Animal Behaviour and Barbarian Customs: Points of Contact Between Ethnography and Ethology in Greek and Latin Sources

Abstract

In the context of the ancient philosophical discussion of animal intelligence, authors tried to show the commonality of the human and the animal mind by collecting and presenting anecdotes in which animal behaviour appears anthropomorphized. Normally this anthropomorphization follows Greek and Roman standards, but in some cases animals appear behaving in ways reminiscent of “barbarian” customs, as transmitted by ancient historiographical sources. A selection of such cases is the subject of this article. The image of the behaviour of wild animals such as elephants or eagles, and domesticated animals, like dogs and hens, in the works of Pliny, Aelian, and Plutarch can sometimes reflect what recent studies have called “the barbarian repertoire”, whereby animals appear to be endowed with a sort of “alien wisdom”.

Keywords:

• animal behaviour
• animal intelligence
• ethology
• ethnography
• foreign customs
• elephant
• Scythian bird
• eagle
• hen
• dog

Acknowledgements

I am deeply indebted to Marco Antonio Santamaría Álvarez, Anastasia Maravela and Stefano Acerbo who read preliminary versions of this work. Their advice and their acute suggestions have contributed very much to improve the final result. Summaries of these ideas were presented as part of the panel “Les problématiques éthologiques dans les sources antiques et médiévales”, organized by the research group “Zoomathia” at the 141^st Conference of the CTHS (L’animal et l’homme, Rouen, 2016), as well as at the Autumn Classics and Ancient History Seminar, University of Newcastle (2016). I thank the audience for the stimulating discussion. Alwyn Harrison’s help in English copyediting has been precious. Nevertheless, responsibility for every remaining mistake is exclusively my own.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1 Newmyer (2005, 19–20; 2017, 78) sees the germ of these ideas in Pythagoras’ and Empedocles’ thought.

2 See Bodson (1983, esp. 313–314), on diverse considerations of animals’ intelligence and soul. A panoramic survey of the views regarding the animal mind can be found in Li Causi and Pomelli (2015). On the central role of Aristotle in the debate, see Sorabji (1993). The philosopher regards intelligence and rational reflection as a capacity exclusive to human beings (APr 54b), and acknowledges that animals have the capacity for αἴσθησις, but do not engage in πρᾶξις (EN 1139a 19–20). Recently Zatta (2022) offers a nuanced and fresh view of Aristotle’s perspective of the soul of animals.

3 On the concept of οἰκϵιότης in Theophrastus, see Newmyer (2005, 20–22). On the differences between Aristotle and Theophrastus regarding this οἰκϵιότης of man and animal, see Zatta (2022, 13–15). See also Cole (1992).

4 On Strato’s vision of animal intelligence, see Fortenbaugh (2011); on Eudemus’ perspective, White (2002).

5 However, ethology and animal intelligence seem not to be among the major subjects of interest to Hellenistic zoological science. A panorama of zoological studies in Hellenistic Alexandria can be found in Trinquier (2010).

6 On this work, only extant in an Armenian version, see Terian (1981). Nevertheless, the same Philo credits animals with a capacity for piety towards their parents superior to that of men in his work On the Decalogue 114–118.

7 Plin. HN 8.1, see below; on Pliny’s attitude to the elephant, see Mastrorosa (2003).

8 On the importance of anecdotes as scientific evidence in the ancient zoological discussion, in particular in the case of Plutarch, see Newmyer (2017, 63; 2021, 11–13). On the collection of anecdotes as a valid method in scientific analysis of animal behaviour, Rolin (1997). It should be noted that these anecdotes, rather than being part of a biological debate stricto sensu, are aimed at deciding about how men should consider animals from a moral point of view. In the words of Newmyer (2021, 11), “Plutarch examines other species primarily as a moralist, rather than as a biologist”, a description that can also apply to Aelian and, to some extent, to Pliny.

9 Plutarch explains these similarities as due to imitation. Through direct contact with humans, animals abandon their savage nature and acquire the attitudes of the people with whom they live (Plut. De soll. an., 23 [975E]). Newmyer (2021, 84 n. 233) explains this idea as a result of Stoic influence. Cf. Plin. HN 9.1 on the closeness to man among land animals. However, most of Plutarch’s descriptions of animal behaviour deal with wild animals that have little or no contact with man.

10 Bees, for instance, are usually compared to a miniature army (e.g. Plin. HN 9.20 and 26), as are ants: Plutarch and Aelian write of the ants of a certain anthill offering a worm as ransom in return for the corpse of one of their “soldiers” (Plut. De soll. an., 11 [967E–F]; Ael. NA 6.50). Leopards and other predators are frequently depicted in many anecdotes as sparing those who pray and beg for their lives, because they have similar feelings of religious piety as humans (Plin. HN 8.48), and lions demand of their “wives” the same loyalty as men do (Plin. HN 8.43).

11 The passage offers an anthropomorphic interpretation of the wrasse’s reproductive behaviour, which modern biologists define as a “haremic mating system”. The wrasse is protogynous, that is, everyone is born female, and the largest females of the group later experience a metamorphosis and become male. On this fish, see FishBase: http://www.fishbase.org/Summary/FamilySummary.php?ID=362, consulted online 29 September 2022.

12 Lenfant (2019) offers a nuanced perspective on the Greek cliché of Persian polygamy. Persians and Medes appear again when Aelian compares the colourful feathers of the peacock with the flamboyant clothing and the proverbial love of luxury of these peoples (Ael. NA 5.21.26–30). See Harrison (2011, 61–62, 71–72), cf. Lenfant (2007), on Greek ideas about Persians as paradigmatic lovers of luxury. Foreign peoples are again referenced when Aelian discusses the ability of ants to calculate periods of time, judging them superior to the Babylonians and Chaldaeans (Ael. NA 1.22). See Smith (2014, 218) on this comparison as an attribution of an “alien wisdom” to these animals.

13 For a complete survey of the debate, see Harrison (2020), with a nuanced conclusion in favour of the existence of a prejudice against barbarians among Greek people, even if far from a neat polarity. Classic landmarks among the supporters of the binary opposition are the works of Hartog (1980) and E. Hall (1989). Particularly significant instances of the reaction to this idea can be found in the works of Gruen (2011; 2020, esp. 11–41) or Thomas (2000); see also the important contributions of J. Hall (2002), Malkin (1998 and 2011), and Skinner (2012).

14 On the circumstances in which this letter may have been written, see Gómez Espelosín (2019, 352–354). However, the authenticity of this and other letters of Aristotle to Alexander is not accepted by all scholars; see Natali (2013, 122–124); Gómez Espelosín (2019, 351–353). Be that as it may, such ideas about non-Greeks circulated in certain circles in Plutarch’s time, even if they more than likely coexisted with other views.

15 For instance, Ctesias of Cnidus (FGrH 688, F 45, ap. Phot. Bibl. 72). Herodotus (Hdt. 4.191) placed the dog-headed people in Libya. On this strange people, see Karttunen (1984, 33–34).

16 E.g., the well-known case of Hdt. 4.183, which attributes to the troglodytes a language similar to the shrill cries of bats. On the role of differences in language in the Greek definition of otherness, see Heath (2005, 171–202, esp. 200–201), and Kostuch (2017, 73), with further examples and bibliography. Nevertheless, see Harrison (2020, 144) on the possibility of understanding this statement in a figurative sense.

17 E.g., Arist. EN 1145a 30–31; Posidon. fr. 139 Theiler, ap. DS XXXIV/XXXV 4.2; Plut. De superst. 10 [170C].

18 E.g., Caes. BGall. 1.33.1, 4.10.4.

19 For instance, Posidonius describes the carnivorous habits of the Celts, who “like lions (λϵοντωδῶς) seize whole limbs in their hands and attack them with their teeth” (Posidon. fr. 170 Theiler, ap. Ath. 4.36); see Sassi (2001, 133).

20 Vlassopoulos (2013, 161–225); further development of the idea in Vlassopoulos (2022).

21 The belief that elephants have religious feelings persisted until the eighteenth century, as can be seen in the works of authors such as George-Louis Leclerc Buffon in 1764 (Histoire naturelle 11, 7–8) or Charles-Georges Le Roi (Lettres sur les animaux, 6, 1768). See Mastrorosa (2003, 135). I am very grateful to Anastasia Maravela for calling my attention to this. On Aelian’s opinion of animal piety as a sign of their moral superiority to man, see Smith (2014, 124).

22 Cf. Philostr. V A 2.28, on a similar gesture among tigers, that raise their paws to the sun in the morning.

23 Regarding the classical debate about the religious sensibility of animals, see Newmyer (2003, esp. 121–125).

24 See e.g., Arist. PA 685b 10–11; Plin. HN 8.29; Ael. NA 2.11; Tim.Gaz. 25; Manuel Philes 1.933–4, 2.52.

25 Cf. Ael. NA 7.44; Juba, FGrH/BNJ 275, F 53b. Jacoby associated Juba’s fragments dealing with African fauna with his work Libyka. For a detailed criticism to this association, see Ottone (2002, 547–550).

26 Regarding the relationships and influences between the testimonies of Pliny, Aelian, and Cassius Dio, see Passerini (1933) and Momigliano (1934).

27 On the likely existence of a North African subspecies of elephant in Antiquity, see Nowak (1999, 1002).

28 There is no clear identification of this river. Only Jean Hardouin, in his 1723 edition of Pliny (ad loc.), has suggested the river Valo, mentioned by Ptolemy (Ptol. Geog. 4.1.5: Οὐάλωνος ποταμοῦ ἐκβολαί).

29 See, e.g., [Arist.] Mu. 400a 15–16: καὶ γὰρ πάντϵς ἄνθρωποι ἀνατϵίνομϵν τὰς χϵῖρας ϵἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν ϵὐχὰς ποιούμϵνοι, “all of us men stretch out our hands to the heavens when we pray”; text by Lorimer (1933), translation by Furley (1955); cf. Hijmans (1996, 125 n. 68).

30 On the Indo-European origin of Helios and Selene, see Burkert (1987, 41), but cf. id. (366–367) on the marginal role of these deities in Greek religion; see also Larson (2007, 56–57). The most significant exception is Corinth (see Paus. 2.1.6 and 4.7) and, in the Hellenistic period, Rhodes and its famous Colossus, which represented precisely the sun god. On the existence of an ancestral and autochthonous, but marginal, cult of sun and moon among the early Romans, see Halsberghe (1972, 26–35), Hjmans (2009, 1–2). Solar cult experienced a period of success in Rome from the third century CE onwards. Halsberghe attributes this success to Syrian influence under the Severan dynasty, particularly Julia Domna and during the reign of Elagabalus (whose name was transformed into Heliogabalus; on the influence of this milieu in Aelian’s text, see Smith [2014, 125–127]). Hijmanns (1996), however, minimizes the importance of Syrian – and generally Oriental – influence, heeding the similarities between the iconography of Sol Invictus and the image of the indigenous god Sol Indiges in the Republican and Imperial periods previous to the Severans. A general survey of the debate with bibliography can be found in Gavrilović Vitas (2021, 140–144).

31 On the link between astral cult and foreign religion, see Davidson (2007, 205); Larson (2007a, 68); Larson (2007b, 158). See also the explicit testimony of Ar. Pax, 406–413: {ΤΡ.} Ἡ γὰρ Σϵλήνη χὠ πανοῦργος Ἥλιος / ὑμῖν ἐπιβουλϵύοντϵ πολὺν ἤδη χρόνον / τοῖς βαρβάροισι προδίδοτον τὴν Ἑλλάδα. / {ΕΡ.} Ἵνα δὴ τί τοῦτο δρᾶτον; {ΤΡ.} Ὁτιὴ νὴ Δία / ἡμϵῖς μὲν ὑμῖν θύομϵν, τούτοισι δὲ / οἱ βάρβαροι θύουσι, διὰ τοῦτ’ ϵἰκότως / βούλοιντ’ ἂν ἡμᾶς πάντας ἐξολωλέναι, / ἵνα τὰς τϵλϵτὰς λάβοιϵν αὐτοὶ τῶν θϵῶν. “{TR.} Well, the Moon and that nefarious Sun have been plotting against you for some time now and mean to betray Greece to the barbarians. {HER.} What do they hope to accomplish by that? {TR.} Simple: we sacrifice to you and the barbarians sacrifice to them; so naturally they’d want us all annihilated, so they could take over the sites of the gods themselves”. (Text and translation by Henderson [1998, 480–481].) Nevertheless, Pl. Lg. 887d–e seems to refer to a certain reverence for the sun and moon among the common people in Greece, similar to their worship among the non-Greeks.

32 Nearch., FGrH/BNJ 133, F 1V, ap. Arr. Ind. 31.1–9; Onesicritus FGrH/BNJ 134, F 128, ap. Plin. HN 6.97; Sol. 54.4; Mart. Cap. 6.699; on this island, see Bucciantini (2002).

33 Even if there is no veneration of the sun as a god, some trends within Judaism present similar practices. For instance, Philo of Alexandria describes the morning prayer of the Therapeutae in very similar terms (Philo Vita contemplativa 89).

34 This is not incompatible with Smith’s appreciation of the universal character of reverence of the sun in Aelian. See Smith (2014, 145).

35 See Roller (2003, 208–209), on Juba’s fascination with this animal, which he regarded as almost human.

36 See Ottone (2002, 552), on the extant evidence of Juba’s genealogy.

37 On this passage, see Smith (2014, 181–182), who judges the image of the elephant in Aelian’s text as the “natural embodiment of τὸ σῶφρον”, representing the Pythagorean ideal of moderate sexual behaviour. The same belief appears in Samuel Johnson’s A Dictionary of the English Language, 1755, s.v. “Élephant” (https://johnsonsdictionaryonline.com/views/search.php; consulted online 29 September 2022).

38 Indeed, the fact that the Mosynoikoi have sex in public makes certain Greek sources describe them as βαρβαρώτατοι among non-Greeks. See Xen. An. 5.4.33, Peripl. Pont. Eux. 35.

39 On the requirements of sexual purity in sacred areas or buildings, or to participate in sacred ceremonies, see Parker (1996, 74–94), who explains that for the Greeks sexual activity was “incompatible with the sacred”. Cf. Petrovic and Petrovic (2016, 28–29).

40 The sacred nature of the hearth (ἱστίη) probably explains Hesiod’s prohibition against approaching it when one’s genitals are contaminated with semen (Hes. Op. 733–734). The scholiast observes the value of the hearth as a sort of altar of the gods (Sch. Hes. Op. 733: βωμὸς γὰρ καὶ αὕτη τῶν θϵῶν καὶ καθημϵρινῶν θυσιῶν καὶ σπονδῶν ὑποδοχή; text by Petrusi [1955]).

41 Van der Toorn (1985, 31–32) points out the agreement of Herodotus’ testimony on Assyrians and Arabs with Mesopotamian, Hittite, and pre-Islamic South Arabian sources.

42 Not to be confused with the scythicae volucres mentioned by Juvenal (11.139), most probably pheasants (see André [1967, 42]).

43 See Couvier (1830, 403); Thompson (1936, 262) regards it as “a fabulous bird”.

44 Capponi (1979, 455), quotes De Saint-Denis, Tricot, and Louis, all of whom consider an identification of the bird to be impossible.

45 Female bustards are approximately the same size: 75 to 85 cm.

46 Cf. A.R. 3.202–209, which fully agrees with the information of the scholion attributed to Nymphodorus.

47 Both Nymphodorus and Apollonius mention that this practice is limited to the burial of men, regarded as belonging to the air, whereas women, belonging to the earth, are buried. But not all the sources maintain this distinction (see Nic. Dam. FGrH 90, F 121, fr. 44 Giannini, ap. Stob. Anth. 4.55.15; Ael. VH 4.1).

48 On the survival of this custom among the peoples of modern Georgia, see Vian-Delage (1980, 117–118), with references. It should be observed that Skempis (2014, 318) presumes that the intention was to deposit the corpses there for the vultures, perhaps having in mind the common Zoroastrian practice of exposing the bodies of the dead to birds of prey.

49 See Skempis (2014, 318 n. 84), with bibliography and parallels in other cultures that worship deities in the shape of birds of prey.

50 This funerary rite also appears sometimes in Latin sources, attributed to the Scythians. See, e.g., Silius Italicus (Sil. 13.486–487): At gente in Scythica suffixa cadauera truncis / lenta dies sepelit, putri liquentia tabo. “Again, among the Scythians the dead are fastened to tree-trunks and left to rot, and time at last is the burier of their bodies.” (Text and translation by Duff [1961, 240–241].) Note that this author is roughly contemporary to Pliny.

51 Even book 9 of the Historia Animalium, whose Aristotelian authorship is by no means certain, could hardly be later than the generation of Theophrastus, that is, the early third century BCE. On this problem, see Regenbogen (1940, 1432–1434). Cf. White (2002, 243 and 216 n. 35), with bibliography.

52 Cf. Jordanes De origine actibusque Getarum 3.21: gentes Screrefennae. On this people, see Schönfeld (1921, 893), with an etymological explanation of the name, perhaps a reference to skiing as a means of travel.

53 Even if Nansen acknowledges that Procopius may have had access to first-hand information about the northern peoples he describes. See Nansen (1911, 142).

54 On the Scrithiphini being the same people as the Fenni, identified as the Lapps, see Whitaker (1983). Cf. Dietz (2006), with bibliography.

55 “The Fenni are strangely beastlike and squalidly poor; neither arms nor homes have they; their food is herbs, their clothing skins, their bed the earth” (translation by Church and Brodribb [1942, 732]).

56 At least, this suggests that Procopius did not depend exclusively on Tacitus. It is impossible to exclude the possibility that he combined the account of the Roman historian with other sources.

57 On this description of the Scrithiphini and their similarity to the image of Scythians as described since the time of Herodotus, see Kaldellis (2013, 9–10).

58 On the association of the cults of Heracles and Hebe, see Cappelletto (2003, 159–162).

59 In other editions this text appears as Ael. NA 17.46. See García Valdés, Llera Fueyo, and Rodríguez-Noriega Guillén (2009, xx–xxi and 436–438) on the problem of the original order of chapters in Ael. NA 17. Also Cappelletto (2003, 155–156).

60 On cockerels kept separate from hens in sanctuaries, cf. Arist. HA 9, 614a 6–8. For further examples of birds living in the sanctuaries of Greek deities, see Cappelletto (2003, 158–159).

61 I follow Dowden and other editors (e.g., Theiler), who accept Tyrwhitt’s conjecture connecting the name to the modern city of Nantes, instead of the original reading of the manuscript tradition, Σαμνιτῶν. Cf. Caes. BG 3.9; Plin. HN 4.107; Str. 4.2.1. However, Jacoby, Edelstein-Kidd, and Radt maintain the reading of the manuscripts in their respective editions of Posidonius and of Strabo.

62 On the clear connection between the Namnite women and the Amazons, see Dowden (2016, ad loc.).

63 Strabo places both the Amazons and Gargarians in the region “above the mountains of Albania”.

64 E.g., Zenothemis, probably a Hellenistic periplographer of uncertain date, who wrote on Ethiopia (cf. FGrH 673, F 150; Suppl. Hell. 857, pp. 397–398, ap. Schol. Ap. Rhod. 2.965): in the testimony of the scholiast of Apollonius of Rhodes, Zenothemis placed the territory of the Amazons in Africa and attributed to them this practice, after crossing an unspecified border. Ps.-Clemens Romanus also mentions the crossing of a border (Clem. Rom. Recognitiones 9.24.4). According to him, the boys born of these unions are not delivered to their fathers, but killed, a detail which fits the general picture of the Amazons as bad women and mothers.

65 See for instance the version of Quintus Curtius, Curt. 6.5.30.

66 The information is practically the same in all Greek versions of the Alexander Romance.

67 On fosterage in Caucasian cultures, see Gardanov (1976). On the interpretation of this custom of the Amazons as fosterage, see Abercromby (1891, 176–177); Tyrrell (1984, 54–55); Mayor (2014, 157–158).

68 It should be noted that, in the animal version, it is the cockerels that cross the water course, whereas in the human stories it is the women who cross the boundary in order to meet their male neighbours. This detail seems significant: presenting the Amazons as the active partner of their sexual encounters perhaps fits their image as women who break all the rules of female conduct in Greek and Roman society. However, in the case of the birds, which moreover are part of a sacred space, the image appears rather neutral in this respect.

69 Zenothemis’ date is established to lie between Dionysius Scythobrachion, whom he followed as his source, and Pliny the Elder, who frequently mentions him – that is, between the third century BCE and the first century CE. However, Gisinger (1972, 221) considers that he should be placed, at the latest, at the end of the second century BCE.

70 On diverse ancient approaches to animal love, see Konstan (2013).

71 This name likely originally referred to the race of the dog, and its use as a proper noun is rather the product of a misunderstanding of the original story. An in-depth discussion of the name of this dog can be found in Ogden (2017, Appendix C). The loyalty of Hyrcanian or Indian dogs is also emphasized in the second poem transmitted on the famous papyrus of the Zenon archive P.Cair.Zen. 4 59532 (= SH 977), a funeral eulogy dedicated to a young dog that died defending its master, Zenon. Lines 21–22 read: Ἀίδαι δὲ δοὺς / τὸν αὐτόχϵιρα ἔθν⟦η⟧`α´ισκϵν, Ἰνδὸν ὡς νόμος, “after he had given his murderer to Hades, he died, as is established law (or: custom) for an Indian (hound)” (translation by Peper [2010, 605]). Anastasia Maravela made me realize that this demonstration of loyalty resembles a sort of self-sacrifice.

72 “But a dog the name of which Duris gives as Hyrcanus when king Lysimachus’s pyre was set alight threw itself into the flame, and similarly at the funeral of King Hiero.” (Translation by Rackham [1940, 101].)

73 Cf. Ael. 2.40, attesting the same story.

74 Plutarchus mentions both stories together. He connects that of the eagle to a certain Pyrrhus, who is not the king of the same name, but an ordinary individual (οὐχ ὁ βασιλϵὺς ἀλλ’ ἕτϵρός τις ἰδιώτης). However, John Tzetzes (Chil. 4.288) identifies this Pyrrhus as the king.

75 Pédech (1989, 393) identifies Duris as the literary model of Phylarchus. The usual terminus post quem assumed for Phylarchus’ death is 220/219 BCE, the year of the death of Cleomenes III of Sparta, likely marking the end of his historiographical work; see Pédech (1989, 402). See also Landucci (2017).

76 The original text refers to a “king Hiero” (Hieronis regis) without specifying whether it is Hiero I (died 467 BCE) or Hiero II (died 215 BCE). However, in all the other passages where Pliny mentions a king of this name he is undoubtedly referring to Hiero II (see NH 16.192, 18.22, and 35.22, clearly alluding to the context of the Punic Wars). A “king Hiero” also appears among the authorities listed as sources of information at the beginning of the Naturalis Historia. However, neither Hiero I nor Hiero II is attested as having left any written work.

77 E.g., Plin. HN 8.142, on a dog that protected the body of his master, killed by robbers, from birds and other animals, and on another dog that accused the killers of its master by barking and biting them until they confessed their crime. Plin. HN 8.143 tells the story of the dog of king Jason of Lycia (otherwise unknown), which starved after the death of its master. Plin. HN 8.145 recounts the tale of the dog of one of the slaves of Titius Sabinus, who was sentenced to death in the time of Nero: the animal never abandoned his body, trying to feed him in vain. When the dead slave was thrown into the Tiber, the dog swam beside his corpse, trying to keep it afloat.

78 Commentaries on the scene can be found in Morwood (2007, 209, 228), and Storey (2008, 73–77).

79 The episode is considered puzzling and strange by many scholars, being the only suicide presented on the stage in a Greek tragedy. Norwood (1954, 125–126) considers it a later interpolation, alien to Euripides’ style and constructed, precisely, according to the model of the Indian suttee rite, inserted into the original text after the return of the veterans of Alexander’s campaign. Norwood’s idea has been criticized by later scholars, e.g., Blaiklock (1956, 183), but it shows the extent to which this story appears to deviate from normal Greek cultural parameters. In contrast, Nilsson (1932, 118), and others regard the Euripidean scene as a “precious testimony as to Mycenean funeral customs” involving human sacrifice. For criticism of this opinion and bibliography, see Hughes (1991, 60–62 and 222 n. 45).

80 Suttee has been regarded by some as similar to the practice attested among the Thracians by Hdt. 5.5 of slaughtering widows and burying them with their husband. However, Heckel and Yardley (1981, 306) insist on the differences between the two customs.

81 The Mahabharata (400 BCE–200 CE) tells the story of Madri, the second wife of Pandu, which is regarded as the earliest testimony of suttee: section 7, chapter 116 in Debroy (2012). Pandu is cursed to immediate death if he has intercourse with either of his two wives, Kunti and Madri. Unable to resist Madri’s beauty as she is wearing a semi-transparent dress, he has sex with her against her will and dies immediately. Tormented by guilt, Madri decides to accompany Pandu on the funerary pyre. In principle, suttee was abolished in 1829, but its practice probably continued until much later. The latest testimony of such a ceremony dates to 1987. On the ritual and its history, see Sharma (1988).

82 For instance, Diod. Sic. 19.33.2. On Onesicritus’ influence on Diodorus’ explanation of the practice, see Szczurek (2008, 133).

83 Szczurek (2008, 130) rather explains the wish of the widows to be cremated as a result of the severe social consequences of surviving her husband for a woman in Indian culture.

84 On the source of Diodorus, see Szczurek (2008, 130–133), with bibliography.

85 Ogden (2017, 331), in the context of a discussion regarding the name of Lysimachus’ dog, gives the episode the general description of suttee. See also Heckel and Yardley (1981, 310).

86 Even if some versions of suttee practice, particularly in Latin authors, are closer to the zoological stories. See, for instance, Val. Max. 2.6.14. Also the strange history of Semiramis jumping into the funeral pyre of her horse, whom she loved and had taken as her husband (Plin. HN 8.64), deserves consideration (cf. Hygin. 243.8: Semiramis in Babylonia equo admisso in pyram se coniecit (text by Rose [1933]). “Semiramis in Babylon, after having lost her horse, threw herself into the pyre”. On suttee in Greek and Latin sources, see Garzilli (1997a, 214–215; 1997b). However, Heckel and Yardley (1981, 305–307) point out that the aspect that most impresses the Roman authors is the competition among the widows to be chosen for the “honour” of sharing their husband’s pyre, perhaps under the influence of Hdt. 5.5. Cf. Cic. Tusc. 5.78; Propert. 3.13.15–22.

Additional information

Funding

This study has been carried out in the context of the following research projects, directed by Francisco J. González Ponce: “El prisma romano: ideología, cultura y clasicismo en la tradición geo-historiográfica, II” [PID2020-117119GB-C22], “Incognitae terrae, incognitae gentes. El conocimiento geográfico e historiográfico antiguo: formación, evolución, transmisión y recepción” [P20_00573] and “Hacia las fronteras del mundo habitado. Conocimiento y transmisión de la literatura geográfica e historiográfica griega” [US-1380757].