Pherecydes of Syros in Alexandrian Poetry

As one of the first prose writers and the author of an unusual cosmology, the sixth-century author Pherecydes of Syros is a fascinating and important figure. However, his work is fragmentary and difficult to reconstruct. Some progress has been made by Schibli (1990) and West (1963, 1971) among others, but much is still disputed. An overlooked aspect of this discussion is that there are unmistakable references to Pherecydes’ work in the poetry of Callimachus and Apollonius. Both authors mention Pherecydes’ character Ophion (Arg. 1.503, Aetia 177 Pf.), and Callimachus uses two words peculiar to Pherecydes in the Hymns (Delos 65, Artemis 135). This indicates that the Alexandrian poet-critics were interested in Pherecydes and, given their close associations with the Alexandrian Library, they likely had access to Pherecydes’ work that was not available to later authors. This paper uses these passages from Apollonius and Callimachus to understand Pherecydes’ ideas as they were interpreted in third-century Alexandria.

This approach yields two key conclusions. First, although Pherecydes is famously one of the first prose authors and sometimes considered an allegorical writer, Apollonius includes him as part of the poetic tradition and reads him non-allegorically. Apollonius references his character Ophion in a passage that juxtaposes Pherecydes with famous hexameter poets such as Hesiod and Empedocles. Additionally, Apollonius seems sensitive to the influence of Iliad 18 (the shield of Achilles) on Pherecydes’ work by pairing Ophion with a consort (Eurynome) who appears in Iliad 18 (where she receives a god cast from Olympus). Finally, although later testimonia suggest that Pherecydes’ work was allegorical (A12, A10, B1, R20, R23), Apollonius and Callimachus use Ophion non-allegorically.

Second, Callimachus’ use of ἑπτάμυχος (seven-nooked) in Delos 65 sheds significant light on the use of μυχοί (nooks) in Pherecydes’ cosmology. In Pherecydes, μυχοί were places where the next generation of gods was formed.  There is a dispute over their number: the Suda reports seven nooks (ἑπτάμυχος), while Damascius (quoting Eudemus) reports five. Schibli and West argue that the Suda entry should be corrected to five (Schibli because of similarities to Plato’s Timaeus and West because there is no apparent use for the extra two μυχοί). Additionally, Eudemus was chronologically closer to Pherecydes’ work than the Suda was. But Callimachus, who is closer to Pherecydes than either Damascius or the Suda, uses the adjective ἑπτάμυχος to describe Boreas’ cave, thus signaling a Pherekydean reading and interpreting μυχός as meaning a cave. This is a strong indication that the seven-nook version should be reconsidered.  The passage also sheds light on the nature of the μυχοί, which is currently largely obscure. Callimachus signals that a μυχός is fertile by having Ares’ horses (sired by Boreas) at the cave and by setting this scene before the birth of a new generation of gods (Apollo and Artemis).

This examination shows that Alexandrian poets were intimately familiar with Pherecydes’ work and that this can shed light on his theories.