Chasing Butterflies: the Conception of the Soul in Plutarch's Works

2015115 [Meeusen] 012-Gallarte-proof-01 [date 1507101041 : version 1507011030] page 167

shortened title used in running headline, please checkChasing Butteries

add colon as in Table of Contents?

The Conception of the Soulin Plutarchs Works*

ISRAEL MUOZ GALLARTE

It is well-known that numerous ancient cultures represent the humansouls wandering from life to death by means of various theriomorphicgures. Indeed, bears, ravens, mice, wasps, bees, dragonies, or evendung-beetles may symbolically embody the soul on its ultimate journey.Strikingly, however, this is not the case in ancient Greece, in so far as weknow from Plutarchs works, although his interest in the human soul isan undisputed fact and can be seen in numerous of his writings (where hedeals with its creation, form, internal dichotomy, substance, origin, anddestination)1.

Usually, when confronted with the need to represent such a scene,ancient Greek artists resorted to the so-called eidolon, a gure thatappears more often than some scholars may expect. Thus, for example,the Dutch scholar Jan Bremmer, who, in hisThe Early Greek Concept ofthe Soul2, after describing the eidolon as a being that looks exactly likea person generally conceived of as a shadow3, asserts that even thisrepresentation is rather uncommon4. However, souls as eidola are wellattested in Greek art, for example, on funerary lekythoi, even if in generalthese rarely portray eschatological scenes. As has been pointed out5, thismight be due either to the desire to remember the deceased individual ashe or she was while alive, or to the predominance of a realistic style. In

* I am grateful to Professor Lautaro Roig Lanzillotta (University of Groningen) forhis invariably stimulating suggestions.

1 Perhaps the three most interesting passages on this issue are Plutarch, De sera563F568A; De facie 943A945C; De genio 590B592E. For an overview, see Hirsch-Luipold (2014) 171175.

2 Cf. Bremmer (1987) 64.3 Cf. Homer, Il. 10,495; 11,207f.4 Cf. Bremmer (1987) 79.5 Cf. Dez de Velasco (2013) 190.


168 ISRAEL MUOZ GALLARTE

fact, only one hundred of the two thousand white background lekythoiportray purely eschatological scenes (representations of the daily Greeklife predominate in the others)6. Among the former, two kinds of guresrepresent the soul of the deceased individual: either small human-likegures, or winged homunculi that y around the heads of the corpseand of the underworld characters. In my view, both representationsshould be related to the eidola described by Bremmer7 (see g. 1).In any case, what seems clear is that there is no place in Greek pot-tery for animals or insects as symbolic representatives of the humansoul8.

Fig. 1. Athens, NM 1928 by the painter of Saburoff; reproduced by permission of themuseum.

Beside the eidolon in all of its variations be it as a pure eidolon, ahuman-like gure, or a ying homunculus , Bremmer still posits twoother possible representations of the soul in its post-mortal state, evenif the evidence is in these cases somewhat problematic. Thus there is,for example, the Greek belief that, after death, the soul could turn into

6 A good example is the anonymous MN 1814 (CC1662) in the National Museum ofAthens, cf. Dez de Velasco (2013) 189, n. 15.

7 Cf. Dez de Velasco (2013) 207208.8 Many thanks to Professor Pedro Marl (University of Cordoba) for calling my

attention to this interesting point.


CHASING BUTTERFLIES 169

a snake9, and in Aristotles Historia Animalium there is a passage thatseemingly associates the human soul with a buttery (551a1327)10. In thispassage, the philosopher uses the Greek term psyche to denote a speciesof buttery, the pieris brassicae, a usage which allegedly can be tracedback to the Minoan age, although, as Bremmer himself concedes, thereis still no solid evidence for this11.

This discussion has been reopened in recent scholarship. Indeed,Verity Jane Platt has argued that some buttery-like gures that appearon certain Greek gems should be interpreted as souls12. In her view, this isthe case in a small number of examples in which the gems depict an Erosburning a buttery with a torch (see gs. 2 and 3). According to Platt, therepresentation does not echo the well-known myth of Eros and Psyche13,but rather shows the background of magical love spells: when torchingthe buttery, Eros incarnates the power of desire, which bymeans of there captures the will of a human soul14. While this may be an original andattractive interpretation, the textual evidence in support of it is tenuous.In fact, besides the mention of the scene in PGM 4,1724173115, theauthor only provides the aforementioned passage of Aristotles Historiaanimalium16.

9 Cf. Bremmer (1987) 7778 and 8081. See also, Hultkrantz (1953) 465. ContraCook (1925) 645 n. 4.

10 Aristotle, HA 551a1327: The so-called psyche or buttery is generated fromcaterpillars which grow on green leaves, chiey leaves of the raphanus, which some callcrambe or cabbage. At rst it is less than a grain of millet; it then grows into a smallgrub; and in three days it is a tiny caterpillar. After this it grows on and on, and becomesquiescent and changes its shape, and is now called a chrysalis. The outer shell is hard,and the chrysalis moves if you touch it. It attaches itself by cobweb-like laments and isunfurnishedwithmouth or any other apparent organ. After a little while the outer coveringbursts asunder, and out ies the winged creature that we call the psyche or buttery. Atrst, when it is a caterpillar, it feeds and ejects excrement; but when it turns into thechrysalis it neither feeds nor ejects excrement.

11 Cf. Bremmer (1987) 82.12 Cf. Platt (2007) 8999.13 Cf. Apuleius,Met. 4,286,24;Myth. Vat. 1,231; Fulgentius,Myth. 3,6. See also Ruiz

de Elvira (42000) 495496.14 Cf. Platt (2007) 9496.15 PGM 4,17161870, namely, Sword of Dardanos, 17301735: and below / Aphro-

dite and Psyche engrave Eros standing on the vault of heaven, holding a blazing torchand burning Psyche, cf. Betz (1986) 6971.

16 Also, Greek Anthology 16,198; Gow and Page 1968, vol. 2, 317; Platt (2007) 94 and96. Regarding the argument of similia similibus formula, cf. Faraone (1991) 5.



Fig. 2. Bath, The Roman BathsMuseum 1983.14.d.9; reproduced bypermission of the museum.

Fig. 3. Italy Gallery, Ashmolean Museum.Beazley Archive 44b; reproduced bypermission of the museum.

Can Plutarch help us to shed some light on the relationship betweenGreekart and the literary sources that allegedly supported them? Interestingly,among his numerous works, scholars believe to have found three pas-sages in which the buttery motif represents the human soul departing



from the body after death. My analysis in the following pages will there-fore attempt to determine if we are dealing with the survival of ancestralbeliefs and motifs, or whether the buttery is a mere metaphor symbol-izing lifes breath departing from the body.

The rst of the sections that may suggest a connection between souland buttery is Quaest. conv. 636C, in which Plutarch deals with the oldOrphic-Pythagorean discussion of whether the egg was created earlierthan the hen. Through his interlocutor Firmus, the Chaeronean expoundshis hypothesis that simple elements precede complex ones. In order toexplain his position, Firmus begins with the Atomistic theory. He thengoes on to assert that the seed comes before the egg, and the hen afterthat, due to the fact that what is simple always comes rst. Firmus bolstershis opinion with an ethical metaphor: as development admittedly existsbetween innate merit and perfected virtue. In his view, therefore, the eggshould be considered as the intermediate element between the seed andthe formed animal. The argument proceeds with a biological analogy. Inhis opinion, several components of the human body, such as arteries andveins, should exist before the bodily whole has been perfectly shaped17.This is also the case in art, where shapeless and undened forms precedethe artists nished work. It is in this moment that Plutarch introducesthe metaphor we are dealing with, illuminating the similarities betweencaterpillar and egg, and, supposedly, between human soul and buttery.In Plutarchs own words:

, , .

And just as the caterpillar exists rst, then, made brittle by dryness,it bursts asunder and itself releases another creature, winged, theso-called psyche (buttery); so in like manner the egg here exists rst,as material of generation18.

The exposition continues with the reference to other zoogonic simi-les, namely, a comparison with bark-beetles and woodworms19. Even if

17 Cf.Quaest. conv. 636AB.The paragraph could be an interpolation, cf. Teodorsson(1989) 217218.

18 Clement Hoffleit (1969) 149151.19 Cf. Quaest. conv. 636D. Teodorsson (1989) 220, highlights that the focus of the

text is the question of how insects are born, whether through autogenesis or copulation,following the aforementioned quotation of Arist., HA 551a1327. See also Geop. 15,1,21;Quaest. conv. 637B; Arist., HA 539a; GA 715b27.



Firmus does not explicitly mention that both kinds of insects hatchfrom eggs, he nevertheless makes use of them to explain that the formfrom which a change is made necessarily precedes the form whichresults from change. Platos words in the Timaeus provide the necessarysupport and bring this section to a close: and matter is all from whichwhatever is created has its substance20. Finally, Firmus refers to themyth of the orphic egg, which provides the logical conclusion. Firmushere defends the view that the egg existed not only before the hen, butalso before the whole of creation. Additionally, the egg is, in his words,the consecrated symbol of Dionysus, one that produces and containseverything21.

On the basis of this section of Quaestiones convivales, Pearson sug-gested an emendation of two Plutarchean passages namely Cons. ad ux.611F22 and fr. 177 Sandbach in arguing that they both identify the humansoul with the buttery. The former is very lacunary and runs as follows:

[Wyttenbach], [ Pearson] 23 .

[Whereas the soul that tarries] after its capture [but a brief spacein the body before it is set free by higher powers]24 proceeds to itsnatural state as though released from a bent position with exibilityand resilience unimpaired25.

Pearson accepts most of Wyttenbachs proposals for the text, admittingboth the and his hypothesis that the lacuna after should contain a description of the soul, which has spent a short timein its corporeal environment26. Pearsons innovation, however, concernshis preference for (caterpillar) over (bending or ex-ion), which, even if based on a minute change, introduces an impor-tant semantic shift. He translates: like a buttery shaking itself freefrom the supple and yielding caterpillar into its natural element. Indeed,

20 Cf. Plato, Ti. 49a; 51a; 52d. See also Teodorsson (1989) 221.21 Cf. Teodorsson (1989) 221224. Bernab (2008) 295296, regarding its implica-

tions, see 44 n. 44. See also Roig Lanzillota (2010) 115141.22 Cf. Pearson (1907) 214.23 Pearson accepts, however, that the use of , with a wide range of parallels

among Plutarchs works, makes preferable the option of .24 Wyttenbach supplies .25 De Lacy Einarson (1959). See also the parallels they adduce on p. 603, n. b.26 Cf. Pearson (1907) 214.



whereas the edition of Wyttenbach perfectly ts Plutarchs conceptionof the transmigration of the soul after death, the amendment by Pearsonsupposes a metaphorical use here, a simile by which the soul leavingthe human body is compared to a buttery emerging from a caterpillarscocoon.

It is important to note that, in this work, Plutarch is trying to comforthis wife upon the death of their daughter, Timoxena. The main purposeof the Chaeronean is to explain that Timoxenas soul has moved on toa better, painless state, and consequently the sorrow of her loss shouldnot affect her parents (611C). In addition, however, Plutarch deals withthe change of state of the soul, from this life to death, also engagingwith Epicurean theories on the subject. In Plutarchs opinion, the soulis immortal and hence its material life is like that of a bird in a cage ( ). Just like a bird is domesticated through habit, the soulmay become used to this life and become entangled in material passionsand changes of fortune due to its consecutive reincarnations. In order toavoid this, it is best for the soul to leave this life at the earliest opportunityand to regain its pristine state, freed from the human body. The broaderthematic context, to be sure, is the transmigration of the soul after death,clearly paralleled in Platos Phaedo, especially in its understanding ofthe souls residing in a physical body as an imprisonment27. Wyttenbachcompleted the lacuna after , correctly in my opinion, suggestingthat Plutarch inserted here a description of the soul that spends only ashort while in its corporeal environment. In this context, Wyttenbachsinterpretation appears plausible.

As for the second emendation (fr. 177 Sandbach), Pearson includedhis proposal in his review of Prichkards Selected Essays of Plutarch.Vol. II28. It concerns a fragment of Plutarchs lost De Anima 2, wherePearson again defends over , and resorts to Moralia 611Fand 636C in order to support it (these are the passages from theConsolatioand Quaestiones convivales referred to above):

[ Pearson] 29.

27 Plato, Phd. 82c83a; Brenk (1998) 2930 and n. 5.28 Cf. Pearson (1919) 3335.29 See also, Volpe Cacciatore (22010) 196 and 197:

, perci verosimile che lanima, quando il corpo spira, scatti e rimblaziin su, come al rilascio di una molla, e riprenda ato e vigore.



Hence it is reasonable to believe that the soul, when expired by thebody, shoots forth and races upwards, as if at the release of a spring,and itself draws breath and is revivied30.

Pearson again adjusts the text by correcting into . He trans-lates: the soul darts out and runs upwards, as from a certain caterpillarfrom it had been released. The context is again that of the souls trans-migration. Here, Plutarchs interlocutor, Timon, defends the notion thatwhat is imperishable does not share anything with the perishable in whatregards the dissolution of death. In order to substantiate his claim, heresorts to the etymology of the term (death), which he relates to (racing upwards). In his opinion, it means that what remains ofa deceased human being does not stay in the world nor descends below it,but rather ascends swiftly to the higher realm. In the same line, the term (birth) is linked to and interpreted as earthwardinclination.

Pearsons emendations are certainly plausible from a palaeographicalperspective, as they only involve the change of one diacritical mark(/). However, in my opinion, they are far removed fromPlutarchs view, as will be demonstrated further on.

Let us now return to the passage fromQuaestiones convivales (636C).As Teodorsson argues, rst of all, Firmuss speech seems to revealPlutarchs intention to ridicule Epicurean theories31. Indeed, the conver-sation is related in a rather relaxed key, as follows: after Alexander hadridiculed the inquiry on the ground that it yielded no rm solution, myrelative Firmus said . Subsequently, the speech no longer deals withthe main topic outlined above the creation of the worlds soul. Despiteof this, Firmus goes on to deliver a speech, lled with Aristotelian termi-nology that propounds a zoogonical simile for the creation of all things32.Yet, even so his conclusions actually contradict those of the Stagirite.For example, in the specic case of the buttery, the so-called psyche,Aristotle has his doubts regarding its birth, but he nonetheless proposesthat butteries are born by spontaneous generation: The so-called psycheor buttery is generated from caterpillars which grow on green leaves,chiey leaves of the raphanus, which some call crambe or cabbage33.Aristotle mentions neither the seed nor the egg, nor the insect that is theirresult, as does Firmus: as development admittedly exists between innate

30 Sandbach (1969). See also Roskam (2007) 137 and n. 182.31 Teodorsson, (1989) 215, supports his argument with direct quotations of Epicurus,

such as , Epicurus, Ep. 2,41.32 Cf. Quaest. conv. 636AB. See also Teodorsson (1989) 216.33 Cf. Aristotle, HA 551a1327; Geop. 15,1,21. See also, Teodorsson (1989) 219.



merit and perfected virtue, so the intermediate development in naturespassage from the seed to the living creature is the egg34. Similarly, wend signicant contradictions once we arrive at the birth processes ofbark-beetles and woodworms35.

Secondly, it is notable that Firmuss own arguments are contradictory.For instance, although he begins with the Atomistic theory, arguing thatatoms are the rst components of everything, he immediately forgetsthis, asserting the seed as the initial cause instead. In addition, as thespeech further on suggests, if the seed comes rst, then the hen existsbeforehand36.

The comic aspect of this reductio ad absurdum of Firmuss speech,which consequently has nothing to do with Plutarchs opinion, is evidentat the end of his discourse, with the mention of Firmuss laughter, , he added with a laugh37. If Plutarch and his wife were initiatedinto the Dionysian mysteries, as he affirms in his Cons. ad ux. 611D,Firmuss intervention lacks the serious tone it deserves. We can thereforeconclude that Plutarchs intention is a parody and that the buttery-soulis a mere metaphor. Consequently, the passage, far from showing theauthors view, is a pastiche with Aristotelian echoes and consciouslydeformed ones at that.

Let us now return to the second text of Cons. ad ux. 611F and reviewPearsons arguments once again. His corrections to the text are supportedmainly by three arguments:

1. The conception of the buttery-soul is widely attested by anthropolo-gists;

2. was the name actually given to a certain species of buttery,which seems to be conrmed by Aristotles passage in the Historiaanimalium;

3. If any doubt remains, it may be assuaged by a comparison withQuaest. conv. 636C38.

As for the rst argument, Pearson does not provide any further informa-tion about which anthropologists attest the buttery motif, and in which

34 Cf. Quaest. conv. 636B.35 Cf. Teodorsson (1989) 220. Cf. Quaest. conv. 636DE; he also supports his view

with Platos theory on creation through imitation, cf. Plato, Ti. 49a; 50d; 52d. As far as thisview is concerned, there exists a relationship between the rst entity and the second one,as a result of the process of transformation. Moreover, Plutarch asserts that there exists aproportional relationship between the act of growing and the corruption by humidity.

36 Cf. Teodorsson (1989) 216217.37 Cf. Quaest. conv. 636D.38 Cf. Pearson (1907) 214.



culture(s). In any case, as Jan Bremmer maintains, this conception is notattested in Greek literature, while in the European context it has only beenfound in Irish and Estonian folklores39.

As for the second point, the aforementioned Aristotelian passage isnot denitive.The ancient Greek polysemy of a term referring at the sametime to the human soul and to a species of buttery could originate froman ancient belief, but its meaning bears no traces on Aristotles works norappears in those of Plutarch.

As for the third point, in my view, theQuaestiones convivales passagecannot be used in support of Pearsons conjecture in the other two pas-sages, since they have rather different backgrounds. Whereas in Quaes-tiones convivales Firmus describes the souls incarnation in the humanbody, Plutarch in hisConsolatio discusses the opposite process: the trans-migration of the soul after death. In what regards fr. 177 Sandbach, apartfrom referring to his own article, published several years ago, Pearsondoes not present any further solid evidence. As was the case in the Con-solatio, the core of the fragment is the transmigration of the human soulafter death. This prevents us from connecting one passage with the other,from considering them as parallels and, consequently, from assimilatingbuttery and soul.

To conclude, it seems safe to affirm that Plutarch does not identifythe soul with the buttery: the only passage in which this happens is aparody lled with pseudo-scientic Aristotelian terminology. The onlycase in which the soul is related to the buttery is found in Quaestionesconvivales, where it serves as a simple metaphor. As a result, in my view,as far as the Greek literature is concerned, and excluding the testimonyof Aristotle, we nd only a mythological symbolism, that of Psyche,represented as a buttery. Therefore, any further attempt to identify thehuman soul with the buttery must be based on a solid textual foundationthat is to include new texts, which up to now have not been taken intoaccount. The artistic examples discussed above may show that wingedeidolamay be confused with butteries, but, until new and solid evidenceis provided, the hypothesis remains speculative40.

Israel Muoz GallarteUniversidad de Crdoba

39 Cf. Bremmer (1987) 6465; Nilsson (31967) 198. See also Lixfeld (1972) 60107;Hultkrantz (1953) 278279.

40 Regarding the testimonies from Minoan and Mycenaean arts, see Dietrich (21974)121122. Bremmer, (1987) 6465, 82, also says: [I]mportunely, there are no other indi-cations of a possible connection between the buttery and the soul of the living and thedead. In fact, the only example he sees as being up for discussion is Lucians Panegyricto the Fly, 7.



Bibliography

Bernab Pajares, A. Casadess, F. (eds.) (2008), Orfeo y la tradicin rca. Unreencuentro, 2 vols, Madrid.

Betz, H.D. (1986), The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation. Including the DemoticSpells, Chicago.

Bremmer, I. (1987),The early Greek Concept of the Soul, Princeton.

Brenk, F.E. (1998), Relighting the Souls. Studies in Plutarch, in Greek Literature, Reli-gion, and Philosophy, and in the New Testament Background, Stuttgart.

Clement, P.A. Hoffleit, H.B. (1969), PlutarchsMoralia, vol. VIII, London Cambridge,Mass. (LCL).

Cook, A.B. (1925), Zeus. A Study in Ancient Religion, vol. II, Cambridge.

De Lacy, P.H. Einarson, B. (1959), Plutarch. Moralia, vol. VII.2, London Cambridge,Mass. (LCL).

Dietrich, B.C. (21974),The Origins of Greek Religion, Berlin.

Dez de Velasco, F. (2013), El mediador fantasma: mediaciones simblicas en el imag-inario ateniense clsico del trnsito al ms all, in http://fradive.webs.ull.es/artic/fantasma.pdf, 181218 [last access, 24-3-2014].

Faraone, Ch.A. (1991), The Agonistic Context of Early Greek Binding Spells, inFaraone, Ch.A. Obbink, D. (eds.), Magika Hiera: Ancient Greek Magic andReligion, Oxford, 432.

Hirsch-Luipold, R. (2014), Religion and Myth, in Beck, M. (ed.), A Companion toPlutarch, Malden-Oxford, 163176.

Hultkrantz, A. (1953), Conceptions of the Soul among North American Indians, Stock-holm.

Lixfeld, H. (1972), Die Guntramsage (AT 1645A), Fabula 13, 60107.

Nilsson, M.P. (31967), Geschichte der griechischen Religion, vol. I, Munich.

Pearson, A.C. (1907), Stoica Frustula,The Journal of Philology 30, 211222.

Pearson, A.C. (1919), Selected Essays of Plutarch. Vol. II. Translated with Introductionby A.O. Prickard. Pp. xx + 336. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1918. 3s. 6d. net, CR 33,3335.

Platt, V. (2007), Burning Butteries: Seals, Symbols and the Soul in Antiquity, inGilmour, L.A. (ed.), Pagans and Christians from Antiquity to the Middle Ages:papers in honour of Martin Henig, presented on the occasion of his 65th birthday,Oxford, 89100.

Roig Lanzillotta, F.L. (2010), Orphic Cosmogonies in the Pseudo-Clementines? TextualRelationship, Character and Sources of Homilies 6.313 and Recognitions 10.1719.30, in Bremmer, J.N. (ed.),The Pseudo-Clementines, Leuven, 115141.

Roskam, G. (2007), A Commentary on Plutarchs De latenter vivendo, Leuven.



Ruiz de Elvira, A. (42000), Mitologa Clsica, Madrid.

Sandbach, F.H. (1969), Plutarch. Fragments, vol. XV, London Cambridge, Mass.(LCL).

Teodorsson, S.-T. (1989), A Commentary on Plutarchs Table Talks, vol. 1, Gothenburg.

Volpe Cacciatore, P. (22010), Plutarco. I Frammenti, Napoli.

Documents

Chasing Butterflies: the Conception of the Soul in Plutarch's Works