American Philological Association

Plutarch on Isis and Osiris: Text, Cult, and Cultural Appropriation Author(s): Daniel S. Richter Reviewed work(s): Source: Transactions of the American Philological Association (1974-), Vol. 131 (2001), pp. 191216 Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20140969 . Accessed: 25/04/2012 15:21
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Philological Association and The Johns Hopkins University Press are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Transactions of the American Philological Association (1974-).

http://www.jstor.org

Transactions

of the American Philological

Association

131 (2001)

191-216

Plutarch on Isis and Osiris: Text, Cult, and Cultural Appropriation*

Daniel S. Richter Princeton University

'EXXnviK?v

y?p

x\ Tlai?

?oTt.

(Plutarch, Is. 2.35If)

The de hide et Osiride {de hide, h.)} written late in Plutarch's life,2 offers some of the most sophisticated formulations of middle-Platonic that metaphysics have come down to us.3 As scholars have long been aware, this is a deeply and text.4 Classicists have generally maintained that in the explicitly philosophical de hide Plutarch merely uses the Egyptian material as a vehicle through which to express middle-Platonic conceptions about the structure and genesis of the

Several

scholars Thanks Fritz

carnations. Faraone,

read drafts of this work in one or more in of its various generously are due to above all to Shadi Bartsch, Frederick Brenk, Christopher Jonathan Laura Jonathan Z. Smith, Graf, Hall, Slatkin, Stephen Scully, readers are due of TAPA above and TAPA's own and present

William
editors.

Stull, and Ann Marie Yasin. The article has greatly benefited as well from the
past all to my stubborness.

comments of the two anonymous insightful What confusion and lapses remain

^he most important commentaries on the de hide are Hopfner 1940, Gwyn Griffiths 1970, Betz and Smith 1972, Cavalli 1985, and Froidefond 1988. Recently, much inter esting work on the de hide has been done by Italian scholars; see Borghini 1991, Chiodi 1991, Casadio 1991, Casadio 1994, and Chiodi 1996. 2On its date see Bowersock fundamental
Dillon 1989. For Plutarch's

1965, Jones 1966, and Gwyn Griffiths 1970: 16-18.

reading of Plato's Timaeus, see Froidefond 1987 and

to an understanding of Plutarch's metaphysics are Froidefond 1986 and 1977.

Hershbell 1987. The best overview of middle-Platonism generally is still Dillon 4See Feldmeier 1998.

192

Daniel

S. Richter

cosmos;
an exegesis

it is thus seen as incidental to the primary, philosophical

of Plato's Timaeus.5

aim of the text,

In addition

period.6 As historians of Roman religion have been Ro reflected in Plutarch's Quaestiones impressed by the depth of knowledge have often cited Plutarch's de hide as a relatively ac manae,7 so Egyptologists curate account of the cultic practices associated with Isis in the Pharaonic pe riod.8 Both Gwyn Griffiths9 and Hani10 felt that Plutarch, despite his inability to or to converse with non-Alexandrian read hieroglyphics natives, was a good religious historian.11

full discussion it existed in the Pharaonic

to its philosophical agenda, however, the de hide has a fairly of the Egyptian cult of the goddess Isis and her consort Osiris as

5Plutarch does not explicitly claim that the de hide

as is his de this Animae latter intends

ismeant to be read as an exegesis,

however, Plato's view tell his of sons that he and the the soul

in Timaeo. He does, procreatione statements text to sum up various about seems

structure of the cosmos that he had himself made in other treatises. That the de hide
one of those treatises and Horus clear from Plutarch's and remark enigma Plutarch there Isis, Osiris, towards treatise 48.371a)?a For theological expound in myth itself when

is

of that the Egyptian myths truths that Plato had metaphysical

formulated (1026c). The relationship of the de hide

the middle he will of de hide "Triv relate AiyuTrricov references that follows between the de hide

to the Timaeus
states that in the to Plato's and

is made explicit
remainder of the (Is.

passage

OeoXoyiav" to the Timaeus and early

parallels Griffiths

Christian

"?i?ooocpia" the Laws (Is. 48.370e-f). see Betz and literature,

Smith 1972. Throughout, I have used the Greek text of Gwyn Griffiths 1970. Translations
are from Gwyn 1970, in some cases adapted.

6For the archaizing Sitz im Leben of the de hide,

on Osiris emphasis an archaizing feature. tarch's 7For example 8For good Graf general 1996. treatments of the cult of Isis as the spouse of Isis rather

see Gwyn Griffiths

than the Hellenistic

1970: 44. Plu

Sarapis is itself

in the Greco-Roman

world,

see

Festugi?re 1949, Witt Griffiths 1980.

1971, Malaise

1972, Dunand

1972-73, Heyob

1975, and Gwyn

9Gwyn Griffiths 1970. 10Hani 1976.

^Scott-Moncrieff, true faith." however, argued that the de hide reflected Plutarch's narrow inter

est in the Hellenized Alexandrian cult, which, Plutarch felt, "alone held the key of the
Egyptian This was, as Scott-Moncrieff remarked, "of course a total inversion

of the facts" (1909: 90). For Plutarch's etymological

Egyptian hieroglyphics, see Is. 10.354e, 56.374a.

(or ecphrastic?) interpretations of

Plutarch on Isis and Osiris

193

The present contribution seeks to answer the question of why Plutarch chose the ostensibly Egyptian myth of Isis and Osiris as the vehicle for his most mature and developed thoughts on the divine and the structure of the universe. This is a question that has been posed before, both of Plutarch's text itself12 and in broader intellectual histories of the early Roman Empire.13 Most scholars, Hani among them, have assumed that the prestige of Egyptian wisdom moti vated Plutarch's attempt to discover in the cult of Isis reflections of Greek phi that, despite Plutarch's general suspi losophical speculation. Hani maintained cion of non-Greek forms of cult,14 the religions of Egypt and Persia "ont trouv? ... ? cause de leur ?l?vation morale."15 Smelik gr?ce devant lui (sc. Plutarch) and Hemelrijk see a similar motivation behind the de hide and go so far as to claim that "in his well-disposed appreciation of Egyptian ceeds all earlier authors including Herodotus."16 In what follows, religion Plutarch ex

I shall suggest that Plutarch's de hide was motivated less than by an unwillingness to accept what he saw by early imperial Egyptomania as the culturally derivative status of Greece that an Egyptian origin of Greek wisdom the Egyptian implies.17 This is not to say that the de hide dismisses

12Most recently by Brenk 1999. 13SeeHartog 1986, Hartog 1996 (especially chapter 2), and Vasunia 1995, with exten sive bibliography. Armstrong (1978: 89) sees this form of Egyptomania as typical of the
age: "most discover of philosophers that the doctrines the early centuries as of our those of era were they regarded accord with the of genuine pious men the ancient masters of and and anxious phi to of Greek

in perfect losophy were which their degree of knowledge sis easily enabled them to make."

immemorial oriental

wisdom sources

the East?a their methods

discovery of exege

14Hostility towards Attis at Erotikos

1127d and de Pythiae oraculis 407c;

756c; the Syrian Goddess at adversus Coloten

at Quaestiones convivales IV.4-5 and de

the Jews

Superstitione 169c. The key text on this hostility, the de Superstitione (Sup.), is discussed
below. 15Hani 1976: 8. For Hani's thoughts on Plutarch's relationship to Iranian dualism, see

Hani 1964. 16Smelik and Hemelrijk 1984: 1946. 17A clear formulation of which may be found at Diodorus Siculus
many been of the customs that obtained in ancient inhabitants accepted by the present and for that reason, those men who Greeks; days among no but aroused have won the Egyptians little admiration repute

1.69.2-3: "For
have not among only the

the greatest

in intellectual

things have been eager to visit Egypt in order to acquaint themselves with its laws and institutions, which they considered to be worthy of note" (Tro?A? y?p tcov TraAaicbv e9cbv tcov yevon?vcov o? n?vov Trap? to?? ?yxcop?oic Trapa AiyuTrriois

194

Daniel

S. Richter

material as worthless; a deep respect for the wisdom of Egypt and an insistence on the priority of Greek philosophical speculation are not mutually exclusive. On the contrary, I believe that Plutarch chose to explicate his middle-Platonic via an allegorical metaphysics interpretation of the cult and myth of the Egyp tian goddess Isis in an effort to renegotiate the traditional, derivative status of Greek cult.18 On my reading, the de hide is an appropriative text that has as one over of its central aims the demonstration of the priority of Greek philosophy Egyptian cult. In a recent and provocative book, David Dawson has explored the potential to Dawson's model, of literary allegory for cultural appropriation.19 According ancient authors, Philo and early Christian apologists prominent among them, used allegory as a means of appropriating pagan culture for their own ends. Frederick Brenk has argued that the de hide is in fact an exception to Dawson's rule and that the ultimate end of the text is not the Hellenization of the Egyptian cult of Isis and that in Plutarch's text we find rather "Egyptomania and a kind of of Rome, up to a point."20 I think that Brenk is right to religious Egyptianization observe that Plutarch's choice of the Isis material as the vehicle the Platonic between phical message perhaps unintentionally egyptianizes asking a different question here and would distinguish for the philoso text. But I am the aim and the

?TroSoxfj? etuxev, ?XX? Kai Trap? to?? "EXXrjaiv o? nETpico? ?Sauiaaaor). Bicrrrep
oi ?aXeTv, n?yioToi ?va tcov HETaaxcoai ?v TraiBeig tcov 5o?aa0EVTcov te v?ucov e'i? AtyuTTTov Trapa ?<piXoTi|jr|6riaav Kai tcov cos ??ioXoycov ETriTr|8Euii?Tcov the Egyptian visits of Solon, Orpheus, Homer, about the borrowing that these specific his "mystic ceremonies" there (1.96.4),

At this point, Diodorus mentions ?vtcov). Diodorus is more and Pythagoras. Elsewhere, Greek sages practiced in Egypt: Orpheus

learned

Solon learns the law regulating professions and the law regulating debt from the Egyptian king Amasis (1.77.5, 1.79.4), and finally, towards the end of the Egypt Book, Diodorus
claims Lycurgus, Chios, an Egyptian Solon, all men who education Plato, for Orpheus, Eudoxos, their wisdom of claims Musaeus, Democritus and Pythagoras, won fame "for had made Melampus, of Abdera, learning" (1.96.1 Daedalus, Homer, of koi and Oenopides ?tti ouv?oei that the Greeks

TraioE?a).

Herodotus

a series

about

the borrowings

had made from the Egyptians in the fields of science, law, culture, and cult (oracles, 2.54; divination, 2.58; astrology 2.82, the names of the twelve gods, 2.50). The bibliography on
Greek tarch's views views of Egypt of Egypt, is enormous see note and readily available. For works pertaining to Plu 1 above.

18Onallegory in the early Empire, see Lamberton 1986.

19Dawson 1992.

20Brenk 1999: 234.

Plutarch on Isis and Osiris

195

ultimate effect of the text. The appropriative

not preclude perhaps unforeseen consequences.

impulse that motivates

the text does

Etymology context

and the Names

of the Gods

introductory section of the de hide, Plutarch makes what is, in the of Greek writing about Egypt, an astonishing claim: "Isis is a Greek name" (Is. 2.35If 'EXXnviK?vy?p t? Tlai? eoti). Plutarch's phrasing is somewhat ambiguous, but scholars have uniformly translated 'EXXnviK?v as an adjective Touvoua from the previous clause.21 The meaning of this claim has modifying to explain been variously its interpreted, but no scholar has attempted importance within the context of the de hide as a whole. Cavalli notes that "II nome "Mois naturalmente la trascrizione di un an?logo vocabulo egiziano," and ? assumes that this fact was not unknown to Plutarch.22 She concludes that the proposed etymology served to explain the homophony of Isis' name with vari ous forms of the Greek verb oT5a. Cavalli's notes are typically short, and she does not ask why Plutarch might make this particular "falsa etimologia." Froide fond, for his part, refers the reader to Is. 60.375c, where Plutarch makes the related statement that the ounoma of Isis "is not a barbaric name" (o? y?p eoti but does not dwell on the significance of either state Touvoua ?ap?apiKOv), is as usual more helpful and contextualizes Plutarch's ment.23 Gwyn Griffiths assertion of the Greekness of Isis' name in terms of Herodotus' equations of and Greek deities, noting that Plutarch's belief in the ontological Egyptian sameness of Greek and Egyptian deities was unexceptional in antiquity. He also to the fact that Plutarch does not attempt Greek etymological explanations for all of the names of the Egyptian gods, noting Plutarch's sug gestion that Sarapis is Egyptian in origin (Is. 29.362d). In distinction to Cavalli, is as convinced of the sincerity of Plutarch's etymo however, Gwyn Griffiths draws attention logical claims as he is of their inaccuracy.24 Outside of these commentaries, however, Plutarch's claim for the Greekness of Isis' name has not drawn a sig nificant amount of scholarly comment. Scholars have attended to the theological implications of Plutarch's claim, understandably enough. But the claim also has crucial cultural implications that are developed at length in both the content and structure of the de hide.

In the second

21 Gwyn Griffiths translates "Isis is a Greek name," Cavalli, "Iside, infatti, ? un nome
greco," Froidefond, "Isis, en effet, est un mot grec."

22Cavalli 1985. 23Froidefond 1988: 120. 24Gwyn Griffiths 1970: 257-58.

196

Daniel

S. Richter

The assertion "Isis is a Greek name" was a radical position in antiquity. The the opposite impression and Herodotus, Egyptian priests had given Herodotus after inquiry, believed the priests to be correct. In Book Two Herodotus made the famous claim that "the names of nearly all the gods came from Egypt to
Greece .... They came from the barbarians" (2.50.1 oxeoov 5e koi Tr?vTcov Ta

o?vojjaTa tcov tcov ?ap?apcov

?ecov ?? Aiy?TTTOu ?Xr|Xu0E ?? tt?v 'EXX?Sa. 8i?ti (i?v y?p ek t?kei). In the second half of this paper, we shall consider Plu tarch's explicit reaction to this claim in his de Malignitate Herodoti (Mai.), but for the present, it is enough to point out that the origin of the names of the gods received a certain amount of thought in antiquity.

a that the ounoma "Isis" is Greek necessitates To claim, contra Herodotus, certain amount of commentary, commentary that Plutarch twice provides in the In one de Iside with (albeit sketchy and allusive) historical explanations. Plutarch speaks of "words (or names) that came from Greece long ago instance, and were transferred back" (Is. 29.362e tcov ?k Tfj? 'EXX?5oc aTTEXO?vTcov
ir?Xai Ka\ |jETaKO|aio0?vTcov ovoia?Tcov). At another time, he suggests that these

transferences were part of a more general trend, for "a whole host of other words came out of Greece with those who emigrated, and still remain as guests among strangers" (h. 61.375e ko\ y?p ?XXa jaup?ato?? |iE0ioTau?vois ?k Tfj? 'EXXaSo? ouvEKTTEo?vTan?xpi vOv Trapan?vEi Ka\ ?evite?ei Trap' ?T?poi?).25 Just who these emigrants were and what the circumstances of the actual transfer of cultic forms
may have been, we are not told.

In Plutarch's account of Greek colonization of Egypt and the resultant pres ence of Greek loan words in Egyptian, historical linguistics does not seem to be the concern, but rather the definition of cultural hierarchies. After Plutarch the rather claims that words that look Egyptian are in fact Greek, he makes statement that "when poetry summons some of them to its use, poetry enigmatic is attacked as resorting to an outlandish style by those who call such words He then exemplifies the various 'barbarizing'" (Is. 61.375e ?ap?apiCouoav). names that Greeks and Egyptians give to the same divine powers: the Egyptians

25Plutarch may here be thinking of the settlement at Naucratis, which seems to have
had a Greek presence from at least the first quarter of the seventh century that Amasis Kai TE^i?va), and B.C.E. Herodo

tus (2.178-79) considered Naucratis to be a foundation of the "?iX?XXnv"Amasis that he

gave Greeks to the Greeks to set up altars as a trading in Naucratis post. Herodotus also gods tells (?coiaouc us allowed the to their own the greatest and

of which was the Hellenion founded jointly by the Ionian cities of Chios, Teos, Phocaea,
and Clazomenae, the Dorian cities of Rhodes, Cnidos, Halicarnassus, Phaselis,

one Aeolian city, Mytilene. Strabo for his part (17.1.18) writes that Naucratis was a foundation of Milesian mercenaries. See Kees 1935 and Cook 1937.

Plutarch on Isis and Osiris

197

call the power in charge of the sun's course Horus, the Greeks Apollo; the power in charge of the wind the Egyptians call Sarapis, the Greeks Osiris; the say Sothis has power over the earth, the Greeks Sirius. The name Egyptians and phonological links Sothis, for which Plutarch provides the etymological between Egyptian and Greek, leads him to a general comment on the ontological sameness of divinities with the same names (Is. 61.376a):
ormaivEi li?vris ?TTEp toO t?iov <8?> K?naiv ov?maTos Tf)? f\ t? k?eiv. 810 k?cov Ka\ 'EXXnviaTi vlai8os TrapaTpoTrfis t? [xkv yEvo aoTpov, o?v 8eT

kekXtitoi f]KlOTa

vojii?ouoiv.

O? \1T)V ?XX? [i?Wov <piXoTlt!E?O0ai TTEpiTCOVOVOH?TCOV, too ZaTr?TTiBos AiyinTT?ois f\ toO 'Oa?piBoc, ekeTvo ??E?unv li?v [o?v] Cevik?v, to?to 8' 'EXXnviK?v, ajacpco 8' evos 6E?0 Ka\
liia? Suv?jiEcoc riyo?uEvo?.

It (Sothis) means "pregnancy" (ky?sis) or "to be pregnant" (kyein)

and so, with a modification of the word, the star which they regard indeed as

peculiar to Isis is called "the Dog"

indulge very little in rivalry,

(ky?n) in Greek. We
regard to names;

should
I

then, with

should prefer to yield that of Sarapis to the Egyptians than that of Osiris, for I believe that the former is foreign and that the latter is
Greek, but that both belong to one god and one power.

That is, "Sirius" and "Sothis" may be shown to be in fact the same word, mean can be pushed even ing both "dog" and "pregnant." The etymologies too ?v?i?otos?to include the name for the yEvoia?vns further?TrapaTpoTrfis Dog Star sacred to Isis as well. The larger point seems to be that speculation into since the gods are neither Egyptian nor the origins of names is meaningless, lies in interpretation. And so Plutarch's claim, here pre Greek. Rather, meaning sented almost as an aside, that the name of Osiris, like that of Isis, is Greek, is not meant in an historical sense. Rather, "Isis" and "Osiris" are meaningful in
Greek.

of the name of Isis come at crucial Plutarch's various Greek etymologies in the argument of the de Iside and offer an entry into the way in which points he conceived her Greekness. The first such etymological speculation comes at the end of the introductory section of the work
toO 8' ?Epou To?vojaa Kai 009005

(Is. 2.352a):
?Trayy?XXETai Kai yvcooiv

Kai ElSnoiv toO ?vtos. ?voiaa?ETai y?p 'Ioe?ov c?s e?oo(??vcov t? ov, ?v jiET? X?you Kai ?a?cos eW t<?x Up? Tfjs Oeou
Trap?XOconEv.

198

Daniel

S. Richter

The

name

of

her

sanctuary know

as well

clearly

proclaims if we

both

under

standing and knowledge of reality. For it is called an Iseion to indi

cate that we shall (e?oomevcov) rationally the "real" and piously. approach the sanctuaries of the goddess

Plutarch here uses two interrelated terms to describe the knowledge of the divine available to devotees of Isis: cognates of the verb oida, from which word he would derive the name of Isis, and the term gn?sis. These Greek etymologies for the Egyptian divine name clearly align the cult of Isis with the rationalizing ten dencies of Greek philosophical religion. This is a point to which Plutarch imme is one who is exceptionally diately returns: "(this goddess) whom you worship wise and a lover of wisdom. Her name certainly seems to imply that to her more 2.35le
yE

than anyone belongs knowing (Is. (to e?S?voi) and experiential knowledge" f|v o? 0EpaTTE?Eis??aip?Tcos ao?rjv Kai <piX?ao<povo?aav, cbs touvoh?
?pa?Eiv EoiKE TravT?s la?XXov a?Tfj t? e?S?voi koi tt\v ?TrioTrmnv

terms for knowledge of the divine in rapid succession: forms of the verb oida, gn?sis, and epist?m?, and to Isis is appropriately clearly indicates that the form of worship most welcome an intellectual contemplation of the divine. Indeed, as we shall see, knowledge is valued here more highly than cult. This is explicit at the outset of the text (Is. TrpoaT?Kouaav).26 Plutarch here introduces several 2.351e): 810 0ei?tt]tos
TT?p\ EXOuaa Epyov The 0Ecbv Ka\

opE^?s ?otiv
e?eois, Tf]v cooTTEp ?rjTnaiv,

T) Tfjs ?Xr)0??as naXioTa

?vaXriyiv ayvE?as te ?Epcov Tr?aris

8? Tfjs

n?Onaiv Tf]v Kai vEcoKop?as

?aic?TEpov. longing for truth, particularly of ascent?a service. holier truth about the gods, is a yearning

after divinity, since it involves the learning of and quest for sacred
lore as a means tion and temple task than all ceremonial purifica

Plutarch returns repeatedly to the theme of the emptiness of cult of understanding. The idea is perhaps most clearly formulated at the end of the third chapter (Is. 3.352c): In the de hide, in the absence

26Plutarch here introduces a third term for knowledge of the divine associated with which I have translated "experiential knowledge." The semantic fields of Isis, ?TrioTrinr],
oida, riential tain with somewhat oida seems into one another. Whereas shade expe and, epist?m? gn?sis, a cer is associated with the context of the mysteries, and gn?sis evokes epist?m? as "understanding," forms of oida I translate gn?sis ritual knowledge. Throughout, cognates of "knowledge," see Betz in Plutarch, and 1990. epist?m? as scientific knowledge. On evidence for

Gnosticism

Plutarch on Isis and Osiris

199

?XX' 'laiaK?s eotiv cbs ?Xr]0cbs ? Ta Seikv?mevo Kai Spc?nEva

TTEpi tous ?r)Tcov The 0?o?s toutous, otov Ka\ qnXoao?cov devotee of Isis TTEpi Tfjs is he who, v?ncp ?v a?ToTs whenever TrapaXa?n, aXr|0E?as. he receives what examines is X?ycp

true

and done with customarily displayed regard and investigates truth there may rationally what

to the gods, be in them.

Here,

at the outset of the text, Plutarch creates an implicit hierarchy of Greek philosophy over Egyptian cult. The "Seikv?hevo" and the "8pcb|iEva" that are associated with the cult of Isis are of course Egyptian in origin and are to be as such. Hence Plutarch's understood repeated reference to Egyptian cultic

in the places, objects and myths and his avoidance of reference to Isis worship Greco-Roman world.27 One must, however, these myths philosophi interpret the devotee of Isis who would behold the truth cally, rationally: the true hiakos, contained in her mysteries, is in fact imbued with the paideia of philosophical
rationalism.28

The cultural centrism of Plutarch's text emerges from the fact that this phi losophical training is characterized as peculiarly Greek. This becomes clear from the Greek authorities, both philosophical and poetic, whom Plutarch ad duces as examples of learned men who have correctly apprehended the truth contained in the mysteries of Isis.29 It matters little whether there is conscious reference to Egyptian cult, as is suggested in the section that directly follows the text cited above (Is. 3.352c). Plato and Hesiod are there adduced as those who

27See Gwyn Griffiths 1970: 47. Burial of Egyptians at Abydos, 20.359a-b; tomb of Osiris at Taphosiris, 21.359c; statue of Pluto/Sarapis inAlexandria, 28.361f; eating of crocodiles at Apollonopolis, 50.3371d; the body of Osiris at Busiris, 21.359b; Horus' connection to Buto, 18.357f; burning men alive at Eileithyiaspolis, 73.380d; inundations of the Nile at Elephantine, Mendes, Xo?s, and Memphis, 43.368b; Isis as leader of the
Muses at Hermopolis, 3.352a; image of Typhon at Hermopolis, 3.352a; abstention of the

Lycopolitans from sheep, 72.380b; the Apis inMemphis, 20.359b. Further mention of Egyptian cult sites in the de Iside are listed by Gwyn Griffiths 1970: 47-48.
280n the importance of a philosophical approach to myth and ritual, see column 21 of

theDerveni Papyrus with Laks andMost 1997. 290n citations in the de Iside, see Casadio 1991. The number of Classical and Helle nistic Greek authors cited in the de Iside is striking, even for a text produced during the Second Sophistic. For a full list see the references in square brackets inGwyn Griffiths' index. Among the authors frequently quoted or alluded to are: Aeschylus, Aristotle,
Eudoxus Manetho, of Cnidos, Euhemerus, Solon, Plato, Pythagoras, Tha?es, Hecataeus Euripides, and Xenophanes of Abdera, of Colophon. Hesiod, Homer,

200

Daniel

S. Richter

have correctly understood the reason why the Egyptian priests cut off their hair and wear linen clothes (Is. 4.352.d-e). In the following section, when Plutarch discusses the reasons for priestly abstentions from salt, he cites Aristagoras for an alternative explanation (Is. 5.352f). Ultimately, as we shall see below, it is an here presented as an exegesis of understanding of middle-Platonic metaphysics, Plato's Timaeus, that enables a perfect understanding of the Egyptian cult of
Isis.

In demonstrating that the cultic activities of the Egyptians lack meaning in the absence of a Greek interpretive frame, however, Plutarch privileges only the elements that "belong" in this frame; non-philosophical elements?described here as "barbarian"?are excluded from this text. Thus in section consistently 20, after he has finished re-telling the myth of Isis and Osiris, Plutarch mentions to Clea that some elements of the myth have been expunged (??aipE0?vTcov) in his account, on the grounds that Clea, like himself, has no patience with those who "hold transgressive and barbarous opinions about the gods" (Is. 20.358e Trapav?nous Kai ?ap?apous So?as TTEpi0?cbv). As an example of barbarous tales Plutarch cites the dismemberment of Horus and the decapitation of Isis, stories that the Egyptians themselves tell (Is. 20.3 58e). Indeed, when one hears such horrors "about the blessed and incorruptible nature in terms of which the divine is above all known" (TTEpi Tfjs MaKapias Kai ??0apTou ??oecos, Ka0' fiv "one must spit [i?XioTa voE?Tai t? 0e?ov), Plutarch tells Clea, citing Aeschylus, and purify the mouth" 20.358e "?TroTrr?oai 8eT koi Ka0T?paa0ai" t? (Is. traditions "oT?na").30 Our Greek author chooses from among the Egyptian those stories that will on the one hand help him explicate his metaphysical scheme, and on the other hand satisfy certain basic criteria that he has for the appropriateness and sanctity of myth. In the de Audiendis poetis (Aud.), Plutarch likewise rejects fantastic stories about the gods that lead to an improper understanding of the nature of the di vine. The de Audiendis poetis is a work in which Plutarch informs his readers how to teach poetry to children. The danger of poetry, especially poetry about the nature of the gods, is that poets often say things about the gods that are com such as Homer's accounts of the gods being wounded by pletely preposterous, men (Aud. 20e). Such passages, Plutarch feels, if they do not admit of an easy interpretation that will direct a child's thoughts "Trpos to ?EXTiova," must be cast out.31 On the other hand, poetic descriptions of the gods that do accord with truth ought to be presented to children often. Above all, it is the responsibility of

30Mette 31 Aud.

1959, 20d-e.

fr. 310b,

pr.

112.

Plutarch on Isis and Osiris

201

those who educate children to know the difference between true and false stories about the gods. After giving examples of both types, Plutarch remarks that, whereas some poets have written "sound opinions about the gods, and true ones, those (other) accounts have been fabricated for the astonishment of men" (Aud. 20f ?yiaivouoai TTEp\0ecov 8o?ai Ka\ ?Xr)0E?s, ?KE?va 8? TT?TrXaoTai TTp?s EKTrXrj?iv ?vOpcOTTcov). in the de Audiendis poetis, so in the de hide Plutarch would remove the mythical treatments about the divine that do not accord with the "true." In sec tion 58 of the de Iside, Plutarch writes that "we must not use the myths as wholly factual accounts, but take what is fitting in each episode according to the 8e toTs u?Oois o?x cbs X?yois principle of likeness" (Is. 58.374e xptI^teov As [t?] KaT? Tf)v ?iaoi?TTjTa Trp?acpopov ?k?otou of in removing the stories about the dismemberment Xan?avovTas).32 Horus and the decapitation of Isis, for example, Plutarch has "purified" the myth of Isis and Osiris of all fantastic elements and left only those stories about the one gods that will lead the soul towards an understanding of the divine. When Tr?|iTrav o?aiv, ?XX? Thus t? compares the prescriptions for censorship in the de hide and the de Audiendis poetis, an interesting conjunction of categories emerges: what is "fabricated for the astonishment of men" in the latter text is "barbarian" in the former. In the de Iside, those stories that lead the soul away from the divine are Egyptian. Plutarch's retelling of the episode of Isis' wanderings (Is. 15.357a-16.357c) provides an excellent example Plutarch's hellenization of the Egyptian myth in an effort to make it "true." Plutarch tells us that Isis, while searching for the body of Osiris, comes to Byblos where she sits down by a fountain and speaks with no one except the queen's maids. The maids for their part, struck by the beauty of the stranger and the fragrance of her skin, take her to the queen who makes Isis the nurse of her child. Plutarch then tells us that the Egyptians say that Isis nurses the child by day, but by night burns away the mortal parts of his body in the fire and herself turns into a swallow, crying as she flies around the pillars of the great hall. One night the queen, having heard the lament, comes to the hall and sees her child in the flames; her cry causes Isis to remove the child

from the fire and deprive the queen's child of immortality. The extent to which the elements of this story are related to Egyptian Isis is unclear,33 though Isis was a mourning goddess in Egypt from the mythology earliest periods.34 Gwyn Griffiths cites an interesting parallel in a hematite cyl 32Gwyn Griffiths (1970: 211) translates, "likeness to truth." 33SeeHopfher 1940: 52-53. 34Micha?ldes 1956: 200-201, cited atGwyn Griffiths 1970: 324.

202

Daniel

S. Richter

inder in which the goddess Astarte is depicted as a Venus lugens.35 However, these parallels are, as Gwyn Griffiths himself concedes, rather unsure. Clearer are the parallels with the Homeric Hymn to Demeter. Like Plutarch's Isis, the in the midst of her search for Persephone sits by the fountain Homeric Demeter in Eleusis (h.Cer. 98-100) where she meets the daughters of Metaneira. Like Isis with the prince of Byblos, Demeter becomes the nurse of the Plutarch's and burns away his mortal child Demophoon causes her to stop and reveal herself. parts until the panic of Metaneira

If there was a comparable episode in the Egyptian myth of Isis, the way is regrettably beyond the present Plutarch has reworked the Egyptian material state of the evidence. In the absence of such knowledge, we might try to inter into his version of the pret Plutarch's interpolation of the Demeter material in light of the methodological statements we have considered Egyptian myth Plutarch seems to have considered the difference between above. Unfortunately, true and false in poetic representation of the divine to be a matter of common sense and offers no hint about the criteria behind his evaluations of the in the de Audiendis poetis and the "barbarous" in the de hide. But "astonishing" it is clear from both works that stories about the gods that lead to knowledge of the divine are to be preferred to those tales that do not. It seems that the Homeric Hymn to Demeter, poetically and theologically canonical, provides an appropri ate interpretive frame in terms of which Plutarch explains the Egyptain myth. In the de Iside, Plutarch's tendency is to interpret Egyptian material in light tradition. Mythic material unsuitable for of the Greek poetic and philosophical such interpretation, described in the de Iside as "barbarous" and in the de Audi endis poetis as "fabrication" (20f TrETrXaoTai, cf. 21d aT?Trcos Eiprju?vcov) is to of Demeter for those of be cast out. Plutarch's substitution of the wanderings Isis and removal of Egyptian stories that he deems "barbarous" puts the pre of scriptions of both texts into practice: at least in the matter of the wanderings more suitable than Egyptian. As the hermeneutic with which Isis, Greek myth is the material will ultimately be interpreted is Greek, this seems to make eminent sense. I shall now turn to a closer discussion The Structure The de of the Text Iside of this hermeneutic.

text and is meant to be read as is a philosophical is he who participates in the myster As the true hiakos such?philosophically. ies according to the dictates o? logos, so Plutarch's text provides the appropriate

35The cylinder dates from the second millennium b.c.e. See Seyrig 1955: 37-38 and Gwyn Griffiths 1970: 324-25.

Plutarch on Isis and Osiris

203

interpretive frame. This is implicit in the very structure of the de hide. Plutarch begins with programmatic statements about a proper, philosophical approach to and cult, and then offers his own version of the myth "with all of the bar myth baric elements removed" (Is. 20.358e). Plutarch then proceeds to lead the reader levels that increase in complexity through a series of successive hermeneutic and closeness to the ultimate goal of the text: an allegorical interpretation of the myth meta and cult of Isis that accords with Plutarch's own middle-Platonic Inherent in the structure of the de Iside then, is an exemplum of the physics. ideal marriage of Egyptian cult and Greek philosophy. As the participant in the ascends to greater degrees of under cult of Isis, with the aid of philosophy, so the reader of Plutarch's text moves upwards through hermeneutic standing,
levels.

Euhemeristic

of the myth and cult, Plutarch begins with interpretations, rejecting them out of hand as a foolish evasion of truth "that quite cleverly transfers everything from gods to men" (h. 22.359d o? ?a?Xcos cctt? tcov 0Ecbv ?tt' ?vOpcOTTous UETa??pouai).36 Those who offer the After discussion ideas are in fact the Egyptians for these atheistic themselves (Is. ... Aiy?Trnoi) when ioTopouoi they say that Osiris was a general from the lowest of interpretive (oTpaTTiy?v ?von??ouaiv vOaipiv). Moving levels, Plutarch at the same time shifts from Egyptian lore to Greek philosophi cal speculation and poetic expression. With an allusion to Plato's Laws (4.716a) Plutarch dismisses men who woul claim divine honors for themselves, rounding grounds 22.359e off his charges with a verse of Empedocles (fr. 2.4 D-K).

a preliminary

identifies the next interpretive level, that of daemono Plutarch explicitly as an advance over the fallacies of Euhemerus when he says logical speculation, that it is better (?eXTiov o?v) to understand the stories about Isis, Osiris, and It is better, Typhon as describing the deeds of "great daimons" (Is. 25.360d). as we shall though not, in fact, best, to think in this way.37 The comparatives, see, suggest that these interpretations are offered at a point in the de Iside that makes no claim to ultimate interpretive authority. Whereas daemonological far speculation raises us above the atheism of Euhemerus, we are nevertheless below the metaphysical heights towards which the text is tending.

36Though at Thes. 31.4 Plutarch interprets the katabasis of Theseus inwhat are obvi
ously tions Euhemeristic in the Lives, terms. see Hardie demonology For Plutarch's use of rationalizing, Euhemeristic interpreta 1992. has been the subject of much scholarly speculation. Most

37Plutarch's

important on this subject are Brenk 1986 and Brenk 1973. See also Soury 1942 and Verni?re 1977.

204

Daniel

S. Richter

In section 32, Plutarch moves from these etymological and syncretistic to "... those who seem to have something more philosophical to say speculations from another standpoint" (Is. 32.363d ?-rr' ?XXrjs 8' ?pxns tcov (p?Xoaocc?TEp?v ti X?yeiv 8oko?vtcov). We here enter the level of very simplistic Stoic physical allegoresis. And although Plutarch still distances himself from the results of this hermeneutic the comparative here as (Soko?vtcov?note ?iXooo?coTEpov ?EXTiov before) the key interpretive concept of the treatise, philosophy, has here surfaced along with the mode of interpretation, allegoresis, (albeit ultimately on a subtler and more complicated which will ultimately inform Plutarch's level)
own claims.

does not reject allegory as such, but rather its crude, simplistic, physical application.38 One should not simply state that "Osiris is the Nile uniting with Isis as the earth" (Is. 32.363d) but instead follow the "wiser of the priests" who speak somewhat more subtly of Osiris as "the general principle and Plutarch power of moisture" (Is. 33.364a). Such a reference to a principle of nature rather than a single phenomenally occurring object allows Plutarch to raise allegorical the Egyptian Nile to discourse from the specific to general metaphysics?from process: one begins with a goal and shows how a set of steps lead to that goal. In the de Iside, Plutarch reduces the myth and given the "8EiKv?|iEva koi 8pc?[iEva" of the cult of Isis to a series of manipulable symbols whose internal, original, Egyptian, organizing logic is subsumed by the telos. That is, the three main overriding concerns of Plutarch's metaphysical and Horus?are reduced to symbols: mother, father characters?Isis, Osiris, these symbols (generative element), and offspring. Plutarch then (re)organizes so that they become mythical expressions of Plato's Timaeus and Plutarch's own is a phi scheme. The final product of this allegorical process metaphysical discourse that comprises the last half of the de Iside. losophical, metaphysical Plutarch has been preparing his reader for this allegorical process from the first section of this text. The true Isiakos is the worshipper who interprets the (sc. allegorical) manner, and symbols and myth of the cult in a philosophical "the principle of moisture." is a ideological Allegory

38For a fuller rejection of physical Stoic allegory, see Aud. 19e-f: "By forcibly dis torting (Trapa?iaCotiEvoi) these stories through what used to be called 'deepermeaning' (?TTOvoiais) but are nowadays called 'allegorical interpretations' (?XXEyopiais), some
persons of Ares say because as giving in the arms information about Aphrodite is represented births conceived the conjunction of the planet Mars with Venus portends in his course the sun returns and discovers be and when these, they cannot that the sun

in adultery kept secret."

Plutarch on Isis and Osiris

205

Plutarch has led his reader to perform precisely this task along with him in the or interpretation of the myth and symbols de hide', the allegorical manipulation of the cult is, according to the consistent, internal logic of the de Iside, what is most welcome to the goddess. This is the background those who would hermeneutics interpret the meaning that have been dismissed to the truth claim made here in the text. Contrary to of the cult of Isis according to the lower

earlier in the text, the "true" interpreta tion of the myth follows (Is. 45.369a). Because this dualistic metaphysics is true, it is universal, and it has thus been understood, or at least been available for understanding, Plutarch claims, by both Greeks and barbarians (Is. 45.369b):
?k 0EoX?ycov k?teioiv TranTr?Xaios a?Tr) te Kai e?? TTOirjT?s qnXoa?cpous 8?Ca, 8e tt?otiv ?S?oTTOTOv Ka\ tt)v Exouaa, iaxup?v 8io 0ETcbv tov, ev te Epoia?vn There has, o?k ?V X?yois Kai Oua?ais ... i??vov ?ap?apois o?8' Kai Kai Tr)v vojao ?pxr)v

Suoe?oXeitt ev te teXetoTs ?v crin?is, ?XX' Kai "EXXriai TTEpicp TroXXaxo?

therefore,

come

down

from

theologians

and

lawgivers and has in sayings

to

both poets and philosophers this ancient belief which

mous widely reports origin, but transmitted but also is given strong to barbarians and tenacious credence, not ... only and Greeks

is of anony
been and

in rites and offering-festivals

in its openness and apparent willing This statement seems almost Herodotean ness to give credence to non-Greek forms of cult?we are reminded of Herodo tus' famously relativistic statement that, "all men know equally about the gods"
(2.3.2 TT?vTas ?vOpcOTTous ?aov TTEpi a?Tcov ?TriaTao0ai). Indeed, what is al

expressed here is the belief that Greek and Egyptian divine names, myth, and cult are all equally valid reflections of the divine. The Hellenizing impulse of the de hide is, however, subtle. For we must bear in mind the central claim with which the text opens: 'EXXtjvik?vy?p t? vla(s eoti. The progress to wisdom, to truth towards which the text has led us through successively more com purging plicated hermeneutics, has been progress away from Egyptian myth?a of the myth of Isis of all its "barbaric" elements until its kernel of "Greek" truth is universal is anything but a relativ is laid bare. The assertion that this wisdom in his biography of Apollonius of Tyana istic claim. Rather, as Philostratus would later put it, "for the wise man, Hellas is everywhere" (Philostr. VA 1.34 oo?cp ?v8pi 'EXX?s Tr?vTa). Towards the end of the treatise, Plutarch makes a statement about the gods that again seems eminently ecumenical but is in fact fundamentally Plutarchan

most

206

Daniel

S. Richter

in its Hellenocentrism. assumptions

I quote this passage at length as it encapsulates of Plutarch's methods (Is. 67.377f-378a): Kai "EXXrjvas o?8?
Kai oeXt?vti Kai 8' ovoi??Cetoi Kai Kai ?XX' O?Xaoaa

the core

o?x ?T?pous Trap* ?T?pois o?8? ?ap?apous

vot?ous o?pav?s Kai mas ETTi Tr?vTa yEy?vaai ?opEious* Kai yfj cooTTEp Koiv? rjXios

tt?oiv,

?XXcos ?tt' ?XXcov, o?rrcos ?v?s X?you to? Ta?Ta

Trpovo?as ?TTiTpoTTEuo?aris ETEpai Trpoariyop?ai, o?k Kai TETayji?vcov Kai Tinai

kooi?ouvtos

SuvajjEcov ?Troupycov KOT? v?iaous Trap' ?T?pois Kai auu?oXois XP^"1"*31

Ka0iEpco|a?vois ol n?v ?nuSpo?s oi 8? TpavoT?pois,

tt?v v?riaiv ?SrjyouvTES ?kivS?vcos

?tti Ta 0??a

Nor do we regard the gods as different among different peoples nor

as barbarian sun, moon, and Greek heaven, earth and and southern and northern. sea are common to all, just as the though they are it is with the one rea But

names so various by the varying given peoples, son which orders these and the one providence which has things are assigned to eve of them, and the assistant which powers charge

different honors and modes of address exist among different rything: use hallowed to custom, and some people peoples according symbols ones directing clearer that are obscure toward the and others thought but not without divine, danger.

Plutarch further claims that, "the gods are our common heritage" (rin?v tous 0EO?S ... koivo?s) and not "peculiar to the Egyptians" (Is. 66.377c AiyuTTT?cov As Gwyn Griffiths noted, this looks very much like the kind of divine 18(ous). speaking, it is. syncretism that we find in Herodotus, and indeed, ontologically The gods of the Egyptians are in fact the gods of the Greeks. But Plutarch's words are culturally charged as well as theological, fsis and Osiris, in origin, are Greek. Plutarch's to foreign cult name, and meaning, seeming openness forms goes only so far as his philosophical interpretation of cult will allow him to the boundary of what on the one hand jibes with good to go?in other words, and poetic writings about the gods and, on the other hand, Greek philosophical supports the ultimate conclusions of Plutarch's own metaphysical speculations. to demonstrate in the de hide the presence of these Plutarch's decision ideas among the barbarians stems not from an impulse to appreciate native tra ditions on their own terms; the text is rather a Greek measuring rod according to is evaluated. The Greekness of Isis, or rather, the way which barbarian wisdom inwhich the name of Isis is understood to be Greek, emerges in the process. For the mythic contain sacred symbols that, when and cultic activities of the heion an understanding afford the philosopher/worshipper interpreted philosophically,

Plutarch on Isis and Osiris

207

of the nature of the divine. The meaning of the Egyptian symbols emerges only in the context of a Greek interpretive frame. As Isis is knowledge herself, she both embodies and is the object of the hermeneutic frame. The cultural logic of the text might be formulated in the following way: as the true hiakos is a phi is the peculiar possession of the Greeks, the true losopher and philosophy hiakos is a Hellene imbued with the philosophical training of Greek paideia. The barbaric in religion is for Plutarch both a theological and a cultural issue. In the de Iside, the barbaric elements of the myth are removed from Plu tarch's retelling in the same way as barbaric interpretations are disallowed. In the de Iside, what is barbaric and false is consistently Egyptian?in the same way, Greek authorities, This via citations from allegorical interpretation, leads the soul towards knowledge of the divine. canonical Greek

is not an idea that is confined On the contrary, in the de Superstitione tion with non-Greek

among Plutarch's works to the de Iside. Plutarch consistently equates supersti cult forms and contends that barbaric cult leads the mind to

leads the soul towards knowledge of the superstition while Greek philosophy is here characterized as a mental state produced by divine.39 Deisidaimonia emotion in which the gods are believed to exist but considered harmful, a mis apprehension of the nature of divinity that "produces the notion that good is evil" (Sup. 167e kok?v t? ?ya0?v ?Trovoouoa). Directly contrasted with deisi daimonia is a philosophical approach to religion that attempts to show that "the of God is associated with goodness, magnanimity, kindliness, majesty 167e tt)v toO 0eou oEiiv?TrjTa solicitude" i?eto xP^ot?ttitos (Sup.
HEyaXo?poa?vris Kai e?ueve?os Kai KT)8E|jov?as).40

and Kai

Plutarch equates superstitious cults and rites with those of the bar inclined forms of worship that elevate the soul are barians, those philosophically Greek. What ismore, superstitious rites that have entered the Greek world are in

Whereas

39The

most

recent

edition

of

this

text with

translation

and

commentary

is that

of

Moellering
led scholars reading this

1963. The epideictic flavor of the text and its somewhat unpolished style have
career to date in Plutarch's it early 1977: (Brenk 15). Other arguments text as a product of Plutarch's youth are based upon the "development" Plutarch's rationalism in his mature gave way years youthful ultimately for the to a

ory whereby

full-fledged, Neoplatonic demonology. See especially Volkmann 1869. Brenk 1975 pos its a good deal more continuity in Plutarch's thought than the traditional "development"
model has allowed. an all too brief treatment of Plutarch's understanding of the relationship between 40For

to ?ap?apiKOv ter 2001).

and 8Eioi8ainovia,

see Schmidt 1999: 224-34

(with my review: Rich

208

Daniel

S. Richter

166a Plutarch explains the presence origin barbarian. Indeed, at de Superstitione of these disgraceful rites in the Greek world with a passage from Euripides' evil barbarian ways" Trojan Women: "Greeks discovering (764 co ?ap?ap' ??Eup?vTEs "EXXnvEs kok?). In contrast to these rollings in the mud and debasing prostrations, we Greeks rather (Sup. 166b) to?s Oe??s ??ioOnEv ?p0cp Tcp OTOjaaTi Kai SiKa?cp TrpooE?x
EO0ai, Tas Kai nr] ... Tf]v 8' ?auTcbv Kai 0e?ov Kai prmaai TT?Tpiov 8iaoTp?<povTas ?ap?apiKoTs ??icona Tfjs Kai jaoX?vov aT?TTOis ?voiaaai t? to pray and and kotoiox?veiv EUOE?Ei'as. and just... and ances

Kai TrapavoME?v think it worthy to distort phrases of our

and not barbarous

sully

to the gods with the mouth our own tongues with and transgress

straight strange

names

disgrace

the god-given,

tral dignity

religion.

As we read on in the de Superstitione, we notice that all behavior deemed super and dirty charms, spells, rushings about, impure purifications stitious?magic sanctifications?is described as "barbarous" (Sup. 171b). The Gauls, the Scythi ans, and the Carthaginians practice the ultimate impiety of child sacrifice (171b), the Persians bury men alive (17Id), and the Egyptians wail and beat their breasts before the silent majesty of the altar (171e). Plutarch puts the matter in his Life of Sertorius. After relating the story of somewhat more succinctly how the basically rational Roman general took advantage of the native Span iards' superstitious awe of a white doe who followed him around, Plutarch con
with the gnomic statement, "e?oXcotov ei? 8Eioi8ai|jov?av E?vai ??oei t?

cludes

its very nature, "??oei," "t? ?ap?apiKOv" is easy ?ap?apiKOv" (Sert. 11.3)?by state of mind characterized as a misapprehension of prey for superstition?the the very nature of the divine.41 is not a systematic treatment of the problem of 8Eioi8aitaovia, but towards the end of the treatise Plutarch makes explicit what has been im the meaning plicit and offers several examples of how Egyptians misunderstand of their own cults of the gods and in doing so, easily fall into superstition. When The de hide the tendency of Egyptians to bewail their gods and to participate in of Colophon excessively gloomy rites, Plutarch cites with approval Xenophanes who "... rightly requested the Egyptians, if they believed in the gods, not to bewail them, and if they bewailed them, not to believe they were gods" (Is. discussing 70.379b ri?icooE tous AiyuTrr?ous, e? 0eo?s voi??Couoi, [if] 0pr|VElv, e? Se 0pr|vouoi, in their mis 0EO?S |?ti vojj?Ceiv). The Egyptians are most culpable, however,

41Schmidt 1999: 224-25.

Plutarch on Isis and Osiris

209

guided worship of animals. For they fail to understand that the animals are not sacred in and of themselves, but are rather sacred to certain deities. In contrast to this Egyptian error, Plutarch avers that (Is. 71.379d-e) ev yE to?tois Kai "EXXrjVEs |i?v y?p X?youoiv ?p0cos VOJi??oUOlV'lEp?V 'A?poS?TTlS ?cpOV E?vai TT)V TTEpiOTEp?vKOl
t?v Tfjs 'A0r]v?s Sp?KOVTa Kai t?v K?va Tfjs 'ApT?niSos, 'Ekottis ?yaXjia Kai t?v K?paKa to? 'Att?XXcovos cbs E?piTri8r|s ?coacp?pou k?cov Eary

AiyuTTT?cov 8' oi ttoXXoi 0EpaTTE?ovTEs a?T? Ta ?cpa Kai COS TTEpi?TTOVTES 0?O?S O? y?XcOTOS ji?VOVO?8? X^euaGM?? tos ?Epoupy?as, ?XX? touto ttjs a?EXTEpias KaTaTTETrXriKaoi eoti kok?v 8?Ca 8' ?|j<p?ETai Seivt) tous u?v eX?xioT?v
?a0EVE?s jaov?av. the Greeks the dove raven "a dog use the correct in these matters, and regard expressions the serpent of Athena, of Aphrodite, the as Euripides the dog of Artemis, says (fr. 968), animal an the image animals of bright themselves Hecate." and But treat most them of as Kai aK?KOus e?s ?KpaTov UTTEpE?Trouaa tt)v 8Eiai8ai

as the sacred

of Apollo, and shalt thou become, venerate

the Egyptians and scorn?this

gods, and thus not only have they involved the sacred rites in laughter
is the smallest evil resulting from their folly?but a

baneful belief becomes established which hurls the weak and inno
cent into stark superstition.

The

logic of this passage of the de Iside is entirely consistent with that of the de Superstitione: Egyptians are prone to superstition and worship the animal itself rather than the deity to whom it is sacred. The Greeks for their part interpret the ritual correctly (opOcbs) and so are possessed of a more elevated understanding of the divine. I have argued that in the de hide generally, the Egyptian cult of Isis, left is barbaric in the sense that it leads the soul uninterpreted by Greek philosophy, to a superstitious and false apprehension of the divine. Rather than attempting to raise the status of Greek philosophy by claiming that it reflects Egyptian wis

dom, I have tried to show that the de hide begins with the assumption that phi to all forms of cult, both gives meaning losophy alone, a Greek possession, Greek and barbarian. In a very important sense, this attitude runs counter to ancient Greek accounts of Egypt and in the last section of this paper I shall try to clarify the way in which the de hide might be understood as a Plutarchan re negotiation of Greek writing about Egypt.

210

Daniel

S. Richter

Post hoc ergo propter hoc? Plutarch's found fullest expression about the tradition of Greek views of Egypt is to be in the de Malignitate Herodoti.42 This is a text primarily devoted to cor recting the errors of fact that Plutarch felt Herodotus had made with respect to in the Persian Wars: Plutarch the exploits of the Boeotians and the Corinthians that he writes the text "on tells his dedicatee, an otherwise unknown Alexander, behalf of his ancestors and truth" (Mal. 1.854f ?Tr?p tc?v Trpoy?vcov ana Kai Tfjs aXr?0E?as). what In the first half of the de Malignitate Herodoti, however, Plutarch criticizes error pervading the Histories. he sees as a fundamental methodological The story of Io is the case in point: against the less than flattering version of the themselves (that Io, pregnant story that Herodotus heard from the Phoenicians

fled with Phoenician and in love, voluntarily sailors), Plutarch puts forward what he characterizes as the opinion that "all the Greeks hold" (tt?vtes "EXXtives ... vom'?ouoi), namely, that Io is divine and worshipped all over the inhabited world as a Greek goddess (Mal. 11.856e). In short, Greek thought is to be as Plutarch says (coining a preferred to barbarian thought. To do otherwise, 12.857a). Hero term),43 is the mark of a "barbarophile" (qnXo?ap?apos, Mal. error is a result of his flawed, barbarophilic cultural dotus' methodological perspective. When Plutarch comes to deal with Herodotus' claims for the origins of the cults of the Greek gods in Egypt, he is more explicit about the conse for his claim that (Mai. quences of this issue: Plutarch attacks Herodotus 13.857c)
"EXXrjvas 8? |aa0E?v Trap' AiyuTTT?cov TTonTr?s Kai Travrjy?pEis

Ka\ t? tous ScoSeko 0eo?s ae?EO0ai* Aiov?aou 8? Kai To?voua Trap' AiyuTTT?covMEX?|jTTo8a |aa0E?vKai 8i8a?ai tous aXXous
tc?v "EXXnvas' Aavaou jauoTripia 8? Ka\ T?s TTEpi ArjunTpav KO|iia0fjvai. from the Egyptians, in teXet?s ?tt? OuyaT?pcov learnt festivals ?? Aiy?Trrou and processions

the Greeks

cluding theworship of the twelve gods; that the very name (ounoma) of Dionysus was picked up from the Egyptians by Melampus who taught it to the rest of the Greeks; that the mysteries and rituals con cerning Demeter were brought from Egypt by the daughters of
Danaus.

420n the de Malignitate

ful. The most recent edition

see most recently Hershbell

is Bowen 1992.

1993. Legrand 1932 is still use in the

43Although Philodemus (Here. 994.6) had used the verb, "qnXo?ap?apiCco"

sense of "enjoying the use of linguistic barbarisms" (LSJs.v.).

Plutarch on Isis and Osiris

211

Plutarch's suspicion of non-Greek cult, present, as we have seen, in the de Iside and the de Superstitione, is here expressed inmore explicit terms. He rejects the festivals and Herodotean idea that the Greeks learnt the ounoma of Dionysus, and the worship of the twelve gods from the Egyptians. The insis processions, tence on the worship of the twelve gods is interesting. Plutarch next turns to Herodotus' Tyrian Heracleses claims for the temporal and theological priority of the Egyptian over their Greek counterpart (Mai. 13.857d): 0eo?s, "EXXnvEs 8?,
Ta?Tnv n?v airoca?vE? Trpo?0ETo 0eo?s,

and

oOs M?vAiy?TTTioi (oe?ovTai), ?Tro?aivcov

?v0pcOTTOus Tr)v KaTayEyrjpaK?Tas, ... ?XX' ?jjcos EUXa?Eiav o?oauou ?ke?vous

8' cbs ?OiT??s Kai fipcoaiv ?vayi?Eiv o?etoi 8e?v ?XX? to?tois lar] 0?Eiv cbs 0eoTs. Ta a?T? Kai TTEpi TTav?s E?priKE, Tais
AiyuTTT?cov ?yvOTaTa ?Xa?ovE?ais tg?v 'EXXtivikc?v Kai |iu0oXoy(ais t? OEiav?TaTa Ka\ ?Epcov ?vaTp?Trcov.

Those whom the Egyptians worship he declares to be gods, but those

whom should the Greek not be worship offered he declares are men who he thinks grow old and the not and reverence. ... Nevertheless, presents should

Egyptian be offered heroes.

ones he as gods whereas the Greek as gods but should be worshipped sacrifice He has said the same of Pan, overthrowing ones

as mortals the most

solemn

and holy truths of Greek religion with Egyptian myth and false pre
tensions.

Herodotus'

accounts of the relationship between Greek and Egyptian to Plutarch, stem from his sources. He has trusted what the cult, according Egyptians themselves have told him and, in so doing, has overturned "to oei?
v?TOTa Kai ?yvOTaTa tc?v 'EXXnviKcbv ?Epcov." Against the "?Xa?ovE?ai" of

erroneous

the Egyptian priests, Plutarch adduces literary tradition (Mai. 14.857e-f):

Ka?Toi tcov TraXaicov Kai Xoyicov

the venerable

authority

of the Greek

?vSpcov

o?x

"Ojaripos,

o?x

'Ha?oSos, o?k 'Apx?Xoxos, o? TTE?aavSpos, o? ?Tna?xopos, o?k 'AXkh?v, o? TT?vBapos, AiyuTTT?ou eoxov X?yov
'HpaKX?ous 'HpaKX?a And yet, t?v f\ Oo?vikos, Boic?tiov ?hou men not of ?XX* Kai ?va to?tov ?aaai tt?vtes 'ApyE?ov. not Homer, not Hesiod, not not Pindar

of

the

learned

old,

Archilochus,

not Peisander,

Stesichorus,

not Alem?n,

mentioned
one Heracles

an Egyptian or a Phoenician Heracles:

only, the Heracles of Boeotia and Argos.

they all knew of

In this passage, Plutarch directly addresses Herodotus' methodological prob lems. These problems are, moreover, largely similar to those that inform the

212

Daniel

S. Richter

cultural agenda of the de hide. Herodotus, in this instance as elsewhere,44 relies explicitly upon the information which he had gained from the Egyptian priests: "X?yco 5? t? X?youoi a?Toi Aiy?Trnoi" (2.50.2). For Plutarch, this privileging of native accounts over Greek authorities lies at the root of Herodotus' errors. in the de Iside, as I have noted, Plutarch consistently refers to Egyp Similarly, tian interpretations of their own cult as barbaric and misguided (Is. 20.358e So?as TTEpi0egov), rejecting the Egyptian stories of the dismem ?ap?apous berment of Horus and the decapitation of Isis, recalling to Clea Aeschylus' advice that when one hears such stories, one must, "spit and purify the mouth." In both the de Malignitate Herodoti and the de hide, the Greek literary tra dition is the authority in terms of which both Egyptian cult and its relationship to is to be interpreted. Whereas Greek philosophy Plutarch's privileging of the Greek literary tradition is implicit in the structure, the hermeneutic technique, and the content of the de Iside, he is far more explicit in the de Malignitate error regarding the Egyptian and the Tyrian Heracleses Herodoti. Herodotus' is made manifest by the testimony, or rather lack thereof, of the Greek epic and the lyric traditions. These men have written only of a Greek Heracles?ergo, barbarian Heracles Conclusions Throughout Plutarch's corpus, one observes a tendency to denigrate non-Greek forms of cult. This is most explicit in the de Superstitione but forms the con as well. Egyptian religion ceptual framework, I have suggested, of the de hide may be appropriated as a series of symbols and subsequently reorganized ac but this seems more metaphysics, cording to the dictates of middle-Platonic an ecumenical respect for barbarian wis indicative of cultural chauvinism than dom. This is not to say that Plutarch viewed contemporary, largely Hellenized Isism as degenerate barbarism. On the contrary, the de Iside would elevate Egyptian cult?via Platonic exegesis?to the level of holy mystery. The cultural centrism of the text, I argue, lies in the hermeneutic itself. As so in the de hide in the de Malignitate the Greek literary tradition is Herodoti, the repository of truth about the gods. In the absence of this interpretive cult remains at the level of bar frame?a Greek interpretive frame?Egyptian baric superstition. "Isis I have tried to show that this cultural hierarchy is implicit is a Greek name." To derive the name of the Egyptian renegotiates the historical relationship Greek in the statement, goddess from a cult that does not exist.

Greek word

and Egyptian

44Cf. Hdt.

1.1 for the Persian

versions

of the causes

of the war.

Plutarch on Isis and Osiris

213

Plutarch found so objectionable in the de Malignitate Herodoti. Over against the Herodotean statement that "the names of the gods came from Egypt to Greece," Plutarch claims that the name of the most important Egyptian goddess is in fact Greek. The historical and etymological arguments with which Plutarch supports this claim seem specious, but the statement is nevertheless programmatic. Tem poral priority becomes a metaphor, in a sense, for theological superiority. The de Iside would convince its readers that truth, and especially truth about the gods, is available only to those imbued with the paideia of Greek philosophy.

214 Daniel

S. Richter

Works

Cited

Armstrong,

A.

1978.

"Gnosis Jonas.

and Greek

schrift f?r Hans Betz, H. D. Bleeker, Widengren. Betz, H. D., D. Betz, 1972. S. G.

G?ttingen.

Philosophy." 87-124.

In U.

Bianchi,

ed., Gnosis:

Fest

"Ein

seltsames

F. Brandon, 347-54. Smith,

mysterientheologisches and M. Simon, eds.,

Ex

In C. J. bei Plutarch." System Orbe Religionum: Studia Geo

Leiden.

and E. W.

Jr. 1975. Theological

"De

Iside

et Osiride and

ed., Plutarch's 36-84. 1990.

Writings

Early

In H. (Moralia 351c-384c)." Christian Literature.

Leiden. Betz, H. D.

"Observations I. Hellenismus

on

some

Gesammelte

Aufs?tze

Gnosticizing und Urchristentum. come struttura

Passages T?bingen. formale

in Plutarch." 135-46. et Osiride:

In

1991. A. Borghini, Transversalit? I. Gallo, Bowen, Bowersock, Brenk, F. A. eds., J. 1992. G. W. 1973.

"La presenza paradigmatiche Strutture formali The Malice 1965. "Some Strange

del mito

nel de Iside

e operazioni dei Moralia

metasistematiche." di Plutarco. Naples.

In G. DTppolito 121-44.

and

of Herodotus. Persons Doctrine:

Warminster. in Plutarch's Daimon Moralia." in Plutarch." CQ CJ69: 15: 267-70. 1-11.

"A Most

-.
-.

1975. "FromMysticism
of Chaeroneia." 1977. Leiden. In Mist Soc. of Bib. Apparelled:

toMysticism: The Religious Development

Lit. Sem. Papers Religious 1: 193-98. Themes in Plutarch's Moralia

of Plutarch
and Lives.

-.

1986.

"In

the Light

of

the Moon:

Demonology

in the Early

Imperial

Period."

ANRW2A6: 2068-145.
-. 1999. Jim?nez, Madrid. "'Isis J. G. 227-38. is a Greek L?pez, and Word': R. M. Plutarch's Aguilar, Allegorization eds., Plutarco, of Egypt." Plat?n y In A. P.

Arist?teles.

Casadio, G. 1991. "Strategia delle citazioni nel de Iside et Osiride: Un plat?nico greco di
fronte a una cultura religiosa 'altra.'" In G. DTppolito and I. Gallo, eds., Strutture

-.
-.

formali dei Moralia di Plutarco. Naples. 257-72. 1994. "Il concetto di religione nel de Iside et Osiride di Plutarco." InU. Bianchi,
ed., The Notion 1996. religione. Cavalli, M. of Religion in Grecia 201-28. Iside et Osiride. Milan. in Comparative e Dioniso Research. in Egitto." Rome. 355-68. ed., Plutarco e la "Osiride Naples. 1985. De In I. Gallo,

Chiodi, M.
Osiride." Plutarco.

1991. "L'uso del riferimento mitol?gico

In G. Naples. DTppolito 145-50. and I. Gallo, eds.,

nella filosof?a del de Iside et

Strutture formali dei Moralia di

Plutarch on Isis and Osiris

215

-.

1996. et Osiride." Cook, Dawson, R. M. D.

verso di Plutarco le religioni "L'atteggiamento e la religione. In I. Gallo ed., Plutarco Naples. "Amasis Allegorical and the Greeks Readers in Egypt." and Cultural JHS

vicino 229-38.

orientali

nel de Iside

1937. 1992.

57: 227-36. in Ancient Alexandria.

Revision

Berkeley. Dillon, -. J. 1977. 1989. Classical Dunand, F. The Middle "Plutarch Mediterranean 1973. Le culte Platonists: and Second Spirituality. d'his dans A Study ofPlatonism Platonism." 214-29. oriental de la M?diterran?e. 3 vols. 80 B.C. to A.D. 220. In A. H. London. ed.,

Century London. le bassin

Armstrong,

Leiden. Feldmeier, H. R. K?hler, 1998. und Priester: Plutarch "Philosoph and A. M. Ritter, eds., Mousopolos 412-25. Heidelberg. "? propos "Le de hide offertes ? Mgr. des ar?tologies d'Isis." als Theologe." Stephanos. In M. Baumbach, f?r Herwig

Festschrift

G?rgemanns. Festugi?re, Froidefond, A. C.

J. 1949. 1986.

HThR

42: 209-34. In Energeia: ?tudes

aristot?liciennes -. 1987. -. 1988. Graf. F. 1996.

et Aristotelianism." de Plutarque Antonio Jannone. Paris. 278-92. ANRW2.36.1: 184-233.

"Plutarque Isis et Osiris.

et le Platonism." Paris.

"Plutarco

e la religione

romana."

In I. Gallo,

ed., Plutarco

e la religione.

Naples. Griffiths, -. Hani, -. Hardie, Hartog, -. Hershbell, P. F.

269-84. J. Gwyn. 1970. Plutarch's of his en face de and Iside et Osiride. Leiden. iranien." la pens?e REG 11: 489-525. Paris. 4743-87. Swansea.

1980. The Origins J. 1964. "Plutarque

her Cult.

du dualisme dans

1976. La religion 1992. 1986. "Plutarch "Les Grecs

?gyptienne and

de Plutarque.

the Interpretation

of Myth."

ANRW23?.6: 41: 953-67. en Gr?ce An ancienne.

?gyptologues." R?cits sur

Ann?conSocCiv lafronti?re in Timaeo:

1996. M?moire J. 1987.

d'Ulysse:

Paris. of Structure and

"De Animae

Content." -. 1993. Hey ob, S. K. Hopfner, Jones, Kees, Laks, T. C. P. H. A.,

ANRW2.36.1: "Plutarch

procreatione 234^47.

Analysis

and Herodotos: of his ?ber Isis among

The Beetle Women

in the Rose."

RhM

136:

143-63. Leiden.

1975. The Cult 1940. Plutarch 1966. "Towards

in the Graeco-Roman Prague. Works." JRS

World.

und Osiris.

a Chronology tf? 16.2 cols.

of Plutarch's 1952-66. on the Derveni

56: 61-74.

1935.

"Naukratis." eds.

and G. Most, R.

1997. Studies

Papyrus.

Oxford. Reading and the

Lamberton, Growth

1986. Homer

of the Epic

the Theologian: Tradition. Berkeley.

Neoplatonist

Allegorical

216 Daniel

S. Richter

1932. Legrand, 2: 535-47. Malaise, Italic Mette, H. M.

"De

laMalignitate

d'H?rodote."

M?langes

Gustave

Glotz.

2 vols.

Paris.

1972. Leiden.

Les

conditions

de p?n?tration

et de diffusion

des

cultes

?gyptiens

en

J. 1959. Die

Fragmente

der Trag?dien

des Aischylos.

Berlin. Meaning

H. A. Moellering, of Deisidaimonia

1963. Plutarch's and

in the Context and

in the Changing Its Place de Superstitione: Boston. of his Theological Writings. Fiction in Plutarch's Lives." In D.

1990. C. B. R. "Truth Pelling, Antonine Literature. Oxford. -. 1992. Tradition. "Plutarch London.

Russell,

ed.,

19-52. In P. Stadter, ed., Plutarch and the Historical

and Thucydides." 10-40. de

A. 1990. "El mito P?rez-Largacha, G. del Cero Calder?n, eds., 195-201. Richter, Schmidt, D. T. S. 2001. Review

Isis y Osiris sobre

en Plutarco." Plutarco: Obra

In A. y

P?rez

Jim?nez

and

Estudios

tradici?n.

Malaga.

of Schmidt

1999. Forthcoming La rh?torique JHS Syria "'Who

in Ploutarkhos. d'une image. Louvain.

1999. Plutarque P. D. "Venus 1909.

et les Barbares: "De Iside

Scott-Moncrieff, Seyrig, Smelik, H. 1955.

et Osiride." obnupto." 1984.

29: 79-90. 32: 37-38. knows not what monsters demented

lugens

capite

K. A. D.,

and E. A. Hemelrijk. of Egypt." among

Egypt worships?' Opinions on Egyptian Animal Worship

Ancient Solmsen, Soury, G. F. Conception 1979. 1942. Isis ANRW2A1A: and Romans. Plutarque. Paris. the Roman Ph.D. et diss., 1852-2000. Cambridge, sur the Greeks

inAntiquity as Part of the

Mass. id?es religieuses et les

mythes Swain, Vasunia, Verni?re, S.

de La d?monologie d'un platonicien ?clectique. "Hellenic Culture and

Essai

les

1990. P.

Heroes Stanford dans

of Plutarch." University. de

JHS

110:

126-45.

1995. Hellenizing Y. 1977.

Egypt.

Symboles philosophique

d'interpr?tation Volkmann, Berlin. Witt, R. E. 1971. Isis R. 1869.

mythes et religieuse

la pens?e Paris. des

Plutarque.

Essai

des Moralia

Leben,

Schriften,

und Philosophie

Plutarch

von

Chaeronea.

in the Greco-Roman

World.

London.