Regards sur la culture hellénistique au XXIe siècle
AccueilNuméros15Peregrinus Proteus and the “forbi…
The aim of this paper is to offer a new interpretation of Lucian’s The Passing of Peregrinus 16. In this passage Lucian reports that Peregrinus, both Christian and Cynic at the same time, ate a “forbidden food” and was consequently driven out of the Christian community. After determining what that “prohibited food” is, I will answer to the following question: why did Peregrinus eat this food? My hypothesis is that the reasons of this behavior lie in Peregrinus’ attempt to cynically interpret one important Christian text (1 Cor. 8–10). His attempt represents an interesting ‘connection’ between Cynicism and Christianity, particularly between Cynic preaching and the Christian message. For this reason, this episode constitutes an important moment of the complex dialectic between Cynics and Christians in Antiquity, whose relationships appear increasingly closer, stronger and more profound and multifaceted than is generally believed. Particularly, it sheds light not only on the similarities between the two movements, but also on their interesting and important differences, mainly concerning the notions of “scandal” and “transgression.”
Le but de cet article est de proposer une nouvelle interprétation du traité Sur la mort de Pérégrinos, 16 de Lucien de Samosate. Dans ce passage, Lucien déclare que Pérégrinos Protée, Cynique et chrétien à la fois, a mangé une « nourriture interdite » et a été par conséquent chassé de la communauté chrétienne. Tout d’abord, je déterminerai ce qu’est cette « nourriture interdite ». Ensuite, je répondrai à la question suivante : pourquoi Pérégrinos a-t‑il mangé cette nourriture ? Mon hypothèse est que les raisons de ce comportement résident dans la tentative de Pérégrinos d’interpréter cyniquement un texte chrétien important (1 Cor. 8-10). Cette tentative représente un lien intéressant entre le cynisme et le christianisme, en particulier entre la prédication cynique et le message chrétien. Pour cette raison, cet épisode constitue un moment important de la dialectique complexe entre les cyniques et les chrétiens dans l’Antiquité, dont les relations apparaissent de plus en plus proches, plus fortes et plus profondes et multiformes qu’on ne le croit généralement. En particulier, cet épisode met en lumière non seulement les similitudes entre les deux mouvements, mais aussi leurs différences, qui sont intéressantes et importantes, et qui concernent principalement les notions de « scandale » et de « transgression ».
Scopo del presente contributo è quello di presentare una nuova interpretazione di La morte di Peregrino 16 di Luciano di Samosata. In questo passo Luciano riporta che Peregrino Proteo, cristiano e cinico allo stesso tempo, venne cacciato dalla comunità cristiana per aver mangiato un “cibo proibito”. Dopo aver determinato quale sia tale “cibo proibito”, è mia intenzione rispondere alla seguente domanda: perché Peregrino mangiò tale cibo? La mia ipotesi è che le ragioni di questo comportamento risiedano nel tentativo da parte di Peregrino di interpretare cinicamente un testo cristiano di fondamentale importanza (1 Cor. 8–10). Il suo tentativo rappresenta un interessante incontro tra Cinismo e Cristianesimo, in particolare tra la predicazione cinica e il messaggio cristiano. Per questo motivo, l’episodio costituisce un momento importante della complessa dialettica tra i Cinici e i Cristiani in età antica, i cui rapporti appaiono sempre più stretti, forti e profondi e sfaccettati di quanto usualmente si creda. In particolare, questo episodio fa luce non solo sulle analogie tra i due movimenti, ma anche sulle loro interessanti e importanti differenze, riguardanti soprattutto le nozioni di “scandalo” e “trasgressione”.
1The topic of the relationship between Cynicism and Christianity has been the subject of numerous studies, especially since the beginning of the 20th century, when many studies were devoted to the influence of the so-called Cynic-Stoic “diatribe” on documents and authors from Early Christianity.i1 Particular attention has been paid to the possibility, asserted by various scholars, that Jesus himself may have been influenced by Cynicism. This was due above all to the vigorous activity of the members of the so-called “Jesus Seminar” who pointed out the similarities between the two movements in numerous publications, and went as far as to regard the fact that Jesus himself was a Cynic or Cynic-like (“Cynic Jesus Hypothesis”) as an undeniable reality.2 If this is indeterminate, what is certain is the fact that in Antiquity the two movements shared many similarities3 and that some authors were both Cynics and Christians. Maximus Heron, who lived in the 4th Century, is definitely among these. He is famous because Gregory of Nazianzus initially praised him (or. XXV) for his decision to embrace the true faith, i.e. Christianity, and at the same time to behave in the most simple way, i.e. cynically. However, due to issues related to the bishopric of Constantinople, he was later harshly criticized by Gregory, who also ridiculed his adherence to the Cynic philosophy (or. XXVI).4
2Another well-known case of an author who was both a Cynic and a Christian is that of Peregrinus Proteus,5 to whom my paper is devoted. My aim is to show how Peregrinus Proteus experiences his living as both a Cynic and a Christian.6 I will address this topic, which has been at the center of numerous studies, with a specific focus on the theme of food and nutrition and giving attention to a passage, The Passing of Peregrinus (De morte Peregrini) 16, of Lucian’s report,7 which states that Peregrinus ate the “forbidden food” of the Christian and was consequently driven out of the Christian community. After determining what that prohibited food is, my aim is to provide an explanation of why Peregrinus Proteus committed this act. My interpretation is that the reasons for this contrast are based on the contraposition between the notion of the Christian scandal (σκάνδαλον) and Cynic shamelessness (ἀναίδεια). By means of this analysis, I will deal with important theoretical and philosophical aspects of Cynicism and Christianity, underlining—besides their similarities—their differences.
3Firstly, it is necessary to present a brief outline of the life of Peregrinus Proteus. He was a figure who has been defined in very different terms: charlatan, guru, religious leader, and even his definition as a philosopher has been questioned. This has happened primarily due to Lucian’s account of him, which is the best source for our knowledge regarding this author, but which is nevertheless characterized by author’s particular animosity and hostility towards Peregrinus.8 However, before going into detail in analyzing the work that Lucian dedicates to Peregrinus Proteus, it is worth noting that there is an important piece of evidence, which allows us to clearly assert that Peregrinus Proteus, besides appearing to be a serious and authoritative figure, can certainly be defined as a (Cynic) philosopher. This is represented by Aulus Gellius, who describes his encounter with Peregrinus in the following terms (12, 11): “When I was in Athens, I met a philosopher named Peregrinus, later surnamed Proteus, a man of dignity and fortitude, living in a hut outside the city. And visiting him frequently, I heard him saying many things that were in truth helpful and noble.”9 Thus, Peregrinus is presented as a “a man of dignity and fortitude,” characterized by being a proponent of “helpful” and “noble” doctrines. Of these, Aulus Gellius recalls one that is particularly interesting due to its uniqueness: Peregrinus “used to say that a wise man would not commit a sin, even if he knew that neither gods nor men would know about it; for he thought that one ought to refrain from sin, not through fear of punishment or disgrace, but for love of justice and honesty and from a sense of duty.”10 Without addressing the content of this assertion,11 it is clear that it shows a very different figure from the jester depicted by Lucian. On the contrary, Peregrinus’ thesis is characterized by extreme ethical rigor, typical of Cynicism from its origins. In addition, it can be added that other sources, especially Christian ones,12 inform that Peregrinus Proteus was indubitably a prominent figure in the intellectual milieu of the 2nd century A.D.13 Just the fact that Lucian dedicates one of his works to Peregrinus Proteus, albeit one characterized by fierce and bitter criticism, is a sign that he was an important figure. This is also demonstrated by the fact that Lucian’s account often refers—clearly in a polemical manner—to Peregrinus being acclaimed and followed by a large number of people, the “crowd” (πλῆθος).14
4Whereas, referring to the content of Lucian’s text, it can be asserted, in extreme conciseness, that the general trait that characterizes Peregrinus’ bios is that it is his continuous pursuit of fame and glory15 that drives Peregrinus to carry out all his actions, including his famous spectacular suicide.
5Born in Parium, Peregrinus then moves to Palestine and becomes a Christian. According to Lucian, Peregrinus becomes the leader of a Christian community here. Specifically (11), he becomes a “prophet, cult-leader and head of the synagogue (προφήτης καὶ θιασάρχης καὶ ξυναγωγεὺς) […] They [the Christians] revered him as a god [θεόν], made him their lawgiver [νομοθέτῃ] and elected him as their protector [προστάτην].”16 In addition, Lucian points out that Peregrinus “interpreted and explained some of their books and even composed several.”17 Gaoled as a Christian,18 he receives the help of the Christians, who celebrate him for his courage and faith. They call him “the new Socrates” (καινὸς Σωκράτης), comparing his imprisonment to that of Socrates and underlining the fact that Peregrinus is the true and only sage, the only true heir to Socrates.19 After a short time, Peregrinus is released by the governor and returns to his hometown. At Parium he decides to embrace the Cynic life: he presents himself in Cynic clothing before the assembly of citizens and donates all his possessions to the city. According to Lucian, this action is motivated by the fact that he has been accused of having murdered his father. However, it is difficult to believe or rely on the allegation that Lucian makes. Whatever the motivation, Peregrinus embraces Cynicism and behaves and acts like a Cynic: the act of donating his wealth to the people, or at any rate the renunciation of his possessions, is certainly in keeping with the Cynic tradition.20 For this act, he is hailed by the people of Parium as “the one and only philosopher!” (ἕνα φιλόσοφον) and the one and only follower and heir of Diogenes and Crates (ἕνα Διογένους καὶ Κράτητος ζηλωτήν).
6Next, Peregrinus, as a Cynic and Christian, leaves Parium to “roam about” (πλανησόμενος)—this term clearly indicates the Cynic lifestyle (κυνικὸς βιός).21 On his Cynic “wanderings,” Peregrinus continues to receive help from the Christians, who support him materially and provide with everything he needs. However—and this is the most interesting point of my paper—at a certain point he is expelled from the community for having eaten “forbidden food” (16). Before focusing on this passage, it is better to deal briefly with the other stages of his life. After his banishment by the Christians, Peregrinus is deprived of his economic support, and is reduced to unsuccessfully asking his city to return his estates to him. He then undertakes a further journey22 to Egypt, where he becomes a pupil of the Cynic Agathobulus. According to the few sources we have, Agathobulus was an important philosopher of his time, although he is little more than a name to us. He was famous for his philosophical circle in Alexandria; his presence in that city had a certain “international prestige”23 during his times. In fact, in addition to Peregrinus, Demonax also studied with him.24 From a philosophical point of view, it is possible to state that Agathobulus’ philosophy returned to the asceticism and rigor of the Cynicism of Diogenes and Crates. Therefore, it was probably he who perhaps more than anyone else, gave new life to Kynismos in the imperial age. Finally, on the basis of XXIII Oration by Dio Chrysostom, Dudley speculated that Agathobulus played a leading role in the anti-Roman revolts in Alexandria during the 2nd century AD.25
7Returning to Lucian’s text, from Egypt Peregrinus goes to Italy, where he is expelled for “abusing” (ἐλοιδορεῖτο)—terminus technicus in the Cynic predication26—the Emperor Antoninus Pius, in line with the typically defiant attitude of Cynic philosophers towards rulers.27 Particularly, Lucian specifies that he makes “a profession of abusiveness” (λοιδορεῖσθαι). His behavior makes him famous especially among simple folk: they consider his attacks against the emperor to be acts of wisdom and freedom of speech (παρρησία), and they compare him to Musonius, Dio, and Epictetus. For this reason, he leaves Rome and goes to Greece, where he continued to ‘cynically’ “abuse” (ἐλοιδορεῖτο) the Greeks. In Particular, he “counsels the Greeks to take up arms against the Romans”28 and addresses his reproaches against popular figures of the time such as Herodes Atticus. Again, according to Lucian, when he realizes that people are beginning to have enough of him and his eccentricities, Peregrinus decides to immolate himself on a funeral pyre. He commits this suicide in front of an admiring crowd at the Olympic Festival of A.D. 165.29 Let us now leave aside the (often highly polemical and ironic) details that Lucian provides in his report of the suicide. What must be emphasized is that the motivation for this gesture is simply that Peregrinus finds it the best way to eradicate the fear of death in men. In particular, he proclaims he is doing it “for the sake of his fellow men, to teach them to despise death and endure what is fearsome.”30 In choosing this kind of suicide, he states that he is following the example of Heracles and the Brahmans:31 even this aspect is perfectly in line with Cynicism, since they represent important models in the Cynic tradition.32
8Lucian’s text, which I have summarized above, has been the focus of numerous studies and has raised several historiographical questions. For example, numerous studies have been devoted to the clarification of Peregrinus’ Cynicism, which according to some scholars33 is characterized by religious and mystical traits that are foreign to the Cynic tradition.34 In this regard, his figure has been opposed to that of Oenomaus of Gadara,35 a Cynic from the Imperial Age famous for his harsh criticism of traditional religion, particularly the oracles. For this reason, Peregrinus has been considered the expression of the more religious and ‘pious’ tendency of Cynicism, beside the atheistic and skeptical one, represented in the imperial age by Oenomaus and Demonax.36 Consequently, the possibility of whether Peregrinus was influenced by other philosophies, such as Pythagoreanism, or by the religiosity of his age has also been studied.37
9However, what most attracted the attention of the scholars is the portrait presented by Lucian of the Christians, which constitutes one of the earliest and most valuable accounts of Christian communities by a pagan. There has been much debate regarding Lucian’s knowledge of these Christian communities and beliefs.38 If this is questionable, Lucian’s opinion of the Christians is clear: he considers them nothing more than ingenuous and gullible people, the same as children.39 In particular, he underlines that “if any charlatan and trickster able to benefit from the circumstances comes among them, he quickly acquires sudden wealth by imposing upon simple folk.”40 Evidently, this is the case of Peregrinus. Indeed, he had a leading role within the Palestinian Christian community, even from an intellectual point of view: Peregrinus not only knew Christian doctrines in depth and reflected on them, but also interpreted and wrote about them, as Lucian clearly states (13).
10In this paper, my purpose is to deal more accurately and from a different perspective with Chapter 16 of De morte Peregrini that concerns the reasons why Peregrinus was expelled from the Christian community. I aim to focus on the specific condition of Peregrinus in this situation, since he is both a Cynic and Christian. In effect, although these lines have attracted the attention of many scholars, they remain obscure and insufficiently explained.
11It is appropriate to start the present analysis reading the locus in question in its entirety.
But then, after he had transgressed in some way even against them—he was seen, I think, eating some of the food that is forbidden to them—they no longer accepted him.41
12This is the passage in which Lucian explains the reason for Peregrinus’ expulsion from the Christian community at a time when he was both a Cynic and a Christian. However, before discussing the content of the passage, it is worth making some general remarks on the form used by Lucian in presenting the episode. This is very concise and succinct, as many scholars have pointed out:42 Lucian does not expend many words in his explication. In addition, he presents the grounds for Peregrinus’ expulsion as a hypothesis,43 but this does not mean that this information is false or an invention.44 If Lucian had invented such information, it would be reasonable to expect that he would have provided a more extensive account of this episode (which he does not do). He would have consciously exploited the ironic and polemical aspects of this presumed invention.
13Regarding the content of these lines, the principal question is the following: what does “forbidden food” mean? What is the food in question? This question has caused much discussion between the interpreters, especially because Christianity is usually recognized as a religion without particular food taboos.45 While on the contrary, once Peregrinus was seen eating the food in question, he was immediately driven out. Scholars have provided various interpretations analysing Peregrinus in connection with the different ‘sects’ of Early Christianity, which were characterized by stricter dietary laws. Thus, Peregrinus has been considered a Montanist,46 an Essene Ebionite,47 and so on.48 However, these hypotheses remain highly speculative since Lucian’s text does not provide clear indications in this regard. In addition, these have been challenged by leading scholars and none of them has gained wide consensus.49 Other savants have supported the hypothesis that Peregrinus probably belonged to a Judeo-Christian community in Palestine, so that the violation concerns some “impure food according to the prescriptions of Moses.”50
14Regarding this debate, I find the hypothesis put forward by most of the scholars, that Peregrinus was driven out by the Christians because he ate the meats sacrificed to the pagan idols, τὰ εἰδωλόθυτα, more interesting.51 These are forbidden for Christians, as many passages of the New Testament state.52 Thus, Peregrinus could have eaten these meats in front of Christians, and for this motive, he was expelled. Although Lucian’s testimony is problematical for several reasons, this interpretation appears convincing.
15However, if the scholars have clearly established and determined this aspect, it remains unclear why Peregrinus committed this act. The question I aim to answer is the following: why did Peregrinus—who was a Cynic but also a Christian who held a prominent position within this movement, and could not have been unaware of the Christian dietary laws—decide to eat this “forbidden food”? Lucian himself provides an explanation that clearly derives from his polemical interpretation of Peregrinus as a hypocritical as well as restless and disturbed man. In the lines he dedicates to this episode he implicitly states that Peregrinus ate this food because he was unable not to transgress.53 Furthermore, it is worth specifying—an element which to my knowledge has not been noted in studies on this subject—that before the episode in question Lucian dedicates particular attention to the subject of food. When Peregrinus is incarcerated, he is served “elaborate meals” (δεῖπνα ποικίλα) by the Christians (12). Then, just before the description of Peregrinus’ transgression, Lucian stresses that Peregrinus “fattened himself up” (ἐβόσκετο) always with the help of the Christians. In this context the verb βόσκειν is relevant, whose primary meaning is “to pasture,” “to feed.”54 Accordingly, I assume that the author’s intention is to show how even when he is looked after, cared for and well fed by the Christians, Peregrinus is still not able to respect them and their dietary laws, thus showing his transgressive and ungrateful nature.55 However, this is evidently not the true motivation for Peregrinus’ action in the chapter 16, since Lucian polemically strives to find the vilest and most vulgar, even repugnant reasons for Peregrinus’ behaviors. Usually, these are simply traced back to Peregrinus’ love of notoriety, like regarding his public suicide. Therefore, I repeat, it does not seem possible to trust or rely on Lucian when he states the reasons for Peregrinus’ transgression regarding food.
16In fact, a few scholars have attempted, albeit tentatively, to provide an answer to this question by observing that, while the meats sacrificed to the pagan idols are forbidden to Christians, these meats—also known as Hekate’s supper—are “highly appreciated by the Cynics.”56 This observation is both interesting and erudite; however, it does not provide a sufficient answer to understand the reasons why Peregrinus broke the Christian alimentary proscription.
17In order to answer this question, it is necessary to remember that this episode takes place when Peregrinus is both a Christian and Cynic at the same time. Although we are not sure for how long he was a member of the two movements, it is undisputable that he belonged to both for a certain period.57 My interpretation is that Peregrinus’ aim is to reconcile the two wisdoms; but his attempt fails, as is shown by his expulsion from the Christian Community. In particular I claim that Peregrinus cynically interprets 1 Cor. 8–10, where Paul forbids eating the meats sacrificed to the pagan idols (εἰδωλόθυτα). While other sources simply forbid Christians from eating these meats,58 Paul uses a complex and more subtle argumentation, which is worth briefly running through now, at least the points that are of most interest in the present context.59
18Probably pressed by requests for clarification on this matter from the Corinthians, Paul notes, as a starting point for the discussion on the εἰδωλόθυτα, that “an idol is nothing at all in the world” (οὐδὲν εἴδωλον) since only the Christian god exists. In addition, “food does not bring us near to God. We are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.”60 However, Paul notes that not everyone possesses knowledge, so many people have a vulnerable conscience and are easily confused; therefore, it is better not to eat the meats sacrificed to the pagan idols, especially in public, in order to prevent the freedom to eat anything becoming a “stumbling-block” for the weak. In fact, if an ignorant person sees one who has knowledge feeding on idols, he might misunderstand and believe that idols still have some value, whereas they do not. Therefore, Paul claims: “if meat should scandalize my brother, I will never eat flesh, so that I will not scandalize them.”61 Even if every man is “free to do anything” (πάντα ἔξεστιν), the most important is the end to be pursued, that is “not their own good but the good of others.”62 In brief, Paul claims that the sages, who have knowledge, must abstain from eating meat immolated to idols, even though they know that it is nothing and in theory, it could be eaten: the reason is that they could create a “scandal” (σκανδαλίζει), that could confuse and “damage the weak.”
19The starting point of my analysis is that Peregrinus—who, as far as we know is familiar with the books of Christianity, if it is true that he interprets them and wrote others—is aware of the Pauline epistle and provides his personal interpretation based on his concomitant belonging to Cynicism.
20In particular I claim that Peregrinus accepts the premises of Paul’s argumentation and takes them to extremes: since idols are nothing, there is no reason not to eat them. For the Cynic Peregrinus, there is no reason why human freedom (ἐλευθερία or ἐξουσία)63 needs to be sacrificed since there is no reason to refute the scandal; on the contrary, by interpreting this passage cynically, he is persuaded the “salvation” comes to man precisely through transgressive and shameless behaviour. While scandal is probably not the most appropriate word for Cynicism, it nevertheless provides a good insight into the well-known fact that the Cynics conveyed their message in the most shameless (“doggish”) and shocking ways, in accordance with the Cynic principle of “adulterating the currency” (παραχαράττειν τὸ νόμισμα). In fact, with the Cynics, transgression, that can be considered the practical expression of “shamelessness” (ἀναίδεια), takes on a central position in philosophical reflection and communication.64 More specifically, the well-known shocking acts of transgression typical of the Cynic philosophers have a precise philanthropic and missionary value. Essentially, they are aimed at showing people the falsity of social conventions (νόμισμα) and the essence of the authentic happiness, only represented by the Cynic lifestyle (κυνικὸς βιός). For this reason, even if this is not the context in which to deal with this central question more extensively, Cynicism may be defined as a philanthropic philosophy.65 This issue is present and is shown in different ways by each individual Cynic: Peregrinus himself66 clearly states that he commits his famous suicide for humankind, to “benefit” (ὠφελῆσαι) other people.67
21Therefore, my interpretation of the event is that, in line with the Cynic tradition, Peregrinus voluntarily gives rise to scandal by publicly (ὤφθη) eating “forbidden food.” The reason for this act is to help his fellow (Christians) men, showing them the inconsistency of idols, in line both with the Paul’s recommendation and with the Cynic criticism of (pagan) religion.68 Thus, his behaviour is the result of a Cynic interpretation of Paul’s text: it constitutes an interesting example of a Cynic predication of a Christian message.
22Moreover, it must also be pointed out that, when Peregrinus includes the transgression of a food proscription as the focus of his preaching, he is simply following the Cynic tradition. In fact, food plays an important role in the Cynic tradition and constitutes an important, direct and straightforward way of predicating the Cynic message. Not only were the Cynics known in antiquity for their extremely simple diet,69 but their reflection on this element, which is central to human life was also important in their philosophical activity. Here, I now briefly and schematically outline this theme.
23Firstly, through the evident medium of food, the Cynics show how easy it is for man to live well without possessing anything. They argue how easy it is to feed themselves thanks to nature alone, which provides everything man needs.70 In this sense, they always strive to find new ways to feed themselves and eat with as little effort as possible, in line with the principle of frugality (εὐτέλεια), which is fundamental in Cynicism.71 In this regard, it is worth mentioning the episodes in which Diogenes tries to eat raw meat.72 Furthermore, the Cynics formulate scandalous statements on the licit eating of certain meats that are usually considered “sacred” by most men,73 such as human flesh. It is recognized that Diogenes claims that is not impious to consume human flesh, drawing mainly on the example of other peoples.74 However, this does not mean that he actually ate human flesh, but simply that he claimed that, in certain situations the sage could eat it.75 Lastly, Cynic preaching is also concretized in the places and situations in which the Cynic sage feeds himself. While it is true that the Cynic’s diet does not differ substantially from that of other men,76 the difference lies in the places and ways in which food is consumed by the Cynic sage. This latter eats anywhere and everywhere, in the marketplace for example, and in broad daylight.77 In doing so, as has been clearly demonstrated,78 the Cynics adulterate (παραχαράττειν) the “places” of the city (such as the agora) by diverting them from their function and the values they embody.79 They give them a different value, in accordance with the ideal of self-sufficiency and simple life that are the goals of Cynicism. At the same time, food has its part as a rhetorical display in Cynic predication:80 a good example is provided by the episode in which Diogenes interrupted an orator by gluttonously eating lupins in front of him.81 Or by the numerous anecdotes regarding the relationship between Diogenes and other philosophers, especially Plato and Aristippus, in order to evidently show the simplicity—and therefore the superiority—of the Cynic lifestyle, in contrast with the insatiability and greediness of the opponent.82
24Therefore, Peregrinus stands in line with this tradition: particularly, his public eating of the meats sacrificed to the pagan idols is aimed at showing how these foods have nothing particular or specific, nothing “sacred.” The Cynic “adulterating the currency” (παραχαράττειν τὸ νόμισμα) is used by Peregrinus in order to vehiculate the new Christian message, clearly and publicly confirming Paul’s assertion that idols are nothing and are therefore meat like any other. It can be supposed that for Peregrinus,83 as a Christian, the only true sacred food is represented by the “food called Eucharist:” as clearly explains Justin the Martyr84 in his First Apology (66), this is not “ordinary bread” (κοινὸν ἄρτον) or “ordinary drink” (κοινὸν πόμα) but “the flesh and blood” (σάρκα καὶ αἷμα) of Jesus.
25In conclusion, to summarize my interpretation of De morte Peregrini 16, I argue that Peregrinus preached the Christian doctrine in a Cynic way. Referring to the Pauline epistle, he believed that eating the meats sacrificed to the pagan idols (εἰδωλόθυτα) is nothing at all. However, contrary to the Pauline conclusion, he tried to propagate this belief in the full spirit of Cynic preaching, “desacralizing” the sacredness of meat by publicly eating it. Thus, de facto, Peregrinus went against the Pauline prohibitions (and not only those), so that it was inevitable for the Christians to expel Peregrinus.
26It is interesting to note that if this hypothesis is true, Peregrinus’ attempt represents an interesting connection between Cynicism and Christianity, particularly between Cynic preaching and the Christian message. However, this union falls apart and unravels apropos of the notion of “scandal;” or, to be more general, apropos of different pedagogical and preaching ideal. This episode constitutes a divergence which is as incompatible as possible, between the Pauline admonition against “scandal” and the Cynics’ pursuit of “transgression.” As Paul explains, scandal is not to be pursued by Christians as it could be at the origin of the perdition of the faithful. While for the Cynics on the other hand, the application of the principle of “adulterating the currency” (παραχαράττειν τὸ νόμισμα), that is concretized in the most harsh and shocking acts, has a philanthropic purpose: it is aimed at leading the observer, the other man, to rouse and understand the “unnaturalness” of his own life, and to reflect on what true happiness is, i.e. the Cynic lifestyle (κυνικὸς βιός). Therefore, in this aspect Cynicism stands in complete opposition to Christianity, with which it cannot be reconciled in any way. For this reason, Peregrinus’ “compromise” could not have effect and led to his expulsion from the Christian community.
27More specifically, the modus praedicandi turns out to be the most different trait between the two movements. Then, if on one hand, attention is paid to the origins of Christianity, one of the greatest flaws of the Cynic Hypothesis is represented by the fact that despite their subversive drive (especially towards the Judaism of the time), Jesus’ acts and deeds differ greatly from Cynicism, since they do not have that transgressive and scandalous drive that is a feature of this movement.85 To use an evocative image,86 it could be noted that while the Cynics “adulterate,” “falsify” and “counterfeit” money, Jesus, less drastically and scandalously and in a manner that can be said to be more conciliatory with the institutions of his time, still referring to money (νόμισμα), utters the famous exhortation “render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.”87 While if on the other hand, one considers the relationship between Cynicism and Christianity in the following centuries, it appears that the Christian authors show a manifest and strong aversion to the impudent behaviour and method the Cynics use to convey their message. A good example is provided by the “dog-marriage” between Crates and Hipparchia, which was heavily criticized by several Christian authors starting from the 2nd Century.88
28Therefore, an only apparently “minor” episode in Peregrinus’ life leads to further reflection on the relationship between Cynicism and Christianity again, on their similarities and, above all, on their differences. This case shows that the goal of both movements is to help and “save” as many people as possible; however, they both have a different way of relating to others: one is based on the principle of benevolence and love (ἀγάπη)89 towards the other people. The other on an intellectual challenge to the conventions by which all men live and believe in. If the objective is the same, the ways of concretizing this “help” (or “salvation,” to use Paul’s words) differ profoundly.
29However, this does not fully exclude the fact that—even with and despite the case of Peregrinus Proteus—some of the ‘scandalous’ acts and behaviour of the Cynics, albeit revised and differently understood, are probably found in some moments of the Christian tradition.90 This does not come as a surprise because of the complex dialectic between Cynics and Christians, whose relationships appear increasingly closer, stronger, and more profound and multifaceted than is generally believed.
1 For example, see J. Geffcken, Kynika und Verwandtes, Heidelberg, Carl Winters Universitätsbuchhandlung, 1909, p. 45–53 and 58–138, and especially R. Bultmann, Der Stil der paulinischen Predigt und die kynisch-stoische Diatribe, Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1910. More recently, S. K. Stowers, The Diatribe and Paul’s Letter to the Romans, Chico, UCP, 1981, and Th. Schmeller, Paulus und die “Diatribe”. Eine vergleichende Stilinterpretation, Münster, Aschendorffsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1987, have dealt with this topic, reflecting on the problematic nature of the definition of “diatribe.” For an overview of this issue, cf. P. P. Fuentes Gonzalez, “La ‘diatribe’ est-elle une notion utile pour l’histoire de la philosophie et de la littérature antiques ?,” in B. Cassin (ed.), La rhétorique au miroir de la philosophie, Paris, Vrin, 2015, p. 127–73.
2 For a discussion of the Cynic Jesus Hypothesis and its limits, cf. S. Mecci, Cinismo e Cristianesimo delle origini, Turnhout, Brepols, [forthcoming].
3 On this extensive and important theme, see G. Dorival, “L’image des Cyniques chez les Pères grecs,” in M.‑O. Goulet-Cazé, R. Goulet (eds.), Le cynisme ancien et ses prolongements, Actes du colloque international du CNRS (Paris, 22-25 juillet 1991), Paris, PUF, 1993, p. 419–43; F. G. Downing, Cynics and Christian Origins, Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1992; and M.‑O. Goulet-Cazé, Cynicism and Christianity in Antiquity, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans Publishing, 2019, p. 197–243 [Paris, Vrin, 2014].
4 For a detailed analysis of this topic, see C. Moreschini, “Gregory Nazianzen and Philosophy, with Remarks on Gregory’s Cynicism,” in C. A. Beely (ed.), Re-reading Gregory of Nazianzus. Festschrift Frederick Norris, Washington, Catholic University of America Press, 2012, p. 103–22.
5 For a general presentation of his figure and his philosophy, cf. M.-O. Goulet-Cazé, “Pérégrinus surnommé Proteus,” DPhA V, 2012, p. 199–230, to which I also refer for further bibliographical references. On Peregrinus’ Cynicism, see H. M. Hornsby, “The Cynicism of Peregrinus Proteus,” in M. Billerbeck (ed.), Die Kyniker in der modernen Forschung, Amsterdam, B. R. Grüner, 1991, p. 167–81 [Hermathena 48, 1933, p. 65–84] and M.‑O. Goulet-Cazé, “Le Cynisme à l’époque impériale,” ANRW II, 36, 4, Berlin, New York, De Gruyter, 1990, p. 2720–833.
6 K. von Fritz’s interpretation (“Peregrinus (Proteus),” RE XIX, I, 1937, p. 656–63, esp. p. 659) is unacceptable. He presumes that that Lucian is mistaken or confused when he presents Peregrinus as both a Cynic and a Christian, whereas this clearly emerges from Peregr. 15–16.
7 The translations of Lucian are from A. M. Harmon, Lucian, London, Heinemann, 1925 (slightly modified); of Diogenes Laertius from P. Mensch, Lives of the Eminent Philosophers. Diogenes Laertius, Oxford, OUP, 2018 (slightly modified); of Aulus Gellius from J. C. Rolfe, Aulus Gellius. Attic Nights, London, Heinemann, 1927. Unless otherwise indicated, the translations of the other texts are mine.
8 However, in the main, Lucian essentially has a positive opinion of the Cynics. It is sufficient to consider the case of Demonax, who Lucian believes represents the true Cynic, in opposition to Peregrinus. For a more detailed study of this aspect, see J. Bernays, Lucian und die Kyniker, Berlin, Verlag von Wilhelm Hertz, 1879; D. Clay, Lucian of Samosata: Four Philosophical Lives (Nigrinus, Demonax, Peregrinus, Alexander Pseudomantis), ANRW II, 36, 5, Berlin, New York, De Gruyter, 1992, p. 3406–50; H.‑G. Nesselrath, “Lucian et le cynisme,” AC 67, 1998, p. 121–35; Ph. Bosman, “Lucian among the Cynics: The Zeus Refuted and Cynic Tradition,” CQ 62, 2012, p. 785–95; P. P. Fuentes-González, “Le Démonax de Lucien entre réalité et fiction,” Prometheus 35, 2009, p. 139–58; O. Flores Júnior, “Luciano e o Cinismo: o caso Alcidamas,” Nuntius Antiquus 9, 2013, p. 139–80.
9 Philosophum nomine Peregrinum, cui postea cognomentum Proteus factum est, virum gravem atque constantem, vidimus, cum Athenis essemus, deversantem in quodam tugurio extra urbem. Cumque ad eum frequenter ventitaremus, multa hercle dicere eum utiliter et honeste audivimus. On this important testimony, cf. A. Brancacci, “Cinismo e predicazione popolare,” in G. Cambiano, L. Canfora, D. Lanza (eds.), Lo spazio letterario della Grecia Antica. I, La produzione e la circolazione del testo. III, I Greci e Roma, Roma, Salerno, 1993, p. 433–55, esp. p. 445–47.
10 Virum quidem sapientem non peccaturum esse dicebat, etiamsi peccasse eum dii atque homines ignoraturi forent. Non enim poenae aut infamiae metu non esse peccandum censebat, sed iusti honestique studio et officio.
11 In Aulus Gellius’ text this passage is followed by this observation by Peregrinus: “If, however, there were any who were neither so endowed by nature nor so well disciplined that they could easily keep themselves from sinning by their own will power, he thought that such men would all be more inclined to sin whenever they thought that their guilt could be concealed and when they had hope of impunity because of such concealment. ‘But, said he, if men know that nothing at all can be hidden for very long, they will sin more reluctantly and more secretly.’” (Si qui tamen non essent tali vel ingenio vel disciplina praediti, uti se vi sua ac sponte facile a peccando tenerent, eos omnis tunc peccare proclivius existimabat, cum latere posse id peccatum putarent inpunitatemque ex ea latebra sperarent; “at si sciant,” inquit, “homines nihil omnium rerum diutius posse celari, repressius pudentiusque peccabitur”). On this locus, cf. H. M. Hornsby, “The Cynicism,” art. cit., p. 170.
12 Cf. Athenag., Leg. 26, 2–4; Tert., Ad Martyr. 4, 5.
13 As recently underlined by J. Secord, Christian Intellectuals and the Roman Empire. From Justin Martyr to Origen, University Park PA, The Pennsylvania State University Press, 2020, p. 50–51. On this aspect, see also S. Mecci, “Gli intellettuali Cristiani e l’impero Romano,” La Cultura 3, 2021, p. 485–504.
14 Cf. Peregr. 1, where the adjective « crowded » (πολυανθρωποτάτην) is found; and 7, 12, 15, 32. M. Stella, Luciano di Samosata. Vite dei filosofi all’asta. La morte di Peregrino, Roma, Carocci, 2007, p. 14–73, has focused his analysis on this aspect of Lucian’s description.
15 See especially Peregr. 1, where Peregrinus is characterized as a man dominated by “the love of notoriety” (τῷ ἔρωτι τῆς δόξης). This is a typical accusation against the Cynics: cf. D.L. VI 26 [= SSR V B 55], 41 [= SSR V B 57]; and Iust., Ap. II 8, 3 [= SSR I G 8].
16 The terminology used by Lucian for indicating the Christian titles and functions elicits several problems. The first question is about the correctness of the terminology used by Lucian. For example, there are many doubts regarding the “divination” of Peregrinus by the Christians (“[they] revered him as a god”); or the use of the term θιασάρχης, which is absent in the sources on the Christian communities. If Lucian is right, then what functions do these titles correspond to? Scholars have reached different conclusions and the debate has assumed significant proportions. For a good status quaestionis, cf. M.‑O. Goulet-Cazé, Cynicism and Christianity, op. cit., p. 223–29. Although I do not aim to deal with this issue in detail, I only stress the interesting notation by P. Pilhofer, “Das Bild der christilichen Gemeinden in Lukians Peregrinos,” in P. Pilhofer et alii (eds.), Lukian. Der Tod des Peregrinos. Ein Scharlatan auf dem Scheiterhaufen, Darmstadt, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2005, p. 97–110, esp. p. 102 n. 16, who underlines that it is pointless to seek historical accuracy in this part of Lucian’s text. When Lucian uses this terminology, his goal is to emphasize the high position Peregrinus has attained in the gullible Christian community, not to offer a faithful portrait of this community and its hierarchy.
17 τῶν βίβλων τὰς μὲν ἐξηγεῖτο καὶ διεσάφει, πολλὰς δὲ αὐτὸς καὶ συνέγραφεν.
18 Although, according to Lucian, this was deliberate as Peregrinus wants to attract more attention in virtue of his imprisonment.
19 For the importance of the figure of Socrates in Early Christianity, cf. for example Acta Martyr. Apollon. 40–41 [= SSR I G 2]; Iust., Ap. I 5, 3–4 [= SSR I G 4] and I 46, 3 [= SSR I G 6]; Orig., Cels. II 17 [= SSR I G 28]. It is particularly interesting—since it probably took place in the same years in which Peregrinus lived—the debate between Justin the Martyr and Crescens the Cynic, where Justin opposes the “Christian Socrates” to the “Cynic Socrates,” in order to show that only the Christians are the true heirs of Socrates (Iust., Ap. I 8 [3]). On this topic, see S. Mecci, “Gli intellettuali,, art. cit., p. 498–501.
20 A famous episode in the history of Cynicism regards Crates of Thebes, who distributed his personal wealth to his fellow citizens: cf. D.L. VI 87–88 [= SSR V H 4]; Gnom. Vat. 743 n. 387 [= SSR V H 4]; Philostr., VA I 13, 2 [= SSR V H 4].
21 See D.L. VI 38 [= SSR V B 263]; Ael., VH III 29 [= SSR V B 263] and Plu., defect. orac. 7, 413 a-b, where the Cynic philosopher Didymus is nicknamed Πλανητιάδης.
22 The theme of the journey is a characteristic feature of Peregrinus’ life, which passes from one journey to the next. More in general, on the importance of this theme in the bios of the ancient philosophers cf. M. M. Sassi, “Il viaggio e la festa. Note sulla rappresentazione dell’ideale filosofico della vita,” in G. Camassa, S. Fasce (eds.), Idea e realtà del viaggio. Il viaggio nel mondo antico, Genova, ECIG, 1991, p. 17–36.
23 M.-O. Goulet-Cazé, “Le Cynisme à l’époque impériale,” art. cit., p. 2737.
24 As Lucian, Demon. 3, states.
25 D. R. Dudley, A History of Cynicism. From Diogenes to the 6th Century, London, Methuen, 1937, p. 176.
26 Cf. Stob. III 34, 16 [= SSR V B 476]; D. Chr., orat. IX (8) 6–7 [= SSR V B 586]; Epict. III 22, 50–51.
27 Cf. D.L. VI 50 [= SSR V B 53]; Gnom. Vat. 743 n. 385 [= SSR V H 31]; Svet., Nero 39, 5; Luc., Demon. 6–7. This is particularly clear in the well-known episode of the encounter between Diogenes and Alexander: cf. D.L. VI 38 [= SSR V B 33], 68 [= SSR V B 40]; Cic., Tusc. V 32, 92 [= SSR V B 33]. More generally, on the Cynic attitude toward political power, see J. Moles, “The Cynics and politics,” in A. Laks, M. Schofield (eds.), Justice and Generosity. Studies in Hellenistic Social and Political Philosophy, Cambridge, CUP, 1995, p. 129–58, and D. Gardner, “Cynicism as Immanent Critique: Diogenes and the Philosophy of Transvaluation,” Polis 39, 2022, p. 123–48.
28 Peregr. 19: τοὺς Ἕλληνας ἔπειθεν ἀντάρασθαι ὅπλα Ῥωμαίοις. This detail is interesting since there are some sources that refer to Cynics from the imperial age involved in anti-Roman uprisings: cf. D. Chr. XXIII. This theme has been analyzed by W. Desmond, The Cynics, Stocksfield, Acumen, 2008, p. 185–88.
29 On Peregrinus’ chronology, see M.‑O. Goulet-Cazé, “Pérégrinus surnommé Proteus,” art. cit.
30 Peregr. 22: ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀνθρώπων αὐτὸ δρᾷ, ὡς διδάξειεν αὐτοὺς θανάτου καταφρονεῖν καὶ ἐγκαρτερεῖν τοῖς δεινοῖς.
31 Cf. Peregr. 25, 29 and 33.
32 For his centrality in the history of Cynicism, Heracles has been defined the “Patron Saint of the Cynic movement” (D. R. Dudley, A History, op. cit., p. 13). For an analysis of this aspect, see R. Höistad, Cynic Hero and Cynic King, Uppsala, Boktryckeri, 1948, p. 22–73. Cf. D.L. VI 2 [= SSR V A 97]; 71; 80 [= SSR V B 117]; D.Ch. VIII 33 [= SSR V B 584]; Epict. III 24, 12. For the importance of the Brahmans, cf. P. Gen. inv. 271, P. Berol. inv. 13044 and especially Strab. XV 1, 63–65 = FGrHist / BNJ 134 F 17a, where the Cynic Onesicritus presents the Gymnosophists as a sort of ideal Cynics or “extremist Cynics” (G. Bodei Giglioni, “Una leggenda sulle origini dell’Ellenismo: Alessandro e i Cinici,” Studi Ellenistici 1, 1984, p. 51–73, esp. p. 54). The report by Onesicritus is explicitly mentioned by Lucian as antecedent to Peregrinus’ suicide (Peregr. 25).
33 Cf. for example M.-O. Goulet-Cazé, “Le Cynisme à l’époque impériale,” art. cit., p. 2785–86.
34 Cf. Peregr. 6; 27; 40-41.
35 The fragments of Oenomaus are collected by J. Hammerstaedt, Die Orakelkritik des Kynikers Oenomaus, Frankfurt am Main, Athenaum 1988, to which I refer for a presentation of his figure. On Oenomaus’ philosophy, see A. Brancacci, “La polémique contre les oracles d’Œnomaos de Gadara,” RPhA 35, 2017, p. 197–220.
36 This (explicit or implicit) distinction of these two “tendencies” is present in several recent studies on Cynicism, however its first and clear formulation is found in G. A. Gerhard, Phoinix von Kolophon, Leipzig, Berlin, Teubner, 1909, p. 79–83.
37 Cf. H. M. Hornsby, “The Cynicism,” art. cit.; E. R. Dodds, Pagan and Christian in an Age of Anxiety, Cambridge, CUP, 1965, p. 59–63, and C. P. Jones, “Cynisme et sagesse barbare. Le cas de Pérégrinus Proteus,” in Le cynisme ancien et ses prolongements, op. cit., p. 305–17.
38 For a general presentation of this issue, see the clear outline by P. Pilhofer, “Das Bild,” art. cit.
39 Chapters 11 to 13 contain Lucian’s fierce criticism of the Christians and the figure of Jesus. This is the reason why this book was included in the Index Librorum Prohibitorum in the XVI Century. On the reception of Lucian’s The Passing of Peregrinus, cf. M. Baumbach, “Phönix aus lukianischer Asche: Peregrinos Proteus im Spiegel seiner Rezeption,” in Lukian, op. cit., p. 198–227.
40 Peregr. 13: ἢν τοίνυν παρέλθῃ τις εἰς αὐτοὺς γόης καὶ τεχνίτης ἄνθρωπος καὶ πράγμασιν χρῆσθαι δυνάμενος, αὐτίκα μάλα πλούσιος ἐν βραχεῖ ἐγένετο ἰδιώταις ἀνθρώποις ἐγχανών.
41 εἶτα παρανομήσας τι καὶ ἐς ἐκείνους — ὤφθη γάρ τι, ὡς οἶμαι, ἐσθίων τῶν ἀπορρήτων αὐτοῖς — οὐκέτι προσιεμένων αὐτόν.
42 P. Pilhofer et alii, Lukian, op. cit., p. 67: “Thus, the Christian career of Peregrinus ends very suddenly.”
43 As ὡς οἶμαι clearly shows. Even the expression that indicates the “forbidden food” (ἐσθίων τῶν ἀπορρήτων αὐτοῖς) is vague.
44 For example, it is excessive to state from this element alone, as H. D. Betz does in Lukian von Samosata und das Neue Testament. Religionsgeschichtliche und paränetische Parallelen, Berlin, Akademie Verlag, 1961, p. 11, that the reference to Christian forbidden food is a simple transposition of proscriptive rules from other cults effected by Lucian. However, his interpretation is specious and too cautious. The same can be stated regarding Dodds’ interpretation: “that Peregrinus had broken a Christian food-taboo is put forward only as speculation, and does not seem very probable” (Pagan and Christian, op. cit., p. 60 n. 2).
45 See Mk 7:19–20: “Jesus declared all foods clean” (καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα). Cf. also Mt. 15:10–20.
46 I. Ramelli, “Tracce di Montanismo nel Peregrino di Luciano?,” Aevum 79, 2005, p. 79–94.
47 G. Bagnani, “Peregrinus Proteus and the Christians,” Historia 4, 1955, p. 107–12.
48 For an overview of all the numerous hypotheses on this subject, including the curious identification of Peregrinus Proteus with Ignatius of Antioch, cf. M.‑O. Goulet-Cazé, “Pérégrinus surnommé Proteus,” art. cit., p. 226–27.
49 See, for example, the correct and appropriate criticism against the interpretation of Peregrinus as a Montanist by G. Rinaldi, “Profetismo e profeti cristiani nel giudizio dei pagani,” in A. Canfora, E. Cattaneo (eds.), Profeti e profezia. Figure profetiche nel cristianesimo del II secolo, Trapani, Il Pozzo di Giacobbe, 2007, p. 101–22, esp. p. 115–16; or the accurate reservations regarding Bagnani’s thesis expressed by M.‑O. Goulet-Cazé, Cynicism and Christianity, op. cit., p. 231.
50 G. Rinaldi, “Profetismo,” art. cit., p. 115–16. Cf. also M. Stella, Luciano di Samosata, op. cit., p. 226, and É. Marquis, Lucien. Œuvres, texte établi et traduit par É. Marquis, Paris, Les Belles Lettres, 2017, p. 400–401.
51 Cf. P. De Labriolle, La réaction païenne, Paris, L’Artisan du Livre, 1934, p. 104; M. J. Edwards, “Satire and Verosimilitude: Christianity in Lucians’ Peregrinus,” Historia 38, 1989, p. 89–98, esp. p. 96; S. Benko, Pagan Rome and the Early Christians, Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 1986, p. 32; P. Pilhofer et alii, Lukian, op. cit., p. 67.
52 Cf. Acts 15:20 and 29; 21:25, where the “meat of strangled animals and blood” are also mentioned. On this latter aspect, see the considerations by É. Marquis, Lucien, op. cit., p. 400–401. See also 1 Cor. 8–10, that will be at the center of my analysis. Cf. infra.
53 Peregrinus even (καί) transgressed against the Christians by eating forbidden food.
54 Cf. P. Chantraine, Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque. Histoire des mots, I, Paris, Klincksieck, 1968, p. 185–86, and R. Beekes, Etymological Dictionary of Greek, I, Leiden, Brill, 2010, p. 227–28.
55 In addition, food is also mentioned in the penultimate paragraph of the Passing of Peregrinus (44), in order to show Peregrinus’ complete insatiability and lack of self-control: as Lucian maliciously writes, he knows no limits and over-eats until he is sick.
56 J. Schwartz, Lucien de Samosate : Philopseudès et De morte Peregrini, Paris, Les Belles Lettres, 1963 [Strasbourg, Publications de la Faculté des Lettres de l’Université de Strasbourg, 1951], p. 98, to which I refer for the citation and discussion of the passages where the Cynics appreciation for the meats sacrificed to the pagan idols (εἰδωλόθυτα)—the “Hekate’s supper”—are mentioned. See also A. M. Harmon, Lucian, op. cit., p. 18–19.
57 Lucian’s expression is vague: χρόνον τινα (16).
58 Cf. Acts 15:20 and 29; 21:25.
59 For example, Paul also cursorily refers (1 Cor. 10:20–22) to the demonic characterization of the pagan idols. This will become a locus communis in Christian apologetics: see Tertullianus’ De idolatria (1–2).
60 1 Cor. 8:8: βρῶμα δὲ ἡμᾶς οὐ παραστήσει τῷ θεῷ· οὔτε ἐὰν μὴ φάγωμεν ὑστερούμεθα, οὔτε ἐὰν φάγωμεν περισσεύομεν.
61 1 Cor. 8:13: εἰ βρῶμα σκανδαλίζει τὸν ἀδελφόν μου, οὐ μὴ φάγω κρέα εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, ἵνα μὴ τὸν ἀδελφόν μου σκανδαλίσω.
62 1 Cor. 10:24.
63 Which is (as is well known) a fundamental element of Cynicism. Cf. at least D.L. VI 71 and Eus., P.E. VI 7, 2 [fr. 16 Hammerstaedt]. On the difference between freedom as ἐλευθερία and as ἐξουσία in the Cynic tradition, see A. Brancacci, “Libertà e fato in Enomao di Gadara,” in his La filosofia in età imperiale. Le scuole e le tradizioni filosofiche, Napoli, Bibliopolis, 2000, p. 37–67, esp. p. 55–67.
64 See D.L. VI 46 [= SSR V B 147] and 96–98 [= SSR V I 1]; Plu., stoic. rep. 21 [= SSR V B 147]; Athen. IV 158 f [= SSR V B 147]; Epict. III 22, 76 [= SSR V H 20].
65 J. Moles, “Honestius quam ambitiosius? An Exploration of the Cynic’s Attitude to Moral Corruption in His Fellow Men,” JHS 103, 1983, p. 103–23; Ch. Paone, “Diogenes the Cynic on Law and World Citizenship,” Polis 35, 2015, p. 478–98; O. Flores-Júnior, La vie facile. Une lecture du cynisme ancien, Paris, Vrin, 2021, p. 119–30, have provided some remarks on Cynic philanthropy.
66 This aspect has been briefly noted by D. R. Dudley, A History, op. cit., p. 179–80.
67 Cf. Peregr. 22. “He alleges, however, that he is doing it for the sake of his fellow men, that he may teach them to despise death and endure what is fearsome” (ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀνθρώπων αὐτὸ δρᾷ, ὡς διδάξειεν αὐτοὺς θανάτου καταφρονεῖν καὶ ἐγκαρτερεῖν τοῖς δεινοῖς); and 33: “And I wish to benefit mankind by showing them the way in which one should despise death” (ὠφελῆσαι βούλομαι τοὺς ἀνθρώπους δείξας αὐτοῖς ὃν χρὴ τρόπον θανάτου καταφρονεῖν).
68 This confirms the statement by J. Bernays, Lucian, op. cit., p. 31: “Judaism and Christianity found, in their war against the different forms of pagan polytheism, the itinerant Cynics as their best allies.”
69 Cf. D.L. VI 105: “They […] think that one should live frugally, eating only for nourishment and wearing only the cloak […] Some, at any rate, eat nothing but vegetables, drink nothing but cold water.” (ἀρέσκει δ’ αὐτοῖς καὶ λιτῶς βιοῦν, αὐτάρκεσι χρωμένοις σιτίοις καὶ τρίβωσι μόνοις […] ἐνίοτε γοῦν καὶ βοτάναις καὶ παντάπασιν ὕδατι χρῶνται ψυχρῷ). Cf. D.L. VI 31-32 [= SSR V B 102] and A.P. XVI 333 [= SSR V B 156]. On this issue, see G. Giannantoni, Socratis et Socraticorum Reliquiae, IV, Napoli, Bibliopolis 1990, p. 500; and F. Notaro, “Food and Counter-cultural Identity in Ancient Cynicism,” GRBS 55, 2015, p. 583–607.
70 See Bion ap. Teles, p. 7, 4–5 Hense [F 17 Kindstrand]; D.L. VI 37 [= SSR V B 158]; and D. Chr. VI 62 [= SSR V B 583].
71 On the importance of this notion in Cynicism, see O. Flores-Júnior, La vie facile, op. cit.
72 Cf. D.L. 34 [= SSR V B 93]: “He [Diogenes] even tried to eat meat raw but found he could not digest it” (καὶ ὠμὰ δὲ κρέα ἐπεχείρησε φαγεῖν, ἀλλ’ οὐ διῴκησεν). See also Plu., de usu carn. I 6 p. 995 c-d [= SSR V B 93]; Iul., Or. IX 1, 181 a-b [= SSR V B 94].
73 See D.L. VI 79 [= SSR V B 101] where Diogenes implicitly states that the most useful purpose for his body after his death, is to be used as food for animals.
74 Cf. D.L. VI 73 [= SSR V B 132]. But cf. also the so-called argumentation of “all things in all things” (πάντα ἐν πᾶσι): D.L. VI 73 [= SSR V B 132]: “He held that according to right reason, all things contain and are permeated by all things. For meat is found in bread, and bread in vegetables; and all forms of matter, through unseen passages and particles, penetrate and unite with all other matter in vaporous form” (καὶ τῷ δὲ ὀρθῷ λόγῳ πάντα ἐν πᾶσι καὶ διὰ πάντων εἶναι λέγων. καὶ γὰρ ἐν τῷ ἄρτῳ κρέως εἶναι καὶ ἐν τῷ λαχάνῳ ἄρτου, καὶ τῶν σωμάτων τῶν λοιπῶν ἐν πᾶσι διά τινων ἀδήλων πόρων καὶ ὄγκων εἰσκρινομένων καὶ συνατμιζομένων). On which see the textual and exegetical analysis provided by W. Lapini, “Diogene di Sinope e le particelle vaporizzate (D.L. 6.73 = SSR B V 132),” in his Testi frammentari e critica del testo: problemi di filologia filosofica greca, Roma, Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 2013, p. 175–95. On the Cynic anthropophagy, see S. Husson, La République de Diogène, Paris, Vrin, 2011, p. 136–38.
75 As Th. Gomperz, Griechische Denker. Eine Geschichte der griechischen Philosophie, II, Leipzig, Veit & Comp., 1896–1909, p. 128–33, clearly underlines. Therefore, the Cynic affirmations are elucidated and made clearer by the Stoic affirmation (D.L. VII 121 [= SVF III 747] according to which the sage “will even taste human flesh under stress of circumstances” (γεύσεσθαί τε καὶ ἀνθρωπίνων σαρκῶν κατὰ περίστασιν).
76 Even if he prefers a simple and natural diet, in this respect the sage is not much different from the others: in fact, he eats everything, like all other men (D.L. VI 56 [= SSR V B 189]).
77 Cf. D.L. VI 22: “He [Diogenes] made use of every place for every purpose: breakfasting, sleeping, and conversing” (παντὶ τόπῳ ἐχρῆτο εἰς πάντα, ἀριστῶν τε καὶ καθεύδων καὶ διαλεγόμενος). Emphasis is mine. See also D.L. VI 61 [= SSR V B 147] and especially D.L. VI 69 [= SSR V B 147]: “He [Diogenes] regularly performed the acts associated with Demeter and Aphrodite in public” (εἰώθει δὲ πάντα ποιεῖν ἐν τῷ μέσῳ, καὶ τὰ Δήμητρος καὶ τὰ Ἀφροδίτης).
78 É. Helmer, “Philosophie et géographie : lieu de la pensée et pensée du lieu en Grèce ancienne,” DHA 47, 2021, p. 91–112 and Id., “Le ventre et ses lieux ou quand les cyniques ne mangent pas comme tout le monde” (infra).
79 See D.L. VI 58 [= SSR V B 186]: “Reproached one day for eating in the marketplace, Diogenes said, ‘It was in the marketplace that I got hungry’” (ὀνειδιζόμενός ποτε ὅτι ἐν ἀγορᾷ ἔφαγεν, ‘ἐν ἀγορᾷ γάρ,’ ἔφη, ‘καὶ ἐπείνησα’).
80 On rhetoric and its use in the Cynic predication, cf. A. Brancacci, “Cinismo e predicazione,” art. cit.; R. Bracht Branham, “Defacing the Currency: Diogenes’ Rhetoric and the Invention of Cynicism,” in R. Bracht Branham, M.‑O. Goulet-Cazé (eds.), The Cynics. The Cynic Movement in Antiquity and its Legacy, Berkeley, Los Angeles, UCP, 1996, 81–104; Ph. Bosman, “Selling Cynicism: The Pragmatics of Diogene’s Comic Performances,” CQ 56, 2006, p. 93–104.
81 Cf. D.L. VI 48 [= SSR V B 393]: “When a young man was displaying his oratory skills, Diogenes, who had filled the fold of his robe with beans, was gulping them down right in front of him. And when he had attracted the crowd’s attention, he said he was surprised that they shifted their attention from the speaker to himself” (μειρακίου ἐπιδεικνυμένου πληρώσας τὸ προκόλπιον ἀντικρὺς θέρμων ἔκαπτε· τοῦ δὲ πλήθους εἰς αὐτὸν ἀφορῶντος θαυμάζειν ἔφη πῶς ἐκεῖνον ἀφέντες εἰς αὐτὸν ὁρῶσι). On the importance of the lupins (θέρμοι) for the Cynics, see especially Teles p. 44, 2–9 Hence [= SSR V H 83], where Crates says that what he has gained from philosophy is “a quart of lupin and freedom from care” (θέρμων τε χοῖνιξ καὶ τὸ μηδενὸς μέλειν).
82 Cf. D.L. II 68 [= SSR IV A 44]; VI 25 [= SSR V B 55] and 58 [= SSR V B 56].
83 I thank Étienne Helmer for having drawn my attention to this aspect.
84 An author who lived in the same years of Peregrinus and who is one of the first and most important source on this rite.
85 Cf. for example P. R. Eddy, “Jesus as Diogenes,” JBL 115, 1996, p. 449–69, p. 463; and J. Moles, “Cynic Influence upon First-Century Judaism and Early Christianity,” in B. Mc Ging, J. Mossman (eds.), The Limits of Ancient Biography, Swansea, CPW, 2006, p. 89–116.
86 Which I owe to Francesca Alesse, whom I thank.
87 Mk 12:13-17; Mt 22:15-22; Lk 20:20-26.
88 See Tat., Or. ad Graec. 3, 3 [= SSR V H 23] and 25, 1 [= SSR V B 522]; Lact., Inst. III 15, 21 [= SSR V H 25]; Theodor., graec. affect. cur. XII 48-49 [= SSR V B 279].
89 Cf. 1 Cor. 10: “Knowledge puffs up, love builds up” (ἠ γνῶσις φυσιοῖ, ἠ δὲ ἀγάπη οἰκοδομεῖ).
90 A good albeit little-known example is provided by the “doggish” acts that characterizes the Life of Symeon the Fool (a Syrian monk of the sixth century) written by Leontius. Symeon is described as behaving and preaching in a similar manner to the Cynics: he eats raw meat, defecates in public, and so on. On this theme, cf. D. Krueger, Symeon the Holy Fool: Leontius’s Life and the Late Antique City, Berkeley, UCP, 1996, p. 90–107. More generally, on the influence of Cynicism on monasticism, see M.‑O. Goulet-Cazé, Cynicism and Christianity, op. cit., p. 238–43.
i I thank Étienne Helmer, Claudio Moreschini and Marco Zambon for having read my paper providing interesting and helpful remarks. I thank Aldo Brancacci and Andrea Di Maio with whom I discussed important aspects of my argumentation. I discussed my interpretation with Marie-Odile Goulet-Cazé as well: sadly, soon after sending my paper to her, she kindly expressed her disappointment because her severe illness precluded her from reading it. I would like to dedicate this article to her memory.
Stefano Mecci, « Peregrinus Proteus and the “forbidden food”: a comparison between Cynicism and Early Christianity », Aitia [En ligne], 15 | 2025, mis en ligne le 16 juillet 2025, consulté le 28 novembre 2025. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/aitia/12886
Istituto Italiano per gli Studi Storici
stefano.mecci@yahoo.com
Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont susceptibles d’être soumis à des autorisations d’usage spécifiques.
ISSN électronique 1775-4275
Voir la notice dans le catalogue OpenEdition
Plan du site – Contacts – Flux de syndication
CGU d’OpenEdition Journals – Politique de confidentialité – Gestion des cookies – Signaler un problème
Nous adhérons à OpenEdition – Édité avec Lodel – Accès réservé
Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search