216 FISH IN SACRIFICES—VIVARIA—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.? 
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 lightning, 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) 3 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,’’ replied 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, Sacvorum et sacvificiorum gentil. descriptio, ii. p. 72. 
1 jxOdwv 5 Ovo mos obdels oddE fepevaiuds dori. 
2 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. 
3 Fasti., ITI. 339 ff. 
