II—
Egyptian Sources
Greek ambivalence about Egypt stretches back to the classical period.[2] The manifest antiquity of the country and its monuments inspired general reverence and willingness to regard its priests as repositories of the wise traditions of an ideal civilization. Popular belief fathered Egyptian travels and education on the earliest and the most important bards and sages: Diodorus's list, for example, begins with Orpheus, Musaeus, Melampus, and Daedalus, runs through Homer and Lycurgus, and on to Solon, Plato, Pythagoras, Eudoxus, Democritus, and Oenopides.[3] Plato validated his story of Atlantis by claiming that Solon heard it in Egypt (Tim . 21C–23D). Solon finds that the Egyptians know more than the Greeks about ancient Greece; a priest explains that the Nile spares Egypt from the fires and floods that periodically destroy the rest of the world, so that while Greek memory extends childlike only to the most recent destruction, the Egyptians know the whole continuum. Herodotus praised the Egyptians as "cultivating the memory of all men, by far the best versed in stories of any men I have encountered" (2.77.1). They corroborated them against the Ionian geographers (2.10–18). Legends of the Greek sages' debt to Egypt were still current in late antiquity (e.g., Amm. Marc. 22.19–22).
At the same time, the zoomorphic gods of Egypt and their cults impressed the Greeks and Romans as the most ignorant superstition. Ac-
[1] General cautions of this nature are formulated by Russell and Wilson 1981, xxxi–xxxiv, and E. R. Curtius, European Literature and the Latin Middle Ages , trans. W. Trask, Bollingen Series 36 (New York 1953), 444.
[2] This section is in part adapted from Long 1987.
[3] Diod. 1.96.2, with more details, 1.96–98. Other references may be found, for example, at Hdt. 1.30, 2.177; Pl. Pol. 290D-E; Leg. 747A; Arist. Pol. 1329c40ff.; Plut. De Is. et Os. 345D-E, 364C-D; on the tradition in general cf. W. K. C. Guthrie, Orpheus and Greek Religion (London 1935), 46.
cording to Plutarch, Xenophanes criticized the Egyptians for treating their crops as gods;[4] Plutarch himself condemned them for worshipping animals.[5] Herodotus ambivalently termed them "the most excessively (
Egyptian superstition became a cliché of the Greco-Roman world.[6] In later antiquity Sallustius still condemned Egyptian materialism in interpreting myth.[7] Porphyry criticized theurgy, a derivative in part of Egyptian magic, in the Letter to Anebo , to which Iamblichus replied in the persona of another Egyptian savant, Abammon, in De mysteriis Aegyptiorum . Typically, Porphyry objected that Egyptian traditions reduced everything to physical causes.[8] Iamblichus devotes his attention more to developed philosophical theurgy than to its Egyptian antecedents; what he does discuss, like Plutarch in De Iside et Osiride , he sanitizes by insisting on symbolic interpretation.[9]
Thus despite the superior antiquity of Egyptian lore in Greek eyes, its religion had to be redeemed by interpretation. In his opening words Synesius sounds a note of paradox: "The story is Egyptian. Egyptians are extraordinarily wise (
). So perhaps this story, even though it is only a story, might hint at something more than a story because it is Egyptian" (89A). He goes out of his way to claim an ambiguous authority (
[4] De Is. et Os. 379B, De superst. 171D–E, Amat. 763C–D.
[5] De Is. et Os. 379D–E. He discusses various aspects of the phenomenon at great length in the following chapters to 382C; see the commentary of Griffiths (1970), particularly on the Egyptian revival of animal worship from about 700 B.C. for which he supplies references (554 n. 3).
[6] E.g., Cic. Tusc. 5.27.78, Rep. 3.14, Nat. d. 1.36.101; Tac. Hist. 1.11; Juv. 15.1–13; in comparison Strabo is remarkably matter-of-fact about Egyptian animal worship, but even he finds it remarkable that their temples contain "no statue, or rather not one of a human shape, but of one of the unreasoning animals" (17.1.28). Isocrates in Busiris 24–27 goes as far as he can to find Egyptian piety praiseworthy: he notes that the animal-gods are not really divine, but their worship trains the Egyptians in obedience. A more detailed survey of the contradictory Greek and Roman attitudes to Egyptian civilization and religion may be found in J. Geffcken, Zwei griechische Apologeten (Leipzig and Berlin 1907), ix–xi; for a very full collection of hostile passages, see J. E. B. Mayor's commentary on Juvenal 15 (Thirteen Satires of Juvenal , vol. 2, 3d ed. [London and Cambridge 1881], 355–400).
[7] De diis 4, p. 6.2–10 Nock.
[8] E.g., apud Iambl. Myst. 268.5–6.
[9] For example, at Myst. 250.7–12, introducing his discussions of mud, lotus, barque, and zodiac.
[10] See LSJ, s.v.
story is something that men "will pore over with a craving to know what will be" (128B). But at the beginning, its Egyptianness implicitly challenges readers to unravel the mystical tease.
An additional, fundamental appeal of Egypt was as a pleasantly exotic setting. It was frequently a venue of the Hellenistic and later Greek romances, which capitalized on and perpetuated its image as a home to all sorts of fantastic adventure.[11] Synesius thus appealed to a broad and varied tradition.
The story of Typhos's murder of Osiris and dispersal of his limbs, Isis's quest for the body of her husband, and her and Horus's overthrow of Typhos was the central myth of the Isiac religion popular throughout the Hellenistic and Roman world and still well known in Christian times.[12] Synesius could expect the names alone to identify his mythic background.
In Greco-Roman antiquity, the myth was narrated most fully in Plutarch's essay De Iside et Osiride .[13] Plutarch was Synesius's primary source. He begins with an aetiology of the five epagomenal days of the Egyptian calendar, on which Rhea (Nut) gives birth successively to Osiris, Aroueris "the elder Horus," Typhos,[14] Isis, and Nephthys. At Osiris's birth, a prophetic voice proclaims: "The lord of all has come into the light!" At once, Osiris is king. He first civilizes the Egyptians, introducing agriculture, laws, and religion; later, he travels throughout the world bestowing the same benefits. While he is away, Isis rules Egypt. Her vigilance forestalls Typhos, but on Osiris's return Typhos forms a
[11] The fanciful element is all the stronger if, as Tomas Hägg argues (1983, 96–101), the claim of Egyptian ancestry for the Greek romance is weak; against B. P. Reardon ("The Greek Novel," Phoenix 23 [1969]: 291–309). Heliodorus, pausing to explain the festival for the Nile inundation that figures in his narrative, notes, like Plutarch, that the Egyptians identified Isis with the earth and Osiris with the Nile, and echoes Herodotus in his refusal to reveal the substance concealed in their mysteries and fables: (Ethiop. 9.9.6–10.2; Plut. De Is. et Os. 363D). Griffiths (1970) cites ad loc. also Lydus Mens. 4.45; Porph. apud Euseb. Praep. evang. 3.11.51; Euseb. Praep. evang. 3.3.11; Hdt. 2.171.1 (as A. B. Lloyd 1987 notes ad loc., the importation of mystery into the Egyptian rites was the product of Greek syncretism of Isis with Demeter; thus Heliodorus's reference places him within the Greek rather than the authentic Egyptian tradition).
[12] For references and discussions relating particularly to the Christian period, see F. Solmsen, Isis among the Greeks and Romans (Cambridge, Mass. 1979); A. Alföldi, A Festival of Isis in Rome under the Christian Emperors of the IVth Century (Budapest 1937); F. Zimmermann. Die ägyptische Religion nach der Darstellung der Kirchenschriftseller und die ägyptischen Denkmäler (Paderborn 1912).
[13] Particularly 355D–358E, though some other details may be gleaned from the rest of the discussion. See in general J. Gwyn Griffiths's excellent edition and commentary (1970).
[14] Typhon in Plutarch's text, but for clarity we use Synesius's form of the name throughout.
conspiracy with seventy-two men and the Ethiopian queen Aso. He secretly measures Osiris's body and prepares a beautiful chest to fit exactly. He tricks Osiris into getting into it; at once the conspirators nail it shut and throw it into the Nile. It washes out to sea through the Tanitic mouth. Hearing from Pans and Satyrs of Typhos's actions, Isis sets forth after the chest. Her quest contains the major aetiologies of the Isiac religion and occupies the greater part of Plutarch's narrative with its vicissitudes. When Isis finally finds Osiris's body, Typhos tears it apart and scatters it. Isis seeks out the pieces again and establishes the worship of Osiris throughout Egypt. Osiris then comes from the Underworld to help train Horus for his combat with Typhos. He asks Horus what animal he considers most helpful in battle, and is surprised when Horus chooses the horse rather than the lion. Horus explains that the lion will help one who is in need of aid, but that with a horse one can rout one's enemy and destroy him utterly. Osiris approves. Meanwhile, Typhos's side suffers many defections, including that of his concubine Thoueris. After a battle of many days, Horus defeats Typhos and binds him; Isis releases him, enraging Horus. Next Typhos charges Horus with bastardy, but Hermes (Thoth) defends him, and the gods judge him legitimate. Typhos is finally defeated in two further battles. At the end, Isis gives birth to Harpocrates, whom Osiris fathered posthumously.[15]
In outline at least, this will have been the myth with which Synesius's audience was familiar. He takes over the basic plot, though modifying it to suit his own purposes. Gradually it becomes apparent that Synesius has reversed the order of the brothers' births (90A, C). The change is not wholly gratuitous: in a travesty of philosophical argumentation Typhos's wife justifies his usurpation to the barbarian general's wife because he is the elder (110A).[16] But otherwise Synesius seems to derive no advantage from his change; and the explanation may simply be that Caesarius was older, as might be inferred in any case from the dates of his and Aurelian's careers.
Where in Plutarch an oracular voice proclaimed Osiris's kingship at his birth (De Is. et Os. 555E), Synesius elevates him from his probation in junior offices through the civic mechanism of the election. But he retains the divine voice too. The election's basic structure presupposes indirect divine influence, through the predominance accorded the priests and the outgoing king; it accommodates direct participation by the gods in the event of a tie at the human level (94C–95B). But now the gods put off their customary restraint. Even though the human vote would have
[15] Harpocrates' lameness indicates that Osiris does not return to the full potency he enjoyed in life.
[16] Cf. Pl. Tim. 34C.
been unanimous for Osiris in any case, the gods join in, visibly, from the very first, marking their special favor. And when the victorious Osiris is greeted by a joyous procession of all the participants, "immediately, great signs from heaven and auspicious divine voices and every minor and major omen by which the future is traced proclaimed the good tidings of the new reign to the Egyptians" (96A). Synesius amplifies by adding other omens, but the Plutarchean detail still plays its part.
For the primordial civilization provided by Plutarch's Osiris Synesius substitutes general benefaction, philosophically emphasizing encouragement of virtue and, characteristically, rhetorical education in particular (103C). Isis, for whom no contemporary counterpart could be found, has no role in De providentia: her interregnum, as well as her quest, is eliminated, and Synesius moves directly into Typhos's plot. Its mechanisms are based on contemporary events and invective motifs rather than on Plutarch's narrative, but the fact that he too assigns a crucial role to a woman helps integrate Synesius's departures into the fabric of the myth.
Synesius's and Plutarch's versions of Typhos's plot move in parallel steps. Synesius's Osiris surrenders to his brother voluntarily (111A), just as Plutarch's voluntarily gets into the chest (De Is. et Os. 356C). Each is at once confined, the one by a guard and the other in the chest. Synesius's Typhos demands Osiris's death, where Plutarch's evidently achieves it; then Synesius's Osiris is exiled from the country (111B) and Plutarch's is carried in the chest down the Nile and out the Tanitic mouth to Byblos (De Is. et Os. 356C, 357A). Synesius's Osiris too crosses water, to face the barbarian assembly that will determine his fate (111A).[17]
At the end of book I Synesius looks forward to the end of the myth, when Typhos is defeated by Osiris's son Horus and Osiris is post-humously vindicated. Such an ending has important implications for Synesius's contemporary polemic, which we will discuss later. Here it is enough to note that Synesius's closing words are intelligible only in light of the myth. Horus had previously figured in Synesius's narrative only in the service of a moral contrast between Osiris's wife and Typhos's (105D). Synesius never says explicitly that Horus will contend with Typhos, let alone win back his father's kingdom. These hopes can only be inferred by an audience that already knows the mythic action. Having seen some confirmation of the predictions he has received from the god, the rustic philosopher "waited, now understanding what was to happen about Osiris in the near future, as well as in the years yet to come, when Osiris's son Horus would decide to select the wolf, rather than the lion,
[17] Gaïnas was in fact in Chalcedon, across the Hellespont from Constantinople, when he demanded Aurelian's exile: Socr. HE 6.6; Soz. HE 8.4.5; Zos. 5.18.
for his ally. The identity of the wolf is a sacred tale that it would be irrelevant to expound, even in the form of a myth" (115B). As in Plutarch, Horus faces a choice of animals as his ally, but here a choice between a lion and a wolf instead of the horse that was an important element in the genuine Egyptian Horus's iconography.[18] Synesius underlines this puzzling discrepancy with his emphatic mysteriousness here, and again in the introduction to his later republication of both parts of De providentia , where he identifies their division as coming at "the riddle of the wolf" (88A). Obviously it was a device with which he was particularly pleased. The solution to the riddle is to be found in the parallel narrative of the myth preserved for us by Diodorus: "They say that when Isis along with her son Horus was about to contend with Typhos, Osiris came from Hades to aid his child and wife, likened in appearance to a wolf" (1.88.6). The wolf represents a variant tradition of the myth, which Synesius has conflated with his major source to produce a purely literary puzzle.[19]
Synesius's original conception allowed Osiris to return to the scene as no more than a shadowy "wolf" assisting a new successor, Horus. No such successor had appeared when Aurelian unexpectedly returned from exile and into the focus of Synesius's hopes for restored tax benefits. Synesius was forced to depart from the myth radically if his story was not to "be left incomplete with the story of misfortunes" (88B). He brought Osiris back. But since Aurelian was not restored to office, the violation of the myth left him very little to say. And indeed the second half of book 2 trails off lamely into vague moralizing meditations and invocations of mystery. Synesius does give a vivid picture of the riot that precipitated the massacre and rout of the Goths, which naturally owes nothing to the myth. And in attempting as far as possible to suggest that Typhos suffered some defeat, he returns to the myth with Typhos's trial and acquittal. Since Synesius had a returned Osiris to deal with, and no Horus, the myth's question of legitimate succession to Osiris could not be made to apply. But Synesius does preserve the motif of defections of former close allies from the losing side, a verdict of the gods against Typhos, and his subsequent release by the mercy of the good party against justice.[20] Typhos's ultimate defeat and deposition (De Is. et Os . 358D) could be left for the vaguer anticipation of "the remaining days, the wisest witnesses" (De providentia 129A). Thus even in the necessarily
[18] See Griffiths 1970, 345–47, and references there.
[19] This position is argued at length by Long (1987), against traditional attempts to invest the wolf with historical significance and make the riddle into a practical political suggestion. Such attempts have always failed to satisfy, precisely because Synesius's political milieu did not admit of any such solution. See also below, chapter 8, section II.
[20] Plut. De Is. et Os . 358D; defections: De providentia 122D–123A, gods' judgment: 123B, merciful release: 124A (by Osiris rather than by Isis); see discussion above, pp. 194–95.
more loosely integrated book 2, the myth supplied Synesius with his basic structures.
Egyptian material also informs the narrative in smaller details. For example, the father of Typhos and Osiris "was king and priest and sage. Egyptian tales say that he was also a god. For the Egyptians believe that thousands of gods were their kings one after another, before the land was ruled by men and the kings' descent was traced, Peiromis from Peiromis" (93D). This passage exactly reproduces the substance of Herodotus 2.144, reporting the priestly tradition that before human kings and high priests the gods had ruled Egypt. One of them was always supreme, and the last was Horus, the son of Osiris, who reigned after deposing Typhos. This much relates directly to Synesius's story. Just to mark his source, he adds from Herodotus's immediately preceding discussion of the high priests their descent "Peiromis from Peiromis."[21]
The baris (
[21] Herodotus's gloss "'Piromis' means in Greek kalos kagathos[*] " (2.143) had given the term particular prominence.
[22] FGrH IIIa.264, with Murray 1970, 141–71.
[23] The religious theme of posthumous judgment also influences Synesius's conception of the trial of Typhos; cf. above.
[24] In Plutarch Osiris is washed down the Nile, also in a larnax that crosses water. It is not surprising that funerary usage should recollect Osirian myth; throughout the extensive material Griffiths has assembled (see his bibliography), both Egyptian and Greco-Roman, they are closely connected.
[25] The possible implications of the doublet are unfortunately not addressed by A. Burton, Diodorus Siculus Book I , EPRO 39 (Leiden 1972), though she rejects the traditional view that Diodorus simply abbreviated Hecataeus.
Herodotus explains, simply the Egyptian name for a type of cargo boat,[26] with both religious and mundane uses (e.g., Hdt. 2.41.4–6; 2.179). Greek authors adopted the term, sometimes with and sometimes apparently without ethnological force.[27] But the one other boat Synesius mentions in the De providentia , that in which the betrayed Osiris "crosses the river" to face the barbarian assembly (111A), he designates a holkas rather than a baris . The details cluster suggestively, but they do not fall neatly into place with Diodorus as they do with Herodotus. Nowhere in his works does Synesius show similarly close verbal ties.[28] He does, however, seem to distinguish the baris here. The simplest hypothesis is that Hecataeus is their common source, and it is Diodorus who has blurred some more overt echo by which Synesius would have identified it.[29]
Synesius certainly advertised his use of Plutarch. In De Iside et Osiride , for example, Osiris's first acts as king give the benefits of civilization to the formerly wild Egyptians: "Later he traversed and civilized all the world, with very little need of arms; he attached the majority to himself by charming them with persuasion and reason, along with all song and poetry" (356A–B). In Synesius's rendering, Osiris "immediately strove to banish evils from the land, without making any use of force. Instead, he sacrificed to Persuasion and the Muses and the Graces and brought all men willingly into accord with the law" (De providentia 102D). "Sacrifice to the Graces" as an image for eloquence was a long-standing commonplace of the Platonic tradition;[30] similarly, Dio Chrysostom invokes "Persuasion and the Muses and Apollo" in a proemium (Or . 1.10). But the shared motif of persuasion by art instead of force, appearing at the same point in the plot, unmistakably points to Plutarch. At the corresponding stage of Diodorus's briefer narrative, Osiris is again a universal civilizer but in contrast collects "a great army" before setting forth.[31]
[26] Hdt. 2.96, where he describes its construction and handling. A. B. Lloyd's commentary, Herodotus Book II , 3 vols., EPRO 43 (Leiden 1975–87), ad loc. offers extensive Egyptological and nautical detail, with further references. Cf. also Griffiths 1970, 339–40, ad De Is. et Os . 358A, which says that Isis used a baris made of papyrus to sail through the marshes looking for the pieces of Osiris's body.
[27] E.g., Aesch. Supp . 836, 873; Pers . 553 (apparently the earliest: Lloyd ad Hdt. 2.60); cf. the references in LSJ, s.v.
[28] Crawford (1901, 528) could find only two echoes of Diodorus, neither in De providentia , neither from the Egyptian book, and both questionable in any case; A. Hauck, Welche griechischen Autoren der klassichen Zeit kennt und benützt Synesius von Cyrene ? (Mecklenburg 1911) did not include Diodorus.
[29] Alternatively, of course, Synesius could have taken his Hecataean details from a different compilation now lost.
[30] E.g., Eunap. VS 458.3; D.L. 4.6; Plut. Con. praec . 141F.
[31] Murray (1970) follows Jacoby in considering Diodorus to have taken 1.17.1–20.6 from a source other than Hecataeus. These details would not be unsuitable for Hecataeus,however, since they assimilate the god to the model of Alexander. Synesius's restriction of Osiris's activity to "Egypt" is not a significant departure.
These reminiscences were for Synesius not merely ornamental. They were also meant to be conspicuous tokens identifying his sources and authenticating his work as a whole. It is a familiar technique of the novelist to mix fact with fiction in such a way that the authentic details will lend conviction to the balance of the tale. The fact that Synesius draws authentic information from sources besides Plutarch gives him license to "correct" Plutarch in other details as well. Alert readers were meant to recognize the technical elegance with which he reformulated his information.[32] "Peiromis from Peiromis" stands intact, a bright jewel from a foreign setting; but no less conspicuous is the refinement of Plutarch's naturalistic narrative in Osiris's sacrifice "to Persuasion and the Muses and the Graces."
Other Egyptian material is woven in more subtly, as for example in the royal election. The culturally authentic detail from which Synesius builds this fantastic legitimation of his Osiris's rule gives it a surprisingly plausible appearance.[33] The arrangement of voters embodies an outline of the Egyptian social hierarchy given by Herodotus and Diodorus:[34] the first citizens were the priests, just below them the warriors, and then other people. The hill on which they are ranked matches the social divisions perfectly (94C). Egypt does in fact possess many stepped contours of this type, produced naturally by erosion.[35] One hill perfectly fitting Synesius's description, right down to the "nipple" at its summit, is located near Thebes, above the Valley of the Kings.[36] Anyone who had traveled in Egypt might well be reminded of such a remarkable feature. The social hierarchy is implicit again in Plutarch's remark that the kings of Egypt were created from among the priests or the warriors and that a warrior so appointed straightaway became a priest as well.[37] It may have been this remark that inspired Synesius to make the brothers' father a
[32] It is, of course, another question how many of Synesius's original readers fully appreciated the work in its own terms. Hardly bureaucrats like Aurelian himself, but perhaps such as Anastasius, Marcian, Nicander, Pylaemenes, Theotimus, and Troïflus, Synesius's literary friends briefly evoked in chapter 2, section I.
[33] Its details might be recognized as dramatic coloring, but somehow under their cloak the central claim has crept into belief unchallenged: e.g., citing Synesius simply, Bury (1923) 1958, 132: "[Gaïnas] failed to secure the appointment of Typhos. The post was given to Aurelian, and this was a triumph for the anti-German party."
[34] Hdt. 2.164–68; Diod. 1.73–74.
[35] F. El-Baz, Smithsonian 12.1 (April 1981): 116–22, particularly photographs on pp. 118 and 120.
[36] See, for example, the photograph on pp. 8–9 of I. E. S. Edwards, Tutankhamun: His Tomb and Its Treasures (New York 1976).
[37] De Is. et Os . 354B, based in turn on Pl. Plt . 290E; see Griffiths 1965, 156–57.
priest as well as king and sage (93D); it also gave an Egyptian basis for Osiris's initiation into kingship. Synesius takes care to ascribe military skill to Osiris in his youth, but even so he required a further stage in his spiritual education.[38]
At other points, Synesius legitimates his tale by inventing aetiologies for authentic Egyptiana. The taboo days of the Egyptians were generally familiar: Xenocrates wrote about them, Plutarch notes that the birthday of Typhos was among them, and Augustine refers to them simply as dies Aegyptiaci .[39] The Egyptians' mournful rituals were also common knowledge.[40] Synesius connects the two usages with the "exile of Osiris" of his own story and names it picturesquely "the Taboo Days of Holy Tears" (111A). It makes a plausible festival not expressly attested in authentic tradition. The images that "those to whom it is permitted" see moving on these days may owe some of their obscurity to a textual corruption;[41] but they suggest the Egyptian processions of cult statues or the oracles that the statues might give by moving.[42] But these were all public events, to which the suggestion of a restricted audience is alien. This further development derives from Neoplatonic theurgy, with the practice of divination by dedicating and animating statues of the gods.[43] Naturally the specifics were known only to initiates.[44] These rites were believed to have their roots in Egyptian magic,[45] but in Synesius's elevated context a suggestion of philosophy claims priority. Synesius's con-
[38] Military skill: 91D–92A; Synesius drops the military element (also tied to panegyric, through a common background of kingship theory) in his later characterization of Osiris, as befitted Aurelian's civilian career.
[39] Xenocrates is referred to by Plutarch in De Is. et Os . 361B, Typhos in 356A; August. Expos. Gal. 35 = PL 35.2130; cf. CIL 1.374, 411–12; Marin. V.Procl. 19, p. 16 Boissonade; schol. in Luc. Tim . 43, p. 117.14 Rabe; see further A. Bouché-Leclercq, Lastrologie[*] grecque (Paris 1899), 485–86; H. Webster, The Rest Days (1916), 295–97; L. Thorndike, A History of Magic and Experimental Science , vol. 1 (New York 1923; reprint, 1943), 685–89 (principally on their continued attestation in medieval texts, but with general discussion too); F. Boll, C. Bezold, and W. Gundel, Sternglaube and Sterndeutung , 4th ed. (Leipzig 1931), 184, 186–87.
[40] E.g., Hdt. 2.85, 171; Diod. 1.83.5; Plut. De Is. et Os . 366E; Firm.Mat. Err.prof.rel. 8.3; Orph. Argon . 32; August. De civ.d. 6.10; Arn. Adv.nat . 1.36.
[41] See Cameron, Long, Sherry 1988, 59–60.
[42] Processions of cult statues: e.g., Hdt. 2.63; Apul. Met . 11. On the oracles the statues might give: Luc. Syr.d. 36; for further background see A Saite Oracle Papyrus from Thebes , ed. R. A. Parker (Providence 1962), particularly chap. 6 (by J. Cerny).
[43] Attested principally by Proclus, e.g., In Tim . 1.51.25, 3.6.12, 3.155.18 (Festugière compares the Hermetic Asclepius 24, p. 326.9ff. Nock-Festugière), presumably drawing in some degree on the Telestica and Chaldaean Oracles of Julianus; certainly the practice was known earlier, for example, to the emperor Julian's mentor Maximus of Ephesus, whom Eunapius credits with making a statue of Hecate laugh and the torches in her hands light spontaneously (VS 475). See E. R. Dodds, The Greeks and the Irrational (Berkeley 1951), app. 2.
[44] As Proclus remarks, In Tim . 1.273.11.
[45] Euseb. Praep.evang . 10.4.4—hardly an unprejudiced witness.
nection of mystery with the "sufferings of Osiris" may also recall Herodotus 2.174. Herodotus identifies the enactment of these "sufferings" with the "mysteries" of the Egyptians, but since they are mysteries, he refuses to discuss them further. If slight at a verbal level, the echo is certainly apposite. The "Days of Holy Tears" are an even subtler web of allusions than the royal election.
Synesius reuses from De regno his interpretation of the Egyptian biform figures of Hermes and Sphinx as icons of the ruler's proper combination of power and mind;[46] again, and fully within the repertory of Greek philosophical devices, common images are invested with a convenient significance.
More casually deployed but more immediately tendentious allusions include the "holy animal" like whom Osiris feels a philosopher ought to be free from mundane duties in order to dedicate himself to god (104–AB). Greek authors were virtually obsessed with Egyptian animal worship;[47] Synesius takes the philosophically proper position that the animals are "holy" for the sake of the god.[48] The obvious implication of this expression of piety is confirmed when Synesius describes Osiris's benefactions to the "rustic philosopher," his own self-portrait, in terms of release from public service (
There are two groups Synesius carefully excludes from even watching the royal election, swineherds and foreign mercenaries (94A). He claims that both made up Typhos's party, but only the foreigners actually figure in the narrative. Swineherds nowhere reappear. It is simply the fact of their exclusion that is grounded in tradition. According to Herodotus, so unclean do the Egyptians consider the pig that swineherds, even native Egyptians, are alone barred from entering temples.[50]
[46] De providentia 101B–C, nearly identical with De regno 7B–C.
[48] Cf. Plut. De Is. et Os . 382A; Sallust. De diis 4, p. 6.6–8 Nock, with p. xlviii.
[49] For Synesius's use of this theme, see above, chapter 3, section II; for Hecataeus, Murray 1970, 161–62.
Synesius's source is clear; and no less clear the fact that he introduces the swineherds solely to contaminate the foreigners. Thus he transfers another age's prejudice to his own, for his own ends.
Finally, the tokens the rustic philosopher recognizes "engraved on obelisks and sacred precincts" (114C) are of course the hieroglyphic writing everywhere conspicuous on Egyptian walls and stelae. The obelisk of Theodosius in the hippodrome of Constantinople would have kept this image present even for the least cultivated of Synesius's audience.[51] But the engravings had meaning too: they are perennially the form for recording ancient Egyptian knowledge. Herodotus provides a banal example in the pyramid inscription he was told recorded the quantity of radishes, onions, and garlic consumed by the laborers who built it.[52] Diodorus reports that only the priestly caste possessed knowledge of the hieroglyphic script, passing it down from father to son (3.3.5). Plutarch frequently discusses hieroglyphics, treating them as metaphorical ideograms.[53] Ammianus more correctly notes that they were partly alphabetical but also could stand for single words or whole thoughts (17.4.10); he characterizes them as "marked by the ancient authority of primeval wisdom" (17.4.8). Socrates records a hot interpretative controversy between Christians and pagans over crosslike hieroglyphs discovered when the Serapeum was torn down in 391 (HE 5.17). And within the specifically Egyptian tradition of the Hermetica, instructions to inscribe a revelation on temple stelae were given as the culminating step of its reception.[54] It is no coincidence that Synesius refers to the "sacred writings" just as his character in the tale receives a revelation from a god. But the more specific influence of this branch of Egyptian tradition on De providentia will be discussed separately in section VI below.