Philologus | 138 | 1994 i 24-31 Anpre! V. LEBEDEV ORPHEUS, PARMENIDES OR EMPEDOCLES? THE APHRODITE VERS! IN THE NAASSENE TREATISE OF HIPPOLYTUS’ ELENCHOS Hippolyt. Ref. V. 8.43, p. 164, 225-31 Marcovich = p. 97, 2—8 Wendland: Ks, now, goti td wworhpix Tepsepovng Kéto, epi dv pwotnpiov Kai 30d TiS ayovons éxei, obong “mhateiag Kai edpuxopov” Kai Pepodang tog énodAvpEVODS Emi ti Mepoegévny, xai 6 noms 8 pnow adtép On adthy got drupmitdg dxpvdecoa, Koian, mnAGENG, fF HyhowoIu dpiom Yhoog é ipepdev nodutyitov ’Agpoditns! “The and the road leading there (i.e. down), which is ‘broad and spacious’ and carries those who die to Persephone the poet also says: ‘And under it there is a horrible [or ‘rugged, hollow and slimy path, which is best suited set Mysteries, he (a Naassene Gnostic) says, are those of Persephone down, about which mysteries to conduct into the lovely grove of the much-honored Aphrodite This passage of Hippolytus’ Elenchos derives from the Naassene interpretation of the symbolism of the Eleusinian mysteries which correlates the Lesser m with “carnal birth”, i.e. the descent of the soul into the Hades of earthly existence, and the Greater mysteries with death interpreted as a spiritual and celestial birth. A brief respite (uixpév naicao9a1) taken by initiates between mikra and megala, i.e. from Anthesterion to Boedromion, symbolizes the short span of human life (cf. Marcovich, ad loc.). The ways leading to mikra and megala are, in turn, identified with the edpozapog (sc. cig dnodeav) and evi} 6865 (sc. ig Gay) of Matth. 7.13. The tripartite division of births into 1& Eniyewx = ‘Agpoditn, t& Kataz96via = Mepoeodvn, th énovpivia = Echiyvn in the Naassene interpretation of the tpind9nto¢ Adonis formula (Ref. V. 7.11—12) is apparently presupposed and modified into a dualistic scheme by joining Aphrodite with Persephone in opposition to Enovpavia, v. 234, i.e, Selene” teri 1 omit some alterations of the MSS text by M. Marcovich (ed.), Hippolytus. Refutatio omnium haeresium (Berlin—New-York 1986), ef. also note 18 infra. In line 2 the Parisinus gives ijt which has been cemended to f 8 by all editors except Miller in order to separate the seemingly conflicting epithets Spice and dxpideoas etc. Thus Marcovich, ad loc. explains f 8 as quae ‘amen; according to R. Reitz stein, Poimandees (Leipzig 1904) 96, a. 4 it refers to “another” path, and only the first path leads to Persephone. Since this emendation is contradicted by the context, the relative with epic te should be kept (Fi 9" scripsi) in its common sense of adding precision, fC. J. Ruijgh, Autour de “té epique” (Amsterdam 1971) 318 Ff 2 On the Naassene interpretation of Attis myth see G. Sfameni Gasparro, Interpretazioni gnostiche € misteriosofiche del mito di Attis, in: R. van den Broek and M. J. Vermaseren (edd.), Studies in Gnosticism and Hellenistic Religions (Leiden 1981) 380—398 with references.‘The fragment of an anonymous poet describing, according to the Naassenes, the mikra mysteria (i.c. those of Persephone-Aphrodite) and the way leading éxet = Kéto i.e. to Diesseits-Hades) has been attributed to “Orpheus”, Parmenides! or Empedocles’ Katharmoi3, all with little textual/hermeneutic precision and without any analysis of the context and its sources. The Orphic theory takes the verses as a real description of the other world. Its main advocate, Albrecht Dieterich (incidentally, the only scholar to discuss the fragment at some length in his Nekyia, 191—193) took seriously the Gnostic parallel with Matth. 7.13 and interpreted the fragntent as an Orphic eschatological adaptation of the “two roads” parable in Hesiod’s Erga, 287fF.; compared the Pythagorean hivium symbol (Y) of moral choice’, According to Dieterich, the “grove of Aphrodite” stands for Elysium in which the blessedness is conceived as sexual pleasure; he cited with approval Preller who saw in the fragment “a Muslim idea of paradise”. This was enough to convince Kern to include the verses into Orphicorum fragmenta with further references to Orphic /amellae aureae (Orph. ft. 32f., 6 FAcex @epccooveias) and mnidg in Hades (Orph. fr.4 Kern). The “two toads” interpretation, on which the attribution to Orpheus relies, is impossible: it is based on a false emendation of line 2 (see note 1) and is contradicted by the context; the Naassene author speaks unambiguously of only one road described in the verses, namely the road of dndeta leading down, not that of salvation, Even if we accept for a moment the arbitrary reading 113’ which allows (if it really does) the distinction between the “horrible” path and the path of Aphrodite, kothn remains bizarre, mh6c misplaced and the position of one road “under” the other quite incongruent with the crossroads image. The “Muslim idea of paradise” is virtually unknown to Greek religious thought which tends to separate sexuality from the sacred’; Greek mythology e also 3 O, Kern (ed.), Orphicorum fragmenta (Berlin. 1922) 339—340 (Fr. 352) following L. Preller & C. Robert, Griechische Mythologie I (Berlin 1894) 828 n.; A. Dieterich, Nekyia (Leipzig and Berlin 1913) 193; FE. Rohde, Psyche (Engl. tr. Chicago 1987) 449, n, 62. Marcovich, loc. cit. also thinks of Orpheus. 4H. Diels, Parmenides. Lehrgedicht (Berlin 1897) 107—108, following an old (1852) suggestion of Meineke; the fragment is also printed as debivm in Diels-Kanz, Vorsokr., 28 B 20. This attribution was accepted by O. Gilbert, Die daipov des Parmenides, AGPh 20 (1906), 37-38 and id., Griechische Religionsphilosophie (Leipzig 1911) 191, n. 1; K. Joél, Geschichte der antiken Philosophie (Tibingen 1921) 453, n, 3: the identity of Aphrodite and Persephone as two aspects of the female daimon presiding over birth and death, SK. Reinharde, Parmenides und die Geschichte der griechischen Philosophie (Frankfurt a. M. 1959) 46, n. 1; M. Untersteiner, Parmenide. Testimonianze e frammenti (Firenze 1956) 171. Kranz in Vorsokr, 1, 245, 1. 22 dissented from Diels and hesitated between “Orpheus” 1 B 154d. G. Zuntz, Persephone. Three Essays on Religion and Thought in Magna Graccia, Oxford 1971 © On the Orphic-Pythagorean idea of oyio1g and Littera Pythagorica Y see Rohde, Psyche, Le. W Jacger, The Theology of the Farly Greek Philosophers (Oxford 1968) 99-100; L. Taran, Parmenides (Princeton 1965) 25¢f. denies its influence on Parmenides, but cf. B. Feyerabend, Zur Wegmetaphorik beim Goldplittchen aus Hipponion und dem Progmium des Parmenides, RhM 127 (1984) 1-22; M. M. S: Parmenide al bivio, PaP 43 (1988) 383-396. 7 See R. Parker, Miasma, Pollution and Purification in Farly Greek Religion (Oxford 1983) ch. 3 “The works of Aphrodite” and ch. 10 Purity and Salvation”. Dieterich, o.¢. 192, n. 1 could cite only such doubtful parallel as Apul. Met. 6, 18ff. The scanty literary/epigeaphical evidence on Aphrodite Jenseits dates to the Roman times and reflects Oriental ideas: O. Gruppe, Griechische Mythologie und Religionsgeschichte and Empedocles, cf.road A.V. Lepepev, The Aphrodite verses in the Naassene treatise of Hippol. Elenchos has no houris, No Orphic text ever conflates Persephone with Aphrodite, the puritanical philosophy of the gold leaves is especially incompatible with aphrodisiac post mortem rewards’. ‘The discovery of the Hipponion leaf in 1974 proved the Bacchic character of the cult (something Kern could not know): in v.15—16 the glorious mystai are walking the iep% 686¢ apparently leading to paradise”, but there is no mention of any toad to hell. As the new leaves from ‘Thessaly make clear", the bliss awaiting these mystai may be the wine of immortality, but it is certainly not an eternal orgasm. The goal of the Orphic/Bacchic life both in the “Rhapsodies” (Orph. fr. 239-230) and in the gold leaves (Orph. fr. 32¢ = A1 Zuntz) is to escape from the “dire” Ayklos geneseos; the condemnation of sex, the source of all sufferings, goes hand in hand with the blatant misogyny (Orph. fr. 234). ‘The attribution to Parmenides was made on even less sufficient grounds. Reinhardt was certainly justified in calling “absurd” Gilbert's comparison between drapmitds Okpvdecoa and Parmenides’ 665¢ nodbpnpiog (B 1.2 DK). Parmenides’ Proem is a closed whole and has been preserved in its entirety", The cosmic Saipov of Parmenides? Doxa (B12 DK) acts as Aphrodite (yigtos Sgyet), and is named so by Plutarch'2, but this allegorical goddess denotes a certain celestial body or, perhaps, the axis mundil3; whatever identification we accept, the path leading to this daimon cannot be described as “hollow” and “slimy”. Hippolytus never cites directly verses of “Orpheus” or Patmenides, but he is responsible for 6 verbatim quotations from Empedocles’ Mepi @basms and is one of the main sources of the Katharmoi'4, Empedocles seems to have been the most popular (Miinchen 1906) 1357, n. 3 (“A. als Brldserin aus dem Hades”), 1358, n. 1 (“A. als Todesgittin”); F. Bmer, Untersuchungen iiber die Religion der Sklaven in Griechenland und Rom, Teil II (Mainz 1960) 2008. citing CIL III 686 ® On the religious philosophy of the gold leaves in general see: G. Zuntz (note 5) 275-393; W. Burkert, Greek Religion (Cambr., Mass. 1985) 293ff.; id., Le laminette auree: da Orfeo a Lampone, in: Orfismo in Magna Grecia, Atti del quattordicesimo convegno di studi sulla Magna Grecia (Napoli 1975) 81—104, Orphic hostility to sexuality is rightly emphasized by Parker (note 7) 301 ° ‘The Hipponion text: G, Pugliese Cartatell, PP 24 (1974) 108— 126; further references in M. Marcovich, ‘The Gold Leaf from Hipponion, Studies in Greek Poetry (Atlanta 1991), 138-142. "© K. Tsantsanoglou and G. M. Parassoglou, Two Gold Lamellac from Thessaly, ‘EXAnvuxic 38 (1987) 3=16, “Milk of Aphrodite” as a metaphor of wine in Aristoph. fr. 596 K. = 613 Kassel-Austin is without parallels, cf. J. Taillardat, Les images d’Aristophane (Paris 1965) 96, n.2. This sounds like a parody reminiscence of a (tragic?) kenning and means no more than “Nourishing sexual desire”. "Alex, P. D. Mourelatos, The Route of Parmenides (New Haven and London 1970) rightly omits B 20 and so do most recent editions and discussions of Parmenides. 12 Amat. 756 F = 28 B13 DK; De facie 927 A = 31 B 27 DK. On the Amatorius quotation see H. Marcin Js., Amatorius, 756 E-F: Plutarch’s Citation of Parmenides and Hesiod, AJPh 90 (1969) 183—200; id, Plutarch’s Citation of Empedocles at Amatorius 756 D, GRBS 10 (1969) 57ff.; J. P. Hershbell, Plutarch and Parmenides, GRBS 13 (1972) 193ff.; Mansfeld (note 30) 267. © On various interpretations see Vorsokr. I, 242 ad loc.; L. Tarin, Parmenides, 247 A. H. Coxon, The Fragments of Parmenides (Assen 1986) 239ff. (whose suggestion of ai9ip is certainly wrong). 1 See Index locorum to Marcovich’s edition of Hippolytus, p. 426. The Empedocles quotations in the Elenchos (but not our passage) ate discussed by J. P. Hershbell, Hippolytus’ Blenchos as a Source for Empedocles Re-cxamined, Phronesis 18 (1973) 97—114, 187—203 and C. Osborne, Rethinking Early Greek Philosophy (Ithaca 1987) 87¢f,Philologus 138 (1994) 1 27 of all pre-Platonic philosophers among the Gnostics!5, presumably because his verses were taken as an authentic exposition of the religous philésophy of Pythagoras, his alleged teacher and the great authority on éxéxewa. In support of his interpretation of the Eleusinian mysteries the Naassene writer quotes our fragment and Heraclitus B 25 DK = 97 M. (p. 163, v. 224 and p. 164, v. 234 Marc.) taking psilovag poipac as a reference to peyaia jworhpra. Heraclitus was often paired with Empedocles as kaxiGov nv yéveow in a pythagorizing interpretation (also known to Hippolytus) which must have been very appealing to the Gnostics!, Empedocles B 119 DK is quoted in the Naassene treatise earlier (Re/. V. 7.30), also anonymously and soon after Heraclitus fr. 108 Mare. (Ref. V.7.21). I suspect that Ref, V. 8.43, v. 233 juxpov naboao9at is another reminiscence of Heraclitus B 84a = 56a M., ef. also B 20 = 99 M. wdpovg v Exetv, HGAAOV dé dvanawea9a1; the latter fragment was important in the pythagorizing interpretation of Heraclitus!”, and it is quoted by Clemens Alex. Strom. 3.14.1 in combination with Empedocles B 118; 12! 24 DK. Ie is legitimate to conclude that the Naassenes used a middle Platonist source similar to or identical with the source of Clemens. Thus, Empedocles is the most promising candidate, but the attribution to Katharmoi calls for serious doubts. Reinhardt’s reference to Empedocles’ B 120.128 DK is misleading since %c0¢ nodvtystov Agpobitns can be neither the same thing as Aeydv’Atng, nor its opposite (the prenatal dwelling of the souls-daimones must be envisaged in Heaven, not in a place located “under” something), while the present tense éotiv in v. 1 (not to speak of other difficulties) rules out the identification of Aphrodite with the Queen of the Golden Age. It seems that Reinhardt, like Dieterich, was misled by the Gnostic context which stands in flat contradiction with the verses themselves, for they speak of Aphrodite, not of '® The list of Gnostic quotations from Fmpedocles given by Burkert in (note 16) 146, n. 46 has been dramatically expanded by J. Frickel, Unerkannte gnostische Schriften in Hippolyts Refutatio, in: Gnosis and Gnosticism (Leiden 1977) 126ff., who argues that Hippolytus’ exposition of Empedocles’ philosophy in Ref. VII, 29-31 (parallel with Marcion) derives from a gnostic source. There is no direct evidence that Parmenides was used or quoted by the Gnosties; the comparison between Parmen. B 12and NHC IL. 5. 109 proposed by J. Mansfeld, Hesiod and Parmenides in Nag Hammadi, Vigiliac Christianae 35 (1981) 179 is inconvincing, as Parmenides speaks of a female daimon, not of Bros, Androgynous Pros (= Phanes) is a distinctively Orphie creature. © Ref. 1. 3~4; Clem. Strom. 5.103.6; Plut. Is. 370 d. ete. On this interpretation see W. Burkert, Plotin, Plutarch und die platonisietende Interpretation von Heraklit und Empedokles, in: Kephalaion (Assen 1975) 137146. A pre-Philonian middle Platonic source is argued for by J. Mansfeld, Heraclitus, Empedocles and Others in a Middle Platonist Cento in Philo of Alex., Vigiliae Christianae 39 (1985) 136ff. On Plutarch as Hippolytus’ source on Empedocles in Ref. VIT see Hershbell (note 14) 188—195 (questioning Diels’ thesis); D. O’Brien, Pour interpréter Empédocle (Paris-Leiden 1981) 93fF. (defending Diels). Frickel’s work (note 15) makes things more complex, but does not necessarily destroy Diels” view, for Plutarch may be mediated by the Gnostics. "7 Burkert (note 16) 138, On the meaning of dvamaberar (especially as metaphor of death) and the relation berween Heracl. B20 and B 56 DK see A. V. Lebedev, The Imagery of lampadedromia in Heraclitus, ®IAOZOSIA 17-18 (1987—88) 2347.2 #27: Es, 2 Oe pee ee ee eee ee Persephone, while éxpydecoa “horrible”, contradicted by dpiotn, iwepdev and rodutiit0v, is a trivial corruption of dxpioecoa “rugged”. ‘The fragment then has no relation whatsoever to death, eschatology or horrors of, afterlife. In his account of embryology Empedocles described metaphorically the female genitals as “split meadows of Aphrodite” oxiotods AempOvas “A@poditns!”. A closer inspection of the language and imagery of the anonymous verses leaves no doubt that they derive from the same context of Empedocles’ Peri physeas®. The %hoog iepoev “A@poditns (where ipepdev connotes, “full of sexual desire”, mBvpmtiKds Suda q.v.) refers to the uterus, while the “rugged, hollow and slimy (i.e. mucous) path best suited to conduct” (scil. the penis or semen) is simply an anatomical description of the vagina?!, If we read br’ adtoiy, scil. Asyudvowv, the path would lead from the “meadows” to the “grove” of Aphrodite”, i.e, from the external genitals to the womb, and the map of sexual geography would be complete. Alternatively, bx’ abriwy may refer to the preceding vndbv, yaorépa or best of all BawBé, cf. Hesych. s.v. Bowpdr 19HvN 1 On the confusion of the two words in MS SJ, q.v.s on misreading of Kovdeis as SKeu P. Chantsaine, Grammaire Homerique, I Paris 1958) 7.45. The conjecture oxt- (first in the Gottingen edition of Hippolytus) is accepted by Wendland and Marcovich. But 6xQv~ should be retained in Hippolytus’ text asa Gnostic emendation (ef. especially dxohAupévous); cf. J. Dillon’s remarks on “ideological em apropos of Plato's Timacus in AJPh 110 (1989) 50—72. It is equally incorrect to print 6kQU- in a separate edition of the fragment as Kern (note 3) and Diels-Kranz (note 4) do. 4 Schol. Bur. Phoen. 18 (with ver. lect. hipévas) = 31 B 66 DK = fr. 610 Bollack. Karsten interpreted Aaipivag as two regions of the uterus, one hot and another cold, in which the two sexes are formed. J Bollack, Empédocle, v. I11/2 (Paris 1969) 540 hesitates between this interpretation and the erotic meaning of Keay in Eusip. Cyl. 170 wabor xepotv Remdvos, The latter interpretation seems preferable since the scholiast compares Empedocles’ metaphor with Euripides’ téxvov 5208 On the other hand, Dinéves Képtdog (a vague metaphor of the cosmic womb) is attested in B 98.3 DK = 461 B.; the acceptance of this reading in B 66 would make Karsten’s interpretation the only possible one. For a detailed discussion of B66 sce A. Morte, Prairies et Jardins de la Gréce Antique (Bruxelles 1973) 339ff. who finds in B 66 “the archetypal image of Peri plyseos” (371). There is no connection between oxiatoi Remves and the Orphic-Pythagorean idea of oyiors, as Motte, o.c. 361, n. 78 suggests, since B 66 does not speak of a bifurcated road 2 Adrép in initial position is found in Emped. B 30.1; B 35.1; B 59.1 DK. According to Bollack’s index verborum, 6x6 does not occur elsewhere with Acc. (but there are 3 instances at all). Road metaphors are common in Fmpedocles’ biology; they are collected by Bollack (note 19) II/2, 593 s.v. “chemins du corps”. "Oxpig (= Sxptdetc) is attested as epithet of a cleft in Aesch. PI’ 1016. Kotha associated with n6por in embryological doxography 31 A 87; ef. B 92. Tnddéng “mucous” is a metaphor based on the image of slippery road (incorrectly explained in LSJ, q.v.). HoRvtiyintog (First instance in this sense) recalls cation péprotot, epithetum ornans of gods in Emped. B 21.8; B 23.8; cf. B 30.2. Note that ‘A@poditn occurs only at the end of the verse B 17.24; B 22.5; B 66; B 71.4; B 86—87; B 151, Koxpis in other positions. — On the frequency of spondaic verses (line 2) in Emp. see Bollack (note 19) 1, 313ff. Hiatus in line comparable with B 100.8 (ef. Bollack, o.c. III/2, 484). B 16, B 105. 21M. L. West, The Orphic Poems (Oxford 1983) 268 ad Orph. frgg. 350-2 saw the truth without going into details 2 On the close association of Boog and hepdv in sacral contexts see Motte (note 19) 18, n. 56. 2 In his anthropogony Empedocles conceived the earth as the womb of mankind: 31 B 67 DK 616 B. Diels emends yaing to yaothp, but the MSS reading is convincingly defended by Bollack (note 19) 11/2. 543. dations”Philologus 138 (1994) 1 2 Afuntpos: onpaiver 8 Kai KovMiav Og nap’ “EuncdoKket™. It was probably th “Eleusinian” name with sexual connotations that suggested to the Naassenes the mystical interpretation of the gynecological fragment; “meadows” mentioned in th context could easily provide another link between erotic imagery topography. In the Naassene mythology Aphrodite involves Adonis who symbolizes the hums soul. It is only natural that they identified 8605 “Agpobitng with Hcex Hepoc@ovei (K 509), “emended” dxpideoou to dxpvdecos and connected rnAbSNg = “mucous with mio = BopBopos in Hades. That this is a conscious mystic-allegorical inte pretation rather than a simple misunderstanding, becomes clear from the identificatic of the Lesser mysteries with capxixi yéveots (Ref. V. 8, v. 232) which means that tl Naassenes knew about the relationship of the verses to childbirth and procreation ( also "Agpoditn = yéveots in Ref. V. 7.12), and this confirms our attribution an interpretation. It is only in the context of the Naassene association of “carnal birth with the death of the soul that Aphrodite can be identified with Persephone, and vulva becomes a horrible entrance into Hades; cf. also the cosmic symbolism of ity of the Scthians allegedly borrowed by them from the Bacchica of Orpheus (Hippo Ref. V. 19.11 ff.; 20.4 = Orph. fr. 243 K.). To be sure, there were some real “Gnostic elements in Empedocles’ Katharmoi; the idea of Diesseits-Hades was familiar to him as it was to Heraclitus (B 15; 98 DK) and Parmenides (there must be a comme Pythagorean source). Empedocles probably condemned marriage and procreation | the Katharmoi (at least implicitly), but not in Peri physeas®. However, even in tt Katharmoi it is Neikos, not Philotes-Aphrodite, that throws the souls into earthly exi (B 115 DK). The Naassenes apparently felt free to neglect this fact and to read int the embryology of Peri physeos the (modified) eschatological ideas of the Katbarmoi, ‘There is one possible objection to our attribution thar should not be left unanswere ‘The anonymous verses as interpreted above fit the context of Parmenides’ embryolog as well; Parmenides may have mentioned Aphrodite in this context, cf. Veneris. . . ge and infern % Emped. B 153 DK = 480 B. = 10 van der Ben = 150 Wright. Bollack then is right in assignic the hanbo fragment to Peri physeas (contea Diels-Kranz), but embryology (fr. 600-685 B.) is a more suitab context than zoogony, The connection of haube with the personified abstractions B 121—123 DK suggest by N, van der Ben, The Proem of Empedocles’ Peri Physeos (Amsterdam 1975) 166—67 is unlikely becau of the conerete meaning of the word and the lack of its opposite; besides, if dm’ aitiyy refers to aupk the word must be taken as appellative rather than a personification. On Baubo as. personifi vulva see H. Diels, Arcana Cerealia, in: Miscellania Salinas (Palermo 1907) 8; M. Nilsson, Geschichte d griechischen Religion (Minchen 1955) 657, n. 2. and Plate 45,3; Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologi Classieae II/1 (Miinchen 1986) 88 s.v. Baubo (type A). Note that in Eurip. Hel. 1347ff. (cited by van d Ben, Le.) anasyrmos is performed by Aphrodite. % On infernal meadows see Dodds’ commentary on Plato, Gorg. 524 a 2.; Motte (note 19) 233ff., 3724 fon “meadow” in sexual vocabulary: J. Henderson, The Maculate Muse (Yale 1975) 27.136; Motte (no 19) Part UL. % Ie is therefore unlikely that a’ arbthy was misunderstood as ind 7. © So rightly Burkert in (note 16) 146, n. 395 contea Zuntz (note 5) 199f.; Mansfeld (note 30) 285, n. 59. % On the controversy sce Hershbell (note 14) 106ff.; O'Brien (note 16) 93ff. with references.30 A.V. Lumepev, The Aphrodite verses in the Naassene treatise of Hippol. Hieacor ‘ming 28 B 18 DK®. Apart from external reasons and Empedoclean parallels already cited, the type of metaphorical language (see note 33) and author’s concept of Aphrodite still make Diels’s attribution unacceptable. Parmenides’ attitude towards sexual love and procreation is much more puritanical and “Gnostic” (ie. more Pythagorean) than that of Empedocles’ physical poem, Parmenides’ sexual Goddess (named Aphrodite by Plutarch) belongs to the semi-teal world of the Doxa; she also funcrione ae Persephone by sending the souls to and from the sublunary Hades (B 13); in B 12,4 (niveow yap