-1- _________________________ Luz, ŒCynics of the Decapolis¹ September 25, 1997 17:45 html>Gadaran Cynics

Return to Preview of articles menu

The following is the main body of a text that is about to be published by Yad Ben Zvi. It was delivered at the Yad ben Zewi conference held Haifa, 1995. I reproduce the text here in a larger font size to assist reading. Unfortunately the original Greek font (Kadmos) did not come out on web), but there are are refs. and Eng. trans. for every citation. Notes can be accessed only through scrolling! Iwould be pleased to receive comments since there is still time to make changes in proof! If you desire to quote or cite it, please contact me at:

mluz@research.haifa.ac.il

You are the to read this since 4 (3-1-2000)
542 visitors in 1998/1999

Cynics of the Decapolis and Eretz Israel
in the Hellenistic Period

Menahem Luz

Throughout much of the Greco-Roman era, the region of Syria-Palestine gave birth to exponents of nearly all the leading philosophical systems. Strangely enough, it was Cynicism, the least respected of them all, that left a lasting impression in the area.1 In the Decapolis alone, the city of Gadara could boast of being the birthplace of three Cynic philosophers of major importance:‹ Menippus, father of the moral satire (3rd-2nd century B.C.E.); Meleager, anthologist and poet-satirist (1st century B.C.E.); and Oenomaus, critic of religious belief and oracular response (c. 120 C.E.).2 Although Gadara did have close links with its Jewish and Syrian neighbours, its citizens were proud of their ŒAttic¹ (i.e., Hellenic) culture.3 Even in inscriptions, it was called ŒGadara, favourable to the Muses¹ 4 Its fame stemmed from its rich literary and cultural heritage even if its origin went back to some military Macedonian settlement in this region,5 The purpose of this paper is to examine the background that led to the emergence and activity of its three famous, Cynic thinkers. After a preliminary discussion of the development of the Cynic movement in general and the possible ways in which it developed at Gadara, I will then turn to the question of characteristics common to these three Cynics, and how their birth-place could have contributed to the way in which they evolved.

In spite of their individualism, exponents of this movement should be classed according to three general types, reflecting the development of Cynic philosophy between the early Hellenistic period and the first centuries of the present era. This development was characterised not so much by marked changes in their philosophical belief as in style and method of expression. The so-called 'older Cynics' ‹ as Diogenes and Crates of the 4th-3rd century B.C.E. were later termed ‹ not only preached a return to nature, but actually attempted to live out in the open, relinquishing all personal property that was not vitally necessary for their existence. While their own eccentric life-style was not seriously advocated for the populace in general, they thought of themselves as supplying the extreme example to counterbalance an extremely perverted society, whose scale of values had gone awry. Diogenes once likened himself to a choir master who set the note one tone higher than he expected the choir actually to attain (Diog. L. VI.35). While his immediate pupils doggedly followed their master¹s life-style, the 3rd-1st century B.C.E. Cynics were prone to be arm-chair philosophers, whose criticism of society was expressed more through a mordent pen than by living out in the open. These were men who lived poor, but not destitute lives, generally at the lower end of the social ladder. They mocked and satirized the accepted values of society, rather than completely abandoning all physical possessions. One immediately recalls the example of the former slave, but now successful wandering lecturer, Bion of Borysthenes (325-255 B.C.E.), and the poor school teacher Teles of Megara (235 B.C.E.). It is to this latter class that we may perhaps assign the first Cynics of Gadara: the alleged ex-slave, turned shipping merchant, Menippus, and the exiled poet ‹ self-styled 'sophist' ‹ Meleager.6

A third generation of 'younger Cynics' followed them, whose attacks on cult and religion later received so much censure at the hands of Julian and his old pagan revivalists (Jul., Or. vi.199a). These were men who expressed their social invective in the same exhibitionist manner of the early Cynics, but published their diatribes in a rhetorical format. Some, like Dio Chrysostom (40 C.E.-120 C.E.), were forced by circumstance to lead the lives of wandering Cynic lecturers. Others like, Peregrinus Proteus (100-165 C.E..) were wandering charlatans.7 To this same generation, belonged Oenomaus of Gadara (120 C.E.), who recorded his visits to the temples of Ionia and his altercation with the priests.8 As with Dio, there is no doubt of his sincerity, or the anti-religious fervour of his philosophy.

In this respect, the Gadarene Cynics reflected the general development of Cynicism during the late Hellenistic and Roman periods:‹ a flowering of arm-chair Cynicism, followed by the revivalism of the younger Cynics. It has often been said that there was a strong Cynic tradition at Gadara.9 Obviously, this by no means implies that the Cynics of Gadara sprung from Œa local school¹ under which they were fostered and developed. It is true that, in much of the early Hellenistic period, philosophical activity was centred around traditional institutes, be it the Garden of Epicurus, the Sceptical Academy of Arcesilaus, or the Stoa of Zeno.10 However, during the Roman period, there was a shift to independent thinkers, who lectured in a number of known centres of philosophy. At any rate, three major objections can be raised against the assumption that Gadara ever sustained a local school of Cynicism in any organized sense:-

1) The first is based on the general anti-institutionalism of the Cynics, both inside and outside Gadara. Ever since its foundation by Diogenes of Sinope, Cynicism had never constituted a collection of philosophers teaching in any specific school, or even in any one location.11 This philosophy should rather be conceived as a movement, whereby each Cynic preached and wrote in whatever locality he/she happened to be residing at that particular moment. It was for this reason, that Meleager took pride in being a cosmopolitan philosopher, who once resided in Gadara, but moved to Tyre in youth, finally to die in Cos in old age.12 Menippus must also have left Gadara at an early stage in order to continue his philosophical activity in various cities of mainland Greece.13 Finally, at least one stage of Oenomaus¹ career was spent in the coastal cities of Ionia if we are to take his story of his altercation with the priests of Claros as true autobiography.14 Thus, not only do we find that these thinkers were not bound to any single philosophical centre, but we also find that much of their activity took place in scattered localities outside of Gadara itself.15 .

2) A second objection to the possibility of a continued school tradition at Gadara, is based on the manner in which each exponent of this philosophy represented his own brand of Cynicism, recognising no authoritative head, no line of succession, and certainly no single doctrine. Oenomaus placed particular stress on this independence of the Cynic preacher when he maintained that the meaning of Cynicism was to follow neither Diogenismos, nor Antisthenismos, but the inner voice (autophonia) of the individual.16 The Cynics of this city should not, therefore, be conceived as conforming to a school authority, but preferred to express their ideas as individual thinkers, each in his own distinctive manner. In this sense, this movement can be said to represent a hairesis - a Œchoice of life¹ - more truly than did the haireseis - the 'schools of philosophy' - adhered to by the Stoics and Epicureans.17 Although much of Cynic preaching often did finally revolve around common ethical premises, the butt of their social criticism and their means of expression were left to the individual¹s choice. Menippus invented a genre that was famous for having been a farrago of prose and poetry, later characterised as ŒMenippean satire¹. Meleager¹s own contribution was rather through supposedly personal vignettes, encapspuled in epigram. Finally, Oenomaus employed the style of the Cynic diatribe in a new autobiographical and rhetorical form. Later I will examine a number of topics and literary traits common to all three. For the moment, we may note that, in style and thought, these three thinkers were part of an individualistic movement rather than conformist members of an authoritative school.

3) Finally, a third objection, at least superficially undermining the presence of a united school of Cynics at Gadara, relates to the fact that both Menippus and Meleager spent much of their lives in exile. Whether or not they had fled their homes following the campaigns of the Hasmoneans, or Seleucids,18 we do not hear of them resurfacing in this area again, never mind returning to their native city. Oenomaus, it is true, did continue to reside in his native Gadara, but we have also seen that he is chiefly known for his activity in the coastal cities of Ionia. It seems, therefore, that Gadara acted less as a permanent home for these three Cynics ‹ and more as a crucible for thinkers of a Cynic disposition.

In order to examine the possibility of any specific Gadarene features in their disposition, we need also glance at the relationship between them. Meleager saw himself as continuing in Menippus¹ footsteps, but there cannot have been any personal link between them. The surviving life of Menippus by Diogenes Laertius (VI 99-101) is the usual muddled farrago of sources, mostly drawn from an untrustworthy biography by Hermippus of Smyrna ‹ and an inexact compendium of philosophers by Diocles of Magnesia.19 Scholars have subsequently been mislead as to precisely when Menippus lived. Some have concluded from Laertius¹ list of Cynic philosophers that Menippus belonged to the early third century B.C.E. since he is appended to a list of the disciples of the early Cynic Metrocles.20 However, a late third century date is more likely, since Menippus was said to have been a contemporary of the historian-rhetorician, Baton of Pontus.21 His period of activity must have been some time prior to 200 B.C.E. when Hermippus completed his series of biographies in which the Life of Menippus was included.22 While his family may have then belonged to one of Gadara¹s founding fathers,23 his own date could not be late enough to link him directly to Meleager (96/95 B.C.E.), the next of our three Gadarene Cynics.24 Although Menippus¹ serio-comic style was compared to that of Meleager by Laertius, the text is usually understood to imply that Meleager was closer in time to Diocles of Magnesia (c. 70 B.C.E.).25 We are thus left with an interlude of more than a century separating Menippus (c. 230/200 B.C.E.) from Meleager (c. 96/95 B.C.E.) ‹ and another two centuries till our third Gadareme Cynic, Oenomaus (c. 120 B.C.E.). Obviously, any mutual influence on these thinkers could have been via literary sources alone. Meleager specifically mentions a Menippean tradition that he saw himself developing; and we also know that he once composed a satire of his own during his youth.26 Recently, scholars have identified the influence of Menippean elements in the style of Oenomaus.27 Since we have seen that there could not have existed an actual Cynic school at Gadara, Menippean or otherwise, the scenario that I would like to suggest is that the Cynic disposition maintained at Gadara would have been inspired and developed mainly through reading earlier, local Cynic¹s works. We now may ask what characteristics did they have in common? What features differentiate them from other Cynics of this period?

Let us begin with Menippus. Although practically nothing of his works survive, we do have a fair idea of his general style through references in later writers. ŒMenippean satire¹ was said to have been characterised especially by the following:

1) a criticism of society (especially the rich and powerful); mockery of debates popular in contemporary philosophical schools; and possibly a criticism of religious sacrifice;28

2) fantastic scenarios as a setting for satire, often narrated in a self-mocking, autobiographical form - as in Menippus¹ story of his own katabasis into Hades in the Nekuia, or his postal correspondence with the gods (cf. Diog. L. VI. 99);

3) the use of a serio-comic style (spoudogeloion), in which the reader was expected to read the serious lesson behind the satire (cf. Diog. L. VI. 99);

4) the ancients also particularly noted how his compositions comprised an unusual mixture of prose interlaced with poetry of his own invention.29

If we now turn to Meleager, we discover from the few fragments of his juvenilia, that he employed some of these features in his own satires: his subject matter was social criticism expressed in a serio-comic style,30 possibly interlaced with quotations from the poets.31 In his later epigrams, Meleager acknowledges this debt to Menippus, and even thought of himself as wedding Menippus¹ satire to his own poetic style.32 While Meleager¹s poetry is generically different from that of Menippus¹ satire, those of his epigrams showing a serio-comic outlook would seem to be a development of his younger satiric period, ultimately descended from Menippus¹ spoudogeloion.

Oenomaus preferred to express his own social criticism through diatribe and autobiographical accounts of his encounters with religious authority. Although his rhetorical invective is composed in a totally different genre from that of his Gadarene predecessors, a leading authority on Oenomaus¹ fragments has still compared his philosophy and style to what is known of Menippus¹ works, in that he created satire as a mixture of prose and poetry.33 It is true that Oenomaus¹ poetry was mostly quotation, but sometimes, he too included parody as well as lines of his own invention. His attack on the priests, known as Charlatans Detected, also embodied a bighting criticism of religious practice much in the spirit of Menippus. One may add that the aims of Oenomaus¹ nihilistic philosophy can well be compared to that of the latter as well, in that Marcus Aurelius once described Menippus as a ³mocker of Man¹s perishable and ephemeral life² (VI.47). However, it is not only with Menippus, that Oenomaus can be compared. Like Meleager, he claims to discover philosophical allegory in Homer for the sake of spoudogeloion.34 Oenomaus¹ diatribes were thus expressed with a traditionally Gadarene, serio-comic irony, akin to that of both Menippus and Meleager. Oenomaus may not mention either of his predecessors by name in the lengthy fragments quoted by Eusebius, but his style, interests and Cynic invective are still to be classified along with theirs. Although we have seen that each of these three writers was characterised by an individual style and outlook of life, the serio-comic criticism of society expressed through a mixture of prose-poetry seems to be the hall-mark of each of them.

Finally, we may ask in what way this particular geographical locality could have acted as a catalyst behind this specific type of Cynic resurgence during the Hellenistic and Roman epochs. The disposition to join such a movement would to a certain extent be dependent on internal factors in Gadarene society itself. Although we have seen that we can dismiss a Gadarene school hypothesis, this does not necessarily preclude the development of a local satiric outlook. Its origins should ultimately be traced to popular comic raillery, and those festivals where the actors bantered and mocked the audience. The latter developed into the Œsatyr¹ play in Greece ‹ the semi-dramatic, popular comedy featuring satyrs ‹ and into Fescennine comedy in Italy. However, the genre of non-dramatic satire, where no actual satyrs appear, but where the audience is satirised, is a purely Hellenistic literary development of the same popular festive spirit. Gadara itself was notorious for the high-spirits of its country and civic activities, as well as for its love of poetry.35 Dramatic forms flourished at Gadara, where no less than three theatres were established.36 Menippus formally transformed this rustic festivity into a new literary genre, his Cynic philosophy giving it a focus - his country-men supplying willing and appreciative readers. It has been suggested that the Graces also had a popular, if not semi-official cult-status at Gadara.37 If this is so, then we can appreciate from what cultural milieu Meleager derived the title of ŒMenippean Graces¹ when describing his literary achievements.

Religious superstition - especially belief in the cult of Hecate - figured as the butt of much of Menippus¹ satire. That this satire had an historical object, we see from the notorious case of Philinna, ŒWitch of Gadara¹. Her charms are composed in popular folk verse and are rife with superstition and magic.38 It was against this type of social phenomenon that Menippus and Oenomaus wrote. Menippus' own alleged descent into the world of the Dead, or ŒRaising of the Spirits of the Dead¹ (Nekuia), was composed in order to pour scorn on the pride of the living.39 However, this whole scenario, so associated with Menippus in the satires of Lucian, seems to have been provoked by an especially Gadarene phenomenon. We even learn of it from the Gospels, which refer to homeless, mad demoniacs, inhabiting charnal houses (mnemeia) in the land of Gadara, and nearby Gerasa.40 Those at Gadara were inhabited until quite recently.41 It is no wonder then that Menippus described his own descent into the land of the dead in order to castigate the living. Even in the satires of Lucian, Menippus is said to be acquainted with the cult of Hecate (Dial. Mort. I (1).331). That much of Oenomaus¹ diatribes were likewise concerned with the meaninglesness of life and death, could also be seen as counteracting a similar social atttitude in his native city.

Gadara thus gave the world not only three outstanding Cynic satirists, but also a cultural and social atmosphere that served both as the butt of their criticism, as well as an appreciative back-drop to their poetry and satires. If these Cynics invented serio-comic spoudogeloion, then their father-land was its progenitor.

Notes

1 On the Cynics in Talmudic sources, see: M. Luz, 'A Description of the Greek Cynic in the Jerusalem Talmud', in: J.S.J. XX., pp. 49-60; S. Lieberman, 'How much Greek in Jewish Palestine', in: A. Altmann (ed.), Biblical and other Studies (1963, Harvard), 130 ff. 2 For general background, still see: Donald R. Dudley, A History of Cynicism from Diogenes to the 6th Century C.E., Hildesheim 1967. 3 Cf. Josephus, B.J. II.97 who includes it among the Hellenidas ; Meleager, who calls it Atthis ... Gadara (A.P. vii.417), and kleina polis (418 ). On the cultural background of Gadara and the Decapolis, see: S. Mittmann, Beiträge zur Siedlungs u. Territorialgeschichte des nördlichen Ostjordanlandes (1970, Wiesbaden), 135-7. 4 The expression Gadara chrestomousia (Ch. Clermont-Ganneau, Études d'Archéologie orientale II (1897, Paris), 142 ff) could equally refer to ŒGadara whom the Muses favour¹. 5 Gadara had an homonymous Œsister-village¹ in Macedonia (Stephanus, s.v. ŒGadara¹), much as did its neighbour, Dion-Pella, itself a foundation of Alexander¹s (s.v. ŒDion no. 7¹). Just as the name ŒPella¹ seems to have been a Hellenization of Dion-Pella¹s Semitic name, ŒPehal¹ (V. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews, 98), so ŒGadara¹ could have been a Hellenization of an earlier ŒGader¹. 6 On Meleager as self-styled sophistas in exile, see: Anth. Gr. vii. 421. On the tradition of Menippus¹ background, see: Diog. L. VI. 99, a tradition which is probably mistaken, or at least highly problematic (M.-O. Goulet-Cazé, 'Le Livre VI de Diogène Laërce', in: ANRW II. 36.6 (1992), 3880-4048. See also: Aldo Brancacci, ŒI koinh£= a)re/skonta dei Cinici e la koinwni/a tra cinismo e stoicismo nel libro VI (103-105) delle ŒVite¹ di Diogene Laerzio¹, ibid., 4049-4075). 7 If we may trust Lucian, Peregrinus was driven out of Greece for criminal reasons (Peregr. 55.4), fled Armenia when caught in adultery (9), hid in Palestine as a Christian (11), finally to return to Greece and paganism (14). 8 Oenomaus' principal fragments have been edited by:- Jürgen. Hammerstaedt, Die Orakelkritik des Kynikers Oenomaus (Beiträge zur klassischen Philologie 188; Frankfurt am Main, 1988). On the younger Cynics of this period, see: Jürgen Hammerstaedt, 'Le Cynisme littéraire a l'epoque impériale', in: M.-O. Goulet-Cazé ‹ R. Goulet, Le Cynisme Ancien et ses Prolongements (Paris, 1993), 399-418. 9 F. G. Browning, ŒCynics and Early Christianity¹, in: Goulet-Cazé (above, n. 8), 292; Jürgen Hammerstaedt, in: Goulet-Cazé (above, n. 8), 418. 10 A.A. Long - D.N. Sedley, The Hellenistic philosophers, I (Cambridge, 1987), 5-6 define the schools as Œa group of like-minded philosophers with an agreed leader and a regular meeting place¹. 11 Diog. L., vii. 22-23. 12 Anth. Gr., vii. 416-9, 421. See: M. Luz, 'Salam, Meleager!', in: Studi Italiani di Filologia classica VI. 1988, pp. 222-223. 13 He is linked not only with Thebes and Corinth, but even with Sinope on the Black Sea (Diog. L. VI. 99-101). On background, see: Joel C. Relihan, Ancient Menippean Satire (1993, Baltimore-London), esp. cap. 1; Dudley (above, n. 2), 69. 14 On background, see: Hammerstaedt (above, n. 8); idem, ŒDer Kyniker Oenomaus von Gadara¹, in ANRW II. 36.4, sect. ii-iii; M. Luz, ŒOenomaus and Talmudic Anecdote¹, in: Journal for the Study of Judaism xxiii/1 (1992), 42-80. 15 The parallel case of the Epicurean philosopher, Philodemus of Gadara, is interesting, for while he too was active outside of his native city, his specific type of philosophy and historical literary tradition can only be explained by prolonged study at some centre of Epicurean learning. 16 Jul., Or. 187 b-c. See: Luz (above, n. 14), 42-80. 17 Since their very foundation, the Stoics had been beset by internal debate in a vague attempt to work out a common established doctrine. Because the Sceptics refrained from establishing a criterion for doctrine in principle, their activity was involved in undermining the beliefs of other schools, rather than offering anything positive. The Epicureans, of course, were notorious for strict adherence to a single doctrine with little or no 'serve' from the principles of their founder. 18 During Menippus¹ conjectured life-time, Gadara was twice taken by Antiochus III (218 B.C.E. and 200 B.C.E.); during that of Meleager, it was taken by Alexander Jannaeus (104‹78 B.C.E.). But both thinkers may have left for unconnected reasons (M. Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism I (1974, Jerusalem), 139 & n.; V. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews, 98, 246). 19 On Menippus¹ biography by Hermippus Œthe Callimacher¹ (c. 250-200 B.C.E.), see: Fritz von Wehrli, Hermippos der Kallimacheer (= Die Schule des Aristoteles Supplementband I; Basel/Stuttgart, 1974), fr. 39 & n. 68-69. 20 Dudley (above, n. 2), 69-70; Goulet-Cazé (above, n. 6), 3975-3976. 21 Metrocles of Maroneia was brother-in-law of Crates (active 328-325 B.C.E.), but Menippus was said to have been a pupil of Metrocles¹ disciples (or even of their own pupils). Secondly, anecdotes make him the slave of Baton of Pontus (Diog. L. VI.99), often identified with the late third century Baton of Sinope (Dudley (above, n. 2), 69-70). 22 The latest event recorded in the fragments of Hermippus¹ biographies was the death of Chrysippus in 208/204 B.C.E. (Wehrli (above, 19), fr. 59 & pp. 7-8, 80-81). Even if each biography was published separately ‹ with that of Menippus brought out fairly early in Hermippus¹ career (c. 250-204 B.C.E.) ‹ this would not be early enough to bridge the gap between the generation of Metrocles¹ students (early 3rd century) and that of Menippus and Baton of Pontus. 23 Laertius describes Menippus as ŒPhoenician¹ (Diog. L., VI.99) just as Philostratus made of the Gadarene rhetorician, Apsines (628); but Strabo makes it clear that Menippus hailed from Gadara just like Meleager (XVI.29). The latter makes his own Syrian and Phoenician Œbackground¹ a proof of his Cynic cosmopolitanism (A.P. vii.418) although he prefers to call himself ŒSyrian¹ (A.P. vii.417; Luz (above, n. 12), 222-223). Consequently, later tradition describes even Meleager as ŒPhoenician¹ (A.E. Gow‹D.L.Page, The Greek Anthology: Hellenistic Epigrams (Oxford, 1965), I. xiv). 24 Meleager¹s alleged floruit (96/95 B.C.E.) corresponds to the post and ante quem dates for his anthology (c. 125‹80 B.C.E.). See: Gow-Page (above, n. 23), I. xv-vi). 25 Diog. L. VI.99. Nonetheless, although Meleager dedicated his anthology to a certain arizalos Diocles (Anth. GR., vii. 315 l. 3), it is far from certain that he is to be identified with the same Diocles of Magnesia. See: Gow-Page (above, n. 23), I. xv-vi. 26 Cf. a frag. of his early satire in Athen., iv.157; and his reference to his 'Menippean Charites' (Anth. Gr., vii. 417.4, 418.6) -- probably a compilation of the Muse and (merry) prose satire like that of his predecessor (Diog. L. vi. 99). On Meleager and Menippus, see: C.A. Trypanis, Greek Poetry (Chicago, 1981), p. 354; Radinger, op. cit. (above, n. 1), 12 ff.; Eugene .P. Kirk, Menippean Satire (1980, N.Y.), xiv ff., 3-5. 27 Cf. Hammerstaedt, in: Goulet-Cazé ‹ Goulet (above, n. 8), 416-418. 28 A work peri thysion (ŒOn Sacrifices¹) is commonly ascribed to him by scholars, although it is not listed in Laertius¹ truncated list of his works (M.-O. Goulet-Cazé, ŒLe premiers Cyniques et la Religion¹ in: Goulet-Cazé ‹ Goulet (above, n. 8), 130-131, 152-153; J. Geffcken, 'Menippos Peri qusIwn', in: Hermes 66. 1931, 347-354). On Cynic criticism of religion, see: Luz (above, n. 14), 45; M. Luz, 'Cynics as Allies of Scepticism', in: L.C. Bargeliotes, Scepticism : Inter-Disciplinary Approaches, Proceedings of Second International Symposium (Athens, 1990), 101-114. 29 Relihan (above, n. 14), esp. cap. 1; Kirk (above, n. 26). 30 Anth. Gr. vii.421 l. 10 (es te gelota kai spoudan - cf. Diog. L. vi. 99). In his satire,he ironically argues that Homer was a fellow-Syrian since his heroes do not eat tabooed fish (Athen., iv.157). Although Meleager looked on himself as ŒSyros¹ (Anth, Gr. vii.419), his philosophy is not nationalistic but cosmopolitan (vii.417). 31 Presumably, his serio-comic satire concerning the Homeric heroes was interlaced with supportive-citations from Homer, if not also with lines of his own invention. 32 Anth, Gr. vii. 417 (Menippeiois syntrochasas Charisin), 418 (Menippeiois eglaisan Charisin). 33 Cf. Hammerstaedt, in: Goulet-Cazé (above, n. 8), 416-418. Although Crates¹ poetic ideal state may have been a forebear of Oneomaus' Republic, Menippus should also be considered part of the same tradition. 34 Regarding Oenomaus' On Philosophy in Homer: see: Suda (Adler) IV. 123 (Adler); J. Hammerstaedt, (above, n. 8), 188); P. Vallette, De Oenomao Cynico (1908, Paris; diss.), 10, 14-15 ff. Elsewhere he makes Homer a stateless wandering Cynic (Luz (above, n. 14), 58). 35 On the inscription ŒGadara favoured by the Muses¹. see: Clermont-Ganneau (above, n. 4), 142 ff. On the high spirits of its inhabitants in the Talmud, see Pesikta Rabbati (Friedmann), c.21 pp. 106-107. Eunapius describes crowds of Iamblichus¹ disciples going to the baths of Gadara on a seasonal visit (horan tou etous; 459 ff.) 36 Gadara had two theatres and a third at its suburbs (Hamath Gader), which were famous for the cultured ambience of their natural baths (Eunap. 459 ff.; E. Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ II (1979; ed. Vermes-Miller), 49 ff., 132-136. 37 See: Y. Meshorer, 'A Ring from Gadara', in: I.E.J (29. 1979), 221-222. 38 On a 'Gadarene Syrian' witch and her wolf charm, see: P. Maas, 'The Philinna Papyrus' in Journal of Hellenic Studies 62.1942, 33-38. On the cultural background, see: Luz (above, n. 1), p. 57 39 I have dealt elsewhere with the relationship between Cynics and the altar of Hecate (Luz, (above, n. 1), pp. 57). 40 Mth. viii. 28 (Gadara); Mk. v.1, Luk. viii.26 (Gerasa; see n. 36 below). See esp. F. Annen, Heil für die Heiden (Frank. Theol. Stud. 20; Frankfurt, 1976), 22-24, 203-206; and notes in The Anchor Bible:- Albright-Mann, Matthew (N.Y., 1971), 101 ff. 41 On background and the tombs see I. Browning, Jerash (London, 1982), 66 ff.; W. Ewing in: The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia II. 1152.