Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T07:57:06.576Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

RECONSTRUCTING ANCIENT CONSTRUCTIONS OF THE ORPHIC THEOGONY: ARISTOTLE, SYRIANUS AND MICHAEL OF EPHESUS ON ORPHEUS’ SUCCESSION OF THE FIRST GODS*

(ON OTF 20 F IV; 98 T I–II; 167 F I, III; 170 F I, II; 174 F I–II; 219 F; 227 F I; 367 F)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 April 2014

Mirjam E. Kotwick
Mirjam E. Kotwick*
Affiliation:
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Munich, Germany
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the last decades Orphic scholarship has found itself in rather fortunate circumstances: there have been not only spectacular finds such as the Derveni Papyrus and the so-called Orphic Gold Tablets, but these texts together with all the other fragments ascribed to the authoritative author-figure Orpheus have been made accessible in the new and extensive edition by Alberto Bernabé (2004–7). Understandably, recent discussions have focussed especially on the new material. Nevertheless, much work remains to be done on those fragments with which we have long been familiar. The present study puts a new complexion on a text long taken as evidence for an Orphic theogony.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 64 , Issue 1 , May 2014 , pp. 75 - 90
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

An earlier version of this paper was given at a colloquium at the University of Heidelberg (Quellentexte antiker Philosophie und ihre Rezeption) in May 2011. I am thankful for the helpful remarks by the audience. I would like to thank Jan N. Bremmer, who discussed the paper with me, for his thoughtful and encouraging comments. I am indebted to Joel B. Itzkowitz for his careful review of an earlier draft, and to Edmond Kotwick, who helped with my English and criticized my paper at its different stages.

References

1 Discovered in 1962, editio princeps: Kouremenos, T., Parássoglou, G.M. and Tsantsanoglou, K., The Derveni Papyrus, edited with Introduction and Commentary (Florence, 2006)Google Scholar.

2 Graf, F. and Johnston, S.I., Ritual Texts for the Afterlife. Orpheus and the Bacchic Gold Tablets (London and New York, 2007)Google Scholar; Bernabé, A. and Cristóbal, A.I. Jiménez San, Instructions for the Netherworld. The Orphic Gold Tablets (Leiden and Boston, 2008)Google Scholar; Tzifopoulos, Y., Paradise Earned: The Bacchic-Orphic Gold Lamellae of Crete (Washington, DC and Cambridge, MA, 2010)Google Scholar; Edmonds, R.G. III, The ‘Orphic’ Gold Tablets and Greek Religion (Cambridge, 2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Bernabé, A. (ed.), Poetae epici graeci. Testimonia et fragmenta. Pars II, Fasc. 1–3 (Munich and Leipzig, 2004–7)Google Scholar, here abbreviated as OTF.

4 Most important for the question of the Orphic theogony/theogonies is West, M.L., The Orphic Poems (Oxford, 1983)Google Scholar. In Bernabé's edition (n. 3), fragments of theogonic content are collected in OTF 1–378.

5 Kouremenos, Parássoglou and Tsantsanoglou (n. 1), 9. It is reasonable to suppose that the commentary it contains and even more so the theogony on which the author is commenting antedate the papyrus by one or two generations. Thus, these verse quotations are likely to be older than those we find in Plato: Pl. Cra. 402b = OTF 22 F; Pl. Phlb. 66c = OTF 25 F I.

6 The significant exception here is the Strasbourg papyrus, which contains formerly unknown verses from Book 1 of Empedocles’ Physics. Editio princeps: A. Martin and O. Primavesi, L'Empédocle de Strasbourg (P.Strasb. gr. Inv. 1665–1666). Introduction, édition et commentaire (Berlin and New York, 1999). Primavesi, O., Empedokles, Physika I. Eine Rekonstruktion des zentralen Gedankengangs (Berlin and New York, 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 See de Jáuregui, M. Herrero, Orphism and Christianity in Late Antiquity (Berlin and New York, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Jourdan, F., Orphée et les chrétiens. La réception du mythe d'Orphée dans la littérature chrétienne grecque des cinq premiers siècles, Tom. I (Paris, 2010)Google Scholar, Tom. II (Paris, 2011).

8 The editor of the Orphic fragments in 1922, Otto Kern, ruled out the possibility of reconstructing even the relatively well-attested so-called Rhapsodic Theogony (Orphicorum fragmenta [Berlin, 1922], 141). Schwabl declared it impossible to attain a clear picture of the different versions and their interdependence: Schwabl, H., ‘Weltschöpfung’, in RE, suppl. IX (1962), 1481Google Scholar: ‘… und es ist wohl überhaupt verkehrt, ein Stemma aller orphischen Theogonien aufstellen zu wollen.’ West (n. 4), 264 boldly places this dictum as motto to his stemma of the Orphic theogonies.

9 Dam. De princ. 123–4 (III.159.17–163.6 Westerink); see OTF 96 T, 20 F, 75 F I.

10 The full title is: Ἱεροὶ Λόγοι ἐν Ῥαψωιδίαις κδ’ (‘Hieroi Logoi in 24 Rhapsodies’). See Bernabé OTF 90–359 with extended bibliography on pp. 97–101.

11 Dam. De princ. 123 (III.160.17 Westerink): εἴπερ μὴ καὶ ὁ αὐτός ἐστιν (‘if they are not the same person’).

12 See Betegh, G., ‘On Eudemus Fr. 150 (Wehrli)’, in Bodnár, I. and Fortenbaugh, W.W. (edd.), Eudemus of Rhodes. Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities, Vol. 11 (New Brunswick and London, 2002), 337–57Google Scholar.

13 Dam. De princ. 123 (III.160.16 Westerink): τοιαύτη μὲν ἡ συνήθης ὀρφικὴ θεολογία.; OTF 90 T, 96 T.

14 Dam. De princ. 124 (III.162.19–23 Westerink) = OTF 20 F I.

15 West's distributions of many fragments to specific (reconstructed) theogonies influenced Bernabé's edition. Cf. Bernabé (n. 3), fasc. 1, VIII and 1. Not only does the order of fragments often mirror West's reconstruction, but also, for instance, the inclusion of 27 ‘new’ fragments of the alleged ‘Cyclic theogony’ found in Apollodorus’ Bibliotheca (Bernabé [n. 3], fasc. 3, 331).

16 West (n. 4), 247–50. A later dating is suggested by Brisson, L., ‘Les théogonies orphiques et le papyrus de Derveni (Notes critiques*)’, RHR 202.4 (1985), 389–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 411–12.

17 On the question of canonical creation myths vs their alternatives in ancient Greece, see Bremmer, J.N., Greek Religion and Culture, the Bible and the Ancient Near East (Leiden, 2008), 1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18 For the Near East parallels of this core plot, see West, M.L., Hesiod, Theogony: Edited with Prolegomena and Commentary (Oxford, 1966), 18–31Google Scholar.

19 Chaos, Eros and Gaia somehow were the first powers (vv. 116–20). Gaia brings forth Ouranos (vv. 126–7).

20 Zeus makes sure more successfully than his father and grandfather that there is no successor, as he devours not only his children, but his pregnant wife as well (Hes. Theog. 897–9).

21 This god is not to be confused with the god Kronos.

22 Does this diversity of roles within one story suggest a conflation of earlier myths, in which Night stood at different positions? Cf. West (n. 4), 208–12. On the different positions of Night in Greek myths, see Bremmer (n. 17), 4–5, 8.

23 The translation follows Ross, W.D., ‘METAPHYSICS’, in Barnes, J., The Complete Works of Aristotle. The Revised Oxford Translation, vol. 2, (Princeton, 1984), 1552–728Google Scholar, at 1724 with some modifications.

24 Cf. Ross, W.D., Aristotle's Metaphysics: A Revised Text with Introduction and Commentary, vol. 2 (Oxford, 1924), 487Google Scholar; West (n. 4), 185. Annas, J., Aristotle's Metaphysics Books M and N: Translated with Introduction and Notes (Oxford, 1976)Google Scholar, 213 offers a different view. She translates the καί without any notification as ‘or’ (125). See also Martinez, T. Calvo, ‘Aristotle, Metaphysics 14.4: a problematic reference to Orphism (OF 20 IV)’, in Herrero de Jáuregui, M. et al. (edd.), Tracing Orpheus: Studies of Orphic Fragments In Honour of Alberto Bernabé (Berlin and Boston, 2011), 39–47Google Scholar, at 46.

25 Cf. the same use of connecting particles in Metaph. A 7, 988a33–4.

26 See also Hom. Il. 14.201 (= 302). Next to Aristotle (cf. also Metaph. A 3, 983b27–30), Plato repeatedly ascribes to Homer a ‘theogony’ with Okeanos as original god (Tht. 152e; Cra. 402b).

27 Hes. Theog. 116–17, tr. G. Most (LCL 57), slightly amended. Cf. Arist. Metaph. A 4, 984b27–9.

28 Kirk, G.S., Raven, J.E. and Schofield, M., The Presocratic Philosophers: A Critical History with a Selection of Texts (Cambridge, 1983 2), 17–18Google Scholar leave it undecided if Aristotle has in mind Homer or more likely a combination of Orpheus and Hesiod.

29 This Damascius tells us: De princ. 124 = OTF 20 F I. See above.

30 Support for this view is provided by the Derveni Papyrus (n. 1). The Orphic theogony that is quoted and commented on depicts Night as ‘nurse of the Gods’ (Col. X, 9–11; Col. XI, 1–3; 10; OTF 6 F). She prophesies to the gods, she is ‘all-speaking’ (πανομφεύουσα, Col. X, 9; OTF 6 F). Ouranos is her son: Οὐρανὸς Εὐφρονίδης, ὃς πρώτισ βασίλευσεν (‘Ouranos, son of Night, who became the first king’, Col. XIV, 6 = OTF 10.2 F).

31 Arist. Metaph. 1071b26 (= OTF 20 F II), 1072a7 (= OTF 20 F III), 1072a19–21.

32 Cf. Metaph. A 2, 982b17–19; A 3, 983b27–984a3; B 4, 1000a5–19; Λ 8, 1074a38–b14; Λ 10, 1075b24–7. See also Palmer, J.A., ‘Aristotle on the ancient theologians’, Apeiron 33 (2000), 181–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

33 Cic. Nat. D. 1.107 = OTF 889 T.

34 See Brisson, L., How Philosophers Saved Myths: Allegorical Interpretation and Classical Mythology (Chicago and London, 2004), 88CrossRefGoogle Scholar and id., ‘Syrianus et l'Orphisme’, in Longo, A. (ed.), Syrianus et la métaphysique de l'antiquité tardive (Naples, 2009), 463–97Google Scholar, at 465–72.

35 For the Neoplatonic school of Athens, whose head Syrianus was, the ‘theologos’ Orpheus outweighed the authority of the mythical authors Homer and Hesiod; see Brisson (n. 34 [2004]), 88.

36 The term theologoi designates in Syrianus either Orpheus himself (26.24) or a group of mythical poets that includes Orpheus (41.29; 88.19; 133.23; 182.2; 182.26–7, 31).

37 The pronoun τóν is problematic, because it is masculine and cannot go together with τὸ σκῆπτρον, which could conceivably have been in the preceding verse. Accordingly, Usener conjectures τοῦτό θ’ for τὸν τόθ’. Simplicius, however, quotes the line In Phys. 641.32 Diels with τοῖον instead of τὸν τόθ’.

38 The pun on the etymology of Phanes’ name is found in other Orphic fragments: OTF 126 F, 143,8 F, 149 F.

39 The translation follows Dillon, J. and O'Meara, D., Syrianus. On Aristotle Metaphysics 13–14 (London, 2006), 169–70Google Scholar, with modifications.

40 On the one hand, a critical approach to Aristotle's Metaphysics is to be expected from a Neoplatonist, especially in the case of a commentary on Books M and N, which contain a critique of the theory of principles and numbers put forward by Plato and the Academy. On the other hand, following Porphyry and Iamblichus, Neoplatonic interpretations are eager to harmonize the doctrines of Plato not only with Aristotle but also with Presocratic philosophers and Orpheus as well. See Perkams, M., ‘Das Prinzip der Harmonisierung verschiedener Traditionen in den neuplatonischen Kommentaren zu Platon und Aristoteles’, in Ackeren, M. v. and Müller, J. (edd.), Antike Philosophie verstehen – Understanding Ancient Philosophy (Darmstadt, 2006), 333–8Google Scholar. Syrianus, however, has a more ‘nuanced view’ (Sorabji, R., ‘The ancient commentators on Aristotle’, in id. [ed.], Aristotle Transformed: The Ancient Commentators and their Influence [London, 1990], 1–30Google Scholar, at 3) on this matter: in his introduction to his commentary on Books M and N (80.4–81.6), Syrianus pays great respect to Aristotle's achievements in logic as well as ethics and physics. When it comes to theological, i.e. metaphysical matters, Syrianus strongly disagrees with Aristotle's ‘failing and insufficient’ approach (80.27–9). See also H.D. Saffrey, ‘How did Syrianus regard Aristotle?’, in Sorabji (this note), 173–9 and C. Helmig, ‘“The truth can never be refuted” – Syrianus’ view(s) on Aristotle reconsidered’, in Longo (n. 34), 347–80.

41 That Ouranos is called the ‘first king’ is somewhat disturbing. It might be declared a remnant of an older version in which Ouranos indeed was the first king. See West (n. 4), 235; cf. Rusten, J.S., ‘Interim notes on the papyrus from Derveni’, HSPh 89 (1985), 121–40Google Scholar, at 135 n. 31.

42 This may be due to the fact that treatment of Kronos is not necessary for Syrianus’ purpose, to the fact that Aristotle does not name Kronos in his account, or to a combination of both.

43 According to Plotinus (5.3.14), statements about the One can only be made negatively: καὶ γὰρ λέγομεν, ὃ μὴ ἔστιν· ὃ δέ ἐστιν, οὐ λέγομεν.

44 See Syrian. In Metaph. 9.37–10.7; 43.12–14.

45 Χρόνον δὲ καὶ Ὀρφεὺς τὸ πρῶτον ἐκάλει (‘Orpheus too called Time the first’).

46 As the words after the lacuna in the text (182.23–4) suggest, Syrianus also makes a connection to the Pythagorean principles. The lacuna can be easily filled through consideration of parallel passages of his commentary. See especially 9.27–10.15. On the agreement of the first principles of Plato and the Pythagoreans see 83.12–18, 141.13–15; Orpheus is explicitly included in 10.10–11, 11.35–6.

47 We can infer the great importance that the Orphic texts as well as the Chaldean Oracles had for Syrianus from a testimony by Marinus (Vita Procli, 27; Saffrey, H.D. and Segonds, A.-Ph. [edd.], Marinus: Proclus ou Sur le bonheur [Paris, 2001], 32Google Scholar). Syrianus’ student, Proclus, transmits to us by far the greatest amount of fragments of an Orphic theogony.

48 Bernabé on OTF 167 (p. 155): ‘errat Syrianus putans Aristotelem falli; immo Stagirites non legebat Rhapsodias sed Theogoniam quam “Eudemiam” vocamus, ubi non narrabatur Noctem reginam fuisse’.

49 See e.g. Theog. 476 (Κρόνῳ βασιλῆι) and 486 (θεῶν προτέρων βασιλῆι).

50 Aristotle's statement that the theologians ‘depict the rulers of the world as changing’ seems to imply that he was aware of the fact that Zeus was not the only king.

51 West (n. 4), 232: ‘The poet evidently referred to the sceptre several times, and attached some importance to the system of six kingships of which it was a formal symbol.’ Admittedly, West's conclusion is not solely based on the evidence that Syrianus provides in our passage.

52 K. Praechter, ‘Rezension von CAG XXII 2’, GGA 168.2 (1906), 861–907, at 863 n. 3 and 882–907. Luna, C., Trois études sur la tradition des commentaires anciens à la Métaphysique d'Aristote (Leiden, Boston and Cologne, 2001), 53–71Google Scholar; Appendix III on pages 197–212. For our present purpose the question as to whether or not the writer of the inauthentic part of the commentary was Michael of Ephesus is secondary; it is enough that there is general agreement among scholars that the author was not Alexander of Aphrodisias. Further, this Ps.-Alexander (whom I identify in this article as Michael) depends on the information he found in Syrianus’ commentary to this Aristotelian passage, so that we have a terminus post quem for the author of the Ps.-Alexandrian commentary.

53 See especially Luna (n. 52), 1–71. Regarding the discussion of our passages see 7–12.

54 For a discussion of different arguments against this view see Luna (n. 52), 37–8 and passim.

55 See Gruppe, O., Die griechischen Culte und Mythen in ihren Beziehungen zu den orientalischen Religionen, Erster Band, Einleitung (Leipzig, 1887), 640–1Google Scholar: ‘Alexander von Aphrodisias [i.e. Ps.-Alexander = Michael] … giebt den Auszug aus einer orphischen Theogonie, welche sich zwar mit den beiden von Damaskios excerpierten nahe berührt, aber mit keiner identisch zu sein scheint.’ Guthrie, W.K.C., Orpheus and Greek Religion: A Study of the Orphic Movement (Princeton, 1952; new edition with a foreword by L.J. Alderink, Princeton, 1993)Google Scholar, at 74 follows Gruppe in his assertion, but he takes a step forward (pp. 103–4) in his analysis of the material provided by ‘Alexander’. Despite the obvious and even enumerated (p. 103) inconsistencies in Michael's account (see below), Guthrie concludes: ‘It is obvious without any further argument that the existence at least of these two [i.e. the one mentioned by Plato and the one mentioned by Michael] types of Orphic theogony is strongly attested by the passage of Alexander …’ That Gruppe's position is still influential can be seen, for example, in the fact that L.R. Lanzillotta includes in his overview a theogony ‘preserved by Alexander of Aphrodisias’; see Lanzillotta, L.R., ‘Orphic cosmogonies in the Pseudo-Clementines? Textual relationship, character and sources of Homilies 6.3–13 and Recognitions 10.17–19.30’, in Bremmer, J. (ed.), The Pseudo-Clementines. Studies on the Apocryphal Literature (Leuven, 2010), 115–41Google Scholar, at 137. West (n. 4), 185 is aware of the fact that this part of the Metaphysics-commentary is not by the real Alexander, but the twelfth-century author Michael. He asserts, however, that in the first part of Michael's account there are traces to be found of an Orphic theogony of old origin.

56 We find the wrong denomination ‘Alex. Aphrod.’ (instead of ‘Ps.-Alex.’ or ‘Michael Ephesius’) in the following fragments: OTF 98, 167 III, 170 I, 174 I and 367. In OFT 98, 170 and 174, the apparatus which enumerates the authors who quote the verse, Michael's text is given before the text of Syrianus. This invites the wrong conclusion that Syrianus is depending on Michael's (here incorrectly called ‘Alex. Aphrod.’) text, whereas, as we will see, it is the other way round. The same criticism applies to OTF 367. Admittedly, Bernabé marks this testimony as spurious by putting it among the group of fragments ‘quorum origo incerta’ and he is aware of the fact that the author is not the authentic Alexander by calling him ‘Alexander’ (with quotation marks) in the apparatus. As we will see, however, the supposedly Orphic theogony presented in this testimony is no Orphic theogony at all.

57 Simply presenting two distinct Orphic theogonies, of course, would not cause any problems. But we expect the author explicitly to state them as distinct. Michael never gives us any hint of being aware of the fact that he offers two different versions in his commentary.

58 This view has been suggested by Schwabl (n. 8), 1469, who calls it a ‘misunderstanding of the Aristotelian passage’ (‘Missverständnis der Aristotelesstelle’), Zeller, E., Die Philosophie der Griechen in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung, Erster Teil, Erste Abteilung, 6th edition (Leipzig, 1919, reprint: Darmstadt, 1963)Google Scholar, 136 n. 1. And, more recently, Luna (n. 52), 9. Cf. also Martinez (n. 24), 45.

59 West (n. 4), 185; Luna (n. 52), 9.

60 Syrianus makes clear that Phanes is first, Night second and Ouranos third (182.12–17); Kronos is implicitly counted as fourth, because Zeus is explicitly called as fifth (182.18–21).

61 The so-called Hymn to Zeus (OTF 31 F; 243 F; 245 V), which depicts Zeus as world-eating and then world-generating, calls him first, last and middle: ‘Zeus was born first, Zeus last, god of the bright bolt | Zeus is the head, Zeus the middle, from Zeus are all things made’ (tr. West [n. 4], 89).

62 See Luna (n. 52), 10–12.

63 Luna (n. 52), 10–11. These facts make it strikingly clear that Michael depends on Syrianus and not Syrianus on Michael.

64 Not much can be said about Michael's attitude towards myth as we know little about him in general. See H. Mercken, ‘The Greek commentators on Aristotle's Ethics’, in Sorabji (n. 40), 407–43, at 429–36.

65 West (n. 4), 185: ‘But we must also reckon with the possibility that it was a different, earlier theogony.’

66 West (n. 4), 185 n. 20 with reference to Guthrie (n. 55), 103: ‘It would follow, I think, that this portion of ‘Alexander’ is of early origin, from the true Alexander, possibly reflecting a still earlier exegetical tradition if there was one.’ Moraux, P. (†) comes to the same conclusion, ‘Die genuinen Bücher des ”Metaphysik”-Kommentars’, in Wiesner, J. (ed.), Der Aristotelismus bei den Griechen. Von Andronikos bis Alexander von Aphrodisias. Dritter Band: Alexander von Aphrodisias (Berlin and New York, 2001), 423–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 424–5 n. 5.

67 See Luna (n. 52), 37–45; 70–1 and her diagram in 190. The situation is different in the case of Syrianus, who had access to the commentary of the real Alexander. See Luna (n. 52), 72–98; see also O'Meara, D. and Dillon, J., Syrianus. On Aristotle Metaphysics 3–4 (London, 2008), 8Google Scholar. Thus, we find in this another reason why Michael followed Syrianus in spite of their divergent opinions on Aristotle: he thought he could find some traces of the real Alexander in Syrianus’ commentary.

68 Alexander's disregard for mythological accounts becomes blatantly obvious at In Metaph. 219.6–10 Hayduck, where he interprets Aristotle's neglect of the explanation offered by the theologians (Metaph. B 4, 1000a9–19) as disdain. Alexander says (219.9–10): ‘The expression “the subtleties of the mythologists” [1000a18–19] is equivalent in meaning to “betraying the truth with myths”.’

69 Alexander brings three lines of Empedocles in 135.15–17 (= DK 31B96.1–3, also quoted by Aristotle in De an. 410a4–6), and one line by Hesiod in 421.11 (= Theog. 517). We leave aside the (anonymous) epigram about Hippon, which Alexander quotes (27.3–4 Hayduck).

70 Alexander, In Aristot. Meteor. 66.13–15 Hayduck = OTF 23 F II, III, IV.

71 Alexander stands far apart from a commentator like Syrianus, who approaches the Aristotelian text already with the doctrinal scheme in which Orpheus plays a crucial part in the development of philosophy up to Plato.

72 R. Edmonds III, ‘Review of Bernabé 2004’, in BMCRev (2004), 2004.12.29.