Santamaria. Pherecydes of Syros in PDF

Marco A.
Santamaría
4 Pherecydes of Syros in the Papyrological
Tradition
1 Introduction
Antiquity bestowed two-fold honours on the evanescent and fascinating
figure of Pherecydes of Syros (6th cent. BC): that of being the first prose
writer1 and the first myth-maker to set foot in philosophical thought. Indeed,
Aristotle famously included him among those “mixed” (μεμιγμένοι) theolo-
gians (that is, those who spoke about the origins of the gods), as he did not
say everything mythically (μυθικῶς) and posited the first generative principle
as the best, in which regard he is closer to the natural philosophers (such as
Empedocles and Anaxagoras) than to the ancient poets, who do not place the
first entities (Night and Heaven, Chaos or Oceanus) as the rulers, but Zeus,
who appears later.2
This position as pioneer in the use of prose and precursor of philosophy
renders Pherecydes an original author always worth revisiting. This paper will
focus on a fragment preserved in an Oxyrhynchus papyrus, which narrates a
peculiar cosmogony in the context of a wedding, and on two passages regarding
his work and his life, respectively, from the Herculaneum library.
1 Most scholars think that this tradition is right: for example Schibli (1990) 4; Laks (2001) 10–11;
Granger (2007) 137. The main information about Pherecydes’ life and work and a complete
bibliography can be found in Macris/Goulet (2012).
2 Arist. Metaph. 14.4.1091b4–10 (= fr. 81 Schibli). Cf. Schibli (1990) 89–93 and Laks (2009), whom
I follow in his proposal not to eliminate καὶ before τῷ μὴ μυθικῶς and to interpret it as “also,” as-
suming that, for Aristotle, Pherecydes is among the mixed thinkers (and can be distinguished from
the poets) for positing the first generative principle as the best and also for not saying everything
mythically. Palmer (2000) analyses Aristotle’s view on the theologians. On Pherecydes’ connec-
tions with early philosophy, see Granger (2007).
Note: This article has been written within the framework of a research project supported by the
Spanish “Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad” FFI2015–66484–P.
Marco A. Santamaría, University of Salamanca
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110666106-005
Authenticated | christian.vassallo@unical.it
Download Date | 11/12/19 1:12 PM
92 Marco A. Santamaría
2 The wedding of Zas and Chthonie ( PGrenf. II 11)

Among the first documents to be unearthed by Bernard P. Grenfell and Arthur
S. Hunt from the fruitful rubbish mound of Oxyrhynchus in the late 19th cent.,
a papyrus with two consecutive columns from Pherecydes of Syros’ book was
found.3 It was published soon after, in 1897, in the second of two volumes4 pre-
vious to the Oxyrhynchus papyri series, which began a year later. The text is
remarkable for being the longest literal fragment we possess of this author. It was
identified by Walter Leaf on the basis of a quotation by Clement of Alexandria5
of ll. 14–18 of col. I, which allows the text of the papyrus to be reconstructed. It
has been dated to the 3rd cent. AD and confirms the claims of Diogenes Laërtius6
that Pherecydes’ book was still available during their time. We can be sure that
this papyrus is part of the complete book and not of an anthology thanks to the
stichometric sign on the left of col. II.3, a stigma with the value of 600 indicating
the line number. The extremely simple style and the Ionic dialect (ἡμέρη, σέο,
ποιεῦσιν along with the form ποιοῦσιν) confirm that the text is originally from
Pherecydes.
PGrenf. II 11 (= Pherec. fr. 68 Schibli)
Col. I
[αὐ-
τῶι ποιεῦσιν τὰ ο[ἰ]κία
πολλά τε καὶ μεγάλα.
ἐπεὶ δὲ ταῦτα ἐξετέ-
5 λεσαν πάντα καὶ χρή-
ματα καὶ θεράποντας
3 The title that it bore, not attributable to the author, is not certain. The Suda Lexicon
(s.v. Φερεκύδης = fr. 2 Schibli) calls it Ἑπτάμυχος ἤτοι Θεοκρασία ἢ Θεογονία, Sevennook
Mixing of gods or Birth of the Gods, but Damascius (De princ. 3.2.3, III, pp. 164–165 Westerink/
Combès = 124bis Ruelle = fr. 60 Schibli) speaks of a five-nook generation (πεντέμυχος γενεά).
This led West (1971) 8 and 13, among others, to correct Ἑπτάμυχος into ῾Πεντάμυχος, which seems
right. G. S. Kirk ap. KRS, 51 and 58–59 prefers Ἑπτάμυχος. According to Schibli (1990) 46–49,
Pherecydes spoke of five nooks, so πεντέμυχος γενεά would be a correct description; the nooks
were confused with the seven regions or μοῖραι he distinguished, which originated the reading
ἑπτάμυχος, “a misunderstanding that may date to Hellenistic times” (ibid. 48).
4 Grenfell (1896) and Grenfell/Hunt (1897).
5 Clem. Al. Strom. 6.2.9.4 (= fr. 69 Schibli).
6 Diog. Laërt. 1.119 (= fr. 14 Schibli): Σώζεται δὲ τοῦ Συρίου τό τε βιβλίον ὃ συνέγραψεν; Celsus
(2nd cent. AD) ap. Orig. C. Cels. 6.42 (= fr. 83 Schibli), offers a literal quotation of the book.
4 Pherecydes of Syros in the Papyrological Tradition 93
καὶ θεραπαίνας καὶ

τἆλλα ὅσα δεῖ πάντα,
ἐπεὶ δὴ πάντα ἑτοῖ-
10 μα γίγνεται, τὸν γά-
μον ποιεῦσιν. κἀπει-
δὴ τρίτη ἡμέρη γί-
γνεται τῶι γάμωι, τό-
τε Ζὰς ποιεῖ φᾶρος μέ-
15 γα τε καὶ καλὸν, καὶ
ἐν αὐτῶ[ι] π̣ο̣ι ̣κ̣[ίλλει Γῆν
καὶ Ὠγη[νὸν καὶ τὰ Ὠ-
γηνοῦ [δώματα · · · · · ·
· · · ]π̣ι ̣[ · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
1–2 [αὐ]τῶι Diels || 2 ποιοῦσιν P, cf. 11 ποιεῦσιν || 16–18 ex Clem. Al. Strom. 6.2.9.4 || 16 ποιεῖ Diels ||
19 π̣ι Grenfell
̣ : γ ι̣ ι̣ ̣ West
(…) for him (sc. Zas) they fashion the palaces both many and great; and when they had accom-
plished all these things, also the necessities and manservants and maidservants and as many
other things as are necessary, when everything is ready, they perform the wedding. And when
it is the third day of the wedding, then Zas fashions a robe both big and beautiful, and on it he
embroiders Earth and Ogenos and the abodes of Ogenos (…)
Col. II
[βουλόμενος
γὰρ σέο τοὺς γάμου̣[ς
εἶναι, τούτωι σε τιμ̣[έω.
σὺ δέ μοι χαῖρε καὶ σ̣ύ̣[ν-
5 ι]σθι. ταῦτά φασιν ἀν̣[α-
καλυπτήρια πρῶτον
γενέσθαι, ἐκ το̣ύ̣του δ̣[ὲ
ὁ νόμος ἐγένε[το] καὶ ̣
θεοῖσι καὶ ἀνθρ̣[ώπ]ο̣ι ̣-
10 σιν. ἡ δέ μι[ν ἀμείβε-
ται δ̣ε̣ξαμ̣[ένη εὑ τὸ
φᾶ̣[ρος · · · · · · · · · · · ·
σ̣[ · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
14 κ̣λ[ · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
deest versus 1
16 θ ·[ · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
1 [βουλόμενος Weil, Blass || 3 ϛ (600) in marg. || τιμ̣[έω vel τιμ̣[ῶ || 4–5 σ̣ύ̣[νι]σθι Blass : ̣ρ̣[ ̣ ̣]
ισθι Grenfell || 10–12 suppl. Diels || 13 σ[ Grenfell : ε . [ West || 14 κλ[ Grenfell : ζ̣ι[ West || 15 ο̣[
Grenfell || 16 θρ̣[ Grenfell
“(…) since I wish marriages to be yours, I honour you with this. Receive my salutation and be
my consort.” These they say were the first anakalypteria, and hence arose the custom for both
gods and men. And she responds, receiving the robe from him (…)7
The fragment is part of the narration of the wedding between Zas and Chtho-
nie,8 two of the three divine primordial entities mentioned at the beginning of
the work,9 along with Chronos. The sign for 600 in the left margin before col. II.3
indicates that the episode did not occur at the very beginning of the book, but
rather in the middle.10 It probably took place after the first important episode of
the story, when Chronos creates fire, pneuma and water from his own seed and
deposits them in five nooks, giving birth to a generation of gods,11 and before
another remarkable event, when the same god fights and defeats Ophioneus.12
The key sentence of this fragment was known to us through Clement’s quo-
tation,13 but the papyrus provides us with the narrative context of the action. Zas
weaves (ποιεῖ) a cloak, on which he embroiders (ποικίλλει) the earthly surface,
including Ge and Ogenos (another name for Oceanus) and Ogenos’ houses14 as
a wedding present for Chthonie.15 Clement quotes this sentence, in a long list of
cases of plagiarism, as a piece of evidence that Pherecydes copied Hom. Il. 18.483
and 607,16 on Hephaestus’ representation of the earth, the heaven, the sea, and the
7 Transl. by H. S. Schibli.
8 On this episode, see West (1963) 164–167; (1971) 15–20 and 52–55; G. S. Kirk ap. KRS, 60–62;
Lisi (1985) 268–269 and 272; Schibli (1990) 50–69; Scheid/Svenbro (1996) 63–66; Martínez Nieto
(2000) 98–102; Granger (2007) 141–142 and 152–153; Saudelli (2011); and Palomar (2012).
9 Diog. Laërt. 1.119 (= fr. 14 Schibli).
10 If we suppose that each column contains 40 lines, there would be 15 columns before col. II; if
we think in columns of 20 lines, there would be 30 columns.
11 Dam. De princ. 3.2.3, III, pp. 164–165 Westerink/Combès (= 124bis Ruelle = fr. 60 Schibli).
12 West (1963) 160–161. It is Orig. C. Cels. 6.42 (= fr. 78 Schibli).
13 Clem. Al. Strom. 6.2.9.4 (= fr. 69 Schibli): Φερεκύδης ὁ Σύριος λέγει· “Ζὰς ποιεῖ φᾶρος μέγα τε
καὶ καλὸν, καὶ ἐν αὐτῶι ποικίλλει Γῆν καὶ Ὠγηνὸν καὶ τὰ Ὠγηνοῦ δώματα.”
14 The clearest precedent, as Saudelli (2012) 84 remarks, is Oceanus’ and Tethys’ houses
(δόμοισιν) mentioned in Hom. Il. 14.202, where Hera claims to have been reared by them. She
also indicates (84 n. 21) that Poseidon built houses in the depths of a lake (Hom. Il. 13.21–22:
Αἰγάς, ἔνθα δέ οἱ κλυτὰ δώματα βένθεσι λίμνης / χρύσεα μαρμαίροντα τετεύχαται ἄφθιτα αἰεί).
15 In her intriguing article, Palomar (2012) 254–255 highlights the erotic connotation of the cloak,
which in some vase paintings acts as a prolongation of the male’s body in the conjugal union.
16 Ἐν μὲν γαῖαν ἔτευξ’, ἐν δ’ οὐρανόν, ἐν δὲ θάλασσαν (483); ἐν δ’ ἐτίθει ποταμοῖο μέγα σθένος
Ὠκεανοῖο (607).
ocean on Achilles’ shield. This author is right in connecting both passages, since
Achilles’ shield is an image of the world,17 including even the sun, the moon, and
the stars (18.484–485). Hephaestus’ work is also described with the verbs ποιέω
and ποικίλλω.18 Since craftsmanship is typical of this god and of Athena, it is a
remarkable novelty that another god should be presented fashioning objects. Spe-
cifically, weaving and embroidering a cloak was a feminine labour suitable for
that goddess, not for a male god such as Zas.19 Pherecydes probably attributed
it to him in order to shock the reader, making it clear that Zas may be similar to
Zeus in name and importance, but his actions are very different.20 With this same
purpose, to question the vision of the gods in the poetic tradition, he transforms
the traditional names of the gods into his own variants (Zas, Chronos, Chthonie,
Ogenos) and deliberately imitates the dactylic rhythm of epic poetry,21 but chooses
prose to convey his divine narratives and mark them as a new kind of discourse.
It is also possible that Pherecydes presented the manufacturing of the cloak
as an image of his own work. By assigning Zas a task unfit for a male god, such as
webbing and embroidering, he intended to show that the elaboration of an artis-
tic product was a noble activity, similar to the composition of his book, which is
not inspired by the Muses as is the case for poetry, rather it is elaborated with care
to provide it with a rhythmic effect.22 In this way, Zas’ craftsmanship serves as an
antecedent and model for Pherecydes to create a piece of art that can be described
as ποικίλος, like the cloak that Zas gifts to Chthonie.
The following text of col. I must have referred to other figures represented on
the cloak and recorded the words of Zas to his bride, which ended with the first
sentence in col. II. When Zas hands the cloak to Chthonie as his wedding present,
he proclaims that these are her nuptials23 and he is honouring her with bestowal
17 It is called κόσμου μίμημα in Schol. ad Arat. 26.16.

18 Ἐν δὲ δύω ποίησε πόλεις (Il. 18.490); ἐν δ’ ἀγέλην ποίησε βοῶν (Il. 18.573); ἐν δὲ νομὸν ποίησε
(Il. 18.587); ἐν δὲ χορὸν ποίκιλλε (Il. 18.590).
19 G. S. Kirk ap. KRS, 61: Zas undertakes an “unmasculine task”; Granger (2007) 152–153; Palo-
mar (2012) 253.
20 Granger (2007) 152: “Pherecydes is all the more daring, even provoking, in his vivid portrait
of his supreme god Zas as a creator-god.”
21 On this aspect, see Gheerbrant (2018) 380: “[Phérécyde] emploie les codes de constitution du
discours dont il cherche à se distinguer (la poésie épico-théogonique en hexamètre dactylique),
afin d’introduire une distance critique par rapport aux énoncés poétiques.”
22 Coexisting with the idea of inspiration, in Homer and the lyric poets the comparison of poetic
composition with weaving is frequent, as Snyder (1981) showed. It is in the basis of the term
‘text.’ For the metaphors of poems as other kinds of artefacts, such as statues and buildings, see
Ford (2002) ch. 5.
23 The main verb of εἶναι could well be H. Weil’s βουλόμενος, or a participle meaning “making
known” or something similar (West [1963] 166); τοὺς γάμου̣[ς can allude to this particular union
of the cloak. Pherecydes interrupts the narration with the remark that Zas’ and
Chthonie’s wedding serves as an aition for the custom of the anakalypteria on
the third day of weddings, in which the bride takes οff her veil and receives her
presents from the groom.24
In the second sentence of the book, Pherecydes foreshadows that the name
of Chthonie becomes Ge when Zas gives her the cloak (Χθονίῃ δὲ ὄνομα ἐγένετο
Γῆ ἐπειδὴ αὐτῇ Ζὰς γῆν γέρας διδοῖ).25 This means that when Chthonie, who
embodies the subterranean part of the earth,26 wears the cloak that represents
the earth’s surface,27 the image is transformed into the thing itself (called γῆ by
Pherecydes) and Chthonie incorporates it as part of herself and becomes the earth
in its entirety (called Γῆ). The transformation of the cloak is of enormous signifi-
cance, since it turns the wedding into a cosmic event that prompts the definitive
configuration of the world.28 Zas is revealed not only as an artisan, but as a true
demiurge, a very unusual figure before Plato’s Timaeus, which crops up for the
first time in Greek literature here.29 The fact that the cloak is called beautiful and
is the result of a precise plan and a skilful task implies that the world (or at least
its surface) is conceived as a kosmos 30 and responds to a teleological project.31
Furthermore, Zas’ words indicate that the cloak is not only a physical present,
but an honor (τιμή), which establishes the earth and the Ocean as Chthonie’s sphere
of influence,32 her γέρας, a term that simultaneously denotes gift and prerogative.
Pherecydes must be following the Hesiodic tradition, since in the Theogony the
supreme god, Chronos or Zeus, is the one who distributes γέρας or τιμαί to the gods.33
(West [1971] 20), which is likelier for me, or to weddings in general (G. S. Kirk ap. KRS, 61), which
from this moment would be under her protection; for Schibli (1990) 62, both senses are present.
24 Harp. s.v.; Poll. Onom. 3.36; Hsch. s.v. ἀνακαλυπτήριον· ὅτε τὴν νύμφην πρῶτον ἐξάγουσιν τοῦ
θαλάμου τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ. On this costum, see Schibli (1990) 61–69.
25 Diog. Laërt. 1.119 (= fr. 14 Schibli).
26 See Lisi (1985) 268–269; Palomar (2012) 254; G. S. Kirk ap. KRS, 61: “Chthonie initially repre-
sents the solid structure of earth rather than its variegated surface.”
27 It is a kind of map: West (1971) 19; in 20 he calls it “cartographic robe”; Granger (2007) 152.
28 West (1963) 168; Schibli (1990) 54: “with the creation of land and waters, the Pherecydean
cosmos is complete.”
29 Proclus (In Ti. 32c, 2.54.28 Diehl = fr. 27 Schibli) uses the verb δημιουργεῖν to describe the
actions of Zeus (Zas). For the possible allusions to a creator god before the Timaeus, see Classen
(1962).
30 See the brilliant formulation of Schibli (1990) 56.
31 I have taken most of this paragraph from Santamaría (forthcoming).
32 Schibli (1990) 52.
33 (Zeus) εὖ δὲ ἕκαστα / ἀθανάτοις διέταξε νόμους καὶ ἐπέφραδε τιμάς (74–75); (the gods) ὡς
τιμὰς διέλοντο (112); (Chronos) ὅστις ἄτιμος ὑπὸ Κρόνου ἠδ’ ἀγέραστος, / τιμῆς καὶ γεράων
ἐπιβησέμεν (395–396); (Zeus) ὁ δὲ τοῖσιν ἐὺ διεδάσσατο τιμάς (885). See Schibli (1990) 52–53.
From a bibliological perspective, the Pherecydes papyrus is of enormous

value because it preserves one of the extremely rare fragments from a book of
early Greek prose, the only other case being a papyrus from a work of the 5th cent.
BC, probably from Hellanicus of Lesbos’ Atlantis.34
3 Doxography on first principles

(Philodemus’ De pietate)
Two further testimonies regarding Pherecydes in the papyri are found in the
Herculaneum library, one in Philodemus’ De pietate and the other in an untitled
work, possibly by the same author.
The first reference to Pherecydes appears in PHerc. 247, col. 6a (sin. pars)
Schober, which is the continuation of PHerc. 1610, col. 3 Schober,35 from the
so-called ‘second part’ of Philodemus’ De pietate. In this section, he condemns
the ideas of the poets and theologians about the gods and shows their errors and
impiety. The author forms long doxographical lists in which he summarizes the
views of plenty of poets and mythographers on diverse main themes.36 The frag-
ment we are going to deal with is devoted to the ideas of many authors about the
first gods and ancestors of all the rest, a subject explored at the beginning of the
second part of De pietate:
Phld. De piet., PHerc. 1610, col. 3 + PHerc. 247, col. 6a (sin. pars) (p. 77 Schober
[1988])37
col. 3 · · · διταγηιο
· · · · τακαι τα
τιν]ὲς δὲ τού[τους
τὰ] σ̣ύμπαντά [φα-
34 Hellan. Lesb. fr. 19b Fowler (= POxy. VIII 1084, from the early 2nd cent. AD). In favour of
Hellanicus: Thomas (2007) and Fowler (2013) 417–418 (“general probability is in favour of Hel-
lanikean authorship. The style is early.”).
35 The first to realize this fact was A. Schober in his 1923 Königsberg dissertation: see Schober
(1988) 77.
36 See Salati (2012) 211.
37 I follow Schober’s text (1988) 77, with some additions from Henrichs (1972) 77 and 78 n. 32;
Fowler (2001) 7 (ad. Acus. fr. 6d) and Obbink (2011).
5 σι τ]ε͙κεῖν. ἐμ μέν
τισι]ν ἐκ Ν͙υκτὸς καὶ
Ταρ]τάρου λέγεται
τὰ π]άντα, ἐν δέ τι-
σιν ἐ]ξ͙ Ἅιδου καὶ Δι-
10 · · ·]μ· ὁ δὲ τὴν Τι-
τανομαχίαν γρά-
ψας ἐξ] Αἰθέρος φη-
σίν], Ἀκουσί[λ]αος
δ’ ἐκ] Χάους πρώτου
15 τἆ]λ̣λα. ἐν δὲ τοῖς
ἀνα]φερομένο͙ι͙ς εἰς
Μου]σ͙αῖον γέγραπται
Τάρτ]αρον πρῶτον
καὶ Ν]ύκτα [τε] καὶ //
col. 6a τρίτον] Ἀ͙έρα γεγο-
νέναι], ἐν δὲ τοῖς
εἰς Ἐπι]μενίδην
ἐξ Ἀέρος] καὶ Νυκτὸς
5 πάντα σ]υστῆναι
λέγεται.] Ὅμηρος
δ’ ἀποφαί]νετ’ Ὠκεα-
νὸν ἐκ] Τηθ͙ύος
τοὺς ἄλλ]ους γεννᾶν
10 θεοὺς “Ὠ]κεανόν τε
θεῶν γέ]νεσιν καὶ
μητέρα] Τ[ηθύ]ν” εἰ-
πών· Ἄβα]ρ͙ις δὲ Κρό-
νον τε κ]αὶ [ Ῥ]έαν, οἱ δὲ
15 Δία καὶ] Ἥραν πατέ-
ρα καὶ] μητέρα θε-
ῶν νο]μίζουσιν, Πίν-
δαρος] δ’ [ἐκ] Κυβέ-
λης μ]ητρὸς ἐν τῶι·
20 “δέσπ]οιν[αν] Κυβέ-
λαν] μα[τέρα],” Φερε-
κύδ]η͙ς͙ δ’ ὁ [Σύ]ριος · · ·
N (apographa Neapolitana PHerc. 1610, col. 3 et 247, col. 6a) 1610, col. 3 3 τού[τους Schober :
τούτ̣[ους Obbink || 6 suppl. Nauck || Ν͙υκτὸς Gomperz : ιουκτος N || 7 suppl. Gomperz ||
8 τὰ Nauck, π]άντα Quaranta || 9 ]κ Ν || spatium post αιδου in N || 9–10 Δι[| · · · ]μ Ν : Δι|[ός]{.}

Quaranta : Αἰ|θέρ]ο͙ς͙ Nauck : Δι|[ώνη]ς͙ Janko : Δη͙|[οῦ]ς͙ fort. Fowler : Δι|ὸς ἅ]μ<α> Obbink || 10–12
Titanomachia fr. 1 Bernabé || 12 ἐξ Nauck || 13–15 Acus. FGrHist 2 F 5 = fr. 6d Fowler || 14 suppl.
Nauck || 15–19 Mus. fr. 81 Bernabé || 15 suppl. Sauppe || 16–17 suppl. Nauck || 16–17 –ως · · · |]
καιον Ν : -οις · · · |]σ͙αιον Nauck || 18 Τάρτ]αρον Nauck : Τάρ]τ̣αρον Obbink || 19 καὶ Ν]ύκτα Zeller :
τὴν Ν]ύκτα Gomperz : εἶτα Obbink || 247, col. 6a 1 τρίτον] Schober || ’A ͙έρα Bücheler : δερα N || 2–6
Epimenid. fr. 46 [II] Bernabé = fr. 6b Fowler || 2–4 suppl. Bücheler || 5 πάντα Schober : τὰ πάντα
Bücheler : Τάρταρον Kern : τἆλλα Obbink || 6 λέγεται Schober : ἀλλὰ δὴ Obbink || 7 δ’ ἀποφαί]νετ’
suppl. Bücheler : δὲ φαί]νετ’ Gomperz in app. || 9 suppl. Schober : τοὺς θε]οὺς Gomperz || 10–12
Il. 14.201 || 10 θεοὺς suppl. Schober : πάντας Bücheler : ποεῖν Gomperz in app. || 11–12 suppl.
Bücheler || 12–13 εἰ|[πών suppl. Bücheler || 13 Ἄβα]ρ͙ις Henrichs : Eἷς] τις Schober || 13–19 suppl.
Bücheler || 20 [δέσπ]οιν[αν Henrichs || 20–21 Κυβέ|[λαν] ματ[έρα] Snell (Pind. fr. 80 Maehler) ||
21–22 Φερε|[κύδ]η͙ς͙ δ’ ὁ [Σύ]ριος Bergk (Pherec. fr. 63 Schibli)
(…) but some state that these gave birth to all things. In some (sc. writings) it is said that all
things come out of Night and Tartarus, but in others out of Hades and (…), but who wrote the
Titanomachy states that [all things] come from Aether, but Acusilaus states that all the rest
comes from Chaos, who was the first. In the works ascribed to Musaeus it is written that Tartarus
[was] first and Night, and third Air appeared, but in the [works] ascribed to Epimenides it is
said that everything else was formed out of Air and Night. But Homer shows that Oceanus from
Tethys begot the other gods, saying “Oceanus origin of the gods and mother Tethys.” And Abaris
considers that Cronus and Rhea are the father and the mother of the gods; others, Zeus and Hera,
but Pindar [says] that they (sc. the gods) are from Kybele the mother in the [verse]: “the mistress
Kybele the mother,” and Pherecydes of Syros (…)
The papyrus ends just before the first principles according to Pherecydes were
named, but it can be assumed that Philodemus mentioned Zas, Chronos and
Chthonie, the three gods who appeared in the very beginning of the book,38 or
at least Zas and Chthonie. It is even possible that he quoted this line, but he cer-
tainly did not borrow it directly from Pherecydes, but from doxographical sources.
For these detailed accounts of theogonies, Philodemus must have drawn on the
work of Eudemus represented by his fr. 150 Wehrli, probably a kind of “history
of theology,”39 as well as his main source for myths in De pietate, Apollodorus of
38 Ζὰς μὲν καὶ Χρόνος ἦσαν ἀεὶ καὶ Χθονίη, Diog. Laërt. 1.119 (= fr. 14 Schibli).
39 G. S. Kirk ap. KRS, 19 n. 2. He is followed by Henrichs (1972) 78 n. 28 and Betegh (2002) 347. On
Eudemus’ fr. 150 Wehrli see the excellent and independent works of Casadio (1999) and Betegh
(2002). Fr. 150, quoted by Damascius (De princ. 3.2.3–3.3.3, III, pp. 162–167 Westerink/Combès =
124–125 Ruelle), is the only fragment of this work. Usener (1858) 17 assigned it to Τῶν περὶ τὸ
θεῖον ἱστορίας α´-Ϛ´, in his view wrongly listed among the works of Theophrastus in Diog. Laërt.
5.48, along with other titles on the history of geometry (5.48), astrology, and arithmetic (5.50) au-
thored by Eudemus. Wehrli (1968) col. 658 did not accept this identification and thought it more
probable that the fragment was part of Eudemus’ Physics (but Wehrli [1969] 121 postulated, with
doubts, the belonging of fr. 150 to a “Geschichte der Theologie”). Usener’s idea has been accepted
Athens’ Περὶ θεῶν (ca. 150 BC).40 Eudemus’ fr. 150 Wehrli was the main source for
Damascius in his De Principiis, where he summarizes the beginning of the cos-
mogonies of Orpheus, Homer, Hesiod, Acusilaus, Epimenides, and Pherecydes.41
The coincidence in the order Acusilaus/Epimenides/Pherecydes in Philodemus
and Damascius indicates that this was the order in Eudemus, their common
source. In Philodemus’ account there is no systematic order of the testimonies,42
but in Damascius and, consequently, in Eudemus, the order is chronological.43
The only exception is the position of Acusilaus, who can be dated to the 5th cent.
BC. The reason for this dislocation has been convincingly explained by Casadio:44
for Eudemus it was unavoidable to put Acusilaus just after Hesiod, due to his
close dependence on this poet.
Philodemus’ fragment offers evidence of the inclusion of Pherecydes in
the doxographies among the theologoi, not the physikoi, that is, in mythogra-
phy and not in philosophy, following Eudemus’ practice, which goes back to
Aristotle.45
by Zhmud (20042) 559; (2006) 130 n. 51 and seems to me very likely. Betegh (2002) 353–354 con-
vincingly argues against Wehrli’s position in 1968, but is skeptical of Usener’s proposal (355
n. 50). Cf. Henrichs (1972) 78 n. 28: “One should refrain from calling Eudemus’ rather obscure
work a ‘history of theology’.”
40 For this work as the main source of De pietate, see Henrichs (1975) 6; Cameron (2004) 30,
102–103; Obbink (2011) 352; Salati (2012) 215.
41 Dam. De princ. 3.2.3–3.3.1, III, pp. 162–166 Westerink/Combès (= 124–124b Ruelle). It is likely
that Musaeus was present in Eudemus’ account, but Damascius left him out, following the prac-
tice of other Neoplatonists (as Betegh [2002] 346–347 indicates), who must have considered him
an unhistorical figure merely created to circulate poems in his name. Philodemus does mention
Musaeus, possibly following Eudemus.
42 Henrichs (1972) 78. Salati (2012) 213 points out that this lack of order is common to all the
references in the treatise.
43 Casadio (1999) 41–42; Zhmud (20042) 563, and (2006) 130.
44 Casadio (1999) 44.
45 In Metaph. 12.6.1071b27 and 12.10.1075b26 Aristotle distinguishes between θεολόγοι (com-
prising Orpheus, Homer, Hesiod, Pherecydes, and the Persian Magoi, at least) and φυσικοί. See
Palmer (2000) and Zhmud (2006) 130–131. According to this distinction, when the project of writ-
ing histories of the sciences was undertaken in the Lyceum, Aristotle entrusted the compilation
of the opinions of the nature philosophers to Theophrastus, who composed the Φυσικῶν δόξαι
in 16 (or 18) books (Diog. Laërt. 5.46; 48) and the history of theology to Eudemus, whose work
survives in fr. 150 Wehrli and deals only with the mythographers. See Zhmud (2006) ch. 4, esp.
125–127 and 130–131.
4 Pherecydes and the Spartan kings

( [Phld.], [Philosophorum historia?] )
The next testimony about Pherecydes of Syros, absent in the editions of his frag-
ments,46 comes from a Herculaneum papyrus (PHerc. 1788) that contains a work
of uncertain author and unknown title, recently re-edited and studied by Chris-
tian Vassallo.47 Although the work has been traditionally interpreted as polemic,
Vassallo views it as a more or less neutral exposition of the lives and doctrines of
several authors and claims that it probably belongs to Philodemus’ Philosophorum
historia (Σύνταξις τῶν φιλοσόφων). Despite the fragmentary condition of its eight
fragments, there are allusions to several Presocratics, such as (in the new order
of the fragments proposed by Vassallo) Pherecydes (col. 1 Vassallo), Thales (col. 3
Vassallo), Pythagoras and Gorgias (col. 5 Vassallo), Empedocles (col. 6 Vassallo),
Democritus (col. 7 Vassallo), and again Democritus along with Leucippus (col. 8
Vassallo). An argument in favour of the new arrangement of the fragments is the fact
that the authors appear in a chronological order (with the exception of Gorgias in
relation to Empedocles and Leucippus to Democritus). The text reads thus:
PHerc. 1788, col. 1 Vassallo (= fr. 8 Crönert)
- - -]νδ[ · · (·)]τω[- - -
- - -]ιου ἀρχῆς εν[- - -
- - -]κ͙α͙ὶ Φερεκύδ̣[ης - - -
- - -] Θεόπομπον [- - -
5 - - -]τασ[ · · (·)] · , Ζευξ͙ίδ̣[- - -
- - -]τυα[ · (·)]ιης Ἀρχίδ̣[- - -
Ἱπ]π̣οκρατίδας̣ αστ[- - -
- - -]στων[ · ]ηματ[ · ]α[- - -
9 - - -]τενι[ · · · ] · [ · (·)]αρ[- - -
desunt versus plures
2 β]ίου vel βιβλ]ίου? prop. Santamaría || 3 suppl. Crönert || 4 κατὰ τὸν] Crönert || 5–7
Ζευξ͙ίδ[α|μος μὲν Ἀσ]τυα[ί]νης, Ἀρχίδ[α|μος δὲ rest. Crönert || 7 Ἱπ]ποκρατίδας͙ Santamaría :
Ἱπ]ποκρατιδαίας· τleg. ac suppl. Crönert || Ἀστ[υάγης Vassallo e.g. || 8 σοφι]στῶν [ῥ]ήματ[α]
fort. Santamaría
(...) of the rule (or: beginning) (...) and Pherecydes (...) Theopompus (...) Zeuxidamus (...)
Archidamus (?) (...) Hippocratidas (...)
46 DK and Schibli (1990).

47 Vassallo (2017).
The name Pherecydes may allude to the author from Syros or to the one from
Athens, who are both mentioned by Philodemus.48 The identity of Theopompus
is not certain either, because he may be the 4th-cent. historian or a king of Sparta,
whose reign took place between the eighth and the seventh centuries. The other
names, Zeuxidamus, Archidamus (this reading is uncertain) and Hippocratidas,
correspond to members of the Eurypontid dynasty, but their mutual relationship
is far from sure.49 According to Pausanias (3.7.5–6), the king Theopompus was
the father of Archidamus, who died in his father’s lifetime. Archidamus was the
father of Zeuxidamus, who succeeded his grandfather. Hippocratidas is not men-
tioned.50 Herodotus echoes a different tradition: in 8.131 he offers the genealog-
ical line of Leotychidas II (491–476), which includes the sequence Theopompus/
Anaxandridas I/Archidamus I/Anaxilaus/Leotychidas I/Hippocratidas (great
grandfather of Leotychidas II).
Regarding the identity of Theopompus, it is possible that Philodemus names
the historian as the source of his information about Pherecydes. In fact, Theo-
pompus speaks about Pherecydes of Syros several times in his work. In his Mira
bilia,51 he says that Pherecydes advised the Spartans not to honor gold or silver,
since in a dream Heracles had instructed him to do so, and that same night the
hero had enjoined upon the Spartan kings to obey Pherecydes. The historian 52
also states that Pherecydes was the first to write about nature and the gods (or
nature of the gods?). There are other testimonia concerning Pherecydes’ connec-
tion with Sparta, all of them probably unhistorical:53 (a) Theopompus54 says that,
48 For the allusions to Pherecydes of Athens in De pietate see Salati (2012) 240–245. Recently,
Fleischer (2019) suggested that PHerc. 1788, col. 1 contains a list of Spartan kings derived from
the work of Pherecydes of Athens.
49 In l. 6 Crönert proposed Ἀσ]τυα[ί]ν̣ης, who could be the mother (or wife?) of Zeuxidamus
or Archidamus, but the name is not documented anywhere. This name or a similar one may be
present in l. 7 αστ[.
50 On the complex question of the Spartan kings in 7h and 6th cent., see Cartledge (2002 2)
292–298. Hippocratidas appears in a lyric fragment attributed to Simonides (S 319 SLG = POxy.
XXXII 2623, l. 11). On this fragment, see Nobili (2012), who thinks (165, 176–177, and 180) that
it belongs to an epinicion addressed to Zeuxidamus (mentioned in l. 6), son of Leotychidas II
(king: 491–476; cf. Hdt. 6.71), and maybe also to Leotychidas himself; Hippocratidas is mentioned
as Zeuxidamus’ ancestor. Plutarch attributes sayings to Theopompus (Apoth. Lac. 190a) and
Hippocratidas (222a–b).
51 FGrHist 115 F 71, ap. Diog. Laërt. 1.116 (= fr. 16 Schibli).
52 FGrHist 115 F 71, ap. Diog. Laërt. 1.116 (= fr. 1 Schibli).
53 As West (1971) 3–4, Schibli (1990) 6, and Breglia Pulci Doria (2000) 174 point out. These testi-
monies may come from Theopompus, as West (1971) 4 remarks, but it is impossible to be certain.
54 FGrHist 115 F 70, in Porph. (fr. 408 Smith) ap. Euseb. Praep. evang. 10.3.6–9 (= fr. 22 Schibli);
cf. Diog. Laërt. 1.116 (= fr. 16 Schibli), where Theopompus is not mentioned.
when Pherecydes was going from Olympia to Messene, he advised his host Per-
ilaus to flee with his family, and soon Messene fell; (b) according to Plutarch,55
Terpander, Thales and Pherecydes received special honours in Sparta because
with their poetry and philosophy “they accomplished the same things as Lycur-
gus”; Pherecydes’ warning with regard to gold and silver is similar to Lycurgus’
prohibition of coinage;56 (c) Plutarch also recounts that the Spartans killed Phere-
cydes and that the kings, following an oracle, preserved his skin.57
A problem with the identification of the Theopompus mentioned in the
papyrus with the historian is that Philodemus never refers to him and the papyrus
does not specify the sources about the philosophers’ lives and doctrines (with
the possible exception of col. 3.8–9 Vassallo, which seems to allude to the fifth
book of an author). Moreover, the presence of other members of the Eurypontid
dynasty makes it likelier that Theopompus is the Spartan king. It would yield
a sequence of three successive generations, since Theopompus is the father of
Archidamus and the grandfather of Zeuxidamos. The latter is mentioned after
Theopompus because he succeeded his grandfather in the reign, according to
Pausanias (3.7.5–6).
With regard to the identity of the Pherecydes that appears in the papyrus,
he must be the one from Syros, given the several links with Sparta present in his
biographical tradition. However, the temporal coincidence of Pherecydes with
these kings is impossible or implausible. There are two chronologies for Phere-
cydes’ life, high and low. The high one is offered by the Suda (s.v. Φερεκύδης =
fr. 2 Schibli), which says that he was born around the 45th Olympiad (600/596)
and lived at the time of Lydian king Alyattes (605/560). The main testimonies for
the low chronology are Diogenes Laërtius (1.121 = fr. 5 Schibli), for whom Phere-
cydes lived (γέγονε) in the 59th Olympiad (544/541), in possible allusion to his
floruit, and Cicero (Tusc. 1.16.38 = fr. 7 Schibli), who states that he lived during
Servius Tullius’ reign in Rome (578–535). A solution to this discrepancy, proposed
by Rohde and accepted by Schibli,58 is to emend the reading of the Suda from με´
(Ol. 45) into μθ´ (Ol. 49 = 584/581), an attractive proposal. By consequence, Phere-
cydes’ birth can be posited c. 584 and his floruit c. 544. As for the Spartan kings,
Theopompus was king during the First Messenian War, at the end of 8th cent.
BC.59 If Zeuxidamus (or Archidamus I) and Hippocratidas really reigned, their
55 Ag. 10.6 (= fr. 23 Schibli). It is told also by Olymp. In Alcib. 162.104 Westerink (= fr. 24 Schibli).
56 West (1971) 4; Schibli (1990) 6.
57 Plut. Pel. 21.3 (= fr. 25 Schibli). For Sosibius (FGrHist 595 F 15, ap. Diog. Laërt. 1.115), the skin is
that of Epimenides. Bremmer (1993) thinks that the story regarding Pherecydes is a later version.
58 Schibli (1990) 2.
59 Paus. 4.4.4, 4.6.5, who quotes Tyrt. fr. 5.1–2 West.
respective reigns must have taken place in early or middle 7th cent. and in late 7th
cent. or early 6th cent. BC. If we accept the Suda’s high chronology, at the end of
Hippocratidas’ reign Pherecydes would have been in his twenties (in the best sce-
nario), too early an age to establish any link with Sparta. However, the testimony
need not be historical, as the rest probably are not.
Taking into account the other fragments of the papyrus, Pherecydes of Syros
is dealt with before other Presocratics, mentioned in an essentially chronological
order. It is a remarkable fact, since it reflects a doxographic tradition different to
the one reflected in De pietate, in which Pherecydes of Syros is included among
the theologoi, poets and mythographers strictly separated from the physikoi, fol-
lowing the Aristotelian and Peripatetic distinction. In contrast to this practice,
in PHerc. 1788 Pherecydes is the first of the philosophers of nature, or at least a
forerunner that is worth studying alongside them.
5 Conclusions
Pherecydes of Syros is one of the early Greek prosists more favoured by the papy-
rological tradition, not so much for the abundance of the references, but for the
fortunate find in Oxyrhychus of a papyrus (PGrenf. II 11) containing a fragment
of his book (probably the first prose work in Greek literature), one of the very
scarce direct specimens of early Greek prose, along with a fragment in papyrus
that may belong to Hellanicus of Lesbos’ Atlantis. This text of Pherecydes offers
important details about one of the narration’s crucial episodes (if not the most
crucial), the nuptials of Zas and Chthonie, who receives a beautiful cloak fash-
ioned by the bridegroom as her wedding gift (anakalypteria). When Chthonie
wears it, she is transformed into the earth and the cloak becomes its surface,
which constitutes a cosmogony and renders Zas the clearest antecedent of the
Platonic Demiurge.
Apart from this papyrus, there are two mentions of Pherecydes in the Hercu-
lanean library. Neither of them offers relevant information about him, but they
allow us to gain a better understanding of the contexts in which the traditions
about this and other authors were formed and spread. In a fragment of Philode-
mus’ De pietate (PHerc. 247, col. 6a Schober) Pherecydes is named at the end of
a thorough catalogue of the first gods according to several poets and mythogra-
phers. Philodemus follows the Peripatetic distinction between physikoi and the
ologoi, among whom Pherecydes is included.
In another fragment, perhaps from Philodemus’ Philosophorum historia
(PHerc. 1788, col. 1 Vassallo), Pherecydes is mentioned apparently in relation to
several Spartan kings (or members of the royal family), a testimony absent in the
editions of the author which should be added to other evidence of his connec-
tions with Sparta. Considering the other fragments of the papyrus, the mention
of Pherecydes is the first of several references to the lives and doctrines of certain
early philosophers, that essentially follows a chronological order. In contrast to
the other Herculaneum papyrus, in this case Pherecydes is considered the first
link of the chain formed by very renowed presocratic thinkers (plus a sophist,
Gorgias), a rare and valuable testimony of a doxographical tradition alternative
to the Peripatetic one, in which Pherecydes was placed in the ranks not of the
physicists, but of the theologians.
References
Betegh (2002): Gábor Betegh, “On Eudemus Fr. 150 (Wehrli)”, in: István Bodnár and William
W. Fortenbaugh (eds.), Eudemus of Rhodes, New Brunswick, 337–357.
Breglia Pulci Doria (2000): Luisa Breglia Pulci Doria, “Ferecide di Siro tra orfici e pitagorici”,
in: Marisa Tortorelli Ghidini, Alfredina Storchi Marino and Amedeo Visconti (eds.), Tra
Orfeo e Pitagora: Origini e incontri di culture nell’antichità, Naples, 161–194.
Bremmer (1993): Jan N. Bermmer, “The Skins of Pherekydes and Epimenides”,
in: Mnemosyne 46, 234–236.
Cameron (2004): Alan Cameron, Greek Mythography in the Roman World, Oxford.
Cartledge (2002): Paul Cartledge, Sparta and Lakonia: A Regional History, 1300–362 BC,
London/New York (1st ed. 1979).
Casadio (1999): Giovanni Casadio, “Eudemo di Rodi: Un pioniere della storia delle religioni tra
Oriente e Occidente”, in: WS 112, 39–54.
Classen (1962): Carl J. Classen, “The Creator in Greek Thought from Homer to Plato”,
in: C&M 23, 1–22.
Fleischer (2019): Kilian J. Fleischer, “Die älteste Liste der Könige Spartas: Pherekydes von Athen
(PHerc. 1788, col. 1)”, in: ZPE 209, 1–24.
Ford (2002): Andrew Ford, The Origins of Criticism: Literary Culture and Poetic Theory in
Classical Greece, Princeton/Oxford.
Fowler (2001): Robert L. Fowler, Early Greek Mythography, I: Text and Introduction, Oxford.
Fowler (2013): Robert L. Fowler, Early Greek Mythography, II: Commentary, Oxford.
Gheerbrant (2018): Xavier Gheerbrant, “Le rythme de la prose de Phérécyde de Syros.
Mythographie en prose et poésie en hexamètre dactylique”, in: Mnemosyne 71, 367–383.
Gomperz (1866): Theodor Gomperz, Philodem: Über Frömmigkeit, Leipzig.
Granger (2007): Herbert Granger, “The Theologian Pherecydes of Syros and the Early Days of
Natural Philosophy”, in: HSCPh 103, 135–163.
Grenfell (1896): Bernard P. Grenfell, An Alexandrian Erotic Fragment and Other Greek Papyri
Chiefly Ptolemaic (PGrenf. I), Oxford.
Grenfell/Hunt (1897): Bernard P. Grenfell and Arthur S. Hunt, Greek Papyri, Series II: New
Classical Fragments and other Greek and Latin Papyri (PGrenf. II), Oxford.
Henrichs (1972): Albert Henrichs, “Toward a New Edition of Philodemus’ Treatise On Piety”,
in: GRBS 13, 67–98.
Henrichs (1975): Albert Henrichs, “Philodems De pietate als mythographische Quelle”,
in: CErc 5, 5–38.
Laks (2001): André Laks, “Écriture, prose, et les débuts de la philosophie grecque”,
in: Methodos 1, 131–151 [= Id., Histoire, doxographie, vérité : Études sur Aristote,
Théophraste et la philosophie présocratique, Louvain-la-Neuve 2007, 247–266].
Laks (2009): André Laks, “Une doxographie d’Aristote (Métaphysique, Nu 4, 1091A33–91B15)
et le sens d’un καί (Phérécyde, 7A7 DK, F81 Schibli)”, in: REG 122, 635–643.
Lisi (1985): Francisco L. Lisi Bereterbide, “La teología de Ferecides de Siro”, in: Helmantica 36,
251–276.
Macris/Goulet (2012): Constantin Macris and Richard Goulet, “Phérécyde de Syros”,
in: DPhA V, 296–300.
Nobili (2012): Cecilia Nobili: “Un epinicio di Simonide per gli spartani (Simonide frr. 34 e 76
Poltera = 519 fr. 132 PMG/S 319 e S 363 SLG)”, in: Maria P. Bologna and Massimiliano
Ornaghi (eds.), Novissima studia: Dieci anni di antichistica milanese, Milan, 151–180.
Obbink (1996): Dirk Obbink, Philodemus. On Piety, Part 1: Critical Text with Commentary,
Oxford.
Obbink (2011): Dirk Obbink “Orphism, Cosmogony, and Genealogy (Mus. fr. 14)”, in: Miguel
Herrero de Jáuregui, Ana I. Jiménez San Cristóbal, Eugenio R. Luján Martínez, Raquel
Martín Hernández, Marco A. Santamaría and Sofía Torallas Tovar (eds.), Tracing Orpheus:
Studies of Orphic Fragments in honour of Alberto Bernabé, Berlin/Boston, 351–353.
Palmer (2000): John A. Palmer, “Aristotle on the Ancient Theologians”, in: Apeiron 33, 181–205.
Palomar (2012): Natalia Palomar, “El manto nupcial de Zas: Obra y acción cosmogónica”,
in: Eulàlia Vintró, Francesca Mestre and Pilar Gómez (eds.), Homenatge a Montserrat
Jufresa, Barcelona, 251–264.
Salati (2012): Ornella Salati, “Mitografi e storici in Filodemo (De pietate, pars altera)”,
in: CErc 42, 209–258.
Santamaría (forthcoming): Marco A. Santamaría, “The Emergence of the World in Early Greek
Theogonies from Homer to Acusilaus”, in: Alberto Bernabé and Raquel Martín Hernández
(eds.), Narrating the Beginnings.
Saudelli (2011): Lucia Saudelli, “Le chêne et le voile de Phérécyde : Note sur un témoignage du
gnostique Isidore (7 B 2 DK, F 76 S)”, in: REG 124, 79–92.
Scheid/Svenbro (1996): John Scheid and Jesper Svenbro, The Craft of Zeus: Myths of Weaving
and Fabric, Cambridge (MA).
Schibli (1990): Hermann S. Schibli, Pherekydes of Syros, Oxford.
Schober (1988): Adolf Schober, “Philodemi De pietate Pars prior”, in: CErc 18, 67–125
[= Id., Philodemi Περὶ εὐσεβείας libelli partem priorem restituit A. Schober, Diss. ined.
Königsberg 1923].
Snyder (1981): Jane M. Snyder, “The Web of Song: Weaving Imagery in Homer and the Lyric
Poets”, in: CJ 76, 193–196.
Thomas (2007): Oliver Thomas, “Charting the Atlantic with Hesiod and Hellanicus”,
in: ZPE 160, 15–23.
Usener (1858): Hermann Usener, Analecta Theophrastea, Leipzig [= Id., Kleine Schriften,
vol. 1: Arbeiten zur griechischen Philosophie und Rhetorik: Grammatische und textkritische
Beiträge, ed. by Ludwig Radermacher, Leipzig/Berlin 1912, 71–87].
Vassallo (2017): Christian Vassallo, “P.Herc. 1788 ([Philodemi] [Philosophorum historia?]):

Introduction, Edition and Commentary”, in: AnPap 29, 7–56.
Wehrli (1968): Fritz Wehrli, “Eudemos von Rhodos”, in: RE, Suppl. XI, 652–658.
Wehrli (1969): Fritz Wehrli, Die Schule des Aristoteles: Texte und Kommentar, vol. 8:
Eudemos von Rhodos, Basel/Stuttgart (1st. ed. 1955).
West (1963): Martin L. West, “Three Presocratic Cosmologies”, in: CQ 13, 154–176.
West (1971): Martin L. West, Early Greek Philosophy and the Orient, Oxford.
Zhmud (2004): Leonid Zhmud, “Eudemos aus Rhodos, Menon und weitere Aristotelesschüler”,
in: Friedrich Überweg (ed.), Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie; Hellmut Flashar
(ed.), Die Philosophie der Antike, vol. 3: Ältere Akademie, Aristoteles, Peripatos, Basel,
558–565 (1st ed. 1983).
Zhmud (2006): Leonid Zhmud, The Origin of the History of Science in Classical Antiquity, Berlin/
New York.

Santamaria. Pherecydes of Syros in PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Santamaria. Pherecydes of Syros in PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Marco A.

Marco A. Santamaría, University of Salamanca

2 The wedding of Zas and Chthonie ( PGrenf. II 11)

PGrenf. II 11 (= Pherec. fr. 68 Schibli)

καὶ θεραπαίνας καὶ

17 It is called κόσμου μίμημα in Schol. ad Arat. 26.16.

From a bibliological perspective, the Pherecydes papyrus is of enormous

3 Doxography on first principles

8 τὰ Nauck, π]άντα Quaranta || 9 ]κ Ν || spatium post αιδου in N || 9–10 Δι[| · · · ]μ Ν : Δι|[ός]{.}

4 Pherecydes and the Spartan kings

PHerc. 1788, col. 1 Vassallo (= fr. 8 Crönert)

46 DK and Schibli (1990).

Vassallo (2017): Christian Vassallo, “P.Herc. 1788 ([Philodemi] [Philosophorum historia?]):

You might also like