2i6 FISH IN SACRIFICES— VIVARTA— ARCHIMEDES 



Plutarch {Symp., VIII. 3) would seem indeed the only 

 exception : he straightly asserts, according to Nonnius and 

 others, that " no fish is fitting for offering or sacrifice." ^ 



This is but another instance of Plutarch's being saddled 

 with responsibility for some expression or opinion uttered by 

 one of his characters, as is clearly shown by the words : 

 " Sylla, commending the discourse, added with regard to the 

 Pythagoreans that they tasted especially the flesh sacrificed 

 to the gods, but that no fish is fit for offering or sacrifices." 



P. Stengel holds that fish, with the curious exception of 

 the Eel, were not sacrificed to the gods in early days, because 

 they neither possessed blood which could be poured forth at 

 the altar, nor could they be offered up alive as could be 

 an enemy, a sacrifice which found special favour in divine 

 eyes. 2 



This statement, unless explained in some manner, contrasts 

 queerly with the passage in Plutarch's Life of Numa Pompilius, 

 where the king is taught by Picus and Faunus, reinforced 

 subsequently by Jupiter himself, to make a lustration " as a 

 charm against thunder and Ughtning, composed of Onions, 

 Hair, and Pilchards ! " Lest these curious constituents arouse 

 your mirth and infect you with doubt as to their efficacy, 

 hearken unto Plutarch's further words, " which is used even 

 unto this day ! " 



From this account (wittily versed by Ovid) ^ we discover 

 Jupiter, resentful at being brought down to earth by the 

 magic of Picus and Faunus, ordering the charm to consist " of 

 Heads " — " Of onions," repHed Numa. " Human " — " Hairs," 

 said Numa, desirous to fence against the dreadful injunction, 



Ceres, and Venus — claimed a particular sacrificiable fish or fishes. Some- 

 times fishes were offered to two or more gods, e.g. the mullet to Ceres and 

 Proserpine. Cf. J. G. Stuck, Sacrorumet sacrificiorum gentil. descripiio, ii. p. 72. 



^ 1xOvcj}v 5e 6v<nfjLos oiiSds ouSe iipfvfftfx6s ecrrtv. 



- Hermes (1887), XXII. 86. 100. The reason here stated for the Eel being 

 sacrificiable was because it could be brought alive to the altar and its blood 

 poured out on it. Stengel's argument, especially in association with his 

 remark that sacrifices of fish were as scarce as those of game, is not convincing, 

 for why should not other fishes be kept alive in water till the hour of oblation ? 

 The belief in the sanctity of the Eel pertains even unto our day, for in the 

 spring at Bergas (between the Dardanelles and Lapsaki) they are or were 

 before the War inviolate. 



' Fasti., III. 339 ff. 



