Dr. GEORGE THAMBYARMILENS Pra University of Ceylon Review ' ‘Vol. XXII, Nos. 1 & 2 April-Oct. 1965 : Pythagoras’ Descent to Hades F any religious theory concerning the soul can dispense with the notion of I posthumous reward and retribution in some other place, it is that of reincarnation which metes them in some form or other in subsequent * incarnations upon this earth itself For this reason it is remarkable that reincarnation-teligions, (whether it be that they have developed from that form of religion which holds a single life on earth followed by an afterdeath that is eternal, or whether they have evolved directly or indirectly from some other primitive belief.) often admit the feature of an afterdeath in their schatology without any consciousness of superfluity or redundance. Far »om this, and particularly with the Greek reincarnation-teachings, the sojourn Hades is as important as the central tenet of reincarnation itself and appears ‘0 have been appreciated as the more imminent and fearful peril of the soul for which all preparation must be made and all care taken, while it is bought to the mystical induction of the initiate as’ a puorixds Adyos resulting © from a descent to Hades by the master himself or an elect,—the reputed rardBacis és ddov. Among the Greek descents to Hades the earliest are those of Heracles 1 and the Attic hero, Theseus. But neither of these, as far as we know, bios- | Somed into a religious doctrine of the afterlife, reincarnationistic ot other- | Wise. Nor yet is anything except the traditional concept of Hades to be found in the descent of Odysseus, (if it can be called a descent,) even granting acchioro! is right that much of the Nekyia in the Odyssey is Orphic inter lation. On the other hand, the carliest references to Orpheus not only associate him with a descent to Hades? but also with the institution of teletai and orgia which quite clearly pertain to death and the afterlife3 As | 1. From Orpheus to Paul, London (1930), p. 35. ‘The verses he suspects as interpolations from | the Orphic katabasis are Od. xi. 22 327 and 538—626. 2. See Eur. Al. 357—362; the famous sculptured relief at Naples (Brunn-Bruckmann pl. 3 Kern Orphicorum Fragmenta, Berlin (1922) Test. 59 and discussion of it by Gruppe in Roscher's Lexikon sv. Orpheus, p. 1194 and esp. J. Heurgon, ‘Orphée et Eurydice avant Virgilé, Melanges d'archeologie et histoire, XLIX (1932) p. 34 £.; Plato Sym. 179d; Isoc, Bus. xi. 7 3. Hat. ii, 81; Eur. Rh. 941—945; Plato Prot. 316d; Rep. 364¢—365a (see in this connection Orphic fr. of unknown date cited by Olympodorus tn Plat, Phaed. p. 87, 15 Norvin), also 363c—e, 364b—c, and 366a—b; (Dem.) xxv, 11; Diod. v. 64, 4; Theophr. Char. xvi, 11 £. els Test. 207 with I. M. Linforth’s observation in his The Arts of Orpheus. Berkeley’ & Los. Ang.(1941) esp. p. 68 and 102, also p. 167—170 for a summary of the conclusions from the foregoing evidence. The evidence indicates that this material appeared in writing in certain {pot Adyot in the form of poems, 1UNIVERSITY OF CEYLON REVIEW Linfortht has shown, the evidence before 300 B.C. has no direct referenceto an Orphic teaching of reincarnation, but the abstinence from killing and the regimen of vegetarianism5 attributed to Orpheus, even if they need not imply it®, make it probable that the doctrine was a very old one. The story of his bringing back his wife, Eurydice (or Agriope), from Hades must be a naive mythological expression of this doctrine, or more probably the | myth which helped develop it, and it is quite likely it is this reincarnation implication which detractors, who make it appear he either failed in this venture or was deluded and foiled’, aim to ridicule. With Pythagoras, however, the difficulty lies rather in showing that the tradition concerning the descent itself is old and genuine. The early evidence, scanty though it be, comes out strongly to show that a doctrine of reincarnation was held by one who could well be Pythagoras.8 Yet this same evidence, far from associating a descent to Hades with Pythagoras, has no clear testimony about such a descent itself. Even so, when references to details of Hades begin to appear in the notices on Pythagorean teaching | and belief in Aristotle and the later sources, it is assumed with increasing confidence that those among them which appear genuine ultimately derive frbm a mystical work based on a Pythagorean descent to Hades and that the tradition is an old one. Such a descent must however remain a hypo= thesis, even if a reasonable one, unless the early sources can be ee? to yield some evidence on this that might help to establish it with a degree | ¢ of certainty. J 6 ag en Fortunately there is a single piece of evidence on Pythagoras which alludes to this episode, though it appears there in so garbled a form and, AL op. dite ch. 1. 5, Arist. Frogs 1032; Eu. Hip. 952—953; also Plato Laws 782c, 6. A Study of the Doctrine of Metempsychosis in Greece from Pythagoras to Plato. diss. Princeton. N. Jersey (append. II, p. 8992. However, it is interesting to note that one of those who are shown choosing new lives in the Republi’s myth or Er is Orpheus himself, while the reference in Isoc. loc. cit. wasnt is to Orpheus bringing back the dead from Hades as a regular practice; (note the imperfect dvijyer me and the plural rods TeOved@ras). é 7. In Fur. loc, cit., which is the carlicst allusion to this story, Orpheus is successful, and this is sup- ported by Isoc. foc. cit. The Naples-relief is capable of different interpretations. Tt is only in the @7 Sympesinm-version that Orpheus is sent Gr€)7, but the contrast with Alcestis, his effeminacy, (being @ a lyre-player), the association of his descent with his death at the hands of women, the very idea that he was deceived with a phantom because he dared to go down to Hades alive, make the story suspect. €V “The version of it most familiar to the general reader appears in Vergil in the fourth Georgie 516-523,» and even here the warning against looking back may reflect the well-known Pythagorean taboo. ae 8. See Xen. fr. 7; Emped. ff. 129; Hdt, ii. 123, also iv. 95-96. Hdt. ii. 81, though often eq cited, is not evidence of a teaching of reincarnation. "Cf. also Arist. de anima A3. 407b20 which alludes to Pythagoreans 001 which concern souls investing different bodies. en ey ca ¢ng, lat 1.N. own cit. yer sup- a the peing y that spect. 523, often which PYTHAGORAS’ DESCENT TO HADES even at that, as concerning a different person, that it is not surprising that it is overlooked. Indeed it has greater significance than this, for though it is as often as not dismissed as of no relevance to the study of Pythagorean rein- carnation, it is the only piece of early evidence that is capable of linking Pythagoras by name with a teaching of this sort. What I intend here, however, is to concentrate on deriving from it the necessary testimony for showing that the tradition of Pythagoras’ descent to Hades was at least as early as the time of Herodotus’ writing and that this could well have been associated with Pythagoras even before he established his school at Croton. I would also like to remark the same peculiar treatment the Pythagorean descent receives from its first appearance in our evidence as I observed of the descent-account of Orpheus, a treatment which is, no doubt, the result of the hostility and suspicion of the orthodox and the sceptical alike of these new religions. The passage I refer to is Herodotus iv.95-96 in ‘which the historian, writing on the remarkable belief of immortality among the Thracian tribe known as the Getans, who think that they do not perish but at death go to their daemon Salmoxis, sets about giving another and different accéunt about this as follows : dbs 8¢ eyed ruvPdvopae ray 7év “ENMforovrov oikedvreov ‘EAMfvev Kat Ilévrov, rov Lddwoéw rotrov édvra dvOpwmov Sovretoar ev Sdpw, dovredoa 5¢ Tvbaydpyt 7a Mrnodpyov. évbebrev 8¢ abrdv yerpevov Aevepov xpiwara krijoacbarovyvd, krnodpevov drre\Oetv es Se rifv Ew vrod. dre 88 xaxoBluw re édvrev rdv Opnixco al Srahpoveoré per, roy Sd\wokw todrov émordpevoy Siairdv re *[dSa kat Hea Babsrepa % ward Oprfixas, ofa “EMnot re Sudjoavra «ad ‘EAifvev od rae dobeveotdrar copiorht Hvbaydpnt, karacxerdcacbar dvipedva, és rev navSoxevorra rév darév rods mpdrous Kai eduyéorra dvadiSdoxew, ds obre abrds ob're of cupadrat adrod odre of ex rovrww alel yusevor amofavdovrat, dV HEovar és xApov robrov, iva aiei mepredyres ELovor (74) wdvra dyad. ev dt 88 éroter rd Katadeybévra Kal edeye radra, & rodrat kardycov olknua éroero. ds S¢ of mavre\ws «tye 76 olenpa, éx per trav Opnixav pavichy, KataBds 8& xdrw és rd kardyeov olknpa Siarrdro én’ érea tpla. of 8€ uw enobedv re Kai enévBcov cs rebvedra. rerdpranr dé ever éfpdvy rotor Ophies wai obres 3