him; on Toye's hypothesis, it must still be explained why the style changes from one part of the book to another.

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.218 on Sun, 25 Nov 2012 07:36:03 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions