The Conception of The Goddess Hecate in Plutarch

chapter 14
The Conception of the Goddess Hecate in Plutarch

Nerea López Carrasco
1 Introduction
Plutarch’s extensive knowledge regarding a wide range of subjects from the

ancient world is often an essential reference for modern literary, historical and
cultural studies. This chapter deals with the conception of the goddess Hec-
ate transmitted by Plutarch. As I will show, he constitutes a turning point for
Hecate’s literary tradition.
Hecate first appeared in Greek literature in Hesiod’s Theogony, where she is
a Great Mother Goddess with power over the earth, the sea and the sky.1 She
takes part in the Eleusinian cult of Demeter and Persephone2 and is present
in lyric compositions3 and in Attic tragedies4 and comedies. In some Hellen-
istic authors5 Hecate displays a wide array of powers, especially in the Greek
Magical Papyri (PGM),6 due to her association with many other divinities. Plut-
arch’s acquaintance with Hecate seems influenced by this tradition, and he
took the first step to introduce new astral attributions into the characteriza-
tion of Hecate. In Neoplatonic conceptions, Hecate was identified with the Soul
of the World which uttered some of the Chaldean Oracles7 according to the
later Neoplatonic philosophers.8 This literary tradition explains why authors
1 Hes., Th. 411–452. B., fr. 1B Snell/Maehler; Call., fr. 466 Pf.
2 h.Cer. 25, 52, 59, 438.
3 Pi., P. 52B.78 M; B., fr. 1B Snell/Maehler.
4 A., Supp. 676; E., Ph. 110; Stat., Ach. 1.447, Theb. 12.125–129, Med. 397, Hel. 569, fr. 968; Ar., Lys.,
Ec. 70, 1097, Th. 858, Pl. 594, 764, 1070, fr. 594.
5 Call., fr. 466 Pf.; Theoc., Id. 2; Schol. Theoc., 2.12; A.R. 3.251, 478, 529, 738, 842, 915, 985, 1035,
1211, 4.247, 829.
6 PGM 3.47, PGM 4.1432, 1443, 1462, 2112, 2606, 2628, 2689, 2711, 2724, 2742, 2812, 2876, 2953, PGM
36.190, PGM 70.5, 25.
7 Orac.Chald. fr. 32, 35, 50, 52, 130, 219, 221, 224; E. Des Places, Oracles Chaldaïques (Paris: Les
Belles Lettres, 1989).
8 Procl., in Ti. 1.420.13–16 (= p. 19 Kroll); Dam. 2.133.3–6 (= p. 20 Kroll), 2.164.19 (= p. 27 Kroll);
Psellus, P.G. 122.1136A 11–12 (= p. 28 Kroll); Procl., in Ti. 3.266.19 and 21–23 (= p. 54 Kroll);
Eus., PE 5.8.4–6, 5.12.1; Nichephorus Gregoras, In Synesium de ins. P.G. 149, 604 AB, 539BC;
N. Terzaghi S.I.F.C. 12, 1904, p. 191. See Des Places, Oracles Chaldaïques, 74–75, 79–80, 98, 118–
120.
© Nerea López Carrasco, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004443549_016

the conception of the goddess hecate in plutarch 257
like Ronan9 distinguish at least three historical stages for Hecate’s cult: a Great
Mother Goddess, a magic divinity that turns into a moon-goddess and, finally,
a cosmic deity.
I will review eleven passages from Moralia in which Hecate is mentioned,
supporting the information transmitted by Plutarch with additional references
to the goddess in the Greco-Roman literary tradition.
The scheme below shows the passages commented in this paper:
Ritual context Astral context
Regular worship Magic worship De facie 944C
Regum et imperatorum De superstitione 166A De defectu oraculorum 416E

apophthegmata 193F
De Iside et Osiride
379D
Quaestiones convivales 708F– Gryllus 986A De Iside et Osiride 368E

709A
Quaestiones Romanae 290D
Quaestiones Romanae 280C
Quaestiones Romanae
277AB
9 See S. Ronan (ed.), The Goddess Hekate. Studies in Ancient Pagan and Christian Religion and
Philosophy (Hastings: Chthonios Books, 1992) 5. Ronan considers three historical stages for
Hecate’s cult. In the first one, based on Hesiod’s conception of the goddess, she is a Great
Goddess with solar (rather than lunar) attributes. In the second stage, from Hellenistic period
onwards, Hecate becomes mistress of ghosts, of magic, and, gradually, she becomes a moon-
goddess in the popular thought. This might be the stage of the goddess when Plutarch
includes her in his writings. The third stage shows Hecate’s greatest and definitive develop-
ment as a cosmic deity, under the Neoplatonic conception. The goddess becomes the Soul of
the world, running the intermediary space of the cosmos, connecting the Intelligible and the
Sensible worlds.
258 lópez carrasco
The principal epithets for Hecate in these passages are chthonian10 (χθονία)
meaning ‘earthly’ and ourania (οὐρανία) meaning ‘heavenly’.11 The first one cor-
responds to Hecate’s original earthly-nature and, later, to her infernal profile.12
In the ritual context, Hecate is chthonian when people venerate her at the cross-
roads (regular worship) and when she is the leader of the wondering spirits
(magic worship). In the astral context, chthonian and ourania represent the
double nature of the moon, Hecate and Anubis.
2 Ritual Context
Τοῦ δὲ Χαβρίου περὶ Κόρινθον ὀλίγους τινὰς τῶν Θηβαίων ὑπὸ τὰ τείχη φιλομα-
χοῦντας καταβαλόντος καὶ στήσαντος τρόπαιον, ὁ Ἐπαμεινώνδας καταγελῶν
ἔφη ‘ἐνταῦθα δεῖ οὐ τρόπαιον ἀλλὰ Ἑκατήσιον ἑστάναι·’ τὴν γὰρ Ἑκάτην ἐπιει-
κῶς ἐν ταῖς πρὸ τῶν πυλῶν ἱδρύοντο τριόδοις.
Chabrias, in the vicinity of Corinth, having struck down some few

Thebans whose eagerness led them to carry the fighting to the foot of
the walls, set up a trophy. Epameinondas, ridiculing it, said: “In that place
should stand, not a trophy but a hekatesion”13 for it was in keeping setting
up an image of Hecate, as they used to do, at the meeting of three ways in
front of the gates.
Regum et imperatorum apophthegmata 193F14
The cult statues for Hecate are called hekataia (ἑκαταῖα, ἑκάταια or, rare, ἑκατή-
σια in sing. ἑκαταῖον or ἑκατήσιον15) and represent a triple-shaped Hecate in the
vest of three young girls, looking in different directions and having their backs
10 About the concrete meaning of chthonian deities in Plutarch, see L. Van der Stockt, “No
Cause for Alarm: Chthonic Deities in Plutarch,” in R. Hirsch-Luipold (ed.), Gott und die Göt-
ter bei Plutarch: Götterbilder—Gottesbilder—Weltbilder (Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, 2005)
229–250.
11 About the dichotomy of chthonian and ouranian/olympian categories for Greek divinities,
see N. Serafini, La dea Ecate nell’antica Grecia (Rome: Aracne, 2015) 287–290.
12 Literary tradition of Hecate χθονία in Serafini, La dea Ecate, 291–293.
13 I differ from Babbitt’s translation: “a Hecate.” Probably Plutarch meant the word ἑκαταῖον
instead of ἡκατήσιον, which is a later form transmitted on the manuscripts (F.C. Babbitt,
Plutarch’s Moralia in Fifteen Volumes, vol. III [LCL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press/London: William Heinemann LTD, 1961] 146 note 2).
14 Translation by Babbitt, Plutarch’s Moralia III, 146–147.
15 The variant ἑκατήσιον transmitted by Plutarch also appears in Str., Chr. 14.1.23, Poll. 1.37,
Eun., VS 7.2.7, Man. 5.302, Psellus, Encomium in matrem 1796, Steph., Ethnica (epitome)
attached to a central column. They have an apotropaic function. People con-

secrated them to Hecate in order to keep a place safe from evil spirits. In the
text, Epaminondas mentions that the hekataia were placed at the ‘crossroads’
(τριόδοις), in ‘front of the doors’ (πρὸ τῶν πυλῶν), and at the entrances of houses
and/or cities. The presence of Hecate at crossroads is well attested in literature
and archaeology, since she is the guardian of the gates and liminal spaces.16
The hekataia appeared in the fifth century B.C., and they are found until
late Imperial times.17 The earliest example of a hekataion is a depiction on a
black-figure skyphos (420/410B.C.).18 According to Pausanias, Alcamenes was
the first one to create a triple image of Hecate.19 The lost statue of Alcamenes
was named Epipyrgidia (ἐπιπυργιδíα) ‘in the bastion,’ because it protected the
gates of Athens (the Acropolis) against the enemies.20
262, Et.Gud. epsilon 465.22, Lexicon Artis Grammaticae (e cod. Coislin. 345) 445.3, Sch.Ar.,
V. 804A.
16 Hecate’s role as guardian of the gates is attested from the earliest archaeological testimony
of the goddess that we have. It is a votive inscription of an altar placed at the entrance of
Apollo’s Delphinion at Miletus (6th century BC). G. Kawerau & A. Rehm, “Das Delphin-
ion in Milet,” Königliche Museen zu Berlin 3 (Berlin: G. Reimer, 1914) 125–442, esp. 153–157.
About Hecate and Apollo, see S.I. Johnston, Restless dead: Encounters between the living
and the dead in the ancient Greece (Berkley/Los Angeles/London: University of California
Press, 1999); Serafini, La dea Ecate, 377, 405–412. There is also a little shrine consecrated
to Hecate in Selinunte (sixth century BC), guarding the entrance of the sacred area of
Demeter Malophoros (seventh-sixth century BC); see SEG 34.971 = IGLMP 53; E. Gabrici,
Il santuario della Malophoros a Selinunte (Monumenti Antichi dei Lincei 32; Rome: Bardi,
1927) coll. 379; Serafini, La dea Ecate, 413–425. In classical literary sources, Hecate is already
attested as the guardian and protector of the doors of houses and cities, frequently under
epithets like ἐπιπυργιδíα, προπυλαία and προθυραία. For instance, in A., fr. 388 Radt; Ar., V.
804, Ra. 366 and Lys. 63.
17 The first complete catalogue of hekataia including descriptions is in T. Kraus, Hekate. Stud-
ien zu Wesen und Bild der Göttin in Kleinasien und Griechenland (Heidelberg: Carl Winter,
1960). See also H. Sarian, “Hekate,” (LIMC VI; Zurich/Munich: Artemis Verlag, 1992) 985–
1018; and recently N. Werth, Hekate. Untersuchungen zur dreigestaltigen Göttin (Hamburg:
Verlag Dr. Kovac, 2006). About Hecate and her hekataia at the crossroads, see Serafini,
La dea Ecate, 101–117. About the hekataia from Cirene, see N. Serafini, “La dea Ecate a
Cirene fra storia, culto e iconografia (con un catalogo degli hekataia editi e tre inediti),” in
M. Luni (ed.), Cirene Greca e Romana (Monografie di Archeologia Libica 36; Rome: L’Erma
di Bretschneider, 2014) 107–126.
18 Paus. 2.30.2. See N. Serafini, “Una lekythos attica a figure nere: una nuova lettura,” Ostraka
21 (2012) 177–185.
19 Serafini, La dea Ecate, 317–323.
20 The Epipyrgidia statue was took to the Acropolis around the year 430BC, coinciding with
the rebuilding of the temple of Athena Niké; see Sarian, “Hekate,” 999, n. 131. The statue
was probably represented on tetradrachms from Tryphone and Polycharmo; see C. Del-
voye, “Kraus (Theodor). Hekate: Studien zu Wesen und Bild der Göttin in Kleinasien und
Griechenland,” RBPH 40.4. (1962) 1353–1355.
260 lópez carrasco
The hekataia are first mentioned by Aristophanes,21 and there are no further
mentions of them before Plutarch.22 After him, Harpocration23 and Hesychius
used the term. Later, in the Chaldean Oracles, Hecate herself gives instructions
to the devotees about how they must prepare a cult statue for her.24
The triodoi (τρίοδοι25) are related to Hecate’s intervention at the crossroads26
and with her triple-shape. This triplicity27 represents her power on the earth,
in the sea and across the sky,28 and it will become a common feature for Hecate
and the moon29 along with a crucial aspect in magic texts.30 Although the epi-
thet trioditis in Plutarch refers to the moon31 but not to Hecate, curiously, the
word triodos (‘crossroad’) is used almost every time with reference to Hecate.32
Crossroads are in general dangerous places, littered with violent episodes33 and
terrible apparitions.
… οἶμαι, τοῦ πλήθους φείδεσθαι δίκαιός ἐστι, μὴ καθάπερ ἐκ πολεμίας ὁμοῦ

πᾶσι τοῖς περὶ αὑτὸν ἐπισιτιζόμενος μηδ᾽, ὥσπερ οἱ χώρας καταλαμβάνοντες
21 Ar., Ra. 366: ‘the Cyclian singer who dares befoul the Lady Hecate’s wayside shrine’ (ἢ κατα-
τιλᾷ τῶν Ἑκατείων κυκλίοισι χοροῖσιν ὑπᾴδων), translation in B. Bickley Rogers, Aristo-
phanes, in three Volumes II: The Peace, The Birds, The Frogs (London/New York: William
Heinemann/G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1927) 331.
22 See note 25 below.
23 Harp. ὀξυθύμια: p. 224 Dindorf; Hsch. epsilon 1258 Latte. The term is alluded but not directly
mentioned in Sch. Theoc., Id. 2.35/36A: p. 278, 9–10 Wendel.
24 However, the term used is xoanon instead of hekataion. Orac.Chald. 224 Des Places; Eus.,
PE 5.12.1; Niceph. Greg., In Synesium de ins., P.G., 149, 539AB; N. Terzaghi, S.I.F.C., XII, 1904,
pp. 189–190.
25 Hecate trioditis (τριοδῖτις) was venerated in Thrace and Dacia; see V. Casella, Ecate in Dacia
tra latinanza e assimilazione (Genoa: Università degli Studi di Genova) forthcoming. It is
also a recurrent epithet in the PGM applied to Hecate and Selene in PGM 4.2522, 2724,
2820 and to Persephone in PGM 4.2958.
26 About the crossroads as ritual liminal points in general and in relation with Hecate, see
S.I. Johnston, “Crossroads,” ZPE 88 (1991) 217–224.
27 A. Zografou, “L’énigme de la triple Hécate de l’ entre-deux à la triplicité,” in C. Batsch et
al. (eds.), Zwischen Krise und Alltag (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1999) 57–79. There are many
and varied archaeological representations of triple Hecate, see Sarian, “Hekate” 998–1004,
nn. 112–215.
28 Hes., Th. 413–414.
29 Archaeological representations of Hecate and Selene in Sarian, “Hekate” 1007, nn. 247–
266.
30 For instance, a syncretic hymn for Hecate-Selene in PGM 4.2522–2567; see J.L. Calvo Mar-
tínez, “Himno sincrético a Mene-Hécate (PGM 4.2522–2567),” MHNH 10 (2010) 219–238.
31 Plu., De facie 937E.
32 Plu., De sup. 170B, Quaest. rom. 290D, fr. 200 and Ps.-Plu., De proverbiis Alexandrinorum 8.
33 For example, the murder of Layos in Oedipus. About the threatening crossroads as a place
for ritual practices, see Johnston, “Crossroads,” 217, 218, 222.
ἐν τῷ πεττεύειν, ἀεὶ τοῖς ἰδίοις φίλοις τοὺς τοῦ καλέσαντος ἐκκρούων καὶ ἀπο-
κρούων ἅπαντας, ὥστε πάσχειν τοὺς δειπνίζοντας, ἃ πάσχουσιν οἱ τῇ Ἑκάτῃ
καὶ τοῖς ἀποτροπαίοις ἐκφέροντες τὰ δεῖπνα, μὴ γευομένους αὐτοὺς μηδὲ τοὺς
οἴκοι, πλὴν καπνοῦ καὶ θορύβου μετέχοντας.
Now, I suppose, the first obligation of one who is invited and himself asks
others is to be careful not to ask too many. He must not seek provisions
for everyone about him, as though they were an army living off enemy
country, nor, like a prayer seizing squares in a game of pettoi, always be
squeezing out his host’s men with his own friends, or driving them all from
the board. This would put the host in the position of people setting out
suppers for Hecatê34 and the apotropaic spirits:35 they never get a taste
themselves but smoke and tumult.
Quaestiones convivales 708F–709A36
At the hekataia travelers made offerings called deîpna (δεῖπνα)37 ‘suppers’ for
Hecate. During classical period, Hecate’s deîpna consisted of real food38 placed
at the crossroads.39 It must not to be burnt or consumed,40 unlike the sacred
meals for Olympic gods. From fifth century B.C., this ritual for Hecate was asso-
ciated with the sacrifice of little dogs.41
34 I keep the spelling of the translation, with a “long accent” on the final –e (–ê), but will
write the name Hecate without the graphical accent in the text.
35 ἃ πάσχουσιν οἱ τῇ Ἑκάτῃ καὶ τοῖς ἀποτροπαίοις ἐκφέροντες τὰ δεῖπνα. I disagree with Minar,
Sandbach and Hembold’s translation ‘people setting out suppers for Hecate and the hos-
tile spirits’; I prefer to translate ‘apotropaic’, it does not need to have bad connotations.
36 Translation by L.E. Minar et al., Plutarch’s Moralia in Fifteen Volumes, vol. IX (Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press/London: William Heinemann LTD, 1969) 65–67.
37 Sometimes, the term hekataia refers to the votive ‘suppers’; Harpocr. s.v. ὀξυθύμια p. 224,
5 Dindorf. I will only use hekataia to refer the statues and deîpna for ritual-offerings
(whether food-offerings or dog-sacrifices). See Hecate’s suppers in K.F. Smith, “Hekate’s
Suppers,” in Ronan, The goddess Hekate, 57–63; Serafini, La dea Ecate, 118–146.
38 These rituals are first attested in a lost play by Sophocles: τὰς Ἑκαταίας μαγίδας δόρπων (S.,
fr. 734 R. = 668 N). The term hekataia means ‘offering for Hecate’ while μαγίδες means ‘holy
meal’ in general. Sophron gives information about the kind of food: δεῖπνον ταῖς θείαις καὶ
ὁμώρους καὶ ἡμιάρτιον Ἑκάται. (Sophr., fr. 27 Kaibel): κριβανίται are a type of bread baked in
a vessel called κρίβανος (Ar., fr. 125); ὁμώρους or ὅμουρα (Hsch. o 817 Latte) was flat boiled
bread made with honey and sesame; ἡμιάρτιον refers a half-loaf of bread (Epich. 52). See
Smith, “Hekate’s Suppers,” 58 and Serafini, La dea Ecate, 120–121, 131–135.
39 Demosth., LIV 39; Ar., Pl. 594 and schol.; Plu., Quaest. rom. 290D, Quaest. conv. 708F; Apol-
lod., FGRHist. 224 F 109 ap. Ath., Deipn. 645AB (for Artemis at the crossways) and Etym.
Mag. 95.1.
40 Schol. Luc. Dial. Mort. 1, p. 252 Rabe.
41 Sophron, following the Scholiast of Lycophron: Θύουσι δὲ αὐτῇ [Rhea or Hecate] κύνα, ῶς
262 lópez carrasco
In the text, Plutarch jokingly compares the symposiac episode, where people
“never get a taste themselves,”42 with the deîpna, consecrated to Hecate or to
any other apotropaic spirits. If Plutarch was not being strictly ironic, then this
text contains a key detail that points to a substantial difference between the
way of executing the ritual before and after Plutarch. That is, the fact that
someone ate the sacred meals for Hecate. Maybe Plutarch just meant to com-
pare the gluttony guests with poor people who ate the ritual food43 “even before
it had been offered to the divinity.”44 Or maybe Plutarch means that Hecate was
thought to eat her own offerings.45
From the fifth century BC, Hecate is present at crossroads and there her cult
has a double dimension. On one hand, she is a favorable divinity, keeping away
the evil and assuring a safe trip. On the other hand, she is the leader of spirits.
This constitutes her scariest profile. Therefore, modern scholars46 conceived
of Hecate at the crossroads from two different points of view: as a threatening
or as a protector goddess, or as simultaneously a philanthropic and dangerous
divinity.47 However, in this text, it seems to me that Plutarch highlights the
philanthropic side of Hecate, because the offerings are consecrated to other
apotropaic spirits as well. Johnston asserts that Hecate’s deîpna “secured pro-
tection and success for the individual traversing dissociated, uncertain liminal
point or embarking there a new enterprise.”48 Hecate was supposed to protect
travelers from the ghosts dwelling at liminal spaces like crossroads. That is why
Plutarch linked her with the apotropaic gods that prevent evil.
φησι Σώφρων ἐν Μίμοις· ὁ γὰρ κύων βαύξας λύει τὰ φάσματα, ὡς καὶ χαλκὸς χροτηθεὶς εἴτε τι
τοιοῦτον, schol. Tztz. in Lycophr. Alex. where Tzetzes refers to Sophron’s Mimes fr. 8 Kaibel.
See G.M.C. Müller, Ισαακιου και Ιωαννου του Τζετζου: Σχολια εις Λυκοφρονα 3 (Lipsiae: Sumtibus
F.C. Vogelii, 1811) 368. Aristophanes: τί δαί; κυνίδιον λευκὸν ἐπρίω τῇ θεῷ εἰς τὰς τριόδους; Ar.,
fr. 204 Kock. Schol. Theoc. 2.11/12D (p. 273, 1–2 Wendel): διὰ τὸ σκύλακος ἐκφέρεσθαι δεῖπνα
τῇ Ἑκάτῃ. Dogs were sacrificed for Aphrodite Genetyllis. Serafini, La dea Ecate, 138–139,
143–144, 212.
42 μὴ γευομένους αὐτοὺς μηδὲ τοὺς οἴκοι.
43 Ar., Pl. 594–597; Call., Hymn 6.113.
44 Φησὶ γὰρ αὕτη [Hecate] τοὺς μὲν ἔχοντας καὶ πλουτοῦντας δεῖπνον κατὰ μῆν᾽ ἀποπέμπειν, τοὺς
δὲ πένητας τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἁρπάζειν πρὶν καταθεῖναι (Ar., Pl. 595–597; Call., Hymn 6.13). Only
poverty and necessity could justify such an act of impiety. Scholars on this passage have
also proposed that maybe it was the goddess herself who ate everything, see Serafini, La
dea Ecate, 122 note 2 for bibliography.
45 A probable description of Hecate in this guise on a lead tablet defixio from Athens from
the first century BC (inv. IL 493), see D.R. Jordan, “Eκατικά,” Glotta 58 (1980) 62–65.
46 A summary of the scholars’ different perceptions, Johnston, “Crossroads,” 219 note 12; Ser-
afini, La dea Ecate, 126–128.
47 Serafini, La dea Ecate, 127–128.
48 Two kinds of rituals celebrate at the crossroads; see Johnston, “Crossroads,” 220–224.
οὐ μὴν οὐδὲ καθαρεύειν ᾤοντο παντάπασιν οἱ παλαιοὶ τὸ ζῷον· καὶ γὰρ Ὀλυμ-
πίων μὲν οὐδενὶ θεῶν καθιέρωται, χθονίᾳ δὲ δεῖπνον Ἑκάτῃ πεμπόμενος εἰς
τριόδους ἀποτροπαίων καὶ καθαρσίων ἐπέχει μοῖραν. ἐν δὲ Λακεδαίμονι τῷ
φονικωτάτῳ θεῶν Ἐνυαλίῳ σκύλακας ἐντέμνουσι· Βοιωτοῖς δὲ δημοσίᾳ καθαρ-
μός ἐστι κυνὸς διχοτομηθέντος τῶν μερῶν διεξελθεῖν· αὐτοὶ δὲ Ῥωμαῖοι τοῖς
Λυκαίοις, ἃ Λουπερκάλια καλοῦσιν, ἐν τῷ καθαρσίῳ μηνὶ κύνα θύουσιν.
Nor, in fact, did the men of old think that this animal [the dog] was wholly
pure, for it was never sacrificed to any of the Olympian gods; and when it
is sent to the cross-roads as a supper for the earth-goddess Hecatê, it has
its due portion among sacrifices that avert and expiate evil. In Sparta they
immolate puppies to the bloodiest of the gods, Enyalius; and in Boeotia
the ceremony of public purification is to pass between the parts of a dog
which has been cut in twain. The Romans themselves, in the month of
purification [February], at the Wolf Festival, which they called Lupercalia,
sacrifice a dog.
Quaestiones Romanae 290D49
Plutarch specifies here that deîpna consists of little dogs (σκύλακας)50 sent to
the crossroads.51 In this case, they should be named thysia (θυσία),52 literally
‘sacrifice’, rather than deîpna, but perhaps it was a matter of linguistic habit.53
49 Translation by F.C. Babbitt, Plutarch’s Moralia in Fifteen Volumes, vol. IV (Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press/London: William Heinemann LTD, 1962) 164–165.
50 The oldest iconographic depiction of Hecate’s deîpna is a red-figure lekythos (second half
of the fifth century BC): it represents a woman holding an animal (probably a little dog)
in one hand and an offering basket in the other. She is placing the animal inside a circle
made of torches (National Museum of Athens 1695. Serafini, La dea Ecate, 119–120 figs. 1–2;
ThesCRA II 3 a, nº 124). Similar sacrifices to Hecate took place at Zerynthos cave in Samo-
thrace (Lyc., Alexandra 72–79). Greeks from Colophon sacrificed of a black female dog for
the crossroads goddess Enodia (Paus. 3.14.9), who was a divinity closely related to Hecate,
especially in Thessaly and Macedonia, see Serafini, La dea Ecate, 107–116. Thus, in PGM
Hecate is called “black female dog” κύων μέλαινα and also einodia (εἰνοδία) “on the road”
(PGM 4.1434). The name of the Thessalian Enodia served sometimes as an epithet of Hec-
ate in these texts (PGM 4.2559, 2609, 2720, 2851). In addition, women of Thessaly (witches)
are said to draw down the moon, Plu., De def. or. 416F.
51 R. Carboni, “Ecate e il mondo infero: Analisi di una divinità liminare,” in I. Baglioni (ed.),
Sulle rive dell’Acheronte: Costruzione e Percezione della sfera del post mortem nel Mediter-
raneo Antico 2, L’Antichità classica e cristiana (Rome: Edizioni Quasar di Severino Tognon,
2014) 47. A chronology of literary sources referring to sacrifices of dogs for Hecate in Ser-
afini, La dea Ecate, 138–146.
52 According to some authors, dogs sacrifices for Hecate (by Greeks or Romans) are included
among the rituals of initiation (Jul., Or. 5.176D).
53 Serafini, La dea Ecate, 146.
264 lópez carrasco
Plutarch’s mentions of deîpna are important for two reasons: first, because
he breaks the silence of literary sources since first attestations in the fifth cen-
tury BC; secondly, because he informs readers about the character of this ritual:
sacrifices that avert and expiate evil, which combines well with the function of
the hekataia.
Dogs served for cleansing rituals, because they were not considered a wholly
pure animal. In fact, dogs could go into the Acropolis and sacred places (Delos
or sacred islands54). Plutarch asserts in Romulus55 that dogs were ‘sacrificial
victims for purification’ (θυσία καθαρισμός), so “Greeks used them in expiat-
ory rituals” (Ἕλληνες ἔν τε τοῖς καθαρσίοις σκύλακας ἐκφέρουσι) like the perisky-
lakismoi (see below). The dog is related with boundaries, so the animal works as
a connective element with the realm of the deceased,56 as well as it protects the
house. These three facets all overlap with Hecate’s cult, hence the close relation
between them.
Plutarch reports a Boeotian ceremony of purification that consisted of rip-
ping a dog apart and walking through the mangled remains. This could be the
ritual consecrated to the goddess Enodia57 (her name meaning “of the road,”58)
Pausanias tells that only Greeks from Colophon sacrificed a black female dog59
for the goddess Enodia. Perhaps Plutarch mentions these Boeotian ceremon-
ies to imply that they were consecrated to Hecate-Enodia. Actually, the cult of
the goddesses was closely associated in Thessaly and Macedon, as revealed by
literary and archaeological testimonies.60
The Lacedaemonian ephebi sacrificed a dog for the war-god Enyalius,
because it served to cleanse the soldiers before an expedition. Hecate’s role in
54 R. Parker, Miasma: Pollution and purification in early Greek religion (Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1996) 357–358.
55 Plu., Rom. 21.10.
56 Procl., in R. 2.338, 10 Kroll; Xenoph., fr. 7 D.-K.; see Serafini, La dea Ecate, 153–154.
57 The same ritual of purification, offered to goddess Enodia, is reported by Q. Curtius Rufus
Historiae Alexandri Magni 10.9–12 and by T. Livius 40.6.1–3. See M. Agudo Villanueva, “Sac-
rificios caninos en las Jándicas,” Gladius 36 (2016) 59–76.
58 Paus. 3.14.9.
59 Hecate was called ‘black female dog’ in PGM 4.1434.
60 Enodia is Hecate’s epithet in Thessaly and Macedon (S., fr. 535.2). It makes sense since
Enodia means ‘in the way’ and Greek Hecate protects the ways and crossroads (Orph., H.
1.1; PGM 4.1431–1433, 2713–2734). Some authors confuse their names (E., Hel. 569–570).
Enodia and Hecate are goddesses of life and death, as represented by their totemic anim-
als: the horse and the dogs. They are involved with childbirth and often participate in
magic charms. They have similar attributes like the torches, the dog and the horse. For ex.
in coins from V–IV century BC from Pherae (Münzkabinett, Berlin Staatl. Mus. 18213540,
18213569, 18213578, 18213601, 18213473, 18213515 and 18213487). See Agudo Villanueva, “Sac-
rificios caninos en las Jándicas,” 64–68.
warfare goes back to the Boeotian Hesiod: she is the assistant to soldiers,61 and
she fought for Zeus’ cause in the Gigantomachia.62
Curiously, the dog also acts as a totemic and sacrificial animal for Hecate.
One of the reasons to consider Hecate an intruder in the Hellenic pantheon63
is the oriental origin64 of these sacrificial practices. Dogs are sacred to foreign
divinities like Enyalius, Enodia or the Egyptian cynocephalus65 Anubis but also
to the Roman childbirth goddess Genita Mana (see below).
In our text, the epithet chthonia serves to 1) distinguish Hecate from the
Olympic gods, 2) to point to death and the infernal realm, 3) represent Hecate’s
influence in the earth. The arrival of the goddess was announced by whining
and howling dogs.66 Hecate and dogs protect entrances and liminal spaces.
In addition, dogs bark at the moon and, as Warr considers, sacrifices of pup-
pies served to propitiate the chthonic moon-goddess.67 Finally, Hecate and her
hounds guide human souls after death, from the earth, across the moon and
towards the intelligible world.
τῷ δὲ κυνὶ πάντες ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν Ἕλληνες ἐχρῶντο καὶ χρῶνταί γε μέχρι νῦν
ἔνιοι σφαγίῳ πρὸς τοὺς καθαρμούς· καὶ τῇ Ἑκάτῃ σκυλάκια μετὰ τῶν ἄλλων
καθαρσίων ἐκφέρουσι καὶ περιμάττουσι σκυλακίοις τοὺς ἁγνισμοῦ δεομένους,
περισκυλακισμὸν τὸ τοιοῦτον γένος τοῦ καθαρμοῦ καλοῦντες·
Nearly all the Greeks used a dog as the sacrificial victim for ceremonies
of purification; and some, at least, make use of it even to this day. They
bring forth for Hecate puppies along with the other materials for purific-
ation, and rub round about with puppies such persons as are in need of
cleansing, and this kind of purification they call periskylakismos (“puppi-
frication”).
Quaestiones Romanae 280C68
61 Hes., Th. 431–433.

62 Frieze of Zeus’ Altar from Pergamon, see Sarian, “Hekate,” 1003 n. 191.
63 L.R. Farnell, “Hekate’s Cult,” in Ronan, The Goddess Hekate, 17–63, esp. 23–24, 49–50.
64 Serafini, La dea Ecate, 138 for bibliography.
65 Hecate is depicted as dog-headed (PGM 4.2115), howling like a dog (κυνολύγματε, PGM
4.2545), having three heads, one of a goat, another of a maiden and third of a dog (PGM
4.2876–2880), or else having a horse’s, a dog’s and a lion’s head (Orph., A. 975; Eust. XIII 85:
p. 1714, 42–43).
66 A.R. 3.529 and 861, 4.829; Theoc., Id. 2; Ov., Heroid. 12.168, Met. 14.405; Stat., Theb. 4. 428;
Virg., Aen. 4.609; Orph., L. 45, 47; Eust., ad Hom. p. 1197, 1887; D.S. 4.45.2; Luc., Philops. 14.
67 G.C.W. Warr, “Hesiodic Hecate,” CR 9 (1895) 392.
68 Translation by Babbitt, Plutarch’s Moralia IV, 105.
266 lópez carrasco
The periskylakismos (περισκυλακισμός) or, as Babbitt says “puppifrication,”

is another purification practise involving dog-sacrifices. It consists in rubbing
“impure” people using quartered puppies that were brought for Hecate. It
took place during the Lupercalia, the “Wolf Festival”69 celebrated in February
(cleansing month).
In the previous section,70 Plutarch proposes four reasons for this practice:
1) periskylakismos was a cathartic ritual of the city; 2) if the Lupercalia is the
Festival of the Wolf (lupus = ‘wolf’), then the dog was sacrificed for being hos-
tile animal to the wolf; 3) barking dogs annoyed the Luperci (people running
around the city whipping pregnant women during the fest); 4) the sacrifice was
for Pan, the shepherd-god. In the first case, periskylakismos should be like Hec-
ate’s deîpna, as both are cleansing rituals.
Plutarch and Pausanias disagree about the diffusion of this practice. While
according to Pausanias only “the people of Colophon” knew the ritual,71 Plut-
arch asserts that “nearly all the Greeks used a dog as the sacrificial victim for
purification ceremonies”. Carboni72 suggests that while Pausanias means the
prohibition of public sacrifices of dogs, Plutarch refers to the dissemination of
these practices in private contexts and in public acts having no connection with
the official and devotional rituals of the city.
Smith73 proposes that it was a process in which “the oldest of the domestic
animals [the dog] acted as the pharmakos, the scapegoat of the entire house-
hold.” Plutarch is one of the first authors to introduce Hecate’s connection
with pollution. In effect, Hecate is involved with pollution only in contexts
of childbirth and burial.74 Moreover, Johnston rightly remarks that Hecate’s
69 Maybe consecrated to Apollo Lyceius (Λύκειος), whose epithet probably means ‘wolf’
(λύκος). The god was worshipped in Lycia, Lycoreia of Mt. Parnassus, Sicyon (Paus. 2.9.7),
Argos (Paus. 2.19.4) and Athens Argos (Paus. 2.19.5). In most of the cases the wolf is
involved in Apollo’s cult (Paus. 2.19.3, 10.14.4; Plu., Pyrrh. 32; comp. Schol. Ad A.R. 2.124,
etc.).
70 Plu., Quaest. rom. 280B.
71 κυνὸς δὲ σκύλακας οὐδένας ἄλλους οἶδα Ἑλλήνων νομίζοντας θύειν ὅτι μὴ Κολοφωνίους·, Paus.
3.14.9. Translation by W.H.S. Jones & H.A. Ormerod, Pausanias. Description of Greece in
Four Volumes with a Companion Volume Containing Maps, Plans and Indices (Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press/London: William Heinemann LTD, 1977) 89.
72 Carboni, “Ecate e il mondo infero,” 46.
73 Smith, “Hekate’s Suppers,” 59.
74 In fact, as Parker remarks, funerary pollution does not involve man’s fear and hatred of
death, or else birth pollution would be inexplicable. Pollution in birth is associated with
the impurity of mother and child during the first days of life: it contributes to define and
limit the period of physical danger and anxiety of mother and child. Thus, the pollution
ceremony ends with a ritual expression of hope for the child’s life, who belongs to this
connection with cleansing and pollution “is rather due to her role as guide
across transitions […] since Hecate and pollution were originally associated
with crossroads for different reasons: she protected the individual during pas-
sage through an uncertain liminal point; polluted household scouring was left
at crossroads because they were dissociated liminal points.”75
Finally, a last remark regarding the “the other materials for purification”
(μετὰ τῶν ἄλλων καθαρσίων) for Hecate. The καθάρσια or καθάρματα were the
household refuse that remains after a domestic ritual of purification.76
Amongst them, Plutarch might refer to the ὀξυθύμια77 or contaminating
remains, sometimes confused with proper Hecate’s deîpna.
Plutarch may have spread this confusion, because he associated the suppers
for Hecate with katharsia. The confusion between these terms must have been
as early as in the first century B.C.,78 since Harpocration79 completely identifies
Hecate’s offerings with domestic refuse and claims to have consulted Didymus
Chalcenterus’ commentary on Hyperides’ kata Demadou. The principal reason
for this mistake seems to be the location and execution of both rituals at the
crossroads. That is, a wrong identification between the two different types of
rituals (protective and exploited) taking place at the “meeting-ways.”80 The
consecration of hekataia constitutes a protective practice, while depositing
household waste (ὀξυθύμια) was aimed to purify the house (birth or death pol-
lution) and it was not part of Hecate’s suppers.
‘Διὰ τί τῇ καλουμένῃ Γενείτῃ Μάνῃ κύνα Θύουσι καὶ κατεύχονται μηδένα χρη-
στὸν ἀποβῆναι τῶν οἰκογενῶν;’ Ἢ ὅτι δαίμων ἐστὶν ἡ Γενείτα περὶ τὰς γενέσεις
καὶ τὰς λοχείας τῶν φθαρτῶν; ῥύσιν γάρ τινα σημαίνει τοὔνομα καὶ γένεσιν ἢ
ῥέουσαν γένεσιν. ὥσπερ οὖν οἱ Ἕλληνες τῇ Ἑκάτῃ, καὶ τῇ Γενείτῃ κύνα Ῥωμαῖοι
θύουσιν ὑπὲρ τῶν οἰκογενῶν. Ἀργείους δὲ Σωκράτης φησὶ τῇ Εἰλιονείᾳ κύνα
θύειν διὰ τὴν ῥᾳστώνην τῆς λοχείας. τὸ δὲ τῆς εὐχῆς πότερον οὐκ ἐπ᾽ ἀνθρώπων
world after surmounting the initial perils. See Parker, Miasma, 65 and 32–73 about birth
and death pollution.
75 Johnston, “Crossroads,” 221–222.
76 Serafini, La dea Ecate, 137.
77 Johnston, “Crossroads,” 119–221; Carboni, “Ecate e il mondo infero,” 47–48; Serafini, La dea
Ecate, 136–137.
78 Johnston, “Crossroads,” 221.
79 ἐν δὲ τῷ ὑπομνήματι τῷ κατὰ Δημάδου [scil. Ὑπερείδεης] τὰ ἐν ταῖς τριόδοις φησὶν Ἑκα-
ταῖα, ὅπου τὰ καθάρσια ἔφερον τινες, ἃ ὀξυθύμια καλεῖται, Harp. s.v. ὀξυθύμια. Also in Etym.
Mag. s.v. ὀξυθύμια, where hekataia are described as καθάρματα τῶν νεκρῶν … ἢ … τῶν
οἰκῶν.
80 Johnston, “Crossroads,” 220–224.
268 lópez carrasco
ἐστὶν οἰκογενῶν, μηδένα χρηστὸν γενέσθαι ἀλλὰ κυνῶν; χαλεποὺς γὰρ εἶναι δεῖ
καὶ φοβεροὺς τοὺς κύνας.
Why do they sacrifice a bitch to the goddess called Geneta Mana and pray
that none of the household shall become “good”? Is it because Geneta is
a spirit concerned with the generation and birth of beings that perish?
Her name means some such thing as “flux and birth” or “flowing birth”.
Accordingly, just as the Greeks sacrifice a bitch for Hecatê, even so do
the Romans offer the same sacrifice to Geneta on behalf of the members
of their household. But Socrates says that the Argives sacrifice a bitch to
Eilioneia by the reason of the ease with which the bitch brings forth its
young. But does the import of the prayer, that none of them shall become
“good”, refer not to the human members of a household, but to the dogs?
For dogs should be savage and terrifying.
Quaestiones Romanae 277AB81
Dogs were sacrificed to divinities that could influence childbirth. Plutarch jus-
tifies the Roman tradition of sacrificing a puppy for Geneta Mana by means
of comparison: Greeks do the same for Hecate and the Argives for Eilioneia82
(Εἰλιόνεια).
Regarding Hecate, one may think of the epithet ‘child nurturer’ kourotro-
phos (κουροτρόφος)83 that Hesiod once attributed to her84 and also of her
close relation with Artemis.85 Then, why does Plutarch not use this epithet?
A reason might be that, from the Hellenistic period on, Hecate is considered
a transitional divinity rather than properly κουροτρόφος. Her liminal charac-
ter explains her influence in birth and death pollution. In the text, Plutarch
equates both of Hecate’s possible prerogatives.
Birth and death are modes of transition, so new-borns and the deceased
both inhabit a transitional condition between two worlds.86 Hecate guides and
takes the souls under control, especially in liminal places like crossroads. In
81 Translation by Babbitt, Plutarch’s Moralia IV, 85.

82 Farnell identifies Hecate with Eilioneia, see Farnell, “Hekate’s Cult,” 23.
83 Literary references for Hecate κουροτρόφος in Serafini, La dea Ecate, 90 note 1. Plutarch
uses the epithet κουροτρόφος only twice, 1) to refer to goddess Rumina, another Roman
goddess of childbirth and rearing (Plu., Quaest. rom. 278D) to characterise the city (Plu.,
De genio Socr. 583D).
84 Hes., Th. 452; a later testimony of Hecate κουροτρόφος in Antoninus Liberalis’ version of
the metamorphose of Galinthias (Ant.Lib., Met. 29 “Galinthias”).
85 A., Supp. 676; Serafini, La dea Ecate, 313.
86 Parker, Miasma, 62.
fact, crossroads are directly related with birth- and death pollution.87 Cross-
roads are suitable places for purification. For example, pregnant women should
wear an amulet filled with plants growing up inside a sieve and thrown onto a
crossroad.88
Thus, in this passage Hecate intervenes with birth pollution rather than
propitiation of childbirth. Household performances for purification consist of
sweeping and smoking the house; then the refuse was carried away in a pot-
sherd and finally thrown away into a crossroad. The bearer is never to look
back.89 Plutarch refers to a specific practice within the oxythymia: the sacrifice
of a dog as a ‘votive offering’ (κάθαρμα) for Hecate aiming to purify the house
after the childbirth.
The dog-sacrifice for Geneta Mana, Hecate and Eilioneia indicates that the
context is birth-pollution. Plutarch provides no details about these rituals and
these performances were probably not carried out anymore during Plutarch’s
time (bloody sacrifices were rarely performed after the first century BC).
3 Magic Worship: Superstition
[…] εἶτ᾽ ἐξαναστάντες οὐ κατεφρόνησαν οὐδὲ κατεγέλασαν, οὐδ᾽ ᾔσθοντο ὅτι

τῶν ταραξάντων οὐδὲν ἦν ἀληθινόν, ἀλλὰ σκιὰν φεύγοντες ἀπάτης οὐδὲν κακὸν
ἐχούσης ὕπαρ ἐξαπατῶσιν ἑαυτοὺς καὶ δαπανῶσι καὶ ταράττουσιν, εἰς ἀγύρτας
καὶ γόητας ἐμπεσόντες λέγοντας ἀλλ᾽ εἴτ᾽ ἔνυπνον φάντασμα φοβῇ, χθονίας θ᾽
Ἑκάτης κῶμον ἐδέξω,
When, later, such persons arise from their beds, they do not contemn nor
ridicule these things, nor realize that not one of the things that agitated
them was really true, but, trying to escape the shadow of a delusion that
has nothing bad at the bottom, during their waking hours they delude and
waste and agitate themselves, putting themselves into the hands of con-
jurors and impostors who say to them: If a vision in sleep is the cause of
your fear. And the troop of chthonian90 Hecate felt to be near.
De superstitione 166A91
87 Thphr., Char. 16.13, 16.9.

88 Plin., HN 24.109. Johnston, “Crossroads,” 224 note 30.
89 Farnell, “Hekate’s Cult,” 31.
90 I differ from Babbitt’s translation “dire.” I prefer “chthonian” when it refers to Hecate
(F.C. Babbitt, Plutarch’s Moralia in Fifteen Volumes, vol. II [Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni-
versity Press/London: William Heinemann LTD, 1961]).
91 Translation by Babbitt, Plutarch’s Moralia II, 461, with some alterations.
270 lópez carrasco
Plutarch criticizes superstitious people who, having had a nightmare or ter-

rible visions in dreams, run to demand “conjurors and impostors” (ἀγύρτας καὶ
γόητας) to tell them what to do about it. Plutarch then quotes two anonymous
verses,92 probably from classical period (second half of fifth century BC), which
have been attributed to some Aeschylean tragedy.
Three important aspects of the magic goddess can be deduced from this
text: Hecate’s terrifying epiphanies in dreams, her role as a guide of an ‘entour-
age’ (κῶμος) of ‘spirits’ (φάντασμα93) and her power to send terrible visions and
nightmares, and to take control of the human mind.
The earliest reference to the magic power of the goddess that we know of is
Hecate’s ability to send visions to humans and control their minds. A fragment-
ary mime by Sophron94 (fifth century BC) describes a sacrificial scene during
a magic ceremony. Officiants (certainly women) offer some food and immol-
ate a dog for a goddess that has been identified with Hecate.95 This is probably
a purification ritual or an exorcism96 performed to liberate someone (or the
officiants) from Hecate’s mental possession. With more certainty, Euripides in
Helena presents Hecate sending visions to humans, so Agamemnon thinks that
Helena is an image in his mind.97 In Hippolytus, the servant asks her mistress
Phaedra if her grieving is due to Hecate’s mind possession.98
Hecate’s entourage of ‘spirits’ (φάντασμα) is normally composed by phant-
asmagorical beings from the Underworld, like Empousa.99 Aristophanes100
depicts Hecate as snake-haired and wandering at night while surrounded by
spirits.101 Theocritus and Apollonius Rhodius consider Hecate’s nocturnal com-
panions as infernal dogs.102 Talking about the animals that the Egyptians con-
secrate to their gods,103 Plutarch attributes the dog to Artemis, but he is actually
92 Trag. Adesp. fr. 375 Kannicht-Snell. A commentary in Serafini, La dea Ecate, 183–186.
93 It is curious to note the oscillation of spelling of the word φάντασμα in Plutarch and later
authors instead of φάσματα for earlier sources. Both terms refer the phantasmagorical
entourage of Hecate.
94 Sophr., fr. 4A K.-A. See a commentary in Serafini, La dea Ecate, 204–215.
95 Serafini, La dea Ecate, 206 notes 4 and 6 for bibliography about the identity of the goddess.
96 Serafini, La dea Ecate, 210 note 1 for bibliography.
97 Eur., Hel. 569–570.
98 Eur., Hipp. 141–147.
99 Sometimes identified with Hecate herself; Ar., fr. 515 K.-A.
100 Sch.Ar., Ra. Argumentum-scholion 293. Also in later scholiasts, e.g. Harp., Lexicon in decem
oratores Atticos 112.7; Idom. Hist. 17.2. Bekker Anecd.
101 Sch.Ar., Pl. 594B.
102 Theoc., Id. 2.12: τᾷ χθονίᾳ θ᾽ Ἑκάτᾳ, τὰν καὶ σκύλακες τρομέοντι. A.R. 3.1027–1041: ἠὲ κυνῶν
ὑλακή, μή πως τὰ ἕκαστα κολούσας.
103 Plu., De Is. et Os. 379D.
identifying Artemis with Hecate104 through the dog. In this text, Hecate is phos-
phoros105 (φωσφόρος) ‘bearer of light,’106 because she wears torches to lead her
entourage of spirits at night. Finally, in Dio Chrysostom an infuriated Hecate
is the cause of evil apparitions. Dio Chrysostom recommends performing mys-
tery rituals and purifications to free possessed individuals from the “many and
varied spirits” sent by the goddess.107
It seems as though Plutarch was the first to assume that Hecate’s visions and
apparitions come in dreams. According to Artemidorus,108 dreaming of cop-
ulating with Hecate is a bad presage or death premonition. Similarly, Greek
Magical Papyri transmits the later and scaring aspect of the goddess.109 Even
in the medical treatise De morbo sacro,110 Hecate provokes nocturnal ‘attacks’
(ἐπιβολαί) that affects the human mental health. On the contrary, the Chaldean
Oracles (second century CE) display the opposite point of view. The Neopla-
tonic authors that commented on these fragmentary texts present Hecate send-
ing prophetic (positive) dreams to the humans.111
Hecate’s phantasmagorical entourage and her powers over the human mind
played a decisive role in the development of the goddess’ cult. This is con-
nected with Hecate’s role as a guide of spirits, because magicians needed the
104 The association between Artemis and Hecate is well-known in literary sources, e.g. A.,
Supp. 676; Paus., schol. Hes., fr. 23A; Stesich., PMGF fr. 215 Davies; E., Ph. 110; Stat., Ach.
1.447, Theb. 12.125–129, see Sarian, “Hekate,” 986. In Latin authors, Val. Flac. 5.335 and
Verg., Aen. 6.13, and epigraphic testimonies IG 12. 8. 359 from Tasos (ca. 450 BC); IG 42.
499 from Epidauro (imperial period); IG 13.383.125–127 from Athens (429/8B.C.). They
share epithets like πότνια θηρῶν and κουροτρόφος, Orph. h. 1.8; SEG 21.541, col. 2, 10–13
(“Sacrificial Calendar from Erchia,” 375–350 B.C.). “Hecate” is sometimes an epithet of
Artemis, N. Belayche et al. (eds.), Nommer les dieux: Théonymes, épiclèses dans l’Antiquité
(Turnhout: Brepols, 2005) 157, 223, 225, 485, 534, 540.
105 Sarian, “Hekate,” 989–997 nn. 1–95.
106 h.Cer. 52; B., fr. 1B Snell/Maehler; Call., fr. 466 Pf.; Ε., Tr. 968 Nauck, Hel. 569 Diggle; Ar.,
Th. fr. 594 Kock, 858 Coulon, van Daele; Steph., Ethnica (epitome) 178 Meineke; Eust., in
D.P. 142.59 Müller; Anthologiae Graecae Appendix, Epigrammata dedicatoria en Epigram-
matum anthologia Palatina cum Planudeis et appendice nova 3, epigram 310, A1 Cougny
(1980). Hecate’s representations with torches are usual in scenes of the Eleusinian Myster-
ies, in the Underworld with Hades and Persephone, in marriage scenes and Gigantomachy,
in votive reliefs and coins, see Sarian, “Hekate,” 985–996 nn. 1–95; in pottery and in several
hekataia.
107 D.Chr. 4.90.
108 Artem. 1.80; 2.37.
109 See PGM 4.2112: three-headed Hecate with six arms; PGM 4.2798–2815: Selene with the
terrible aspect of Hecate; PGM 13.10: Hecate fire-breathing surrounded by spirits at the
crossroads.
110 Hp., Morb. 4.
111 Orac.Chald. 223; R. Majercik, The Chaldean Oracles (Leiden: Brill, 1989) 136–137.
272 lópez carrasco
daimones for assistance in their purposes. Hecate’s function in magic as assist-

ant of sorceresses is first attested in Euripides’ Medea.112 Later in Theocritus’
Idyll, Simaetha calls upon Hecate as her assistant in her love charm.113 In The
Argonautica Medea is a servant and priestess of Hecate.114 In Diodorus, Hecate
is the evil daughter of King Perses, and she teaches Circe the art of pharmaka.115
Hecate’s fame as the mistress of witches was known in Plutarch’s time but, strik-
ingly, Plutarch only mentions this role of Hecate twice: in this passage and in
Gryllus.116
4 Astral Context
In an astral context, Hecate is conceived as a moon-goddess and as a cosmic

deity. First, Hecate is associated with the moon, particularly in terms of its heav-
enly geography (De facie 944C); second, Hecate is conceived as an intermediary
entity between the sensible and the intelligible realms (De Iside et Osiride 368E,
De defectu oraculorum 416E). These features are derived from Hecate’s tradi-
tional role as “guide of the souls.” Two facts must be considered: the first is
the similar double nature of Hecate and the moon, chthonian and heavenly
at the same time; the other is the location of the moon in the liminal space
between worlds. This notion could have inspired Plutarch to name “Hecate” the
interspace of the universe and, additionally, to assimilate her into the Egyptian
Anubis.
[…] ἔστι δ᾽ οὐ τοιοῦτον, ἀλλ᾽ ὥσπερ ἡ παρ᾽ ἡμῖν ἔχει γῆ κόλπους βαθεῖς καὶ
μεγάλους, […] οὕτως βάθη ταῦτα τῆς σελήνης ἐστὶ καὶ κοιλώματα. καλοῦσι δ᾽
αὐτῶν τὸ μὲν μέγιστον Ἑκάτης μυχόν, ὅπου καὶ δίκας διδόασιν αἱ ψυχαὶ καὶ
λαμβάνουσιν ὧν ἂν ἤδη γεγενημέναι δαίμονες ἢ πάθωσιν ἢ δράσωσι … τὰς δὲ
δύο Μακράς· περαιοῦνται γὰρ αἱ ψυχαὶ δι᾽ αὐτῶν, νῦν μὲν εἰς τὰ πρὸς οὐρανὸν
112 E., Med. 395–398: οὐ γὰρ μὰ τὴν δέσποιναν ἣν ἐγὼ σέβω μάλιστα πάντων καὶ ξυνεργὸν εἱλό-
μην, Ἑκάτην, μυχοῖς ναίουσαν ἑστίας ἐμῆς, χαίρων τις αὐτῶν τοὐμὸν ἀλγυνεῖ κέαρ. ‘No! By the
mistress I worship most of all and have chosen as my helpmate, Hecate, dwelling in the
inmost recesses of my hearth, no one will bruise and batter my heart and get away with it.’
113 Theoc., Id. 2.12.
114 A.R. 3.250–253; 3.528–530.
115 D.S. 4.45.
116 Plu., Gryllus 986A: Οὐχ οὕτω γ᾽ ἁπλῶς, μὰ τὴν Ἑκάτην· “By Hecate, it’s not so simple as that!”
Translation in H. Cherniss & C.W. Helmbold, Plutarch’s Moralia in Fifteen Volumes, vol. XII
(LCL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press/London: William Heinemann LTD, 1957)
495. The authors translate “By the Black Goddess” instead of “Hecate.”
τῆς σελήνης, νῦν δὲ πάλιν εἰς τὰ πρὸς γῆν· ὀνομάζεσθαι δὲ τὰ μὲν πρὸς οὐρανὸν
τῆς σελήνης Ἠλύσιον πεδίον, τὰ δ᾽ ἐνταῦθα Φερσεφόνης † οὐκ ἀντίχθονος.
[…] but just as our earth contains gulfs that are deep and extensive, […]
so those features are depths and hollows of the moon. The largest of them
is called “Hecate’s Recess”, where the souls suffer and exact penalties for
whatever they have endured or committed after having already become
daimones; and the two long ones are called “the Gates”, for through them
pass the souls now to the side of the moon that faces earth. The side of
the moon towards heaven is named “Elysian plain” the hither side “House
of the counter-terrestrial Phersephonê”.
De facie 944C117
Lernould118 explains: “le statut de déesse majeure que Plutarque attribue à la

Lune apparaît comme la conséquence de l’identification, opérée par Plutarque,
de la Lune avec Hécate.” In the first place the prominent status of Hecate in
the Theogony gave rise to the association Hecate-Moon in Plutarch; and, in the
second place, to the Neoplatonic Hecate of the Chaldean Oracles. Lernould
and Ronan119 agree that there are three successive stages for Hecate’s cult:
after the Hesiodic Great Goddess (comparable to Zeus120) we have the Plut-
archean moon-goddess (identified or associated with the moon); and, finally,
the Chaldean “Cosmic Soul”121 (corresponding to Orphic Rhea122).
The intermediate stage of Hecate as a moon-goddess is first attested in Plut-
arch’s De facie. At the beginning of the myth of Sulla, the stranger affirms
“Among the visible gods he said that one should especially honour the moon,
[…] inasmuch as she is sovereign over life (and death), bordering as she does
117 Translation in Cherniss & Helmbold, Plutarch’s Moralia XII, 209–211.

118 A. Lernould, “De la Lune et d’ Hécate dans le mythe du De facie de Plutarque et dans le Néo-
platonisme tardif,” in A. Lernould (ed.), Le visage qui apparaît dans le disque de la lune. De
facie quae in orbe lunae apparet (Villeneuve d’ Ascq: Presses universitaires du Septentrion,
2013) 117–134.
119 Ronan, The Goddess Hekate, 5.
120 Following Plotinus and Proclus later, Hecate was the Demiurge of the Timeus and so she
is placed at the level of the Intellect. Hecate belongs to the first triad of intellective gods,
in the stage between Kronos and Zeus. Proclus found the triad Kronos-Hecate-Zeus in the
Chaldean Oracles and this text will have an essential influence on the late Neoplatonism.
121 Hecate Cosmic Soul acts as the dividing bond, the ensouler and the enlivener, according to
the Neoplatonic conception of the Chaldean system. On this matter, see Johnston, Hekate
Soteira, 49–70; S. Ronan, “Chaldean Hekate” in Ronan, The Goddess Hekate, 79–136 and 87
for a schedule of the Chaldean Universe.
122 Lernould, De la lune, 117.
274 lópez carrasco
(upon the meads of Hades).”123 According to Lernould, this assertion surprises

Sulla because the assimilation between the moon and Hecate was not com-
pletely defined at that time.124
Here are some remarks on the development from second to the third stage
of Hecate’s cult. There are incipient signs of the second stage in the fifth cen-
tury BC in Athens125 although it developed during the Hellenistic period. Hec-
ate then becomes the mistress of ghosts, hence her cult space at the cross-
roads. As a consequence, the goddess acquired a relevant status in the magical
field, since sorcerers needed to gain the assistance of the spirits for their pur-
poses. In Euripides, Hecate is invoked by Medea the witch: ‘By the goddess
I worship most of all, my chosen helper Hecate, who dwells in the inner
recess of my house’.126 Later, Plutarch briefly alludes to Medea’s relation with
Hecate: in a dialogue between Ulysses and Medea, the witch exclaims “It is
not that simple, by Hecate!” (οὐχ οὕτω γ᾽ ἁπλῶς, μὰ τὴν Ἑκάτην·).127 However,
Theocritus128 is the first literary testimony for the association Hecate-moon
in a magical field. In the Idyll, Simaetha calls upon Selene and the chthonian
Hecate as supportive deities for her love-charm. It is in the Greek Magical
Papyri, however, that Hecate reaches the maximum development as a moon-
goddess with magical functions. In erotic spells and curses, the chthonian
Hecate is associated with Selene (featured like Hecate-Artemis), Artemis and
Persephone.129
123 Plu., De facie 942C; Cherniss & Helmbold, Plutarch’s Moralia XII, 191–193.
124 The dramatic date for Plutarch’s dialogue should be the year 75CE. Lernould, De la lune,
118.
125 According to Farnell, Hecate first emerged in her lunar character in Attic drama. From his
point of view, this is due to Hecate’s identification with Artemis at the time, e.g. E., Ph.
109–110, where Hecate is “Leto’s daughter”; Farnell, “Hekate’s Cult,” 27.
126 Eur., Med. 395. οὐ γὰρ μὰ τὴν δέσποιναν ἣν ἐγὼ σέβω μάλιστα πάντων καὶ ξυνεργὸν εἱλό-
μην, Ἑκάτην, μυχοῖς ναίουσαν ἑστίας ἐμῆς. English translation by D. Kovacs, Medea (Cam-
bridge, MA: Harvard University Press) forthcoming. Digital edition in http://www.perseus
.tufts.edu/. For Hecate’s relation with Circe and Medea, see Serafini, La dea Ecate, 223–
228.
127 Plu., Gryllus 986A. See G. Indelli, “Plutarco, Bruta animalia ratione uti: qualche riflessione,”
in I. Gallo (ed.), Plutarco e le scienze. Atti del IV Convegno plutarcheo, Genova-Bocca di
Magra, 22–25 aprile 1991 (Genoa: Sagep Editrice, 1992) 317–352.
128 Theocr., Id. 2.10–16, 35–36; Serafini, La dea Ecate, 215–220.
129 For instance, PGM 4.1390–1495, 2522–2567, 2618–2650 and 7.686–702. In erotic spells like
PGM 4.2714–2783; see J.C. Calvo Martínez, “Himno a Hécate-Selene,”MHNH 13 (2013) 207–
220 and F. Herrero Valdés, Edición, traducción y comentario de los Himnos Mágicos Griegos
(Málaga: Universidad de Málaga, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, 2016) 568–591. In curses
like PGM 4.2242–2347, see Herrero Valdés, Himnos Mágicos, 460–496. About Hecate in the
PGM see Serafini, “La dea Ecate,” 240–252.
In the third stage, Hecate’s cosmic features will be developed until she
becomes the liminal agent that connects the sensible and the intelligible
realms. In my view, the third stage can be unfolded in two phases.
In the first one, Plutarchean Hecate is linked to the moon because of his
cosmology that attributes to the moon a middle position between sun and
earth. As we will see in the following passage, Plutarch viewed the moon
as having a mixed nature, because it is earthly and heavenly at the same
time. Regarding its earthly part, the moon has deep cavities (βάθη … κοιλώ-
ματα) or craters. The biggest crater of the moon is called Hecate’s Recess (τὸ
μὲν μέγιστον [κοίλωμα] Ἑκάτης μυχόν). This ‘nook’ or ‘recess’ (μυχόν) brings
to mind Hecate’s cave from the Eleusinian myth.130 The same term muchon
refers to the recesses of fire where Hecate dwells in Medea.131 Furthermore,
this word nominates the ‘deep recesses’ that are behind the gates of the Under-
world132 (the place in the Hades where the unhappy souls expiate their faults
in life).
Plutarch follows Plato’s doctrine of the afterlife, especially with regards to
the heavenly conception of the Greek Hades, and this goes hand in hand with
the doctrine of the sidereal journey of the souls.133 This is why the topography
of this “Heavenly Hades” is composed of chasms, craters and gates placed in
the moon, between heaven and earth.
In Plutarch’s passage, Hecate’s Recess represents the intermediate point that
souls or daimones134 need to cross in their cosmic journey to the afterlife.135 The
journey begins after the first death; souls depart from the earth and move across
space until they arrive at the moon. Daimones expiate their faults in the largest
crater of the moon, Hecate’s Recess, and this is their last, decisive judgment.136
The fact that this crater is called after Hecate is significant, since the name
accounts for her double nature, chthonian and heavenly. In fact, it is remark-
able that in PGM the goddess Diké (‘Justice’) is associated with Underworld
deities up to the point of becoming Diké, an epithet of these infernal divinit-
130 h.Cer. 24–25. The word used for cave is ἄντρον in this case.
131 Eur., Med. 397.
132 Plu., De sup. 167A.
133 See A. Pérez Jiménez, “El viaje sidéreo de las almas: origen y fortuna de un tema clásico en
Occidente,” Fortunatae 5 (1993) 109 and note 22 for bibliography on this matter.
134 According to Plutarch, the human soul passes through two deaths. In the first one, the soul
separates from the flesh body, in the second one the intellect separates from the soul. De
facie 943C–E (first death) and 944EF (second death); see Lernould, De la lune, 221.
135 Pérez Jiménez, “El viaje sidéreo,” 101–123.
136 In judgements, Hecate seats next to kings: ἔν τε δίκῃ βασιλεῦσι παρ᾽ αἰδοίοισι καθίζει, Hes.,
Th. 434.
276 lópez carrasco
ies;137 especially with the Erinyes, which are precisely identified with Hecate.
The Pythagoreans associated the concept of Justice with the number three and
the triangle with Athena.
Daimones reach the following two long craters on the moon’s surface called
‘the Gates’ (τὰς Πύλας). One gate is the ‘Elysian Plain’138 (Ἠλύσιον πεδίον), the
side of the moon that faces Heaven: after the second death, worthy daimones
that have expiated their faults pass through this gate to reach the Heaven. The
other gate is the “House of counter-terrestrial Phersephonê”139 (ἐνταῦθα Φερ-
σεφόνης οἶκος ἀντίχθονος140): daimones that have reincarnated in bodies141 pass
through this gate and they travel back from the moon to the earth. Thus, the
mediation function of the moon is cosmologic and scatological at the same
time.142 It works both as the boundary and bond between the sublunary and
heavenly worlds: the passageway that daimones need to cross in order to come
back to the earth or to reach Heaven. It is remarkable how perfectly in line all
these features are with Hecate’s characteristic two main roles: guide of the souls
and guardian of the boundary between the human and the divine world. In
addition, Hecate is the ‘key-holder’ (κλειδοῦχος) of the Gates in the Hades, who
allows and forbids spirits to pass through. In addition, the moon receives the
epithet trioditis (τριοδῖτις) ‘three-ways’ because of it has three phases.143 Not-
ably, this epithet is normally applied to triple-shaped Hecate.
This second phase is a subsequent development of Hecate-moon goddess,
as we will see in the following passage.
137 PGM 4.2857 and 4.

138 Plu., De facie 944D. Pérez Jiménez, “El viaje sidéreo,” 109–118; Lernould, De la lune, 221–
222.
139 Plu., De Is.et Os. 381F. Notice these three goddesses: 1) “Athena” is the Pythagorean allegory
of number three, the triangle and Justice, she is also denominates the intermediary space
between the earth and Heaven in Chaldean philosophy; 2) Persephone gives name to one
of the moon’s gates and 3) Hecate, the moon’s Recess. These three deities take part in
the Mysteries of Hecate, as reported by the Alexandrian proverb that I have discussed
above.
140 The ἀντίχθων is the dark part of the moon. Following the doctrine of Hellenistic astro-
nomers, the sun is bigger than the earth and the earth is bigger than the moon; thus, when
they all coincide in the same axe, the earth projects its conic shadow over the lower part
of the moon. See Pérez Jiménez, “El viaje sidéreo,” 109 note 22.
141 Souls reborn in the body in a place called Aphrodite and Selene’s Meadows (οἱ Σελήνης καὶ
Ἁφροδίτης λειμῶνες), Plu., Amatorius 766B.
142 Lernould, De la lune, 221.
143 Plu., De facie 937E. For a scientific study of the moon’s movements in Plutarch, see L. Tor-
raca, “L’astronomia lunare in Plutarco,” in Gallo (ed.), Plutarco e le scienze, 237–240.
μικτὸν δὲ σῶμα καὶ μίμημα δαιμόνιον ὄντως τὴν σελήνην, ⟨ἣν⟩ τῷ τῇ τούτου
τοῦ γένους συνᾴδειν περιφορᾷ φθίσεις φαινομένας δεχομένην καὶ αὐξήσεις καὶ
μεταβολὰς ὁρῶντες οἱ μὲν ἄστρον γεῶδες οἱ δ᾽ ὀλυμπίαν γῆν οἱ δὲ χθονίας ὁμοῦ
καὶ οὐρανίας κλῆρον Ἑκάτης προσεῖπον.
But there is a body with complex characteristics which actually parallels

the demigods, namely the moon; and when men see that she, by her being
consistently in accord with the cycles through which those beings pass,
is subject to apparent wanings and waxings and transformations, some
call her an earth-like star, others an Olympian-earth,144 and others the
domain of Hecatê, who belongs both to the earth and to the heavens.
De defectu oraculorum 416E145
This passage shows a different perspective for the heavenly geography that
connects the moon and the astral conception of Hecate. In the previous text,
Hecate is the name for a geographic feature of the moon (its largest crater).
But here there is a twofold perception of Hecate: 1) Plutarch uses the name of
the goddess as a referent for the intermediate area of the cosmos between the
sublunar world (earthly) and the heavenly realm; 2) Hecate is conceived as an
interspatial entity between the two worlds.
Considering that Plutarch follows the platonic divinization of the planets,146
it is possible that he deifies the intermediate region of the universe, naming
it after Hecate because of the concordant prerogatives of the goddess. In this
passage, the moon is the klêron of Hecate (κλῆρον Ἑκάτης) ‘lot’ or ‘domain’; con-
sequently, it is located in the same cosmic transitional region of the universe. It
makes sense if we think that the moon is the passageway for daimones/souls in
their journey to the intelligible realm. In fact, daimones make possible the com-
munication between humans and gods,147 because they can move through the
intermediate “air” (ἀήρ) between the sublunar world and the heavenly region.
144 I disagree with Babbitt’s translation star-like earth for the Greek ὀλυμπίαν γῆν. I do not con-
sider necessary to translate ὀλυμπίαν as ‘star-like’, but maybe the author does it in favour
of the analogy: ‘earth-like star’ and ‘star-like earth’.
145 Translation by Babbitt, Plutarch’s Moralia V, 387.
146 Ps.-Pl., Epin. 987B–D. For the first time, the five known planets were identified with gods
Cronus, Zeus, Ares, Aphrodite and Mercury. Planets were considered to be under the influ-
ence of the Greek gods; therefore, Greeks considered that some human qualities were
due to the influence of the planets. On this theme, J.A. Delgado & A. Pérez Jiménez,
Adivinación y astrología en el mundo antiguo (Las Palmas de Gran Canaria: Guanarteme,
2014) 59.
147 Plu., De def. or. 416EF after Pl., Smp. 202E.
278 lópez carrasco
In magic texts daimones are called upon to mediate and connect the sorceress’
commands to the gods because these entities make possible the communica-
tion between the humans and the gods. Indeed, in the realm of magic Hecate
is the guide of these daimones.
The mediation function is the common point between Hecate, the moon
and daimones. Although they all have double-nature, earthly and heavenly at
the same time, there is nevertheless a difference between them: the moon and
daimones have double-nature because of their mixed composition out of ether
and earth.148 The moon is a mixed body (μικτόν σῶμα) that can be considered
an earth-like star (ἄστρον γεῶδες) or an Olympian earth (ὀλυμπίαν γῆν). Differ-
ently, Hecate’s double-nature is due to her widespread prerogatives and fields
of influence, concerning the earthly and the heavenly realms. For this reason,
Hecate is seen as a liminal space in the cosmos, so the moon and demons dwell
into her domain.149 A Phrygian funerary stele from Temenotiri-Flaviopoli (260–
270CE) testifies the confluence of Hecate’s chthonian and heavenly profiles.
καὶ καλούμενος ὁρίζων κύκλος ἐπίκοινος ὢν ἀμφοῖν Ἄνουβις κέκληται καὶ κυνὶ
τὸ εἶδος ἀπεικάζεται· καὶ γὰρ ὁ κύων χρῆται τῇ ὄψει νυκτός τε καὶ ἡμέρας
ὁμοίως. καὶ τοιαύτην ἔχειν δοκεῖ παρ᾽ Αἰγυπτίοις τὴν δύναμιν ὁ Ἄνουβις, οἵαν
ἡ Ἑκάτη παρ᾽ Ἕλλησι, χθόνιος ὢν ὁμοῦ καὶ Ὀλύμπιος.
[…] and the circle which touches these, called the horizon, being com-
mon to both, has received the name Anubis, and is represented in form
like a dog; for the dog can see with his eyes both by night and by day alike.
And among the Egyptians Anubis is thought to possess this faculty, which
is similar to that which Hecatê is thought to possess among the Greeks,
for Anubis is a deity of the lower world as well as a god of Olympus.
De Iside et Osiride 368E150
Anubis is another chthonian and heavenly god (χθόνιος ὤν ὁμοῦ καὶ Ὁλύμπιος)
because of his mother Nephthys, who represents the things “beneath the Earth
and invisible,” and his adoptive mother Isis,151 who represents the things “above
148 Plu., De facie 943E. Lernould, De la lune, 119–220.

149 A funerary stele from Temenotiri-Flaviopoli (260–270CE) presents Hecate chthonian and
uranian at the same time. IGR IV, nº 621 (lines 19–22): εἴ τις δὲ παραμαρτήσι τῇ στήλη ἢ τῷ
ἡρῴω, ἕξει τὴν οὐρανείαν Ἑκάτην κεχωλομένην. ‘Whoever tries to harm the stele or to disturb
the rest of the hero, will suffer Hecate’s anger’. Serafini, La dea Ecate, 392 note 1.
150 Translation by Babbitt, Plutarch’s Moralia V, 107.
151 Plu., De Is. et Os. 368E. Translation by Babbitt, Plutarch’s Moralia V, 107.
the earth and visible.” In De Iside, Plutarch shows the universe as divided by
a horizon circle (ὁρίζων κύκλος) called Anubis, which is described as being
between the sublunar and heavenly realm.
As a result of the progressive divinization of the Greek Hades, it became
necessary to give a name to the different regions of the cosmos.152 Plutarch
attributes some of these regions to certain divinities according to their features.
He considers Hecate and Anubis in a very similar way, probably inspired by
their mythological prerogatives. For example, Anubis and Hecate are part of
the Underworld because they are key-holders,153 guardians of the Netherworld
Gates and guides of the souls of the deceased. They share iconographical ele-
ments like the key and the dog.154 Anubis is traditionally depicted as a dog,155
because he can see equally well during day and night. And, the dog also repres-
ents one of Hecate’s three heads.156 This is how she is usually portrayed in magic
152 See Pérez Jiménez, “El viaje sidéreo,” 109. The process of divinization of the Hades started
with the “extraction” of the Elysian Fields from the Hades in Homer (Hom., Od. 4.562–567).
Along the time, and according with the doctrines of Pl., R. 616B and Hellenistic astro-
nomers, some authors have considered the location of the Elysian Fields above the moon
(Plu., fr. 201; De def. or. 410E) or below the moon, as the Stoics (Tert., De anima 54; Serv.,
Aen. 6.887, 340) or between the heaven and the earth (Q.S., 15.224). After that, the whole
Hades will be translated to the heavenly realm (Favonius Eulogius, Disput. De Somn. Scip.
14.5). Therefore, the regions of the cosmos emerged in the imaginary of late authors as
“heavenly” parallels of the regions in the Hades, for example, the rivers in the Hades and
Tartarus were equated with the planets that souls need to cross (Procl., in R. 2.129–131),
the Hades itself was thought to be between the moon and the sun (Iamb., in Lyd., Mens.
4.148), etc. Thus, for Plutarch there is an intermediate region between the earthly and the
heavenly realms and it is given the name of “Hecate” by the Chaeronean, as I will show.
153 For Anubis, PGM 4.340–343, 4.1466–1467; for Hecate, PGM 4.1403.
154 About the association of Hecate and Anubis with the dog and the analogy of their func-
tions (key-holders, guardians of the Gates of the Hades, etc.), see D. Colomo, “Ecate,
Anubi e i cani negli incantesimi erotici su papiro,” in B. Palme (ed.), Akten des 23 inter-
nationalen Papyrologen-Kongresses, Wien, 22.–28. Juli 200 (Vienna: Verlag der österreichis-
chen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2007) 117–124. The dog is traditionally connected to
the cult of the deceased (Hom., Il. 23.170; Agudo Villanueva, “Sacrificios caninos en las
Jándicas,” 65), that is why it assists psycopompoi ‘souls-guides’ like Anubis and Hecate.
155 PGM XVIIA 4–5: Ἄνουβι, θεὲ ἐπίγε[ιε καὶ ὑπόγειε καὶ οὐράνιε, κύον, κύον, κύον.
156 Orph., A. 979: Hecate, child from Tartarus (Ταρταρόπαις), is three-headed (τρισσοκέφαλος):
she has a horse-head rising from her left shoulder (ἵππος χαιτήεις), from her right shoulder
a furious-looking dog (λυσσῶπις σκυλάκη) and a maiden head in the middle. Statues rep-
resenting dog-headed Hecate, Paus.Gr. “alpha” 7. 4, Hsch. “alpha” 252.2, “epsilon” 1265.6 =
Eur., fr. 968 and Ar., fr. 594A; Sarian, “Hekate,” 994–995. Later representations of Hecate-
Proserpina with three heads of a dog in V. Cartari, Le imagini colla sposizione degli dei
antichi (Padua: Pietro Paolo Tozzi, 1608) 107–109; J. Seznec, Los dioses de la Antigüedad en
la Edad Media y el Renacimiento (Madrid: Taurus, 1987) 207. About Hecate dog-headed see
Carboni, “Ecate e il mondo infero,” 42.
280 lópez carrasco
texts.157 Additionally, dogs are connected with the moon due to their barking
into the sky at night, which makes them Hecate’s companions par excellence158
and are often included in her entourage.159 In the text, Hecate and Anubis are
the names for different cosmic areas: Anubis is the division boundary between
the sublunar and the intelligible realm, while Hecate serves to denominate the
existing space between the sublunar and the heavenly realms.
In the last part of De Iside et Osiride, Plutarch compares Greek and Egyptian
religious attitudes towards animals. He criticizes the Egyptian custom of treat-
ing animals like gods and doing service to them,160 but he justifies the Greek
practice of consecrating animals to the gods. Greeks consider the dog sacred
to Artemis and Plutarch exemplifies it by quoting a verse from Euripides161 in
which the dog [a transformed Hecuba] is the image of the Hecate phosphoros.
This makes sense if we think of the Hecate-Artemis identification. The snake,
instead, is attributed to Athena.162 It should be noted that the dog and the snake
are two of the animals traditionally attributed to Hecate. The question arises
to whether this attribution is related to the identification of Hecate-Artemis-
Athena in the “Alexandrian Proverb” I discussed above. In addition, for the
Pythagoreans, Athena is the name of the intermediate air, between the sub-
lunar and intelligible worlds.
4 Conclusions
4.1 Conclusions—Ritual Context—Regular Worship

In a ritual context, Plutarch does not perceive Hecate exactly as the Hesi-
odic Great Mother but rather the features and fields of influence that she had
received until his time. The triple shape of the goddess and her role as guard-
ian of the crossroads (already present in Orphic tradition163) are derived from
157 PGM 4.2112–2116, 2876–2880, horse-dog-headed Hecate (ἰπποκύων) in PGM 4.2610. PGM
7.885 (Hecate προκύνη) 4. 2722–2723 (Hecate-Artemis σκυλακάγεια). Hecate with three
heads (horse-bull-dog) in magical amulets, e.g. Campbell Bonner Magical Gems Database
(CBd)-1678; G.B. Passeri, “Hekate,” in A. Mastrocinque (ed.), Bollettino di Numismatica. Syl-
loge Gemmarum Gnosticarum 1 (Rome: Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato. Libreria
dello Stato, 2003) 346.
158 Cerberus often appears with Hecate in iconography, Sarian, “Hekate,” 26–30.
159 Theocr., Id. 2.1–64; A.R. 3.1216–1217; Hor., Sat. 1.8, 33–36.
160 Plu., De Is. et Os. 379E.
161 Plu., De Is. et Os. 9E.
162 Plu., De Is. et Os. 379E, 381F.
163 Orph., H. 1.1.
her three-fold power over the earth, the sea and the sky. Regarding the play-
wrights, Plutarch follows Aristophanes in his conception of hekataia as apo-
tropaic statues;164 but differ from Sophocles165 in the use of the term hekataia:
while Sophocles refers to food-offerings for Hecate with that term, Plutarch
prefers deîpna for ‘votive suppers’ (Quaestiones convivales 708F–709A; Quaes-
tiones Romanae 290D), and he uses hekataia meaning the ‘statue’ for the god-
dess. In Plutarch, hekataia and deîpna appear in a mocking context (Regum et
imperatorum apophthegmata 193F and Quaestiones convivales 708F–709A), so
these practices might have been well-known at that time. In fact, Plutarch was
aware of the apotropaic connotation that deîpna already had, as suggested in
his mentioning of dog-sacrifices in Quaestiones Romanae 290D.
Plutarch’s accounts might have been based on the non-Hellenic origin that
Hesiod attributed to Hecate, since Plutarch associates her with foreign gods like
Enyalius: they both received dogs (impure animals) as sacrifices. At the same
time, the apotropaic character of Hecate arises when dog-sacrifices are fulfilled,
and these practices were linked to purification and birth-pollution. In addition,
Plutarch seems to be the first author that places these sacrificial practices in
connection with Hecate within the context of pollution.
Regarding childbirth, the Hellenistic perception of Hecate differs from
Hesiod and Aeschylus.166 As demonstrated in Plutarch’s texts, Hecate and Eili-
oneia are equated to Geneta Mana (Quaestiones Romanae 277AB) not as kour-
otrofoi that propitiate women’s labor but rather as divinities that expel the bad
spirits from the house after a woman gives birth. Hecate’s cleansing pollution
comes from her role as a transitional guide for crucial moments in human life.
4.2 Conclusions—Ritual context—Magic Worship

Plutarch reveals his conception of the magic Hecate when he refers to the two
verses from Euripides in De superstitione 166A. The terrifying image of the god-
dess and her entourage was probably derived from the PGM tradition. Plutarch
is the first author to consider that the terrible visions sent by Hecate came in
the form of nightmares. The author’s criticism in De superstitione demonstrates
that the magical character of the goddess was still vividly present amongst his
contemporaries. In the same line, Dio Chrysostomus tells that the furious Hec-
ate was the cause of evil apparitions—in such a way that it was necessary to
perform mystery rituals and purification practices to set possessed people free.
In my view, the target of Plutarch’s criticism in De superstitione is not the belief
164 Ar., Ra. 366.

165 S., fr. 734 R. = 668 N.
166 Hes., Th. 452; A., Supp. 676.
282 lópez carrasco
in Hecate’s apparitions, but rather the fact that people allowed themselves be
fooled by conjurors and impostors. However, the important point is that, as we
can see in Plutarch, Hecate’s magical prerogatives necessarily had an influence
on her regular worship practices. For example, the hekatia at the crossroads
shows her functions as guardian and as mistress of souls.167
4.3 Conclusions—Astral Context

The most innovative and important contribution by Plutarch on Hecate’s lit-
erary tradition consists of the passages regarding the astral context. He is
the pioneer who outlined Hecate’s astral side: the goddess’ profile that would
be successively developed by the Neoplatonic tradition during the third, and
decisive, stage of her cult. In Plutarch, Hecate passes a first phase in which she
is considered a moon-goddess, and later, a second phase in which she becomes
a cosmic divinity, ruling the in-between space and connecting the sensible and
the intelligible worlds.
Three relevant aspects must be remarked from Plutarch’s passages in this
context: 1) the description of the moon’s heavenly geography (De facie 944C);
2) the moon’s location in the liminal space of the cosmos that is named after
Hecate (De defectu oraculorum 416E); 3) Hecate and Anubis’ intermediate pos-
ition and their role in the universe (De Iside et Osiride 368E).
In my view, De facie does not include Hecate in the role of a goddess. Plutarch
uses her name to designate a geographic feature of the moon—its largest crater.
This is due to two facts: 1) the close relation, already established in literature,
between Hecate and the moon; 2) the intermediate function and position of
the moon’s crater “Hecate’s Recess.” I guess that Plutarch names the crater after
Hecate because of her predominance in purification practices and the function
of the crater as the place that the souls need to cross in order to expiate their
faults.
The moon, daimones, Hecate and Anubis have two common features: their
chthonian and heavenly nature and their intermediate location in the cos-
mos. There is, however, an important difference: while the double nature of
the moon expresses its mixed composition, the double nature of Hecate and
Anubis comes from their chthonian and heavenly prerogatives. In my opinion,
Plutarch considers Hecate as a moon-goddess in the sense that she is closely
associated to the moon but not completely identified with it. The difference lies
in Plutarch’s consideration of Hecate and the moon as planetary entities and
not as a proper goddesses, as they usually appeared syncretized in magic texts.
167 Johnston, Hekate Soteira, 34–38.

Therefore, in De defectu oraculorum Hecate is an interspatial entity between

the sublunar and the intelligible worlds, while the moon is a portion (“domain”)
of such space. As well as in De Iside, Plutarch names the horizon-circle that
separates the sublunar from the heavenly world after Anubis, while Hecate des-
ignates the in-between space from that horizon onwards until the intelligible
realm.
In conclusion, Plutarch is a key authority and innovator of Hecate’s liter-
ary tradition. He illustrates the incipit of a decisive stage for Hecate’s cult in
Greek-Roman literature. Plutarch’s contribution helps us moderns to under-
stand Hecate’s vertiginous and expansive development after the first century
CE, especially in its Neoplatonic conception. This will give room to her prom-
inence in later texts like the Chaldean Oracles, where Hecate becomes the Soul
of the World.
Bibliography
Agudo Villanueva, M., “Sacrificios caninos en las Jándicas: una hipótesis sobre el culto
a Enodia en el ejército macedonio,” Gladius 36 (2016) 59–76.
Babbitt, F.C., Plutarch’s Moralia in Fifteen Volumes, vol. III (LCL; Cambridge, MA: Har-
vard University Press/London: William Heinemann LTD, 1961).
Babbitt, F.C., Plutarch’s Moralia in Fifteen Volumes, vol. II (LCL; Cambridge, MA: Har-
Babbitt, F.C., Plutarch’s Moralia in Fifteen Volumes, vol. IV (LCL; Cambridge, MA: Har-
Babbitt, F.C., Plutarch’s Moralia in Fifteen Volumes, vol. V (LCL; Cambridge, MA: Har-
vard University Press, 2003).
Belayche, N., Brulé, P., Freyburger, G., Lehmann, Y., Pernot, L. & Prost, F. (eds.), Nommer
les dieux. Théonymes, épiclèses dans l’Antiquité (Turnhout: Brepols, 2005).
Bickley Rogers, B., Aristophanes, in Three Volumes, vol. II: The Peace, The Birds, The Frogs
(London/New York: William Heinemann/G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1927).
Calvo Martínez, J.L., “Himno sincrético a Mene-Hécate (PGM 4.2522–2567),” MHNH 10
(2010) 219–238.
Calvo Martínez, J.L., “Himno a Hécate-Selene,” MHNH 13 (2013) 207–220.
Carboni, R., “Ecate e il mondo infero: Analisi di una divinità liminare,” in I. Baglioni
(ed.), Sulle rive dell’Acheronte. Costruzione e Percezione della sfera del post mortem
nel Mediterraneo Antico 2, L’Antichità classica e cristiana (Rome: Edizioni Quasar di
Severino Tognon, 2014) 39–51.
Cartari, V., Le imagini colla sposizione degli dei antichi (Padua: Pietro Paolo Tozzi,
1608).
284 lópez carrasco
Casella, V., Ecate in Dacia tra latinanza e assimilazione (Genoa: Università degli Studi
di Genova) forthcoming.
Cherniss, H. & Helmbold, C.W., Plutarch’s Moralia in Fifteen Volumes, vol. XII (LCL;
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press/London: William Heinemann LTD,
1957).
Colomo, D., “Ecate, Anubi e i cani negli incantesimi erotici su papiro,” in B. Palme (ed.),
Akten des 23 internationalen Papyrologen-Kongresses, Wien, 22.–28. Juli 2001 (Vienna:
Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2007) 117–124.
Delgado, J.A. & Pérez Jiménez, A., Adivinación y astrología en el mundo antiguo (Las
Palmas de Gran Canaria: Guanarteme, 2014).
Delvoye, C., “Kraus (Theodor). Hekate: Studien zu Wesen und Bild der Göttin in Klein-
asien und Griechenland,” RBPH 40.4 (1962) 1353–1355.
Des Places, E., Oracles Chaldaïques (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1989).
Farnell, L.R., “Hekate’s Cult,” in S. Ronan, The Goddess Hekate. Studies in Ancient Pagan
and Christian Religion and Philosophy (Hastings: Chthonios Books, 1992) 17–36.
Gabrici, E., Il santuario della Malophoros a Selinunte (Monumenti Antichi dei Lincei 32
Rome: Bardi, 1927) coll. 379.
Herrero Valdés, F., Edición, traducción y comentario de los Himnos Mágicos Griegos
(Diss., Málaga, Universidad de Málaga, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, 2016).
Indelli, G., “Plutarco, Bruta animalia ratione uti: qualche riflessione,” in I. Gallo (ed.),
Plutarco e le scienze. Atti del IV Convegno plutarcheo, Genova-Bocca di Magra, 22–
25 aprile 1991 (Genoa: Sagep Editrice, 1992) 317–352.
Johnston, S.I., Hekate Soteira (Atlanta: American Classical Studies, 1990).
Johnston, S.I., “Crossroads,” ZPE 88 (1991) 217–224.
Johnston, S.I., Restless Dead: Encounters Between the Living and the Dead in the Ancient
Greece (Berkley/Los Angeles/London: University of California Press, 1999).
Jones, W.H.S. & Ormerod, H.A., Pausanias. Description of Greece in four Volumes with a
Companion Volume Containing Maps, Plans and Indices (Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press/London: William Heinemann LTD, 1977).
Jordan, D.R., “Eκατικά,” Glotta 58 (1980) 62–65.
Kawerau, G. & Rehm, A., “Das Delphinion in Milet,” Königliche Museen zu Berlin 3 (Ber-
lin: G. Reimer, 1914) 125–442.
Kovacs, D., Medea (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press) forthcoming.
Kraus, T., Hekate. Studien zu Wesen und Bild der Göttin in Kleinasien und Griechenland
(Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1960).
Lernould, A., “De la Lune et d’Hécate dans le mythe du De facie de Plutarque et dans le
Néoplatonisme tardif,” in A. Lernould (ed.), Le visage qui apparaît dans le disque de
la lune. De facie quae in orbe lunae apparet (Villeneuve d’Ascq: Presses universitaires
du Septentrion, 2013) 117–134.
Majercik, R., The Chaldean Oracles (Leiden: Brill, 1989).
Minar, L.E., Sandbach, F.H. & Helmbold, W.C., Plutarch’s Moralia in Fifteen Volumes,
vol. IX (LCL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press/London: William Heine-
mann LTD, 1969).
Müller, G.M.C., Ισαακιου και Ιωαννου του Τζετζου: Σχολια εις Λυκοφρονα 3 (Lipsiae: Sumtibus
F.C. Vogelii, 1811).
Parker, R., Miasma: Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion (Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1996).
Passeri, G.B., “Hekate,” in A. Mastrocinque (ed.), Bollettino di Numismatica. Sylloge Gem-
marum Gnosticarum 1 (Rome: Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato. Libreria dello
Stato, 2003).
Pérez Jiménez, A., “El viaje sidéreo de las almas: origen y fortuna de un tema clásico en
Occidente,” Fortunatae 5 (1993) 101–123.
Ronan, S. “Chaldean Hekate,” in S. Ronan, The Goddess Hekate. Studies in Ancient Pagan
and Christian Religion and Philosophy (Hastings: Chthonios Books, 1992) 79–150.
Sarian, H., “Hekate,” (LIMC VI; Zurich/Munich: Artemis Verlag, 1992) 985–1018.
Serafini, N., “Una lekythos attica a figure nere: una nuova lettura,” Ostraka 21 (2012) 177–
185.
Serafini, N., “La dea Ecate a Cirene fra storia, culto e iconografia (con un catalogo degli
hekataia editi e tre inediti),” in M. Luni (ed.), Cirene Greca e Romana (Monografie di
Archeologia Libica 36; Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 2014) 107–126.
Serafini, N., La dea Ecate nell’antica Grecia (Rome: Aracne, 2015).
Seznec, J., Los dioses de la Antigüedad en la Edad Media y el Renacimiento (Madrid:
Taurus, 1987).
Smith, K.F., “Hekate’s Suppers,” in S. Ronan, The Goddess Hekate. Studies in Ancient
Pagan and Christian Religion and Philosophy (Hastings: Chthonios Books, 1992) 57–
64.
Torraca, L., “L’astronomia lunare in Plutarco,” in I. Gallo (ed.), Plutarco e le scienze. Atti
del IV Convegno plutarcheo, Genova-Bocca di Magra, 22–25 aprile 1991 (Genoa: Sagep
Editrice, 1992) 231–261.
Van der Stockt, L. “No Cause for Alarm: Chthonic Deities in Plutarch,” in R. Hirsch-
Luipold (ed.), Gott und die Götter bei Plutarch: Götterbilder—Gottesbilder—Welt-
bilder (RGVV 54; Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, 2005) 229–250.
Warr, G.C.W., “Hesiodic Hecate,” CR 9 (1895) 390–393.
Werth, N., Hekate. Untersuchungen zur dreigestaltigen Göttin (Hamburg: Verlag Dr.
Kovac, 2006).
Zografou, A., “L’énigme de la triple Hécate de l’entre-deux à la triplicité,” in Batsch, C.,
Egelhaaf-Geiser, U. & Stepper, R. (eds.), Zwischen Krise und Alltag (Stuttgart: Franz
Steiner, 1999) 57–79.

The Conception of The Goddess Hecate in Plutarch

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

The Conception of The Goddess Hecate in Plutarch

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

chapter 14

The Conception of the Goddess Hecate in Plutarch

Plutarch’s extensive knowledge regarding a wide range of subjects from the

© Nerea López Carrasco, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004443549_016

Ritual context Astral context

Regular worship Magic worship De facie 944C

Regum et imperatorum De superstitione 166A De defectu oraculorum 416E

Quaestiones convivales 708F– Gryllus 986A De Iside et Osiride 368E

Quaestiones Romanae 290D

Quaestiones Romanae 280C

Chabrias, in the vicinity of Corinth, having struck down some few

attached to a central column. They have an apotropaic function. People con-

… οἶμαι, τοῦ πλήθους φείδεσθαι δίκαιός ἐστι, μὴ καθάπερ ἐκ πολεμίας ὁμοῦ

61 Hes., Th. 431–433.

The periskylakismos (περισκυλακισμός) or, as Babbitt says “puppifrication,”

81 Translation by Babbitt, Plutarch’s Moralia IV, 85.

3 Magic Worship: Superstition

[…] εἶτ᾽ ἐξαναστάντες οὐ κατεφρόνησαν οὐδὲ κατεγέλασαν, οὐδ᾽ ᾔσθοντο ὅτι

87 Thphr., Char. 16.13, 16.9.

Plutarch criticizes superstitious people who, having had a nightmare or ter-

daimones for assistance in their purposes. Hecate’s function in magic as assist-

In an astral context, Hecate is conceived as a moon-goddess and as a cosmic

Lernould118 explains: “le statut de déesse majeure que Plutarque attribue à la

117 Translation in Cherniss & Helmbold, Plutarch’s Moralia XII, 209–211.

(upon the meads of Hades).”123 According to Lernould, this assertion surprises

137 PGM 4.2857 and 4.

But there is a body with complex characteristics which actually parallels

148 Plu., De facie 943E. Lernould, De la lune, 119–220.

4.1 Conclusions—Ritual Context—Regular Worship

4.2 Conclusions—Ritual context—Magic Worship

164 Ar., Ra. 366.

4.3 Conclusions—Astral Context

167 Johnston, Hekate Soteira, 34–38.

Therefore, in De defectu oraculorum Hecate is an interspatial entity between

You might also like