The same irony is evident in the story of Zalmoxis as reported by Herodotus (IV. 94–96): it is about the saga of the Thracian god Zalmoxis, whom the Getae (which are defined by the historian as athanatízontas, ‘convinced of being immortal’) believe those who were about to die will meet. They perform rituals of human sacrifice to this god in the hope that the sacrificed will come into contact with God after death. This cult is deeply intertwined with the tradi- tions of the immortality of the soul and the journey model mentioned above, that is, travels to an afterlife. For this reason, Herodotus, after the description of the sacrificial rituals, recalls a tale according to which Zalmoxis was in truth, a serv- ant of Pythagoras:
Then having become free, he gained great wealth, and afterward returned to his own land; and as the Thracians both live hardly and are rather simple-minded, this Zalmoxis, being acquainted with the Ionian way of living and with manners more cultivated than the Thra- cians were used to see, since he had associated with Hellenes, and not only that but with Pythagoras, Mnesarchus’ son and not the least able philosopher of the Hellenes, prepared a banqueting-hall, where he received and feasted the chief men of the tribe and instructed them meanwhile that neither he himself nor his guests nor their descendants in succession after them would die; but that they would come to a place where they would live forever and have all things good. While he was doing these things which have been mentioned, he was making for himself a chamber under the ground; and when his chamber was fin- ished, he disappeared from among the Thracians and they grieved for his loss and mourned for him as dead. Then in the fourth year he appeared to them, and in this way the things which Zalmoxis said became credible to them.³³⁷
In addition to the ethnocentric reasoning that diminishes the divinity of the Getae with the suggestion that Zalmoxis, in Greece, had not only been a man but a slave, this passage of Herodotus reveals, with all the sarcasm that the his- torian is capable of, a satire of the traditions associated with katábasis. Zamox- is’s apparent death is in fact nothing but a trick, in an attempt to convince his countrymen of their immortality. The indirect reference here to Pythagoras is cer- tainly significant: as if to say that, when speaking of the immortality of the soul, he is the immediate authority.
Indeed, the theme of immortality and the charismatic figure of Pythagoras, are the subjects of a broad range of legendary stories.³³⁸ As one might expect,
337 Herodt. IV. 95.
338 For a study on the sources of the legends of Pythagoras, see Levy 1926. Biondi’s excellent monograph (2009) dedicated to Pythagoras-Euphorbus also contains a brilliant philosophical discussion and a careful philological analysis of this literature.
these legends have not gathered much enthusiasm within the current criticism, though, as Burkert 1972: 137 points out, they actually correspond to the earliest stratum of the tradition on Pythagoras, and are prior to any other information about his life that we find in Aristoxenus or Dicearchus, which were themselves the lost sources of the Pythagorean Lives from the imperial era. This legendary tradition focuses on a particular topic: Pythagoras’ own effective metem- psýchōsis. This interest in the history of the soul of Pythagoras was understood, ever since ancient times (Porph. VP: 26 and Diod. Sic. X 6,1) as an illustration of the very doctrine of the transmigration of the soul. In this sense, some recent criticism has begun to consider this literature in its own right.³³⁹
The most significant source of these legends is Heraclides Ponticus, a Peri- patetic, who recalls the history of Pythagoras’s palingénesis:
Heraclides Ponticus tells us what Pythagoras used to say about himself: that he had once been Aethalides and was accounted to be Hermes’ son. Hermes himself told him he might choose any gift he liked except immortality. So he asked to retain through life and through death a memory of his experiences. Hence in life he could recall everything, and when he died he still kept the same memories. Afterwards in course of time his soul entered into [the body of] Euphorbus and he was wounded by Menelaus. Now Euphorbus used to say that he had once been Aethalides and obtained this gift from Hermes, and then he told of the wan- derings of his soul, how it transmigrated, into how many plants and animals it had come, and all that it underwent in Hades. When Euphorbus died, his soul passed into Hermoti- mus, and he also, wishing to authenticate the story, went up to the temple of Apollo at Branchidae, where he identified the shield which Menelaus had dedicated to Apollo.³⁴⁰
The low probability that Diogenes Laertius took the legend directly from a dia- logue of Heraclides Ponticus (as he does not cite any specific text for this) makes one think of a doxographic reading that is at best second-hand of this tra- dition. On the other hand, several variants of the same genealogy of Pythagoras’ soul are recorded in ancient literature: in all of them, the common element is the reincarnation in Euphorbus.³⁴¹ However, Corssen 1912: 22 has considered that the presence of Euphorbus is incomprehensible. For what reason would Pythagoras have chosen such a secondary character in the history of the Trojan War as part of his transmigration? The answer traditionally given, in the wake of Kerényi 1950, is that the figure of Euphorbus was a kind of incarnation of Apollo (Burkert
339 See Riedweg 2006: 115. It is also the case for Timpanaro Cardini (Pitagorici, 1958–62 I: 5): “Pitagora crede nella metempsicose perchè crede nella sua metempsicose”, and Burkert 1972: 147. For the contrary idea see Rohde 1898: 422 who considers that memory all fabricated. 340 D. L. Vitae VIII. 4–5 = Heraclid. fragment 89 Wehrli.
341 See for the quotes Delatte 1922: 154–159, Burkert 1972: 138–141, Federico 2000: 372 n15 and Biondi 2009: 8–12.
1972: 141). Indeed, Riedweg 2002: 51 and Biondi 2009: 67 agree that Euphorbus plays a decisive role within the dramatic story of the Iliad by contributing to the death of Patroclus, who is leading Achilles’s return to the fight. Euphorbus, pre- ceded and helped by Apollo, who gets tired and dismantles the members of Pa- troclus, strikes the first blow against the Achaean warrior (Il. XVI 805–815). This close relationship with Apollo justified the choice of Euphorbus.³⁴² Further proof is that Menelaus’ shield is, in the tradition of Heraclides, once again, dedicated to Apollo.³⁴³
The scant attention the legends about Pythagoras have received must not make one forget that our most important source for them is the fourth century BC: Aristotle’s own book on Pythagoreanism (fragment 191 Rose). In this materi- al, there are several legends about miracles and wonders wrought by Pythago- ras: the mirabilia include instances of bi-location, dialogues with a river, divina- tion, and the significant reference to Pythagoras as Apollo himself. Of course, our research does not allow an exhaustive analysis of these Aristotelian passag- es. We once again agree with Burkert’s careful analysis 1972: 145 that these leg- ends should be considered congruent with the mood of the fourth century BC, and only in later centuries would they be used as a source of ridicule and criti- cism of Pythagoreanism. The value of these traditions is even more important when considering the commonly demonstrated intentions of Aristotle to separate proto-Pythagoreanism from its Platonization by the Academy, which – among other things– would have reduced Pythagoras to an alter ego of Plato himself.³⁴⁴ The Aristotelian records of the legends have authority and are old enough to be taken seriously.³⁴⁵ Ultimately, therefore, Pythagoras and his legend cannot be separated.³⁴⁶
342 Centrone 1996: 64 rightly notes that the cult to Apollo was widespread in the Pythagorean cities of Croton and Metapontum. See also Iambl. VP: 52.
343 Also intriguing, though an allegorical troppo, is the reading that Biondi 2009: 77 proposes from the passage quoted above from the Iliad:“è l’intervento di Euforbo che svela l’identità autentica di colui che sembrava Achille: se l’armatura simboleggia il corpo, allora l’indifesa nudità rappresenta l’anima; dunque l’azione di Euforbo potrebbe effettivamente significare, al di là della lettera del testo omerico, lo svelamento dell’anima e la punizione della sua traco- tanza”.
344 See Burkert 1972: 146, in addition to what was said above (1.7), for the use of Py- thagoreanism within Aristotle’s anti-Academic controversy.
345 Among the references to mirabilia, it is again the theme of apparent death that is very present in the literature of the period, we accept that this is the reference of Sophocles’ Electra: “For a long time ago I saw the wise men who claimed falsely to have died. And then once they returned home, were received with great honors” (Soph. El. 62–64). The scholiast wrote down a reference to Pythagoras beside this passage (Schol. In Soph. 62).