Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-dnltx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T23:40:37.828Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

GOING BEYOND MULTITEXTS: THE ARCHETYPE OF THE ORPHIC GOLD LEAVES*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2016

Richard Janko
Richard Janko*
Affiliation:
University of Michigan
*
rjanko@umich.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In his magisterial work Persephone, Zuntz drew a basic distinction between two sets of Orphic gold leaves—those known from the elaborate tumuli at Thurii, which he called Group A, and a more widely scattered series, Group B, then represented by two longer texts from Petelia in southern Italy and Pharsalus in Thessaly, and, in a shortened form, by a series of six (now seven) short texts from the environs of Eleutherna in Crete (his Group C). Three further finds have reinforced Zuntz's distinctions: first, a tablet from Hipponium, the colony of Epizephyrian Locri in southern Italy, published by Foti and Pugliese Carratelli, then a lamella said to be from Thessaly but now in Malibu and published by Breslin, and finally a tablet said to be from Entella in Sicily and recently in Geneva, which was published in a bad transcription by Frel and much clarified by Riedweg. The first and third belong to Zuntz's Group B, while the second is close to his Group C. Pugliese Carratelli has published an exceptionally fine set of photographs of all the texts except those from Petelia and Entella. My restudy of the leaf from Petelia has led to some improved readings. Not even a drawing exists of the Entellan leaf, which no scholar except its first editor has ever seen. This fact prompted a reviewer of this article to wonder about its authenticity. In the absence of the object itself, such doubts can only be allayed if its text consistently contributes to improving our understanding of the archetype from which it is derived. One of the aims of this article is to show that it does indeed do so.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 66 , Issue 1 , May 2016 , pp. 100 - 127
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

An earlier version of this article was presented at a conference on the Orphic gold leaves at The Ohio State University in April 2006, the proceedings of which were never published. I thank Fritz Graf and Sarah Iles Johnston for inviting me to that event, the members of the audience who contributed valuable comments, this journal's anonymous reviewers and the experts on Orphism, especially Alberto Bernabé, Jan Bremmer and the late Walter Burkert, for friendly discussions over many years.

References

1 G. Zuntz, Persephone (Oxford, 1971), 277–383.

2 I use the term ‘Orphic’ without hesitation: for a résumé of the arguments for the Orphic origin of these tablets, see A. Bernabé and A.I. Jiménez San Cristóbal, Instructions for the Netherworld: The Orphic Gold Tablets (trans. M. Chase) (Leiden and Boston, 2008), 178–205. However, this article will leave to others the religious interpretation of the archetype that it reconstructs.

3 The latest, found at Sfakaki near modern Rethymnon and still within the territory of ancient Eleutherna, is published in Y.Z. Tzifopoulos, Paradise Earned: the Orphic-Bacchic Gold Lamellae of Crete (Hellenic Studies 23) (Washington, DC, 2010), and is included as fr. 484a in A. Bernabé, Poetae Epici Graeci Pars II. Orphicorum et Orphicis Similium Testimonia et Fragmenta (Munich and Leipzig, 2004–2005). Although it is longer than the other Cretan ones, its length is caused by a repetition of the beginning at the end, and it belongs with the short version; this affiliation is confirmed by its origin and date. Two further unpublished leaves from Eleutherna are numbered B13 and B14 in the collection of texts in R.G. Edmonds III (ed.), The Orphic Gold Tablets and Greek Religion: Further along the Path (Cambridge, 2011), 15–50, at 34.

4 Foti, G. and Carratelli, G. Pugliese, ‘Un sepolcro di Hipponion e un nuovo testo orfico’, PP 29 (1974), 91–126 Google Scholar.

5 J. Breslin, A Greek Prayer: The Translation and Account of a Short Burial Prayer Engraved by an Ancient People on a Tiny Sheet of Gold and Found among the Ashes in a Cinerary Urn (Pasadena, 1977), repr. in Colloquy 28 (1977), 10.

6 Frel, J., ‘Una nuova laminella “orfica”’, Eirene 30 (1994), 183–4Google Scholar. Jiří K. Frel (1923–2006) was a controversial curator of ancient art at the J. Paul Getty Museum, who acquired for the Museum many artefacts of doubtful provenance and authenticity. This object, however, seems still to be in a private collection.

7 C. Riedweg, ‘Initiation — Tod — Unterwelt. Beobachtungen zur Kommunikationssituation und narrativen Technik der orphisch-bakchischen Goldblättschen’, in F. Graf (ed.), Ansichten griechischer Rituale. Geburtstagssymposium für Walter Burkert (Stuttgart and Leipzig, 1998), 359–98, with an English version in Edmonds (n. 3), 219–56.

8 G. Pugliese Carratelli, Les Lamelles d'or orphiques: instructions pour le voyage d'outre-tombe des initiés grecs (Paris, 2003); at 59 he reproduces an enlarged but not wholly reliable tracing of the highly accurate drawing of the lamella from Petelia made by Cecil Smith and published by Comparetti, D., ‘The Petelia gold tablet’, JHS 3 (1882), 111–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 112–13; the leaf has since lost some tiny pieces at its right edge. It was first published by Franz, G., ‘Epigrafe greca sopra lamina d'oro spettante al sig. Millingen’, Bullettino dell'Instituto di Corrispondenza Archeologica [sic] (1836), 149–50Google Scholar, and further studied by C.W. Goettling, Gesammelte Abhandlungen aus dem classischen Alterthume i (Halle, 1851), 157–9, and G. Kaibel, Epigrammata graeca ex lapidibus conlecta (Berlin and Frankfurt am Main, 1879), no. 1037.

9 I thank Alex Truscott and Judith Swaddling for facilitating my study of it under high magnification and with powerful lighting at the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities of the British Museum in August 2006.

10 A. Bernabé and A.I. Jiménez San Cristóbal, Instrucciones para el Más Allá: Las laminillas órficas de oro (Madrid, 2001).

11 Bernabé and Jiménez San Cristóbal (n. 2), 241–56, who provide very accurate editions and also a concordance; for the present these should be the editions of reference.

12 Pugliese Carratelli (n. 8).

13 Sacco, G., ‘ΓHΣ ΠAIΣ EIMI. Sul v. 10 della laminetta di Hipponion’, ZPE 137 (2001), 27–33 Google Scholar.

14 M. Tortorelli Ghidini, Figli della Terra e del Cielo stellato. Testi orfici con traduzione e commento (Naples, 2006).

15 F. Graf and S.I. Johnston, Ritual Texts for the Afterlife: Orpheus and the Bacchic Gold Tablets (London and New York, 2008), 1–49; the texts are arranged by find-spot, so as not to have to construct an archetype. The second edition of 2013 is almost unchanged, save that their indispensable concordance is unaccountably omitted.

16 Edmonds (n. 3), 15–50.

17 Tzifopoulos (n. 3).

18 A dotted letter must not be used to indicate a letter that is damaged but cannot be anything else, even though many scholars mistakenly employ it for the latter purpose.

19 So, regrettably, even Sacco (n. 13).

20 He glosses it ‘littera a viris doctis correcta’ (Bernabé [n. 3], lxxxiv).

21 Zuntz (n. 1), 376–82, and id., ‘Die Goldlamelle von Hipponion’, WSt 10 (1976), 129–51Google Scholar.

22 Marcovich, M., ‘The gold leaf from Hipponion’, ZPE 23 (1976), 221–4Google Scholar, at 222.

23 Carratelli, G. Pugliese, ‘Sulla lamina orfica di Hipponion’, PP 30 (1975), 226–31Google Scholar, at 228–9.

24 Pugliese Carratelli (n. 8), 16.

25 Bernabé and Jiménez San Cristóbal (n. 10), 84 (cf. eid. [n. 2], 58).

26 For the best summary of these principles, see M.L. West, Textual Criticism and Editorial Technique Applicable to Greek and Latin Texts (Stuttgart, 1973).

27 For an excellent exposition of the problem, see Finkelberg, M., ‘The Cypria, the Iliad, and the problem of multiformity in oral and written tradition’, CPh 95 (2000), 1–6 Google Scholar.

28 Janko, R., ‘Forgetfulness in the golden tablets of memory’, CQ 34 (1984), 89–100 Google Scholar, at 89–91.

29 Lloyd-Jones, H., ‘On the Orphic tablet from Hipponion’, PP 30 (1975), 225–6Google Scholar.

30 West, M.L., ‘Zum neuen Goldblättchen aus Hipponion’, ZPE 18 (1975), 229–36Google Scholar, at 229–30.

31 Janko (n. 28), 97–8.

32 I thank one of this journal's reviewers for insisting on this point.

33 Gallavotti, C., ‘Il documento orfico di Hipponion e altri testi affini’, Museum Criticum 13–14 (1978–1979), 337–59Google Scholar, at 349–50.

34 Gallavotti (n. 33), 351–2.

35 West (n. 30).

36 See on v. 11 below. Also, E's reading φυλακοί is confirmed by a hitherto unnoticed variant in the text from Pharsalus (see on v. 9 below).

37 Their interrelations were determined by West (n. 30); cf. the stemma in Janko (n. 28), 100. However, the place of the rather divergent K7 within the stemma remains to be established.

38 For information about which scholars were responsible for particular supplements, readings or conjectures in the apographs, where their authors are not indicated, the reader is referred to Bernabé (n. 3) and Bernabé and Jiménez San Cristóbal (n. 2).

39 In F.H. Marshall (ed.), Catalogue of Jewellery, Greek, Etruscan, and Roman, in the Departments of Antiquities, British Museum (London, 1911), 380–1.

40 For a survey of proposals, see Bernabé and Jiménez San Cristóbal (n. 2), 13–14.

41 i.e. no. A5 in Zuntz (n. 1), Riedweg (n. 7) and Edmonds (n. 3), = fr. 491 Bernabé (n. 3), = 23 Tortorelli Ghidini (n. 14), = 9 Graf and Johnston (n. 15), = I.B.2 Pugliese Carratelli (n. 8).

42 In Pugliese Carratelli (n. 23), 227.

43 Gil, J., ‘Epigraphica III’, CFC 14 (1978), 83–120 Google Scholar, at 83–4.

44 In Luppe, W., ‘Abermals das Goldblättchen von Hipponion’, ZPE 30 (1978), 23–6Google Scholar, at 24. The conjecture was approved by Bernabé and Jiménez San Cristóbal (n. 10), followed by Graf and Johnston (n. 15).

45 Guarducci, M., ‘Nuove riflessioni sulla laminetta “orfica” di Hipponion’, RFIC 113 (1985), 385–97Google Scholar, at 388.

46 Gallavotti (n. 33), 338.

47 Sacco (n. 13), 32 reads θανεϲθαι, but her fine photograph (Taf. XII) seems to contradict this.

48 H.W. Pleket, SEG 44 (1994), 225–6 (no. 750). The rest of the word in P was supplied by Smith in Comparetti (n. 8), and not by Kaibel (n. 8), pace Bernabé (n. 3).

49 In Comparetti (n. 8), 112–13.

50 West (n. 30), 232.

51 My proposal, advanced in 2006 at the conference at Ohio State, was adopted by Bernabé and Jiménez San Cristóbal (n. 2), 55, 249.

52 Guarducci (n. 45), 392.

53 In Comparetti (n. 8), 112–13; Pugliese Carratelli's tracing of this ([n. 8], 59) is not accurate here.

54 My suggestion was adopted by Bernabé and Jiménez San Cristóbal (n. 2), but in its earlier form with μίν instead, which seems too wide.

55 Graf and Johnston (n. 15), 16 wrongly print ἀμφικαλύψαϲ in E, without restoring the first half of the verse.

56 Janko (n. 28), 97–8.

57 Janko (n. 28), 99.

58 Edmonds (n. 3) prints ⟨δ’⟩ in P, but surely meant {δ’}.

59 West (n. 30), 232.

60 Lloyd-Jones (n. 29), 225–6.

61 The Dorian writer of H may have understood εἰϲ as εἶϲ ‘you will go’ (Foti and Pugliese Carratelli [n. 4], 112).

62 Its ineptitude was already noted by Zuntz (n. 21 [1976]), 136–7.

63 Bernabé and Jiménez San Cristóbal (n. 10), 252.

64 For these terms, see J.B. Hainsworth, The Flexibility of the Homeric Formula (Oxford, 1968).

65 So Zuntz (n. 1), 369.

66 Gallavotti (n. 33), 356 n. 20 wished to read αἰε̣ιν̣ά̣ω, while nearly all other editors advocate a miscopying of αἰειρόω; Tzifopoulos (n. 3) leaves it unemended.

67 Tzifopoulos (n. 3), 27.

68 Graf and Johnston (n. 15), 16 print παρ’ αὐτῆι, which is unmetrical.

69 Tzifopoulos (n. 3), 11, with my discussion of v. 4 above. True ζ appears in neither the Cretan nor the Thessalian texts.

70 I owe this point to Richard Martin (per litt.).

71 H wrote ψχκαι before correction (cf. Sacco [n. 13], 32).

72 His errors of spelling are corrected.

73 Gallavotti (n. 33), 343 considered it the original and the other versions later adaptations.

74 Zuntz (n. 1), 369.

75 The latter has been considered to be the archetype (Janko [n. 28], 99).

76 So already West (n. 30), 232–3, and Lloyd-Jones (n. 29), 225–6.

77 So A.C. Cassio, ‘Πιέναι e il modello ionico della laminetta di Hipponion’, in A.C. Cassio and P. Poccetti (edd.), Forme di religiosità e tradizioni sapienzali in Magna Grecia (Annali dell'Istituto Universitario Orientale di Napoli XVI) (Pisa and Rome, 1994), 182–205, at 184, 198.

78 This was emended by West (n. 30) to ἑτέραι͙, but even if this were right it ought to be ἑτέρηι.

79 So already West (n. 30), 233, followed by Gallavotti (n. 33), 344.

80 Riedweg (n. 7) proposed emending to φύλακε͙ϲ͙, incorrectly.

81 The enlarged drawing on display in the Archaeological Museum of Volos shows the reading before correction as φυλακαι.

82 Riedweg (n. 7) proposes δ͙’; Bernabé (n. 3) wrongly prints δ’ without a subliteral asterisk, while Graf and Johnston (n. 15), 16 wrongly give E's reading as δ’ ἐπυπε⟨ρ⟩θ⟨εν ἔ⟩αϲιν.

83 B. Bravo assigns it to the Ilias Parva (‘Un frammento della Piccola Iliade (P.Oxy. 2510)’, QUCC 67 [2001], 49–114).

84 Graf and Johnston (n. 15), 16, restore τοὶ in E.

85 Gallavotti (n. 33), 338, 344.

86 Frel (n. 6) suggested οἵ δὲ ϲε [sic], apparently intending οἳ δέ ϲε.

87 R. Janko, Homer, Hesiod and the Hymns: Diachronic Development in Epic Diction (Cambridge, 1982), 118 n. 3; id. ‘The Shield of Heracles and the legend of Cycnus’, CQ 36 (1986), 38–59 Google Scholar, especially 43 n. 33.

88 οἵδε is printed in Φ 6 by Graf and Johnston (n. 15), 34; Frel (n. 6) had proposed οἵ δὲ in E [sic].

89 Pace Gallavotti (n. 33), 350.

90 P. Chantraine, Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque (Paris, 1968–1980), i.325–6, 370; id., Grammaire homérique 2 (Paris, 1973), i.136, 163, 341 n. 2.

91 Including West (n. 30), Janko (n. 28), 94, 99, Bernabé (n. 3), Graf and Johnston (n. 15), 4, who print τοὶ δέ ϲε in H 8, and Edmonds (n. 3).

92 Merkelbach, R., ‘Bakchisches Goldtäfelchen aus Hipponion’, ZPE 17 (1975), 9 Google Scholar. Lloyd-Jones (n. 29) conjectured ϲ’ ἐ⟨π⟩ειρήϲονται.

93 In Pugliese Carratelli (n. 23), 227.

94 Merkelbach (n. 92), 8–9, at 9.

95 Lloyd-Jones (n. 29), 225–6.

96 Foti and Pugliese Carratelli (n. 4), 112.

97 West (n. 30), 233; likewise Zuntz (n. 21 [1976]), 140. If there were a problem, Luppe's suggestion of a parenthesis ἀίε⟨ι⟩ν φραϲὶ πευκαλίμηιϲιν (Luppe [n. 44], 23–5) would not remedy it.

98 Gallavotti (n. 33), 345, comparing P 7 (τὸ δὲ {δ} ἴϲτε καὶ αὐτοί).

99 So Zuntz (n. 1), 370. I was wrong to ascribe this verse to the archetype (Janko [n. 28], 95, 99).

100 I owe this point to Alberto Bernabé (per litt.).

101 In Luppe (n. 44), 25. The reading ὀρ͙φ{ο}νήεντο͙⟨ϲ⟩ in E was proposed by Riedweg (n. 7), 397, and accepted by A. Bernabé, ‘La lamella orfica di Entella’, in M.I. Gulletta (ed.), Sicilia Epigrafica, Atti del Convegno di Studi Erice (Pisa, 1999), i.53–63, at 54–5.

102 Il. 10.83; cf. Ap. Rhod. 2.670.

103 εἰπεῖγ̣ is less likely in Φ than εἰπεῖν̣, which Bernabé (n. 3) favours: the first upright and the start of a diagonal or less probably a horizontal are preserved.

104 Riedweg (n. 7); cf. Graf and Johnston (n. 15), 16. Bernabé (n. 3) rightly prefers εἰπεῖν.

105 Sacco (n. 13), 28–30.

106 Frel (n. 6) had suggested Γῆϲ οἱὸϲ εἰμὶ καὶ [sic], by which he seems to have meant Γῆϲ υἱὸϲ εἰμὶ καὶ.

107 Tzifopoulos (n. 3), 29 proposes that one read Γᾶ{ϲ} ⟨ἐ⟩μ⟨ο⟩ὶ μάτηρ, but it is easier to read Γᾶϲ ἠμ{ο}ι ⟨θ⟩υ͙γ͙άτηρ; it seems to be a miscopying of a text rather like that of K4.

108 M. Guarducci, Inscriptiones Creticae (Rome, 1939), ii.314–15. Conversely Tzifopoulos (n. 3), 17, comparing K7, tentatively suggests emending K4 to Γᾶϲ ἠμι, μ̣ά̣τηρ, with the latter as a vocative addressing Persephone.

109 Tzifopoulos (n. 3), 18, 26.

110 This correction is not recorded by Edmonds (n. 3).

111 West (n. 30), 233, who also suggested τὸ δέ τ͙’, but this involves changing the paradosis; Franz (n. 8).

112 Zuntz (n. 1), 366.

113 W.K.C. Guthrie, Orpheus and Greek Religion (London, 19522), 173.

114 A.H. Griffiths, ‘The chiton under the pallium: two Greek jokes in Roman comedies', in A.H. Griffiths (ed.), Stage Directions: Essays in Ancient Drama in Honour of Eric Handley (BICS Suppl. 66) (London, 1995), 133–8, at 138.

115 He is followed by Graf and Johnston (n. 15), 16.

116 Their reading δ’ αὖοϲ is disproved by the image in Tzifopoulos (n. 3), 19.

117 Pugliese Carratelli (n. 8), 67. I confirmed this by inspecting the original in the Archaeological Museum of Volos.

118 It is further replaced by μου in M 1 and K3. Graf and Johnston (n. 15) read μοι in K3 and K4, but Tzifopoulos' images (n. 3) show that these are misprints.

119 I read Ω̣ rather than Tzifopoulos' Υ because once again the scribe has written a V. The reading of these letters is very doubtful.

120 G. Pugliese Carratelli, Le lamine d'oro ‘orfiche’ (Milan, 1993), 20.

121 So Cassio, A.C., ‘Da Elea a Hipponion e Leontinoi: lingua di Parmenide e testi epigrafici’, ZPE 113 (1996), 14–20 Google Scholar, at 16, followed by Bernabé (n. 3); Graf and Johnston (n. 15), 34 spell it πίεν’ [sic].

122 For further examples of this gemination, and pertinent comments by ancient grammarians, see R. Janko, ‘The hexametric incantations against witchcraft in the Getty Museum: from archetype to exemplar’, in C.A. Faraone and D. Obbink, The Getty Hexameters: Poetry, Magic and Mystery in Ancient Greek Selinous (Oxford, 2013), 31–56, at 39 n. 35.

123 Unfortunately he prints δ͙ὴ͙ without subliteral asterisks.

124 Lazzarini, M.L., ‘Sulla laminetta di Hipponion’, Annali della Scuola Normale di Pisa ser. 3, 17 (1987), 329–32Google Scholar, at 331.

125 See above on verse 10.

126 Merkelbach (n. 92), 9.

127 West (n. 30), 233.

128 Carratelli, G. Pugliese, ‘Ancora sulla lamina orfica di Hipponion’, PP 31 (1976), 458–66Google Scholar, at 462.

129 Some such confusion was suggested by Lloyd-Jones (n. 29), 225–6, and Gallavotti ([n. 33], 348) expelled δή τοι here.

130 Bernabé (n. 3) reads ἀπ[ὸ] in H 14, but Sacco's plate (n. 13) shows at least the left half of the ο, and she does not even dot the letter.

131 It is so imported by Graf and Johnston (n. 15), 16.

132 Bernabé and Jiménez San Cristóbal (n. 2), 251.

133 Franz (n. 8), 150; Goettling (n. 8). Edmonds (n. 3) incorrectly credits Riedweg (n. 7) with δώϲωϲιν.

134 Gil (n. 43), 85.

135 Luppe (n. 44), 25–6.

136 Gallavotti (n. 33), 348.

137 It was proposed by W. Burkert, ‘Die neuen orphischen Texte: Fragmente, Varianten, Sitz im Leben’, in W. Burkert, L. Gemelli Marciano, E. Matelli and L. Orelli (edd.), Fragmentsammlungen philosophischer Texte der Antike (Göttingen, 1998), 387–400, at 392, repr. in his Kleine Schriften III (Göttingen, 2006), 47–61.

138 Cf. the hexametric paean from Selinus, also in epic Kunstsprache, presently in the Getty Museum, first published by Jordan, D.R. and Kotansky, R., ‘Ritual hexameters in the Getty Museum: preliminary edition’, ZPE 178 (2011), 54–62 Google Scholar. See further Faraone and Obbink (n. 122); Janko, R., ‘The hexametric paean in the Getty Museum: reconstituting the archetype’, ZPE 193 (2015), 1–10 Google Scholar.

139 Diog. Laert. 2.42. The form κλεεινόϲ is also known to Herodian, Theognostus and Eustathius, but apparently nowhere else.

140 R.G. Edmonds III, ‘Festivals in the afterlife: a new reading of the Petelia Tablet (OF 476.11)’, in M. Herrero de Jáuregui, A. Jiménez San Cristóbal, E. Luján Martínez, R. Hernández, M. Santamaría Alvarez and S. Torallas Tovar (edd.), Tracing Orpheus: Studies of Orphic Fragments (Berlin and New York, 2011), 185–8. His integration is not adopted in Graf and Johnston's second edition (n. 15), 6.

141 Bernabé (n. 3) well compares the lamella from Pherae, his fr. 493, which begins ϲύμβολα.

142 Bernabé (n. 3) proposed Φε[ρϲεφόνη(ι), Chaniotis Φε[ρϲέφαϲα [sic] (A. Chaniotis and J. Mylonopoulos, ‘Epigraphic bulletin for Greek religion 1997’, Kernos 13 [2000], 127–237, at 172).

143 It is in CEG 28 (epigram, Attica, vi b.c.).

144 Manganaro, G., ‘Sikelika I’, QUCC 49 (1995), 93–109 Google Scholar.

145 Cassio (n. 121).

146 H. Rix, Historische Grammatik des Griechischen (Darmstadt, 1976), 238.

147 I thank my colleague Benjamin Fortson IV for information about laryngeal metathesis.

148 Ar. Vesp. 1489.

149 Cassio (n. 77), 187.

150 28 B 12.5 DK.

151 W. Burkert, ‘Kynaithos, Polycrates and the Homeric Hymn to Apollo’, in G.W. Bowersock, W. Burkert and M.C.J. Putnam (edd.), Arktouros: Hellenic Studies Presented to B.M.W. Knox (Berlin, 1979), 53–62, repr. in his Kleine Schriften I (Göttingen, 2001), 189–97; Janko (n. 87), 112–15.

152 Schol. Pind. Nem. 2.1, citing Hippostratus (FGrHist 568 F 5).

153 DK 21 B 7.

154 Pugliese Carratelli (n. 8) 16, cited above at n. 24, with 36 B 2 DK: Ἴων δὲ ὁ Χῖοϲ ἐν τοῖϲ Τριαγμοῖϲ φηϲιν αὐτὸν [sc. Pythagoras] ἔνια ποιήϲαντα ἀνενεγκεῖν εἰϲ Ὀρφέα (Diog. Laert. 8.8); Ἴων δὲ ὁ Χῖοϲ ἐν τοῖϲ Τριαγμοῖϲ καὶ Πυθαγόραν φηϲὶν εἰϲ Ὀρφέα ἀνενεγκεῖν τινα ἱϲτορεῖ (Clem. Al. Strom. 1.131).