Studies on the Derveni Papyrus

OXFORD

Studies on the Derveni Papyrus

Edited by

Andre Laks and Glenn W. Most

Studies on the Derveni Papyrus edited by

Andre Laks and

Glenn W. Most

CLARENDON PRESS· OXFORD 1997

Studies on the Derveni Papyrus

This book has been printed digitally and produced in a standard design in order to ensure its continuing availability

OXFORD UNlVERSITY PRESS

Great C1arendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP Oxford University Press is a department ofthe University ofOxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide in Oxford New York Athens Auckland Bangkok Bogota Buenos Aires Cape Town Chennai Dar es Salaam Delhi Florence Hong Kong Istanbul Karachi Kolkata Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melboume Mexico City Mumbai Nairobi Paris Silo Paulo Shanghai Singapore Taipei Tokyo Toronto Warsaw with associated companies in Berlin Ibadan Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries Published in the United States by Oxford University Press Inc., New York © Andre LaksjGlenn Most 1997

The moral rights ofthe author have been asserted Database right Oxford University Press (maker) Reprinted 2001 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries conceming reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this book in any other binding or cover and you must impose this same condition on anyacquirer ISBN 0-19-815032-6

Contents

Notes on Contributors

vii

Introduction ANDRE LAKS AND GLENN W. MOST

1

l. TRAN SLA TION

A Provision al Translation of the Derveni Papyrus ANDRE LAKS AND GLENN W. MOST

9

II. GENERAL ESSA YS

1. The Derveni Papyrus MARIA SERENA FUNGlIT

25

2. Cosmology as Initiation vs. the Critique of Orphic Mysteries 39

DIRK OBBINK

3. Was Euthyphro the Author of the Dcrveni Papyrus? CHARLES H. KAHN

55

4. Figures of Sexuality and Initiatory Transition in the Derveni Theogony and its Commentary 65

CLAUDE CALAME

5. Hocus-Pocus in East and West. Theogony, Ritual, and the Tradition of Esoteric Commentary 81

MARTIN L. WEST

III. SPECIFIC COLUMNS

6. The First Columns of the Derveni Papyrus and their Religious Significance K. TSANTSANOGLOU

93

7. Herac!itus in the Derveni Papyrus DAVID SIDER

129

vi

Contents

8. Chronos in Column XII of the Derveni Papyrus LUC BRISSON

149

9. Star Wars or One Stable World? A Problem of Presocratic Cosmogony (PDerv. Co!. XXV) WALTER BURKERT

167

Bibliography of the Derveni Papyrus MARIA SERENA FUNGHI

175

Index of Passages in the Derveni Papyrus Index of Passages in Other Ancient Authors Index of Names and Subjects Index of Greek Words

187 191 202 204

Notes on Contributors

Luc BRISSON is a researcher at the CNRS (Paris, Prance). He has published books and artieies on the history of philosophy (Plato, Platonism) and on religion in ancient Greece and the Roman Empire (on the notion of myth, on thc myth of Teiresias and on Orphism). W ALTER BURKERT is Professor of Classics at the University of Zürich. He is the author of many studies on Greek religion and philosophy, including Lore and Science in Ancient Pythagoreanism (1972), Greek Religion (1985), and Ancient Mystery CuIts (1987).

CLAUDE CALAME is Professor of Greek Language and Literature at the University of Lausanne. His books include Les Choeurs de jeune filles en Grece archafque (1977), Le RecH en Grece ancienne (1986), Thesee et l'imaginaire athenien (1990), I greci e I'eros (1992); he has published an edition and commentary on Alcman (1983). MARIA SERENA FUNCH! is Senior Researcher on Papyrology at the Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa. She has edited literary papyri, mainly philosophical, and she is on the editorial staft' of the Corpus dei Papid Filosofici Greci e Latini. CHARLES H. KAHN is Professor of Philosophy at the University of Pennsylvania, and author of Anaximander and the Origins of Greek Cosmology (1960), The Verb 'Be' in Ancient Greek (1973), The Art and Thought of Heraclitus (1979), and Plato and the Socratic Dialogue (1996). ANDRE LAKS is Professor of Ancient Philosophy at the University Charles de Gaulle - Lille III, Prance. He has published a number of artieles on early Greek philosophy, on Plato's political philosophy, on the history of thc reception of Plato in the nineteenth century, and on Hellenistic philosophy. He has edited Diogenes of Apollonia (Lille, 1983) and, in collaboration with Glenn W. Most, Theophrastus' Metaphysics for the Bude collection. Most recently he

viii

Notes on Contributors

has co-edited, with John Glucker, a collection of essays entitled Jacob Bernays: Un philologue juif(Lille, 1996). GLENN W. MOST is Professor of Classics at the University of Heidelberg and of Sodal Thought at the University of Chicago. He has edited and published books and articles on Greek and Latin poetry, on ancient and modern philosophy, and on the classical tradition, including The Measures of Praise: Structure and Function in Pindar's Second Pythian and Seventh Nemean Odes (1985) and Theophrastus' Metaphysics, co-edited with Andre Laks for the collection Bude (1993). DIRK OBBINK lectures on Papyrology and Greek Literature at the University of Oxford. He has written numerous articles in professional journals and collected volumes on Greek literature, religion, and philosophy and is the author, with C. A. Faraone, of Magika Hiera: Ancient Greek Magie and Religion (1991) and the editor, with P. A. Vander Waerdt, of The SchooI of Hellas: Essays on Greek History, Archaeology and Literature by A. E. Raubitschek (1991). DAVID SIDER, Professor of Classics at Fordham University, writes on Greek poetry and philosophy. He is the author of The Fragments of Anaxagoras (1981) and The Epigrams of Philodemus (1997). KYRIAKOS TSANTSANOGLOU is Professor of Greek Literature at the University of Thessaloniki. He is the author of a book on the Lexicon of Photius (1967) and has edited the new fragments of Greek literature found in that text (1984). He has written a number of articles on fragmentarily preserved Greek literature and is now preparing an edition of the Derveni papyrus. MARTIN L. WEST is a Senior Research Fellow at All Souls College, Oxford. He is the author of many editions, translations, and studies relating to early Greek poetry and philosophy, including The Orphic Poems (1983) and Ancient Greek Music (1992).

Introduction ANDRE LAKS AND GLENN W. MOST

If the Derveni papyrus has been surrounded by an aura of mystery

ever since its discovery a third of a century ago, this has been due not only to its contents-theological. eschatological. allegorical, cosmological-but also to the circumstances of its delayed diffusion. For the first two decades after its discovery, no text of the papyrus was generally available at alt; the unauthorized publication of a transcription in Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 47 (1982) after p. 300 strained relations within the scholarly community but provided a basis-albeit one whose correctness could not be checked-for a growing number of published studies and for a far greater number of research projects. This situation may help to explain why, despite the obvious need for a public forum in which scholars who shared interests and questions could discuss their views with one another and foster the understanding of the Derveni papyrus, there were, as far as we know, no conferences on this extraordinary document during these years. With this in mind, we organized a colloquium at Princeton University on 17-18 April 1993 which sought to bring together a number of scholars who had worked on the Derveni Papyrus and to lay the basis for a more fruitful international collaboration in the future. Funding for the conference was provided by the following programmes and departments at Princeton University: the Council for the Humanities (Prof. V. Brombert), the Prentice Fund 01' the Department of Classics (Prof. E. Fantham). the Program in Hellenic Studies (Prof. D. Gondicas), the Late Antiquity Seminar (Prof. P. Brown), and the Program in the Ancient World (Prof. E. J. Champlin). We thank all those involved tor their generosity, which made this conference possible.

2

Andre Laks and Glenn W. Most

The following scholars delivered papers at the conference (they are listed here in alphabeticalorder):

J. Bollack, 'L'lkriture initiatique et son exegese'. L. Brisson, 'On Col. XII and the Status of Chronos'. W. Burkert, 'Star Wars or one Stable World? A Problem of Presocratic Cosmogony (Col. XXV)'. C. Calame, 'Figures de la sexualite et transition initiatique dans la theogonie de Derveni et son commentaire'. C. Kahn, 'On the Authorship of the Derveni P.apyrus'. R. Lamberton, 'The Interpretive Repertory of the Derveni Commentator' . A. Lebedev, 'The Derveni Treatise as a Document of Sophistic Atheism. With some Remarlcs on the Authorship'. D. Obbink, 'Cosmology as Initiation vs. the Critique of Orphic Mysteries (Col. XX) in the Derveni Papyrus'. D. Sider, 'On the Heraclitus Material in the Derveni Papyrus'. K. Tsantsanoglou, 'On the First Columns and their Religious Significance' . M. L. West, 'Hocus-Pocus in East and West. Theogony, Ritual and the Tradition of Esoteric Commentary'. The risks involved in such an undertaking were evident. But all the participants agreed that the colloquium had been successful in clearing the lines of communication among the members of the scholarly community working on this text and in laying a sound basis for future research upon it. Hence the decision to make available arecord of the colloquium by publishing a collection of papers. But the present volume, though it arises from the Princeton colloquium, is not simply a reflection of it. On the one hand, for various reasons it turned out not to be possible to include in this book all the papers that were delivered on this occasion; to those scholars who enriched the conference by their contributions but who are not represented here we express our thanks. On the other hand, we have added a number of texts to the present volume which were not discussed at the Princeton colloquium but which we hope will make it of greater usefulness to readers. These are (1) a general presentation of the Derveni papyrus (which will serve as an introduction for readers not familiar with the material) and (2) an

Introduction

3

(updated and revised) bibliography of scholarly studies of it,l both prepared by Maria Serena Funghi for the Corpus dei papiri filosofici; and (3) a translation of the Derveni papyrus, prepared by the editors of this volume and revised on the basis of the suggestions of Prof. K. Tsantsanoglou. In this last regard, as in all others, Prof. Tsantsanoglou has provided generous assistance without which this volume would certainly have been less useful and might not even have been possible. Not only did he present the missing columns of the papyrus in his contribution to the Princeton colloquium (thereby permitting the new, definitive numbering of the columns which is followed here). What is more, he has provided an indispensable authorization for the present volume by carefully checking all the articles in it against the readings of the papyrus; and his many important suggestions for the translation presented here mean that this volume is now able to supply a more secure basis for working upon the papyrus than the only edition in Greek currently available. The editors of the present volume hope that it will not only provide scholars a more seeure foundation for work on the papyrus but: also embody a spirit of productivc international collaboration which will continue in thc coming years. This volume is necessarily heterogeneous in character. Wc are referring not only to the evident differences in approaches and views among the various scholars represented here--these testify, after all, to the extraordinary richness of this document. But beyond that, its various parts represent slightly different stages in the development of scholarship on this text and are based upon slightly different textual material. The contributions of Maria Serena Funghi were prepared before the Princeton colloquium and could not take account of the material and interpretations presented on that occasion; the articles by the various authors were written before the translation by the present editors and without full knowledge of the additional material provided by Prof. Tsantsanoglou's suggestions. Even if it had been possible, we think it would have been inadvisable to revise all the contributions in this volume so as to unify them in this regard. 1'0 have tried to do so would have falsified a scholarly 1 Works eited in the papers in this volume are either provided with full bibliographieal information on first occurrenee or, if they are primarily eoncerned with the Derveni papyrus, are cited in abbreviated form (author -- date) with referenee to this bibliography.

4

Andre Laks and Glenn W. Most

situation which is extremely fluid and heterogeneous, and which is no less interesting and productive for this reason--quite the contrary. The contributions collected here, whether they have a general character or focus primarily upon the interpretation of a single column, indicate some of the many kinds of questions to which the Derveni papyrus lends itself. On the basis of their many agreements and divergences, we might suggest in conclusion some further possible lines of research. The discovery of the Derveni papyrus confirmed a widespread scholarly expectation, but it did so in an unforeseeable way. A number of pieces of evidence had suggested the existence at a relatively early date of allegorical interpretations of a 'philosophical' nature, whether their perspective was physical or moraL Little information on Theagenes or the circle of Anaxagoras was available, but that little was confirmed by what we knew about the Sophists, in particular via Plato. No work of this kind, however, had survived. The Derveni papyrus permitted scholars to glimpse for the first time directly and concretely a literary genre to which access had previously only been indirect and abstract. But this confirrnation involved two surprises: that it was Orpheus who was involved rather than Homer, and that the physical allegoresis deployed was not worked through for its own sake but coexisted with, indeed was in the service of a project which was religious, and more particularly initiatory, in character. The problem of establishing a connection between allegorical rationalization and eschatalogical initiation was linked with the difficulty of understanding the relation between the two parts of which the text seems to be composed: the first six, very incompletely surviving columns articulate a set of religious beliefs, while the remaining twenty-one columns constitute a sustained exercise in allegorical exegesis, apparently interrupted only once, in col. xx, by the voice of the mystagogue. Hence the first question that arises is that of the genre of this text. Once the first surprise had passed, it turned out to be rather less difficult to suggest an answer to this question than might have been expected. Indeed. a general consensus seems to have developed among scholars. including a number of the authors in the present volume. that. at least within the cultural horizon to which this document belongs. initiation and exegesis. so far from being opposed to one another. are two sides ofthe same coin. On the one hand. the

Jntroduction

5

dose linking of religious practice to a specilic text is a distinctive characteristic of the Orphic movement. On the other hand, in the present case exegetical expertise seems to serve as a particularly effective instrument of initiation within wh at seems to be a highly specific variety of Orphic religious ritual, since it requires both a sophisticated kind of knowledge (that provided by the cosmoontological systems of treatises On nature) and refined interpretative techniques. This might explain why textual exegesis of the sort performed here could stand in contrast to other, competing, contemporary initiatory practices, as is implied by the intra-professional polemic of col. xx. Assuming that, within the sophisticated version of Orphism of which the Derveni author is the spokesman, religious initiation takes the form of a rationalizing exegesis 01' the episodes of an Orphic theogony set into systematic relation with the episodes of a late 'Presocratic' kind of physical cosmology, the interpreter faces a series of precise tasks: (1) to reconstruct the cosmology to which reference is being made as coherently and in as much detail as possible; (2) to evaluate the exegetical techniques which permit the passage from the theogonie poem to this cosmology; (3) to investigate the possibility that, despite the apparent arbitrariness 01' the allegoresis, more fundamental affinities might link Orphic theogonies on the one hand and physical cosmologies on the other; and (4) to reach a deeper understanding of the relationship between the two parts of the papyrus, wh ich are linked with one another at least formally through the quotation from Heraditus. Earlier scholarship, and same of the contributions in the present volume, have provided valuable material for answering the first two questions, though much remains to be done before a satisfactory picture can emerge; on the other hand, the last two questions have perhaps not yet sufficiently engaged scholars. But beyond the immanent interpretation 01' this document itselfwhich will rightly continue to exercise scholarly ingenuity and patience-the circumstances in which the papyrus was found raise further questions whose answers can as yet barely be imagined. Why did some man in a Macedonian villa ge in the fourth century Be apparently choose not only to have the text of this papyrus accompany him in his tomb, but to have it burned together with him, thereby strengthening even further the connection between text and ritual already present--if the interpretation sketched above is

6

Andre Laks and Glenn W. Most

correct-within the very practice of initiatory interpretation? Of course, we can only speculate here, but it is very tempting to suggest a connection between the importance accorded the heat of fire in the Derveni cosmology on the one hand and the choice of cremation for the dead man on the other. A believer in Orphism who had been strongly infIuenced by Heraclitus' views on the sun might weIl have found a particular significance in this type of burial even if in this period it was fairly common in Macedonia anyway. That is, the element of fire might itself provide the fundamental link between the first part of the papyrus, its second part, and the circumstance of its incineration. Such a hypo thesis might find some support in the first part of the text, if the apparent deictic adjective at col. III. 6 ('beneath this mound') can be interpreted as referring to the very location of this burial mound, beneath which the ashes of this pious man and of his precious book would one day be found. This leads to a final set of questions regarding the kind of community for which this text was intended. Was it much influenced by Oriental religious practices, and if so by ones imported recently or at a much earlier date, or is it rather to be understood within the context of indigenous Greek traditions? How permeable were this group's boundaries with regard to the society at large? Were there other such groups, and if so what relations did they have with one another? What was the social structure of such an interpretative community, and what were the relations between the exegete, the initiates, the other members, and the text or texts which bound them all? What was the relation between the author of the text and the man buried with it? For what readership was it intended? The rough, often asyndetic style of the treatise might suggest that it was used only internally within such a community and was not meant for wider dissemination; yet Philodemus seems to know our text via Philochorus, who apparently quotes it. Might recent work on such interpretative communities as the ones implied by the texts of Hermes Trismegistus which circulated in Egypt several centuries later ofTer a model for understanding this group? Fortunately, many questions remain open.

1. TRANSLATION

1

A Provision al Translation of the Derveni Papyrus ANDRE LAKS AND GLENN W. MOST

This translation cannot claim to be definitive; it merely represents our best understanding of the text as it is currently available. Our views do not necessarily coincide with those of the other authors in the present volume, and we have not modified their translations to agree with our own. We have added as little as possible in the way of explanatory material in parentheses; in the footnotes we have suggested a few further possibilities. K. Tsantsanoglou very kindly agreed to check the first version of our translation and also communicated to us per litt. a number of suggestions based upon his own supplements to the papyrus (indicated in the notes with the abbreviation Ts.); we have benefited greatly from his generosity and gratefully acknowledge his help. We have also derived help from the two unpublished English translations we know of. by R. Lamberton and by D. Obbink. and from the unpublished French translation by J. Bollack. Our translations of the various columns are based on the following Greek texts: new number

ZPE 47 (1982) number

I

II fr. B fr. A 1 1I JII

III

IV V VI VII VIII

IV 1

basis for the translation

Tsantsanoglou's article in this book Tsantsanoglou's article in this book Tsantsanoglou's article in this book Tsantsanoglou's article in this book Tsantsanoglou's article in this book Tsantsanoglou's article in this book Tsantsanoglou's article in this book ZPEl+Ts.

Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 47 (J 982), after p. 300.

10

Andre Laks and Glenn W. Most

IX X XI XII

V VI VII VIII

XIII XIV XV XVI XVII XVIII XIX XX

IX X XI XII XIII XIV XV XVI

XXI XXII

XVII XVIII

XXIII XXIV XXV

XIX XX XXI

XXVI

XXII

ZPE+Ts. ZPE+Ts. ZPE+ Ts. Brisson's article in this book, checked by Tsantsanoglou ZPE+Ts. ZPE+Ts. ZPE+Ts. ZPE+Ts. ZPE+Ts. ZPE+Ts. ZPE+ Ts. Obbink's article in this book, checked by Tsantsanoglou ZPE+Ts. Obbink's article in this baak, checked by Tsantsanoglou ZPE+Ts. ZPE+Ts. Burkert's article in this baak, checked by Tsantsanaglou ZPE + Ts.

CoL I ... each ... · .. of the Erinyes ... Col. II

· .. Erinyes ... of the Erinyes ... they honour ... souls are 2 • • • libations in droplets ... brings honours ... to each some kind of bird · .. fitted to the music .. . Col. III

· . . for each a daimon becomes . . . utterly destroyed . . . daimones which beneath this mound 3 ••• And they are called servants of the gods ... they are, in exactly the same way as unjust men ... and they are responsible ... such as (masc. pL) ... Or: 'are souls'. Or, writing 0[: 'the "daimones" beneath this mound', The text is uncertain; the apparent absence of the definite article is surprising (see below, p, 106), 2

3

A Translation of the Derveni Papyrus

11

CoI. IV The man (who alters?) what has been laid down ... to give rather than he harms (?) ... of chance ... not ... to take. Is it not for these reasons that the cosmos possesses order? In the same way. Heraclitus. chan ging the common views. overturns his own. he who said. speaking in the same way as a myth-teller: 4 The sun according to its own nature is a human foot in width. not exceeding its boundaries. For if it goes outside its own width. the Erinyes. helpers of Justice. will find it out.

· .. would make a transgression ... of justice ...

CoI. V · .. consulting an orade ... they consult an orade ... for them. we go into the oracular shrine in order to ask. on behalf of those seeking oracular answers. if it is right ... the terrors of Hades. why are they distrustful? Not understanding dreams. nor any of the other real things. on the basis of what kinds of examples would they have trust? For overcome both by fault and by samething else. pleasure. 5 they neither lmow nor trust. For distrust is the same as ignorance. For if they neither know nor understand. it is not possible that they would have trust even6 seeing ... distrust ... appears ...

CoI. VI · .. prayers and sacrifices assuage the souls. and the incantation of the magoi is able to change 7 the daimones when they get in the way. Daimones in the way are enemies to souls. This is why the magoi perform the sacrifice. just as if they were paying a penalty. And on the offerings they pour water and milk. fra m wh ich they also make the libations. And they sacrifice innumerable and many-knobbed cakes. because the souls too are innumerable. Initiates make preliminary 4 Our translation is based upon a text that combines suggestions by Sider (see below, p. 129) and Tsantsanoglou (see below, p. 94): ÖU1T

'1]' 5 Or: 'both by fault and by another kind of pleasure'. Ts. suggests 'by sin as weIl as by pleasure'. 6 Or: 'and'. 7 Or: 'keep away'.

12

Andre Laks and Glenn W. Most

sacrifices to the Eumenides in the same way as the magoi do. For the Eumenides are souls. For these reasons anyone who is going to sacrifice to gods first ... a kind of bird ... and the ... and they are · .. and as many as (fern. pi.) ... Coi. VII · .. a hymn saying sound and lawful things. For ... with the poem. And the true nature 8 of the words cannot be said even though they are spoken. The poem is an alien one and riddling for human beings. But Orpheus intended by means of it to say not contentious riddles, but rather great things in riddles. Indeed, he is uttering a holy discourse, and from the first all the way to the last word, as he makes clear in the well-chosen 9 verse too: for having bidden them to put doors to their ears he says that he is not legislating for the many . . . those who are pure in hearing according to . . . in the following ... Col. VIII · .. has been made clear in this verse: who were born from Zeus the mighty king.

And how he begins he makes clear in these words: Zeus, when from his father the prophesied rule And strength in his hands he took and the glorious daimon.

People do not notice that these words are transposed, and that they (reaIly) are lO in the following way: 'Zeus on the one hand when he took the strength from his father and the glorious daimon.' In Il this way it is necessary not to understand that Zeus . . . but he takes the strength ... contrary to prophecies ... for by this ... thinking necessary ... and knowing ... 8 Le. the full force? Reading ,p6]aLv rather than A6]aLV (pace Tsantsanoglou below, p.120). 9 Ts. suggests 'easily recognizable'; cf. Tsantsanoglou below. p. 124. 10 '€a]TLv is almost certain' (Ts.). 11 Ts. suggests the following translation of the rest of the column: 'And in this word-order (OVTW]IJ' €XOVTa) , the predominant meaning is (E1TLKpa]T.t impersonally) not that Zeus hears from his father (TOU 7TUTp]
A Translation of the Derveni Papyrus

13

Col. IX So he made hirn eome from the strongest thing, just like a son from his father. 12 Those who do not understand the meaning of the words think that Zeus took from his father the strength and the daimon. Now, knowing that fire,13 if it is mixed with the other things, disturbs the things that are and prevents them from eombining on aeeount of its heating, he ehanges it 14 so that it was able, onee it was ehanged, not to prevent the things that are from solidifying. Whatevcr is kindled 1s is dominated, and onee it is dominated it is mixed with the other things. But16 he gave a riddling meaning to the expression 'he took them in his hands' just as to all the rest · .. knows most eertain . . . strongly he said that Zeus . . . daimon just as ... strong.

Col. X and to say. For it is not possible to say without uttering; and he eonsidered saying and uttering to be the same thing; and 'saying' and 'teaehing' have the same meaning, for it is not possible to teaeh without saying whatever is taught with words, and teaehing is eonsidered to consist in saying. Therefore teaehing was not . . .17 from saying, nor saying from uttering, but 'uttering', 'saying', and 'teaehing' have the same meaning. Thus nothing prevents 'allpronouncing'18 and 'teaehing all things' from being the same thing. 'Nurse 19 .. .', beeause all that the sun ... These things Night ... all that the sun ...

12 Ts. suggests the following translation of the beginning of the column: 'to be. So he made the power be (in relation) to the strongest just like a child to a father.' 13 '7rUP is read in the papyrus' (1'8.). 14 Perhaps: 'changes its place'. 15 01', possibly: 'grasped'. 16 Taking on, as often in scholia, as implying an unexpressed 'One should know

1'8. 8uggests 'different' «>,:[wp[ja0'1)' The reference is to oracular pronouncement8. 19 Ts. suggests the following translation of the rest of the column: 'By calling her 'nurse' he is saying in riddling form that those things which the sun by heating them thaw8, night by making them cold congeals .... those things which the sun heated · .. them (rpo
14

Andre Laks and Glenn W. Most

Col. XI · .. of Night. He says that she proclaims the oracle out of the innermost shrine (ex adytoio), his view being that the innermost shrine (adyton) is the depth of night; for it does not set (dynei) as the light does, but the daylight overtakes it while it remains in the same place. 20 But 'proclaiming the oracle' and 'preventing harm' have the same meaning. We must consider what 'preventing harm' and 'proclaiming the oracle' refer to. In the belief that this particular god proclaims oracles they come to find out what they should dO. 21 ... says:22 She (?) procIaimed an oracle about all that was right for hirn to ... 23

· .. he made clear that ... 24 Col. XII · .. and ... And the next verse goes like this: That he might ... 25 on the lovely seat of snow-capped OIympus.

Olympus and time are the same thing. Those who think that Olympus and heaven are the same thing are completely wrong, for they do not understand that heaven cannot be long rather than wide, but if someone were to call time long, he would not be wrong at all. And whenever he wanted to say 'heaven', he made the addition 'wide', but whenever (he wanted to say) 'Olympus' on the contrary, he never (added) 'wide', but 'long'. Having said that it is 'snow-clad' in the sense 26 ••• snowy ... snowy ... white ... gleaming ... greyish ... and ... Co!. XIII Zeus, when having heard the prophecies from his father.

For neither did he hear this,27 but it has been made clear in wh at Or: 'condition' (Ts.). Ts. suggests that this sentence (which is in prose) is supplied as an example of 22 Ts. suggests 'And after this he says'. the kind of things people say. 23 Ts. suggests that the verse ended 'ta accomplish'. 24 Ts. suggests the following translation of the rest of the column: 'beside' (or: 'in spite of') the things that are ... possible to .. .'. 25 Perhaps 'rule'. Ts. suggests 'occupy'. 26 Or: 'as regards its capacity'. 27 Or: 'at this time'. 20

21

A Translation of the Derveni Papyrus

15

way he heard, nor does Night command. But he makes (this) clear saying as folIows: he swallowed down the reverend one (aidoion), who was the first to leap forth into aether. 28

Because he speaks in a riddling form about real things during the whole poem, it is necessary to speak about each word in turn. Since he saw that men consider birth to be dependent upon the genitals (aidoia) , he used this (word)--and this does not happen without the genitals-likening the sun to aidoion. 29 For without the sun, it is not possible 30 for such things that are ... things that are ... the sun all

Col. XIV

... when (?) separated from itself it leaps forth int0 31 the brightest and whitest (aether). He says that this Kronos was born to earth from the sun because he was the cause via the sun that they were struck (krouesthai) against olle another. For this reason he says, (He) who did a great deed.

And the verse after this, Ouranos son of Night, who mied first of all:

naming the Mind that strikes things against each other Kronos, 32 he says that it did a great deed to Ouranos; for (he says that) he was deprived ofhis kingdom. And he named Kronos from the ... ,33 himself and all the others, each one according to the same principle. For 34 of all the ... nature ... and that he was deprived ... of his kingdom ... 28 Ts. suggests the translation 'out of the aether'; see n. 31 at the beginning of column XIV. Lamberton suggests in his unpublished translation that aie'po, should be read for aiO'pa in the ZPE edn. 29 Our translation is designed to convey the apparent awkwardness of the Greek sentence. 30 T8. suggests the following translation of the rest of the column: 'possible for the things that are to become such ... things that are ... calm ... the sun all ... nor to the things that are ... to encompass .. .'. 31 T8. suggests 'out of'; cf. n. 28 above. 32 The implied etymology derives {{pavo, from KPOVWV voo,. 33 1's. suggests 'activity'. 34 1's. suggests the following exempli gratia reconstruction and translation of the rest of the column: 'Por when all the things that are were not yet striking (?), Mind as

16

Andre Laks and Glenn W. Most

Col. XV ... they were striking 35 against one another and it would make the things that are, having been separated ... ,36 stand apart from one another. For when the sun is separated and confined in the middle, he holds fast both what is above the sun and what is below it. And the next verse, frorn hirn in turn was Kronos and then prudent Zeus:

he says that the beginning (arche) dates from the time since this particular rule (arche) has been king. He explains 37 • • • by striking against one another he made things stand apart . . . the current transformation, not one from another but ... And 'then prudent Zeus'; that not a different one, but the same one 38 ••• And this: Metis ... royal honour ...

Co!. XVI It has been made clear that he called the sun a genital organ (or

'reverend': aidoion). And he says that the things that are now come to be from the existing things: Of the first-born king, the reverend one. And onto 39 hirn all The irnrnortals grew, blessed gods and goddesses And rivers and lovely springs and everything else That had been born then; and he hirnself was alone.

In these verses he indicates that the things that are always existed and that the things that are now come to be out of the existing things. The phrase, 'and he hirnself was alone': in saying this he determining nature (or: creation) got the designation Ouranos (Le. oup{l',wv v60s). And he says that he was deprived of his kingship when things were striking.' ([ TWV J]6vrwv yap a7ravT[w]~ [OÜ7rW Kpovof<-<1vwv I [0 Noiis] (or [OOTOS]) q,s op[{l',w]v uatY [T~V E7rWvvf<-{av lax<]v I [Oupav6]s. datp[1Ja, T~V ßaatA]f{av I [KpOVO-] w[vwv r[wv]l[6]H[WV.) 35

1's. suggests that KrOU
KPOUEtV.

1's. suggests 'at the beginning' (TO 7rpWT]OV). 1's. suggests taking ~3< dpX~ as the end of the preceding sentence. 1'5. construes Öt1Jy
37

A Translation 01 the Derveni Papyrus

17

malms clear that Mind itself being alone is worth everything, just as if everything else were nothing. For40 it is not possible for these things to be ... without Mind ... worth everything . , . king of all · .. Mind and .. .

Col. XVII · . . it existed before it was named. Then it was named. For air existed both before the things that are now were set together and always will exist. For it was not born, but existed. And the reason why it was called air has been made clear above. But it was thought that it was born. because it was named Zeus, just as if it did not exist previously. And he said that this one would be 'last', because it was named Zeus and this continued 41 to be its name until the things that are now were 42 set together into the same form in which they were floating (eiöreito) as they were before. And ... 43 that the things that are became such because 01' hirn and having come about .. ,44 in hirn . , . he indicates in the following words: Zeus the head, Zeus the middle, and from Zeus all things are made.

Head 45 ••• is said in a riddling form ... head ... rule comes about · .. to have been set together ...

Col. XVIII · .. saying ... and that46 • • • and all other things are in the air, being breath. Now Orpheus named this breath Moira. But all other men according to common usage say, 'Moira spun for them' and 40 Ts. suggests the following translation ofthe rest of the column: 'For it would not be possible for them to exist, if the things were without the Mind. And in the verse following this he said that Mind is worth everything: "And (now) he is king of all and will be afterwards." It is c1ear that Mind and king of all is the same thing.' 41 In the papyrus the verb is in the present or future tense, perhaps as a historical present, perhaps because the situation referred to remains valid even today. 42 Retaining the reading of the papyrus. 43 Ts. suggests 'he makes c1ear'. 44 Ts. suggests 'they stay again' . 45 Ts. suggests the following translation of the rest of the column: 'By saying "head" he is saying in a riddling form that the things that are have air as their head; for it is this that becomes the beginning of constitution (or: setting together) ... to have been set together .. .'. 46 Ts. suggests the following translation of the beginning of the column: ' ... and those moving downwards .... saying ... that this·.

18

Andre Laks and Glenn W. Most

'these things will be whatever Moira spun', on the one hand speaking correctly, but on the other hand not lmowing either what Moira is or wh at spinning iso For Orpheus called wisdom Moira. This seemed to hirn to be the most suitable out of the names that all men have given. For before Zeus received his name, Moira was the wisdom of the god continuously and foreverY But since Zeus received his name, they think48 that he was born, although he existed even before, but was named when 49 • • • Zeus first ... then · .. of humans those who do not understand the meaning .. . Col. XIX

· .. each single thing 50 has received its name from what dominates in it, Zeus was called all things according to the same principle. For the air dominates all things S1 as far as it wishes. And when they say 'Moira spun' they say that the wisdom of Zeus ordains how the things that are and the things that come to be and the things that are going to be must come to be and be and cease. And he likens hirn to a king (for out of the names that are said this seemed to be suitable for hirn), saying as follows: Zeus the king, Zeus the ruler of all, god of the bright bolt.

He said that he is king S2 because one rule governs many . . . and accomplishes all . . . to no one . . . to accomplish . . . ruler . . . is mIed ... Col. XX

· .. those men who, while performing holy rites in the cities, have seen them, I wonder less that they do not understand (since it is not Ts. suggests 'always and through everything (?)'. Ts. suggests 'it was thought'. 49 Ts. suggests the following translation of the rest of the column: 'but was not named. This is why he says "Zeus was born first". For first ... then ... being. But people not understanding the meaning of the words consider Zeus as being first-born 47 48

50 Ts. suggests the following translation of the beginning of thc column: 'Since (or: From the time when) the things that are. each individually .. :. 51 Reading a neuter genitive plural with Ts. 52 Ts. suggests the foUowing translation of the rest of the column: 'king (basileus) because. though the offices (magistracies) are many. one prevails over all and performs all that to no other mortal is it allowed to perform ... And he said that he is ruler (archos) of aU. because all things start through ... '. He suggests there is an allusion to the archon basileus at Athens and elsewhere.

A Translation 01 the Derveni Papyrus

19

possible to hear and at the same time Lo learn the meaning of the words). But all those (who hope to acquire knowledge) from someone who makes a craft of holy rites deserve to be wondered at and pitied-wondered at, because, thinking that they will know before they perform the rites, they go away after having performed them before they have known, without even asking further questions, as though they knew something of what they have seen or heard or been taught; and pitied because it is not enough for them to have spent their money in advance, but they also go off deprived of understanding as weIl. Before performing the holy rites, hoping that they will know, but after having performed them they go away deprived of hope too ... to his ... mother ... sister ... Col. XXI . . . nor the cold to the cold. And when he says 'by jumping' (thornei) ,53 he makes clear that divided up into small pieces they were moving in the air and were jumping, and by jumping they were set together in relation to one another,54 And they went on jumping unti! each one came to its fellow. Heavenly Aphrodite and Zeus (and to aphrodise and to jump) and Persuasion and Harmony are established as name for the same god. A man mingling with a woman is said by common usage to aphrodise. For,55 when the things that are now were mixed with one another, it was called Aphrodite. And Persuasion, because the things that are yielded to one another; and 'yield' and 'persuade' are the same. And Harmony, because 56 ... she fitted together (hermose) ... to each of the things that are. For it existed even before, but it was called 'to be born' after it was separated out. But 'to be separated out' makes clear that ... now ...

S3 Taking OOPV"lL as ahapax substantive. Ts. writes, 'I suspect. however, that it is an error for 06P"lL, Le. third pers. sing. aor. subj. of 0pWWKlJJ. The author's physical interpretation seems to originate from a verbal form.' In either case, the Greek term seems to have a sexual double entendre lacking in English and to also mean 'mating'. S4 Ts. suggests 8' €KaCfTa CfUVWTU0"l: 'they were each set together to one another'. S5 Ts. suggests 'Por this reason'. 56 Ts. suggests the following translation of the rest of the column: 'because many things that are are fitted together to each other. For they existed even berore, but they were named to be born after they were separated out. ... to be separated out he makes clear that ... so that ... now .. .'.

20

Andre Laks and Glenn W. Most

CoI. XXII So he named all things in the same way as finely as he could, knowing the nature of men, that not all of them have a similar nature nor do all want the same things. When they have power they say anything that occurs to each one's heart, whatever they happen to want, never the same things, through greed, sometimes also through ignorance. Earth (Ge), Mother (Meter), Rhea, and Rera are one and the same. She was called Earth (Ge) by convention; Mother, because all things are born from her; Ge and Gaia, according to each one's dialect. She was named Demeter, just like Ge-meter: one name from both, for it was the same. And it is said in the Hymns too: Demeter Rhea Ge Meter Hestia Deio.

For she is called Deio too, because she was 57 cut (ediiöthe) during sexual intercourse. Re will make clear . . . according to . . . and Rhea because many and ... animals were born ... from her. Rhea

CoI. XXIII This verse has been made misleading and it is unclear to the many, but to those who understand correctly it is quite clear that Ocean is the air and air is Zeus. It is not the case that one Zeus contrived another Zeus but the same one (contrived) for hirnself great strength. But those who do not understand think that Ocean is a river because he added 'broadly flowing'. But he indicates his intention in current and customary expressions. For they say that the very powerful among men 'flowed great'. And the next verse, ... the sinews of silver-eddying Achelous. 58

t0 59 the water ... the name Achelous ... and the sinews ... is the ... each ... 57 Ts. suggests the following translation of the rest of the co[umn: 'was ravaged during engendering (ur: procreation?). It will be made clear that, according to the epic poems, she makes too many child-births. And Rhea because many and all kinds of living creatures were born [having flown (?)] from her. Rhea and [Rheie according to each one's dialect (?)]. And she was na[med Her]e (?) .. :. 58 Ts. suggests 'and he placed therein the forceful silver-eddying Achelous'. 59 Ts. suggests the following translation of the rest of the column: 'to the water in general he gives the name Achelous. And ... is ... ; because the ... each .. :.

A Translation 01 the Derveni Papyrus

21

Col. XXIV

. . . they are equal measured from the centre, but whatever is not circular cannot be equal-limbed. This verse makes it dear: She who shines for many mortals upon the boundless earth.

Someone might think that this verse is said in a different sense, namely that if she exceeds, (,0 the things that are come to appear more than before she exceeds. But he does not say this, namely that she shines, for if he said this, he would not have said that she shines 'for many' but rather 'for an' together, both for those who work the land and for those who saH, when they must saH at the right time. 61 For if there were no moon, ruen would not have discovered the reckoning either of the seasons or of the winds ... and an the rest . . . Col. XXV

... and brightness; but the things out of which the moon is co mposed are whitest of an things, divided up according to the same principle, but they are not hot. And there are also other things now in the air floating far from one another, but during the day they are invisible since they are overcome by the sun; but during the night it is visible that they exist. 62 They are overcome because of their smallness. 63 Bach of theru floats by necessity, so that they do not come together with one another; for otherwise there would come together in a mass all the things that have the same capacity as those out of which the sun was composed. If god did not wish the things that are now to exist he would not have made the sun. But he made it of such a sort and of such a size as is explained in the beginning of the account. 64 The words that follow he puts forward (as a screen), not wishing all men to understand. In this verse he indicates65 ••• The reference is to the full moon. Against the ZPE edn. and with 1's., we read (l/W in line 8 of the papyrus and wpav in line 9. 62 Substituting aperiod for the colon in the ZPE edn. 63 1'S. suggests that they are overcome by the night in the sense that it remains. Perhaps, however, the reference is to the day, in which they are invisible. 64 Substituting aperiod for the colon in the ZPE edn. 65 Ts. suggests the following translation of the rest 01' the column: 'indicates: But when the mind of Zeus devised all things.' 60

61

22

Andre Laks and Glenn W. Most

Col. XXVI

... 'of mother' because Mind is the mother of all other things. And 'of his own' (heäs) because she is goOd. 66 And it is also clear in the following words that it means good: Hermes Diaktoros son of Maia, giver of goods (eaön).67

And it is also clear in this passage: For two ums are placed on Zeus' threshold, Of gifts such as they give: of evils, and the other one of goods (eaon).68

Those who do not understand the term think that it is 'of his own mother'. But if he had wished to show the god 'wishing to mingle in love of' his own 'mother'. it would have been possible for hirn to alter letters69 and say 'of his own mother'. For thus it would have become 'of his own' ... 70 clear that ... in the ... both ... good ... The author is playing on the ambiguity of EUS ('good, noble') and "OS ('his own'). Odyssey 8. 335. 68 Iliad 24. 527-28. 69 Ts. suggests 'to alter just(?) letters'. 70 T8. suggests the following translation of the rest of the column: 'and he would be her son ... clear that ZeU8 ... in the ... both ... good .. .'. 66

67

Ir. GENERAL ESSAYS

1

The Derveni Papyrus* MARIA SERENA FUNGHI

The Derveni papyrus was discovered in Greece in 1962 at LlEpßivL, a locality a few kilometres from Saloniki, probably near Lete (A7]T~), a known ancient settlement. 1 The archaeological data indicate that the site cannot be more recent than 300 Be; it is made up of a group of tombs, same with funeral apparatus, belonging to members of the military class. The completely charred top part of a rolled up papyrus roll was found among the remains of the funeral pyre of tomb A; more than 200 fragments were recovered from this roll and onee they were put tagether they yielded more than 24 eolumns of text. About 15 lines per column are preserved, around 7-8 cm., perhaps a bit more than a third of the height of the rolF; the number of letters per Une varies from 30 to 45, as the text is written out to the fuIl length of the hexameters and words are divided only in the ease of preverbs (exeept in eoI. XII. 4 E~afLaplT(lvovm). After the last eolumn there is a blank spaeeof about 16 em. Many fragments preserve both the final letters of the lines of one eolumn and the initial ones of the lines of the next one, so that even This article was translated by Glenn W. Most. * For Giovanni Pugliese Carratelli. even if it is not the study on 'Orphism' I would have liked to dedicate to him. In 1976, so that I could prepare my baccalaureate thesis, I was enabled to transcribe the papyrus directly thanks to the generous support of the Istituto Papirologico 'G. Vitelli' of Florence: to its Director, Prof. Manfredo Manfredi, I would like to express here my sincere gratitude. This article constitutes the corrected version of the presentation of the Derveni Papyrus publishe~ in the Corpus dei papiri filosofici greci e latini, Parte III: Commentari (Florence, Olschki 1995), pp. 565-85, where it appears under the title 'Exegesis of Orphic Texts'; this explains the particular slant which is given here to the review of previous scholarship and to the exposition of the contents of the papyrus. I do not take account of the papers published in the present volume; the editors have added a very few references to these papers. 1 Cf. The Princeton Encyclopedia ofClassical Sites (Princcton, 1976) 271. 2 For comparisons with other ancient rolls see Turner (1980b: 37).

Maria Serena Funghi

26

in the absence of other indications the sequence of the columns is assured for almost the whole text. The script has been assigned with certainty to the fourth century BC, more precisely to 340-320 BC by Tsantsanoglou and Parcissoglou (1988); variations have been noted, caused perhaps by sharpening the stylus rather than changing it. Paragraph oi are used both to indicate a quotation and, accompanied by a dash, for punctuation at the end of the period. Iota mutum is indicated; as is usual in this period, there is almost always assimilation. In many regards PDerveni is one of the most interesting finds of this century-from the point of view of palaeography (it is the most ancient literary papyrus which has been preserved); from that of poetry (it transmits hexameters of archaic Orphic poetry); for the story of Greek religion (cf. in particular the learned analysis of Henrichs (1984)); for the history of Presocratic culture; and for the history of ancient exegesis. It is no accident that it has produced a Iarge crop of scholarly studies, even if the absence of a true edition (the one which appeared in ZPE 47, 1982, after p. 300 was provision al and unauthorized) has contributed even more than the incompieteness of the text has towards rendering many attempts at interpretation and restitution merely hypothetical. When it first appeared, PDerveni was defined as a commentary on an Orphic theogony (Kapsomenos (1963)), and for the most part scholars have continued to classify it in this way: only Picard (1966) tried to identify traces not of Orphic but of Hesiodic poetry. Later, doubts were expressed regarding both the 'Orphic' character of the text and, with regard to its literary genre, whether or not what is involved is a commentary.3 Alderink (1981: 26) notes that the text discussed does not have the character of a theogony of a literary type such as e.g. Hesiod's and, emphasizing the importance of the figure and role of Zeus, speaks of a 'theological cosmology'; along the same lines, Janko (1986: 158) prefers to speak of a hieros logos or telete, given the themes present in cols. III, V-VII, and xx. After the publication ofthe text in ZPE 1982, M. L. West (1983: 78) pointed out that the part containing the true commentary does not begin until coI. VIII and suggested therefore that, as Vi an (1984) puts it, it would be more appropriate to speak in general terms of an allegorical exegesis rather than of a commentary; only Burkert 3

So already Tsantsanoglou, per litt. 80ct. 1982.

The Derveni Papyrus

27

(1986), who suggested attributing the text to the llEpt TE/\mvv of Stesimbrotus of Thasos, has considered the hypothesis that what is involved might be an autonomous treatise (syngramma).4 But Henry's (1986) study of the author's literary critical approach, Edwards's article (1991), and Lamedica's (1990 and 1992) specific focus upon the aspects of exegetical technique present in the text revert to locating it within the history of ancient exegesis. Hence it is of primary importance to establish which verses or which texts the author is discussing or making use of to strengthen his own claims. The first quotation which can be reconstructed with certainty appears in coI. IV and involves Heraclitus B 3 and 94DK. All the subsequent columns present verses which correspond more or less exactly to fragments transmitted largely within the tradition of the Orphic Rhapsadies (coI. x ~ OF 105-6; 164-5 K; coI. XI ~ 103-5; 144; cols. XII-XIII ~ 84-7; coI. XIII ~ 73, 129, ISS, 164-7; coI. XIV ~ 107; xv ~ 60, 85, 97; XVI ~ 165-7); then Orpheus is mentioned twice in coI. XVIII. The dosest correspondences with transmitted verses are found from coI. XVI to coI. XIX: cols. XVII and XIX quote three verses belanging to the Orphic hymn to Zeus (vv. 1. 2, and 7) known from Plato (Leg. 715e) and from De munda (401"28; cf. OF 21-21a, 167-8); then comes amention of the Hymns quoting averse, presumably from a hymn to Demeter (for coI. XXII, cf. OF 301-2; coI. XXIII ~ 115, 344; coI. XXIV ~ 91; coI. xxv ~ 96, 242). The Derveni text constantly uses expressions like o1),of, 0 OE, Myn, ~1)G{, G1)/ka{vEt, and alv{~ETat to refer to the author whose writings it discusses. This latter can only be Orpheus; hence those verses which have been identified as lines from the Homeric poems s must instead belong to the Orphic tradition, perhaps, if one wishes to follow the hypothesis repeatedly expressed by Böhme (1988 and 1989), included in the Homeric text by the Lycomids-unless what is involved is simply an ancient stock of hexametric verses used in various contexts and occasions depending upon the circumstances, and hence not specifically characterized on their own. CoI. xx contains a criticism of those people who undergo initiation in the cities6 and of those who undergo it by means of a private professional and who make the author of the fragment also fee! sorry far 4

S 6

Along these lines Casadio (] 986) and Tsantsanoglou per litt. Col. XXVI. cf. Od. 8. 335; Il. 24. 527-8 and S. West (1965). Polemic against Eleusis? cf. Rusten (1985: 139): Graf(1991: 98).

Maria Serena Funghi

28

them, since they have wasted their time and money (cf. Burkert (1987a)).7 This passage raises above all the question of how this

section functions within the cosmological context of the preceding and following columns. Burkert (1986) attempted to provide an answer by attributing the Derveni text to the Fhpt TEAETWV of Stesimbrotus; on his view, the whole cosmogonic discourse forms part of a discussion which was already being concluded in the first columns of the extant text. Later, the same scholar (Burkert (198 7b)) investigated correspondences with Near-Eastern myths and rituals 8 and suggested that cosmogonic narratives were also used as part of the ritual. Along the same lines, certain scholars consider the mixture of cosmology and ritual characteristic of Orphism;9 in this case col. xx, like cols. III and V-VII, would reflect a discontinuous mode of procedure in the interpretation of a text which in fact contained cosmological themes and ones pertaining to the ritual. This raises the formal question, posed by Rusten (1985), whether lines 1-10, which end with a paragraphos, ought not to be understood as quoting a pro se fragment which the commentator then goes on to explain. 10 Indeed, Rusten also points to a significant change of style in this section (above all, the first person singular appears only here, in the form BaufLa~w); identifying a quotation would make it possible to maintain the character of the text as a 'commentary' (Henry 1986: 'commentary upon multiple texts'). If what is involved is a quotation, it is not important to determine whether the polemic was intended to stimulate the initiates to explain the meaning of the rituals they practised, opposing a 'high' kind of initiation to a widespread and more superficial one, or whether it was addressed tout court to all those who underwent initiation in the mysteries (Rusten (1985: 140)); if on the other hand this passage is due to the 'commentator', the question can in theory be raised l l whether the text might not have been composed with an anti-Orphic intention (Henrichs apud Burkert (1977b: 22) See now also Obbink's paper in the present volume. He had already taken this approach in his earliest articles on this text, cf. Burkert (1980). 9 So e.g. Alderink (1981); cf. also Seaford (1986), who emphasizes that the theme of the primordial elements' mixture and reciprocal relation is present in mystery texts, like lamella C of Thurii. !O Contra Tsantsanoglou, per litt.. who also refers Lo the style and analogous context present in col. v. 11 Also in the light of the first columns of the papyrus, though their reconstruction is problematic. 7

8

The Derveni Papyrus

29

and Henrichs (1984: 255-6); Casadio (1986: 299)). Nevertheless, both archaeological and literary evidence can contribute to evaluating the text and the circumstances ofits discovery12 (cf. the analysis 'or Burkert (1977b), with bibliography) and permits us to connect this document with the Orphic religious orientation, as long as we agree that it is characterized by at least the four features which Alderink (1981: 4) summarizes as folIows: 'a tendency towards monism, a trend wh ich views the world as a created reality, an inclination to focus on the nature of human beings, and especially a disposition to soteriological thoughts of post-martern existence.' In fact, two points see m crucial for evaluating the Derveni papyrus. The first (which forms part of the vexata quaestio of the nature of Orphism) is that, in the period in which the text was composed, Plato's references to the Orphics (setting aside the differences in the evaluations which Socrates or the other characters give of them) reflect a composite religious and doctrinal entity in which at least two levels coexist, on the one hand the ritual and cathartic one and on the other the exegetic. The fact that in any case both of these share as their point of reference a nucleus of writings constitutes the second point; this has been pointed out by more than one scholar and has by now become obvious, as made clear most recently in Detienne's stimulating essay (1989: 113ff.),13 which demonstrates the importance the Orphic tradition attributed to 'writing', both in iconography and in the literary sourees. This tendency constitutes a distinctive feature of those people who claimed allegiance to Orphic modes of thought, and what remains of such literature reveals an inclination not to crystallize the written discourse hut rather to perpetuate an 'open' text (and one whose vitality until the end of paganism may have depended precisely upon its receptivity), one capable of being 'contaminated' and at the same time able on its own to permeate different religious modes. This last feature may suffice to explain the insistence throughout the whole text upon the importance of correctly interpreting the hyponoia of the poetwhose activity as the initiator of mystcry rites is also attested-an attitude which may for example have characterized the 'wise priests, capable of giving an account'14 of the meaning of ritual and 12 Excluding in any case possible connections with the discovery of the famous 'crater' of Derveni, on which see now G. Mihailov, 'Observations sur le cratere de Derveni', REA 93 (1991), 39-54, with bibliography. 13 Cf. also Burkert (1977a: 441-2). 14 Plat. Epist. VII 332e-5a; Meno 81a ff.; Phd. 69c; Symp. 201d.

30

Maria Serena Funghi

myth, and hence of creating true bacchoi (cf. Pugliese Carratelli (1974b, 1976)). If this was the real milieu of this text, if, that is, it is a hieros logos used for the teletai or a treatise about them (cf. also Burkert (1987a)), then it would become even more difficult to

establish its literary nature. Above all, given the text's antiquity, the scarcity of useful parallels makes it extremely difficult to characterize it in terms of the literary genres prevalent afterwards. And it is at least doubtful whether such a dassifieation eould be used in order to loeate the position of the Derveni text with regard to the produets of Alexandrian seholarship. Already Wilson (1984) eautiously used the term 'diseussion of Orphie texts'; on the other hand, those who have sought a more specific classification indude Turner (1968; 1980a: 205), for whom PDerveni "is in form a line-by-line eommentary . . . the earliest surviving example of a hypomnema', and M. L. West (1983: 80), who asserts that 'the Derveni text is the only known example of a pre-Alexandrian book whieh had such [= systematie] interpretation [of a whole poem] as its main subject-matter, or whieh was formally laid out in the style of a commentary.' So too, Lamediea calls the text 'the most ancient example of a systematic eommentary on a single work'; though this formulation is motivated by the presence of language current in this milieu, it presupposes a reconstruction of the text commented upon like that proposed by West himself (1983: 114-15)-a reconstruction, however, which most recently Edwards ((1991); cf. also Richardson (1985: 89)) considers incapable of reeonciling the presumed Orphic poem with what we find in the preserved part of the papyrus, even supposing that many verses were lost in the lacunae. Burkert (1970: 444) referred to the Protagoras of Plato and noted correctly that the physical allegoresis of a poetic text already testifies that a dose link between philology and philosophy has been established. None the less, given that the text which is being diseussed is not an ordinary poetic work but had philosophical and religious implications, it may be important to identify the specific nature of the exegesis. Rusten, Henry, Lamedica, and Edwards have focused upon various aspects of the commentator's personality, either characterizing him as a 'bad allegorist'ls or emphasizing his importance in the history of literary criticism or of technicallanguage. In 15 Already Pfeiffer (1968; 1978: 292) recognized his affinity with Crates ofMallos in the mixture of allegorical and lexical explanations. though at an inferior level.

The J)erveni Papyrus

31

any case, scholars tend in general to consider the commentator to have been inspired by a primarily philosophical interest. A fuH analysis of the text requires the examination of at least four aspects: (1) the function of the Orphic theogony underlying it; (2) the reconstruction of the Presocratic cosmology which informs the explanation of the Orphic poetry; (3) the language and the explanatory techniques used; (4) the religious tendencies which emerge and their place in contemporary mystic currents. This final aspect may be the most important one, since the idea that in writing his work the commentator was motivated by the Orphic preoccupation with the destiny ofman (cf. Boyance (1974: 96)) cannot be set aside (although no textual element proves it), for it can plausibly explain the presence of this papyrus in a funerary context. 16 The books which accompany the deceased together with his most precious belongings (cf. Voutiras (1989)) either reflect mimetically the activities he performed in this world or else denote a particular a04>fa which the deceased has learned or which he needs, like the Book of the Dead in Egypt or the golden lamellae (cf. also Speyer (1970, 1981)). If we thinle that the choice of cremation is more consistent with a rationalistic spirit and an irreligious mentality, we may be led to allege this element too in support of the positions of Henrichs (1984) and Casadio (1987), for whom the text might be the work of an opponent of Orphism. Hatziioannou (1973: 59) claims that Orphism sometimes adopts one burial custom and sometimes another, as it develops or adapts to the popular beliefs of each age. None the less, we cannot exclude the possibility that the cremation did have a particular meaning; compare the deceased of the Timpone Grande of Thurii, 17 whose deification is attested by the internal golden lamella (A4 Zuntz, cf. Scarpi (1987: 207)). It still remains true that the Pythagoreans refused cremation in explicit opposition to the Magi (Iambl. VP 154); nevertheless, even if it is uncertain whether the lamellae found in this tomb (A4 + C) belong to an Orphic current, it must be noted that the lamella of Pharsalus too accompanied the burnt rcmains preserved in a bronze hydria, though it is listed in the group called 'mnemosyneal' by Pugliese Carratelli (1974a),18 and hence is genuinely Orphic-Pythagorean. 16 Walbank's suggestion. apud Kapsornenos (1964-5), that the papyrus roll was used to set lire to the funeral pyre has not fouud supporters. 17 Burkert (1975) has tried to identify hirn with the soothsayer Larnpoue. 18 See now, for a detailed cornplete account, the same author's Le lamine d'oro 'orfiche' (Milan, 1993).

32

Maria Serena Funghi

But, given that Heraclitus is explicitly mentioned in col. IV, the commentator, like Heraclitus (B 1, 14, 15, 27, 68, 69 DK; cf. Seaford (1986: 20-1)), might have been not so much expressing hostility towards the mystai as rather addressing areproach, with paraenetic intention, to those people who praetice the mysteries without understanding their true meaningY Indeed, the connection between themes and terminology present in PDerveni and those found both in mystic eurrents of an Eleusinian type and in some golden lamellae 20 as weH as the find at Olbia are provoking ever more second thoughts coneerning the identity of 'Orphism' and the loeation of this current among orientations of a religious type (Pythagorean, Bacchic, Eleusinian) whose origins and spheres are autonomous but whose point of intersection may lie precisely in Orphism.2l Point (1), the type of theogony to which the Derveni author is referring, is not analysed here; see the detailed discussion in M. L. West (1983).22 In any case, the evidence of the Orphic theogony in PDerveni will serve as a warning against dogmatie condemnations of later sources: our lack of primary sources often makes it impossible for us to demarcate clearly between the original text and the later additions or corruptions which we know to have occurred but can only rarely detect with certainty, for example in the Orphic Hymns. 23 Identifying the period in which the text was composed, its intentions, and whether its author belonged to a philosophical school are questions of greater interest in the present context; these are the points (2) and (3) listed above. 19 On the philosopher's attitude to the mysteries and religiosity. see the balanced study of P. A. Meijer. 'Philosophers. intellectuals and religion in Hellas'. in H. S. Versnel (ed.). 17aith. Hope and Worship. Aspects of Religiaus Mentality in t/Je Ancient Warld. Studies in Greek and Roman Religion. 2 (Leiden. 1981) 216-62: 223-4. 20 In particular that of the Timpone Grande of Thurii. A4 + C Zuntz. cf. Seaford (1986: 22). 21 Cf. the excellent general portrayal in Burkert (1977a: 445) and Burkert (1977b:

7). 22 West also attempted to reconstruct what he caUs the 'Protogonos Theogony' (1983: 68-115). part of a genealogie al stemma of the Orphic theogonies which he has proposed but which has not found the full consensus of scholars (Brisson (1985a). Richardson (1985a). Casadio (1986: 299); for a general outline of the Orphic theogonies and the relation or PDerveni to these see also Alderink (1981). Brisson (1985)). 23 Cf. e.g. F. Montanari. in Orfismo in Magna Grecia. Atti dei XIV Convegno di Studi sulla Magna Grecia. Taranto 1974 (Napoli. 1975).212-21: 219.

The Derveni Papyrus

33

With regard to reconstructing the cosmology, Burkert's earliest major study (1968) identified the commentator as a representative of an eelectic Pythagoreanism which developed later than Atomistie theories and was influenced by these. 24 Later, Burkert (1970) emphasized the important role attributed to language by the commentator, who assimilates the cosmogonie event to an onomatogony. Burkert identifies the conceptual background of the commentator's exegesis as the stages of Anaxagorean cosmogony: a primordial mixture of matter, a stage in which aether and air prevailed (59 B 1, 4 DK); a phase in which these were separated by a motion which differentiated every single object (B 12-13), each of which has a share in everything (B 11-12) but is identified on the basis of its predominant element (A 41; B 12). The commentator puts the phases that articulate this cosmogonic process in parallel with the theogonic process expounded by Orpheus: Moira, Zeus are merely the names corresponding to the various cosmic phases (PDerveni cols. XVII, XVIII, XIX, XXI). In this way cosmology is used to explain a kind of linguistic theory found in ancient theogonie literature, in which denominating corresponds to specifying the existence of what is denominated and a new entity or a 'birth' corresponds to every n~w name (cf. OF 145K: 'PdYJ TO 7Tpiv Eovaa, E7Tf;L L1tO, E7TAETO fL~TYJP, L1YJfL~TYJP yEYOVE). On the basis of the elose link to Anaxagorean scientific doctrines, according to whieh things are denominated in virtue of the element predominating in them, we may infer that the name originally corresponds to the reality of the thing and hence is 'correct'; this partly recalls the position attributed to Cratylus in Plato's homonymous dialogue on the 'natural correctness of words'. In this sense the Derveni commentator's concerns can be located within the elimate of interest in and debate on language typieal of the Sophistie period and reflected in Plato's Cratylus. Examining a name's meaning has not only a grammatical value-the illustration of Demeter's polyonymy in coI. XXII, for example, identifies four types of names, conventional, natural. dialectal. and composed-but also serves as a hermeneutie of the nature of the divine feit to be adequate for giving an account of the various facets of reality (cf. in partieular co!. XXI). 24 So too Reale (1974: 274); Burkert (1968: 99) refers specifically to Ecphantus; Boyance (1974) detects affinities with the corpuscularistic doctrine of the gl~al-'-aTa attested starting with Aristotie (De an. 404 a 2 ff.). included in the account of Alexander Polyhistor (Diog. Laert. 8. 32). and also explained in a Roman milieu by Lucretius.

34

Maria Serena Funghi

Analysing the cultural background of the Cratylus, Baxter (1992) interpreted PDerveni along Burkert's lines and identified the approach of the school of Anaxagoras and Diogenes of Apollonia in the commentator's interpretative techniques, pointing out as weIl their affinity in the use of etymology (a practice which Aristotle attests for Anaxagoras-a187]p/atBHv, cf. Simp. Cael. p. 119,2-3) as it appears in the Cratylus. A case like the etymology of Kronos in PDerveni col. XIV, which involves the term nous as in Plat. Crat. 396b, allows us to identify the PDerveni text as an example of the kind of literature against which the Platonic polemic of the Cratylus is directed, indeed perhaps as one of the texts Plato actually readthis final possibility cannot be proven in the current state of our knowledge, but it would support the attribution of the text both to Stesimbrotus, whose works Plato certainly knew, and to Euthyphro, cf. below p. 36. Without a doubt. the doctrines used in the cosmological explanation show traces of the influence of the Anaxagorean school. in the presence of nous and its definition, in the theory of the pre-existence of matter, and in the corpuscular constitution of reality, which is produced by a process of differentiation and acquires its appearance and its name on the basis of the predominant constitutive element. All the same, there are terminological and conceptual resonances with other doctrines too, wh ich have led some scholars to view the commentator as an eelectic who exploits philosophical theories only for his literary critical purposes (Henry (1986), Edwards (1991)) or for religious exegesis (M. L. West (1983)). Above all, scholars have established a elose relation with the doctrines of Heraclitus-and not only because he is explicitly quoted in col. IV. The link between Heraclitus and Orphism has often guided the interpretation of the fragments of both on the part of scholars who have recognized affinities in content or only in form; since the find at Olbia the analysis of both aspects in this perspective has begun again. In the Derveni papyrus too scholars have found analogies with Heraelitus. Some have pointed out an affinity in language and also in attitude towards cult and mysteries (Burkert; Seaford (1986)); others have emphasized the importance which both Heraclitus and the Derveni author assign to heat in the cosmogony and to the role of the sun (Lebedev (1989)); Burkert has also pointed out from the beginning the convergence of the Heraeliteans' interests in the nature of language with our exegete's.

The Derveni Papyrus

35

Although the lack of an authorized edition must counsel caution with regard to hasty reconstructions,2S nevertheless some of the themes and interests present in the text may be pointed out. The exegesis of rituals (cols. V-VI; X-XI) and myths forms part of a picture in which the divine principle, which has produced the cosmos and dominates it ontologically from the beginning, is interpreted as unitary and intellectual (VOtls). The human expressive organ denotes this principle by various names according to the situations or the aspects to wh ich reference is made and according to the place and time: it is identified with Zeus, and other divinities or abstractions are denied except as his attributes. Thus, the commentator rejects genealogies and divine unions in order to make room for the divine principle dPPEV687JAVS (co!. XXVI) and metaphorically interprets Orpheus' use of sexual language. He devotes particular attention to the role of the Sun as an expression of a divine will (cf. cols. XIII, xxv and IV, with the quotation of Heraclitus).26 The birth ofthe cosmos with an it contains is in fact a creative intellectual act (EfL~Oa'TO, col. XXIII; 4>p6v7Jots, col. XIX); but perhaps the phrase in co!. XXV ('Ta VtlV E6v'T(l 0 Ihos d fL~ ~8EAEV Etvat, OVK av E7T67JOEV i/Awv)27 is also significant, since, despite the quasiIonic mechanistic philosophical explanation of the origin of the life from the elements and from physical processes, it displays a teleological intention which may already have been present in Diogenes of Apollonia (B 3 DK), is known to us from Xenophon's Socrates (Mem. 1. 4, 4. 1), and is explicitly expressed iu Plato. As exegetic tools the commentator makes use of techniques we already find wen established in the Platonic period (cf. Richardson (1975)): allegory, etymology, metaphor, simile, polyonymy, analogy. Edwards suggests that the commentator applies the Anaxagorean doctrine of the cosmic role of nous only as an analogical reduction of the mythical genealogy and that it has no cosmological, philosophical significance. The commentator's recourse to synonymy, understood as polyonymy, may derive more from a religious heritage 28 than from a Sophistic oue (even if, as Burkert 2S

For some examples

01'

erroneous juxtaposition uf fragments, cf. Burkert (1977b:

9; 1983a). 26 See Tsantsanoglou and Parassoglou (1988) and Tsantsanoglou (1992: 224), and especially Lebedev (1979); for the Sun's presence in Orphic testimonia cf. frs. 62 and 96K; cf. also Aesch. Bass .. fr. 83 Mette, Soph. fr. 752 Radt. 27 Cf. Tsantsanoglou (1992: 224) and Lebedev (1979: 40, 42). 28 Cf. the epicleses of the Orphic Hymns, X. Symp. 8. 9; Aesch. Ag. 170 ff.

Maria Serena Funghi

36

(1970: 449 n. 1) notes, it would fit weH with the Anaxagorean conception present in B 12). The use of etymology in Sophistic milieu x has already been mentioned (cf. above, p. 34); Prontera (1978: 55) also points out that Orphic poetry already used language of an etymological type apparently peculiar to Orphic religious mysticism, especially for the purposes of doctrinal revelation. 29 The commentator's language shows no sign of distinct dialectal influences. Its basis is Attic, with an admixture of Ionic forms or words. 30 Peculiar constructions sometimes make the syntax inexplicably awkward (cf. coI. XIII). Hitherto, there have only been a few proposals for identifying the author: Euthyphro, already suggested by Kahn (1973), cited by Boyance (1974), justified by Kahn (1986), and now considered seriously by Tsantsanoglou (per litt. 3.6.1993);31 Stesimbrotus of Thasus (Burkert (1986) and, earlier, Tsantsanoglou-per litt.); Epigenes (Kapsomenos (1964-5); Edwards (1991), exempli gratia). Stesimbrotus' interest in the link between myths and mystery ritual and in Homeric exegesis, for wh ich he may have used allegoresis,32 makes hirn a possible candidate for the authorship of the wode On the other hand, the etymological section of the Cratylus, explicitly assigned to Euthyphro's inspiration, betrays the application of lonic (Anaxagorean, Heraclitean) cosmological notions to the allegorie al method, so Euthyphro must have followed the same method; hence, as Kahn (1986: 98-9) argues, he too could be the author of the Derveni commentary. In any case, both these proposals agree in identifying the text as the product of a cultural milieu familiar from the Platonic dialogues and its author as one of the figures who applied allegorical interpretation to the poets and who used these methods to express themes still current in the Platonic period. In delineating the commentator' s personality, Boyance (1974) considered three hypotheses which he presented in the following sequence of increasing plausibility: (1) one of the priests who 29

See the full analysis in Gambarara (1984a: 168-80), and now Bernabe

(1992a). 30 Cf. Kapsomenos (I 964: 22); Henrichs (1984: 255) thinks that the author could have written in this way in Macedonia or in Ionic territory as weil; M. L. West (1983: 77), on the other hand, believes that the language is Ionic with Atticisms which might be due to the transmission. 31 See now also Kahn in the preselll volume. n But here caution is in order, since we have no secure evidence, cf. Richardson (1975: 71-3).

The Derveni Papyrus

37

practised a rational analysis of their rites (as in PI. Meno, 81a); (2) a figure like Euthyphro who combined the exegesis of divine names with philosophical interpretations; (3) a person like EmpedocIes who combined cathartic and philosophical activities. This analysis too indicates that the only fixed reference point for characterizing the author gravitates around Plato's writings. Adefinite though anonymous outline is traced by M. L. West (1983), for whom the commentator had philosophical and religious interests, not philological ones, and used Orphic poetry to justify avision of the world influenced by lonic philosophy, in particular by Diogenes of ApoIlonia; he hirnself must have been an Orphic initiate and may have written for a public of initiates in the first half of the fourth century. Conversely, Henrichs (1984: 255) asserts in his analysis of the commentator's personality, 'Despite his interest in Orphic poetry, his attitude is decidedly non-Orphic or even anti-Orphic'; he is foIlowed in part by Rusten and approved in fuIl by Casadio (1987: 386), who says that it is aberrant to suppose that this commentator, 'an ultrapedantic foIlower of Diogenes of ApoIlonia', could be identified with an Orphic, given 'the evident misunderstandings of the text of the poem'. All the same, various considerations suggest the advisability of a less drastic attitude and of greater caution in specifying the author's personality and exegetical intentions: (1) the currently provisional status of much of the text of the papyrus, which in many points even after a definitive edition will unfortunately continue to be exposed to the hazards of necessarily hypothetical supplements and interpretations; (2) the enormous difficulty of identifying a clearly delineated Orphic doctrine and ritual in this period; (3) the need to offer a plausible explanation for the presence of a text of this type among the remains of a cremation. Probably, the author 'wishes the audiences of Orphic texts to apprehend them correctly in order to be led to right states and actions' (Henry 1986: 163). Wh ether or not he succeeded is another question.

2 Cosmology as Initiation vs. the Critique of Orphic Mysteries DIRK OBBINK

Let us suppose that many detached papyrus fragments of a Greek philosophical treatise are unearthed by excavators from a tomb in Greece. A team of experts is set to reconstruct the work, but they are puzzled by the arrangement of topics and the disparity in style and treatment. Some fragments appear to discuss poetry, some the nature of souls, some physics and metaphysics, some the mythology of the underworld. Some contain banal exegesis of the meanings of words, others are affected in their style and syntax, containing elaborate rhetorical constructions; and in one passage those who establish the mysteries are said to 'write in riddles' (aiv[TT€Tat) about initiates. Techniques of reconstruction show that one topic--cult and initiation in connection with knowledge of the fate of the souloccurs in widely separated fragments. Since the beginning and end of the work are missing, and in the absence of a definitive critical text, scholars naturally are led to the conclusion that this work lacks thematic unity, that it is a rambling erratic composition by an inferior intellect, eclectically and capriciously ranging over different areas of the author's learning. But in this case they would be wrong. For the work I have been describing is an acknowledged philosophical classic: Plato's Phaedo. I am not, of course, suggesting that Plato was the author of the Derveni papyrus, or that the latter was Plato's philosophical equal. I am merely illustrating a methodological problem. 1 In the case of the Derveni author we are at once further away from and closer to 1 I acknowledge a debt to David Sedley, who, when he made a similar comparison between the books of Epicurus' On Nature and Plato's Republic ('The Character of Epicurus' On Nature', in Atti deI XVII Congresso Internazianale di PapiroIogia, ii (Napies, 1984),381-7), was reproved in discussion for suggesting that anyone might mistake even the smallest fragment of Epicurus' prose for that of Plato's.

40

Dirk Obbink

Plato's literary and philosophical accomplishment: closer certainly in time to the philosophical forerunners of fourth-century philosophy who shaped Plato's thaught; but further away. perhaps. in finding ourselves suddenly caught in the thickets of reasaning and analysis by techniques which, though they may have been toyed with by the young Soerates, came eventually to be abjured by Plata. There are of course other differences to be noted between Plato and the Derveni author, in spite of the overlaps. and I want to focus on one in partieular: the author's cancern with cult and ritual, and to argue that these are for the author as intimately bound up with his philosophical predelietions as they are far Plato in the Phaedo. Developing an idea of R. Seaford (1986), I am eoneerned first to show how the Derveni authar might have seen his elucidation of cosmology as possible instruetion for mystic initiates, in which an eschatolagical myth assaciated with the mysteries is eombined with a dominant coneern about relations between elements (fire, air, earth. water. and their mixtures). Later in this paper I layout the anly direct evidence of which I lmow that points to a connection between the Derveni papyrus with its eosmology and such a context of mystery initiation. What kind of unities and what kind of discontinuities might we reasonably expect ta find in an early composition preserved at random and not dependent for survival on later tastes and fashion in canonization and transmission? It is usual to refer to the treatise as a 'commentary'. or its author as a 'commentator'. Many who have written on the papyrus assume that the author was annatating a canonized work much in the manner of a Hellenistic or Renaissance or modern scholar. 2 We might instead think about, for 2 So already Pfeiffer (1968: l39 n. 1): 'the lJ1ro!-'v1J!-'u on the Orphic Theogony in the new Derveni papyrus'; Turner (1980a: 205, added since the 1968 printing): 'the earliest surviving example of a hypomnema'; Lamediea (1992: 325): 'il piii. antieo monumento in nostro possesso di eommentario sistematico a una sola opera.' Cf. however Wilson (1983: 85): 'una monografia prealessandrina su un testo orfico'; Edwards (1991: 205): 'Why should he not be an Epigenes, who is reported (Clement, Stromateis 1.21.l31.5) to have written a dissertation on Orphie Poetry, rather than a study of any single Orphic poem?' Lamediea, in a study which places our text at the beginning of the Greek tradition of the commentary and whieh makes numerous salient observations about the teehnical form, layout, alld language of P. Derveni as a commentary, argues (1992: 326) for the arresting thesis that the Derveni text, with all its peeuliarities, represents a form ante litteram of the lrrroj.tv1J!-'u. (She notes, for example, that the Derveni eommentary completely lacks that group of technical terms designed to indicate particular diffieulties to which various commentators have

Cosmology as Initiation

41

example, in addition to an Epigenes writing a dissertation on Orphic poetry, the kind of epideictic disquisitions we know about from the discussion of Simonides' poem in Plato's Protagoras, or the epideictie speech on Homer that Hippias has just finished giving at the beginning of the Hippias minor, or the one he is dissuaded by a grateful Soerates from delivering in the Protagoras. But in fact, in addition to Orpheus, the Derveni author quotes at least one other author, Heraclitus, and this one in prose, while he may be paraphrasing or even quoting others. 3 He quotes Homer in support of his own reading of a word (XXVI, 2 ff.),4 and he quotes by title from at least one other work of Orpheus than the poetry from which the theogonie narrative derives (namely, Orpheus' Hymns: XXII. 11 ff.: discussed below). There may be mention of a hieros logos (VII. 7: see below). These works had saered and eultic signifieance for known individuals in this period and we should be prepared to accept the possibility that the author had an investment in their exegesis for other than purely seholarly or philosophical purposes. On more than one oceasion the author digresses signifieantly from the exegesis of his texts. As commentators have pointed out, even his exegesis itself often strays painfuUy far from that text to philosophical interests that are, in spite of the author' s claims, unrelated to anything like explieation of the text at hand. (A good example is his solution of the problem about Zeus desiring to sleep with his mother in eoI. XXVI on the basis of the patently misguided ambiguity between the homophonous eäs 'good' and the possessive pronoun.) In eonsidering the author's philosophical interests, we should be wary of making astriet demarcation between his concern proposed solutions, e.g. a1Top{a, a1TopEw, (,~T1/at" I;,1/T<W, I\vats-. and related terms indicating divergence of opinion on thc text, noting a possible exception at col. VIII. 6.) As far as I know, no one has raised the possibility (recommended by the instability of its text in transmission) that the theogonie poem treated by the commentator was at the time of his writing still primarily an oral poem; it must have existed solely in an oral. rhapsodically transmitted state not more than a generation or so berore the writing 01' the papyrns. 3 See e.g. col. Xl. 8-9. a prose sentence explicitly adduced by the commentator to iIIustrate the use in the poem 01' the expression TO XP11aat (Xl. 6-7), and so indicated by the papyrns' system 01' lemmatization which introduces citations by beginning a new line (cf. the preceding line 6 which stops markedly short 01' the !ine 01' writing), and placing a paragraphos before and after the citation (see further below with n. 9). 4 The commentator does not name Homer as the author 01' Od. 8. 335 and 11. 24. 527 which he quotes here, but seems to have regarded Orpheus as their author (XXVI. 2, 5 01/1\0l). No doubt he held that Homer had borrowed these !ines from Orpheus' poem. Heraclitus is mentioned specifically by name at col. IV. 5.

Dirk Obbink

42

for explication of literature and the intellectual machinery which he brings to be ar on the sacred text. Mark Edwards, for example, argues S that the Derveni author's sole concern is to explain his text and that his deployment of physical or metaphysical principles or theories should be taken to apply only to the world of the poem he is explicating, not the world at large. It is doubtful. however, that the author would have made a hard and fast distinction between the two, and there are passages in his text which suggest that he perceived a direct connection between them. That is to say, in the Derveni author's view, the world of Orpheus' narrative, understood correctly (apOw,), mirrors our cosmos. The author takes Orpheus to have had access to truths about the world which he intentionally clothed in enigmas. Access to understanding, for the author, is gained from an interrogation of that text, and he sees understanding the world as in some sense analogous to understanding Orpheus' poem. The Orphic poem which the commentator expounds is said to be ulvtYILUTW07], (VII. 5). There are said to be 'riddling' references to cosmological elements. The poet hints at truth, though his expressions are deliberately ambiguous: Zeus is interpreted as air (XVII. 5), Moira as to pneuma (XVIII. 3), Okeanos is said to be air (XVIII. 3); Demeter, Hera, Rhea as earth (XVII. 7 ff.). But if understanding the poem as text, as I have suggested, is not his sole concern, neither is the cataloguing of these elements to reconstruct a scientific picture of the world. This can be seen from the fact that there intrudes upon this discussion a passage which has proved perplexing to commentators: col. xx presents an elaborately phrased tirade against those who participate in religious cult of an initiatory character: 6 TOVTOVS öaOL

aV8pQnTw[v €fL] 1ToAEatV

E7TLTEl\iaavTES

[ra {jEpa

fLEV]

11

ElOov,

EAauuov u4>as (}avfLa~w fL~ YIVWUKHV (ou yap ot6v TE dKoVUat OfLOV Kai fLa(}E'iv Ta ~Ey6fLEva). ÖUOt OE 7fapa TOV TEXV1]fL 7TOtOVfJ-EVOV Ta

iEpa,

015701, ägtOL

(}avp.a'Eo(JaL

Kai OlKTE[{]pwBat, BavfLa~wBat fLEV Ört qOKoVVTES

5

7TpOTEpOV ij E1TtTEA€aUL Elo-ryaEtv a:rrEpxovraL E1Tt5 Edwards (1991: 210), arguing forcefully and derisively that 'this author is a critic, not a philosopher, and his subject is a poem, not the world'. 6 The letters in the first half of !ines 14-15. which do not appear in the ZPE edn., were communicated to me by Professor Tsantsanoglou.

Cosmology as Initiation

43

'TEAEUaVT€S 7Tpiv ElOEVQt, OUO' E7TaVEp0j.LEVOl, Wa7T'Ep W<; El06TE<; H ,Lv EiOov ~ 7/KOV(JaV ~ EI.WOov· [Ol]KTE(i)pwOa, SJ ön OUK dPKEf ut/nv T~V oa7l'av"lv 7I'poav"lt..wqOa, dt..t..d Ka! TfJ~ YVW/-,TJ<; uTEp6/-,EVO' 7I'pouumfpxovTaL

10

7TptV P.€V Ta [n~pd ETTtTEA€aaL JA1T{~OV[TE]S' tdO~aHV

€7I'['TEMu]avr\E<;] SJ UTEP"l0EVTE<; K'f[1 Tij<;] Et..7I'{[OOS-] d7l'EPXOVTaL Tl[> [ ca. 10 1 . VOVT[ ... ]~oyo? .. [ ... JTUf . [ .. ] . va .[ 1.' Tij, EUl'TOV ° .. [ /-'hTP! /-,Jv [ ] 0' dOEt..4>7J[ lWUE
15

] .. [

[Aboul all those who] after performing a public rite in the cities have seen the holy things (Le. have been initiated), I wonder less that they fai! to attain Imowledge, since it is impossible to listen to what is being said and learn it simultaneously. But all those (who have learnedV from one who makes a craft 01' the holy rites deserve to be wondered at and pitied. They deserve to be wondered at because, thinking before the ceremony that they will attain knowledge, they go away after being initiated before they have understood, without even asking additional questions, as though because they understood (Le. thinking that they have understood) something of what they have seen or heard or learned. And they must be pitied because it is not enough that their money is spent, but they go off deprived even of their judgement. Hoping before performing the holy rites to gain knowledge, nevertheless they go away after being initiated deprived even of their expectation.

Drawing a distinction between those who have seen 7<1. iEpa after performing a public rite in the cities and those who do so after going to a private professional priest, the author is unperturbed by the first, who not very remarkably faH to attain knowledge; but the second group evokes pity from him because these people intend to gain knowledge be fore the ceremony but go away without asking additional questions and without understanding what they have seen or heard or learned. They have spent their money too soon, and as a result have lost their yvwp:YJ. There cannot be said to be a view, let alone agreement among scholars on how this passage is related to the author's exegesis of Orpheus' poem, or to anything that precedes or folIo ws in the papyrus. This text thus epitomizes the difficulty faced in reconciling the commentator's interests in cult, souls, and initiation in the first part of the extant text with his focus on cosmology and physical science in the second part. The passage is so striking as to have occasioned a debate over its 7

Le. all those who have received initiation/instruction.

44

Dirk Obbink

individual authorship. Rusten (1985) argued that the discrepancies between this columns and the surrounding ones were sufficient to presume that the first ten lines of this column are an extensive quotation from another author, the conclusion of which is marked by the paragraphos after line 10. CIoser consideration showed otherwise. Although the author does introduce abrief prose quotation earlier (co!. XI. 8-9) for the illustration of an alleged meaning of a word (in addition to at least three prose lines ofHeraclitus in co!. IV), the scribe's consistent graphie practice when a quotation ends before the end of the line, as does line 10 in co!. XX, is to fill out that line with the following text of the author' s remarks. In addition, the scribe always begins the initial quotations, wh ich serve as lemmata for the discussion (as opposed to individual words or phases from the lemma), on a new line. These quotations are regularly marked by paragraphoi above and below the line(s) quoted. Given the fact that in co!. xx line 10 stops significantly short of the surrounding Iines (34 letters as against 38-9 letters in the surrounding lines) , and is followed by a pa ragraphos , lines 11 ff. could weH be a new (prose) quotation continuing into the lacuna at the end of co!. xx, and concluding with an expression like: las so and so says'. 8 Caution, however, must be exercised at this juncture. Though the scribe's graphie practice appears to be relatively consistent, the use of paragraphoi in school exercises and subliterary texts and even in some ancient critical editions is notoriously irregular, a problem that is compounded by the fact that they are overlooked or inconsistently reported by modern editors; the nineteenth-century delineatores of the Herculaneum papyri, for example, neglected to report them over 50 per cent of the time. In the Derveni papyrus there is at least one irrationally placed paragraphos, 9 while the paragraphos at

8,

8 For the reversed order. with the formula TOVTO Mywv postponed until after the quotation ofthe lemma see XVI. 7. XVI. 7. XXI. 1-2; Lamedica (1992: 328). 9 XXIII. 7. Though omitted in the ZPE edn., the presence of the paragraphos in this position is indicated in the editio princeps, Kapsomenos (1964: 24). The ZPE publication did not record paragraphoi, though it underscored words that its preparers took to be quoted as lemmata by the Derveni author from his poem. In the papyrus these are signalIed by the placement of a paragraphos before the line in which the quotation begins, and another after the line in which the quotation ends. On the paragraphoi in PDerveni and on its system of lemmatization see Lamedica (1992). I have only to amend her findings in one detail, as folIows: in the format in which the Derveni text is written, main lemmata quoted from the poem always begin with a new line (even when this requires leaving the preceding line short ofits fuU extent). The quotation of Heraclitus at col. IV. 7 ff. conforms to this format in that it begins with a new line, and, I believe, line 6 was left with uninscribed space after Mywv; cf. the contribution

Cosmology as Initiation

45

XIII. 6 may mark nothing more than a strong grammatical pause, as Burkert (1985: 5 n. 16) notes. I have collated all paragraphoi recorded either in published texts or photographs of the Derveni papyrus. But I have not seen the original and am doubtless not aware of them all. On these grounds I conclude that !ines 1-10 of col. xx are not the quoted words of another author, followed by a 'feeble prose paraphrase of the last few !ines' by the Derveni author. lO For in this case, we would expect (based on the scribe's procedure followed e1sewhere) !ine 10 to be filled out by the author's own remarks. We should also be prepared to consider that the paragraphos after !ine 10 may mark no more than the inception of a grammatical unit. In that case, !ines 11 and 12 would represent the author's rounding out of the sentence by reiterating his point in the preceding passage. As for other considerations of style, it is easy to exaggerate the discrepancy between this column and the ones surrounding it. It is true that the sentence is developed in a more deliberately periodic structure employing antithesis and diairesis than, say, some of the purely exegetical passages in the Derveni text which comment exclusively on the meanings of individual words. The argument of coI. XXII (discussed below), can be positively compared for the more elaborate, antithetical construction of its sentences. Like coI. xx it is framed in a somewhat more epideictic mode. In wh at follows I will assurne that the first ten !ines of coI. xx (whether or not what follows-as seems likely-is quoted from another source) are the words of the same author who speaks e1sewhere and that they are part and parcel with what he says. Those who take xx. 1-10 to be a quotation in any case assurne that the prose author is being quoted sympathetically, rather than polemically. Rusten suggested furt her that this passage uses reductionist logic to deny there is any way of gaining knowledge of the divine: 01' David Sider in this volume. Exceptions such as cois. XIV. 5 and xv. 11 simpIy eite words from the main lemma (e.g. xv. 11. cf. 6). and are accordingly not signalIed in the papyrus by paragraphoi. The reason for this convention is no doubt the fact that the commentary was originally designed in such a way that full-length hexameterlines,quoted from the poem as main lemmata would serve as a basis [or the coIumns' width. P. Parsons (Turner and Parsons (1987: 151 n. 1l3)), noting that later a notional hexameter-length is used as the basis of prose stichometry, observes that the Derveni commentary 'shows prose written in actual hexameter-lengths-the origin of the practice?' 10 Rusten (1985: l39), referring to xx. ll-12.

46

Dirk Obbink

civic, institutionalized forms of initiations offer no promise of knowledge, or are proceduraHy flawed so as to prevent its acquisition. l l And since those who attempt to gain knowledge by being initiated in the rites purveyed by itinerant technicians, fail miserably in the attempt, and lose their money as weH, the author clearly views such knowledge as unattainable by these means. He does not, however say that they leam (EIW(}OV) nothing. Rather, he explicitly says that they understand nothing of what they 'saw or heard or Iearned' (Hne 8 EIW(}OV) in the course of being initiated. I suspect that, in contrast to those persons initiated in institution al mysteries who cannot listen and leam at the same time (lines 1-3), those initiated by technicians do manage to leam the Iegomena they hear (perhaps hymns and bits of liturgy) and remember the symbols they are shown. It is thus that they can make a pretence (line 8) of understanding. But in fact they faH to ac hieve what they expected. In the Bacchae (40) Dionysus says that the city must leam (JKp.,a(}dv) that it is aTE'AwToV in his rites (in spite of the curious fact that the city knows fuU weH it does not celebrate Dionysus); at 476 the stranger teHs Pentheus that these rites are äpPYJTa, 'secrets', which are OU (}Ep.,!<; aKOVaat, but which are good to know (döEval). In a fragment to which David Sider drew to my attention (B 17) Heraclitus phrases the problem of knowledge raised in our column in a strikingly similar way: 'For many men-those who encounter such things---ao not understand them, and do not grasp them after they have leamt; but to themselves they seem to understand' (ovöE p,a(}ovTE<; YlvwaKOVaLV, EWVTOtal ÖE ÖOKEOVaL). In the Derveni text the problem about knowledge acquired in the mysteries underscores tensions over the technicity of initiation and genealogically transmitted religious craftmanship. The ability to initiate (nAEtv) or conduct TEAETa{ as a systematized body of knowledge (TEXV'y)) was a long-standing claim among itinerant diviners and initiators. The technical terminology used by the Derveni author to describe the type of TEAWT~<; is illustrated, for example, by Strabo (10. 3.23) in a digression on enthusiasmos, divination and religious frauds when he says: 'of this kind are the arts used in the crafts of Dionysus and Orpheus' (T6 4nAoTEXvOV p.,uAwTa T6 TTEpt Ta<; L'lwvVaWKa<; TExva<; Kat Compare here Aristotle's remark, fr. 15 Rose, that learning plays no role in ou fta8ELV 'TL OELV, aAl\d 7TaßeLv Kai 8taT€B~vaL, O'rfAOVOTt YfVOP,EVov<; €7TtT7Jödov<;, 'Those who are being initated into the mysteries are to be expected not to learn anything, but to suffer some change, to be put in a certain condition, Le. to be fitted to some purpose.' 11

initiations: TOU'; TEAOVp..EVOVS

Cosmology as Initiation

47

'OptKds). Such migrating specialists, by no means confined to an Orphic or Dionysiac manifestation, are thoroughly documented from as early as the seventh century. Thaletas is said to have cured a plague at Sparta by instituting the singing of a paian. In the succeeding centuries the likes of Epimenides, Abaris and Empedocles purveyed their cathartic arts and oracles, the 'disciplines' (TEXVat) ridiculed as ßavava{u by the author of On the Sacred Disease. Nor is this kind of 'craftsmanship' exclusive to the Greek world: Walter Burkert has outlined the case for the transmission of a systematized body of magical and incantatory texts, perhaps via Crete, from Mesopotamian quarters. That there was a continuous need for such people, and the possibility of their success is attested by the reference to expenditure (OU7T(J,V1)v) in the co lu mn from the Derveni papyrus (xx. 9). We also know that the organization of such technicians was loosely hereditary: individuals handed down esoteric knowledge in personal succession, normaIly from father to son, a disciple, or adopted son. Isocrates treats the case of a successful mantis, one Polemainetos of around 450; without a son, he chose a disciple and left hirn his TEXV1], his books, and his money; the heir 'made use of the craft', leading an itinerant life and seeing many cities, and thus enlarged his fortune. The most direct evidence for such genealogie al organization comes from the edict of Ptolemy IV Philopator of 212: the papyrus document mandates that 'those who perform initiations for Dionysus' (ol TEAOVVTES TI{J Llwvva
48

Dirk Obbink

ean bring evil upon an enemy by 'binding' hirn or raising adernon against hirn through saerifiees and formulae (lTTlfJÖa{). Similar is the aeeount in Plato's Phaedrus (244d), though it names Dionysus as Lord of teletai who by means of prayers and oraeular power releases families from disease and terrible suffering ineurred through some ancient guilt (7TaAaLll j-LYjv{(LaTa). The Derveni author thus tells us that he knows other poetry attributed to Orpheus in addition to the verses of the rhapsodie theogony on whieh he specifieally eomments. This poetry was in fact used in eult, for the author teIls in eolumn XXII us he found it 'in the Hymns':12 mll![T' oo]v Oj-Lo{w[s w]vOj-LaaEV ws I}UAAWTa

ov

~[ov]l!aTO

ywdJalfwv TWV av8pdJ7Twv T~j-L c/>vaw, on 7TUVTES oj-Lo{av Exovaw ovoE 8I.AOVGtj-L 7TUVTES TavTu' KpanaTEVovTES Al.yovaL 0 n av aVTwv EKuaTwL E7TL QVj-LOV EA8YjL, ä7TEp av 81.AoVTES TvyxuvwaL, 5 ovSaj-La TavTu, V7TO 7TA€OVEg{as, Ta OE Kai V7T' aj-La8{as. ril OE KaL M~TYjP Kai 'Na KaL l1pYj ~ aVT~. EKA~8Yj OE rij (LEv VO(LWL, MfJTYjp 0' on EK TavTYjs 7TUVTa y[tv]ETaL. rij KaL rata KaTa [yBwaaav EKuaToLS. ,dYjj-L~TYjP' [SE wvoj-Lua8Yj wa7TEp. ~ rij M~TYjP, Eg aj-Lc/>oTl.pwv EIv] qvoj-La' 10 Ta aVTO yap ijv.-Ean OE KaL EV TOtS 'Y(LVOLS df?[Yj]j-Ll.vov· ",d!lj-L~TYjP [P]l.a rij MfJTYJp 'EaT{a ,dYj!dn." KaAE[rT]aL yap Kai ,dYju,v on EOYjL[w8h EV Tiji j-LdgEL. SYjAWaEL S . [ .. ]av KFa Ta E7T • YE • [ ••• ]- PI.q. S' on 7TOAAa Kai . .. [ ] ~V [ ±11 ] ~g aVTijs. Pl.a Ka . [ 15 Ka[ ±17 ] . YjOEK[ Therefore he (sc. Orpheus) named (Le. in his poem) everything likewise in the noblest possible way, knowing the nature of mankind, that not all of them have the same nature nor do they all want the same things. When they are in a position of power they say what they desire, whatever they happen to be wishing, never the same things, sometimes through greed, sometimes through ignorance. Ge, Meter, Rhea, and Hera are all the same she. She was called 13 Ge by custom; Meter because everything comes from her. Ge and Gaia according to each people's dialect. She was named 12 A photograph of the eentral seetion of this eolumn appears in Bulletin de Correspondance HelIenique 86 (1962), 794 fig. 1 and in Kapsomenos (1964: ,,{vag 12a); of the left edge, intereolumnium, and paragraphos in Turner and Parsons

(1987: 93 pI. 51). On the argument ofthis eolumn see further Burkert (1970). 13 The aorist may be ineeptive: 'she eame to be ealled Ge.'

Cosmology as Initiation

49

Demeter just as if she is Ge-meter: one name from both. For they are all the same she. And it is said also in the Hynrns: Demeter, Rhea, Ge Meter,I1 Hestia, Deio. For she is called Deio too because she was cut asunder (Le. ravaged) in the mixture (or: 'in sexual intercourse').IS He will reveal ... according to what comes later (?) .... Rhea because many ... animals ... gave birth to ... out of her. Rhea .. . Here the Derveni author cites a line in order to back up his contention that Orpheus' references in the theogonie poem to various earth-mother divinities can be regarded as equivocal (perhaps also as support for his etymology of Demeter from 'Ge Meter'). This line he took from an early book of hymns attributed to Orpheus. 16 Books thus remain crucial to this picture, as one, perhaps relatively recent way to facilitate transmission of the 'discipline' (rEXfJ1]). One might weIl conclude from Plato's account that the books must have contained ritual formularies. prescriptions. spells~whereas it has often been noted that the surviving Orphic literature is nearly 14 'Ge Meter' may be taken together as a single entity (as it was undoubtedly taken by the Derveni author), Le. 'Mother Earth' (so M. L. West (1983: 81)), thus instantiating the etymology offered in line 10: so already Henrichs (1968: 111-12) comparing Eur. Bacch. 275-6, Phoen. 685-6 LJa(J-aT1)p (iEa, 71avTwv ävaaaa 71aVTwv OE ra Tpofo,. The Mycenaean dedication KN F 51 in \ine 2 may read ma-ka, i.e. Mij rij : F. Aura Jorro and F. R. Adrados, Diccionario Micenico, i (Madrid, 1985), 422 with further bibliography, and cf. Aeseh. Suppl. 890 f., 899 f. {-ta ra {-ta ra, ßoav fOßEPOV d7TOTPE71TE, with the 1:'s J, (J-iJTEp yiJ: Herodas 1. 85: Theoer. IS. 89 (Sicilian?). H. Versne\, Ter Unus: Isis, Dionysus, Hermes: Three Studies in Henotheism, Inconsistencies in Greek and Roman Religion, i (Leiden, 1990), 108 n. 49 speculates tha1 this etymology may have produced the identification of the two goddesses. 15 The Derveni author suggests that she was called ,11),{,' from O"lwuv because she was raped. The violent copulation is also referred to in co!. XXVI (the final section of the extant part of the papyrus). There the author quotes Orpheus as saying in his poem that Zeus 'wanted to unite in love with his mother' (viz. Rhea =Demeter, both of whom =Earth). That Zeus 'wanted to' implies that there was a difficuity in his way. But as M. L. West (1983: 94) notes, 'we can be sure he overcame it.' Their offspring was Persephone, who followed in the Derveni theogony after the point at which the papyrus discussion of it hreaks off. 16 Philodemus (De pietate, pp. 63 + 23 Gomperz) cites a quotation of the Derveni text containing this !ine by Philochorus (FGrHist 328 F 185): KdvJI TOL, "Y(J-vot<; 0' 'OP.
50

Dirk Obbink

all of it mythologieal in eharacter. 17 Burkert. however. has argued on the basis of the Mesopotamian model that one use of mythology belongs preeisely in the sphere of the magical practitioner. whose task is to explain and thereby overeome disease and other forms of erisis including blood-guilt from the killing of kin by means of exegesis and narrative re-telling. and thus to 'reinstall normal order' (1982: 8). This is a well-attested. often overlooked use to which mythographie poetry was put in private circles. as weIl as in eities: aecording to the Hesiodic Certamen (92 ff. Rzaeh). a Hellenistic red action of a text which Wilamowitz showed to be of classical date. select lines of Homer (speeifieally Od. 9. 6-11) were traditionally and still in historical times (lTL KUt vilv) solemnly intoned as a preliminary ritual (7TpoKUnVXHJ8m) by all present at publie saerifiees (Jv TUt, KOtVUt, 8uOrut,) before saerificial meals and libations (7TpO TWV Od7TVWV KUt 07TOVOWV).

The most basic means of 'reinstalling normal order'. however. is 'to repeat eosmogony' (Burkert 1982: 8) as an aeeompaniment equally suitable to the installation or temporary ritual abdication of a ruler. the pangs of ehildbirth. ritual passage to adulthood. or the eure of a toothaehe. For it was the task of such healers to disco ver the 'ancient guilt' (7TuAutov f-t~Vtf-tu) at the basis of present suffering. 18 This would require singling out a specific past offenee in every single ease of affliction. from among a vast repertoire of paradigmatic mythie examples that were authoritative but suseeptible of periodie reinvestment withnew meanings. It is preeisely for this reason that the surviving poetry of 'Orpheus·. just as the Orphic verses treated by the Derveni author. dweIls upon eosmogony and theogony including anthropogony: for it eontained the story of the most ancient and general kind of guilt for humankind: the 'ancient grief ofPersephone' as Pindar says (fr. l33). In refleetion and speeulation on this most eontroversial item. the birth of Dionysus 19 and the ereation of man from the soot of the rebellious Titans who had killed 17 Even the bone-plates from Olbia list mythological personages, as they narrate cosmology in structured lists of opposites. On the plates see L. Zhmud', 'Orphism and Grafitti from Olbia', Herrnes, 120 (1992),159-68 with bibliography. 18 The situation at Thebes at the beginning of Sophocles' OT may be compared in this connection. 19 The Derveni commentary as preserved breaks off short of the birth of Dionysus, Le. at the incestuous union of Zeus with his mother Rhea-Demeter (col. XXII). But reconstructions of the Protogonos Theogony (on which the papyrus comments) assurne that the narrative continued through Persephone, offspring of this union, to her son Dionysus and his fate at the hands ofthe Titans: see M. L. West (1983: 93-8).

Cosmology as Initiation

51

and eaten the god Dionysus, the rise of humankind from rebellion and guilt is re-enacted as an initiatory pattern embedded in the political order and the life-cycle. This pattern is para11eled in Mesopotamian anthropogony and reflected in the imagery of the gold leaves. It is for this reason not at a11 surprising to find a digression criticizing those who, because of lack of understanding, faH to benefit at initiations from the words of the TEAEaTU[,20 in the middle of the Derveni author's reflections on the Orphic theogony as he sampies the words of Heraclitus and the physical speculations of Anaxagoras and Diogenes of Apollonia. Already in col. VI he is concerned to explain the activities of magoi by analogy with those of mystai, a term for initiates with exclusively Eleusinian and Dionysiac associations: 'the magoi', he says, 'sacrifice innumerable knobbed cakes, because the souls are also innumerable; initiates make a preliminary sacrifice to the Eumenides for the same reasons as the magoi. For the Eumenides are souls .. .'. His remarks on the Eumenides were probably linked exegetically to the role played by the Erinyes in the Heraclitus fragment in securing natural order and justice in the cosmos, and he is exercised to find a corresponding basis for this in activities of cult, properly understood. His concern for the composition of the soul and for 'the things which now exist' out of the rearrangement of enduring material parts (XVI, 2, 7 L; XVII. 2, 8; XXI.9) underlies his use of Anaxagoras. In col. xx his concern with those who come away from TEAETU[ without understanding what they hoped, is directly linked to his insistence that only 'those who know' (o[ op8w, YWWUKOVTE,: XXIII. 2), understand that in Orpheus' poetry truths are cloaked in recondite expressions, while 'those who do not understand' (o[ DU ytVWUKOVTE,: V. 6, IX. 2, XII. 5, XXIII. 5, XXVI. 8), like the uncomprehending at initiations, read the poem carelessly, literally, or make facile untheorized identifications, such as between Ouranos and Olympos (XII): 'He made this line deceptive and to the many (or: to many) it is unclear, 20 The commentator will then be suggesting that those who faH to benefit from what is said at initiations because of lack of understanding are analogous if not identical to those who faH to understand the words of Orpheus' poem on which he is commenting. A strongcr claim would be that his quotation and exegesis of the Orphic theogony is of a sort that one might expect to hear at such a ceremony. Plato, for example, makes it clear that Ion not only performs Homer, Hesiod, and Archilochus at religious festivals, but that he expounds their texts as weil. See the contribution of Luc Brisson, in this volume.

52

Dirk Obbink

but to those who understand correctly it is clear that air is Okeanos and air is Zeus' (XXIII. 1-3). The latter are like Orpheus himself, who described the world as he did because he 'knew the nature of humankind', ytvwa/fwv TWV av{}pw7TwV T~fL cpuatv (XXII. 2, cf. IX. 5). His main point in coi. xx may be a comparison between such readers and those who seek to gain understanding in initiation but come away without it, rather than a criticism of telestic initiation per se. 2 ] I suggest therefore that the Derveni author sees himself as answering in his treatise a potential criticism of Orphic teletai. Unlike those who go away without understanding what they have seen or heard or learned, the Derveni author asks questions about the Orphic poem, engaging in procedures of interpretation that use instruction in cosmology and mythology as a form of initiation, that is, by engaging in a creative remythologizing (Burkert 1968) of what he takes to be the Orphic poet's originally conceptual insights. It cannot, I think, be known that the Derveni author is a TEAWT~", though the case against this has yet to be made. 22 But he certainly acknowledges Orpheus as aspiritual authority, to whose books he imparts a singular and unique message fathomable only by a learned elite. The wonder and pity directed in coi. xx toward those who faH to achieve understanding from religious craftsmen does not necessarily imply disapproval of initiation: such competition, as Burkert has shown, is typical of the kind of craft organization followed by the T€AWTa[: as Hesiod puts it: 'potter bears grudge against potter, carpenter against carpenter, beggar against beggar, and singer against singer' (Op. 25 f.). As Burkert says: 'This is the way specialists behave; their existence is dependent on the condition that they remain rare and exceptional' (1982: 9). This enables us, I suggest, plausibly to take stock of some of the eccentricities in the author's exegesis, without either subscribing to his conclusions or dismissing hirn as a simpleton. Aspiring to such 21 Since the preceding column yields T~[A]taa, (XIX. 13) and 7Td.VTa nAEi (XIX. 12. sc. Zeus) before its text expires, it is tempting to suggest that the digression in xx on 01 €7TLnMaaVTES (xx. 1, cf. 6 and repeated at 11) is part ofthe author's exegesis ofthe word uMw (cf. perhaps XVII. 12 with OF 21a,2 = 168,2). But the connection remains obscure. 22 That the author's concerns were partly or primarily cultic in nature is a possibility addressed neither by those who assume he is writing a Iiterary/philological commentary nor those who think he is exploiting the Orphic poem primarily as a vehicle for philosophical speculation. I argue that he is unlikely to have made any such neat distinctions.

Cosmology as Initiation

53

singularity, the Derveni author adopted an attitude toward the mysteries not unlike that of Heraclitus, whose method of expression, on a likely reconstruction of col. IV, is likened to Orpheus' own. Heraclitus hirns elf in B5 castigates VVKT{7TOAOL, fLdYOL, ßdKXOL, MjVUL, fLUUTUL, concluding that the fLVUT~pta accepted by humankind are an 'unholy performance'. BIS condemns processions and hymns to Dionysus, but go es on to account for this by identifying Dionysus with Hades. Like Heraclitus, the Derveni author remains a mystic in that he sees unfathomable relations between opposites, connections between words that underly phenomena, and talks about the world in an intentionally enigmatic way, as though imitating a sacred discourse. Even Plato and the Hippocratic tradition, though critical of initiatory technicians, ultimately embraced the language and imagery of mystery initiation as a vehicle for describing philosophical enlightenment. 23 The Stoics etymologized teIetai in terms of a curriculum for reaching the ultimate intellectual telos. 24 The Derveni author's attitude is somewhat different, in that rather than seeing cult and mysteries as metaphors for philosophical activity, as do Plato and the Hippocratic tradition, he sees in his poetic text clues for understanding the true basis of cult and the craft of initiation. Orpheus' poem can thus be seen as part of a series of tomb texts, like the Orphic gold leaves, whose conception of the next world derives at least in part from mystery ritual. It is not only the mystic text which has for the Derveni commentator a hidden meaning, but the world at large, ta eonta, human existence and death. The Eumenides, to whom mystai sacrilice (hence his reference to wineless libations), are in fact souls of the dead (col. VI. 6-10). People are overcome by pleasure and remain ignorant of what is of concern in the next world (col. v). His elucidation of cosmology, in which eschatological myth associated with the mysteries is combined with a dominant concern about relations between elements (lire, air, earth, water, and their mixtures), is pre23 C. Riedweg, Mysterienterminologie bei Platon, Phi/on, und Klemens von Alexandrien, Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte 26 (Berlin and New York 1987); R. Schlesier, Conjerence on Religious Secrecy (forthcoming). 24 They argued from their etymology of no'.1"o" n.1ETo), and the Iike (as allusions to the arcana phi/osophiae) that theology should come last (after physics, logic, and ethics) in the philosophical curriculum: Plut. Ve Stoic. repugn. 103Sb; Quaest. conviv. 718c; Ve Iside 382d-e; Et. Magnum s.v. n.1ETo) (SVF 2. 1008; cf. 1. 538); P. Boyance, Le Culte des Muses chez les phi/osophes grecs. l!tudes d'histoire et de psychologie religieuses (Paris, 1937),42-3,49 n. 2; C. A. Lobeck, Aglaophamus sive de theologiae Mysticae Graecorum causis libri tres, i (Regimontii Prussorum, 1829), 123-5.

54

Dirk Obbink

sented as at least potential instruction for mystic initiates, preferable to the teletai purveyed by many ritual craftsmen. This is no doubt a controversial view and likely to remain so. I offer it as an alternative to the view of the Derveni papyrus as a composition of a single dimension: a philological commentary, philosophical treatise, or literary paignion. Not long after the discovery of the Derveni papyrus, Rudolf Pfeiffer, arguing that elementary explanatory notes, consulted by Callimachus, must have lang accompanied the text of the Homeric poems and finally became the basis for our D-scholia, speculated that the 'tnrOfLvYJfLu on the Orphic Theogony in the new Derveni papyrus' was a 'specimen of just such a pre-Alexandrian commentary' (1968: 139 n. 1). And this is likely to be true, at least in part, though highly ironie, in light of the author's combined unity of conception and eccentricity. Certainly some of the exegetical techniques invoked by the commentator derive from a shared early stage of critical activity dating to the late fifth century. But the mobilization of those techniques in the linking of myth and idea at the expense of clarity in reasoning has ritual and social motivation.

3

Was Euthyphro the Author of the Derveni Papyrus? CHARLES H. KAHN

In an article published more than twenty years aga I raised this question in a rather light-hearted way.! Of course we cannot answer such a question with a categorical 'Yes' or 'No'. The papyrus text is unsigned; and we know nothing about Euthyphro beyond what Plato teIls us in two dialogues, the Euthyphro and the Cratylus. 2 If the connection seems nevertheless worth pursuing, that is for two reasons. On the one hand, the philosophical allegories of the papyrus are of considerable importance for understanding one kind of doctrine that Plato is reacting against in the Cratylus, and which is attributed there to the inspiration of Euthyphro. And on the other hand, even if Euthyphro and the Derveni author are not the same person, they represent much the same religious and intellectual milieu. Or so I will argue. Assuming that Euthyphro and the papyrus author are distinct, it will be useful to think of them as two competitors in the same line of business. Each is a self-employed mantis, one of those whom Plato in the Meno describes as 'concerned to be able to give an account (logos)' of their religious practice (Meno 81a 10). And in each case that logos derives in part from the oracular utterances of Heraclitus and the nous-cosmology of Anaxagoras. It is by reference to such a logos that each lays claim to an expertise in matters concerning the gods (theia pragmata), an expertise that permits them to recognize in old poems and stories a deeper meaning that the many do not understand. See Kahn (1973: 156 n. 6). lassurne that Socrates' interlocutor in the Euthyphro is identical with the Euthyphro of the derne of Prospalte introduced at Cratylus 396d5. even though no patronyrnic is given in either dialogue. Other references to Euthyphro in the Cratylus: 399al, 400al,407d8,409d1, 428c7. 1

2

56

Charles H. Kahn

Regardless, then, whether we have one figure here or two, the parallels offer a fascinating glimpse into the intellectual marketplace of Greece in the late fifth and early fourth centuries BC. The papyrus text and the Euthyphro-inspired etymologies of the Cratylus bring together elements of quasi-religious and quasi-philosophical thought that are represented in Plato's writings from several different points of view: as Orphic salvation-mongers in Republic Book 2 3 and as superficial Heracliteans in the Cratylus and Theaetetus. Both the Derveni author and Euthyphro take their place in a larger array of thinkers and writers who illustrate the surprising vogue of Heraclitus in the last generation of the fifth century and the first generation of the fourth. This array includes not only Cratylus but also Democritus, as weil as the author of the Hippocratic treatise De Victu. 4 And we may add the anecdote according to which Euripides introduced Heraclitus' book to Socrates and asked for his opinion (Diog. Laert. 2. 22). I cannot pursue all the threads that lead from the Derveni text into the thought-world of the immediately pre-Platonic period. I propose to concentrate here on two points: (1) to show that Euthyphro belongs among the 'Orphics' as weIl as among the Heracliteans, so that his kinship with the Derveni author will be fundamental. not superficial. and (2) to emphasize the elements of similarity between the etymological enterprise inspired by Euthyphro in the Cratylus and the allegorical exegesis presented in the papyrus.

Euthyphro and Orphic Lore It has sometimes been supposed that Euthyphro is a conventional

representative of traditional Greek piety; but that is certainly not the case. Euthyphro's prosecution of his father for murder reflects a fanatical obsession with ritual pollution and the need for purification that is not at all typical of Greek attitudes on the subject. As Euthyphro hirnself reports, his family disapproves of his behaviour, Rep. 2.363c3-d2; 364bS-36Sa3; 366a4-b2. For echoes of Heraclitus in the fragments of Democritus see C. H. Kahn, 'Democritus and the Origins of Moral Psychology', American Journal oJ Philology, 106 (1985), 11 [, 15 f., 18 f. The approximate date for the De Victu, c.400BC, seems fixed by precisely the same criteria as tor dating the Derveni text: the absence of any Platonic influence, together with massive and eclectic use of Presocratic theories. 3

4

Was Euthyphro the Author?

57

and the Athenian public regards hirn as crazy (Euthyphro 3c2, 4d6, 6a3). Burnet rightly identified Euthyphro as 'a sectary of some kind', and remarked that he spent his youth on Naxos (4c4), 'one of the chief centres of Dionysiac worship'. 5 Burnet suggested that we may best regard Euthyphro as 'a companion figure to the extreme Pythagorist Telauges' , who discusses asceticism with Socrates in a dialogue of Aeschines. 6 Similarly Boyance, in his study of 'the doctrine of Euthyphro' in the Cratylus, came to the conclusion that Euthyphro was a Pythagorean. 7 I think, however, that Euthyphro's interest in violent myths, and in particular in stories 'that the many do not know' (6b--c), points in a different direction. As Linforth observed, the myth of the dismemberment of Dionysus by the Titans 'is commonly regarded as essentially and peculiarly Orphic and the very core of the Orphic religion'. 8 After an exceedingly critical survey of the evidence, Linforth reluctantly concIuded that there was probably a poem earlier than Pindar, attributed to Orpheus, that told of the rending of Dionysus and the punishment of the Titans by imprisonment in human bodies. 9 The evidence for this is much stronger than Linforth realized. He overlooked the most striking proof that such a story was weH known to some Greek authors in the fifth century Be, namely, the emphatic silence of Herodotus in reference to aH matters concerning the death of Osiris in Egypt. In his account of Egyptian culture in Book 2, Herodotus ostentatiously avoids pronouncing the name of OsirisDionysus in any context referring to the myth of the god's death, and does so in such a way that the reader can easily see what he is talking about. For example, at 2. 61 in referring to the festival of Isis at Bousiris, Herodotus remarks: 'whom they mourn on this occasion, it is not pious tor me to say'. (There is a similar formula at 2.86.2; 132. 2; 170. 1; cf. 171. 1.) It is not Osiris-Dionysus lord of the dead whom Herodotus refuses to name (for he does name hirn in this role, 2. 123. 1), but the god who is mourned, mummified, and buried. Now Diodorus reports that the story of Osiris' death was originally a mystic secret (~v 5

J. Burnet. Plato's 'Euthyphro', 'Apology of Socrates'. and 'Crito' (Oxford, 1924). 5.

6

For Aeschines' Te/auges, see H. Dittmar, Aeschines von Sphettos (Berlin, 1912),

213ff. 7 P. Boyance, 'La doctrine d'Euthyphrou', Revue des lltudes Grecques, 54 (1941), 141-75. 8 I. Linforth, The Arts ofOrpheus (Bcrkeley, 1941), 307, citing Rohde, Guthrie, and Nilsson. 9 Ibid.355.

58

Charles H. Kahn

(hr0PP~TOL" MywBuL) , but was eventually divulged to the multitude (1. 21. 1). It was clearly no secret to Herodotus. One has the impression that his silence is carefully designed to walk an ambiguous line between respect for a mystic secret and suppressed horror at the story of a god's death and mutilation. There are scattered allusions, of a very indirect sort, to the death of Dionysus in other passages of Greek literature from the fifth and fourth centuries. In addition to the texts cited by Linforth and Burkert,10 two passages are of special interest in this connection. In Busiris 39 Isocrates, after complaining of the horrible and impious stories told by poets about the gods, mentions with satisfaction the fact that Orpheus 'who was particularly devoted to such tales, died by being torn asunder'. This strongly suggests that Isocrates knew a poem, ascribed to Orpheus, in which the rending of Dionysus was related or at least mentioned. (The existence of such apoern, and its use in TEAETUf, is reported later by Diodorus 5. 75. 4.) It is noteworthy that Herodotus, who refers so often (obliquely) to the death of Osiris-Dionysus, never even hints at the dismemberment of Osiris, although this was a constant feature of the Egyptian story, and was never a secret in Egypt. But this was, from the ordinary Greek point of view, the most shocking feature of the corresponding myth about Dionysus. The second passage is in Plato's Euthyphro, where Socrates asks Euthyphro if he really believes the stories about violent deeds that Zeus and Kronos inflicted on their fathers. 'Yes', replies Euthyphro, land things still more astonishing than these, which the many do not know' (6b5). And he offers to tell Socrates 'many other tales concerning affairs of the gods, which I am sure it will shock you to hear' (6c6). Now the only story more shocking than the castration of Ouranos is likely to be the dismemberment of Dionysus by the Titans, 'which the many do not know'. If Euthyphro is a sectary, then, as Burnet suspected, he is more likely to have been connected with Orphic myths and ritual than with Pythagorean number theory or vegetarianism. If the poem of Orpheus that Euthyphro knew was at all like the one quoted in the papyrus, it would have provided hirn with a generous selection of 10 Burkert (1977a: 443). As Burkert and others have pointed out, the logos hiros mentioned by Herodotus at 2. 48. 3 may refer to the dismemberment of the god, but there is nothing in the context to convey this information to an ignorant reader (unlike the references to the god's death, which are all transparent).

Was Euthyphro the Author?

59

violent deeds, induding one god's swallowing another god's severed genitals and Zeus' desire for incest with his mother. Still, nothing in the Orphic repertory could be more awful than the rending of Dionysus. Our papyrus text does not follow thc story to its climax in the narrative of Kore and Dionysus, so we do not know whether it also rcferred to the death and dismemberment of the god. But since this story is certainly known to Herodotus and probably to Isocrates as weH, there is no reason why it should not be known to Euthyphro, a self-proclaimed expert in theia pragmata. It is almost certainly some version of the Dionysus--Titans story that PIato has in view when he attributes to 'the followers of Orpheus' (OL ap..cPi 'OpcP€a) the etymology of u(vp..a as a punishment for unnamed crimes: I think it most Iikely that the followers of Orpheus established this name, on the grounds that since the soul is paying the penalty for what it has done (ws 8tKTJV otoouaTJS rijs if;vxits wv !j~ EVEKa o{owaw), it has this container, to keep it in guard (i'va aW'€TaL), in the likeness of a prison (OEaf'-WTTJp{OV dK6va). So this is a 'keeper' (awf'-a) of the soul, as the name indicates, until it has paid what is due. (Crat. 400c4-9.)

The same conception of the body as a prison in which the soul is undergoing punishment is alluded to elsewhere in the dialogues, notably in the Phaedo, where Socrates refers with some irony to the 'doctrine told in secret (lv d7TOPP~TOt, AEY0p..EVO,), that we human beings are in a kind of prison (cPpovpa), anel that we should not release ourselves from it [sc. by suicide] and run away' (Phaedo 62b 3). On this passage the scholion reports that Xenocrates interpreted the prison as 'Titanic and referring to Dionysus'.u Xenocrates apparentIy took for gran ted that the rending of Dionysus was familiar to Plato as a mystic teaching, and that it is for this mystic crime that the soul is regarded as doing penance by being encaged in the body,12 In the text of the Cratylus the Orphic etymology for uwp..a is 11 Linforth, Arts 01 Orpheus, 337-9; Xenocrates fr. 20 Heinze =219 Isnardi Parente. n The earliest extant reference to the myth of Dionysus' death is to be found in Plato's quotation from Pindar at Meno 81b-c, according to the usual interpretation. (Sceptical doubts on this point have recentiy been reiterated in Brisson (1992: 497 n. 71.)) Even more controversial is the mention in Plato, Laws 3.701c2 of an evil 'Titanic nature' in human beings. Burkert (1977a: 443 n. 20) cites this passage as a reflection of the same myth; Linforth and Brisson express vigoraus doubts.

60

Charles H. Kahn

followed shortly afterwards by the quotation of two hexameter verses from a poem of Orpheus 13 and immediately preceded by an etymology for l/;vx~ that is designed to please the followers of Euthyphro (400al). This dose collocation may or may not reflect Euthyphro's Orphic connections. The etymology assigned to Euthyphro is in any case adefinite hint of the kind of speculation Plato associates with this curious figure. After a relatively plausible explanation of l/;vx~ as life-breath, Socrates continues: 'Wait a moment! I think I perceive something more convincing than this to the followers of Euthyphro (ai ap,1>i Evßv1>pova). In my opinion they will despise this account and regard it as vulgar' (39ge4 ff.). Instead, Socrates proposes a fantastic derivation of l/;vx~ from 1>VOtV 0XEtV Kat EXHV, 'to hold and carry nature', on the grounds that not only does the soul possess and transport the nature of every body, but that, according to Anaxagoras, it is soul and reason (vovs) that 'holds and orders (OtUKOOp,ovoa) the nature of everything else' (400a). So Euthyphro is not only a religious sectary but a thinker who dabbles in lonian cosmology. Which brings us to the comparison with the Derveni author.

ParalleIs between Euthyphro and the Derveni Author The most striking feature shared by the Derveni text and the Euthyphro inspiration in the Cratylus is the strong presence of Heraditus. In the newer reading of col. IV Heraditus is cited by name in a context where two known fragments on the sun are quoted;14 and there is a reference back to this passage in col. XXV. 15 There are other echoes of HeracIitus in our text: one unmistakable in col. XIV, one at least probable in col. XVIII. 16 Heraclitus is the only 13 It is presumably the same Orphic theogony timt Plato cites again at the conclusion of the Philebus (66c8). 14 Heraclitus 22 B 3 and 94 DK. This citation removes the doubts I expressed about the quotation of fr. 3 from Aetius (The Art and Thought oJ HeracIitus (Cambridge 1979), 320 n. 193). I am not convinced, however, that the context in the papyrus proves that the two quotations formed a continuous text. Fr. 94 seems to be quoted only partially in co!. IV. 9. 15 I take it that 0[0<; E" apxii TOP .\6yov Otl1YEtra, in co!. xxv. 11 refers back to co!. IV. 7ff. 16 CO!. XIX. 3 echoes Heraclitus 22 B 114 DK; co!. XVIII. 5-6 OUK ';06rE<; 3E OUTE r~" fLoipu" on €url" ourE ro €7nKltWUU' seems to be modelIed on Heraclitus 22 B 5 DK: ou n YWWUKEW ()Eau<; OUo' ijpwa<; o,nv,,<; ElUt. Both are noted by Burkert (1983a: 38 f.).

Was Euthyphro the Author?

61

prose author mentioned by name in the papyrus, and the only one quoted verbatim. In the Cratylus the presence of Heraclitus is even more conspicuous, since Plato's text is longer and the doctrine of flux occupies a central position in his argument. Thus Heraclitus is introduced at 401d as authority for the view that aU things are in motion and nothing stands still. A few lines later this is illustrated by the famous image of the river and by a sentence that is generally regarded as a literal quotation: 'you cannot step twice into the same river' (402a9)Y Socrates then proceeds to discover the doctrine of Heraclitus in the names of the primordial gods (Rhea and Kronos) and in the verses of the early poets: Homer, Hesiod, and Orpheus (402b). And he concludes that the original name-givers believed in the theory of universal flux (439c3). Since the Heraclitean doctrine was introduced under the inspiration of Euthyphro (399a1; cf. 407d8, 409d1), we are led to believe that Euthyphro, like Cratylus, would endorse this theory. According to the view of language presented (and eventuaUy rejected) by Socrates, but implicitly attributed to Cratylus and Euthyphro, the truth about the nature of things is encoded in the words of traditional language but understood only by one who knows how to decipher the hidden message. So in the papyrus text Orphcus is said to have named things in virtue of his knowledge of the nature of mankind (col. XXII. 1-2). But the poet speaks in riddles, and our commentator is needed to interpret them (col. iii. 5-6, and passim). As one author has recently remarked, 'Orpheus is the wise namegiver, and the commentator is the equivalent of Socrates' .18 Both texts reflect the Heraclitean view that the truth of things is somehow available to us from the beginning, always staring us in the face; but that most people are unable to comprehend the real meaning of wh at they are thus confronted with. The Derveni author and Socrates (under Euthyphro's influence) also share with Heraclitus a fascination with names and with the possibility of finding hidden meanings in language. The Derveni author does not in general practise etymology in the Cratylus manner, reconstructing the 'original' and more instructive form of a 17

Fr. 91. But Marcovich (following Kirk) doubts the authenticity. See his

Heraclitus (Merida, 1967),206-11. 18 Baxter (1992: 134). Baxter regards the treatment of naming as 'the best evidence on olTer for seeing a connection between the Derveni Papyrus and the Cratylus'. See also Burkert (1970: 447-53). The connection between the papyrus author and Euthyphro was also suggested by Boyance (l974: 109 L).

62

Charles H. Kahn

familiar word. But in two cases the results are nevertheless comparable. Thus both texts derive ,d7JfL-rJT7JP from fL-rJT7JP and Kpovoc; from vouc;. In the first case the Derveni derivation is banal (,d7JfL-rJT7JP= r~+ fL-rJT'YJP) whereas the Cratylus version seems by contrast deliberately far-fetched (KaTa TT]V OOUtV Tijc; Eowofjc; otoovua WC; fL-rJT7Jp),19 In the second case both derivations reflect theoretical commitments. The Derveni text explains Kpovoc; from KPOVOVTa TOV VOVV TrPOC; cL\,\7JAa: Nous, like the Sun, causes things to collide with one another (coI. XIV. 4-7; cf. coI. xv. 1 and 8) and thus, presumably, to mate in order to generate the cosmos. For Socrates-Euthyphro, on the other hand, Kpovoc; signifies the purity (KalJapov Kai aX-rJpaTov) of vovs, since Zeus is the offspring of a mighty thought (fLEyaA7J otavota) (396bS-7). Thought and reason, otavota and vous, present a constant theme in the etymologies. (They are the source of everything noble, KaM, at 416c-d.)2° In particular, the vous of Anaxagoras appears, sovereign (avToKpaTwp) and mixed with nothing, setting all things in order (TravTa KOUfLEtV Ta npayfLaTa, 413c) at the culmination of a complex account ofJustice (TO o[Kawv) that Socrates claims to have heard in secret mysteries (EI' UTr0PP-rJTOts, 413a2). And his interlocutor agrees that this view is not Socrates' invention (413d3). The appeal to Anaxagoras is of course a point that the Derveni author shares with the Cratylus. Burkert and others have made clear to wh at extent the papyrus author draws on Ionian cosmology in general and the doctrines of Anaxagoras and Diogenes in particular. 21 Now Socrates invokes Anaxagoras' name twice. The first reference is in a discussion of the cycle of the moon and the dependence of its light upon the sun (Crat. 409a7-b6). The second reference is in the mystic doctrine just cited, where the sun as guardian of the universe is identified with cosmic justice (413b4). One of Plato's sources in the Cratylus is thus an allegorical development of Anaxagorean cosmology, with Heraclitean overtones, just such a development as our Derveni author finds in the riddling verses of Orpheus. The sun again plays a central role in the Derveni cosmology, with a reference to its setting that recalls both Socrates and Heraclitus. 22 But here also the details of the cosmology are obscure. Col. XXII. 9; Cratylus 404b8. With q,POVT](HS as producing all things KaM, compare Moira as the eternal and universal
20

Was Euthyphro the Author?

63

Perhaps when a fuller Derveni text is published we will find more parallels to the Cratylus. Even if we do, however, that will not prove that Euthyphro is our author. It will only confirm the thesis, which is I think established in any case, that one of Plato's sources in the Euthyphro-inspired etymologies was either the Derveni writer or a kindred spirit. In Plato's dialogue as in the papyrus text, we encounter an allegorist who discovers the wisdom of Ionian natural philosophy in a cryptic subtext of sources available to all but incomprehensible to the many: in one case the names of the gods and the basic terms of the common language; in the other case the poetry of Orpheus. So the importance of the papyrus document for an understanding ofPlato's Cratylus is incontestable. There remain, however, a few clues that point beyond this claim to the more speculative suggestion that would identify Euthyphro as the author. Here the evidence comes not from the Cratylus but from the dialogue that bears Euthyphro's name. It is there we learn of Euthyphro's fanatical concern with ritual pollution, a concern which (I have argued) is probably to be nnderstood in the light of a religions orientation to Orphic myth. And it is again in the shorter dialogue that we meet Euthyphro as a practising mantis who, like the Derveni author, mnst confront popular incredulity.23 Of course the thought of the papyrus text is after all qnite different from wh at we find in the Cratylus. So if, by chance, Euthyphro was in fact the author of this text, Plato has taken considerable liberties in what he presents to ns under the cloak of 'the inspiration of Euthyphro'. But that is what we would expect. Here as elsewhere Plato has taken over 'the relatively confused material available from his predecessors and contemporaries' and transformed this material into a coherent theory.24 23 24

Euthyphro 2cl-4; comparc a7nGr{r; in col. v. ] 0 and 13. The quoted phrase is {'rom Baxter (1992: l38).

4

Figures of Sexuality and Initiatory Transition in the Derveni Theogony and its Commentary CLAUDE CALAME

Whatever their position and their philosophical premises, scholars agree that the commentary in the Derveni papyrus bears upon one of the most ancient versions of the Orphic cosmo-theogony we know. 1 After abrief description of the sacrificial rites performed by the foUowers of Orpheus-which perhaps form the cultic circumstances of enunciation of the poem commented upon (co i. VI)the interpreter proceeds to state an essential premise: the poem is 'enigmatic' (alJlLy/-taT<.VDYJS, coI. VII. 4, 5, cf. IX. 10, XIV. 6, XVII. 13). Ta this extent it requires explanations, or rather decipherment, for the commentator thinks that its formulations are metaphoric and aUegorical. And in fact his reading often refers to the lmowiedge of those who 'know', that is, of the initiates who hold the keys of this allegorical epic diction (cois. IX. 2, XII. 5, XVIII. 5, xx.2-3 and 8, XVIII. 2 and 5, XXVI. 8).2 But what is reaUy the goalofthis exegesis? This article was translated by Glenn W. Most. 1 The probable place of the Derveni cosmo-theogony among the versions we can reconstruct has been outlined by Brisson (1985a), who warns us rightly against the risky reconstructions proposed by M. L. West (1983: 68-115); nevertheless this latter scholar's proposals concerning the probable dating of the poem and of its commentary (1983: 77-82) can be accepted. 2 The allegorical reading proposcd by the commentator has led to different suggestions regarding his identif'y: cf. Burkert (1986: 1-5). This practice, designated by thc verb alv{TTw()m, is distinguished from the kind of interpretation which the Greeks usually call d;V''Iyop{a (cf. R. Lamberton, Homer the Theologian: Neoplatonist Allegorical Reading and the Growth of Epic Tradition (Berkeley and London, 1986), 10-22): it is polymorphie and generally searches for a secret, hidden meaning, cf. F. Buftiere, Les Mythes d'Homere et la pensee grecque, 2nd cdn. (Paris 1973), 45-54, and for the beginnings J. Pepin, Mythe et allegorie. Les origines grecques et les contestations judeochretiennes, 2nd edn. (Paris 1976), 95-104. The Derveni commentator's procedures of allegorical reading bear above all upon linguistic (and partly etymologizing) analysis: cf. Henry (1986); see also Ricciardelli Apicella (1980).

Claude Calame

66

After all, in the context of Orphic initiation, knowledge of the poem commented upon must have been restricted to the initiates who, as such, certainly did not need explanations in order to understand it. 1s the Derveni commentary, then, using its written form so as to divulge the secrets of the followers of Orpheus in an attempt at antiOrphic propaganda? On the contrary, might it be pursuing a pedagogical objective, trying to bring up-to-date for a group of initiates of the fourth century Be a more ancient poem which had become obscure for them? Or might the poem itself, in its very conception, require readings of an exegetic type? Might not this exegesis be a part of the initiation process itself? Before sketching out an answer to these questions, we should try to elucidate the commentator' s exegetic procedures for one of the semantic regularities which traverse the poem. To the modern reader's eyes, it seems first of all that the commentator's interpretative proposals are often more clear-cut than the rather ambiguous formulations of the lemmata he quotes. This explanatory procedure, which tends to reduce polysemy, is particularly noticeable in the sexual interpretation which the commentator gives for several passages outlining relations of a genealogical order. Such an exegesis is all the more tempting as every genealogical narrative is founded upon the genital image: narratives deploying genealogies exploit the metaphorical resources offered by the biological process of sexual reproduction. Now, in the course of the poem and of its commentary, this metaphorical language and its decipherment present clearly differentiated figures; their articulation seems to indicate the movement and orientation of the wh oie cosmo-theogony. Beyond the metaphor, therefore, lies the specificity of an Orphic representation of the creation of the world and the function of its later commentary; this will define the· semantic analysis proposed here.

1. The Reign

01 the Primordial Entities and their Separation

As its commentator presents it, the poem begins by describing the establishment of the power of Zeus: obeying oracles probably pronounced by Night, the god receives force and the glorious 'demon' from his father. Prom col. VIII to col. XII, the commentator's whole effort bears upon the exegesis of this act of taking power: symbols of

Sexuality and Initiatory Transition

67

power received from the father, didactic oracles formulated by Night 'who prodaims omens' (with the complicity of the god of light), residence upon snowy Olympus (which the commentator assimilates in its height to xpovoS).l The quotation at the beginning of col. XIII of the verse which probably began the genealogical narrative brings us to the content of the oracle at thc origin of Zeus' enthronement. According to the commentator, the poem gives the content of this orade only indirectly, in the action which results from it: Zeus swaUows the 'venerable' one who first sprang up in (or from?) the aether. The word-for-word reading, which presents itself explicitly as a decipherment of a poem that expresses itself by means of allusion (alv{~ETaL), provides a double interpretation for the term aloofov. First, its use is connected with the metaphorical meaning of the term in its plural form: in all of Creek literature, the aloofa designate the masculine or feminine pudenda, the 'shameful parts'. The commenta tor justifies this first meaning by referring to the principle of generation, which the aloofa incarnate in the eyes of men. Then, passing from the plural to the singular and reading a comparison in the poem, the commentator refers alooLov to the sun; the comparison is justified, in its turn, by the sun's power to generate beings. Accordingly, what Zeus ingests is the Sun with its generative power, or rather, if one follows the habitual meaning of alooLov as a substantive and in the singular, its penis, which incarnates this same procreative faculty par excellence. 4 3 Since the fLEV which introduces it lacks any other particle connecting it to what precedes, the statement quoted in col. VIII. 4-5 can be considered, if not as the beginning of the poem, in any case as the beginning 01' its genealogical narration: this use of emphatic fLEV, typical of Homeric language, is described by J. B. Denniston, The Greek ParticIes, 2nd edn (Oxford, 1954), 359-61. The relative clause quoted in VIII. 2 (to which I shall return below) must be connected either to the invocation which must have opened the poem (with a hymnal, predicaUve formulation like 'Sing, Muses, the first entities and those which were born from Zeus, the all-powerful sovereign') or to the subsequent description of Zeus' action. The presence in the commentary on these two verses of the verb aKOUHV (I. 9) and of the expression OEafara in the plural (I. 11) suggests to me that the expression OEafaTov apx~v, which is not integrated into the statement's syntax, must be replaced by OEafuT' aKouauS', which is given by the lemma of col. XIII. 1; but in contrast to the solution suggested by Rusten (1985: 125-7), these orac\es refer to the word of Night (cols. X and XI) and not to Cronos, whose power Zeus merely takes over: cf. Orph. Frs. 103 and 164-7 Kern; in Fr. ISS, Zeus only learns from his father Cronos the 'measures' of creation. The very ambiguity in the formulation of these two verses could have led to the substitution of apx~v for aKovauS' in col. IX; see also the more complex solution proposed by M. L. West (1983: 85-6). 4 Used in the singular, TO allloLoI' usuaJly designates the penis, while in the plural Ta allloLa refers to the sexual parts in genera\, male or female. This is especially the

68

Claude Calame

Three arguments can support this second reading, which implies that the poet was already playing upon the double sense of the adjective al8olo') (the venerable [god?] =the penis). First, at the beginning of coI. XIV the commentator makes an element 'separated from itself' the subject of the gushing in the aether. Moroever, comparing the lemma commented upon with the fragments of other Orphic cosmo-theogonies, Helios and his penis can be assigned a status analogous to that of the primordial egg from which Eros with his sparkling wings, the shining, the first-born, arises. Finally, in a typicaIly Orphic vein of polemic against traditional theology, the succession narrative of the Hesiodic theogony-in which Gronos, after having castrated his father Ouranos, is forced to swallow a stone in place of his son Zeus-might weil have been transformed and reversed: this time it would be the grandson who ingests a solar penis identified with a grandfather dethroned by his son!S The Derveni poem and commentary provide some elements of this subverted succession story: Cronos is presented as the predecessor of case in Aristotle's zoological treatises: compare for example GA 716 b 28-30 or 718"19 (TO alooLov distinguished from the testicles) with 757 a 5-8 (the hyena or badger bears the alOOLa of the male and the female; cf. 770 b35: the same in the singular); but in HA 493 b3-5, the fern ale organ, when it is presented as the inverse of the penis, is designated by aloo[ov in the singular (cf. also 500 b 6-12: a problem posed by the peculiar morphology of elephants); cf. likewise Hdt. 2. 48. 2 (in the singular = the phallus), 2. 51. 1 (in the plural, the parts ofherms) or 1. 108. 1 (in the plural. the parts of a young girl) as weil as Hippocr. Aer. 940-1 and Nat. Mul. 4. 8. My thanks to P. Ceccarelli for the TLG search she performed for me in this connection. S It must be recognized that the syntax of the truncated statement with which co!. XIV begins is not clear: it is hard to see the role played by the subjunctive ExIJ6pn and by the accusative which seems to follow the verb; this masculine accusative certainly designates the sun in its quality of exceptional brilliance (thus it is not necessary to correct TOV into TO in col. XIV. 1. as proposed by Rusten (1985: 134)). The construction of EKlJpwOKW with the accusative, though rare, is attested in Anth. PaI. 9. 371. 1: thus the penis would gush out ofthe sun but in or towards the aether (taking the accusative of the lemma of co!. XIII. 4 as an accusative of direction). For the place of the primordial egg and Eros in the first Orphic cosmogonies, see the parody in Aristoph. Av. 690-702 = Orph. Fr. 1 Kern, as weil as the commentary I gave in Calame (1991: 229-34). For the Hesiodic succession myth and its Oriental paralleIs, cf. M. L. West, Hesiod. Theogony (Oxford, 1966), 18-31. It should be noted that the verb used by the poet (co!. XIII.4) to designate Zeus' swallowing of the alOOLOS corresponds exactly to the one used by the text of Hesiod (Th. 497) 10 signify Cronos' swallowing of the stone substituted for the new-born Zeus; 1he Orphic Rhapsodies also seem 10 have used this term to designate Zeus' ingestion of Phanes-Protogonos: cf. Frs. 129, 167, as weil as 58 Kern. But it will be recalled that by juxtaposing the lemma of XIII. 4 with that of VIII. 5, Rusten (1985: 125-6) takes alooLov as a qualification of oa{/-,ova: this reading implies the swallowing of the whole Sun; cf. also M. L. West (1983: 85).

Sexuality and Initiatory Transition

69

Zeus in a lemma drawn from the poem (coI. xv. 6); furthermore, the commentator says that Cronos was born from the Sun with the collaboration of Earth (coI. XIV. 2-3); finally, the poem itself called Ouranos, the son of Night, the first god to possess the royal power (coI. XIV. 6), apower wh ich Cronos-the commentator addshastens to take away from hirn (coI. XIV. 8-13). Given that, in the longest quotation from the poem which the commentary has provided us, royalty, first birth and 'venerability' are associated in a single being which generated the gods, rivers, fountains and everything that existed 'then' (coI. XVI. 3-6), the reader is led to identify this venerable king with Ouranos, an Ouranos whom the interpretation proposed by the commentator for al8oLOV and his function as creator of all things assimilate with the penis separated from the Sun-another reversal with regard to Hesiodic theology.6 Hence, the genealogie al tree subtending the poem, combined with the scheme of the royal succession, would take the following form: Night I I I I I

Sun

Earth

Aether/air

(cf. egg) I I I

Ouranos = penis = Protogonos (cf. Eros) Cronos (= Nous) Zeus (= Metis) - Dcmeter Reconstructing the vertical genealogical relations is hampered by the horizontal assimilations by which Orphic thought habitually proceeds. In any case, the Derveni commentator sees the establishment of the reign of Zeus as the outcome of a first phase of creation (y/vEaLs-). Having posed this reign as foundational but not first, the 6 The typically Orphic procedure of accumulating juxtaposed qualifications when designating and invoking a god induces me to take alSoLov as a substantivized adjective in the lemma of col. XVI. 3: the king. the first-born. the venerable (the penis?). is probably Ouranos. if not the Sun itself (according to thc proposal of Rusten (1985: 135-6). who suggests that Helios and his penis are identified); the assimilation between Ouranos. Cronos. and Zeus (cf. XIV. 5-12) should be added to these. The Orphic invocational procedure in sequences of denominations in apposition has been analyzed by Rudhardt (1991): cf. H.Orph. 8. 14. 34. etc .. and. in the Derveni poem itself. cols. XVII. 12 and XIX. 10. So too. in XIII. 4 the masculine nominative relative requires that we understand alSoiov (in the sense of 'venerable') as an attribute of the god (?) who 'first gushed out in the aether·. that is in fact Ouranosl

70

Claude Calame

poem had to explain its genesis by a genealogical narrative. This was based upon the oracles which had marked the first act of genesis and hence goes back to the primordial entities which had preceded the power of Zeus. Independently of any sexual union, these anthropomorphic entities seem to come about according to a creative principle to which at least the commentator seems to attribute the figure of the penis.

2. The Reign of Zeus and of Love Hence, beginning in coI. xv, the commentator, most probably following a ring structure in the poem, returns to the reign of Zeus the wise who follows upon Cronos-Zeus, who, corresponding to his qualification (f.LYJT{era, coI. xv. 6), shares the royal honours with Metis, the incarnation of artisanal intelligence: 'Zeus the head, Zeus the centre, Zeus by whom all things were fabricated' (col. XVII. 12), 'Zeus the first' (? col. XVIII. 12), 'Zeus the king, Zeus with the bright lightning, principle of all beings' (col. XIX. 10). Now, an essential generative activity occurs in support of the reign of this omnipotent king, the creator and animator of all things: copulation (col. XXI. 1). The commentator, certainly following the poet in the Orphic style of accumulating qualifications, glosses this founding act by aseries of names of divinities and of verbs which all refer to sexual activity: Aphrodite Ourania, who by her epiclesis recalls Ouranos, the firstborn; Zeus, invested by his listing in this divine series with the powers of the goddess of love; Peitho, because-the commentator hirnself explains (coI. XXI. 10-11 )-seduction induces beings to yield to one another; Harmonia (Cadmos' exemplary wife, the daughter of Ares and Aphrodite) because, corresponding to the etymolo gy of her name, she manages to adapt U!Pf.L0aE, col. XXI. 12) to each being its complement. But the reign of Zeus-Aphrodite also means yielding to the pleasures oflove (ucPpoDwul'ELV), that is, union between man and woman (col. XXI. 6-9), hence 8opvva8m, 'copulate' or 'impregnate'. According to the commentator, this activity is pursued until each of the beings in movement in the air has found his complement. 7 7 The first meaning of 1J6pvvp,u< is probably 'ejaculate,' corresponding with the deverbative Bop6s 'sperm' (HdL 2. 93. 1; Hippocr. Morb. 2. 2. 51. 1; Aristot. HA 5Hl"1): cf. Hdt. 3. 109. 1. This verb is based upon the same root as EIJOPOV (IJP<paKw), 'spring up', 'rush', used by the poet to describe the gushing in the aether of the

Sexuality and Initiatory Transition

71

At this point, Zeus himself must find a sexual partner in the person of a wife. The commentator names her in accordance with the procedure of Orphic juxtaposition which the poem too certainly used. Zeus' wife is Earth, who is also Mother. Rhea, and Hera: Ge by tradition, Meter because all things are born from her, Demeter because of her name, which combines the first two (co!. XXII. 7-11). The quotation of averse drawn from the Orphic Hymns not only confirms this sequence of names for the commentator but also lets him add Hestia and Deio to the list; he explains the presence of this avatar of Demeter etymologically by asserting that the goddess was bruised (EorjtiVfJTj, co!. XXII. 12-13) in her union with Zeus. 8 Earth-Mother is weil suited to be the sovereign god's partner in the generalized coupling and copulation which characterize the advent of Zeus' reign. The last column of the papyrus, in the form in which it has reached us, presents a final excursion into the domain of sexualitybut in order to correct a misunderstanding. After listing aseries of elements created or re-created by Zeus-such as Ocean (which the commentator assimilates with the air), the river Acheloos, the moon that shines for mortals, or the sun (cols. xXIII-xxv)-the poem returns to the erotic union of god and mother, and the commentator explains that what is involved is not Zeus' biological mother, despite the ambivalence of her qualification. In his opinion, EaS (co!. XXVI. 2) must be understood as the feminine form of EU" 'noble', 'generous', and not as a form of the possessive adjective EO,. So the commentator does not hesitate to do violence to morphology and syntax in order to avoid incest. His sleight of hand is all the more astonishing as he makes this matern al flgure the equivalent of Nous in the same explanation; just now, in the course of his commentary, he has presented Nous as an avatar of Cronos, Zeus' father (co!. IV. 7).9 For us, the Orphic poem ends here, in a Homeric formula, with the god's des ire to be uni ted in reciprocal love (Ep., qnAoTYJTt p.,tx01jvat, XXVI. 10) with Meter. Zeus' whole taking of primordial venerable (penis?); a sexual connotation is probable in this usage too. The meaning 'impregnate' proposed by R. Lamberton in his unpublished translation of 1983 cannot be reconciled with the preverb EK-. M. L. West (1983: 91-2) prefers to take lJopvfj as a substantive designating gushing and ejaculation: then co!. XXI would be a commentary upon the birth of Aphrodite from an ejaculation and hence from the sperm of Zeus. 8 See in this connection the commentary of M. L. West (1983: 93-4). 9 With regard to the Orphic marriage of Zeus with Rhea, identified with Demeter, and hence with his own mother, cf. M. L. West (1983: 82, 93-4).

72

Claude Calame

command is marked by the power of Aphrodite, who leads to an erotic and fertile union.

3. From Distinction to Union

After the separation into distinct entities comes the union between copulating partners: from the genital point ofview, this is the essential development that marks the advent of the world, divided into the two formative phases distinguished by the establishment of Zeus' reign. The narrative figure of this divine king consuming the Sun's penis provides the articulation between these two stages of development: it explains the genital capacity appropriated by Zeus to engender or confirm all the elements that came ab out during the reign of his two predecessors. Now, in his effort to decipher and explain abstractly, the commentator superimposes upon this narrative differentiation, performed by the act of Zeus, a whole series of more abstract distinctive elements; these supply the narrative sequence of sexual figures and metaphors with a philosophical translation whose initiatory significance will be explained below. To begin with, a temporal difference between once (7Tpoa()€v) and now (viJv) is marked within the poem itself: together with the gushing of the first-born king penis come ab out the primordial entitiesgods and goddesses, rivers and fountains-which have always been there, 'in that time', as emphasized by the aorist or past perfect tense and the temporal adverb TOTE (col. XVI. 3-6). The distinction is emphasized by the commentator, who contrasts the beings which have always existed (V7T1jpX€V) with the present entities (viJv) born from the former (ytV€TaL, co!. XVI. 7-8). Hence on the one hand there is a sort of spontaneous existence, on the other a generation based upon birth. Moreover, the first phase is marked by separation; starting with the penis detached from the sun (xwpw(Uv, col. XIV. 2), beings experience astate of distinction, separated and far from one another (co!. xv. 2). But if the first stage of the cosmogony is dominated by lha-, the second belongs to avv-: whereas once (7Tpoa(hv, co!. XVII. 2 and 9) beings floated in the eternal air, now (viJv, col. XVII. 2 and 8) they are related to one another and assembled. This change of status takes place under the reign of Zeus 'by whom all things have been fabricated' (co!. XVII. 12). And it is not by chance

Sexuality and Initiatory Transition

73

that the commentator differentiates once again between before and now, between Ota- and avv-, in explaining the generalized copulation which Zeus' power sanctions. In an Atomist flight of fancy, the beings distinguished in the first stage are presented as animated particles in the air of the copulative movement which attaches them to one another until each of them has found its complement (co!. XXI. 5). Such is the philosophical explanation of the sexual and erotic action of Aphrodite, Harmonia, and Peitho. lO Finally, each of these phases of cosmic and theogonie creation are dominated by an intellectual power. The first is Nous, Reflection, whom the poet seems to have assimilated to Cronos, since he strikes beings against one another (co!. XIV. 7-8),u According to the commentator, it is while the universe is apparently being set into motion that Ouranos' royal power is taken away (col. XIV. 8-14) and beings are distinguished by being dispersed at a distance from one another (co!. xv. 1-2): it is then that the sun receives its fixed place in the centre, delimiting the high from the low. The transition from this first state 01' separation and antagonism to the state of organized reunion is connected with the advent of Zeus, who shares the kingship with Metis. Provided with the clever and artisanal intelligence (co!. xv. 6 and 13, cf. XXIII. 4) incarnated in Metis, Zeus is capable of arranging and constructing the cosmos as we now know it. Zeus' assimilation of the qualities of wise prudence wh ich belong to Metis naturally recalls the new king's absorption of Phanes-Metis to recreate the world in the theogony of the Rhapsodies. 12 This organizational work is likewise animated. according to the commentator, 10 The same distinction between entities suspended rar from one another and beings united with one another is Ülken up again by the commentator with regard to the creation of the sun in col. xxv. Burkert (1968) has indicated the interpretative elements which connect the commentary to the physical. and especially Atomist, theories of the pre-Socratie philosophers. 11 In the poem itself, Nous assimilated to eronos was apparently the only being to come about by a birth (col. XVI. 6 and 9), as though the other beings were always there, protected from the unique coming into being ofNous---Cronos. This is doubtless why in col.XXVI. 1 the commentator can assimilate the figure of the mother 'of all the others' to Nous. The influence ofIonian philosophy. and in particular of Anaxagoras, is onee again quite noticeable: cf. M. L. West (1983: 80-1). Burkert (1970) and Colabella (1993). 12 See esp. the famous texts Orph. Frs. 168 and 169 Kern. Besides the referenee, by now classie, to the study by M. Detienne and J.-P. Vernant, Les Ruses de l'intelligence. La metis des Grecs (Paris, 1974), 125-64. see in this regard the remarks ofM. L. West (1983: 87-8, 101, 239-43). This cosmological act. summarized by the verbal form fJ-~aaTO, is eommented upon by Schwabl (1978: 1326-30); see also Alderink (1981: 25-36), who points out the role sexuality plays in this act of creation (29).

74

Claude Calame

by the breath circulating in the air; this is the representative of Moira, herself the incarnation of Zeus' reason (~p61'Y)aLS, cols. XVIII. 1-10 and XIX. 2-7). Thus, adding Moira to Metis, Zeus the sovereign principle of all things is the master not only of the organization of the cosmos but also of time. It is doubtless in this double capacity that in conclusion (col. XXVI) he intends to be united in love with his own mother, reunifying within hirnself the third intelligent principle, Nous, and definitively annulling the distinction between the two phases of the creation of the world. 13

4. Initiatory and Mystic Transition Just as, having arrived virtually at the end of his explanation, the commentator returns to the role of the Sun as it is defined at the beginning of the narrative (co!. xxv. 10-12), so too in conclusion the modern reader in his turn can trace out a ring structure and return to the beginning of the proposed interpretation. In fact, already at col. IX the passage of the power from father to son is interpreted as a transition from astate in which the father (?) prevents beings from being reunited to a stage in which, thanks to Zeus' mastery, they can assemble and be united with one another. At this point the role played by Night's oracular voice in this essential change can be understood: referring to the sexual process, she indicated by consuming the 'venerable' (penis?) the way to pass from separation to union. 14 Thus in the genealogical narrative she plays the role of the 'mystic' voice which permits the initiate to leave the world of disjunction in order to rediscover the primordial and ordered unity desired by Zeus. 1S And, as is the case with Diotima in Plato's Symposium, this voice uses figures of sexuality in order to reveal the meaning of the initiatory path it proposes. By means of the genital image and thanks to it, the development of the Orphic cosmo-theogony commented upon in the papyrus is 13 It should be pointed out that in the Orphic tradition vovs is a quality attributed to Zeus: cf. Orph. Frs. 177 and 242 Kern, and Colabella (1993: 71-3). 14 Hence Cronos and Nyx certainly take on distinct functions in Zeus' taking of power, despite the interpretation suggested by the ambiguous and faulty formulation of the lemma of col. VIII. 4-5: cf. above n. 3. Note once more in col. xxv. 12 the use of ö'''IY
Sexuality and Initiatory Transition

75

thus sketched out in its essential outlines. If the oracular voice that announces this development. allows us to divine its initiatory and mystic project and function, paradoxically the voice of the commentator is much more impenetrable-all the more so as he displays a relatively wide philosophical culture. Bach of his references to a materialistic explanatory system, each 01' his attempts at etymological interpretation has given rise to a hypothesis regarding his intellectual flliation: are we dealing with a pupil of Anaxagoras, a disciple of Diogenes of Apollonia, a follower of Heraditus, if not Stesimbrotus of Thasos himself, or Bpigenes the disciple of Socrates? Or rather, thinking of the linguistics he deploys, a philosopher like Euthyphro, who gave philosophical explanations to the gods' names, or an exegete dosely related to Cratylus, familiar from Plato?16 It is dear that posing the question of the commentary's status in terms of its identity and author leads to aporia.

5. The Voice of the Commentary Hence it is better to ask first of all ab out the modalities of this exegetical voice and about the movement 01' the text as a whole which it utters. From this point of view, three observations suggest themselves. First of all, K. Tsantsanoglou's proposed new reading of the first columns of the papyrus provides precious indications concerning the considerations which no doubt introduce the exegesis of the cosmogonic and theogonie poem. Adescription of different rites performed by the mystai could already be read in these preliminaries. Among these gestures, the libations of water and milk are certainly dose to what we know about Orphic ritual practices (VI. 6).17 Moreover, the allusions to the Erinyes, then to the Eumenides show that these rites concern the relations of the mystai's terrestrial life with the world below (I. 7, 11. 3-4, IV. 9, VI. 5-6).18 The new text 16 For the sake of bibliographie economy. I shall limit myself to referring for the various 'authorial' identifieations proposed to the survey of Funghi published in this volume. The thesis of a polemic in the Cratylus against the commentator's etymologizing explanations is worked out with great eare by Baxter (1992: 130-9); now add the suggestion in this volume by Kahn. 17 On the role played particularly by milk in thc initiatory tablets of Thurii and Pelinna, see most recently Graf (1991) with the most important textual and bibliographie referenees. 18 Cf. Henriehs (1984), who opts instead for Eleusinian mystai.

76

Claude Calame

now lets us affirm that, in their ritual gestures, the mystai are led by magoi (col. VI. 5 and 9) and that all these gestures are addressed 'to the gods below' (col. III. 6) whom they are supposed to pacify (col. VI. 1) after various crimes have been committed. One could ask whether, therefore, this description does not refer to the official mysteries, such as the Eleusinian ritual for instance. The commentator would then be adopting a critical position towards the lack of efficiency of those rites. However that may be, from the point of view of the Orphic semantic regularity which traverses the text of the Derveni papyrus, these new readings reinforce the semantic coherence which inscribes the exegesis of the poem within the sequence of the description of the rites. Furthermore, from the point of view of its modalities, the voice that speaks these commentaries presents an undeniable unity upon the enunciatory level as weIl. Both in the description of the rites and in the interpretation of the poem, this voice adopts the objectivizing forms of the present tense and the third person: 'the mystai perform libations' and 'they sacrifice to the Eumenides' (col. VI. 6 and 8); Orpheus 'says', 'indicates', 'makes clear' and 'reveals' (passim); for the initiates, the evidence is compelling (col. XXIII. 2-3); the noninitiates 'believe' (cols. IX. 2-3, XXIII. 6-7, and XXVI. 8). The text as it has been transmitted to us includes only a single statement in the first person; if the speaker speaks in his own name, it is only so as to excuse the understandable ignorance of those who have been initiated 'in the cities' (col. xx. 1-3). This purely assertive and descriptive mode corresponds to the one used by Crates of Athens in his treatise on Athenian sacrifices, by Philochorus in his mono graph on sacrifices, or by Melanthius in his treatise on the Eleusinian mysteries. Whether what is involved is the procession and sacrifice dedicated to Apollo Cynneios, the offering of boiled meats to the Hours, or the consecration of the mystai's clothes to the two goddesses of Eleusis, all these gestures are described in the present tense and are attributed to a plural subject, obviously in the third person. 19 This distanced voice of the scholar who collects and describes his city's cultic customs is much like the Derveni exegete's voice. Easily recognizable in the part dedicated to the interpretation 19 Crat. Ath. FGrHist 262 F 2, Philoch. FGrHist 328 F 173 = Fr. 1 Tresp .. Melanth. FGrHist 326 F 4 = Fr. 1 Tresp. The text envisaged by K. Tsantsanoglou in col. v. 4 presents in 7rapLWV a form of the first person plural; nevertheless. this form is integrated badly inta the syntactic formulation of the proposition and hence is suspect. On the identity ofthe initiates 'in the cities' (col. xx. 1-3), cf. below n. 21.

Sexuality and Initiatory Transition

77

of the poem, it is also found in that which describes ritua!. For example, to the extent that it recognizes the souls of the dead under the theological figure of the Eumenides (co!. VI. 9-10) and refers to Heraclitus' thought (co!. IV), in both sections of the text it is based upon the same exegetical procedures. Finally, the same strong opposition between 'those who know' and 'those who do not know', between the initiates and the noninitiates, is found in both parts of thc Derveni text. In the part dedicated to the commentary on the poem, this opposition is particularly marked in the interpretation of the nature of Ocean. If in this connection the non-initiates must content themselves with opinions relating to a world of appearances (öoKoDat; co!. XXIII. 6), the initiates benefit from manifest proof (EuÖ'Y}Aov; col. XXIII. 3, cf. 2); for the non-initiates, in fact, Ocean is merely a river, while for the initiates, who have correct knowledge «;p8wS'; co!. XXIII. 2), Ocean is the air and thus-according to this procedure of theological assimilation characteristic of Orphic thought-Zeus. So too, when Zeus gathers in his hands his own father's power, the ignorant give a literal interpretation of the text, thinking (öoKoDat; co!. IX. 2-3) that Zeus inherits his father's divine power, whereas he who knows (co!. IX. 5) lmows that this power corresponds to the capacity of mixing the elements. In both cases, the knowledge attributed to the initiates corresponds to the theological or philosophical interpretation proposed by the commentator. Now if in the part dedicated to the poem the initiates' knowledge is of an intellectual or theoretical order, in the part describing ritual practices it seems more a moral attitude. In its recent restoration, column v shows us the dis belief feIt by the non-initiates with regard to the prodigies of Hades, a disbelief which prevents them from learning and knowing, dominated as they are by error and pleasure.

6. The Didactic Function Thus not only does correct knowledge correspond to the knowledge dispensed by the commentator in his exegesis of rites and of the poem, but it is also the object of an apprenticeship. Indeed, teaching and learning seem to constitute one of the Derveni commentator's major preoccupations. First of all, they provide one of the keys for interpreting the poem. Thus in column X, Night's prophetie voice is interpreted as a voice with a didactic function, since to say is to

78

Claude Calame

utter, and uttering has the same power as teaching. So too, actually means 'who teaches [all things)'.20 Furthermore, to pass from the text's internal references to the description of ritual practice, the development of coI. v relates ignorant people's defiance and incredulity to the consultation of orades. It seems that their in ability to learn makes them impermeable to the oracular responses. Finally, the commentary of coI. xx establishes a relation between ritual gestures and the text, thereby providing this latter with an external reference. Indeed, the astonishment the commentator says he guards against in his sole personal statement in the commentary be ars as much upon seeing as upon hearing those 'who have performed the rites in the cities'; by contrast, if those who are initiated by a man of skill (TEXV'YJ) do not know after they have seen (with a pun on the two meanings of El8EVat) , then with an the more reason are they incapable of learning when they hear the words spoken. 21 Even if the perspective here is negative, since the statement be ars upon the initiates who continue to feed upon appearances (OOKOVVTES; coI. xx. 5), it is now evident that teaching concerns as much the ritual practices as it does the understanding ofthe poem. At this point a striking homology between the oracular voice of Night and that of the poet called Orpheus be comes apparent. Just as the former's utterance teaches (col. x. 9-10), so too the latter indicates and explains in order to dispense a teaching which goes beyond appearances. Since they hoth have an oracular quality, they both require decipherment, as the movement of coI. XIII indicates. This decipherment, with regard both to the initiatic rites and to the poem's statements, is evidently guaranteed by the commentator's voice. At this point, in a second homology, one could suppose that the sequence of the commentator's statements folio ws the movement of the poem itself: just as the development of the theology commented upon follows an initiatory design, so too the commentator's voice would be aiming at an initiation. Would it not be

1TaV0f1-4>Evovaa

20 On the exegesis proposed for 7Tuvof-'rfoEVOVUU. see the brief commentary of Baxter (1992: 133-4). 21 The commentator is probably alluding here to the E1eusinian initiates. whom he is contrasting with the Orphic initiands: cf. Rusten (1985: 138-40) and Graf (1991: 98); let us recall that Orpheus was considered the founder of the Greek mysteries in general and that he is said to have introduced their rExv1J: Sud. S.v. I)P1JUKEV€L (Ei 486 Adler = Orph. Test. 32 Kern). It should also be pointed out that the new reading of col. II. 8 proposed by Tsantsanoglou shows that the performance of the rites was accompanied by 'musie'.

SexuaIity and Initiatory Transition

79

appropriate then to assimilate the function of the commentator's text to the initiatory statements which the gold leaves of Thurii and of Hipponium or the tab lets of Pelinna have provided us? Prom the enunciatory point of view, these texts either constitute direct addresses to the initiand, praising the initiatory process he is in the process of performing, or are placed in the mouth of the initiand hirnself. who thereby expresses his hope for salvation. 22 With the performative value they receive by being spoken in the second or first person, these texts diverge greatly from the Derveni commentary, which is characterized by the distance of interpretations stated in the third person. One might then wonder whether, so far from constituting an invitation to Orphic initiation, as has often been supposed, the commentary might not rather be designed to denounce the secrets surrounding that mystic sect by giving a materialistic and rationalizing interpretation for the rites and especially for the theogony.23 By itself. the text of co!. VII, in which the transition from ritual to the exegesis of the poem could take place, seems to predude such a reading. Indeed, in passing from ritual to the poem, and probably in order to justify the interpretative procedures which he uses, the commentator explicitly connects the 'enigmatic' character of the poet's word with the exclusion of the profane. 24 If the commentator performs a work of interpretation, therefore, it is not so as to reveal. denounce, and demystify Orphic practices and doctrines, but so as to address this work to a public of initiates or initiands. But why choose a prose whose enunciatory modes and content are evidently destined for reading instead of the verses known from the lamellae and composed to be sung and heard? Here we should 22 For a study of the modes of enunciation in these different documents, I refer to the forthcoming contribution of D. Obbink, 'Poetry and Performance in the Orphic Gold Leaves', with a reconstruction of these Orphic texts and the neeessary bibliographie references. 23 See in this volume the eontribution of Obbink. It is obviously opposed to the theses of those who would see in the Derveni commentator an opponent of Orphism: see e.g. Henrichs (1984: 255-6) and Casadio (1986: 299). On the enunciative differences between the texts of the gold leaves and the commentary of Derveni, see now C. Calame, 'Invocations et commentaires "orphiques": transpositions funeraires de discours religieux', in M.-M. Mactoux and E. Geny, Discours religieux dans I'Antiquite (Besan.,on-Paris 1996), 11-30. 24 The expression 8Vpas E7J"tO.!aOaL (col. VII. 9) is a traditional metaphor of secrecy imposed upon the profane; the expression is generally used in an Orphic context: see Plat. Symp. 218b=Orph. Fr. 13 Kern, as weil as Frs. 59, 245.1,247.1, and 339 Kern.

80

Claude Calame

reeall that Orpheus. the model of a poet divinely inspired and possessed. is also said to have given men the letters for writing. This tradition. whieh makes the master of poetie inspiration a new Prometheus 01' a seeond Palamedes. was weU enough known in the fourth eentury for Androtion the Atthidograph to have refuted it by citing the poet' s Thracian origin and the renowned illiteraey of this savage people. Henee the iconog1'aphy of the century in wh ich the Derveni text was written shows us the inspiring Muse holding out a papyrus roU for Orpheus, represented as a Thracian singer with his lyre in his hand. 25 Is this a roll to wh ich the poet ean entrust his song, or perhaps the roll upon wh ich the eommentary automatically required by an enigmatie poem is inseribed? ... Whatever the case may be, the presenee of the roll, on which the eommentary is inseribed. half burned among the votive objects of the tomb of Derveni, requires explanation. Consigned to the fire to protect its seeret, the partially destroyed text was doubtless conseerated to the enlightened citizen buried the1'e. And earlier the eommentary would have served in this intelleetual's initiation-an initiation not so much ritual as scholarly. 25 One of the discourses attributed to the orator A\cidamas, Isocrates' adversary, cites an epigram to show that Orpheus and not Palamedes brought men the YPUfLlWTU after he received instruction in them from the Muses. The text of the epigram itself. supposedly inscribed by the Thracians upon Orpheus' tomb, makes the poet, servant of the Muses, the 1TPWTOS .vPET~S of the signs of writing: cf. PS.-Alcidam. VI. 25 (= Orph. Test. 123 Kern), with the response of Androt. FGrHist 324 F 54; see also Diog. Laert. 1. 5, Plat. Rep. 364e and the scholium on Eur. Ale. 968 (2. 239 Schwartz = Orph. Test. 82 Kern), which invokes the authority of Heraclides Ponticus to claim that certain writings of Orpheus had been inscribed upon tablets in order to be dedicated on the summit of Mount Haemus in Thrace. See in this connection the commentary of 1. M. Linforth, The Arts oJ Orpheus (Berkeley and Los Angeles 1941), 15-16 and 120-3. The iconographic document cited here (hydria, Palermo, Fond. 1. Mormino 385) is commented upon by Detienne (1989: 110-11, 119). The relationship ofOrphism with the written tradition is discussed by Burkert (1977: 442).

5 Hocus-Pocus in Bast and West: Theogony, Ritual, and the Tradition of Esoteric Commentary MARTIN L. WEST

The Derveni text is often described as a commentary on an Orphic theogony. This is a correct description as regards the greater part of it. Prom column VII to the end, there are constant references to and quotations of Orphic verses, and they are the subject of philosophical. allegorical exegesis. The exegesis seems to be systematic, in the sense that the verses appear to be quoted in more or less the proper sequence. When we put them together, we get, not indeed a continuous piece of poetry, but aseries of fragments in which we can clearly see the outlines of a coherent narrative. In my book The Orphic Poems I was able to compose a continuous text out of them by supplementing a line here, apart of a line there, and sometimes an Orphic fragment known from elsewhere. There is no such clear development in the commentator's thought from column to column. He is led by the poetic text in front of hirn. In several places he introduces a lemma as 'the next verse' (Ta JX6fLEVOV E7TOS, XII. 1, xv. 5, cf. XXIII. 10) or 'the following' (Ta E7Ti T01JrWt, XIV. 5). But the commentary seems to be only just beginning in column VII. There we see the writer explaining that Orpheus' poem is alVtYfLaTWOTjS, that it has hidden meanings from beginning to end. The commentator is justifying the method of exegesis that he is going to follow. This must be the beginning of the commentary, especially as the commentator here cites as 'the next line' one which called for ears to be shuttered: the original. no doubt, was 8upas 1)' J7T{8w8E ßEßTjAot, and it almost certainly stood in the opening lines of the poem. Before this column there were six others, making up almost a

Martin L. West

82

quarter of the roll. In what remains of these six columns there is no sign of any mention of Orpheus or of poetry. Nor do we see anything of the physical phHosophy that the writer propounds when he is interpreting the Orphic text. In column IV there is a substantial quotation from Heraclitus. The reason for its introduction is not very clear, but it concerns the size of the sun and the supervision of the sun's movements by the Erinyes, who are Dike's police. In the next column we read of people consulting oracles in the hope of learning about wh at happens after death; of their faHure to und erstand the significance of dreams; of the difficulty of persuading them, due to their being in the grip of sin and pleasure and ignorance. In the foUowing column (VI), the last be fore the commentary begins, there is reference to souls, daimones, Eumenides, and the cult practices of fLaYOL and fLuuruL. This passage is particulady interesting. The writer offers explanations for certain ritual practices, not in terms of physical philosophy of the kind that he will find in the Orphic poem, but in terms of esoteric theological doctrines. The first few lines, broken as they are, seem to have spoken of sacrifices by magoi, in which daimones are somehow involved or affected, and probably also souls. Then apparently: The magoi [perform] their sacrifice for this reason, as if paying a penalty; and upon the sacrifice they pour water and milk, which is what they also use for their liquid offerings (xoa{). They offer their cakes in countless quantity, and with many lmobs on them, because souls (or: the souls) are countless. Initiates make preliminary sacrifice to the Eumenides in the same way as do the magoi. For the Eumenides are souls, and on their account [whoever is going] to sacrifice to the gods [must] first [offer. .. (co!. VI. 4-11)

Who are these initiates? Who are these magoi? Who are these Eumenides? Are they identified in the writer's mind with the Erinyes who control the sun in Heraclitus? Heraclitus certainly assigned a cosmic role to souls. He also commented critically on the practices of magoi and initiates, as we gather from the passage of element of Alexandria (22B14a DK): Ttat o~ (J-uv'Tf;verut.

tHpaKAELToS

0

'E
.. .

VVKTL7TO;\OLS'(,)

f1-ayoLs,

ßaKxolS,

A~vaLS', fLvaTat~· TOVTOLS

Ta yap VOfLt~6fLEva Kar'

u:rrnAEL Ta fLETCt (}avaTOV, TOUTOLS ftUVTEverat TO 1TVp' av8pdJ1TOVS fLvorTJpta dVLEpWaTL /-LVEVVTUt.

To whom is it that Heraclitus of Ephesus prophesies? To men of the night, magoi, bacchoi, lenai, initiates: to these he threatens what comes after death

Hocus-Pocus in Bast and West

83

and prophesies the fire, 'for the Mysteries established among men are celebrated in unholy fashion'.

'What comes after death': the author of the Derveni text has perhaps spaken in the preceding column (v. 6) of 7<1 EV .f.tLOOV oHvathe reading is uncertain-and of people's need to know about them. In at least one, perhaps two, of the fragmentary early columns (1. 7?, H. 4) there was further mention of Erinyes, and in III. 6 f. we read the phrases o]q[fLOVES oI KaTWand (jdvv 1!1T1IPETaL. In this part of his work, then, the writer appears as a BEoil6yos with a particular interest in eschatology and in the hidden significance of certain rituals performed in esoteric cults. There is one later passage where he returns to the subject of an understanding which may be obtained from religious rituals but which most men fai! to obtain. This is in column xx, evidently a digression in the commentary on the Orphic poem. He writes: As for those] men [who] have (only) witnessed the [ri]tes while participating in civic celebrations of them, I am less surprised at their not understanding, for it is impossible to hear and simultaneously comprehend what is being said. But those who (are instructed) by the specialist in the rites (7Tapa TOV T€XV'Y)V 1TOWVfL€VOV Ta [Epd) deserve to be wondered at and pitied: wondered at because they think before performing the rites that they will know, but then go away after performing them before they know and without asking questions, as if they did know something of what they saw or heard or encountered; and pitied because, not content with having spent what they spent beforehand, they also go away bankrupt of understanding; before they perform the rites they expect to obtain knowledge, but afterwards they go away deprived 01' even their expectancy.

The implication is that the priest, especially if he is not just an ordinary city priest but a specialist who performs private rites for people who pay fees in the ho pe of religious enlightenment, ought to give an account or the theory underlying the ritual at which he officiates. In Plato's Meno (81a), when Socrates introduces the theory of reincarnation, he intro duces it as a il6yos told on the one hand by Pindar and other poets who are BEtOt, and on the other hand by those priests and priestesses who have taken the trouble to enable themselves to give an explanation or the matters in which they operate. Such men and women are oo4>oL 1TEPL Ta BEta 1Tpayp.aTa. Evidently they perform certain rites and interpret them in terms of the destinies of souls.

84

Martin L. West

In my book, by analysis of the different Orphic theogonies, I came to the concIusion that the Derveni poem belonged to that branch of Orphic tradition which embraced the theory of reincarnation and a message of salvation through Dionysus. In the Derveni text we see a man offering explanations of this theogony and also of certain rituals, performed by initiates, which he connects with disembodied souls who are Eumenides; he speaks of Erinyes, of daimones, of gods below, and of paying penalties to other-worldly powers. We may guess that these things which he explains, the rituals and the theogony, belonged together. The initiates that he mentions are those of an Orphic-Bacchic cult society; the theogony is their holy book, perhaps recited in conjunction with their sacrifices. He is their learned exegete, their av~p aoos 1T€pi Ta 8Eta, who expounds to them the meaning of what they do and say, like the priests and priestesses of whom Plato speaks. His expositions, at least of the theogony, are certainly of a very modern and eccentric sort, springing from engagement with Ionian philosophy and far removed from the conceptions of the circIes in which the poem had first emerged, a century or so be fore his time. But these cults will always have had a place for the speculative theologian who was ready to explain to the participants that their rites held mystic meanings which only the instructed could grasp (and they only for a fee). Walter Burkert in his revelatory book Die orientaIisierende Epoche in der griechischen Religion und Literatur, recently translated and updated as The Orientalizing Revolution, has devoted a long chapter to the influence on archaic Greek culture of Near-Eastern divinatory, cathartic, and magical techniques. He rightly emphasizes the role of the specialist practitioner who claims to have special knowledge of religious matters, of procedures to be followed, and of incantations to be pronounced. Right at the beginning of the chapter he picks out the Derveni writer's reference to 0 TEXV'YJV 1TOtQV/k€VOS Ta [Epa. On the eastern side he refers particularly to the large quantity of Akkadian magical and ritual texts associated with the bäru (seer) and with the äsipu or masmassu (usually rendered as 'incantationpriest' or 'exorcist'). This literature was buHt up especially during the Kassite period of Babyion, in the second half of the second millennium BC. In this period the study of written literature, which had previously been concentrated in scribal schools, came to be maintained chiefly in priestly circles, and the school disappeared as an institution. The

Hocus-Pocus in East and West

85

learned priests and diviners attached to temples engaged in much collecting, editing, and codification of older material. besides composing new wodes in a rather self-conscious, erudite style with recondite vocabulary and a mainly theological emphasis. The theogonic-hymnic poem Enüma eli.5, weIl known to classical scholars on account of its connections with Hesiod's Theogony, was one product ofthis activity. A masmassu called Sfn-Ieqe-unninnl was credited with the authorship of the Gilgamesh epic; this presumably means the redaction of the standard version. Another masmassu of ab out 1050 BC, Saggil-kinam-ubbib, composed the poem known as the Theodicy, which is permeated by an elaborate acrostic identifying the author and his profession. An astrologer called Bullitsa-rabi is named as the author of a hymn to the healing goddess Gula. These Babylonian exorcists and seers, then, are not to be imagined as mere witch-doctors who shuffled onto the stage as occasion demanded and regurgitated ancestral mumbo-jumbo. They were men of high status with established positions in society, exercising a controlling influence over religious matters and state ceremonial. And they were scholars, learned in Sumerian lexicography and hymnography, in mathematics, and much else. Some of them had their own libraries. An exorcist's library at Assur was found to contain, inter alia, the Sumerian poem LugaI-e, the Akkadian Epic 01 Erra, lexical and astrological texts, and fables. We used to think of the commentary as an invention of Alexandrian scholarship, designed to assist the reading of Homer, the Iyric poets, Old Comedy, and so forth. The Derveni papyrus made us revise our ideas: here was a pre-Alexandrian commentary, devoted to the interpretation of an Orphic theology. But in fact the commentary on poetic texts, and specifically on theological poems, was a creation of the Babylonian scholars of the earIy first millennium. There are no commentaries on the Gilgamesh Epic, but there are on Bnüma elis, on Ludlul bel nemeqi (the so-called Babylonian Job), and on the Theodicy. Seen from this angle, it is less surprising that a commentary on 'Orpheus' should appear earlier than a commentary on Homer, even if in its orientation and substance the Derveni commentary is wholly unlike those produced by the Babylonian clerics. I want to focus on another body of texts from Mesopotamia, emanating from the same priestly circles. These are the texts collected, and in some cases first published, by Alasdair Livingstone

86

Martin L. West

in his book Mystical and Mythological Explanatory Works 01 Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars. 1 They eontain highly abstruse and ingenious interpretations of divine names, titles, and attributes, and of the details of eertain rituals. They draw on philologieal learning, by exploiting the different values that most euneiform signs may have, and on mythology, with partieular but not exclusive referenee to Enuma elis, the official theogony that had come to be recited at the Babylonian New Year festival. Individual aetions performed in a ritual are listed, with a theologieal or mythologie al explanation attached to eaeh one. Persons engaged in the rite and objects used in it are interpreted as symbolie representations of different gods. It is often diffieult for us to see the eonneetion, and it is fairly clear that these learned explanations are for the most part highly artificial and have nothing to do with the original meaning of the rituals. Here are a eouple of examples from a text on a ritual eeIebrated at a temple of Ishtar in Arbela or Nineveh: 2 They carry the women of the city on their heads and necks and go to a field and scatter seed.-That is Marduk because he trampled the necks of those disobedient to him. They scatter seed in handfuls when they fill to the brim.-They tie him up in the byre before the sun. The king. who kindIes a fire.-He is Marduk. what he did in his youth. The cult dancers who beat clappers.-They are the gods. his fathers and brothers. when they heard the news.

We have nothing quite like this in the Derveni papyrus. But when the writer teils us that 'the magoi perform their saerifiee for this reason, as if paying a penalty' (eol. VI. 4 f.), he is similarly addueing a myth of some kind to aeeount for a ritual, and apparently a nonGreek ritual. Everyone will be reminded of the Pindar fragment quoted by Plato in that same passage of the Meno where he refers to priests who give explanations of their rites. Pindar speaks of Persephone aecepting from eertain people the 7Towav 7TaAawu 7TEV8€os.

The Assyrian text goes on to explain the tossing of a paneake in the ritual: The king wha tasses a pancake with the temple administratar.-They are Marduk and Nabü. Marduk defeated and crushed Anu. 1 Oxford 1986. He has re-edited some of them in Court Poetry and Literary Miscellanea. State Archives of Assyria. vol. 3 (Helsinki, ] 989), 2 Livingstone, Mystical and Mythological Explanatory Works. 116 ff.

Hocus-Pocus in Bast and West

87

The pancake wh ich he tosses.-That is the heart of Anu when he pulled it out with his hands.

The Derveni writer teUs of the special knobby cakes offered, as it seems, by both magoi and initiates. He does not retate them to a specific mythical event, but says that they represent souls, or the Eumenides. 3 Very little remains of his explanations of ritual. and we do not observe hirn explaining it, as the Mesopotamian savants do, from the events of a theogony. But he does after all proceed to write a commentary on a theogony, assuring us that it embodies deep truths about the world. One noteworthy feature of his exegesis is his tendency to identify different. gods with each other. Moira is somehow the same as Zeus. Aphrodite Ourania and Zeus and Peitho and Harmonia are names of the same god, and explanations of the different names are given. Ge and Meter and Demeter and Rhea and Hera are the same. Again the names are etymologized; for example, this goddess is caUed Deo, ,'!TL Ei3T"j(l.fJOYj EJJ riJt [LdtEt. Okeanos too turns out to be a form of Zeus. This kind of explicit syncretism first appears in Greek with Heraclitus, who announces that Hades and Dionysus are the same. But the Babylonian scholar-priests had for centuries practised equation 01' gods and supported it with contrived etymologies. There was an andent Sumerian mother-goddess called (charmingly) Mami. A commentator on the Babylonian Theodicy writes: Mame is Belet-ill, the creator 01' mankind, from (Sumerian) ma 'crcate' and me 'people'.

In an explanatory text to a ritual for the covering of a cult kettledrum4 we find a whole string of Sumerian divine names equated with more fa miliar ones, sometimes by way of learned etymologies, for example: Lugalgirra is sm. the eldest son of Enlil. Meslamtaea is Gilgame§. Gilgames is Nergal, who dweIls in thc underworId. Zisumma is Gula the Lady of Nippur, she who gives (sum) life (zi) to Anu. 3 element. just afler the passage about IIeraclitus quoted above (p. 82), goes on to mock the Greek mysteries and their paraphernalia, including the n6nava nOAv6",q,aAa (Protr. 22.4, p. 17. 4 Stählin). Such cakes were used in public cults too; we read in inscriptions or. for example, a nonavov opOovq,aAov 3WO€Kovq,aAov (IG 2 2 1367), or a 7T6navov paßowTov Evv€6",q,aAov (M. Wörrle apo C. Habicht, Die Inschriften des Ask/epieions (Altertümer von PerganlOll VIII. 3, Berlill, 1969), 168 f. (no. 161). See Wörrle's commentary, 175 nn. 20··], 4 Livingstone, Mystical and Myth%gica/Jixp/anatory Works, 190.

88

Martin L. West

This etymologizing approach is in accord with the concept that something is brought into being by being named. The concept is expressed in the Akkadian verb nabU 'name', hence 'appoint, set up'. 'All creatures that have names' means 'all that exist'. Enüma elis begins When, above, the heavens had not been named, and below, the earth was not called by its name,

-that is, before they existed. The Derveni writer does not identify naming with creating, but he does treat naming as an important step that gives something a new identity. XVII. 1 ff.: ... existed before it was named, then it received its name. For air was before the present world was set together and always will exist ... But it was considered to have come into being when it was named Zeus, as if previously it did not exist.

And

XVIII.

9 ff.:

Before Zeus was named, Moira existed as the god's thought, always and everywhere. When Zeus was named (or: when it was named Zeus), they consider him to have come into being.

And further in XIX. 1 ff., XXI. 9 ff. The last cuneiform tablet I want to eite is a compilation by Ki~ir­ Assur, masmassu of the main temple of Assur. Livingstone S gives it the heading 'Mystical Miscellanea'. It starts with a long list of things identified with parts of a god's body. The kettledrum is his heart. The date-palm is his backbone. The reeds are his fingers. Silver is his skulI. Gold is his sperm.

And so on. Then come a few explanations of ritual elements: The Elamite chariot with no seat carries inside it the corpse of Enme§arra. The horses harnessed to it are the ghost of Anzu. The king who stands in it is the lord Ninurta.

And some more. Then comes a theological ac count of the divisions of the universe: The upper heaven of luludanitu stone is Anu's. He settIed the three hundred Igigi gods there. The middle heaven of saggilmud stone is of the Igigi gods: Bel sits there in a high temple ... The lower heaven of jasper is of the stars. He drew the divine constellations on it. He made the souls of mankind 5

Livingstone, Mystical and MytilOlogical Explanatory Works, no. 39.

Hocus-Pocus in Bast and West

89

reside on the terra firma of the earth's surfaee. In the eore 01' the middle earth he settled Ba his father . . . in the lower earth he shut up the six hundred Anunnaki. Just !ike the Titans imprisoned in Tartarus by Zeus. A few !ines later Ki~ir-Assur gives the dimensions of sun and moon: Party double-hours is the disc of the sun. Sixty double-hours is the disc of the moon. Wh at is inside the sun is Marduk. What is inside the moon is Nabü. It is a curious coincidence that the Derveni writer shows such

interest in Heraclitus' statement ab out the sun's diameter. The Assyrian document is nothing like the Derveni text in form, but in its range of interests-theogony, cosmology, abstrusely theological interpretation of cult practiccs-it shows some intriguing analogies. It is one of many priestly texts containing in a subscription the formula piri~ti

iIl rabüti: müdü müdä likalJim; lä müdü ai ImuL

Secret 01' the great gods. One who knows may show it to one who knows; one who does not know must not see iL As Walter Burkert has pointed out, this formula appears in Creek, virtually translated, in seetion 5 of the Hippocratic Law, again as a subscription: Ta

OE LEpa J6VTf1 7TP..qYfLUTU {EpOLUW uv8punrot(JI, 11 TE/"w8wutV opy{OtatV EmuT07P,1]S.

oe{Kvvruc ßEß~AoLa(, o~ ou

INp,ts, rrptv

The exclusion of the ßEß7)AOt is also a feature of the Orphic-Bacchic tradition. At the beginning of the Derveni theogony stood, apparently, the line

gvvET6, corresponds to the Akkadian müdii, the one who knows. But to become gVVET6c; the initiate needed instruction from the one who was aorpos 1TEpi TCt BELa. As soon as Bacchic societies began to use 'Orphic' scriptures, around the end of the sixth century, we may suppose that there was a need for same form of exegesis to link myth and ritual. The polymath priests of Babylonia and Assyria, now under Persian rule, may have provided a model. The Greeks may have included them under the name of /-tayoL. Heraclitus apparently associates /-tayo, with the Bacchic mysteries that he

90

Martin L. West

attacks. The author of The Sacred Disease (1. 10) associates them with KaBapTat Kat ayvpTaL and with religious charlatans who claim to possess special knowledge. And the Derveni writer links the ritual of the (Orphic) initiates with that of the f-LayoL, speaking as if the wisdom of the f-LayoL guaranteed the validity of Orphic ritual.

III. SPECIFIC COLUMNS

6 The First Columns 01' the Derveni Papyrus and their Religious Significance K. TSANTSANOGLOU

Co!. I G 17, C 8

]\\,[ 1v EKuaro'![ ].'"

5

1,8 ....

'E1',)\,~wv

) ..... ) .. , ..

I· .[ .. , ,jEtU

10

Co!. TI G 8, G Sb, Ci 15, G 6, G 5, H 7

lw~

1. p. .• [ , .. '~l'wv
KA[

[

l'{<:l'wlv ]TtfLwat.[ X]9ui aTuyoad.JEO.[ lovS' Tt/MJs p[lll',)['] ].EKclaTo[I,]S- Op.ll'](~~L611 TL apfL]oaTolvJs- T-Q! ,,LOVq[t]K1/t

1. ~T r. .JUTfI! . .I J·d

5

10

94

K. Tsantsanoglou

Co!. III F 9, F 8, G 11. F 7

[ [ c.6 ] .. (l!qJc.L .. .Jet!! . .[ Oa{fL]qJv y{vETa[, EKa]aTw, ' . .[

... 11J EgW)"W~ L ... kr.! .. E • .[ O]q{fLOVES oi' KaTw[l!Ev TO]VO~ X0t/[ qEwV v1T1JpETa, !l[E KaBQt/vTa![ Eiaiv o1Twa1TEp ä[VOpES] q,3'KO! q,[

]QE

5

] ], ]VOL,

alTf'YJv [r E1xova~ [ J

OlOVS .L . .JVCT[

.J.[

10

Co!. IV F 7, G 13, G 4, H 46, F 15, H 8, G 12

[.lov d ,) KdfL[Eva] WTq.~[ fLii)..)..[ ov ~] q {vETa, [ OVK

1.wv[

E~L Aa]fkßavE~[v.]

c.I8 c.17 ap' DU T4[SLV

]!lovva, ]a rijs TVX1JS y[ EXEL EK

TW]1?OE KOfJ/LOI;;;

KaTg [raUT]g 'HpaK~[E]'Tos fLdTaaKEvaswv] Ta Kowa Kar[aaTpE16aLv avOpw[7T'l'}tOV] {Vp0S' 1TODOS [EarL] TOl)[S ovpovh oUX lm~pßa)"Awv· Ei yq[p T! EV]pOVS E[WVTOV] [E]~ [ß~aErah, 'EPWVE[S] VLV EgEVp~aO!![a" LJ{K1JS E1T{KOVpOL. [ c.12 v7TEp]ßaTov 1TOi/< K[ ]q.Ovq.[ Ja 3{K1),[

5

10

lfL1JvLTaK[

J. ... !d Co!. V G 12, G 1, H 2, F 5(f.p.), F 12, F 13, F 11, G 10,

m

hJod XP1)[ aT1}]p ta SOfL[ 19"d XP'1}Q[ T hRLl1.S0V[ TaL U] ..... .L.l' al/TOtS 1Tap'fLEl! [Eis TO /W]lfTEi'ov E1TEP.[W1r~q[OVTES], TWV fLaVTEvofLEVqJ!' [€V ]EKEV, Ei OE/uL . .1. ... ~l:' 2'ttOOV OEiva TL a1!HJTOihn; ou YLVdJq[ KOVTES J]l;'V1TVLU qUOE TWV äAAwv 1Tf}ayp.aTwv €KaaT[ov], q,a 1TO{qJV Ö,V VfJ.p.q.3E!WaTWV v[,]aTEVO<EV; V1TO [TE yap] q.fLapT({)1}~ Iful [T}ijS &AA1}s ~oov[>7h VEV'K1}fLE",[m, ]1!-q.\,~[avo]!!O!v

.r ]

ou

5

The First Columns of tlle Derveni Papyrus [ouSEI ~naTEvov(J't. d[1TL]OT{'f] SE Kl1/Lq[8t1] TUVTOV' lla]",Ouvwm IlV[S]E ytvw[aJ.!walev, OVK EaTtV

[Il~

~JJ

yap]

10

Q1TWs]

[7T(,aTEvaov]q~v Ka; Op[WV'TES T

95

] ]

],qv ct,.nurL [r,W ]cPa{vETar [

Co!. VI G 3. H 18. H I. G 14. G 2. II 28. F3a

C.8

EVlx~

Kai Ova[t]gt /L(f.tAJ(qqgvat Tq[, ,pvxul',j J.1J{WtS~ SU Wiywv Svv[aJTat 9,,{/wva, EIl[1TOSWV yf[voIlEvov}; ,tEOWTUVU(' Sa{lloVE<; EIl1TO(SWV EtUt ,p[vXai, EXO]p,O{. T~V Ova({a)!:, TOVTOV EVEK€[v1 '!loLOuaHv oi 1l
Ovovatv, 3rt

Kat,

ai ljJvxa[L

av ]q,ptOj1-o{

5

~ laL /LvaTat

K[UTa Ta] ~VTd f.LqYOLS· Evf.L€v{OE'~ yap ,pvxa{ Etmv. ,Lv EVEK[EV TOV IlEAAoVTla OEOt, Ovnv ,Hp]",??[E]LOV 7Tp6TEPOV [ c.1t ]. f~'!9Td . . ]Tat [... Jw[.ln Kai 1'0 Kg.[ ]ov . .. [ .. l.t. €lai SE L .. 1. t . . ].TOVTO.[ Qua, SE [ Iwv dA,) [ WQPov[ ] ... [ EVfLEJ!{at 7Tpo8uoVUL

10

.r

15

Co!. VII F 5. I 59. Cl. H 65. !I 64. Fl. F 6

... UJoq[ .. v1llvol;' [uy]P) Kai OEIl[tlTa Myo[vTa' iEpOVPYEi]yo yap [T1}]L 7TO-qUEL. [I(]ai fd1Tf:iv oUX olav r[E rf]v rwv O]VO/LUTWV ['\v1atv KaLT[ od PTJOEvTa. EaTt OE $I EVTJ TL<; {]1TOTJUt, [K]g.L dvOpw[1TOt,] alVr[w]aTWtlTJ". [0 81~ ['OPcPEU]~ a1H~t] [J]p{UT' alv[{y/w]Ta O~K ti0EA€ MYELv, [EV alvJ{Yllaq[t]v SE [flEy]uAa. iEp[oAoyJ~!Tat IlEV oVv Kai g[1TO To)D 7TP'DTOV [dEl] IlEXpt o~ [TEAE]vTl[( ov P~Il(tTO',
].;€ITL ](1Jt

EV S]E

5

10

.1.

TL .l€yJ . J ,[

Tun EX0f.L[EVWL

l.T .. ~!Y.[

15

96

K. Tsantsanoglou

The text of the first seven columns of the PDerv. is given above without a diplomatie transcription or any palaeographical notes or other auxiliary details. The letter-number combinations under the heading of each column (G 17, G 8, etc.) indicate the papyrus fragments out of which the co lu mn was reconstructed. Many supplements are no doubt provisional and are published here merely for the sake of discussion; all, however, take strict account of the existing ink traces and the length of the gaps. In col. I, 01' which only the right-hand end has been reconstructed, we read a single complete word and a few word-ends. 01' these the only significant one is in line 7 ]vvwv, therefore 'EpL]VVWV. ]VTWV cannot be exduded, but upsilon is likelier. In col. II the presence of the Erinyes is unequivocal. They are referred to twice by name; they are, in alllikelihood, identified with souls; and the honours accorded to them are enumerated (TLfLWaL, TLfLUS 1>EP'Y]L). These honours consist 01' choai poured down in drops, of sacrifices, perhaps of poultry, and of something adapted or adaptable to music, apparently hymns. In column III, if this admittedly bold reconstruction is accepted, we encounter daimones allotted to each man. In line 5 we read EtWA.WS or EtWA.W a[, a reference, no doubt, to sinners who are utterly destroyed; note the lonic ending. Then, if the suggested supplement is correct, there is a mention of the place of abode of these daimones, namely beneath this soH, and of their designation as servants of the gods. Perhaps it is still the daimones who are (line 8 Ela{v) , possibly, mindful or watchful, so that sinners (äVOPE> äOLKOL), apparently, do not escape punishment. Or, with a brilliant supplement by M. L. West, they are compared to criminals punished by death (o7Twa7TEp äVÖPES äÖLKOL (JavaTWL ~'Y]fLwvfLEVOL). They are also (who? the daimones or the sinners?) reputed for something or, possibly, responsible for something (alTL'Y]v EXOVaL). Column IV is the Heraclitus column, wh ich has been extensively discussed by George Panissoglou and myself, 1 as weIl as by other scholars. There are, however, some new readings or new guesses, some of them the result of more accurate measurements. In line 2 the gap following KELfL[ can accommodate three letters, not four; therefore not KELfLEVOS or KELfLEVOV, but necessarily KE{fLEva. In line 3 the letter following the first gap is not gamma or epsilon (therefore, not Y{VETaL or TE{vETaL), but sigma, wh ich gives a{vETaL, 'harms'. At I

Tsantsanoglou and Panissoglou (1988) and Tsantsanoglou (1992).

'fhe First Columns 01 the Derveni Papyrus

97

the end of the line. there is no trace of a letter after gamma. therefore yap is possible but not obligatory. In line 4 following apoVT. I believe I discern the traces of an alpha. In line 5. it is uncertain how the word following 'HpaKAEtTos' started: thc traces of the second letter are extremely doubtful. yet f.tE seems likelier than f.ta; therefore. possibly f.tETaUKEva~wv rather than f.tapTvp6f.tEVOS. In Une 6 right after the first gap I read a phi; KaTaypa
A.P. 9. 83. 3 01Jpaiv KE'VOU, iKEA,!wa<;.

3 övafL-ryVLTO~, O~Vf.L1}VtTOS'; cf. ßapUfL1JVLS. oUUp:ryVLS,

TUXVfLTfVIS

etc.

98

K. Tsantsanoglou

or know. there is no way for them to believe. even if they see [... ] the disbelief [... ] it appears.' Column VI: '[ ..• ] prayers and offerings appease the souls. whereas the incantation of the Magoi is powerful enough to change (or drive away?) the daimones who hinder (sc. the souls). The daimones hinder because they are hostile to the souls. This is why the Magoi perform the sacrifice. as if paying compensation. And over the sacrifices they pour water and milk. from which they make also their choai. They make offerings of innumerable and many-naveled cakes. because the souls are also innumerable. Initiates make preliminary sacrifices to the Eumenides in the same manner as the Magoi. Because the Eumenides are souls. On whose (the souls') account. whoever intends to sacrifice to the gods must first make an offering of poultry to [...].' Column VII: '[ .•. ] a hymn saying sound and righteous words; for a religious service was being performed through the poem. And one cannot say the interpretation of the words although they are spoken. Because the poem is unfamiliar and enigmatic to people. And Orpheus did not intend to use it for saying disputable riddles. but for saying great things in riddle form. Or rather he makes a holy discourse. and he makes it from the very first word aH down to the last. As he makes it clear also in the easily recognizable verse; for by ordering them to put doors to their ears he says that he does not legislate for the multitude. but that he teaches those whose hearing is pure [... ].' The next eolumn. or rather the lost lower part of eolumn VII. eontains the beginning of the exegesis of the Orphic poem. wh ich is outside my scope in this paper. It is obvious. I believe. that the topie in these columns is eschatology. It is also clear that the author's general tendency is markedly

didaetie. But it is noticeable that this is not the didaetie tendeney of a theologie al thinker. but the desire of a religious practitioner to disseminate his professional secrets to the faithful. Wh at sort of a religious practitioner the author eould have been is not so difficult to decide. although different designations describe various activities. of which more than one may belong to the same person. For instance, the repeated references to oracle-eonsulting in coI. v, and especially the statement 'we enter the oracle in order to seek divination with regard to the enquirers'. would make hirn a mantis. His

The First Columns 01 the Derveni Papyrus

99

referenee Lo disbelievers who do not know how to interpret dreams would make hirn an oneirokrites. His references to 'other things', whieh ordinary people apparently do not know how to interpret, would perhaps make hirn a teratoskopos. But all these activities could easily be classified under the general designation 'mantis'. I just now claimed that his purpose was to divulge his professional secrets to the faithful. Column VI suggests that the recipients of his work were not the faithful in the broad sense we use to describe the believers in the Christian faith, but a chosen group of them, namely the initiates. I believe that the purpose of the reference to the Magoi in this column is not to offer a touristie piece of information about an exotie land, as Herodotus might have done. Putting forward the Magoi as venerable paradigms of piety and wisdom, the author intends to lend antiquity and authority to the practices of the initiates, who are his main topic. It is remarkable that, although the subject discussed in these columns is the afterlife, no mention is made of the official gods of the underworld, Hades/Pluto or Persephone. I do not know if this is due to the physical condition of the papyrus-we cannot say wh at preceded in the missing columns or in the missing lower part of the surviving columns--or to some obseure theological reasons or, finally, if it has something to do with the author's cosmological theory expounded in the second part of thc book. I incline. however, to the final explanation. For he would contradict hirnself if he spoke of the worship of Hades and Persephone, since he goes on subsequently to deny the existenee of distinct deities, claiming that their different names represent successive stages in the creative proeess of the world. The author does not deny the existenee of god, in the singular, whom he mentions in the sceond part of his book, but gods in the plural are referred to only in relation with other people's beliefs or practices (m. 7 BE<»v iJ1TYJp€rUL KUAovvruL, VI. 10 rov fL€AAOVra BEafs BVELv).

If, however, the official gods are missing, the Erinyes, the Eumenides, and their rites are present. But here things are different. We may not yet be certain whether or not the two designations specify different hypostases of the same spirits, but what is explicitly said about both groups is that they are not deities, not even inferior ones, but souls, Le. the spiritual parts of human beings which have survived their bodies after their death. So the papyrus seems to eonfirm the theory of Erwin Rohde

K. Tsantsanoglou

100

that the Erinyes were the souls of the dead, as Albert Henrichs has pointed out. 4 However, as far as the surviving text lets us see, the second and more important part of Rohde's theory, namely that the Erinyes were the souls of the victims of violent deaths, is not confirmed. On the contrary, if it is permissible to draw reasonable judgements from the author's general mentality, it does not seem likely that he would be especially interested in the ßtatoOavaToL. His Erinyes/Eumenides perhaps form a group belonging to the broader category of daimones who are identified with the souls of the righteous, the pious, the a:yaOot. The word 8a{fLwv is used several times honorifically for the souls of persons distinguished during their lifetime. s According to Plato in the Cratylus, the dyaOo{ were greatly esteemed and honoured after their death and became daimones;6 this idea is repeated in the fifth book of the Republic, 468d--469b not only for those who have fallen in war, but also for those who were 8ta1>Ep6vTW<; EV nin ß{WL dyaOof, no matter how they die, whether of old age or for any other reason. 7 In both passages Plato refers to Hesiod, Op. 121 ff., according to whom the men ofthe Golden Race, after having become daimones, remain upon the earth, acting as guardians of mortals, maintaining justice, and punishing crimes (cf. 252-5). Hesiod does not assign these daimones any duties with regard to other souls. This is done by Heraclitus, 22 B 63 DK, who, although he does not use the word 8a{fLwv, is certainly concerned here with the privileged souls of outstanding men: EvOa 8' tE6vnt bravfuTauOaL Kat 1>vAaKa<; y{vwOaL EYEpTi ~WVTWV Kai VEKPWV, 'and there they rise up [... ] and, now awake, become guardians of living and dead'. I know that many widely diverging interpretations of this fragment have been proposed. I do not intend to discuss it here. I only wish to remind the reader that one of the duties assigned to such 1>vAaKE<; is to guard the entrance to Hades, as numerous sources confirm. This guarding, however, does not only consist in controlling which souls will proceed to the paradisiac quarters of the underworld and which ones will not; at the same 4 Henrichs (1984). See E. Rohde. Psyche. i, 9th edn. (Tübingen, 1925), 269ff.. Kleine Schriften, ii (Tübingen, 1901), 229 ff. 5 E.g. Hes. Th. 991 for Phaethon, Theogn. 1348 for Ganymede, Aesch. Pers. 620 for Darius, Eur. Ale. 1003 for Alcestis. 6 398b: €7TEtOaV rtS aya8oS' T€A€UrTJa'Y/L! fLEyaAT}v p.,ofpav Kat TLp.,7JV EXEL Kat Y{YVETaL

oa{(twv. 7

25

Cf. Heraclitus 22 B 24 DK:

p..aKpafwvoS'

AEAaxaat

ß{OtD.

combined with also Emped. 31 B 115.5 DK oa{(tOVES OrTE

aPTJiq,aTovs (}Eol n(twaL Kai äV(}pWTrOL,

(t6POL (t.r'OVES (t.r'ovas (to{pas ilayxavovm;

The First Columns 01 the Derveni Papyrus

101

time. the control is extended to the way out from Hades. so that. in the traditional belief. no soul is allowed to escape. and in the Orphic/ Pythagorean belief. the trafik of transmigrating souls is regulated. What is the contribution of the Derveni author to these religious concepts? Nothing is explicitly said in the surviving text. but what is obviously implied is that the fortune of those distinguished mortals is now being extended to the initiates as well. This means that no matter how unimportant or obscure the life of the deceased had been. he or she might still attain the promised salvation. as long as some conditions were fulfilled. These conditions fall under three. partly overlapping. headings: (a) a righteous life. (b) special knowledge. (c) cult practices. Regarding the first condition. namely a righteous life. no particular life-style is mentioned. but the reference. in col. 1Il. to äOLKOL ävop€<;. probably being punished. and the repeated mention of Dike in col. IV. though in relation to the cosmic justice. suggest that righteousness is aprerequisite. In coI. v we find two more terms: a/LUpTt7] and ~öov~. The notion of overcoming pass ions (especially ~Öov~/-u{) or being overcome by them was common in Greek thought at least since the time of Kleoboulos of Lindos. one of the Seven Sages. to whom the command ~öovYj<; KPUTEfv was attributed (10 A 3 DK). But I have been unable to find a/LUpTtu. 'wrong-doing. fault. sin·. associated elsewhere with ~öov~ before the Christian Fathers (e.g. Bas. Horn. 13. 5 (31. 436a M.) ~öov~ /L~T7]P TYj<; a/LUpT{u<;). Plato, Prot. 357d. equates yielding to pleasures with extreme ignorance: TO ~oovYj<" -y/TTW dVUL u/Lu8{u ~ /LEY{OT'I). Actually. sin and pleasure are condemned in the Derveni book as leading through ignorance to non-belief. Apparently. people enslaved to the pleasures of life are uninterested in spiritual matters and the concerns of the after-life. and therefore they neglect to acquire knowledge about them. 8 So we come to the second condition. Knowledge through teaching leads to faith. Or. as the author puts it negatively. disbelief is the same thing as ignorance. In these initial columns. knowledge is limited to eschatological lore (the nature and role of the daimones. the Erinyes/Eumenides. the horrors in Hades), to mantic techniques (oracles. oneiromancy. T<ßV ä'\'\wv 1TpuY/LaTWV EKUOTOV). and to cult 8 I believe that aJ-tapri"l) has the moral sense here. because (a) it is c10sely connected with ~oov~ (aJ-tapri"l)<; Ka1 T1)<; al.l."I).' ~oov1)<;), and (b) a gnostic sense. Iike e.g. JgaJ-tapn,vEtv in the Protagaras passage, would produce circular reasoning.

102

K. Tsantsanoglou

details, especially sacrifices. One is reminded of the first encounter of Pentheus and Dionysus in the Bacchae, when the king provocatively asks the god ab out his orgia: 473 'And wh at gain do they bring to those who sacrifice?'-The god answers: 474 'It is not lawful for you to hear-though it is worth knowing' (ägt' EioEl'at). Again, later in the same stichomythia, Pentheus is assailed as ignorant (480 afLaB~s) and afLaB{a is equated with aOEßEw (490). But the most important and probably most original part of the author's teaching is the chapter of his book that deals with the allegorical interpretation of the Orphic theogony and the exposition of a cosmogonic system cognate with la te Ionian physical theories. I am not going to discuss this second part of the Derveni book, apart from its introductory section in col. VII, but there are many strong indications that the exegesis itself forms part of the initiatory procedure. Although no mystai are mentioned in the second part, there is a constant contrast with OL 1ToAAo{, o[ OU YWWOKOl'TES, o[ OUK ElOOTES. These people cannot be the academic expounders of a different physical theory or the authors of different commentaries. What they do not lmow is repeatedly said to be Ta AEYOfLEl'a, no doubt in the mystic sense of the term. And, interposed in the middle of the allegorical exegesis, we find column xx explicitly speaking about the performance of rites, but mainly in the form of a polemic against those religious professionals who are unable to impart essential knowledge to their fiock. This leads us to the third condition: cult practices. Column III, though extremely fragmentary, mentions, as I suggested above, three forms of honours paid to the Erinyes/souls. The verb on which the accusative TtfLGS depends is obviously .p[{JP'l'}[t]. 'fhe subjunctive probably suggests something like öml' ns Eis TOUS BEOUS TtfLaS .pEP?]t; cf. the same train of thought below in VI. 10 f. (Tal' fLEAAol'T Ja BEOEs BUHV). However, if EKaOTOtS in line 7 refers to the same recipients of nfLa{, I do not believe that people were advised to offer poultry to each of the gods. The best candidates are, I think, the dead: öml' ns Eis TOUS l'EKPOUS nfLas .pEP?]t. The first kind of offerings consists of choai, Le. libations poured to the chthonian deities and the souls of the dead. The verb employed here with xoa{ is, as is usually the case, XEHl'. We know that choai were normally made from larger vessels emptied out profusely onto the ground. Therefore, oTayoow, 'in drops' (?), is somewhat puzzling. But we do not know what the liquid or liquids of the libation were. In col. VI. 6 f. the libations to

The First Columns oi the Derveni Papyrus

103

the underworld daimones consist of water and milk, but the cult described there is Iranian. Tn two very important papers, Albert Henrichs has discussed exhaustively all the relevant evidence, based entirely, however, on co!. V1. 9 At that time, co!. II had not been reconstructed, and Magoi had not yet made their appearance in coI. VI. SO the details of the Iranian cult described there were interpreted as Greek ritual practices. No evidence about libations poured to the Erinyes has survived, but liquid offerings to the Eumenides are sufficiently attested and may weIl be the same thing. In Soph. OC 100, 481 the offerings to the Eumenides (who, by the way, are designated as SU{fLOVES) consist of a mixture of honey and water (fLEAtKp1JTOV). In Schol. Aeschin. 1. 188 they consist of honey-cakes (OfL7TUt) and milk. And in Callimachus fr. 681 they are also OfL7TUt and wineless libations. Here, however, the Erinyes, and in co!. VI the Eumenides, are identified with souls. Therefore, perhaps it is worth considering the evidence for choai to the souls, which are by no means v1J4>6),.tUL. In the Nekyia (Od. 11. 27 f.), Odysseus offers three libations to the dead: of fLEAtKp1JTOV, of wine, and of water. In Eur. IT 162, Iphigeneia offers to the soul of Orestes (whom she believes dead) milk, wine, and honey. In the Orphic/Bacchic lamellae from Pelinna 10 wine is mentioned, apparently as an offering to the dead, unfortunately in a mutilated verse: In Orphic/Bacchic eschatology, the souls were believed to participate in an endless banquet, II and the numerous wine vesseis and wine cups placed in the graves, to say nothing of the numerous golden wreaths, testify tangibly to this fact. Finally, if Christian syncretistic survivals may be adduced as evidence, let me add that in the Eastern Orthodox funeral service choai to the souls consist of water. wine and oil. The second kind of offerings to the Erinyes/souls is perhaps birds. The reading OpV{()EWV is uncertain. The same word also occurs at VI. 11, where the reading is, unfortunately, even less sure. But the traces visible in both places make it hard Lo imagine any other 9 'The Sobriety of Oedipus: Sophocles oe 1 00 Misunderstood', Harvard Sturues in Classical Philology, 87 (1983), 87-100, and Henrichs (1984). 10 K. Tsantsanoglou and G. M. Parassoglou, 'EAA1WtKa, 38 (1987). 3-] 6. 11 Plat. Rep. 363c €l, Jhoov yap
Kat KaTaKA{vaVT€~ Kat aVI1:7TOaWV rwv oa{wv Ko.'TaaKEt}{l.aaVTE~ eO''TErpaVWfLEvovr; Tal' &TTUVTU

xp6vov

~o1J jkE86oVTU,>, ~'i'7]aa0EVOt KuAAt.UTOV dPET7J~

7Towvaw

p.,to8ov fl-€8YJv alwvwv.

104

K. Tsantsanoglou

solution. The use of the adjective is technical in the language of ritual. The noun implied is not KpEas,12 but iEPEtOV: atYEwv, ßO!ELOV or ßOi'KOV, VEWV or Vi'KOV are found in inscriptions, sometimes followed by iEPEtOV. 13 It is remarkable that OpV{BEWV is followed by TL; this may imply that any kind of bird was a suitable offering to the souls. We know that birds, mainly the coel<:, as stated by Porphyrius, were an attribute of Persephone. 14 The same is true of the dove. Again according to Porphyrius,15 theologians derived the name of Ij>EppE~aTTa from ~EpßELV T~V ~aTTaV' iEPOV yap aVTijs ~ ~aTTa. Cocks, doves, and other birds, as weIl as eggs. are frequently depicted on funerary stelai and other monuments. 16 Of funerary character are also the offerings of a cock to AsclepiusY Finally, compare the relation of cocks to wind-daimones, which has probably something to do with the Orphic idea of the aerial nature of the soul,l8 It is remarkable that both occurrences of 6pv{8Etov in the papyrus follow the identification of the Erinyes and the Eumenides with souls. Possibly, in the author's mind, the selection of this particular sacrifice has something to do with the winged appearance of the ErinyslEumenis/psyche. The third form of honours to the Erinyes/souls is melodious. dP!'-OUTOlJS and Evap!'-O(JToVS produce satisfactory sense. 'Adaptable' As in Pherecr. 50. 5 f.. Ar. Av. 1590. Antiph. 89. Cf. F, Sokolowski. Lois sacrees des cites grecques (=LSCG) (Paris. 1969). 163. 18 ßOt[E{WV (or ßOi'KWV?) I (Epdwv, Lois sacrees de I'Asie Mineure (Paris. 1955). 49. B 29 iEpEiov .• , ßOi'K6v. 39 iEP» I [ov , .. J Vi'K6v. 60. A 25 IEpd]wv Vi'KWV, And. with the noun irnplied: LSCG 136. 26 VELOV. Lois sacrees des ciles grecques. Supplement (= LSS) (Paris. 1962) 55 a'YEtov. vi'K6v. 57.12 alydov. 58 vi'Ka .. , a'[y]Et[aJ. 14 De abst. 4. 16 xBov{a yap ~ BEGS (sc, Persephone) Ka! L1"l""~T"lP ~ a!h~. Ka! Tav aAE"KTpVOVa OE ruth"'rjL d.qn€pwaav. OL' Ö KaI, a1TlxoVTaL oi raVT'YjS /l-VGrat opvtBwv EVOtKtO{WV. TrUpayyEA/..€Tal. yap Kat, 'EAevatVL a:rrEx€a8at Kat KUTOLKLO{WV opvtBwv Kat 12

13

iX(Jvwv.

Loc. eit. Cf. e.g. the funerary terracotta busts usually identified with Persephone: F. Winter. Die Typen der figürlichen Terrakotten. i (Berlin and Stuttgart, 1903). 247. 7 (?Athens. Persephone with dove). 248, 1 (Boeotia. Persephone with cock). 2 (Tanagra. Persephone with egg and cock). 4-5 (Athens and Boeotia. Dionysus with egg and cantharos). 250. 1 (Myrina, Persephone with bird), 2 (Kerch, Persephone with dove); also the votive tablets ofLocri: Quaglati. Ausonia 3.1908.154.18 (rape of Persephone; the goddess holds a cock), 175 ff.. 29 (Persephone with a cock), 186. 39 (Herrnes Psychagogos with a cock), 149. 13 (dead warrior with a cock). 144f.. 5 (Persephone being offered a cock). 17 Plat. Phd. 118a (the last words of Socrates). Artern. Onirocr. 5.9. Cornparable is also the respect the Pythagoreans showed to white cocks: Plut. Quaest. conviv. 670d. Diog. Laert. 8. 34. 18 Paus. 2. 34. 2 (sacrifice of a white cock in order to placate the wind Lips), 15

16

The First Columns of the Derveni Papyrus

105

or, more likely, 'adapted' to music must be some religious poems, perhaps 7TO-qOEL<; (with EVap/l-007ov,) or V/l-VOV, (with both). We possess two hymns, one to thc Erinyes and one to the Eumenides, includcd in the well-known late collection of eighty-seven Orphic hymns, but the only references to hymns to these figures in the classical era are the more or less metaphorical ones we find in tragedy, especially in Aeschylus: rh. 867 V/l-VOV 'Eptvuo<;, Ag. 645 7TatWVa TOVO' 'Eptvuwv, Ag. 992 8pijvov 'EptVuo,; occasionally, the hymn is sung by thc Erinyes (Eum. 331/344 V/l-VOS Eg 'Eptvuo,); the Eumenides actually ends with a hymn to the placated Erinyes (1032-47). The use of the term paian is usually explained as a deliberatc Aeschylean tragic oxymoron imitated by Euripides, Ale. 424 7TataVa TWt K(hw8EV aom)vowt 8EWt, Hel. 177 7TULava VEKVUtV. On the other hand, it is possible that hymns to the dead, Le. threnoi, are meant; these, of course, require no documentation. We have already seen how Hesiod, Heraclitus, and Plato envisaged the [unction of the daimones in the other world. What about our author? In col. 1II. 4·, if the initial supplement is correct, we read oa[/l-]wv y[vETa[t EKa]uTWt. The following word starts with an iota, but I cannot decide between a and A for the next letter. The former would probably yield a form of laTpo" the latter a form of iM,UKW8at or nEW,. We Imow nothing about healing properties of the daimones. We are only told thai daimones and heroes send mortals the signs of disease and health. 19 Therefore, I would prefer to read i'AEW, or the Iike, since propitiating these daimones must be a principal duty of the faithfuL as we shall see in col. VI. Yet I do not know how to construct the mutilated sentence. However it may be, oa[/l-wv Y[VETUt EKaOTWt seems to reflect the widespread concept of a daimon who accompanies evcry person, either as a 'guardian angel' or as his or her fate, from the moment of birth until death. I am not going to discuss to wh at extent this daimon is believed to be inborn or to exist before and independently of the person he accompanies, so that Socrates may ask him questions; whether it is the daimon who selects the person he is supposed to guard or, as Plato prophesies in thc tenth book of the Republie. 617d, a person will obtain by lot his or her own daimon; finally, whether when Heraclitus, 22 B 119 DK claims that 'man's character is his daimon' 19 Alexander Polyhistor (FGrHist 273 F 93) quoting from the l7v8ayoptKU 'Y1TO/-LvTj/-Lara (58 B 1a DK): Kai U1TO rovrwv (seil. öa
106

K. Tsantsanoglou

he is adhering to the popular view or is instead denying it. I only wish to propose that the Derveni author is extending these tutelary or attending duties of the daimones to the souls of his initiates. In line 5 we read EtwAEa<; or EtWAEa U[. Although Greeks used to swear KaT' EtwAE{as. I believe that it would be rash to conHne the meaning here to perjurers. If daimones or Erinyes are meant, any wrong-doer falling under their jurisdiction in Hades might be called EtWA1}S, whether he had slain his own kin, transgressed divine and naturallaw. or perjured. The idea of the avenging daimon is further elaborated in line 8. as we have already seen; here possibly it is said that the daimones see to it that wrong-doers are punished. Before that. in lines 6-7 another popular concept is presented: 'daimones who under this saH [... ] are called servants of gods'. The belief that the distinguished dead. once they became daimones. were servants of the gods is sufficiently documented. Agamemnon. Alcestis. Helen. Rhadamanthys. the Kouretes. even those who had fallen in war for their city, all became either 7TPCJ7TOAOL or 7TapEopoL of the gods. 20 It is interesting that Maximus Tyrius quotes Hes. Op. 253, d8avaToL Z1}VOS ~vAaKES 8VYjTWV dv8pW7TWV, as d8avaToL ZYjvos 7TP07TOAoLY However, line 6 o]a{fLovEs oi' KaTw[ 8EV TO JVOE XOV [ is problematic: xov, suggests a sepulchral mound rather than the earth, and the deictic TOVOE in the present context is puzzling. TOVOE KoufLoV would be welcome,22 but it cannot be read. Before we resort to the ohvious o]vo' EXOV[at, we can, perhaps, suggest that the author might have stated earlier. as an extension of the uWfLa-uiwa theory, that 'this earth' is nothing hut a universal sepulchral mound. But all this is tao speeulative to be relied upon. In eoI. IV, the Heraclitus eolumn, reHes of phrases, like 0 KE[fL[ Eva] fLETa8[. ]a T~S TVX1}S, lVOE KoufLoS lead us to suppose that the author is dealing with the change of certain stahle entities in conneetion with the eosmic order. KdfLEva may qualify same noun, e.g. legal 20 Aesch. Cho. 357 f. (for Agamemnon: 7Tp67TOA6s TE TWV p.Ey{aTwv XOov{wv EKEl: TVpaWWV), Eur. Ale. 746 (for Alcestis: ytVAaaaova{v TE UKas Kai aXETIt
paradosis of Hesiod. 22 Cf. M. L. West, Early Greek Philosophy and the Orient (Oxford, 1971),243.

The First Columns of the Derveni Papyrus rules

107

or the boundaries of aland propcrty (KE[fLEva or may imply some generally expressed constants (KE[fLEva used absolutely). I would incline towards the final hypothesis. In any case, I would exclude the possibility that the author might be referring to a change in the fixed meanings of words or in the syntactically regular word-order (? KEtfLEVa OVofLaTa) referring to his allegorical theory.23 This theory is inconceivable without the theogonical poem o[ Orpheus, where it is supposedly put into practice. And, so far as we can see, the poem is first mentioned in column VII. Moreover, the Heraclitus passage, which is mentioned as a corroboratory parallel for the preceding text (5 Kanl [Talh]a: rather than KanJ. [TaVT]a), seems to have nothing in common with the allegorical theory. However, supplementing the gaps in this co lu mn proves to be extremely difficult, and any reconstruction o[ these lines is bound to be [ar [rom certain. But if the gaps are great, the challenge is even greater. The new readings and guesses lead to a very different commentary from the ones George Parassoglou and I published in Tsantsanoglou and Parassoglou (1988) and Tsantsanoglou (1992), not so much in the Heraclitus fragment itself as in the text preceding it. For example, ,) KdfL[Eva] fLETaB[EfLEVOS' wq,EA.ELav BEIIEL (or wq,EA[av EWOEL or fLETaBldS' wq,EIIELav ßovIlETat)] Dovvru fLUIIII[oV ~] a{vETat [TOUS' av8pw7ToVS' seems reasonable enough. For wq,E),.ELav or wq,EA[av one may substitute 8q,ElloS', 8v1]uw or the like, selecting each time the participle and verb appropriate in terms of length. For TOU, avBpw7ToVS' one mayaiso substitute TOV dafLov, Ta EOVTa or the like, adjusting the rest accordingly. The preceding letters ]. wv apparently belong to the same sentence and must represent the ending (masc. gen. pI. rather than nom. sing.) of a noun or pronoun wh ich qualifies ,) KE{fLEVa fLETa8EiS'/-EfLEVO<;. Certainly, not everyone who performs a change upon stable entities does it so as to benefit the world. In the next sentence, 7Tap Ja TYJS' TVX1]S' y[ap] OVK Er[ a lIa ]fLßaVEL[v agrees both with the traces and partly with the sense expected. The subject of Eta would be the same masculine agent as in the preceding sentence, who aims at the benefit of the human race or of the cosmos. Now it is said that he does not permit someone to take something from chance. The object 01' AafLß(LVELV can only be the same as the one of DOVVat, Le. wq,EIIELav. But then, why should an (KE[fLEva vOfLLfLa)

opLa) ,

23

See Lebedev (l989).

108

K. Tsantsanoglou

agent. who is supposed to be beneficial. prohibit obtaining some benefit from chance. if it were possible to do so? Therefore. I believe that it is preferable to supplement ODK (<'iv) Et[7}:24 'For it would be impossible to obtain a benefit from chance.' The conclusion. expressed in the form of a rhetorical question. confirms the author's conviction that the world-order is maintained by the volition of a superior force which performs predetermined and planned cosmic changes with a view to the benefit of the world. On the contrary, indeterminate and unplanned changes emanating from chance forces would only produce harm. Obviously, the author is dealing here with causality as the basis of the origin and development of the physical world. The topic is extensively discussed by Aristotle in Physics B, chapter 4; he also touches on the idea of the benefit derived from such cosmic developments, but only in order to refute it. The opposition between necessity and chance is common in the early natural philosophers. For instance. Leucippus claims that ODOEV xpfJf-w p.aT7}v ('at random') ytVETUL, a'\'\d 7H1.VTU EK '\oyov TE Kui v-rr' avaYK7}s (67 B 2 DK). Democritus has the same view: -rravTu avaYH Eis avaYK7}v O(S XpfJTaL ~ cpvats (68 A 66 DK, cf. A 67-70). The opposite idea was attributed by some to Anaxagoras, who was credited with the view P.7}0EV T(1)V ytvop.ivwv y{vwßut KUß' Eip.upp.iv7}V, a'\'\d KEVOV TOVTO TOVVOP.U (59 A 66 DK); and, though not in a cosmic connection, p.~ ö'\ws dVUL -rrpovotav TtVU T(1)V ßEWV TOtS avßpw-rrotS, aUd -rravTa Tav8pomnu v-rro TfJt TVX7}t ä.yw8m (ibid.). We know that Heraclitus also advocates T(l,gtv Ttvd KUt Xpovov wpwp.ivov Tiis TOV Koap.ov P.ETUßO'\fJS

KUT(1.

TtVU Eip.upp.iv7}v avaYK7}v

(22 A 5 DK). Hence it would not be unexpected to find a citation of the Ephesian sage used in order to confirm the theory of regulated mutability in nature. It remains to be seen whether or not the fragment itself actually sustains the author's views. I do not intend to discuss in detail the physical implications of the Heraclitus quotation. r should only like to point out briefly that both problems interpreters faced when the two fragments were not united have now been answered: (a) whether the reference to the sun's oi5pOt is to be taken spatially or temporally. and (b) whether the measurement refers to the sun's real or apparent size. Since the first part of the fragment (formerly known as 22 B 3 DK) is 24 Suggested by Lebedev (1989) but in a different context. The scribe omitted another lJ.v at xxv. 8.

The First Columns 01 the Derveni Papyrus

109

obviously concerned with the size of the sun, its second part (known so far as 22 B 94 DK) must also deal with the sun's dimensions and should not be taken temporally or otherwise. But Heraclitus is not interested in assessing the stln's real dimensions. His concern is to maintain that its dimensions, whatever they are, will not change at random. And this opinion can be upheld equaIly weIl whether the reference is to the sun's real size or to its apparent one, since changes in the one would be commensurate with changes in the other. Since Heraclitus' viewpoint is anthropocentric, he must undoubtedly be referring to the sun's apparent size, without making any allusion to the view that wh at appears to the senses is or is not deceptive. The reason he was misunderstood in the doxographical tradition (Aetius. Diogenes Laertius, Ps.-Herac!. epist. ix) must be the condensed phrasing and, perhaps, the expression EWVTOU KaT/I q,vGtv, which was probably taken as a reference to the sun's real nature. But the expression has nothing to do with a distinction between real and apparent. Actually, it applies to both, meaning no more than 'in its natural form'. If it points to a distinction, it is one between congenital and acquired. Thc sun's size is a characteristic it has by nature, and any change to its size would be applied extrinsically and would be contrary to its nature. However, despite my suggested reconstruction at lines 1-4, I believe that the Derveni author's concern continues to be the theological problem of the role of the Erinyes, who, in his view, are the souls of thc righteous and of the initiates, and not the physical problem of thc change in the sun's size. The fact that co!. IV is flanked on either side by columns with obvious eschatological contents corroborates this view. And it is in this connection that the Herac\itus quotation i8 used. If the somewhat ironical oum,p lKE/IOL f-tvBoA6YWt is correctly reconstructed, it seems that the author does not entirely accept Heraclitus' views. And possibly KamuTpl.q,H in line 6 has to be seen in Ihis critical light: 'by his remodelling common and tradition al beliefs he ruins his own ideas.' Perhaps the jurisdiction of the Derveni author's daimones is limited to watching over the conduct of men and punishing their souls. Cosmic justice is maintained by the q,p6v'YJGt, 70U BEOU, the creative Nous of the second part of his book. But his selection of this particular Heraclitus dictum is not without purpose. He may disagree with the role assigned to tbe Erinyes, but he would certainly subscribe to the theory that the cosmos is immutable, unless the change takes pi ace

llO

K. Tsantsanoglou

'in a certain order and fixed time ... with some fated necessity'Actually, the problem of the size of the sun and the question whether or not it can be enlarged comes up again in the surviving text (col. xxv) together with a cross-reference, apparently to this column. There the force that prevents an unintended change in the sun's dimensions is necessity, dvaYKYJ; here it is Dike. The two are identified in Parmenides 28 A 37 DK. There is not much left to be said about column v. It is understandable why the author should mention here only the negative side of after-life expectations. He is addressing people supposedly ignorant, profane, and polluted, whose punishment in Hades is certain; and he is interested in advertising his own skills and convincing them that the only way to save their souls is purification and initiation. I need not repeat the comparison frequently made between the situation reflected in the Derveni book and Plato's account (Republic 2. 364b ff.) of the activities of the agyrtai and manteis, who emphasize the 'horrors of Hades' precisely in order to advertise their own purificatory powers, by which they guarantee the salvation of the soul. Column VI introduces us to the religious practices of the Magoi. 25 It also mentions the initiates by name, and speaks no Ion ger of Erinyes but of Eumenides, to whom the rites of the initiates are addressed. Unfortunately, much in my interpretation depends on uncertain supplements. Thus, already in the first line, fLELA{aaov(!L is pretty certain but nis- t/;vxa<; is questionable. It seems, however, that what the Persians used to propitiate with prayers, burnt offerings, and libations (this last one probably lost in the opening gap of line 1) were their ancestors' souls. The Persian word for these souls is artavan, wh ich passed into Greek in the form dpTaiot or dpTaoE<,-. They were the equivalent of the Greek 'blessed ones', the ö{KaWt or the i]PWE<;.26 Greek sources, from Aeschylus' Persae to Herodotus and Kanz TLva ELfLapfLEvYJv dvaYKYJv.

25 Nowhere in the surviving text is it explicitly stated that what the author is dealing with is Iranian and not Greek magoi. But as I was unable to find thc term used technically and not pejoratively of Greek religious practitioners. I limited my search to the Iranian area. I cannot rule out the possibility that Greek magoi did exist as a serious religious profession before the term came to mean 'magician. impostor, charlatan'. But. to the extent that this hypothetical dass must have imported and practised Eastern religious beliefs, the result remains much the same. 26 Hesych. apTa8€~' oi 8{KUWL IJ1TO Maywv; apTaLOl,' oi i]pW€S 1Tapa lllpauLS; cf. Phrynichus' tragedy L!{KaWL ii ll'poaL ii EUVI)WKOL (TrGF 3 F 4a), ami Hellanicus, FGrHist 4 F 60 apm{ov<; OE ll'poaL. W07TEP oi ''EAAYJvE< TOU<; 7TuAawu<; avl)pw7ToV<; ijpwa<;

The First Columns 01 the Derveni Papyrus

111

Xenophon, offer several instances of hero worship by the Persians and the MagoiY In the next line, both EVTOfLa, 'sacrificial victims offered to the dead', and E7TWLO~, 'incantation'. are possible. We possess some pieces of information concerning Iranian practices for both rites. sometimes occurring togethcr in the same passage. 28 EVTOfLa and incantations are especially mentioned in relation to Persian rites for the winds. 29 We have already seen similar customs in Greek religious life. 30 The Orphic concept of a universal aerial soul carried ab out by the winds and breathed in by individualliving beings must be related. As Martin West has shown, this is a concept which originates in Oriental religious thinking. 31 On the other hand, Herodotus (1. ] 32) describes how Persian sacrifices had to be accompanied by an J7TaoLO~ sung by a Magos. And that J7TaoLO~ was called a 'theogony·. This may be compared with the Orphic theogony allegorically interpreted in the Derveni book. What is more, the references to this Orphic theogony must have begun in the lost lower part of this column. The next column mentions a hymn or a poem by Orpheus, apparently heard or read by the initiates. One cannot help thinking that this Orphic theogony was parallel with the J7TaoLo~ or theogony of the Magoi, forming part of the mystic telete, no doubt part of its AEyofLEva or aLoofLEva, which a specialist had to interpret for the prospective initiates. This activity of the Magoi, whether sacrifices or incantations, has the power to put the impeding daimones out of the way or to change them. The infinitive /-u:8wTaVUt may mean both, but the prevailing Kallov(u. 27 Hdt. 7. 44, Xen. Cyr. 3. 3. 22, 8. 3. 24, Aesch. Pers. 217, 219\'., 609ff., aI. Cf. West, Early Greek Philosophy and the Orient, 150 f. 28 Hdt. 1. 132, Strab. 15. 3. 14, Luc. 38. 7.9, Paus. S. 27.5. 29 Hdt. 7. 191 ,,'Aor; OE EV70fLcl 'rE 7TOtei]VTES Kui KaTa~dooVT€S ß01jtUL OL j-UlYOL TWt aV€fLWL. 7rPOS OE TOtJ-rOLGt Kat -rTJt €JE-TL Kat rYjtut NYJp7J{at. Büov'T(:s €1TUVaaV TETUPT1]t

~I-'EP'fJ"

30 Above, n. 18. On the relation of the winds to the anccstors' souls and their cult in Greek religion see Harpocration (e=: Photius =Suda) s. 7'ptTorra.Top€'; (OP 318 Kern); cf. LSCG 2 0 8, 18043,20 B 32.53, 52.19: LSS 115 A 23, 116 A 2: L. Robert, Hellenica 9, 56-61: see also P. Stenge!, Opjerbräuche der Griechen (Leipzig, 1910) 146-53, Rohde, Psyche, i, 248. I, M. P. Nilsson, Geschichte da griechischen Religion, i, 3rd edn. (Munieh, 1967), 117. ii, 2nd edn. (Munieh, 1961),457, W. Burkert, Greek Religion (Oxford, 1985), 82. 175, 265 f.. and }acoby's commentary on FGrHist 325 (Phanodemos) F 6. 31 011 27 Kern: Aristot. De an. 41O b 19: allegorically interpreted by Philoponus, 186.24 Hayd. Cf. West, Early Greek l'hilosophy and tlze Orient, 104f., 181 f.

112

K. Tsantsanoglou

sense is 'change', and the Derveni author uses the noun fkE'ra(JTam<; for 'change'. If this is the meaning of wOWTaVat it is impossible not to think of the Aeschylean transformation of the avenging daimones into benevolent spirits. At the point of their transformation, the Chorus of Erinyes in Rum. 900 address Athena with the words: OD.gEtv fk' ~OtKa<; Kat fkdJ{uTUfkat KOTOU. If the usage here is better rendered 'withdraw from', perhaps the dosest parallel also comes from Aeschylus, but it describes a change the other way round: Pers. 158 Er Tl fk~ öa{fkwv 7Ta'\atÜ<; VVV fkEOluTYJKE uTpaTwl; Le. the benevolent daimon changed to malicious. But who are the 'impeding daimones'? At Il. 23. 71 ff. the soul of the still unattended and unburied Patrodus begs Achilles to inter his corpse, because the other souls prevent hirn from passing the gates of Hades. But perhaps the situation here is different. It certainly has nothing to do with interment. Yet the daimones may really impede the soul from reaching its blissful destination in Hades. Just how this hindering took place, at least in Greek thinking, is a matter of complicated popular and intellectual eschatological concepts. For instance, Empedodes, 31 B 115 DK, teaches that the fkaKpa{wvE<; oa{fkovE<; force the sinful souls to stay away from the blessed ones for 'thrice ten thousand horai' , whatever this may mean, being born over and over in aIl forms of mortal life. The Pythagoreans, according to Alexander Polyhistor,32 believed that impure souls were not allowed to approach each other, much less to come dose to pure souls, since they were fettered in unbreakable bonds by the Erinyes. This activity of the Erinyes is depicted on several vase-paintings, where they appear guarding or whipping or binding sinful souls. 33 All this, however, is Greek eschatology, whereas the Derveni author is most likely speaking about Iranian concepts. According to hirn the hindering of the daimones in Iranian religious teaching could be averted by the Magoi's powerful speIls. Who then are these Iranian hindering daimones? Daimones did exist in Old Persian and Zoroastrian religion. The daevas, or evil spirits, were a numberless horde of demons personifying human ills (Sickness, Sleep, Violence, Death, Fever, Evil Eye, Drunkenness, Drought). Angra Mainyu, the evil spirit par excellence, was their leader. FGrHist 273 F 93 == 58 B la DK. H. Sarian. Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae (Zurich. 1981ff.) s. Erinys. 32

33

Thc First Columns of thc Dcrvcni Papyrus

113

But, although the daimoncs of the Derveni text seem to be hostile to souls, they must not be identified with these daevas. It is clear from the context that what we are looking for is the Persian equivalent of the Greek Erinyes-the female spirits who, watehing sharply (yopyw7Tts, 3tEfa) , observe human behaviour (opwuaL 1Tavra); who avenge and punish but act under the instructions of Dike, whose attendants they are; who, though frightening, are also kind and beneficial (Eumenides); who are powerful (1T(;TVWt) and awful (both reverend, LE(Lvat, and horrible, ÖHVW7TtS); who are on guard to ensure that the natural order is maintained (especially thaI, the sun keeps its set limits) and to punish any transgression from it; who are armed, winged, and move invisibly in the air (~Epo4>oZn<;).34 Their Persian counterpart must have been the Fravashis. They were immortal female spirits whose existence was external to human life and being, so that they coule! guard and observe human behaviour and haunt sinful souls; they assisted Ahura Mazdäh in supporting and sustaining the material world, sky, earth, waters, and life; they were powerful and awful; they used to fly armed through the air; they watched sharply; they were constantly fighting against the daevas, who threatened the natural order; it was their special task to ensure that the sun, the moon, and the stars kept moving forwards-in the past they bad stood motionless because of the daevas-and that they moved in their preore!ained paths. 35 Instead of r/Jvxa'is ixOpot it is possible to reconstruct r/Jvxwv q,povpot (with the letters slightly compressed) or r/JvXai nf1-wpo[, But the sense remains much the same. With regard to WU1TEpEi 1TOLV~V d1TOÖLÖ6vTES, the author is clearly speaking of the Magoi. I was not able to find any references to this concept in Iranian cult; others more expert in this area may be able to do so. But in Greek religious thinking the idea is common enough. It has little to do with 'blood-money', which is the original sense of 1TOLV~, or with punishment for impiously shed blood, or even with Poinai, deities associated or identifled with the Erinyes. [t bas rather to do with sacrifices and other cult practices which function as retribution or ransom for the rescue of the souls from tbe bonds of sin. Such beliefs are weIl illus34 The epithets are selected from C. F. H. Bruchmann, Epitheta Deorum (Leipzig 1893). 35 J. H. Moulton, art. 'Fravashi' in Encyc10paedia o{ Religion and Ethics; M. Schwarz in The Cambridge History o.fIran, ii. 677; in West, Harly Greek Philosophy and the Orient, 185 ff. there is a partial translation of Yasht l3, which is devoted to the J:lravashis.

114

K. Tsantsanoglou

trated in Plato's Republic, in Adeimantos' ironic and playful speech about wh at he caUs 'men's deception of the gods' or 'men's influence upon the gods': Yj TWV fJEwv Im' av8pc!nrwv 1Tapaywy~ (364d). The term employed by Plato as weH as in Orphic texts and golden lamellae is AVEtV, AVUtS, AVUtOt 8EOt. 36 But Pindar uses the term 1TOtVa, and we find the same word in Orphic lamellae and in a short sacrificial hymn included in PGur6b 1. 37 In a recently published gold leaf from Pherai, the guardians of Hades allow the dead man to enter the holy meadow: a1TOtVOS yap 0 fLVUT'YjS, 'for the initiate is not !iable to payment, redeemed'. 38 I have already mentioned above choai to the souls. However, I have not been able to find wineless libations offered to the souls either in Greek or in Iranian practice. Perhaps the case of the Eumenides was unique. As for the 1To1Tava, the sacrificial cakes, this was a common offering both in Greece and in Iran. There is a rich literature on Greek 'Pemmatology', 39 but little is known about the Iranian eusto·m. The Derveni author must be using 1T01Tavov to render the Persian darun or draona, which is described as a flat eake 'of about the size of the palm of a hand, made of wheaten flour and water with a little melted butter, and fried'. They were used in initiation rites and were offered to the Fravashis, to Sraosha, the spirit which has a considerable role in the judgment of the dead and whose mouthpieee is the eoek, and to other spirits. In these eeremonies a special kind of darun was used, 'in wh ich three rows of three dents or cuts, Le. nine in all, are made with the finger-naH before frying [... ] This dented eake is ealled frasast.'40 In the Greek eult the cakes could be owpaAwTa, with 'navels', whose number ean vary according to the gods receiving the saerifice as prescribed in the saered laws. It is remarkable that preliminary saerifiees of one 1To1Tavov EvvEofLcf>aAov for each god, just like the Iranian frasast, are mentioned in an inscription from the Asklepieion of Pergamon. 41 As 36

Plat. Rep. 364e. 365d; OI<' 232. 3, 5 Kern; gold leavcs [rom Pelinna (above, n.

10). 37 Pind. fr. 133.1; gold leaves A 2.4, 3.4 Zuntz; PGur6b 1 (= OI<' 31 Kern; cf. M. L. West (1983: ] 71)). 38 Pavlos Chrysostomou, 'H Ihuuo),.tK.ry Iha 'Ev(v)oota ij P€pata B€d (Diss. Thessaloniki, 1991), 372 ff. The whole text is published as folIows: l:uJ.LßoAa.

)1V(O)p'K€7Ta,o6ßvpuov-J!Vop'K<7ra,o6ßvpaov, Bp'pw-Bp'pw. E,a,ß, [<pov AEt(Lwva' yap" pvar,.,s. t.d7r.oovt. See below, p. 116f.

Ü7TO
See the evidence and references in Henrichs (1984: 2601'., nn. 20-6). E. Edwards, art. 'Sacrifice (Irani an)' in Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics. 41 Die Inschriften des Asklepieions (Altertümer von Pergamon viii. 3) no. 161 (M. Wörrle). 39

40

115

Tiie First Colurnns oI the Derveni Papyrus

the evidence shows, naveled cakes were not exclusively offered to chthonian deities and souls. 7ToAvOfL
43

Protr. 2. 22. 4. 22 B 14 DK TLOt

ßUKXOLS'.

A:r]VUI.S, p.,uaTUts'

o~ J.1-Ul',,€V€TUL tHpaKAEtTO~ () "E4>€aWS; VVKT/,1TOAoLS, flayolS,

TOVTOIS a1T€tAEt Ta

/Lern

8dvarov,

TothoLS'

yap vO/u~6fL
jLUVT€U€TUt

TO

7TUP' Ta

I strongly support the authenticity of this part of the Heraclitean fragment, which has been challenged by Reinhardt, Wiese, and Marcovich (the last-named adduces his arguments on p. 465 of his edition). I believe that VVKT<7TOllo,. the first word in the list, should not be taken as an adjective quali(ying fLayo, but as aseparate category of religious practitioners or worshippers connected with teletai performcd during the night. Bacchic iEpa took place VVKTWP Ta 7TolllIU (Eur. Bacch. 486); cf. ibid. 862 EV 7Tavvvx{o«; XOPOt" Ar. Ran. 342 VVKTEPOV TEIIETii'i, ibid. 371 7rul'l'vx{lla<; TaS ~I'-ETEpa<; (01' the fLVGTa,) ai' T-i/<S, 7TpE7TOVGW Joprij,; cf. also the epithet of Dionysus l'vKT€lIw<; (A.P. 9. 524. 14, aI.), the festival of Dionysus NVKTEllta (Plut. Aet. Rom. 291 a), combined with Hesych. VVKTE'\030, of Enodia/Persephone (ibid. 1049), for Brimo/Persephone (Ap. Rhod. 3. 8(2), and for Zagreus (Eur. fr. 472. 11 N.2).

116

K. Tsantsanoglou

The first impression is that the Ephesian is speaking of Greek religious practitioners called fLUYOL, if not of 'magicians', a possibility that I cannot exclude (see above n. 25). But whether they are Greek or not, the fact is that they originate from the Iranian religious caste, whose te ac hing had started to infiltrate into the Greek world. The Magoi and their influenee on the eoneepts and the praetices of the fLVaTaL are mentioned by the Derveni author in a more or less proselytizing context. Seeond is the evidence of the Hipponion gold leaf,44 where ""vaTaL eoupled with ßUKXOL appear; they are said to have gained the promised salvation. In the context of all gold leaves, the mystic teletai which ensure the salvation of the soul are conneeted with Baeehus, who, in association with Persephone, offers the release of the soul after the payment of a eertain eeremonial ransom. These too very strongly reeall the whole tenor of the Derveni book. although Bacchus or Dionysus does not seem to be mentioned. A third piece of evidence is now offered by the new gold leaf of Pherai (above. n. 38). The Derveni-like ä7TOLVO, fL6aTYJ, mentioned in it is an initiate of the Baechic mysteries. as is shown by the last element of the initial compound 'symbol': avopLKE7Tad368vpaov. The first element may perhaps represent. as the first editor claims. a loeal folk etymological aspect of Erikepaios. the primordial Orphic divinity syncretistically identified with Dionysus (M. L. West (1983: 205 f.) ). On the other hand. the 'symbol' may aetually be a complete metrical sentence (a hexameter up to the feminine eaesura) by means of whieh the soul is asking Bacehus to hand it the thyrsus as a token of aeceptance into the blessed eompany of the mystai: avopLKE 7Tat od{,) 86paov; or. perhaps. to bind a thyrsus for H. Le. to prepare one by binding ivy and vine-Ieaves on top of a wand: avopLKE Trat OOU (written 00) 8vpaov. The phrase 'manly boy'. outwardly a combination of mystic opposites, seems an apt description of the ephebic type of the god (cf. Eur. Bacch. 453 ff.). who appears in the Homeric hymn (7. 3 f.) VE'fJV{YJL avopi EOLKW, 7Tpw8~ßYJL. but with robust shoulders. much like the Aeschylean phrase aVOp67TaLS av~p for the pubescent Parthenopaios. who was none the less a fierce warrior (Th. 533) or the Sophoclean aVOp6TraLS for the boy Troilus. with his precocious prudence (fr. 619 Radt).45 The god is invoked to vouch ",,6aTaL.

G. Pugliese Carratelli (1974),91-126, and, thereafter, an extensive literature. On the combination of opposites in Dionysus' identity see A. Henrichs, 'Loss of Self, Suffering, Violence: The Modern View of Dionysus from Nietzsehe to Girard', 44 45

The First Columns 01 the Derveni Papyrus

117

for the souI's mystic loyalty, just as in the Pelinna lamellae (above, n. 10) the soul is advised EL7TELV
Yet these arguments do not exdude the Eleusinian initiates from 8 f.; they only broaden the alternatives. Moreover, just as the involvement of Persephone in the Dionysiac mysteries is certain, so too the Bacchic/Orphic influence on the Eleusinian mysteries is considerably pronounced during this period (Graf (1974)). The Chorus's mixed identity and its role in Aristophanes' Frogs is an adequate testimony but not the only one. Apart from the first columns and column xx, which speak straightforwardly of mystic rites, the Derveni author makes one or two indirect references to mysteries in the following columns: Ta AEYOfLEVU in XVIII. 14. and the description of the religious duties of the basileus in XIX. 11 f1 However this may be, I would prefer an identity for our author more consistent with his teaching. Therefore I would not be surprised to find hirn as a self-employed mantis, perhaps co-operating with an orade with chthonic associations (e.g. the Amphiaraeion), and as an exponent of a private, intellectual mystery cult which borrowed ritual elements both from the Orient and also from other existing mystery cults, but was entirely unassociated, in its theological outlook, with either Eleusinian or Bacchic mysteries, indeed with aIl the gods of the Greek pantheon with the possible exception ofZeus. Column VII, one of the most difficult columns to reconstruct, introduces us Lo the second part of the book. It would certainly be extremely important for the interpretation of the Derveni book as a whole to see how the author connects its two parts. Setting aside VI.

Harvard Studies in Classical PhilologU, 88 (1984), 205-40, esp. 234 ff. On the god's young/old nature see also A. Henriehs, 'Changing Dionysiae Identities', in B. F. Meyer and E. P. Sanders (eds.), Jewish and Christian Self-Vefiniiion iii: Self-Definition in the Graeco-Roman World (London, 1982), 158 (and n. 194 with ample arehaeological evidence); cf. Diod. Sie. 4. 5. 2 Ii,/-,0pq,ov Ii' aurov (sc. Lh6vuoov) lioKe,v vrrupxew 0". ro ouo LlwvuaovS' YEyoV€Vat, TOV ft€V 1TuAuLOV KU7a1Twywva

Dul

70 TOUS

apxa{ovs travTaS'

rrwywvorpoq,efv, TO" OE vewnpov wpaiav Ka, Tpuq,epov KU' VEav: Cornut. TheoI. gr. 30 (60. 9 Lang) 1TAaTTETat OE Kat VEO~ Kai rrpEaßvT1]~ ÖUx 70 rraOTJt ~A"K{aL 7Tpoa
item Liberi patris simulacra partim puerili aetate, partim iuvenis jingunt. praeterea barbata specie, senili quoque, uti Graeci eius quem BaaaapEa, iLem quem BptOea appellant. However, I believe that avllp'K~ nui refers to the ephebie type of Baeehus, sinee it differs from all these other pieces of evidenee in uniting both the opposite characteristics in one and the same manifestation of the god, unless it ean be shown to mean 'you who sometimes appear young and sometimes old'.

118

K. Tsantsanoglou

the details of the author's allegorical method, expounded in this column, and his theological and cosmological systems, resulting from his allegorical interpretation, let us consider the relationship between the Orphic poem of the second part and the initiates of the first part. The first word that can be recognized in this column may be reconstructed as either v1fLvOV or aE]fLvov. Both are possible, since both can apply to the Orphic poem. UfLVO, is an appropriate term for a religious narrative poem of moderate length (e.g. the Homeric Hymns), like the Derveni Theogony.46 aEfLvo, mayaiso describe a solemn poem, provided that the designation of such a poem preceded: e.g. AOYOV (vel ufLvOV vel 7To{T)fLU vel sim.) I. aE]fLvov. However, vlfLvov is slightly more likely than aE]fLvov, because the space left before it (two letters or, at most, two and an iota) can be conveniently filled with a particle like e.g. OE, while it is difficult to guess what could stand in the space of one letter or one letter plus iota before aE]fLvov (0, ij, on). [vy]tij KUt 8EfL[LT]d AEYO[V- refers to the contents of the poem. The extent of the supplement at the end depends on the length of the word beginning the next sentence and vice versa: AEYO[V (if the subject is neuter; e.g. 7TO{T)fLU) , AEYO[VTU or AEYO[VTU E7TT) or AEyo[vru dvofLuTU (if it is masculine). There is no problem at all with the subject, since poems or songs could 'say' words in antiquity just as todayY The two designations for the contents of the poem refer to their soundness and righteousness. These are the two aspects the author is concerned with in the course of his interpretation of the Orphic poem: natural philosophy and religious exegesis. However, placed at the end of a discussion about initiates and their mystic ritual practices and at the beginning of an exposition of the concealed meaning of a religious poem, these two designations assume a further import. The words of tbe hymn are 8EfLmL, Le. allowable with regard to religious law. Allowable for what? Obviously, for being heard or read by non-initiated people. In other words, tbis 46 M. L. West (1983: 114 f.) reconstructs the portion of the Orphic poem covered by the surviving part of the Derveni book to the extent of 47 verses. The number can easily be reduced to 40 with no effect at all upon the clarity or the coherence of the poem. If we add another c.40 hypothetical verses from the lost portion, the poem comes to a totallength 01' about 80 verses. 47 LSJ S.v. Myw m.8; see especially Herodotus, where ypal'p,ara, l!'1TW, '\oyta, ,\6yos, aT'ij,\a" Tp{'1TOVS, XP1}ap..o{, XP1}aTTJPWV cau all say something.

Tile First Columns 01 tl1e Derveni Papyrus

119

poem does not belong to that group of mystery rites known as dTTOPPYJTa or äppYJTa, as other hymns or religious texts do. In vytiJ Kat OE/UTa, Ka{ seems to function inferentially, 'and there-

fore'. So the hymn is allowable because its content is considered sound. Bearing in mind that this particular poem involves acts of amputation, devouring, and incest committed by gods and goddesses upon their divine kin, it is natural to look for an excuse for considering such contents sound. And since we know that the solution proposed by the author is, of course, allegory, it follows that the most fitting supplement for the opening of the next yap-sentence would be a verb of this meaning: ~tv{aaE]To or, in the unusual form employed elsewhere by the author, ~tv{'E ]TO; this, in turn, would support Myo[vTa ETTYJ at the end of the previous sentence. At this point, however, the only thing the reader of the book knows about the contents of the poem is the author's assertion that they are sound and religiously allowable. If then it is this assertion that needs to be justified, we should expect a phrase meaning something Iike 'for this is a religious poem'. The supplement I prefer, iEpOVpyEf]TO (with the previous sentencc ending in MyolvTa), must be either middle ('for he was performing a religious service by means of the poem', where 'he' would be some religious practitioner, a priest or someone else), or impersonal passive, i.e. 'a sacred rite, a religious service was being performed by means of the poem'. 48 If we be ar in mind the parallel meaning of iEpOVPYELV/-ELaOat, i.e. 'perform sacrifices', which are the iEpOVPY{u par excellence, we get a glimpse of the connection between the first part of the book, which deals with sacrifices, and the second, which deals with a religious poem. The poem of Orpheus obviously has a liturgical role, since it forms part of a religious service. Since the verb of the next sentence is impersonal (o[OV TE, not 0[0" TE), it is very likely that [EpOVPYELTO was also impersonal and that the subject of ElTTELV is indefinite: Ttva or Tove; dvOpoITTovc;. The reference is no doubt to those hearing the hymn without having been initiated. It is natural that people could not know the meaning 01' occult texts, 48 Cf. rambo VP 3. 14 LEPOVpyovVEva, TE/wra{. The impersonal passive is a syntactical feature especially used in 'Sakralsprache' (E. Schwyzer, Griechische Grammatik, ii (Munich, 1950), 239). As it is impossible to reconstruct the first !ine of this column and the bottom of the preceding one, we are unable 10 explain the use of the imperfect. It seems as if the description of a specitic ceremony wherein the theogony had been recited or sung gave the author an opport.unity t.o speak abou! the Orphic poem.

K. Tsantsanoglou

120

which they were not supposed to hear, since they were prohibited. But here the words of the text are spoken (PYJ8EVTU),'9 hence heard. Yet KU[TOt PYJßEVTU seems to imply that such a religious text was normally not to be spoken but to be kept secret. 50 Nevertheless, being silent is not the only way to keep something secret. The other way is to speak in code, as Orpheus is supposed to have done in this case. If people cannot interpret the words of the poem, what prevents them from understanding is no doubt the poet's enigmatic style, which, according to the author, he deliberately selected for mystical reasons. Elsewhere it is explicitly said that the poet hides his true meaning behind his words ou ßovAofLEVOS 7T(LVTUS ywwaKEw (xxv. 12 f.) or that he writes a verse in order to mislead his audience (XXIII. 1); cf. also below, lines 8 ff. This is evidently why ignorant people can only grasp the meaning of the poetic text with the help of an authoritative interpreter. The author recurs to the same subject (which, after all, justifies the existence of his book) at xx. 2 f., while speaking of the uninitiated who participate in the teletai: ou yap otov TE

UKOVaUt OfLOV Kat fLaßEtV Ta AEYOfLEva.

Hence, though cpv]aw qualifies for the space and meaning required at the beginning of line 4 ('the true nature of words'),Sl Av]aw is much preferable, since it belongs to the technicaI vocabulary of riddles. It is noteworthy that it is the words that need a 'solution' in order to be understood, Le. that each word is considered an enigma. Compare below, lines 7 f. U7TO TOV 7TPWTOV ud fLEXpt 00 TEAEVTU{OV MfLuTor;, 'from the very first all down to the last word', and e.g. XIII. 5 f. on fLEV 7T(iauv TYjV mSYJaw 7TEPL TWV 7TpaYWLrWv alv{~ETat, Kaß' E7T0S EKaaTov uvaYKYJ MYEW, 'as he frames the entire poem in the form of ariddie about physical reality, it is necessary to discuss each word in turn'. 52 49 ppYJINvTa in the papyrus. Also at XXVI. 8 Ta ppijfLa. Cf. E. Schwyzer, Griechische Grammatik, i, 4th edn. (Munieh, 1968), 310f.. and L. Threatte, The Grammar oI Attic Inscriptions, i (Phonology) (Berlin and New York, 1980), 519. 50

ws

Plat. PM. 62b (= OF 7 Kern) J fLEV ouv

0;

EV

(l1Topp~ro,s A€yofL€VOS 17€pt aurwv

Aoyos,

DU SEt ö~ EaUTOV EK TaVT'1]S AVEl.V ouS' a.1TOW OtOpaOK€LV, fL€ya~ T€ Ti,:> }LOt 1a{VETat Kat DU patOLO':> Otl-O€LV (ProcI. in Plat. Remp. 2. 85. 1 OF 221 Kern, on the same Phaedo passage, atyij, Tij' l7pmouaYJ' a/ßwv, sc. Plato). Cf. Procl. in Plat. Remp. 1. 125. 20 (= OF 209 Kern) El7E' Kat KopYJS Ka, LJ~VYJTPOS Kat aVT~S" T~S J.L€Y{OT1JS BEiis iepovs TLVUS €V d1TOPP~TO~S' (JP~)JouS' ai TEAETa~ 1Tupa3eoWKUUW. a 51 Cf. e.g. Plal. Rep. 525c TijS rwv apdJ/-,wv rPUIJEWS, Arist. Mete. 366 1 Tt rou

EV

TLVL


äv8pW7TOL

Ka~

=

TTvEvp.,aros epuatc;.

=

52 <170S here övoVa, as in VIII. 6, XVII. 11, XXVI. 2; cf. Ar. Ran. 802, 1198 f. Elsewhere, it is used for 'verse' or 'group of verses'.

Tlle First Columns of tlle Derveni Papyrus

121

g[ EV1/ TtS ~] 7TO~atS, 'something unfamiliar', after a similar suggestion by M. L. West (taTt OE EVtK~ ns-] 7TO~ats: per litt.). The initial letter is admittedly quite uncertain, but the adjective, combined with alVtYIJ-aTWo1/S, describes very precisely the author's conception of the Orphic poem. We find gEVOVS ... Aoyovs in Aesch. Pr. 688 for lo's description of her unusual sufferings, but the adjective is employed of literary style by Aristotle, Rhei. 1404b 11: OtO OEt 7TOtEtV gEV1/V T~V Ott:LAEKTOV. He also uses gEVtKOV as a technical term. The definition he gives at Poet. ] 458 a 22 is interesting: gEVtKOV OE Myw

er

yAwTTav Kai IJ-ETa1>OpaV Kai E7TEKTaaw Kai 7TfJ.v Ta 7Tapa Ta KUpWV. dAA' äv TtS ä7TavTU TOWVTa 7TOt~aTl, ~ aLVtYIJ-a taTUt 'Y) ßapßapwIJ-os. av IJ-EV ovv EK IJ-ETa1>opwv, atvtYIJ-a, EaV OE EK yAWTTWV, ßapßapwIJ-os. It might

be argued that, to a certain extent, the author's method of interpretation depends on the detection of a catachrestic use of metaphors on the part of the poet. Not all of his extravagant explanations can, however, be classed under the heading of orthodox metaphor. dv8pw[7Tots] alvt[YIJ-]aTWo1/S' does not imply that the poem was intended for divine recipients. If the author is making a distinction, it is between Orpheus (or himself, as his expounder) and common people. ignorant of his method of using language, Le. uninitiated; e.g. XVIII. 2 ff. 'Op1>dJS ... oi 1)' äAAot äv8pW7TOt, 14 oi 0' äv8pw[7TOt ou ywwaKovT]ES- Tl1 AEyoIJ-Eva. EIsewhere, he refers to the uninitiated either as oi 7ToAAo{ (VII. 10, XXIII. 1 f.) or as (oi) ou ywwaKovTES (IX. 2 f., XII. 3, XVIII. 5, XXIII. 5, XXVI. 8). Although the reading in line 5 is extremely uncertain, this must be the first mention of Orpheus in the surviving part of the papyrus. He must also have been mentioned in the lost lower part of coI. VI, where the poem was first referred to. He is named again twice at XVIII. 2, 6, but he is implied several more times. After having emphasized the poem's enigmatic character, the author hastens to make clear that the poet's objective is not to use the poem as a vehicle for saying riddles, but to use the riddles as a vehicle for conveying matters of great importance. For EV a1v{yIJ-aaw IJ-€y&.Aa cf. the passage of Plato quoted above (n. 50): Phd. 62b <> IJ-Ev ovv EV d7ToPP~Tot<; AEY0IJ-EVOS- 7TEpi athwv AOYOS L . .J IJ-EyaS TE T{S IJ-Ot 1>a{vETUt Kai ou patOWS OttOEtV. 'Disputable, contestable riddles', Le. E]ptaT' alv{YIJ-aTU, is more to the point here than 'the best riddles', ä]pWT' alvlYIJ-aTU. Though

the verbal adjective appears only hapax in Soph. EI. 220, Ep{~EW and its derivatives are common in this sense. But what is more

122

K. Tsantsanoglou

important is that, near the turn of the fifth century, Ep{~EtV and its derivatives had become code words for a particular sort of philosophical activity. It is admittedly bold to maintain that the author is making a direct reference to one or more philosophers, but one has the impression that he fears lest his unusual treatment of language place him in the ranks of the JpwTtKoL So he allusively tries to cut hirnself off from those professional thinkers of his time who have been blamed 'for turning philosophy into an empty art of disputation with no serious scientific intentions'. 53 His own teaching, being in a sense apocalyptic, does not allow of more than one interpretation, and therefore does not encourage disputes and contests. In contrast to the 'great matters' he is dealing with, disputes on riddles qua riddles are an idle occupation. If we add the fact that his 'great matters' are the physical exposition of the cosmos and its creation, we may come to a better understanding of this belated and lonely champion of natural philosophy who obstinately wields religion as a weapon for defending his theories in a transformed climate. 54 The corrective PEV oVv is usually employed in dialogues. Used in continuous speech, as if 'the speaker objects to his own words, virtually carrying on a dialogue with himself', 55 it is characteristic of a certain dramatic force in the author's style, as is also apparent in the repeated rhetorical questions of col. v. iEp[OAoY]EfruL is given here as a more accurate description of Orpheus' activity than EV ulv{ypuow (MYEt) pEyaAu. It is unnecessary to construe the verb as impersonal passive, as we assumed for iEpOvpYEf]ro above; it must be middle, and the subject must be Orpheus. The verb not only describes Orpheus' activity but also alludes to the character of the poem (7EPO<;/-OL A6yo<;!-ot). It is not recorded before Lucian (Syr. D. 26), who used the active form in the sense 53

P. Natorp, 'Eristiker', RE s.v. A treatise entitled D.p'

OVOjLaTWV

xp~a.w,

EPWTtK6, is attributed to Antisthenes Socraticus. the main representative of the eristic tendency. It would be interesting to know if there was any interrelationship with the

Derveni book. 54 I have the strongest conviction that Kahn (1973: 156 n. 6.) hit thc mark in proposing Euthyphron as thc author of thc Derveni book; see also his contribution to the prcsent volume. An extraordinary philological paradox should perhaps be added to Kahn's findings. With no evidence whatsoever. only reasoning from logical premises. Wilamowitz was the first to speak of the Derveni book. long before its discovery. insisting that Euthyphron must have written a book whose contents he described with considerable precision: Platon. i. 2nd cdn. (Berlin. 1920). 204 f.. ii. 4th edn. (Bcrlin, 1948). 76f. 55 J. D. Dcnniston. The Greek Partie/es. 2nd edn. (Oxford. 1954),478; for thc use of corrective jLEV ovv in general see 475-80.

123

The First Columns oI the Derveni P'apyrus

'recount a story connected with gods, recount a 'IEpos Aoyos'. Lucian also uses the noun {EpoAoYLa, significantly when speaking of Orpheus (Astr. 10): ''EA.AYJVES OE OUTE Trap' A18uJ'TTUW OUTE 'TTap' Alyv'TTT{WV dUTpoAoYLYJs 'TTEpt ouoEv ~Kovuav, dAAa u{uw 'OPEVS 0 Olaypov Kai KaAAto'TTYJs 'TTpWTO<.,' TaOE a'TTYJY?70aTO, ou (-taAa E(-trf>avEw<;, ouoE ES 6.0<,' TOV Aoyov 'TTPO~VEYKEV, dAA' ES YOYJTdYJv Kai tpoAoy{YJv, oLYJ OtaVoLYJ EKE{VOV. 'TTYJ~a(-tEvos yap AvpYJv lJpYia TE E'TTOtEETO /(ai Ta {EPa. ~EiOElJ. We

see that the connotation of obscurity and unclarity is added to the basic sense of 'speech on holy matters'. It is very likely that Lucian found the word in an Orphic context and used it accordingly.56 Of the two terms describing Orpheus' activity in Lucian Astr., YOYJTELYJ corresponds with opyta 'TTotEwfh1.i, IpoAoYLYJ with {Epa UtOHV. The same correspondence is manifest in the Dervcni book, of which the first part is concerned with rites emd sacrifices and the second one with the IEpoA.oyLa performed by me ans of the Orphic hymn or poem. This {pOAOYLYJ deals with aUTpoAoYLYJ' Le. cosmogony and cosmology, in a supposedly concealed and obscure manner, which the author undertakes to reveal and make dear. (-tEXPi (T)OO [TEAE]vraLov P~fWTOS is an easy emendation. It may be prudent. however, not to discard altogether IL€Xpi OU, the prepositional use of wh ich seems to have been idiomatic. Herodotus uses it several times with the genitive: 1. 181 fdxPi ou O/(TW 'TTVpywv, 2. 19 (-tEXPi ou aOns TPO'TTEWV TWV BEPWEWV, 2. 53 (-tEXpt ou 'TTPWYJV TE Kai XBES, 3. 104 (-tEXpt oU ayopiis oiaAvaiOS: cf. 2. 173 (-tEXPi OTW 'TTAYJBwpYJs dyopiis. 57

In EVK]pW~TW[i the surviving letters are certain and I believe the supplement to be necessary, although its sole attestation, in Aretaeus, SV 1. 6 (43. 5 Hude), is labclled in LSJ as 'prob. f.!. for EVK{VYJTOS. In this passage Aretaeus is dcscribing the different stages of insanity. After narrating a particular case of (-tav{YJ which was easy not to notice (42.20-8), he goes on: ~v Jw (-tEya ~t TO IWKOV (sc. 56

And. possibly, Synesius, Provo 2. 121. 20 ff. (Terz.) 7<1

(rryrd yap 7Tavra. r{ yap

",EV

u",,,,<

Tu"'wvt

TUVTU'

7H=pt xBov{av 4>VGLV [EpOV Kat a1ToPPl1Tov; t€po/\oYEiru/' 'Oa{pLOOS, WUTE K{VOVIJO, 1Tapaß&AA€u8w. 7TPO~ ,-ijv 3t-~Y'1]aLV. And clV YEVOf-TO

OE Kat TEOdaUTUL nl later on: 2. ] 22. 19 ff. "'€XP< TOl;YWV U7rOTETOII",..Jallw Ta 'Oa,p
K. Tsantsanoglou

124 ~ p.,av{Yj), EllKp{VYjTOL,

DgiES

T~V ata8YjuLv, V7T07TTOL, DPY{AOL OVK J7T' alT{YjL

sic codd.; EVK{VYjTOL Petit, accepit Hude]. Some prefer the MSS reading in the sense 'easily brought to a crisis' (LSJ S.v., 'highly sensitive'; cf. EVKPW-,]S iv. 2). I guess it is only a question of punctuation. Write: ~v 0V p.,iya l1L TO Kadv, EUKp{VYjTOL' DtEES T~V ata8YjULv, V7T07TTOL, DPY{AOL KTA. 'If they are in an advanced stage of insanity, they are easily recognizable'; then follows the list of their symptoms. Though the lateness and the rareness of the word may justify suspicions about its presence in the Derveni book, it should be noted that it is a regular verbal adjective from EVKPLVEW, a verb attested in Xenophon. Reference is then made to verse or verses 58 easy to distinguish or easy to recognize. In the subsequent columns, the formula oYjAoi (or aYjp.,a{vEL) Jv nOL E7TEL is normally followed by a verbal quotation of one or more verses. Here we notice that no verse is quoted: only its meaning given in prose. Why then is the text not quoted but only referred to as EllKp{VYjTOV E7TOS? This certainly does not stand in contrast to the enigmatic verses mentioned above. The meaning of the adjective is not 'easy to interpret' but 'easy to recognize'. Actually, it seems as if the author is winking at the reader: 'As Orpheus makes it plain also in the well-known verse(s), you know which.' If the author deliberately avoids quoting a text which is necessary for his argument, the reason must, I believe, be religious. This particular poetic text must have been d7T6ppYjTOV, and its disclosure would have incurred serious penalties upon the discloser. However, as holds true with all laws, human and divine, it is the observance of the letter rather than of the spirit that counts, and so the author feels free to reveal the contents of the poetic text, since he does not utter it verbatim. When the reading of coI. VII was still rudimentary, it was Walter Burkert who first recognized that lines 8 ff. refer to an already transmitted Orphic fragment, which, as he suggested, must constitute the opening of the poem commented upon in the Derveni Book. Specifically, reference is made to the second half of averse abundantly attested in antiquity: TLV{,

ova8vp.,oL

KTA.

[EVKp{VYjOL:

Bupas !l' J7TtBwBE ßEßTJAOL

The oldest direct allusion to it is in Plato. The words are put in Alcibiades' mouth in the proem of his speech in the Symposium: mJ.vTES yap KEKOLvwv-qKaTE TijS 4>LAoa64>ov p.,av{as TE Kat ßaKxdas' OLO 58

See above. n. 52 for the ambiguous meaning of ETTo,.

Tlze First Columns of the Derveni Papyrus

125

7TaVTEC; aKovowßE' ouyyvwOWßE ydp TOtS' TE TOTE 7TpuxßE;;m KUt TOt, vuv AEY0/-LEVOtC;. OL OE OlKETUt, KUtEi: n<; äAAoS' EOTt ßEß'Y/AO<; TE Kui äypotKo<;, 7TVAu<; mfvu fLEyaAu<; TO;;<; woiv E7Trßw(h (218b == OF 13 Kern; 1 B 7

DK). The first half of the verse, which Plato omits, appears in two versions in later authors. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Comp. 25. 5, and Aristides, Or. 3. 50, aHude to the version

The same version forms the opening of the la te Jewish forgery ascribed to Orpheus (OF 245. 1, 246. 1, 247. 1 Kern). Plutarch, Quaest. conviv. 636d, gives the second version: LJtaß~KUt

dE{UW (vveroiat.

viz. "aE{ow tUVETOtOt" TOV 'OP'PtKOV Kui [EpOV AOyov. He is foHowed by a number of Ncoplatonic writers, so me of whom ascribe the line to Pythagoras. Accepting Burkert's view that this is the opening of the Derveni theogony, it is not easy to guess which of the two vers ions was in the Derveni book. M. L. West (1983: 82-4), who accepted Burkert's suggestion, prefers the second one, since the quotation is contained in Plutarch's convivial question IIoTEpoJ/ r} 6pvt<; 7TPOTEPOV ~ TO WtOV EYEVETO with specific reference to the Egg which appears in the beginning of the Orphic theogony. Accordingly, he placed the verse in the beginning of his exempli gratia reconstruction of the Derveni Theogony (1983: 114-15):

But perhaps the other version is also worth considering. First, with regard to its antiquity. The line was obviously imitated by Empedocles, 31 B 3.3 ff. DK: 7T
,

cLv

()Ef1-l-~

EUrl.V

l:q;YJfLEP{OtOI.,V aKouHv,

7TEfL7TE.

Second, Plato also seems to have had this version in mind. The terms he employs metaphoricaHy are all borrowed from the language of mystic ritual: KEKOWWJ/olKUTE;59 fLuJ/{u and ßUKXE{U speak 59

See e.g. the Indices or Soko\owski's collections (above, n. 13). s.v. especially in relation with 8va[u, and cepa.

KOLVWV<W, KOLVWV{U,

Kow6"

126

K. Tsantsanoglou

for themselves; 7TpaX{}EVTa and A€y6fL€va allude to the well-known distinction between 8pWfL€Va and A€y6wva in the mysteries. His device is much the same as Aristophanes' in the parodos of the Frogs, 354 ff., where the coryphaeus-hierophant in ceremonial diction prohibits from participating in the Chorus those who have not been initiated into the Bacchic mysteries of Cratinus' tongue, Le. of comedy. In such a context, one expects that Alcibiades would address his speech o[s ßEfLlS eaT{ and not to the 'intelligent ones'. Finally, the Lloa{}ijKat, although late and forged, are by no me ans an insignificant testimony. Since their function is that of palinode, they repeat the first line of the poem they are supposed to recant. In fact, they are usually introduced as such: Ps.-Iustin. ad Gentil. 36, p. 118 Otto 7TaAwwI8{av dWat; Clem. Alex. Protr. 7. 74.4 (1. 56. 14 Staeh.) 7TaAlvwI8{av dAYl߀{ac; daaYEI. By mentioning B€fLITa in line 2, the Derveni text does not necessarily support the ols {}EfLLC; version, unless we attribute to its author

a different interpretation from the current one (and whoever is familiar with his way of thinking would not hesitate to do so): namely, that oie; in cfoBEygofLaL ols {}EfLLS eaT{ is neuter and instrumental dative: 'I shall speak with religiously lawful words.' Such an interpretation would, after all, not be as preposterous as others by the same author, especially since Empedocles' line, where cJjv is also neuter, seems to support it. On the other hand, ddaw gvv€Toimv could also be interpreted in the same way, since gvv€T6s means not only 'intelligent' but also 'intelligible'. But this meaning would not cohere with the second hemistich. In any case, it is uncertain whether lines 8 ff. refer to the beginning of the Orphic theogony. The poem to which this verse belongs is d7T6PPYlTOV, as the injunction addressed to the profane to close their ears clearly shows. 60 The use of €VKp{VYlTOV E7Toe; instead of the poetic text itself also supports the same fact, as I claimed before. And perhaps it should not be attributed to chance that Plato, Dionysius, and Aristides all avoid quoting the text of the prorrhesis, wh ich first appears in late Jewish or Christi an authors. On the other hand, the Orphic theogony is 'spoken', as is explicitly said. Furthermore, the description of the poem's contents as 'allowable', apparently for being heard by uninitiates, points in the same direction. We also notice that the prose interpretation of the poetic text is absolutely 60 Its character is not altered by the fact that. before complying with the command. the profane apparently had to hear the prorrhesis.

The First Columns 01 the Derveni Papyrus

127

orthodox and has nothing in common with the rash allegorical interpretations that will follow in the rest of the book, where each word of the poem is considered an enigma. As r mentioned above, it is possible to achieve secrecy either by prohibiting others from hearing the text or by encoding it. Obviously, we have two distinct poems here, each ofwhich, according to the Derveni author, follows a different way of secrecy. Finally, a technical observation should be made. When Ka{ prccedes a reference in the surviving text, it is anothcr poem that is being referred to and not the Orphic theogony: XXII. 11 Ean OE Kai EI' TOt<; "YfLVOi<; Elp[ 'l)JfLEVOV, XXVI. 2 O'l).,Ot OE Kai EI' TOtaOE TOt<; El7ww (Wad), XXVI. 5 O'l).,Ot OE Kai EI' T[ ci) ME (Wad). Since the author's main subject is the theogony, Ka{ is used for 'in addition to the theogony'. No doubt the reference is made here in order to present Orpheus himself as expounding and explaining his mystical inclination. But Orpheus was not credited with a single poem, and the verse, whether quoted or alluded to, may be metaphorical but is not presented as allegorical. Another question is wh ether this ceremonial prorrhesis ended in the first line 01' continued to a second one. West chooses the first alternative, taking the doors to have a litera I meaning. ('Close your doors, ye profane'). It seems, however, that doors were already metaphorical in the poem, and the profane were supposed to close them over their ears. Apart from Plato (1TlJ).,aS' mfvv fLEya).,a<; TOt<; wall' El7 {()w(lE), ears appear in Dionysius (ßupas 0' EmßEaßai MYOifLi rats dKoat<; TOU<; ßeß~).,ovs) and Aristides (OVOEV oet 1Tu).,as aVTous EmßEaßat TOtS watv; we should not bclieve. merely because of the common variant l7u).,as. that Aristides depends on Plato for such a wellknown verse). In any case, even if the supplement TOr[S I wat1v is considered uncertain, it is elear that the author is speaking in the next line about hearing. No doubt TOUS T~]V dKO~V [ayvEl)o]VTaS is contrasted to TOLs] 170).,).,oLs. The former are the initiates, whose ears are unblocked, so that they can hear and perceive Orpheus' teaching. The astrological poem Dodecaeterides, also ascribed to Orpheus, has a similar opening COP 249 Kern): oevpo VUl' ovaTa fLOt Ka()apos aKoa<; TE l7ETaaaas I KEK).,VI.h. Although this particular poem may have little to do with purifications and mystic teaching, it cannot be denied that its introduction is modellecl upon more ceremonial proems. lt is dKO~, the organ of perception, that has to be clean. This reminds us of the proclamation of the coryphaeus/hierophant in the Progs, by which (355) whoever YVWfL'l)t (or -fL'l)V) fL~ KaßapeUEt is

128

K. Tsantsanoglou

driven out of the comic choruses. The phrase is usually rendered 'impure in conscience' or 'in thought'. But at this point there is no question of moral sentiments, and the phrase is flanked by references to those unacquainted with Ta A€y6fL€VU and Ta OPWfL€VU in the mysteries. Apparently, the hierophant is rejecting those of unclean perception, the 7ToAAo{ of the Derveni book. 61 As far as I know, Orpheus' precepts were not called 'laws' nor his activity 'legislation', but the meaning of vOfLofiETEfV here is dear. 62 In the prorrhesis of the 'Redactio Aristobuliana' of the L1ta8ijKUt there is a reference to lawgiving, which, in spite of obvious late tampering, may weH go back to the original poem aHuded to by the Derveni author: c{>8€ygofLUt 0[<; 8€fLt<; EUT(- 8vpu<; 0' E7T[8w8€, ߀ßYJAot, c{>€VYOVTE<; OtKU{WV 8wfLov<;, 8€{ow T€8€VTO<; mim v6fLOU' uv 0' aKOU€, c{>uwc{>6pou EKYOVE M~vYJ<;, MOUUUL(€). .

The change of the case from the dative (TOL<; 7ToAAoL<;) to accusative (aYV€Vo]VTU<;) shows that a new verb was introducted in line 11: possibly OtoaUK€W, or, more commensurate with the size of the gap, EKOtoaUKEtV; e.g. dAA' EKOtoaUKEtV TOV<; KTA. The placing of H 65 + H 64 here (Le. lines 13-15), though it is supported by a thick white vertical fibre which seems to continue from C 1 down to H 65, is by no means certain. If line 14 is rightly supplemented, we must have here the typical phrase introducing a verse as in the rest of the papyrus (XII. 1, xv. 5, XVI. 12, XXIII. 10). If so, line 15 is most likely to be occupied by averse. And, as it would sound odd if the phrase 'and in the following verse' came after one or more verses had been only alluded to but not quoted, it seems likely that the first quotation from the Orphic theogony came in lines 12-13. 61

See now K. Dover, Aristophanes Frogs (Oxford, 1993), 239-40 ad loc. OWI'O jOEn,v might be possible; cf. Plat. Tim. 42d.

62 0';

7 Heraclitus in the Derveni Papyrus DAVID SIDER

PDerv. Coi. IVl [.lou E.[

J.wv[

o KELf-L[ .. .lwr"q[

±

18

J~ovvaL

fLU'\'\[ov .] (J[vETaL [ ± L7 ]11 Tijc Tt;X1JS y[ .. OVK Ena '\a]fLß'lVE![v] dp' OUT<;" ± 11 JrOE KOOfLOS KaTq.[ . ... ]q. 'HpaK~[dLTOS Wi [ ± 10 Ta KOLVa KaT[aOTpE1wn Ta rg[L]", 007TEP rKE~[a lEpO].\0Y'f! Mywv [E'rp1J] "7JAd"os .. .]TOV Kura fuaLv dl;'8pw[7T1]/OU] ~VPOIi: 7Toö6s- [EaTL] TOV[ . ..... h ovx t'J7T~pßa'\'\wl'" El yq.[p ... ·jPOUOE[ . . . . . (.].1 ..... ·11 'EpLVUE[S] VtV EgEUp1ooV[at, LJ{K1JS E7T{KOUPOt! [ ± 12 'J7TEP ]ß11TOfL 7TOijL Kr

5

10

]q.eu,? .[

Ja O{K1JS

r

]fL1J VtTaK [

J.... \r;·1 Although the Commentator displays a familiarity with the ideas and even the words found in several fifth-century scientific texts, 2 he 1 I am gratel'ul Lo Professors Tsantsanoglou and Parassoglou for making available their latest reconstruction of column IV, ane! to the former for informing me in advance of publication of his restoration of co!. VII. A full apparatus lor col. IV, including several restorations no longer possible with this new reconstitution, may be found in Tsantsanoglou and Parassoglou (1988); sec also Prof. Tsantsanoglou's contribution in this volume. For my reading [iEpo]A6y'P (6), see below. 2 Most notably Anaxagoras; cf. W. Burkert's contribution to this volume and Burkert (1970). Burkert, I think rightly, regards the Commentator as an Anaxagorean of sorts. Allusions have also been found to Euthyphro (Kahn, who thinks the Commentator to be of his circle; cf. his contribution to this volume and Kahn (1973: 156 n. 6)) Prodicus (Lebedev). M. L. West (1983: 81 n.20), notes similarity between the Derveni Commentator and Leucippus in their use of the verb KPOVHV in a cosmogonic context. For an echo 01' Diogenes of Apollonia, cf. R. Merkelbach (1967: 24f.); A. Laks, Dioflelle d'Apollollie: La demiere cosmologie pnisDcratique (Lilie, 1983),48 n.l. See also Burkert (1968); Finkelberg (1986). On the other hand, in an importmll articlc, M. J. Edwards argues that the author is not

130

David Sider

names only Orpheus and Heraclitus. He may weH of course have named one or two other sources in passages now lost; he clearly, whether or not he named hirn, quotes Homer in col. XXVI. 3 He also quotes several other prose passages in addition to that of Heraclitus, as can be determined by the scribe's use of paragraphoi before and and after direct quotations. 4 But, to return to our starting point, given that only Orpheus and Heraclitus are named, it is understandable that the quotation of the latter has received a good deal 01' attention since its first appearance in print in the early 1980s, in articles written by Mouraviev, Burkert, Lebedev, Tsantsanoglou and Parassoglou, myself, and Schoenbeck. 5 Although my chief aim is to determine the contribution made to our Imowledge of Heraclitus by the Commentator, I will also touch upon the reasons for his having quoted Heraclitus in the prologue to his text and commentary on the Orphic poem. Here are the two fragments as they were known before the discovery of the Derveni papyrus. First, 22 B 3: Under the rubric 'The Size of the Sun', Pseudo-Plutarch and Stobaeus, whose combined text Diels prints as Aetius, are in agreement that Heraclitus said the sun is the breadth of a human foot: EVpOC; 1T006C; dVßPW1TE{OV. 6 Word order apart for the moment, and with an inescapable restoration (whether in Attic or Ionic), we clearly have the same three words in the papyrus: dl!ßPW[1T'1]{OVJ fiVpoC; 1T006C;.

to be thought 01' as philosophizing. whether as an Anaxagore,m or otherwise. but rather that he is merely 'a critic. to whom no philosophical system has contributed more than was needed for the advocacy and exegesis of a recalcitrant text' (1991: 204). 3 Od. 8. 335 'Epp:i), Ma,aoo\' ['EpfLE{a, Ll,o\, codd.] vif, O,aKTOPE. ounop EclWV. and 11. 24. 527 f. oow< yap TE 1T{()0' KaTuK~ura, fKuraKE{ara, codd.] EV Ll,o\, OVOH I owpwv. ola o,oo[,a, [o{owa, codd.]. KaKWV ErEpos OE r' [r' om. codd.] E6.wv. CI'. S. West (1965): 192 f.) 4 Thus. col. Xl. 8 I'. xpav r6voE rov BEov vOfl{~ov[rES E'plxovra, I f1T]wa6flEvo, äaaa 1Towa, should be set off in quotation marks. even though the Commentator does not say MYH 0 liELva vel sim. So Obbiuk. who also argues that the paragraphos after col. xx. 10 indicates that what follows in line 11. again without express indication, is a direct quote. Cf. Lamedica (1992: 327f.) 5 Burkert (1983a); Mouraviev (1985); Sider (1987); Tsantsanoglou and Parassoglou (1988); Lebedev (1989); Tsantsanoglou (1992); Schoenbeck (1993). 6 Theodoretus, who frequently follows Aetius. merely says 1Too,aLOV sc. rov ;p.wv (4. 22), wording which doubtless owes its origin to Aristotle's 0 ijALOS 1Toli,aLos, to which Heraclitus's name must have been attached by Aristotle's commentators (De an. 428 b2. De somn. 458 b28. 460b 16 = 57c Marcovich). Cf. also [Herad.] Epist. 9. 3 BEo'ir; gVVOf,KWV Ol.' apET~r; o13a ~Awv o1ToaoS' EaTl.

HeracIitus ill Ihe Derveni Papyrus

131

22 B 94 comes to us thanks to Plutarch, De exil. 604a: "HALOs (yap) oux v7TEpß~aETaL fdTPU (c/xy/aiv 0 'HpaxAHToc;)' Ei öE p.~, 'Epwvts p.w ,d{ICy/S E7T[KOVpOL EgEVp~aovaLv. (Other passages alluding to this

fragment will be addueed below.) Here there is somewhat greater variaton from PDerv., where also more needs to be restored, but it still remains dear that very soon if not immediately after B 3 the Commentator quotes the same passage as Plutareh. Wh at we ean see differs in trivial points only: vw in the papyrus vs. P.LV in Plutareh;7 the Papyrus's tJ7TEpßaAAEw vs. Plutarch's v7TEpß~aETm, and onee again a variation in word order, if, as is likely, ,d{K"I)S E7T{KOVpOL is to be restored at the end of line 9. Note too that the papyrus seems to have no room for ~ALOS in the B 94 part of the quotation, which may be taken as furt her indication, sinee the paragraphos indicates direet quotation (at least in intention; it may have been written from memory) rather than paraphrase, that B 3 + 94 formed a eonneeted thought in Heraditus' original text. s We shall look at the eontext and the interrelationship of these fragments more dosely in a while. Are there, however, any other allusions to Heraditus in the Derveni Papyrus? Some points of eontaet have been suggested by Burkert and West. 9 First, the somewhat similar use of the word c/>ans and, seeond, the similar phrases 'ruIes as much as he wishes' (eoL XIX. 3 f. 7TaVT
132

David Sider

uncommon way to characterize the greatness of a divinity's power is to say that it is unlimited, or that he can do whatever he wants. Similarly the word
a~vvEroL aKovaavrES Kwq,o,aLV EO{Kum'

q,ans

avro,mv

fl-aprvpE' 1TapE6vras a1TE'VaL.

PDerv. xviii. 3 f. o[ Ö' PDerv. xxi. 7 ff.

&'\'\OL &V8pW1TOL Kara q,anfl- "Mo,pav E1TLK'\waaL".

av",p YVVULKL fl-Wy6fl-EVOS "apo()Lma~ELv" MYETaL KarO. q,anv.

The word <paTtS, common in poetry and in Ionic prose, covers a range ofhuman utterances from 'story' through 'sentence,' 'phrase,' to '(single) word'. Pindar pushes the limits of the word when he calls Sarpedon and Nestor each a phatis; that is, each is the subject of stories told by men. 1O Heraditus and the Derveni commentator both use the word in the sense 'particular way of speaking', 'saying', but so does Solon (2. 3; all/Ju yap <paTtS ijOE fLET' aV8pW1TOLaL Y€VOLTO) and others. The meaning 'proverb', which LSJ assign only to Heraditus does not apply to the papyrus, nor indeed need it be pressed on Heraditus, since 'saying' will do as weIl. The papyrus, moreover, is unparalleled in its use ofthe phrase KaTa <paTtV, 'in accord with what men say,' which is similar in construction (but not in meaning) to the common KanL yAwaaav, used of peculiar dialect vocabulary. The desire of the Commentator to explain the use the ward aphrodisiazein in accord with its phatis has a dose parallel in Aeschylus fr. 6 Radt (already adduced by Burkert), where once again we see phatis used to explain the origin and meaning of a single word: A. TI 81]T' E7T" alrro'is övofLa

B.

UEfLvOVS

"IIaALKovs"

B~aOVTat ßPOTO{;

ZEV, Jq,{EraL KaAELv.

A. ~ yap "IIaALKwv" EVA6yws fl-EVEL pans; B. H7Ta;\t,V" yap ul'Kova'" EK OKO'TOV TOD' Eis 4>6.os.

Conceivably, however, an allusion to or even a quotation of Heraclitus lies behind the reasonably restored ou YLVwa[ KOVTE, €]VV1TVLU, 'not knowing dreams' (co!. v. 6). References--often prima facie paradoxical references-to dreams, sIeep, death, and knowledge, to say nothing of orades, which are also mentioned in col. v, appear often in Heraclitus. 11 10 On Pindar's choice of these two warriors, cf. my 'Sarpedon and Nestor in Pindar, Pythian 3', RhM l34 (1991), llOf. 11 Cf. B I, 21, 26, 75; K. Held, Heraklit, Parmenides und der Anfang von Philosophie und Wissenschaft (Berlin, 1980),244-65.

Herac1itus in the Derveni Papyrus

133

More striking is the distinction between (mere) learning and knowledge which we find in both Heraclitus and the papyrus. Compare co1. xx. 7-8 ovo' €1TU))EPOfLE))OL W01TEP ElOOTE<; T[L] JJ01TEp ElOo)) ~ ~KOVOU)) ~ lfLUOO)) with Herad. B 17 OUOE fLUOO))TE<; YLY))WOKOVaw and B 40 1TO;"VfLUO{T) OV ))00)) OLoaaKEL. Note in particular B 55 öUW)) öt!JL<; aKo.ry WiOT)at<; TUVTU €yw 1TPOTLfLEW, where, since it has the same series as the Papyrus-sight hearing learning-it is tempting to understand a suppressed €Kd))w)): I prefer these [sc. the objects of naus, which are the relationships among the objects of sense and mathesis] to the objects of sight, hearing, and learning,l2 It must be admitted, however, that although the mention of Erinyes in coI. IV may weIl be an accident of their being part of a quotation 01' Heraclitus which is adduced primarily because of its reference to the size of the sun, it seems more likely that for the Commentator the size of the sun (whatever this happens to be) is less important than the constraints on its size and the forces at work to maintain cosmic stability. In which case, Erinyes/Eumenides form the main subject of cols. I-VI, and there need not be any other allusion to HeraclitusY None the less, the reasonably restored oU{fL]W)) Y{))ETa[L EKU]UTWL (coI. III. 4) cannot help but recal! Heraclitus B 119 ijOo<; a))OpW1TlfJ OU{fLW)), especially since the Commentator regards Eumenides as souls, who would of course be assigned to men at birth. Menander fr. 550 Kock (adduced by Marcovich ad loc.) aUudes to this same doctrine: ;l1TavTL oa{fLwv

avopt

aVfl/TTap{urUrut

(",jeus '}'EVOfliv'fl, fLvaTaywyo~

iOV

ß{ou

IlyaB6<;.14

Prom the discussion of Puries, the Commentator moves on to Orpheus and his poem in co1. VII. Whatever particular reasons he 12 Cf. the translation and commentary of C. Diano and G. Serra, Eraclito (Milan, 1980) 29 ('phi che alle cose di cui c'e audizione e visione e che si possono apprendere, a queste io db pregio'), 158. One must acknowledge that such a reading of the fragment directly opposes that of its citator Hippolytus (Re! 9. 5), who says that here Heraclitus prefers the visible to the invisible. Cf. A. Montano, 'Mathesis e noos in Eraclito'. in Atti deI Symposium Hemcliteum J981 (Rome, 1983), 128-51. 13 In col. I 'Ep,]p4wv is possible. In col. II )~PLV[, if it is not EPW, could continue with an upsilon: one or two Iines below, however, 'EpLVUW[V is certain. Co!. III refers to [o]q:tfLovES oi' K
lla.tfLWV.

134

David Sider

had for making this transition are not clear, although the link was no doubt suggested to hirn by Orpheus hirnself, who is said to have made them the daughters of Pluto and Persephone (OF 197, 360 Kern; H. Orph. 70. 1-3), and who is credited with the lines calling them avengers of wrongs done to parents (oELvaL yo.p KaTo. yafav 'EP~VVE, dUL TOK~WV, OF 337. 5). Note too that when Orpheus visits the Underworld in the beginning of Ovid, Metamorphoses 10, his singing charms the Furies as weIl as the usual census of sinners. It does not matter that, as Albert Henrichs has shown in this connection, Erinyes and Eumenides are originaIly distinct, for a poet (such as Aeschylus) or a careless commentator would feel free to regard the two terms as synonymous,Is But here too Heraclitus provides a thread in the tie between cols. I-VI and the commentary to foIlow, for, in addition to adducing Heraclitus for his content, the Commentator makes reference to the form of his discourse, just as he prefaces his exegesis of Orpheus' poem with a description of its enigmatic nature from beginning to end, which, he believes, is intentionally so designed in order to keep out the uninitiated (cf. also cols. IX. 10 and XIII. 6). On the point of Heraclitus' intentions, the papyrus is perversely lacunose (col. IV. 5 f.): KaTa [Twh]a 'Hpad.[E]'TOS ,uE[ ±lO ] Ta Kowa KaT[aOTpE14>E< Ta i'o[,]a' 001TEP 'KE'\[ ..... .]'\6yun Mywv [.;'4>'1]'

As Tsantsanoglou and Panissoglou (1988: 130) note, not only is the contrast between KOWa and ro,a a common one, we find it in Heraclitus hirnself: B 2 o~o od E7Tw()a~ T0 gvv0' TOV A6yov 0' J6VTO, gvvov ~wOVULV o[ 7ToAAoi ws [o{av EXOVTES q,p6VYJULV and B 89 TOLS JYPYJyop6ULV Eva Kat KO~VOV K6up..ov dva~, TlVV OE KO'p..Wp..€VWV EKauTov d, tOLOV (L7TOUTp€q,w()a,,16 Since Heraclitus clearly intends to present us (however obliquely) with koina, it may seem reasonable to suppose that the Commentator is consciously echoing Heraclitus' own usage, as Tsantsanoglou and Panissoglou allow, and that the verbs to be supplied before koina and idia reflect this. Their suggestion p..€[ TaUK€Va~WV] for the first lacuna does not quite fill this bill , 15 Henrichs (1984) 'Anonymity and Polarity: Unknown Gods and Nameless Altars at the Areopagos', res 19 (1994), 27-58. For these deities in poetry, cf. H. LloydJones, 'Erinyes, Semnai Theai, Eumcnides', in E. M. Craik (ed.), Owls to Athens; Essays ... Dover (Oxford, 1990), 203-11: S. 1. Johnston, 'Xanthus, Hera, and the Erinyes (Iliad 19.400-418)" TAPA 122 (1992), 85-98. 16 Cf. B 114 guv v6", Myovra<; iaxup{sw()u, xp~ T0 gvv0 7Td.VTWV KTA.

HeracIitus in the Derveni Papyrus

135

however, for Heraclitus says that he folIows, recognizes, or reveals the koina, not that he in any way alters or prepares them. It is quite possible, however, that the Commentator is using koina and idia in the more conventional senses 'ordinary' and 'strange', 'unusual'. 'private', meanings wh ich people other than Heraclitus might feel are opposed to his usage. That is, for readers struggling with Heraclitus' text, wh at he labels as koina might seem strange; whereas the koina of their own lives (sleepers that they are) would be called idia by the philosopher. The Commentator, blind to this inversion, might weH then describe wh at Heraclitus is doing as 'altering' the ordinary point of view when he says that the sun is the width of a human foot. What Heraclitus does to one's private beliefs could be even more upsetting: KaT[auTpEl,pEL 'nI rOm seems possible. The contrast suggested above between koina and idia is less than truly polar, but it may be one the Commentator could live with. One advantage in these readings is that he would, as suggested above, now be introducing Heraclitus' words with the same sort 01' remark with which he begins his quotations from Orpheus; Le. with a declaration of their unusual ways 01' expressing themselves. Implicit in this, of course, is a certain amount of self-praise: Only someone as intelligent as he is could be expected to malm sense out of such enigmas. In !ine with this suggested similarity between Heraclitus and Orpheus, the best supplement far the rest of line 6 is omrEp rKEiHa iEpO]A6y~ Mywv [E,prdY Cf. col. VII. 4ff., esp. 7f. (as restored by Prof. Tsantsanoglou) Orpheus iEp[oAoyl~\Tal fkEV oVv Kai 4[m) TO]V 77PWTOV [dEi] fkfXpt (T)OV [TEAE]VTQ-(OV PY,fkaTo,. Heraclitus--and this would be one of the Commentator' s more perceptive observationswrites (prose) just like Orpheus' enigmatic sacred discourse. One could also note, in looking for points of contact between the papyrus and Heraclitus, fr. B 32 of Heraclitus, E'v TO uo,pov fkoVVOV Myw()at OVK J8EAn Kai J8EAEt Z1)vo, övo/-m, 'one thing, the wise alone, is unwilling and willing to be called by the name of Zeus.' This statement, although thought-provoking and typically 17 iEpoA6yo<;, a writer of iEpot A6YOL. appears elsewhere only in late authors. the earliest of whom is Herennius Philo (790 F .I. 26 FGrHist) of the 1st or 2nd cent. AD (oi p..€V V€WTUTOL rwv i€poA6ywv . . . , dAATJyop{a~ O€ Kat l.Lu8ovs l1TtVO~(laV'T€S), hut it could easily have been coined at any time. Others using the word are Damasc. De princ. 38 w<; ~81) TtV€> iEpoA6yoL TOVTO aiv{TTETat, Didymus De trin. 2.12. and fDion. Areopag.] Div. nom. 4. 12. Note that two of these authors associate hierologoi with allegorizing and riddling writing. Also possible. with very much the same sense is rKEAa iEpt{> My,!" considered along with other restorations by Tsantsanoglou and Panissoglou (1988).

136

David Sider

Heraelitean, none the less fits in easily with the pervasive allegorizing which we find throughout but especially in cols. XVII-XVIII. There mayaiso be a reference to Heraelitus of a different sort in the latter part of the papyrus--one which will lead us on to another point. The Commentator attempts to explain the meaning of the epithet EVPV p,fOVTa, applied in the first instance to üceanus, but through the magic of allegory, equally applicable to Zeus (coI. XXIII. 9 f.). Kat yap rwv uV[ß]pW17WV rovs IJ-,fyu Dvvur[ov]vTaS "IJ-EyaAovs" <{1UUt "pvijvut". In fact, though, when the verb P€W is used of persons, it generally means 'is inelined to' and is further modified with either an adjective or prepositional phrase indicating direction (LSJ s.v. I 6). In poetry the expression 170ftv<; pE' appears. 18 The one exception to all this in prose noted by LSJ is a passage in Plato's Theaetetus where Heracliteans, contrasted with Eleatics, are called oi p€OVrES (181a; cf. Crat. 439c). When Plato calls Heracliteans 'fIuxers' or maybe 'the leaky ones', he means it humorously, whereas our Commentator is not otherwise funny, or at least not intentionally so. I none the less think that the phrase the Commentator adduces does refer to Heraeliteans; that they came to be known as the fIuxers and then the mighty fluxers. 19 Knowing this teUs us nothing about Heraclitus or about ürphism, but it contributes something to our knowledge of the Commentator. Whoever he was, he not only had access to Heraelitus' book, he also was aware of discussions, whether viva voce or in books, on the Presocratics. The phrase 'mighty fIuxers' seems to me more like the sort of thing tossed off in conversation, and by people who do not think of themselves as Heracliteans. This need not entail that they reject all of Heraclitus; only that their main allegiance lies elsewhere. The Commentator also demonstrates a familiarity with the literature on Anaxagoras (see above). It is worth stressing what has already been pointed out in the literature on the Derveni papyrus, that the author, for all his Anaxagorean colouring, not only does not quote Anaxagoras directly but also is remarkably elose to Theophrastus in his paraphrasing. This is most elear in coI. XIX, where J:'v [€K]uuroy K,fK[A'l'}T]Ut um) TOV €7TtKpUrovvTo<; . . . , 'each and every thing gets its name from that which predominates' within it. 18

/>vfi· 19

Cf. e.g. Aesch. Th. 80 pd 1ToA's

ös.

A'WS, Eur. Hipp. 443 KV1TPLS ... i/v 1ToA,\0

Longinus 13. 1 says that Plato himselfflows; i.e. his style flows smoothly.

Heraclitus in the Derveni Papyrus

137

Anaxagoras' word for 'predominate' in this physical and quantifiable sense is KUTEXEtV, which is found in 59B 1 DK;20 his explanation that a substance is characterized by what it has most of is OTo/ 7TAEfaTu EVL, TuDTU EVOYJA6TUTU ,iv EKuaT6v EarL Kui 1Jv (B 12), 'To whatever there is most things [Le. a preponderance 01' one substance], these (most) things are and were most manifestly each one thing.' This rather inelegant Greek sentence (which I persist in keeping as it appears in the MSS of Simplicius amI. I believe, Anaxagoras) was repeated in essence by both Aristotle (Phys. 187b6, of Anaxagoras) amI Theophrastus (De Sensibus 67, of Democritus).21 Thus, although the notion of predominance expressed by the Commentator is precisely that of Anaxagoras. the language differs markedly, and in fact is dosest to an expression found in Simplicius, who is probably following Theophrastus, whom he explicitly has been reading on this point. 22 I have wandered off into Anaxagoras because I think it highly likely that the Derveni author belongs to a cirde of allegorizing Anaxagoreans, such as we know to have existed in Lampsacus, where Anaxagoras spent thc last few years of his life after having been exiled from Athens. 23 Although the dosest Anaxagoras ever came to allegorizing was his statement that the Wad is about arete and dike-which more properly belongs as a footnote to the history of literary criticism than to that of allegory24-he was probably invited to Lampsacus by Metrodorus, whose own inclination was to the most extreme sort of allegorizing, and who, according to Favorinus, 'championed' Anaxagoras' approach to Homer, producing an allegorical one-to-one mapping of Homeric heroes with 2n For a discussion of this sense, see my The Fragments of Anaxagoras (Meisenheim, 1981), ad loe. 2l Anaxagoras 59 B 12 DK ad jin. e'repov 8. ouo.!v Eanv o/,-ofov ouoEVi, di\i\' Gr'!' [Simpl. ÖT€O, ÖT€WV, ÖTEU, ÖTWV edd.] 1TAefaTa lvI., TUVTU Evo1JA.6rUTa EI}) EKuaTov fan Kat 1)v. See p. 108 of my edition for a defence of the text. 22 cr. Burkert (1970: 445 n. 2). (Aristotle uses TO E7TtKparOVv in a similar sense in GC 321'35, where wine is said to prevail over water in the mixture, but there need not be more wine than water for this to happen: Aristotle simply means !hat we caU any (reasonable) mixture of wine ami water wine.) 23 Cf. my edition, 1-11; J. Mansfeld, 'The Chronology of Anaxagoras' Athenian Period and the date ofhis Trial', Mnemosync, 32 (1979), 39-69, 33 (1980), 17-95; L. Woodbury, 'Anaxagoras and Athens', Phoenix, 35 (1981), 295-315. 24 Diog. Laert. 2. 11 (59 A 1 DK), (lOKEf 1TpwroS, mOa 1JUt <1>aßwpfvo, EV

O.

T~V

tOf.i~POV

a-'1Tor:P~vaotjJaL

JIavTooarrll

'Ia-Top{q"

OtKatoat~V'7"

Cf. Pfeiffer (1968: 35); G. Lanata, Poetica Prc-platonica (Florence, 1963),

182 f.

7ro{YJGtv

Etvat

'T((:pt

apeTijs

Kat

David Sider

138

astronomical bodies or physical substances (e.g. Paris = aer), and another mapping (which is not explicitly attributed to Metrodorus) of the gods with internaiorgans (e.g. Dionysus the spleen).25 It was of people such as Metrodorus that PhHodemus said avEp(v<; p.,U{VOVTUt, 'they are clearly mad'.26 Metrodorus himself is clearly not our author, but someone else of this circle, whether a younger contemporary or someone a generation later, could weIl be. It is particularly intriguing that some late sources 27 specifically attribute to Anaxagoreans the equation of Zeus with NOl1S and Athena with techne, and that Syncellus and Cedrenus immediately attach averse to the effect that when hands faH Athena departs,

=

averse wh ich is attributed to none other than Orpheus by yet another source. 28 This second combination of Anaxagoras, allegory, and Orpheus cannot be coincidence; rather it strongly points to Lampsacus as the source for the writing of text of the Derveni papyrus. It should perhaps be added that the Commentator's use of V7TllPxovTa in the sense 'enduring things' in a philosophical context (coI. XVI. 2, 8) is unexampled in the fifth century, and in fact does not show up until AristotIe. I wonder whether this indicates that the year 400, wh ich is usually given as a terminus ante quem may not be too early.29 25

Diog. Laert. ibid. (Metrodorus 61. 2 DK). continuing from above. <1Tt 1TA.,ov OE

7TpoarTJvaL TOU A6yov MTJTp6Swpov Tav Jlap,if;uK'Y}Vov, YVWPLfiOV öVTa aVTov, Sv Kat 1TPWTOV T~V 1>valK~V 1Tpay,...au{av. For Metrodorus' mapping, cf. the testimony collected as 61. 3-4 DK. On Anaxagoras' metaphoricallanguage and how it was extended by his followers into allegory, cf. R. Scodel, 'Tantalus and Anaxagoras', HSPh 88 (1984), 13-24; Baxter (1992: 127-30). 26 In full (in a text based on a new autopsy of the papyrus, for which I thank Dirk Obbink), EVWl OE Kat 1>fa)v.pw[S'l ,...a{vovTal, Ka/J[a)1T'p OL TaS ouo 1TO~aEtS [·Ol,...~pov 1T
a1TovDaaal TOV 1TOl"lTOV 1T.pt

TE TOV K[6]a,...[o]v MyoVTES' [1TE)1T[olHa[/Jal ,....p]wv KUt 1T'PUJ v6,...wfv] KalU <]Ow[,...]wv Tw[v)1Ta[p)' av[8pw)1T0["] Kat TOV )ly[a],...E,...vova ,...Ev a18Epa Eival, TOV [)I]x,'\Ma 0' i!;'WV, T~V 'EMv'fJv OE y1jv Kat TOV )I'\E[ga]v8pov dlpa, TOV "EKTo[pa) OE ad~v"lv, Kat TOVS' ü;'[Aov], ava'\6yws wvoJLaa[/Ja,) TOUTOlS' TWV OE O'WV [T~vl LJ~JL"ITpa JLEV ?)1T[ap, TaV LJ,6]vvaov DE a1T'\1j[va, TOV )I)7T6'\Aw{,} OE xoA~[v) (P.Here. 1676 fr. 2 + 1081. 12, Philod. De Paematis, Traet. III ed. Shordone. cols. 2. 25-3.14). See also Philod. De Piet. 519-40 Obbink. Cf. Hesychius s.v. )lya,...EJLvwv· )lyaJLEJLvoVa TaV aL8Epa M"ITp68wpos d1T'V allll"lyop'Kws. Cf. 61. 3-4 DK.

27 Georgius Syncellus Chron. 1. 282. 21 (Metrodorus 61. 6 DK) = Georgius Cedrenus Hist. Camp. 1. 144. 16 Bekker = Schol. Vet. ad Hes. Op. 63b Pertusi. 28 Orion Etyma!. 163. 23, who reads EPP'V 7ToAv.pyoS' :4. ; for all this cf. OF 347 Kern, 61. 6 DK. 29 Col. XVI. 2 €K TWV lJ7TapXOVTWV Ta !JUV ytVETUl, XVI. 7-8 Ta ÖVTa iJ7TYJPXEV dEr, 7(t SE

Heraclitus in ihe Derveni Papyrus

139

Let us return now to the the quotation or quotations from Heraclitus. First the words about the size of the sun. Aetius quotes the three words in the order EVpOS 1TOÖO, av8poJ1TELov, which is in a dactylic rhythm. This rhythm in fact was thought by some to condemn it, because it suggested that it was a verse paraphrase by the obscure Scythinus (of perhaps the fourth ccntury Be), who was said by Diogenes Laertius to have produced a verse version of Heraclitus. The fact that our source for this statement caUs hirn an iambic poet3 0--which strongly suggests that his paraphrases were in iambs-was swept aside by Kirk with the cavalier statement that Scythinus could have written dactylic verses had he so chosen. 31 True enough (Kirk adduces Archilochus), but we should stick with to the evidence. There are, after all, other instances where Theophrastus and the Theophrastean tradition of which Aetius is a part preserve original wording. 32 Now, however. we read in the papyrus the word order aV8pW17TJ{OV EVpOS 170ö6" too heavily spondaic to be feIt as a dactylic rhythm, or any other kind of rhythm, within a prose passage (although I think Karl Deichgräber would disagree with me).33 None the less, despite my aesthetic preference for Aetius' word order, I think we should give greater weight to the testimony of the papyrus. A dactylic clausula is retained, moreover, with the restoration of laT!, Le., wpö, 170ÖOS EarL.

What about the meaning of these words? Many people, myself among them, have long thought that they were not to be taken literally. My own view was that this statement deserved an honorable place in an as-yet unwritten history of Greek perspective theory, along with some other intriguing statements and theories VVV EOVTU EK TWV vrrapxoVTWV Y{VET'H. Also favouring a date after 400 is T. G. Rosenmeyer (see Burkert 1977b). 30 Diog. Laert 9. 16 'Iepwvv/-,os OE (fr. 46 Wehrli) "Anv. 31 G. S. Kirk, Heraclitus: The Cosmic Fragments (Cambridge, 1954), 280. For the remains of Scythinus, see West, Elelli et Iam/li Graeci, ii; on his date, which has been put in the 4th cent. by most scholars but as late as 240 Be by Kirk 11, cf. West, Studies in Greek ElellY and Iambus (Berlin, 1974), 177, who argues for the earlier date. 32 e.g. Aet. l. 3. 12 quotes (with some minor slips) Xenophanes 21 B 27 DK, and 1. 3. 20 quotes EmpedocJes 31 B 6DK. 33 K. Deichgräber, Rhythmische lllemente im Logos des Heraklit. Abh. der Ak. der Wiss. und der Lit. Mainz, 1962. 9, for example, analyses B 5 OKO'OV Er TtS OO/-,OWl AEaXT}VEVOtTO as ia ia er sp sp tr (p.51), and again elsewhere analyses runs of long syllables rhythmically. In the case of ß 3 as the papyrus gives it, the analysis would be sp sp sp ia.

140

David Sider

attributed to Empedocles, Anaxagoras, and Democritus. 34 Heraclitus, in this view, would have said that the sun is the size of a human foot because, as could be tested by anyone lying on a Greek beach, one's foot could indeed be lifted to obscure the sun. But it could also obscure a nearby tree or distant mountain, both of which one knew to be in fact more than a foot in width or height. Thus Heraclitus would be challenging his readers to give first place to logos, second place to the evidence of their senses. In the words of B 50, 'Don't listen to me but to the logos.' Or, more to the point, BIO 7, 'Eyes and ears give bad testimony to men of barbaric souls.' 35 Now, however, those of us who believed this may want to change our minds. Certainly, the strong possibility that the papyrus now gives us one new larger fragment comprising the two fragments previously known from Aetius and Plutarch would seem to entail that the measures or boundaries beyond wh ich the sun should not pass are physical limits, and more particularly limits of size. Before the papyrus became known, the bounds beyond which the sun should not pass were thought to be those of size, orbit, or any of its regularly-whether daily or annually-recurring sensible qualities. 36 Plutarch, however, dtes his fragment to illustrate the universal truth that heavenly bodies keep each to its own orbit KaLTOI, TWV 1TAav~Twv EKa(JTo~,

EV fLtq,

ac/>a{pq., Ku(}a7fEp

EV

v~a
owvilaTTE! T~V Ta;w "~ilw> yap oux lJ7TEpß.qoETa! /kErpa, " YJOLV cl 'HpaKAEtTos' '\l OE /k7}, 'EPWUES /kw, LJ{w'l> E7T{KOVPO!, JgWp7}OOVOLV." (De exil. 604a)

Even if Plutarch had the fuU text of Heraclitus before hirn as he wrote, he would have had an excellent reason for omitting the business about size, for in On Exile he was consoling an exiled friend with tales of people living under aU sorts of constricted drcumstance-including a philosopher who was limited to one cloak. That is, by omitting Ei'jpo, 17000, av8pw17YJ{OV, he could pretend that Heraclitus was talking about orbits-an omission Plutarch could 34 Cf. Empedocles 31 B 42; for Oemocritus, cf. 68 BISS OK and the intriguing titles IIoAoypaq;t?J and 'AKTLVoypaq;t?J (B 15a-b); see further my Anaxagoras (58 ff.. 123 ff. Cf. also C. Romeo, 'Oemetrio Lacone sulla grandezza dei sole (PRere. 1013),' CEre 9 (1979), 11-35. 35 For another interpretation, cf. H. Fränkel, 'Heraclitus on the notion of a generation', AlP 59 (1938), 90 (Wege und Formen Jrühgrieehisehen Denkens (Munich 1955),271), 'Lying down on your back and lifting one leg, you are able to blot out the sun with one foot. The largest and most powerful of the heavenly bodies does not amount to more than that.' 36 Cf. G. VIastos, Plato's Universe (Seattle, 1975),9 f.

Heraclitus ill the Derveni Papyrus

141

justify to hirnself with the thought that consolation of his friend took precedence over any debt owed to exact literary citation. 37 Furthermore, since, as Marcovich points out, Plutarch's flbpaprobably substituting for ovpovS'--can indicate all sorts of limits, Plutarch, if he had but an excerpt of HeracIitus before hirn, can simply be taking wh at he assumed to be a general statement of HeracIitus and applying it a fortiori to the specific case of orbital Iimitation. 38 We are thus still free to regard the original two fragments as forming a larger combined one. HeracIitus can now be seen to say that the sun, of fixed dimension, will not exceed this limit. If it does the Furies will find out and, acting as agents of Justice, they will-do what? Neither Plutarch nor the papyrus teHs us, but, since presumably mere discovery is insufficient to satisfy the demands of Dike, some further action is necessary. At the very least, the offending action must be checked, just as the Furies prevented Achilles' horses from further speech (Il. 19.418). Punishment, however, is more cIosely associated with the Furies than mere checking. And if this is true, Heraclitus may have continued with a verb meaning punish in general or some sort of punishment in particular. For these reasons, I agree with Tsantsanoglou and Parassogiou that on line 1 () the word most likely restored as tJ11EpßaTov refers to the transgression of the sun; and not, as Lebedev argues, to the rhetorical term hyperbaton which he stretches to mean almost an inversion of thought as weIl as hyperbaton in the usual sense which he applies to the word order aV8pW1TELOV EVpOC; 1Toö6c;- a word order I think hardIy deserving of the term. Thus the Commentator, and I now believe HeracIitus as weIl, went on to mention the punishment meted out to the sun. In my earlier articIe I suggested that line 10 continued with K( ai KoAUuovat] , deriving this from a now-discredited join and restoration of the former 'Fragment B' of the papyrus. The reading KOAaUovUt still remains a possibility, but, following up on a suggestion by Michael Rohr, I would like to propose in addition to thc general KOAaUovUt the more particular UßEUOVUt, whether in the simplex or compounded with a1To- or KaTa-, };ßEVVUfLt appears several times in HeracIitus, once tantalizingly of üßptC; (B 43 üßptv xp~ 37

J reserve discussion of the second Plutarch citation of B 94 for later.

38

J. Hershbell, 'Plutarch and Heraclitus', Hermes, 105 (1977), 179-201, argues

that although Plutarch had access to Heraclitus' original book, he also on occasion used excerpts.

142

David Sider

aßEvvUVat fLUAAOV 1} 7TupKaiVjv), and, more interesting, Plato applies the word to Heraclitus' sun, which is quenched each day (Rep. 498a = 58c Marcovich =48b Kahn): o[ Kai (l.7TTOfLEVOL [sc. Tifs c/nAoaot/>{as] fLELPUKLa oVTa ... 7TPOS OE Ta yifpas EKTOS o~ TLVWV OA{ywv d7ToaßEvvuvTaL 7ToAV fLuUoV TOV 'HpaKAELTdou ~A{OU, oaov avflts OVK Jgu7TTovTaL, from which one can infer that the flame of Heraclitus'

sun is rekindled after it is quenched and disappears. But since the sun does disappear on a daily basis, how can this be regarded as punishment? 1s there a solar deviation which must be checked? At sunset, as we know, the sun is seen to increase in size, threatening, as one may imagine an ancient thinking, to exceed its allotted limit. Along come the Furies to punish the sun by quenching it. The next day will see a new sun which will have been given the same size limits of the previous one. As has often been noted, the Furies function here as they do at Iliad 19. 418, where they check the voice of Achilles' horse Xanthus, who has just prophesied his master's death (ws opa t/>wv~aavTos 'EPLVuES EaXE80v avo~v). That is, they function as maintainers of the natural order of the cosmos, just as they serve to maintain civic order among men, in both capacities acting as agents of Dike,39 who plays a notably similar cosmic role in Parmenides, where once again she, by holding the keys, is responsible for the alternation of Day and Night: TWV OE L1{Kl] 7TOAu7TOLVOS EXEL KAl]was dfLoLßOUS (28 BI. 14 DK). We may be coming full circle here, since the epithet 7TOAu7TOLVOS is found elsewhere, again of Dike, in averse credited to Orpheus: TI{; OE L1 {WfJ 7ToAu7TOLVOS' E,pEa7TETo 7TuaLV dpwyoS.40 We should also note that the transference 39 This is the most common interpretation of the Furies in the Homer and Heraclitus passages. On the former, cf. 2: ad loc. 'EPLVufS ... E7TtUK61TO< yap .lat TWV 1Tapo. q,UUtv. On the latter cf. e.g. Marcovich ad loc. (52); R. Mondolfo, Herdclito: Textos y Prob/emas de su Interpretacion (Mexico, 1966),218-23. This is a shorter version of: R. Mondolfo, 'EI sol y las Erinias segun Heraclito: Fragm. 94', Universidad Nacional de! Litoral (Argentina), 41 (1959), 19-28.) H. Fränkel, Dichtung und Philosophie des frühen Griechentums (Munich, 1962), 434 calls the Furies 'die Polizei der Naturordnung'. Further proponents of this view may be found in Johnston, TAPA 122 (1992), 91 n. 16; Johnston herself, however, opposes it, arguing that Xanthus in fact was directed to speak by the Furies, and only checked after their message was delivered. But if their task was finished they were in no need of curbing. To another of her points, that in the world of epic, talking horses were not out of the ordinary, I would answer that they are indeed extraordinary in Homer's epic worId, where, as is weIl known, such mythological oddities have largely been purged; cf. e.g. J. Griffin, 'The epic cycle and the uniqueness of Homer', JHS 97 (1977), 40 ff. 40 Proclus In Plat. Remp. 2. 145. 3 Kroll (OF 158 Kern). See further Burkert (1969: esp. 10-13).

HeracIitus in the Dcrveni Papyrus

143

of the Eumenides from their usual mortal sphere of influence to that of the cosmos is in accord with the only descriptive statement we have of the entirety of Heraclitus' book, namely that, although divided into three sections- -on the cosmos, politics (Le. human affairs), and theology-, it was a continuous treatise. Although this division most likely represents a later, Stoicizing, rearrangement of Heraditus' original text, it none the less not only suggests that HeracIitus treated these three areas but also that in his 'continuous' exposition analogies and paralleis were drawn between and among the various topicsY The Furies, then, as servants of DiIce, function as warders of the daytime sky, just as, it would seem, Arktos oversees the limits, 7Ep(LaTU, of dawn and evening in B 120: ~o{j<; Kai Ea1TEpa<; 7Ep(LUTa -ry apK70s Kai aV7[ov 7i}<; apK70v oi'ipo<; al8p[ov Llt6.,. Here 7Ep(LaTU are equivalent to the oi'ipOt of the Derveni citation. And both opposite and opposed to Ursa Major is the oi'ipos alep{ov Llt6<;, a punning reference to Arktouros as both warder and limiter of Arktos, who has been given this nocturnal office by Zeus 01' the daytime sky. It is not only the dose similarity between 13 94 and B 120 that calls for adducing the latter, there is also the balance which we now have between day and night, which we know Heraclitus aUudes to elsewhere (cf. B 57, 'H a{o8o<; . . . oans -ry(LEPYJV Kai Eij~p6vYJv OVK Jy{vwaKEv' Ean yap E'V). I believe that B 94 too came from a (or the?] part 01' HeracIitus' book where day and night were treated together. Let us now turn to Plutarch's citation ofB 94 in De Iside ct Osiride: At first glance it seems badly motivated, since it is adduced as the second of two examples of Heraclitus' support for the generally held Greek notion that Harmonia is the offspring--that is, product--of Ares and Aphrodite, Le. love and strife ('Ei\i\~vwv . . . JK 8' 'A~po8{7YJs Kai J1PEOS 'Ap(Lov{av YEyovEVat (LV8oi\OYOVV7WV, 370c): ijAtov OE [t~ t!1TEpßryaEaOUL TOV5 7TpoaryKovTuS' öPOVC;' Ei ,dCK"lC; E1T[KOVpOVC; 19EvpryaELv. 42 41

Diog. Laert. 9.5

cPvaEw~, (H'np'f/rut

TO

OE cPf:p6fLEVOV

3' Eis TpEis "DyauS,

OE

[t~, "lyA({nTUC;"I [tLV

alhov ßtßA{{)}J EarL IJ..EV a1To TOU aUV€XOVTOS 1TEpt ErS TE Tav TTEpt TOU 7TUVTor; Kat 7TOA.tTLKOV KUt

8EOAoytKov. Cf. lOrk. Heraclitus: The Cosmic Fragments, 9. 42 'Tongues' for Erinyes is astrange error. Babbit's clever yopywrra, could stand if Heraclitus originally wrote either (i) yopywrru, 'Ep
144

David Sider

But where in Plutarch's citation is the harmonia that results from the Furies' action? Mere return to the status quo (as with the Furies' checking Achilles' horse) is insufficient. But if we remember what was said earlier about B 94's very likely referring to the Furies' quenching of the sun at day's end, then the ans wer is obvious: the harmonious result of the sun's transgression (in HeracIitus' eyes at least) is night. Here we must imagine that Plutarch, again, was drawing upon an excerpt which did not incIude B 3-or that he thought it dispensable for his purpose. On the other hand, if my theory is right, whether reading an excerpt or HeracIitus' book, Plutarch must have been aware that the Furies' action leads to night. Otherwise, we are back where we started from, finding B 94 inappropriate for illustrating HeracIitus' love of strife. We are now, I think, in a position to trace the development of thought in Heraclitus as never before, thanks to the Derveni papyrus taken together with Plutarch. That is, the sequence of the papyrus-Ci) the sun is of a fixed size, and (ii) the Furies will punish any transgression-was followed by (iii) a reference to the coming of night, and, very possibly, (iv) B 120, with Arcturus as Zeus' guardian, comparable to the Erinyes as Dike's servants, as he tends to the limits of the night-time sky. And next would come (v) B 6, which we owe to AristotIe, The sun is new each day, 0 ijAws VEOS EcjJ' ~f1-EPTl' which completes the cycle of day and night. 43 Furthermore, if I am reading Plutarch correctIy, this entire sequence wh ich I have constructed was part of a larger section in wh ich Heraclitus praises €PLS and 7T6AElwS. This would in fact be an appropriate place for hirn to have summed up with B 80 ElöEvaL XP~ TOV 7T6AEfLOV E6vTa guvov Kat ö{K1]V €PW Kat YLv6fLEva 7Tl1.VTa KaT' €PW Kai XPEWV, punning on the relations hip between Dike and her servants the Erinyes. This fragment, furthermore, suggests yet another reason why an Orphic, or at any rate a commentator on an Orphic poem, would be drawn to Heraclitus, for the equations of opposites are also found on Proclus In Piat. Crat. 406b (OF 197; cL OF 360). Thc discovery of the Derveni papyrus makes aJl this unlikely, however. The crux remains unexplained. Cf. further Zeller and Mondolfo, La Filosofia dei Greci, 1. 1. 4. 140 n. 78. 13 The description of the alternation of day and night in Heraclitus given by Diog. Laert. 9. 10 as a result of 'various exhalations' (o,aq,opouo; ava8up.,auEts )-which are also responsible for months, seasons, years, rains, winds, and, it would seem, all meteorological phenomena-may be seen as a trivializing of Heraclitus' doctrine which is in line with Diogenes' attempts to reduce all of his cosmology to either lire or exhalation.

Heraclitus in the Derveni Papyrus

145

excavated tablets of Orphic provenience, most notably, Elp~vYj 7T6AEp.,O', from a bone plate found in Olbia, an opposition which appears in exactly the same form in B 67 0 OEO, ~P-EPYj El)(!>povYj, XELp.,WV OEPO" 7T6AEP-O, Elp-ryvYj, KOP0<; ALP-0<; KTA. 44 Another opposition from the Olbian plates has Heraclitean parallels: ß{o, OavaTo,. The three obvious ones are B 48 (T0 T6~ep ovop.,a ßw" EpyOV OE OavaTo,),45 B 88 (TavTo T' EVL ~WV Kat TEOVYjKO<; KTA), and B 62 (d{MvaToL 8VYjTO{, 8YjVTOt dOavaTol, ~WVTE, TOV ~KE{VWV 8avaTov, TOV 3E ~Kdvwv ß{ov TEOVE wns ).46 But the most interesting and least overt instance of the opposition between life and death is to be found in BIS: El p-~ LlwVUGep 7TolJ.,7T~V E7TOWVVTO Kai VIJ.,VEOV ~Gp.,a aloo{owLV, aVULOEGTUTa dpyaGraL' WVT(JS OE )UoYj<; Kat Llt6VVGo, OTEep p.,a{poVTat Kat AYjvat~OVGLV, where Dionysus

and Hades in the first instance represent the forces of life and death, respectively. This is especially evident since it is not Dionysus in general who is alluded to here, but that aspect of the god associated with erections and rebirthY As with many of these fragments which equate opposites (see above, e.g. on EpLV and 'EptVUE<;), word play is brought to be ar in order to bridge the gap. In BIS, Heraclitus links the opposites with the sound aid, which shows up in the opposition between alOo{owLV and dvatOEGrara; but as Emlyn-Jones has noted, Phronesis 21 (1976), 99-101, alcllv<; itself incorporates a semantic opposition best known through Phaedra's elucidation in Eur. Hipp. 385 f1. 48 Dionysus then, encompassing the spectrum covered by al3w<;, can properly be equated with Aides. 44 Cf. M. L. West (1983: 17-19), with his pI. 1. On Heraclitus' coincidentia oppositorum, cf. Fränkel. Dichtung und Philosophie, 425-31; C. J. Emlyn-Jones, 'Heraclitus and the Identity of Opposites', Phronesis, 21 (1976), 89-114; 1. C. Capriglione, 'Polemos/eris: Dike', in Symposium Herac/iteum (above, n.12) 1. 361-80; M. C. Stokes, One and Many in Presocratic Philosophy (Washington, 197]), 86-108, esp. 89-100. 45 Cf. my 'Word Order and Sense in Heraclitus: Fragment One and the River Fragment', in K. Boudouris (cd.), Ionian Philosophy (Athens, 1989), 366 n.l, where I argue that the inherent ambiguity of ßws is best maintained by leaving it unaccented, just as I-Ieraclitus' readers would have found it. 46 For a suggestive reading of B fi2, cL D. Valiulis, 'Style and Significance: A Note on Heraclitus fr. 62', Symposium Heracliteum (above, n. 12) l. 163-8. On the plates, see now L. Zhmud', Hermes, 120 (1992), 159-68. 47 Impotency is orten compared to death; cL Automedon 2 Gow-Page (A.P. ]]. 29. 3 f.) ~ [sc. KEpKOS] '!Tpiv UKaV'!Tr,< I ~w(]a. VEKpd V'Y/pwv 7TCiaa. 8E8vKEV EUW; Philodemus 27 G-P (A.P. 11. 30. 4), Ovid, Am. 3. 7. 65 f., Catullus SO. 14 f. Cf. A. Lesky, 'Dionysos und Hades', WS 54 (1936), 24-32; rcpr. in Gesammelte Schriften (Beru and Munieh), 1966) 4fil-7. Cf. also G. Zuntz, Persephone (Oxford, 1971),407-11. 48 Cf. Emlyn-]ones, Phronesis, 21 (1976), 100. See now E. M. Craik, 'AILl.Ql,' in Euripides' Hippolytus 373-430', JHS 113 (1993), 45-59.

146

David Sider

This is not the end of Heraclitus' sound play, however, for when we note that in words ending in -L~W zeta was pronounced [dz] , it also is seen to be present in lenAIDzousin, further linking Dionysus with Hades. 49 Thus alerted, we also find it in kAI Dionysos. But we should not forget that the aid sequence of Hades' name is usually associated with the sense 'unseen', a folk etymology at least as old as Homer,50 so that the harmony of opposites alluded to in this fragment appears not only in the surface grammar but also in its very sound. And since genitals too go largely unseen, the 'root' aid, in this fragment at least, can be said to have but one basic meaning. This harmony, moreover, depending on the root aid, is a literal example of the 'unseen' harmony which Heraclitus teIls us is the best kind: aplLOv{YJ d4>av~s 4>avEpijs KpE{TTWV (B 54). Only, that is, by seeing the 'unseen', which aid- is both in meaning and in its secretive placement within the fragment, can the reader truly understand the unity of life and death. 51 We have seen why a commentator on Orpheus would be drawn to Heraclitus: not only do both poet and philosopher express interest in the same topics (most notably, the harmony of opposites and the role played by Justice and the Furies in maintaining this harmony), they both do so, according to the Commentator, in enigmatic language which needs unpacking. (The double meaning of al3oios, far example, occurs in both Heraclitus and the commentary.) Note too how often the Commentator adopts the same tone as Heraclitus in distinguishing himself from the ignorant many: Cois. VIII. 6, IX. 2, xii. 4-5, XVII. 16, XXIII. 1-2. He doubtless thought himself a kindred spirit to a fa maus predecessor. It mayaiso be possible to infer that Heraclitus was himself drawn Cf. W. S. Allen, Vox Graeca,3rd edn. (Cambridge, 1987), 56-9. Note also that is all but ahapax, appearing again only in Clement, who probably saw it in Heraclitus, and as a lemma without a definition in the Suda. 50 Il. 5. 844 f. A/hiv"l ouv' JUOOI' KVVE"IV, f'~ f"V ;'00' ößP'f'01' }1p"Il'; cf. Kirk ad loc. Plato Crat. 403a says that this etymology is common among hoi poIloi. See further C. Ramnoux, Vocabulaire et structure de pensee archafque chez Heraclite (Paris, 1959), 97-9, who points out that
A"Ivat~w

HeracIitus in the Derveni Papyrus

147

to Orphie writings because he found therein a truer grasp of the workings of the cosmos than he found in Homer, Hesiod, and the other authors he criticizes. I [ow mueh he borrowed and adapted from Orphic texts, and from the related Baechic and Pythagorean beliefs and practices, ,2 we shall probably never know for certain. Clement, it is true, claims that Heraclitus derived most of his doctrines from Orpheus,53 but Clement was probably reading much late Orphic poetry modelled on Heraclitus as though it were Heraclitus who learned from Orpheus. Consider, for example, the Heraclitizing verses of Oll 226 Kern, Eanv ü8wp .pvxii, BavaTo, 8' lJ8aTEaaLV dl-'otß~, EK OE üoaTo, \I-'EV) yaLa, TO 0' EK ya{n<; 7T(fA,v üowp; EK TOU o-? .pvx-? öAov
of which Clement. Strom. 6. 2. 17. 1 says

'HpoxAHTO<; EK TOVTWV aVVwTfLfLEVO<; TOI;<; Aoyov<; WOE 7TW, ypa
state that Heraclitus was struck by these spare Orphic oppositions. which seemed to hirn to express powerful and basic truths about the cosmos. Herac1itus. however, a pro se stylist like few others. recast these dark sayings in new form. making them in some ways even more enigmatic, but also bringing them from a largely religious sphere into one that attempted a far more complex analysis of human and eosmic matters--a sphere of argumentation we have come to regard as that of philosophy. To sum up and put in chronologie al order the relationship between Orphic writing and Heraclitus. it seems that we ean recognize the following stages of development: 1. A way of deseribing thc world through opposites and their unity andJor cyclical interrelationship came to be associated with the name of Orphcus. Texts, both of simple oppositions, such as are found in tbe Orphic tablets, or of verses. circulated among communities who held these beliefs. 2. Heraclitus adopts and adapts many of these writings for his own purposes. He is not bimself to be thought of as an Orphic. 3. The Derveni Commentator and presumably others seeking to Cf. M. L. West (1983), eh. 1; Burkert (1977iJ: 1-8). (JWJ7TW OE 'HpUKI.EtTOV TOP 'Eg,E(JtOV, 0', 7Tap' 'Opg,EWS Til1TAEi'oTa d'AYjcpev. 54 B 36. Cf. West (1983: 222 f. 52 51

Strom. 6. 2. 27. ] (OF 226)

148

David Sider

understand the early Orphica mine the text of Heraclitus for comparanda. 4. Later writers of Orphic texts look to Heraclitus for ideas which would lend themselves to verse compositions to be added to the Orphic canon. 5. Others, like element and Plutarch,55 misled by a body of writings all of which is credited to a near-mythical or at any rate early figure, exaggerate Heraclitus' debt to Orpheus. Plut. De deI. oracul. 415f. (OF 250). quotes Cleombrotus: saying dKOUW Ta.JTa opw T~V ETWtK~V EK'TTVPWUW WU7r€P Ta fHPUKAELTOV Kat 'Opc/>ews €7TtV€j1-0f-t€vYjV E1TrJ OVTW Kai Ta 'Ha,ooov Kai auv.ta1TTOvaav. And note how Proclus readily links an Orphic statement that Helios is a VfO, 8'0, with Heraclitus B 6 0 ~AtO, VfO, J4>' ~fJ-fPTl 55

1ToAAwv Kat

Eur{v.

8

Chronos in Column XlI of the Derveni Papyrus* LUC BRISSON

In this paper. I would like to question two of the principles which have governed some interpretations of the theogony commented on in the Derveni papyrus. The first is formulated by Jeffrey S. Rusten (1985: 122) in terms which admittedly are more cautious than the practice of certain commentators: The events ofthe Derveni Theogony (although not its individual verses) can be assumed to bc largely identical with those in thc later poem ascribed to Orpheus (calIed the Rhapsodies) which the Neoplatonists Proclus and Damascius quote and summarize at length. Therefore the fragments of these poems have considerable (although not absolute) authority for reconstructing the text of the poem which the commentator had before hirn.

The second principle. which takes the preceding one for granted. is rarely stated but is implied by a well-known practice: 1 the word-forword comparison between the theogony commented on in the Derveni papyrus and the one found in the version of the Rhapsodies. Until now. these principles have nevcr been questioned. Here I would like to demonstrate on the basis of a specific example that the seccmd principle of interpretation cannot be accepted. for only textual comparisons applying to more than one word and dearly definable narrative comparisons can justify resorting to the Rhapsodies to give an account of the theogony commented on in the Derveni papyrus. Furthermore. if one does resort to the Rhapsomes. This paper was translated by }effrey Reid and revised by Glenn W. Most. * I would particularly like to thank Professors Bollack and Burkert for their helpful insights. and my colleagues Bernard Besnier and Catherine Dalimier für their [ueid eritieisms of this paper. 1 As illustrated particularly in Tortorelli Ghidini (1985. 1989. 1991).

150

LUG

Brisson

one must take two things into account. (1) The theogony attributed to Orpheus seems to have been the subject of several written versions composed at different periods;2 the one known as the Rhapsodies is late. even if it can be considered an elaboration (mainly at its beginning and end) of a more primitive version which is alluded ta by Aristophanes in the flfth century BC and by Plato and Eudemus in the fourth century. (2) The theogony attributed to Orpheus can only be understood. in its different versions, within the frameworlc of a constant and very dose relation to allegoresis 3 having as its objects the Homeric and Hesiodic poems for the older version of the Orphic theogony and the previous versions of the Orphic theogony itself for the more recent versions. 4

Context Let us review in rough outline the theogony commented on in the Derveni papyrus as it is reconstructed by M. L. West (1983: 114f.). In a short proern, Orpheus declares that he is going to sing for the initiated about what Zeus and the gods born of hirn did. His narrative begins at the moment when Zeus is about to take royal power and asks advice of Night. Zeus swallows Protogonos, the 'Firstborn' . A flash-back recounts the divine lineage from which Zeus comes: Night, Protogonos, Ouranos (Gaia), Cronos (who castrates Ouranos). After having swallowed Protogonos, Zeus becomes the 2 I have attempted to show what I believe to be the chronology of thc different versions of the Orphic theogony by working on a collection of material which takes into consideration above all evidence extending from Plutarch to Olympiodorus. Cf. Brisson (1985b. 1987. 1990. 1991. 1992). 3 Cf. J. Pep in. Mythe et allegorie. Les origines grecques et les contestations judeochretiennes. 2nd edn. (Paris 1976) and R. Lamberton. Homer the Theologian: Neoplatonist Allegorical Rearung and the Growth oi Epic Tradition (Berkeley. Los Angeles. and London. 1986). 4 This is what I have attempted to show in the articles Iisted in n. 2. Here is what I consider to bc the result of my research: a first version of the Orphic theogony. which was familiar to Aristophanes. Plato. and Eudemus was composed during thc 6th cent. in reaction to thc traditional theogony alluded to in the Homeric and Hesiodic poems: this version had Night as a primordial principle. At the beginning of the Christian era. more precisely at the end of the 1st cent. or at the beginning of the 2nd cent. AD. a new version of the Orphic theogony was composed. known under the titie 'I.POL '\oYOt EV paV"1'8{ats KO'. in which the influence of Stoic allegoresis can be strongly feit; this explains the appearance of Chronos (Time) as the primordial divinity. The theogony known as that 'of Hieronymus and Hellanicus' might have been composed a !ittle tater; this version. still under the influence of Stoic allegory. might have given pre-eminence to space over time.

Chronüs in Column XII

151

beginning, the middle, and the end of everything. Then he proceeds with a new creation described in the following verses. But the narrative comes to a stop at Zeus' des ire for his mother. 1. In this version of the Orphic theogony, just as in the one alluded

to by Aristophanes and Eudemus,5 Night is the primordial principle and nothing suggests that Chronos precedes it, as is the case in the Rhapsodies version. 6 2. From Night onwards, the chain of events roughly corresponds to what is found in the Rhapsodies version, at least until Zeus. No mention is made of Dionysus, his murder by the Titans, or his resurrection. In commenting on co!. XII of the Derveni papyrus, M. Tortorelli Ghidini (1991, cf. 1989) attempts to find in it a reference to Chronos. I would like to show that this is particularly unlikely, by exposing what seems to me an interpretative defect: namely, to establish a comparison based on only one or two terms between the theogony commented on by the Derveni papyrus and the one recounted in the Rhapsodies. 7 Co!. X1I 8 Kat

etcPq.[ ... ]. TO 8'

EXOfL~[VOV

kl'!oS"

wo'

EXEf,'

w, a .. [ .. Kaj-r·d KaAov EQO, VUPC)EV'TO, 'OAUfL1TOV. 'VAVP.1T[O, Kai X]p.0vo\, 'TO ml'Tov. oi 8E 80KOVVTE, 't)Avj.L1T[OY KU;] (}vpavov b']avTo ElvUL EgafLap5

OP 1 Kern =Ar. Av. 693-703; 011 28::;: Damascius, De princ., par. 124 RueHe,

i. 319. 8-16=Combes-Westerink, iii. 162. 18-163. 6. 6 The evidence concerning the Chronos of the Rhapsodies is late: 011 66 and 68 Kern come from Proclus (412-85 An), OF 60. 64, and 70 come from Damascius (458-after 532 An). and OF 65 comes from John Malalas (491-578 An). From our point of view, the evidence concerning Chronos in the theogony of Hieronymus and Hellanicus is older. because it comes from Athenagorus (second half of the 2nd cent. AD). However that may be. OF 37 can in no way be considered as even older evidence: on the one hand. it is not dear whether we should read Kpovo<; (the transmitted reading) or Xpovo<; (Zoega's emendation); and. on the other hand. the hypothesis that the source is the IT.pi fI,,;1V of Apoliodorus of Athens cannot be upheld. cf. West (1983; 200. n. 78). In short. no account of the Orphic Chronos can be found earlier than the 2nd cent. AD. 7 My criticism of these articles does not in the least detract from the significancc of thc meticulous research undertaken by M. Tortorelli Ghidini on the Derveni papyrus. 8 For this text. esp. H. 11-1 S. I am indcbted to Prof. Tsantsanoglou. who. in a letter dated 11 Feb. 1993. gcnerously communicated to me aH that he had found up to then.

152

Lue Brisson

Tav[oua]f[V ou Y]LvwaKOVr~s 07t ovpavov OUX ol'6v T~ fLUK[p6]TEpov ~ EVPV'TE[pO]V E{VaL, Xp6vov OE fLUKPOV

EL TlS

[ovofL]d~o[d Qq/f

5

q[v Jga]papravoL' 0 OE 07TOV fLEV

ovpuvov 8{[Ao, MYEtV, 'T0fL] 7Tpoa8~K''1v EVPVV €:rro~iTo, Ö7TOl.J

(oE "Ol\vf-t'TrOV, TO]t!1;'itJ!'TLOV, EvpvfL fA-EV OE' vLcP6]~Jrfq OE cp~(Jas EtVq.t 'T~' [o]vvafLH E[ ± 14 )( vHperwoE [...J Vl
OVOE1TOTE, fia[Kpov

[. . .BUWI,T[p

10

hroA,ov ou[. .]. KU! 'TU.[

J.w

]... rqqE[ and (... ) the verse that immediately follows is read thus: 'so as to reign on the beautiful dwelling place that is snow-capped Olympus'. Olympus and time are the same thing. Whereas those who picture that Olympus and heaven are the same thing commit an error, for they don't lmow that it is not possible that heaven 5 be 'high' (fLUKp6'TEpov) rather than wide, whilst, if someone qualified time as 'long' (fLUKp6v), he wouldn't commit an error. But, whenever he (= Orpheus) wanted to talk about heaven, he made this addition 'wide', whilst, whenever he wanted to talk of Olympus, on the contrary, he never added 'wide', but he added 'high'. Having said that it was 'snowcapped', (vv. 11-15) 10

Philological Notes

v. 1. The commentator appears to proceed quite methodically, since within a passage he comments on each verse in sequence 9 and, within a verse, on each word in sequence. As a matter of fact, in what remains of this column the commentator only explains two words: VUp6EVTO, (11 ff.) and 'O;"VfL7TOV (3-10). v. 2. This verse,JO quoted by the commentator, is almost identical with verse 7 in the Homeric Hymn to Hemdes: vvv ,,' ~"'Y) Kunt KuAov loo, vlt/J6EVTO, 'O;"VfL7TOV. Does this verse belong in the Orphic 9 According to West's reconstruction of the Orphic theogony commented on in the Derveni papyrus (1983) the preceding verse was the one quoted in col. XI. 10. 10 West (1983) reads ';'S &[pgat Ka]Ta KaA"v Egos, while Prof. Tsantsanoglou suggests ';'S &~ ?[XOt Ka]T
Chronos in Colunm XII

153

theogony or not? If it does not, one might wonder whether the commentator was working on the Orphic theogony at all. But if it does, at least two explanations are possible. Either, as I would think, this is a well-known poetie formula used both in the Orphic theogony and in the Homeric Hymn to He rades. Or, if one supposes that the verse was found first in the Homeric Hymn to He rades , it is a due to the authorship of the theogony. (1) According to Boehme (1989), Orpheus was a Greek citharode of the Mycenean world (fifteenth-sixteenth century Be), and Homer .md Hesiod borrowed verses or even whole episodes of their poems from the tradition he had initiated. Moreover, whcn the Homeric poems were compiled, the last Homeric poet (Le. the compiler of the Iliad and the Odyssey in the form in which we have them), who was a member of the famous YEVO<; AVKOfLtÖWV at Phlya in Attica, inserted Orphic verses into the Homeric poems in order to prove that Homer was under the influence of Orpheus. (2) Alternatively, one might wonder whether the author of the Orphic theogony might not be the same person as the author of the Homeric Hymn to Herades, who would then also be responsible for interpolations in the Odyssey (11. 602 f.), in the Hesiodic Catalogue oI women (fr. 35. 27 ff. Merkelbach-West) and even in the Theogony (947--55), viz. Onomacritus,ll a notorious forger especially in the field of Orphism. 12 v. 3. This is the interpretation proposed by the commentator: But what does TO aVTOV mean? For the commentator, two entities can be identified if the same attribute can be applied to both of them; two subjects must be distinguished if the same attribute cannot be applied to both 01' them. This linguistic rule me ans that two things can be said to be identical or different depending on whether only one accident belongs to both of them or not. But, according to Aristoile, two things are said to be identical, if and only if 'any accident belonging to the one belongs to the other' (Top. 7. 1. 152 3 34f.); and conversely, two things are said to be different if any accident belonging to one does not belong to the other.

"O'\VfL7T[O<; Kai X]WlVOS TO aVTov.

11 'As the hymn agrees in sentiment with ,\ 602 sq. which were condemned as Onomacritean, and with the longer passages in Hesiod's Catalogi Ox.pap. 2075 where eight lines are obelized, it has undergone the same inlluence and is doubtless of the sixth century or later' (The Homeric Hynms, ed. T. W. Allen, W. R. Halliday and E. E. Sikes, 2nd edn. (Oxford 1936), 396). Cf. the commentary on Tlleogony 947-55 by M. L. West (Oxford 1966), 416-17. 12 But according to West (198:~: 9 n. 13), 'Onomacritus' association with the Orphica is a laIe invention.'

154

Lue Brisson

This linguistic and logical rule is used by the commentator as a tool to carry out his real project: to translate the names of gods or goddesses into philosophical terms by showing an identity between gods or goddesses and natural entities. v. 4. In fact, this interpretation is opposed to another one that must have been much more traditional, "O.\up.7!(oy Kai] flupavov (T]mlTo.u This is considered to be an error by the commentator. In the Iliad (5. 750, 867; 15. 192 f.), Olympus is clearly distinguished from heaven. But the expression dOavuTowL OEOLUL, 'Toi oupavov EUPUV EXOUUL, ofwhich we find three instances in the Odyssey (4. 479; 11. 133; 23. 280),14 appears to justify the identification of Olympus with heaven. In Hesiod (Theog. 101), the expression OEOUC; O( "O.\UP.7TOV EXOUUt is found; Iater, Olympus and heaven are practically identified d7T' oupavov . •. eh' 'OAVP.7TOU (Theog. 689). It was known that Olympus was a mountain in Thessaly,15 but as its snow-capped summit was often hidden by cIouds it could be assumed to form the foundation upon wh ich the gods had built their abode in heaven. v. 5. The commentator gives the reason for this error: the ignorance of those (ol i)OKOVVTEC;) who are not initiated (p.vuTat, co!. VI. 8). We notice that the commentator locates himself within a polemical context. This suggests the existence of other opinions, and probabIy other commentators, to whom he is opposed. For applications of Jgap.apTUVEtV in a similar context, cf. Plat. Crat. 387 a etc. On the relation between MYEtv (used in Une 8) and ovop.u~EtV, cf. Crat. 387a-d. The whole problem is knowing what this ignorance is ignorance of. The true cause of the error is given in the following Une. vv. 5-6. ÖTt oupavov OUX orov H" (-taK[pOJrEPOV ~ EUpVTE[pO]V Elvat. The conjunction ~ must be understood as meaning potius quam ('rather than') and the pair of comparatives must be considered as simple adjectives, following a weII-known grammatical rule corresponding to the Latin eelerior quam sapientor. Kühner-Gerth 3 (2. 312 f., § 541.5) Usts the following examples: Hdt. 3. 65, Isoer. 6. 24, Lys. 19. 15. According to this rule, the adjective EUPVC; is appropriate to 13 For modern times. cf. J. Schmidt. s.v. Olympos. RE 18.1 (Stuttgart. 1939). cols. 277-9. 14 The second part of the formula is found in the Iliad (21.267) and in the Odyssey (4.378; 5. 69. 150.243; 7. 209; 12. 55; 16. 183.200.211; 19.40; 22.39). 15 Far a tapographical description. cf. M. Kurz. Le Mont Olympe (Thessalie) (Paris and Neuchätel. 1923).

Chronos in Column XII

155

heaven, but IMJ,Kp6, is not. The following explanations will prove this interpretation to be the right one. vv. 6-7. Time ean be said to be /J.aKp6,. The epithet fJ,UKPO, ean just as weIl be applied to time, signifying 'long', as to spaee. where it ean me an 'high'. Jt is a traditional epithet of time in the tragedians (Aeseh. Pr. 447. Eur. Hec. 320. ete.) and even in Plato. In the Homeric poems it is associated with the parts of time. e.g. the night (vvt, Odyssey 11. 373). Olympus reeeives the epithet fJ,UKP<), in the Wad (1. 402; 2. 48; 5. 398; 8. 199,410; 15. 79, 193; 18. 142; 24. 468. 694) and in the Odyssey (10. 307; ] 2.432; 20. 73; 24. 351). v. 7. The opposition between TL, and 0 should be noticed. One must assume that 0 refers to Orpheus. who is supposed to have revealed the Orphic theogony eommented on; and TL<; refer to the uninitiated. The use of 07TOV+ optative (vv. 7 and 9) seems to indicate a repetitive action. v. 8. Heaven can be said to be dpv<;. The association of this epithet with heaven is very frequent in the Wad (3. 364; 5. 867; 7. 178, 201; 15. 36. 192; 19.257.20.299; 21. 267. 272. 522) and the Odyssey (4.378,479; 5. 169, 303; 6. 150,243; 7.209; 8. 74; 11. 133; 12. 73. 344; 13. 55; 16. 183.200.211; 19.40, 108;22. 39; 23. 280). Hesiod applies this epithet to heaven only twice. in the Theogony (45. 702). IIpoae~K'YJ seems to me to be a teehnical term. at least in its application here. It designates a word or expression which serves to qualify a being. In the scholia to the Wad the term appears more than twenty times in this 'teehnical' sense. 16 The reason the eommentator gives he re to prove that Olympus is identical to heaven (both are qualified by the same epithet) is the same given by the allegorist Heraclitus a few eenturies later to prove that, even in Homer, Apollo and the sun are identieal. and that only one god bears these two names (Homeric Allegories 6. 6): the same epithets are used to qualify both Apollo and the sun (ibid. 7. 3-4). namely r/>o'ißo, (ibid. 7. 5-7), ~KdEPYOS (ibid. 7. 8-9). /..VI(YJYEV~TY/' (ibid. 7. 10-11), xpvadopo, (ibid. 7. 12-13). v. 9. The adjective fJ.uKp6, qualifies Olympus only one time in the Theogony (391). 16

cr. Scholia graeca in Homeri

1969-88).

lIiadem. Sc/lOlia vetera, ree. H. Erbse, 7 vols. (Berlin,

Lue Brisson

156

v. 10. Olympus ean be identified with time beeause both are qualified by the same traditional epithet, {WKPO<;, but it must be distinguished from heaven, sinee the tradition al epithet for heaven is dpv<;. This distinetion is found in two eosmologieal papyri (Funghi (1983)) and seems to have been imported into philosophical diseussions, as we ean see in Parmenides (28 B 11 DK)l7 and in Philolaos (44 A 16 DK),18 even if it is very diffieult to situate precisely Olympus and what is known as heaven. Furthermore, we find in Aristotle this important passage: As to what time is or what is its nature, the traditional accounts (TWV 1Tapaödjopivwv) give us as little light as the preliminary problem which we have worked through. (A) Some assert that it is the movement of the whole (T~V TOU öitov K{V'r}aLv), (B) others that it is the sphere itself (T~V ac/>ai:pav ath~v). (A') Yet part, too, of the revolution is a time, but it certainly is not a revolution; for what is taken is part of a revolution, not a revolution. Besides, if there were more heavens than one, the movement of any of them equally would be time, so that there would be many times at the same time. (B') Those who said that time is the sphere of the whole thought so, no doubt, on the ground that all things are in time and all things are in the sphere of the whole. The view is too naIve (EV'r}O'KWTEpOV) for it to be worthwhile to consider the impossibilities implied in it. (Physics 4.10, 21S a 31-b S, trans. R. P. Hardie and R. K. Gaye)

The definition of time ascribed to Pythagoras by Aetius (Plae. 1. 21. 1 Dox. graee. 318. 4-5 Diels) , 'Pythagoras says that time is the sphere of the universe' (IIv8ayopa<; T!>v Xpovov T-ryV uc/>al:pav TOU 7TEptEXOVTOS El'vaL) is very similar to the seeond traditional aeeount rejected by Aristotle as being too naIve to be worth considering. Even if this definition eannot be attributed to Pythagoras hirnself. it seems to be related to Pythagoreanism in one way or another. After having eommented on 'O)..V/L7TOV the eommentator passes on to V,c/>oEvTa. The adjective v'c/>OEL<; is systematically associated with a mountain, both in the Wad (13. 754; 14. 227; 20. 385) and in the Odyssey (19.338). While in the Homerie poems VLCPOHS is assoeiated only onee with Olympus (Wad 18. 616), in Hesiod the expression

=

17 For commentary, cf. Burkert (1972: 282 n. 24), and Jean Bollack, 'La Cosmologie parmenideenne de Parmenide', in R. Brague and J.-F. Courtine (eds.), Hermeneutique et ontologie. Melanges en hommage a Pierre Aubenque (Paris, 1990), 17-53, esp. 45-8. 18 Für a commentary, cf. Burkert (1972: 243-6,337-50).

Chronos in Column XII

157

Vt4>OEVTO, 'OAVjL7TOV is found five times in the Theogony (42, 62, 118,

794,953). v. 11. This line is poorly preserved, which makes any attempt to draw decisive conclusions questionable. However, here are some suggestions by Prof. Tsantsanoglou: Pirst, E[lKa~Et alhov opEh Vt,pETWDEt. The verb dKa~Et is also used in cols. XII. 9 and XIX. 8; in both instances the author claims that Orpheus allegorically portrays the sun when he says alDotoV and air when he says ßaatAEv,. Moreover, opO'i Vt4>ETWDE, could mean not 'snow-capped mountain', but rather 'mountain of which snow is an essential characteristic'. The adjective Vt4>ETWDE, is elsewere descriptive of ä,VEjLO', ~jLEpa, and vvg. Less likely is E[lKd~Et xpovov TW]! VUPET(ODEt, where TO Vt4>ETWDES would be the abstract notion of 'snow' combining both its main properties: coldness and whiteness. E[lKd~Et alJTOV dDE]! Vt4>ETWDEt, where €lDo, would mean the 'form, appearance' of the EOVTa, as in the Hippocratic treatise On Ancient Medicine (15. 1). v. 12. Prof. Tsantsanoglou suggests: [TO DE] Vt4>ETW[DE, ~JVXpOV TE Kat A]~~~OV E[ an]: 'that of which snow is an essential characteristic is at the same time cold and white'. The adjective AEVKO, is a traditional epithet for snow (Wad 10. 437). v. 13. ~ajL7![p-, Prof. Tsantsanoglou reminds us of the first line of coL XIV: TOV AajL7Tp0TaTOV TE [Kat (Je]pjLOkjaTov, where alf}~p seems to be described. The adjective AajL7Tpo, 'radiant, bright' describes fiery beings, for example the sun, but also al()~p, which is a mixture of air and fire. At the end of the line we should read 7TOALOV D' d[Epa (al8Epa is impossible here as it would cover all the intercolumnar area). In Apollonius of Rhodes (3. 275) and Quintus of Smyrna (2. 554, 6. 229), 7TOAtO, qualifies d~p in the expression 7TOAWtO 8t' ~EPO" interpreted by Prancis Vian as 'whitish mist' or 'whitish haze'. One should remember that Zeus is identified by the commentator with d~p (cols. XVIII. 1-12; XXIII. 2-4; XXIV. 3--5). So, since in his view the making 01' the world took pi ace in astate of coldness and darkness, he may be attempting here to explain the whiteness involved in the term VL4>OEt,. In that context, one should remember that, in some Presocratics, d~p is a mixture of air and water, while al8~p is a mixture of air and fire.

158

Lue Brisson

Even if we agree that the snow mentioned in the previous line is related to the idea of cloud expressed by vLc/>erwDH. which is natural in this context (cf. also Wad 10. 7; 12. 278). it remains very difficult to follow Marisa Tortorelli Ghidini (who. it must be remembered. was working from the unauthorized edition of the papyrus). when she cites frs. 60 and 54 Kern 19 to comment on VLc/>ETWDE<:;. Fr. 60 presents crucial textual difficulties (cf. Brisson (1991: 172-4). Besides. in this account. wh ich Proclus relates specifically to the Rhapsodies. Cloud (NEc/>EAYJ)Zo is the third term (put into relation with the primordial Egg) of the second triad (that of Iife) of the intelligible Gods. a triad whose first two terms remain unknown: this anomaly might weIl be explained by the fact that the Neoplatonists. who absolutely needed a triad. developed an allegorie al interpretation to restore the missing links. In the theogony known as that 'of Hieronymus and Hellanicus·. which. according to my hypothesis. derives from an allegorical commentary on the Rhapsodies. 'Chronos is that serpent which engenders the threefold offspring. (namely) Aether known as humid. the unlimited Chaos. and the third one which follows them. cloudy Erebos ("EPEßOS o/uxAw!3Es)' (OP 54 Kern In prine .. par. 123 bis Ruelle. i. 318. 10-13 =Combes-Westerink. iii. 161. 21-3). On ce more. the Neoplatonists' obsession with triads is evident; this time. however. Cloud (NEc/>EJ...YJ) has disappeared in favour of misty Erebos ("EPEßOS O/UXAwDE<:;). a possible indication of the unstable allegorical status of Cloud in the Neoplatonic account of the Rhapsodies and of the theogony known as that 'of Hieronymus and Hellanicus' . For all these reasons. I cannot accept Marisa Tortorelli Ghidini's conclusion that the terms VLc/>oEvTa and VLc/>ETWDH. which are all that remain of lines 11 and 12 of co!. XII. refer. by the mediation of NEc/>EJ...YJ. to Chronos and the primordial Egg mentioned in the Rhapsodies. While this possibility cannot be absolutely ruled out. basic caution demands that we not aIlow ourselves to make a connection between the Orphic theogony commented on in the Derveni papyrus and that of the Rhapsodies which is based on a single

=

19 Fr. 54 is referred by Damascius to the Orphic theogony known as that 'of Hieronymus and Hellanicus' and fr. 60 is referred by Proclus to the Rhapsodies. 20 Cf. TortoreIli Ghidini (1989: 29-36). It is also interesting to observe that it is by the intermediary of the adjective v«,66€ts----qualifying Olympus-that we can arrive at the hypothesis, suggestive as far as the theogony is concerned, of a link between Olympus and VE1>,f).:q.

Chronos in Column XII

159

theonym. Only the principles formulated at the beginning of this paper might justify making such a conncct:ion.

Historical Notes We can now draw a certain number of conclusions concerning not only the conte nt and nature of the theogony commented on in the Derveni papyrus. but also the working method of the commentator. I tend essentially to accept the interpretation put forward by Marisa TortoreIli Ghidini regarding the content of the first ten lines of the theogony commented on in the Derveni papyrus. But regarding lines 11-13. of wh ich so little remains. I entirely reject her conclusions. and I think that this rejection is supported by the meticulous work of Prof. Tsantsanoglou. A textual analysis of column XII rules out any deduction, from the fact that in co!. XIV ovpav6, corresponds to a god. to the claim that Xp6vo, refers to the primordial divinity of the Rhapsodies (Tortorelli Ghidini: 1985). This ex silentio argument remains weak. as do all arguments of this type. This is why historical precedents are called for. Did not Pherecydes of Syros and Pindar make Time the primordial divinity?21 (a) The Evidence from Pherecydes

Pherecydes of Syros 22 is supposed to have been active about the middle of the sixth century Be; this would make hirn a contemporary 01' Thales, Anaximander. ami Pythagoras. A theogony is attributed to hirn. with the following stages. 1. For all eternity.

three divinities existed: Zas (= Zeus). C[h]ronos. and Chthonia. who will become Ge. 2. C[h]ronos. from his own seed. produces three elements: fire. breath or air (7TvEvfLa). and water (F60::: A8). 3. The three elements. mixed in different ways. are distributed into five nooks (fLVxoi,) (F60 =A8). 21 The appearancc of Chronos as thc primordial divinity is relatively recent in history. as I tried Lo show in Brisson (1985b). 22 I use Schibli (1990). At the end of this work is found a collection of accounts relating to Pherecydes. In general, thc numbers of the accounts (A) and corresponding fragments (B) are listcd in DK 7.

160

Luc Brisson

4. From the elements in the nooks a second generation arises, composed of several gods (F60 = A8). 5. Zas marries Chthonie whose name then becomes Ge, and offers her a dress upon which Ge and Ogenos (= Oceanos) are embroidered (F14, F68, F73 =Bl-2, All). 6. Battle between Cronos and Ophioneus (F78, F79, F80, F8I, F82, F83, F73 =B4-5, All) 7. Dividing up of the shares between the gods; Zeus succeeds Cronos (F82, F83, F2 =B4-5, A2). From the outset, the major problem with this theogony concerns one of the primordial gods, to whom some accounts give the name Kpovo, and others the name Xpovo,:23 There is also preserved of the man from Syros a book he wrote, the beginning of which states: 'Zas and Chronos always were and Chthonie (Za, fL€V Kat Xpovo, 1)uav Uf:i Kat X8ov{"I); and Chthonie became named Ge when Zas gave her the earth as a gift of honour.' (Diogenes Laertius (beginning of the third century AD: 1. 119 = F14 Schibli = 7 ALB 1 DK)) Pherecydes of Syros says that Zas always existed and Chronos and Chthonie (ZavTa fL€V .{va, ud Kat Xpovov Kat X8ov{av), the three first principles ... (Damascius (sixth century AD: De princ. i. 124b 321. 3-4 Ruelle Combes-Westerink iii. 164. 17-18 F60 Schibli 7 A 8 DK))

=

=

=

Pherecydes also agrees but cites different elements: Zen, he says, and Chthon and Kronos, signifying fire and earth and time (Zijva inquit Kat X&6va Kat Kpovov ignem ac terram et tempus significans), and that it is the aether which rules, the earth which is ruled, and time in which the regions taken together are governed. Probus (commentator on Virgil, under Nero: In Vergilii Bucolica 6. 31, p. 343 Hagen =F65 Schibli = 7 A 9 DK) ) Pherecydes says the principles are Zen and Chthonie and Kronos (upxa, .{va, AEywv Zijva Kat X8ov{"Iv Kai Kpovov); Zen is the aether, Chthonie the earth, and Kronos is time; the aether is that wh ich acts, the earth is that which is acted upon, time is that in which events come to pass (Ziiva tLEV TOV alBEpa, X8ov{"Iv OE T~V yiiv, Kp6vov OE TOV Xp6vov, <> fLEV alB~p TO 7TOWVV, 1] OE y-ij TO '1Taaxov, 0 xp6vo~ EV Jn Ta YLyvop.Eva.) (Hermias (ecc!esiastical author of the second or third century AD: Irrisio gentilium philosophorum 12, Dox. graec., 654. 7-10 Diels =F66 Schibli = 7 A 9 DK) ) 23 It is not correct to state bluntly that the reading Xpovos 'is now generally accepted', as Schibli does in a short note (1990: 17 n. 9). Zeller, Wilamowitz, Fränkel, and Schwabl do not share this opinion: that is hardly negligible.

Chronos in Column XrI

161

The philosophical commentary included here is as eclectic as the doxographical tradition it draws upon, and so can safely be ignored. In two of these four accounts (Probus and Hermias), one of the primordial divinities is called Kp6vos, in the other two (Diogenes Laertius and Damascius) Xpovo<;. The temporal distribution of these accounts is not really significant, even if the ac counts of Probus and Hermias, wh ich seem to be the oldest ones, have Kp6vos and not Xp6vo<;. One detail seems essential to me. The paraphrase 'Kp6vos tempus significans' shows that Probus 1'ound Kp6vos in his source and that he knew the allegorical interpretation which assimilated this god to time. Hermias also pI aces himself in the same context by proposing an interpretation in which the philosophical background 01' the allegory is clearly outlined. Now this interpretation, which seems to have been widespread even before the Christian era, probably has a Stoic origin: Balbus (in Cicero. ND 2. 25. 64f.),24 Cornutus (under Nero, around 65-68 AD: Theologiae graecae compendium 39) and Plutarch (De Iside 32, 363d) state it as if it were obvious. Consequently, in the four references quoted, the names of Kp6vos and Xp6vo<; were considered as strictly equivalent in one way or in another. It follows that even if Diogenes Laertius and Damascius found Kp6vo<; in their source, they would have had no hesitation in transcribing Xpovos. What is more, Pherecydes's theogony, assuming that it is not apocryphal, remains perfectly understandable if we retain the name Kp6vos, which is very naturally associated with the names of Zeus and Hera,25 while the unexpected intervention of a Xp6vos' would be very difficult to explain. (b) Pindar's account

In Pindar, four passages can be found in wh ich time is personified. The whole problem is to decide whether this is a matter of a 24 See A. S. Peasc's vcry detailed note in his edition (Cambridge. Mass .. 1958. 709-12). The assimilation of Cronos to time is found in the De munda of pscudoAristotle and even in an inscription of E1atea (Bulletin de Carrespandance Hellenique 10 (1886) 368) dating from the 5th cent. BC. 25 Actually. it does seem that Chthonia. who is latcr called Ge. must. as the wife of Zeus. be identified with Hera and moreover associated with the earth. as is the case in the Stoic-style treatise attributed to Plutarch Ex opere de Daedalis Pilltaeensibus (cf. Eusebius. PE 3. 1. 4). For further information. cf. R. Renehan. 'Hera as EarthGoddess: A New Piece 01' Evidencc.' RhM 117 (1974), 193-20l. Moreover. the assimilation of Zeus to aether is inspired by a wcll-known Stoic interpretation.

162

Luc Brisson

simple stylistic device or a reference to a figure who would be the primordial divinity of the Orphic theogony. 1. Olympian Odes 2.17-19: Not even time (ovo av Xpovo<;), the father of all (0 7Tavrwv 7Tar~p), can undo the accomplished end (ouva,ro 8il'-EV EPYWV TEAo<; d7To[Tjrov) ofwhat has been done (rwv 7TE7TpaYI'-ivwv) with justice or without. 26 But, with good lude, oblivion may come, for malignant pain perishes in noble joy, confounded whenever a fate from the gods raises happiness on high.

The active role allotted to time, of wh ich only the future dimension is considered in the transmission of the memory of eminent deeds, leads Pindar 27 to personify it. But any attempt to find the primordial divinity of the Rhapsodies in this personified time would require an extrapolation. since m1.VTWV refers in this context only to TWV 7TE7TpayI'-€Vwv through EpyWV, Under these circumstances, 'father of all things' would be an over-translation; in fact. time is the father of all actions, those of gods and those of men, to the extent that these actions were performed at a moment in a time that has passed and can only either survive in memory in a time still to come or sink into oblivion. Anyway, time has a limited power; it cannot undo an action that has been done, and this makes it subordinate to destiny. 2. Olympian Odes 10. 50-5: He (= Herades) ca lied it Kronos' Hili, for in former time, when Oinomaos ruled, it had lain beneath deep drins of snow, without a name. Now, at first birth rites, the Moirai stood by, and next to them the one who alone proves truth true, time (xpovo<;) , and time moving onward (lwv 7Topaw) had made it manifest: how Herades ...

In this passage, personified time presents the characteristics described by Hermann Pränkel: an orientation towards the future and a strikingly active role. Consequently, nothing forces us to identify it with the primordial divinity which intervenes at the beginning of the Rhapsodies and in the theogony known as that 'of Hieronymus and Hellanicus'.28 Whereas the Moirai are responsible 26 In order to make the grammatical structure of this sentence c1earer, I do not preserve the word-order in my translation. 27 On time in Pindar, cf. H. Fränkel's cIassic article 'Die Zeitauffassung in der frühgriechieschen Literatur' (1931), in Wege und Formen Jrühgriechischen Denkens, 2nd edn. (Munich, 1960), 1-22. One can also read with interest A. M. Komornicka, 'La Notion du temps chez Pindare. Divers emplois et aspects du terme "Chronos",' Bos. 64 (1976),5-15. 28 For the union of Chronos with Necessity in the theogony known as that 'of Hieronymus and HeIJanicus' cf. Brisson (1991: 195 f. and n. 41).

Chronos in Colunm XII

163

for the fact that such and such an act was performed, time allows the act to survive in memory once it has been performed. Moreover, we should note that time is personified in a context in which Cronos (Kp6vos) intervenes. 3. Fr. 33 SnelP =Plutarch, Platonic Question8 8. 4, 3. 1007b: The lord, time, who excels all the blessed gods (ävuKTa, TOl' 7T
Much could be said about the context in which this fragment appears and about its meaning. But even if time is personified here, nothing authorizes us to find in this line an allusion to the Chronos of the Rhapsodies. 29 Wh at is more, as H. Cherniss acutely perceived, 7TUVTWV f.LUKUpWV goes with il1TEpßuAAovTa and not with avaKTU. This line seems to mean, quite simply, that time has the same power over the gods as it does over men: it allows acts performed both by the ones and by the others (cf. 01. 2.7) to survive in memory. 4. Fr. 159 SnelP =Dionysius of Halicarnassus, De orat. ant. 2, i. 4 Usener-Radermacher: Time is the greatest champion (Xp6vo<; aWT1P äpWT()<;) of just men.

This fragment repeats the idea developed in the other passages mentioned. It is time which. considered as a force acting into the future, ensures the survival in memory of all that has been accomplished by gods or by men, for good or for evil. In all these passages, personified time presents the characteristics described by Frünkel: an orientation towards the future and a strikingly active role. We can therefore understand wh at Pindar says about time, whether he personifies it or not, without any reference to the Chronos of the Rhapsodies. This shows that any attempt to identify Orphic influences in this poet rests on an arbitrary presupposition which is vitiated by the fact that it lacks any foundation in the texts, whose meaning is clear and straightforward. In Pindar, time always applies to the future. It is almost never on the human side of things, but constitutes a force on its own, wh ich acts upon the fortunes of mortals through the intermcdiary of actions. Compared to man, an ephemeral and perishable being, it represents a stable and lasting 29 Ir such had been the case, Plutarch, who seems to have known the Orphic theogony of the Rhapsodies (cf. Brisson (1990: 2886), would not have failed to mention it.

164

Luc Brisson

force, which, however, itself remains subject to destiny.30 What conclusion should we draw from this? In col. XII, the commentator identifies Olympus not with heaven, as was usually done, but with time. However, related to heaven is a god, Ouranos, mentioned in col. XIV, where he is represented as a descendant of Night. Thus the question arises: might not time too correspond to a divinity, Chronos, who constitutes the primary divinity, according to the version of the Orphic theogony known as the Rhapsodies? Nothing remaining of the Derveni papyrus permits adefinite answer to this question. To circumvent this ex silentio argument, two arguments have been emphasized, a linguistic argument and a historical one. In the five very mutilated last lines of col. XII which comment on the epithet VupoEvTa, one finds another epithet, VUPETWOEL, which relates to VE4>€ItYJ. But in the Rhapsodies, the primordial egg produced by Chronos is related to an entity called NE4>€ItYJ. This evidence leads to the hypothesis of the existence of this primary divinity in the version of the Orphic theogony commented on in the Derveni papyrus. This hypothesis would be much more likely if in fact Pherecydes and Pindar had mentioned a primary divinity named Chronos. However, an analysis of the fragments relating to the beginning of the theogony attributed to Pherecydes and of passages of Pindar's work in which time is personified rules out any reference to a primary divinity named Chronos. Besides, to establish a relation between VL4>oEvTU and VL4>ETWOEL so as to arrive at NE4>€ltYJ (wh ich remains a very mysterious entity in the Rhapsodies) is to argue on a much too narrow and fragile basis. Consequently, the version of the Orphic theogony commented on in the Derveni papyrus seems to be the one known to Aristaphanes and Eudemus, in which Night is the primary divinity, and not the version of the Rhapsodies, in which Chronos is the primary divinity. The analyses which led to these results permit us to make hypotheses about the nature of the older version of the Orphic theogony and abaut subsequent versions. The older version, the one commented on in the Derveni papyrus, seems to have been the result of a critique of the theogonics transmitted by the Homeric and Hesiodic poems, and to have developed on the basis of a primitive form of allegorical interpretation. So it became quite natural to sub mit this version itself to an allegorical interpretation, strongly 30 Cf. also H. Fränkel. 'E
Chronos in Column XII

165

influenced by Stoicism, an interpretation that gave rise 1.0 two other versions, whicb took as the primordial principle either time-the version of the Rhapsodies (end of the first, beginning of the second century AD)--or space-the version known as that 'of Hieronymus and Hellanicus' (middle of thc second century AV). But what type of person could the commentator on that oider version of the Orphic theogony be? 1. The commentator practised the art of the rhapsodes, who claimed to know not only thc Homeric poems that they recited, the Wad, the Odyssey, and the Hymns, but also 'Homer's' thought; this aHowed them to claim, through their interpretation, a universal knowledge. 31 In any case, with regard to the traditional rhapsodes, the commentator displays originality in a1. least the following two points: (a) he comments not only on the Homeric and Hesiodic poems (which, moreover, he seems to know weH), but also on an Orphic theogony; (b) this interpretation is not naive, for the commentator seems to be directly or indirectly aware of philosophical speculations on the universe that can be found in Parmenides and such Pythagoreans as Philolaos. 2. This originality suggests, it seems to me, an environment where direct or indirect discussions took pI ace between different interpreters. 3. These discussions involved reflections on the accuracy ofwords and expressions, and even implied a knowledge about the functioning of language of the type that can be found in the Cratylus. 32 4. These topics were important for thc commentator, since he tries to translate theologicaJ names into philosophical notions by showing an identity between gods or goddesses and natural entities. 31 Cf. Plato's account in the Ion. The rhapsode [on is not only capable of declaiming the verses of Homer in a lavish costume; he also claims to possess all the other arts, which allows hirn to oITer an exegesis of the verses declaimed. Cf. also Richardson (1975) and Baxter (1992: 124-6). 32 Cf. Baxter (1992: ] 30-9).

9 Star Wars or One Stable World? A Problem of Presocratic Cosmogony (PDerv. Col. XXV) WALTER BURKERT

The dependence of the Derveni author upon Anaxagoras and Diogenes of Apollonia had been clear since the first partial publication by Kapsomenos, 1 but expressions e10se to the language of the Atomists are also conspicuous. 2 The peculiar position of the text in relation to Anaxagoras and Atomism comes out especially in one column unpublished before 1982, a passage fully immersed in questions of cosmology. It may repay closer scrutiny, especially since it sheds light on a text of Anaxagoras which has long remained controversial. Col. xxv (without indication of uncertain letters and short supplements) Kat Aap:/TpOT1]Ta' Td. 0' 19 JJv "1 UEATJVI), AEVKOTaTa fLEV TWV aAAwy KaTd. TOV aUTOV Aayov f.1,EfLEpwfLEva, 8Epf.ul

8' OVK EarL. Earl, SE

Kai

ä""o. vtJv EV TUH dEpl EKOS

aAATJAWv aiwpovVEV', aAAu nlS' VEV TJVEP1]<; &01]A' laTtv trrro

TOV

~A{OV E7TLKpa70v/LEVa,

oijM. laTtv' E1T
S'

\ "\\ \ 'lTpO, O/\/\'T/IW'

IiE

aUT(;;V EKaaTU

rT;S SE

VVKTO'; lOVTU

5

ou1 aVIKpaT'T/To'

EV dvaYK?Ji,

wS' ap.. /.f..T,

(fVV{Tjl

I 1\& ( " ) t\,., \ , \ yap V'T/, aVVEII 01 av allEa oaa nil' aVT1]V

,\

EI

OVVUp..LV EXEt, Eg Wl' 0 ~AtoS' O'UVEUTU(].r;. Ta VVV EOVTa El fLY] ~8EAEV Elvat, OVK äv ETT07JaEV ~AtOV. E7TO{'rjOE OE

o BEG'::;

TOtoVTOY Kat ToaOVTOV ywap.EVD1' olo<;

10

EV apxijl TDV Myov

1 Burkert (l96H: 97-9). In thc following. references to Anaxagoras take acconnt of D. Sider, The Fragments oI Anuxagoras (Meisenheim. ] (81); G. S. Kirk. J. E. Raven. and M. Schofield. The Presocratic Philosophers. 2nd edn. (Cambridge, 1983); J. Mansfeld, Die Vorsokratiker (Stuttgart, ] 98 7). For Diogenes see A. Laks, Diogene d'Apollonie. La derniere cosomogonie presocratique (Lilie. 19H3). 2 Especially the fnnction of KPOVELV in cosmogony. col. XIV. 4. 7; xv. 1. cf. Lencippns 67 A 1, 31 DK; f.1,Ef.'Eptaf.'EVa co!. xxv. 2; K
168

Walter Burkert

OL'l]YELrUt.

Oll

Ta 0' E-rrL ToUrOtS E1T{7TpoaBE 7TOLELTaL

ßOV;'OjLEVO<; 7Tana<; YLVW<Ji(ELV.

EV OE 7"UJLOE

<J"ljLa[vEt •••

We get a sequence of 13 lines with comparatively few lacunae. An important conjecture is av at line 8, due to Martin West. The verb left out in the relative dause of line 1 is evidently UVVEUTli81) , as in !ine 9; we may, with some confidence, restore the beginning of the sentence as follows: Ta

fLEV ovv

Jg

;'ajL7Tp07""l7"a.

(f;v

0

7jAtO~ avvEaruJ)7],

iJ7TEpßaAAovTa

EOTW

BEpfiOT1JTa] Kat

3

A preliminary translation would go like this: Those things from which the sun was formed are extreme as to hotness] and splendour; those things from which the moon was composed are the most white among the others, separated according to the same principle, but they are not hot. There are also other things now, floating in the air. separated from each other; but during the day they are unclear, being overpowered by the sun; but at night their existence is clear. They are overpowered because of their smallness. Each of them is floating in necessity, in order that they may not co me together with one another; otherwise. there might come together in a mass 4 as many things as have the same power (as do those) from which the Sun was composed. lfthe god had not wished the things which exist at present to exist, he would not have created the sun. But he created (it), developing to such quality and quantity as was told at the beginning of the account. The following (sentences) (Orpheus) has arranged in reverse order, because he did not wish that all should recognize (them); by this he indicates ... 5 OL1)YEtTat in line 12 is puzzling: I find it must be understood as either intransitive or passive here, 'to make a tale' or 'to be told', not as an active form in the sense of 'he (Orpheus?) narrates'. This is not attested anywhere else, but it has a parallel in the double use of (1)ltOt in this very same text: 'He makes it dear' (XIII. 3; XVI. 9; XXI. 1) and 'it is clear' (XXVI. 2, 5). The same use of OL"lYELTat occurs earlier in coI. xv. 8, where a subject such as 'he (Orpheus)' is exduded: ~ OE dpX~ OL1)YEtTaL [OTL T]d ÖVTa KpOVWfl- 7TPOS ältlt1)lta owuT~ua, T' ~[7T6Et T~]V vVJL JLETauTauw •.. 'the rule (of Zeus) is spoken of, since clashing the existing things against each other and 3 4

Cf.

XIV. 1 TOV AUfL7l'POTUTOV TE [Kui O,]pfLO[T]UTOV. which probably refers to Helios. d,hi< is common in Hippocratic writings; 1ToAAd dA.d Mul. 1. 5 (viii. 28 Littre).

5 This translation rcpresents a modified version of the unpublished translation of the papyrus by Robert Lamberton.

Star Wars or One Stable World?

169

separating them he produeed the ehanged arrangement whieh obtains now .. .' To explain the origin of the sun and the moon, the author evidently starts from a thesis 01' eorpuseularism, one which however is not orthodox Atomism. Corpuscles are indieated by the word fLEfLEPWfLEVU, wh ich also oceurs at XXI. 2. Yet, in clear contrast to Atomism; these corpuscles have qualities;6 they are 'quality-things', indicated in Greek by neutra pluralia such as OEPfLa, AEVKa, ete., or also Ta OEpfL6v, Ta !/;vxp6v.7 Evidently the original eondition would be what we eall the most probable one, random but rather homogeneous distribution of all those 'things' in the air. This eorresponds to Anaxagoras' famous OfLOV XP~fLUTU 7T(LVTU ~v,8 astate when 7TavTu yap a~p TE Kui ulO~p KUTEfXEV (59 B 1 DK). The formation of the world oeeurs through assembling, avv{amaOUL (cf. XVI. 2), more precisely expressed by KUTUaVVEaTaOYJ 7Tpa<; äAA'l]AU XXI. 3. 9 It is evidently the process of 'like to like' whieh is at work, as we find Ta !/;vxpav Ton !/;VXpWL XXI. 1, and EKumov ~AeEV EL<; Ta aVV'l]OE<; XXI. 5, just as in Anaxagoras: Ta aVYYEvij q;EpeaOuL 7Tpac; äAA'l]Au. lO In this way our fragment deseribes how the sun and the moon were formed, viz. from particles whieh are either hot and bright or only 'white'. It seems strange that the author appears to have forgotten Anaxagoras' brilliant insight that the Moon gets her light from the Sun: {!Ata<; aEA~v'l]L EJJTtO'l]aL Ta AUfL7Tp6v (B 18); but he might have thought or said that even in order to function as a mirror the Moon has to be 'white' and not dark. So far we get routine Presoeratie eosmogony; but what follows is Iess common. Relies of the original state, we are told, are still present, particles separated from each other, floating in the air; their existence becomes clear at night. Is this just the stars, or something more special? Anaxagoras, as Aristotle and the doxographers in form us, declared the Milky Way to be the light of certain stars, evidently very small and feeble, most of them invisible even at night, 'because (, Cf. on Empedocles, L. Gemelh Marciano, 'L' 'atomismo' e il corpuseolarismo Empedocleo: Frammenti di interpretazioni nel mondo antieo', Elenchos, 12 (1991), 5-37. 7 Cf. XXI. l. 8 For the eorreet text. as against 59 B 1 DK, see W. Rösler, ' 'Op.ov xp~p.aTa 7Tavru ~v', Hermes, 99 (1971), 246-8; Sider, Fragments of Anaxagoras, 43 f. 9 This verb, not attested in LSJ, is quite preeise: Through 'coming together' a new 'state' is created, ava·raa,., becomes Kuraaram.,. 10 59 A 41 DK = Simpl. Phys. 27. 2 ff.; cf. C. W. Müller, Gleiches zu Gleichem. Bin Prinzip Jrühgriechischen Denkens (Wiesbaden, 1965).

170

Walter Burkert

they are prevented [rom shining by the rays of the sun'; but where the earth's shadow stretches across the sky and the sun cannot counteract it, they come out, mirroring the path taken by the sun beneath the horizon on the opposite side of the earth: this is the MiIky Way.ll What Alexander calls EfL7TOo{~E08at is E7TtKpaTELo8at in our text. 12 This suggests that our author too has the Milky Way in mind. 13 The wording of our text is quite elose to Anaxagoras anyhow: Kat 7T
on

OUK av 7Tap' ~fLfv fLoVOV

that here too we find the potentialis, just as in our fragment-which reinforces the supplement av in line 8. Already Simplicius was puzzled by this text of Anaxagoras, wh ich he quotes several times; he was inelined to understand the double 11 59 A 80 and 68 A 91 DK =Arist. Mete.345 a 25 with Alexander ad loc. and Aet. 3. 1. 5. 12 Cf. also-in a different sense-ro iTTtKparOUv XIX. 2; echoed in Theophrastus 59 A 41 DK; Burkert (1968: 98). 13 Boyance (1974: 103 f.), referring to Kara I.t.
Star Wars or One Stable WarId?

] 71

world described as the noetic world versus the perceptible one. This is out of the question for modern interpreters of Presocratic philosophy. But it has been no less vigorously disputed that Anaxagoras could have reckoned with a plurality of worlds 'just like our own world'. Francis Macdonald Cornford would not allow any statements about a 'plurality of worlds' before the Atomists; Hermann Fränkel tried to show that Anaxagoras was describing a contrafactual world in a purely mental experiment. 15 Jaap Mansfeld suggested that the 'other worlds' migbt still be real. microscopic worlds existing within our world, since there is no limit to smallness (B 3).16 David Sider, by contrast, proposed to take the possibility of another world seriously, although, as he writes, 'after allowing for this possibility, Anaxagoras ignores it'Y Did Anaxagoras give any reasons for this? Hitherto there seemed to be no ans wer to this question. It is beyond doubt that thc possibility of 'other worlds' in conflict with our world was taken seriously, indeed was dramatized by the Atomists into a scenario of catastropbe. Dcmocritus held that our world, formed of atoms, will only persist 'until some stronger necessity from thc encompassing (sc. complex of bodies) arrives and utterly shakes and throws apart the atoms', EW'; iUXVPOTEPU TL, EK TOU 7TEptEXOVTO,' avaYK7] 7TUPUYEVOpivYJ OtaUE{U7]t Kui xwpi, UVTll, OtaU7TE{PYJt. This is quoted by Simplicius from Aristotle's special study DEpi LJ7]fJ.,OKp{TOV. 18 Aristotle also mockingly wrote that he had long been afraid lest his own house might be destroyed by a storm, by age, or by thc architecrs fault; but now a greater danger was hovering overhead because of these pcople, who were destroying the universe-by ratiocination. 19 The vocabulary of the Democritus text is notably elose to our fragment: here too we get avaYK7]; stars and thc Milky Way as viewed in our text are elose to the 7TEptEXOV. 15 F. M. Cornford, 'Innumerable Worlds in Presocratic Philosophy', CQ 28 (1934) 1-16; Hermann Fränkel, Wege und Formen Frühgriechischen Denkens, 3rd edn. (Munich 1960), 284-93, with an interesting though strained discussion of the use of the potentialis; cf. G. VIastos, Gnomon 31 (1959), ] 99-203, repr. with some additions in R. E. Allen amI D. }. Furley (eds.), Studies in Presocratic Philosophy, ii (London, 1975),354-60. 16 }. Mansfeld, 'Anaxagoras' other world', Phronesis, 25 (1980),1-4, cf. Mansfeld, Die Vorsokratiker, 487 f.; Kirk, Raven, and Schofield, Pl'esocratic Philosophers, 380 leave the question open. 17 Sider, Fragments oI AnaxalJoras, 71 f. 18 68 A 37 DK = Arist. n.pllJ"f}/-wJ
172

WaIter Burkert

or rather luxvp6TaTO', is an important word and concept for the Derveni author,20 as it had been for Anaxagoras, who stressed that Nous 'is strongest', luxvEt p.,EYWTOV (B 12). In the background there is an old saying of tradition al wisdom, that 'Necessity is strongest', luxvp6TaTOV dvaYK'I].21 Yet our author, after developing the possibility of rival worlds, emphatically contradicts this. For hirn Ananke has the function of holding our world together and does this by keeping separate from one another the elements capable of creating new heavenly bodies. This recalls Parmenides, who stated that Ananke has fettered heaven to hold the limits of the stars (B 10.6 f. DK), and Pythagoras, who, according to doxography, held that 'necessity is laid around the kosmos', dVUYK'I]V 7TEpLKEiuBaL TlJ.JL K6up.,WL. 22 But our author is not content to refer to impersonal Ananke: it is 'the god' who wished this world to be as it is, he has created the sun accordingly.23 'The god' is evidently identical with Zeus, the Air, 7TvEvp.,a,
'Iuxvp6"

Cf. co!. IX. 1-12. Thales in Diog. Laert. 1. 35, 11 A 1 DK; quoted in Eur. Ale. 965. 11 Aet. 1. 25. 2 (not in DK); cf. [Iambl.) Theal.ar. p. 81.19; Plat. Rep. 616c; W. Burkert, Lore and Science in Ancient Pythagoreanism (Cambridge. Mass.1972), 75-7. 23 Cf. XV. 4 about the sun's stability, 1T~~a<; i'aXH. 24 Heraclitus B 30 DK; that god, or a god, 'made' heaven and earth is a common expression in Akkadian, Persian (Behis1un inscription) and Hebrew (Gen. 1.1). 25 Women are aIIowed 10 'come together' (avvEpxovrat) on special days only, IG II1IIF 1177 =F. Sokolowski, Lais Sacrees des Citis Grecques (Paris, 1969), nr. 36. 11. 10 21

Star Wars or One Stable Warld?

173

on 'the god'; his will is there 10 prevcnt what must not happen. One may recall what Heraclitus said about the divine power behind all human laws (B 114 DK): KpaTEt yap TOaOVTOV oKoaov ~8€)..H Kat ~gapKEt; 'miaL Kai 7TEPLy{vETaL/ 6 Heraclitus is quoted in our text at least once (col. IV), and looms large in it. May we transfer our author' s reasoning to Anaxagoras? The result would be that David Sider was right to acknowledge the idea of 'another world' in a concretc sense even in Anaxagoras, but that Hermann Fränkel was right too to stress that this is a contrafactual hypothesis: Anaxagoras allows for the possibility that similar worlds could develop 'elsewhere' just 'as with us', bul finally rules out this possibility. His counter-argument must have been less explicit than in our author, since it seems to have escaped Simplicius. It is still dear that Anaxagoras' world is created and moved by Naus, and Naus is one. Perhaps Anaxagoras, in his original text, just introduced the two aspects of his cosmogony one after the other, arguing first for U7T()KPWL<;, which means factual differentiation 01' the original indistinct state, and then for Naus, as thc ruling force behind this process; it is exactly in this sequence that Theophrastus sums up his reasoning. 27 JhOKPWL<; could happen everywhere, but Naus is centred on a single world. It is striking that there is a somewhat comparable sequence in the theogony of 'Orpheus', whom our author is following. Apparently the world came into being twice, onee in the fashion of Hesiodie cosmogony, with generations of gods, their succession and conflict; Helios is introduced in this context by the commentator (cols. XIII-XV) to stand for aseparated phallus (of Ouranos?) in the mythical aceount. Then, by an aet of 'swallowing' (KaTE7TLVE co!. XIII. 4), Zeus becomes 'the only one' (col. XVI. 6) and proceeds to create the world afresh by rational planning, characterized by (E)fL~aaTo (col. XXII. 4). It is within this process of purposeful creation that our passage comments upon the sun and moon. Whether this bipartition of cosmogony in 'Orpheus' has anything to do with the probable sequence of Anaxagoras' account and the introduction of Naus is an open questiou. Democritus, who used to ridieule Anaxagoras' Naus,28 drew the opposite conclusiou, assuming factually coexisting worlds in the 26 27 28

Herclitus B 114 DK, cf. XIX. 3 f. " d-ryp €7TtKPUTEl Toaoihov Theophrastus in Simpl. Phys. 27. 2:= 59 A 41 DK. 68 B 5 DK.

öaof.'

ßoVAETa,.

174

Walter Burkert

infinite. Even if he knew our text, he will hardly have been impressed: what the author has produced is not really an argument, but a piece of pious rhetoric. 29 Matters are different with Plato, who reverts to arguing for a single worid on the basis of his theory of Ideas: this world has its ideal prototype which is one, and it should be similar to it precisely through its fLovwaL<;.30 Yet for the additional thesis that this kosmos is indestructible, Plato has no other argument but the very will of the creator, just as the Derveni author had proclaimed. 31 There is nothing to indicate that our author has read the Timaeus; on the other hand, there is no proof either that Plato knew our text, although this is not to be excluded. 32 At any rate the passage allows a glimpse of discussions which originated with the Presocratics and still stand behind Plato's great dialogue. The Derveni author appears to be less idiosyncratic or marginal than some have thought, and instead emerges as one of the intellectuals of his time. 29 For TowiJTov Kai ToaovTov (!ine 11) cf. Gorgias, Palamedes 13 (82 B 11a DK); the expression does not presuppose the Platonic-Aristotelian logic of 'quality' versus 'quantity'. 30 Plat. Tim. 31ab; note /-,OVOYEV~, b3, a concept presupposed also in the Derveni theogony in which Zeus /-,oDvo,
Bibliography 01' the Derveni Papyrus MARIA SERENA FIlNGHI

Editions KAPSOMENOS, S. G. (1964), '''0 OP
Illustrations Journal ofHellenic Studies, Archaeological Reports, (1961-2),14. Bulletin de Correspondance HelIenique, 86 (1962), 794, figs. 4-5. American Journal of Archeology, 66 (] 962), 108, fig. 4. ClassicaI WorId, 56 (1963), 245--7. Revue Archeologique, (1963.1), 180, figs. 1-2. )tpxawAoY'KOV LlEAr{ov, 19.1 (1964),12-]5. Bulletin ofthe American Society o(Papyrologists, 2 (1964-5),13-14. SEIDER, R. (1970), Paläographie der griechischen Papyri, ii. Literarische Papyri (Stuttgart: Hiersemann), I. TSANTSANOGLOU and PARAsSOGLOU (1988), cf. Studies, below, Tav. IV after p. 128 TURNER, E. G. (1971), Greek Manuscripts of the Ancient WorId (Oxford: Clarendon Press), 51. --(1987), Greek Manuscripts of the Ancient WorId, 2nd edn., with additions by P. Parsons, Bulletin of the Institute o( ClassicaI Studies, University ofLondon, Supplement 46 (London: Institute ofClassical Studies), 51. Palaeography CRISCI, E. (1996), Scrivere greco fuori d'Egitto, Papyrologica Florentina 27 (Florence: Gonnelli), 9-11. KAPSOMENOS (1964), cf. Editions, supra, 19-21.

176

BibIiography 01 the Derveni Papyrus

KAPSOMENOS (1964-5). Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists. 2: 7-9. SEIDER (1970). cf. Illustrations. supra. 35-36. TURNER (1971). cf. Illustrations. supra. 92. --(1987a). cf. Illustrations. supra. 92. 151.

Studies P. MERTENS (ed.). Catalogue des Papyrus litteraires grecs et latins. forthcoming. 2465.1 =R. A. Pack. The Greek and Latin Literary Textsfrom Greco-Roman Egypt. 2nd edn. (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. 1965). 2465a. ADORNO. F. (1975). 'Da Orfeo a Platone. L'Orfismo come problematica filosofica·. in Orjismo in Magna Grecia. Atti XIV Convegno di Studi sulla Magna Grecia. Taranto 6-10 Ottobre 1974 (Napies: Arte Tipografica). 9-32 (12-13). AWERINK. L. J. (1981). Creation and Salvation in Ancient Orphism. American Studies in Classical Philology. 8 (Ann Arbor: Scholars Press). 25-53. 117-21. passim. BARNES. J. (1979). The Presocratic Philosophers. ii (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul). 316 n. 11. --(1982). The Presocratic Philosophers. second edition (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul). 637 n. 16.646 n. 11. BAXTER. T. M. S. (1992). The Cratylus: Plato's Critique of Naming. Philosophia Antiqua. 58 (Leiden: Brill). 93. 98 n. 67. 115 n. 39. 118. 128. 130-9. 142. BERNABE. A. (1989). 'Generaciones de dioses y sucesi6n interrumpida. EI mito hitita de Kumarbi, la "Teogonfa" de Hesfodo y la dei "Papiro de Derveni .. •. Aula Orientalis. 7: 159-79 (167-70.178). --(1992a). 'Una forma embrionaria de reflexi6n sobre ellenguaje: la etimologfa de nombres divinos en los orficos·. Revista espaiiola de lingüistica. 22: 26-54. --(1992b). 'La poesfa 6rfica. Un capftulo reencontrado de la literatura griega·. Tempus. n° 0: 5-41 (33-5). --(1994). 'Consideraciones sobre la epica griega perdida·. in J. A. L6pez Ferez (ed.). La epica griega y su injluencia en la literatura espanola (Madrid: Ediciones Clasicas). 156-88 (176). BINGEN. J. (1967). Chronique d·Egypte. 42: 214. BLAKE. W. E. (1962). 'Oldest Greek Papyrus Discovered?·. Classical World. 55.6: 161. BÖHME. R. (1988). 'Homer oder Orpheus?'. Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik. 71: 25-31.

Bibliography 01 the Derveni Papyrus

177

--(1989), 'Neue Orpheusverse auf dem Derveni-Papyrus', Emerita, 57: 211-38. BOYANCE, P. (1974), 'Remarques sur le Papyrus de Derveni', Revue des Etudes Grecques, 87: 91-110. --(1975), 'Eleusis et Orphee' (review of Graf (1974», Revue des Etudes Grecques, 88: 195-202. BRISSON, L. (198Sa), 'Les Theogonies orphiques et le papyrus de Derveni. Notes critiques' (review of West (1983) ), Revue de lTIistoire des Religions, 202.4: 389--420; repr. in Brisson (1995). - - (1985b), 'La lIigure de Chronos dans la theogonie orphique et ses antecedents iraniens', in D. Tiffeneau (ed.), Mythes et representation du temps, (Paris: CNRS), 37-55 (38, 53 n. 5); repr. in Brisson (1995). - - (1987), 'Proclus et l'Orphisme', in Proc1us. Leeteur et interprete des Anciens, Colloques internationaux du CNRS (Paris: CNRS), 53 n. 11; repr. in Brisson (1995). --(1990), 'Orphee et l'Orphisme a l'epoque imperiale', Llufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, ii,36.4 (Berlin and New York: de Gruyter), 2877-82; repr. in Brisson (1995). --(1991), 'Damascius et l'Orphisme', in P. Borgeaud (ed.), Orphisme et Orphee (en l'honneur de f. Rudhardt), Recherches et Rencontres 3 (Geneva: Droz), 157-209 (202-3 n. 49); repr. in Brisson (1995). --(1992), 'Le Corps 'dionysiaque'. L'anthropogonie decrite dans le Commentaire sur le Phecton de Platon (1, par. 3-6) attribue a Olympiodore estelle orphique?', in EOrJ>IHE MAIHTOPEE. Chereheurs de sagesse. Hommage cl Jean Fepin, Collection des Iitudes Augustiniennes. Serie Antiquite 131 (Paris: Institut d 'Etudes Augusti niennes), 481-99; repr. in Brisson (1995). --(1993), Orphee: Poemes magiques et eosmologiques (Paris: Les Beiles Lettres), 57-63, 162-3. - - (1995), Orphee et l'Orphisme dans l'Antiquite greco-romaine, (Aldershot and Brookfield: Variorum). BURKERT, W. (1968), 'Orpheus und die Vorsokratiker. Bemerkungen zum Derveni-Papyrus und zur pythagoreischen Zahlenlehre' , Antike und Abendland, 14: 93-114 (93-102). --(1969), 'Das Proömium des Parmenides und die Katabasis des Pythagoras'. Phronesis, 14: ] -)0 (3). --(1970), 'La Genese des choses et des mots. Le papyrus de Derveni entre Anaxagore et Cratyle', Etudes Philosophiques, 25: 443-55. --(1972), Lore and Scienee in Ancient Pythagoreanism (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard UniversiLy Press), 38, 125, 129 n. 50, 249 n. 48, 251 n. 63, 259 n. 101. --(1975), 'Le Laminette auree: da Orfeo a Lampone', in OrJlsmo in Magna Grecia. Atti XIV Convegno di Studi suI/a Magna Grecia, Taranto 6--10 ottobre 1974 (Napies: Arte Tipografica), 81-104 (82-3).

178

Bibliography 01 the Derveni Papyrus

W. (1977a), Griechische Religion der archaischen und klassischen Epoche (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer), 438, 440-1, 473. --(1977b), 'Orphism and Bacchic Mysteries: New Evidence and Old Problems of Interpretation', in W. Wuellner (ed.), Protocol of the 28th Colloquy of the Center for Hermeneutical Studies in Hellenistic and Modern Culture (Berkeley: Center for Hermeneutical Studies), 1-10; 12 (response by L. J. Alderink), 14 (H. D. Betz), 15-16 (J. Dillon), 17 (J. Fontenrose), BURKERT,

22 (A. Henrichs), 24 (A. Bingham Kolenkow), 28 (T. G. Rosenmeyer), 31-2 (Burkert). --(1979), 'The Derveni Papyrus and Orphic Theogony', Gray Lecture (Cambridge: Cambridge University), unpub!ished. --(1980), 'Neue Funde zur Orphik', Informationen zum altsprachlichen Unterricht, 2: 27-42 (29-34, 42, Nachtrag 1981). --(1982), 'Craft Versus Sect: The Problem ofOrphics and Pythagoreans', in B. F. Meyer and E. P. Sanders (eds.), Jewish and Christian Self-Definition, iii (Philadelphia: Fortress Press), 1-22 (1, 5, 10, 183 n. 1). --(1983a), 'Eraclito B3 e B94 DK', in 1. Rossetti (ed.), Symposium Heracliteum, Chieti 1981, i (Rome: Edizioni dell'Ateneo), 37-42. --(1983b), 'Itinerant Diviners and Magicians, in R. Hägg (ed.), The Greek Renaissance of the Eighth Century B.C.: Tradition and Innovation, Proceedings of the Second International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens 1-5 June 1981 (Stockholm), 115-19 (119). --(1985), 'Herodot über die Namen der Götter: Polytheismus als historisches Problem', Museum Helveticum, 42: 121-32 (128-30). --(1986), 'Der Autor von Derveni: Stesimbrotos IIEpt TEAET
=

Bibliography oj the Derveni Papyrus

179

--(1990), 'A proposito di un recente volume su problemi di storia della religione greca', Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura cIassica, NS 36.3: 163-74 (171). --(1994), Storia deI culto di Dioniso in Argolide (Rome: GEI), 213-15. CAVALLO, G. (1970), 'Unita e particolarismo gralico nella scrittura greca dei papiri', in Proceedings of the 12th International Congress of Papyrology (Toronto: Hakkert), 78. COLABELLA, S. (1993), 'Sul papiro di Derveni', in A. Masaracchia (ed.), Orfeo e I'Orjlsmo. Atti del Seminario Nazionale Roma-Perugia 1985-1991 (Rome: GEI), 67-75. CONCHE, M. (1986), HeracIite. Fragments (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France), 97-98, 192-4 (Fr. 23). DAUX, G. (1962), Bulletin de Correspondance Hellenique, 86: 792-3. DETIENNE, M. (1989), I:Ecriture d'Orphee (Paris: Gallimard), 114, 119, 124. --and VERNANT, J. P. (1974), Les Ruses de l'intelIigence. La metis des Grecs (Paris: Flammarion), 127-34. DONNINI-MACCIÖ, M. C. (1980), 'I 'corpuscoli' nel pensiero presocratico', in Democrito e l'lltomismo antico. Atti dei Convegno Internazionale Catania 1979, Siculorum Gymnasium, 33.1: 311-23 (317-20). EASTIlRLING, P. E., and KNOX, B. M. W. (1985), 1'he Cambridge History of Classical Literature, i (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 15-16 (Knox), 17 (EasterIing). EDWARDS, M. J. (1991), 'Notes on the Derveni Commentator', Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, 86: 203-ll. FINKELBERG, A. (1986), 'On thc Unity of Orphic and Milesian Thought', Harvard Theological Review, 79: 321-35 (322, 325-6). FUNGH!, M. S. (1979), 'Una cosmogonia orlka nel papiro di Derveni', La ParDIa del Passato, 34: 17-30. --(l980a), 'Phronesis nel papiro di Derveni', in R. Pintaudi (ed.), Miscellanea Papyrologica, Papyrologica Florentina 7 (Florence: Gonnelli), 79-86. - - (19 80b), 'll mito escatologico deI Fedone c la forza vitale delI' alwpa', La Parola deI Passaio, 35: 176-201 (186-90). --(1983), 'P.Bruxell. Inv. E 7162 e P.Med. lnv. 71.82. Due discussioni su "Olimpo" " ta ParDIa dei Passato, 38: 17--19. GAMBARARA, D. (1984a),Alle fon ti dellafilosafia dellinguaggio. 'Ungua' e 'nomi' nella cultura greca arcaica (Rome: Bulzoni), 168, 176-8, 180, 203-8. --(1984b), 'Reflexion religieuse et reflexion Iinguistique aux origines de la philosophie du langage', in S. Auroux, M. Glatigny, A. Joly, A. Nicolas, and 1. Rasier (eds.), Materiaux paur une histaire des theorics Iinguistiques (Lilie: Universite de LilIe IlI), 105-14 (109-10). GIOURI, E. (1978), '0 KpUT~pas' TOV LJEpßEVtoV, BLßA.toe~K"1} €V )Ie~vaL' )IPXatoA.OYLKij, 'ETaLpE{as 89 (Athens), 65.

T*

180

Bibliography of the Derveni Papyrus

F. M. (1991), 'Esegesi letteraria in Platone: la discussione sul carme simonideo nel Protagora', Studi Classici e Orientali, 41: 105-90

GWLIANO,

(145-6). GRAF, F. (1974), Eleusis und die orphische Dichtung Athens in vorhellenistischer Zeit, Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten 33 (Berlin and New York: de Gruyter), 8, 14, 74. --(1985a), review ofM. L. West (1983), Gnomon, 57: 585-9l. --(1985b), Griechische Mythologie (Munich and Zurich: Artemis), 176,

187. --(1991), 'Textes orphiques et rituel bacchique', in P. Borgeaud (ed.), Orphisme et Orphee (en l'honneur de J. Rudhardt), Recherches et Rencontres 3 (Geneva: Droz) , 87-102 (98). HADOT, P. (1987), 'Theologie, exegese, revelation, ecriture dans la philosophie grecque', in M. Tardieu (ed.), Les Regles de !'interpretation (Paris: Les Editions du Cerf), 15. HATZIIOANNOU, K. (1973), '''R xp~a7J TOV "KaOapaLov 7TVPO," y,d TOV JeayvwfJ-o Kai T~V dOavaaLa aTOV f)')'7JV!KO xwpo", 'E7T!aT7J/-,oV!K~ 'E7TET7Jpi, Tij, !Kij, I:XOAij, TOV )/pWTOTEAELOV llaVE7TWT7J/-,LOV ewaaAOVLK7J', 12:

51-70 (61). HATZOPOULOS, M. 8., and LOUKOPOULOU, L. D. (1992), Recherches sur les marches orientales des Temenides (Anthemonte-Kalindoia), i, MEAETry/-,aTa 11 (Athens: KEVTPOV EAA7JV!Kij, Kai pw/-,a;;Kij, dpXa!OT7JTO' TOV JOV!KOV 'I0pv/-,aTo, Jpwvwv), 136 n. 4. HENRICHS, A. (1968), 'Die 'Erdmutter' Demeter (P. Derveni und Eurip. Bakch. 275 f.)" Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, 3: 111-12. --(1975), 'Philoderns de Pietate als mythographische Quelle', Cronache Ercolanesi, 5: 19. --(1984), 'The Eumenides and the Wineless Libation in the Derveni Papyrus', in Atti de1 XVII Congresso Internazionale di Papirologia (Napoli 1983), ii (Napies: CISPE), 255-68. HENRY, M. (1986), 'The Derveni Commentator as Literary Critic', Transactions

and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, 116: 149-64. HOOD, M. S. F. (1961-2), Archaeological Reports: 15 Journal of Hellenic

Studies. HUNGER, H. (1962), Chronique d'Egypte, 37: 415-16. HUXLEY, G. L. (1984), 'Cosmogonical Connexions' (review of M. L. West (1983)), Times Literary Supplement, 25 May, no. 4,234: 597. IRIGOIN, J. (1972), review ofTurner (1971), Revue des Etudes Grecques, 85:

547. --(1984), 'Livre et texte dans les manuscrits byzantines de poetes: continuite et innovations', in C. Questa and R. Raffaelli (eds.), Illibro eiltesta. Atti deI Convegno Internazionale di Urbino 20-23 Settembre 1982 (Urbino: Universita degli Studi), 88, 96.

Bibliography of the Derveni Papyrus

181

--(1985), 'La Mise en page des ceuvres poetiques dans le livre grec, de l'antiquite a la Hn du XI' siecle', in Calames ct cahiers. Melanges de codicologie et de paleographie offerts a Leon Gilissen (Brussels: Centre d'Etude des Manuscrits), 79-87 (80). JANKO, R. (1986), review ofWest (1983), Classical Philology, 81: 154-9. KAHN, C. H. (1973), 'Language and Ontology in the Cratylus', in E. N. Lee, A. P. D. Mourelatos, and R. M. Rorty (eds.), Exegesis and Argument: Studies in Greek Philosophy Presented to G. VIastos, Phronesis Supplement I (Assen: Van Gorcum), 152-76 (156 nn. 5-6, 158 n. 9). --(1986), 'Les Mots et les formes dans le 'Cratyle' de Platon', in Philosophie du langage et {!rammaire dans l'antiquitC (Brussels and Grenoble: Editions Ousia-Universite des Sciences Sociales de Grenoble), 91-103 (98-99). KAPSOMENOS, S. G. (1963), 'Der Papyrus von Derveni. Ein Kommentar zur orphischen Theogonie', Gnomon, 35: 222--3. --(1964), cL Editions, supra. --(1964-5), 'The Orphic Papyrus Roll 01' Thessalonika', Bulletin 01 the American Society 01 Papyrologists, 2: 3-12 (with contributions by E. G. Turner, G. Daux, B. A. van Groningen, C. Preaux, C. G. WeHes, H .C. Youtie, K. von Fritz, H. L1oyd-Jones, H. MusurilIo, F. W. Walbank, R. Syme). KIRK, G. S., RAVEN, J. E., and SCHOFIELD, M. (1983), The Presocratic Philosophers, 2nd edn. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 18, 19 n. 1, 23 n. 1. 24 n. 3, 26, 30-3. KURTz, D. C., and BOARDMAN, J. (1971), Greek Burial Customs (London: Thames and Hudson), 205. LAMEDICA, A. (1990), 'La terminologia critico-letteraria dal Papiro di Derveni ai Corpora scoliografici', in Lessici Tecnici Greci e Latini, Atti dei 1 0 Seminario di Studi, 'Accademia Peloritana dei Pericolanti', Cl. Lett. Filos. 66, Suppl. 1: 83-9l. --(1992), 'n Papiro di Derveni co me commentario. Problemi formali', in Proceedings of the XIXU' International Congress of Papyrology (Cairo 2-9 September 1989), i (Cairo: Ain Shams University Center of Papyrological Studies), 325--33. LANGLOTZ, E. (1967), 'Der Sinn attischer Vasenbilder', Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift Rostock, 16.7/8: 473-80 (476). LEBEDEv, A. (1985), 'The Cosmos as a Stadium: Agonistic Metaphors in Herac\itus' Cosmology', Phronesis, 30: 131-50 (148-9). --(1989), 'Heraclitus in P.Derveni', Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, 79: 39-47. MAGRIS, A. (1978), 'Ciclo e destino nella riflessione presocratica', Memorie dell'Accademia delle Scienze di 'forino, Classe di Scienze morali, stor.iche e jilologiche, '85-139 (138).

182

Bibliography 01 the Derveni Papyrus

MAKARONAS, C. 1. (1963), }4pxaw)WytKOV Lkh{ov, 18: 193-6. MANSFELD, J. (1981), 'Bad World and Demiurge: A 'Gnostic' Motif from Parmenides and Empedocles to Lucretius and Philo', in Studies in Gnosticism and Hellenistic Religions, Etudes preliminaires aux religions orientales dans l'empire romain, 91 (Leiden: Brill), 290 and n. 59. - - (1983) (ed.), Die Vorsokratiker (Stuttgart: Reclam), 266-7 (Heraclitus Fr. 79). - - (1986), 'Aristotle, Plato, and the Preplatonic Doxography and Chronography', in G. Cambiano (ed.), Storiografia e dossografia nella filosofia antica (Turin: Tirrenia), 26-7. MASARACCHIA, A. (1993a), 'Introduzione', in A. Masaracchia (ed.), Orfeo e l'Orfismo. Atti dei Seminario Nazionale Roma-Perugia 1985-1991 (Rome: GEI), 13-26 (19). --(1993b), 'Orfeo e gli 'orfici' in Platone', in A. Masaracchia (ed.), Orjeo e l'Orfismo. Atti dei Seminario Nazionale Roma-Perugia 1985-1991 (Rome: GEI), 173-97 (174). MERKELBACH, R. (1967), 'Der orphische Papyrus von Derveni', Zeitschrijtjür Papyrologie und Epigraphik, 1: 21-32. MORAUX, P. (1984), Der Aristotelismus bei den Griechen von Andronikos bis Alexander von Aphrodisias, ii: Der Aristotelismus im I. und II. ]h. n. Chr. (Berlin and New York: de Gruyter), 6, 51 n. 171. MOURAVIEV, S. N. (1985a), 'The Heraclitean Fragment of the Derveni Papyrus', Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, 61: 131-2. --(1985b), 'Traditio Heraclitea (A). Corpus fontium veterum de Heraclito IV', Vestnik Drevnej Istorii, 4: 41-2. --(1991), Heraclitea IV.A, Heraclite d'Ephese. Les Muses ou de Ia Nature (Moscow and Paris: 'Myrmekia'), 1, n D 4. - - (1993), Heraclitea II.A.1, Heraclite d'Ephese. La tradition antique et medilivale, i: D'Epicharme a Platon et Heraclide Ie Pontique (Paris and Moscow: 'Myrmekia'), 60-62 (12 T 87). OBBINK, D. (1994), 'A Quotation ofthe Derveni Papyrus in Philodemus' On Piety', Cronache Ercolanesi, 24: 1-39. OSCHENSCHLAGER, E. L. (1963), 'The Dherveni Finds', Classical World, 56: 245-7. PFEIFFER, R. (1968), History oj Classical Scholarship; From the Beginnings to the End ofthe Hellenistic Age (Oxford: Clarendon Press), 103 n. 3. --(1978), Geschichte der klassischen Philologie. Von den Anfängen bis zum Ende des Hellenismus (Munich: Beck), 132 n. 100, 175 n. 109,290,292. PICARD, C. (1963), 'Usages funeraires grecs recemment reveles en Macedoine et Scythie mineure', Revue Archeologique, 1: 179-94 (186, 192-3). --(1966), 'Apres la lecture--encore partielle--du Papyrus de Dherveni .. .', in Melanges Carcopino (Paris: Hachette), 737-46.

Bibliography 01 the Derveni Papyrus

183

PIERRIS, A. L. (1992), 'Origin and Nature of Early Pythagorean Cosmogony', in K. 1. Boudouris (ed.), Pythagorean Philosophy (Athens: International Center for Greek Philosophy and Culture), 126-62 (143 n. 6a; 161 n. 96). PIPPIDI, D. M. (1967), 'tn jurul papirilor de la Derveni ~i Callatis', Studii CIasice, 9: 203-10. PRONTERA, F. (1978), 'Sulla laminetta di Hipponion', La ParDIa deI Passato, 33: 48-58. PUGLIESE CARRATELLI, G. (1974a), 'Un sepolcro di Hipponion e un nuovo testo orfico', La Parola dei Passato, 29: 110-26 (124-5). --(1974b), 'Orphika', La Parola de1 Passato, 29: 135-44 (140):=Tra Cadmo e Orfeo (Bologna: Il Mulino (1990»,396. --(1976), 'Orphikos bios', II VeItro, 20: 235-47 (236)=Tra Cadmo e Orfeo (Bologna: Il Mulino (1990»),404-5,408. QUISPEL, G. (1978), 'The Demiurge in the Apocryphon of John', in R. McL. Wilson (ed.), Nag Hammadi and Gnosis (Leiden: Brill) , 1-33 (16-17). REALE, G., 1974 (ed.), AristoteIe. Sul Cosmo (Napies: Morano), 273 n. 36. RICCIARDELLI APICELLA, G. (1980), 'Orfismo e intcrpretazione allegorica', Bolletino dei Classici, 3.1: 116-30. --(1993), 'Le teogonie orfiche nell'ambito delle teogonie greche', in A. Masaracchia (ed.), Orfeo e I'Orßsmo. Atti dei Seminario Nazionale RomaPerugia 1985-1991 (Rome: GEI), 27-51 (43-5). RICHARDSON, N. J. (1975), 'Homeric Professors in the Age of the Sophists', Proceedings ofthe Cambridge Philological Society, NS 21: 65-81 (68,70 n. 2, 71 n. 6, 72). --(1985), review of M. L. West (1983), Classical Review, NS 35 (=: 99): 87-90. RUDHARDT, J. (1991), 'Quelques reflexions sur les hymnes orphiques', in P. Borgeaud (ed.), Orphisme et Orphee (en I'honneur de J. Rudhardt) , Recherches et Rencontres 3 (Geneva: Droz) , 263-88 (271--72). RUSTEN, J. (1984), 'Phanes-Eros in the Theogony of 'Orpheus' in P.Derveni', in Atti deI XVII Congresso Internazionale di Papirologia (Napoli 1983), ii (Napies: CISPE), 333-5. --(1985), 'Interim Notes on the Papyrus from Derveni', Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, 89: 121--40. SCALERA MCCLINTOCK, G. (1988), 'La Teogonia di Protogono nel Papiro Derveni. Una interpretazione dell'Orfismo', Filosofia e TeoIogia, 2.1: 13949. SCARPI, P. (1987), 'Diventare dio. La deificazione dei defunto neHe lamine auree dell'antica Thurii', Museum Patavinum, 5: 197-217 (209, 2] 5). SCHIBU, H. S. (1990), Pherekydes of Syros (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 35-7,60-1,68, 108 n. 10, 126 n. 46.

184

BibIiography

0/ the Derveni Papyrus

SCHÖNBECK, L. (1993), 'Heraclitus Revisited (Pap. Derveni co!. I lines 7-1])" Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, 97: 7-22. SCHWABL, H. (1978), 'Zeus', RE Supp!. 15 (Munich), 1326ff. SEAFORD, R. (1986), 'Immortality, Salvation, and the Elements', Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, 90: 1- 26 (19 n. 87, 20-1). SIDER, D. (1987), 'Heraclitus B3 and 94 in the Derveni Papyrus', Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, 69: 225-8. SLUITER, r. (1990), Ancient Grammar in Context: Contributions to the Study of Ancient Linguistic Thought (Amsterdam: V.U. Univ. Press), 11. SNELL, B. (1966), 'Hera als Erdgöttin', in Gesammelte Schriften (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht), 158-9. SPEYER, W. (1970), Bücherfunde in der Glaubenswerbung der Antike, Hypomnemata 24 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht), 44, 46 n. 14. --(1981), Büchervernichtung und Zensur des Geistes bei Heiden, Juden und Christen, Bibliothek des Buchwesens 7 (Stuttgart: Hiersemann), 27. TARAN, L. (1972), 'The creation Myth in Plato's Timaeus', in J. P. Anton and G. L. Kustas (eds.), Essays in Ancient Creek Philosophy (Albany: State

University of New York Press), 372-407 (407 n. 162). TORTORELLI GHIDINI, M. (1985), 'Euphrone: una divinita orfica?', La Parola deI Passato, 40: 419-25. --(1989), 'Nephele: una metafora orfica arcaica', La Parola deI Passato, 44: 29-36. --(1991). 'Due nuovi teonimi orfici nel papiro di Derveni', in P. Borgeaud (ed.), Orphisme et Orphee (en l'honneur de J. Rudhardt), Recherehes et Rencontres 3 (Geneva: Droz), 249-61. TSANTSANOGLOU, K. (1992), 'Heraclitus IT', Corpus dei Papiri Filosoßci Greci e Latini. Testi e lessico nei papiri di cultura greca e latina dal secolo IV a. C. al VII d.C., I.l ** (Florence: Olschki), 221-6. --and PARAsSOGLOU, G. M., (1988), 'Heraclitus in the Derveni Papyrus', in A. Brancacci et aI.. Aristoxenica, Menandrea, Fragmenta Philosophica, Studi e Testi per il Corpus dei papiri filosofici greci e latini 3 (Florence: Olschki ), 125-33. TURNER, E. G. (1968), Greek Papyri: An Introduction (Oxford: Clarendon Press), 1. 24, 39, 77. --(1980a), Greek Papyri: An Introduction, 2nd edn. (Oxford: Clarendon Press), 1. 18, 39, 56, 77, 205. --(1980b), 'Ptolemaie Bookhands', Scrittura e Civiltd. 4: 26, 38. --and PARSONS, P. (1987), cf. Illustrations, supra. --TSANTSANOGLOU, K., and PARAsSOGLOU, G. M. (1982), 'On the Derveni Papyrus', Gnomon, 54: 855-6. VANDERPOOL, E. (1962), American Journal of Archaeology, 66: 390. VIAN, F. (1984), review ofM. L. West (1983), Revue de Philologie, 58: 288. VOKOTOPOULOU, 1. (1990), 'NEa T07TOypa4>LKU aTo,xeta y'u TT]V xwpa TWV

Bibliography 01 the Derveni Papyrus

185

XaAK'Uwv', in 116A" Ka, xwpa arr,v apxa{a MaK.8ov{a Ka, 8paKYJ. MVTJI-'YJ LI. Aa'ap{8YJ (Thessaloniki), 109-44 (111). VOUTIRAS, E. (1989), 'Libelli ... Persephonae maxima dona', in H-U. Cain, H. Gabelmann, and D. Salzmann (eds.), Festschrift für N. Himmelmann, Beihefte der Bonner Jahrbücher 47 (Mainz: von Zabern), 355-60 (360 nn. 39,43). WEST, M. L. (1976), 'Graeco-Oriental Orphism in the Third Century RC.', in D. M. Pippidi (ed.), Assimilation et n!sistance ala cuIture greco-romaine dans Ie monde ancien, Travaux du VIe Congres international des Etudes Classiques Madrid 1974 (Bucharest: Editura Academiei and Paris: Les Beiles Lettres), 221-6 (222). --(1983), The Orphic Poems (Oxford: Clarendon Press), 25 n. 67, 68-115. WEST, S. (1965), The Ptolemaic Papyri of Homer, Papyrologica Coloniensia 3 (Cologne and Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag), ] 92-3. WILSON, N. (1983), 'Scoliasti e commentatori', Studi CIassici e OrientaIi, 33: 85. --(1984), 'The Relation ofText and Commentary in Greek Books', in C. Questa and R. Raffaelli (eds.), 1I !ibro e iI testo. Atti deI Convegno Internazionale di Urbino 20-23 Settembre 1982 (Urbino: Universitii degli Studi), 105. ZHMITD', L. Y. (1983), 'Orficheskij papirus iz Derveni',Vestnik Drevnej Istorii, 2: 118-39.

Index of Passages in the Derveni Papyrus compiled by Dr John A. Palmer

References are by column(s) or by column and line(s).

I I.

7

10.93.96 75, 83, 96. 133 n. J 3

IV. ]

3

V 1I

3-4 4 11. 6 11. 7 H. 8 1I. 11.

III

I1I.4 5-6 m. 5 III. 6-7 m. 6 III. 7 III. 8 III.

IV

IV. IV.

2 3 4 5-6 5 6

IV. IV. IV. IV.

7ff. 7 9 10

IV. IV. IV. IV.

10, 93, 96. 102--3 75,133 n. 13 83 102 102,104·-5 78 n. 21, 104-5 10, 26. 28. 94, 96, 101, 105-6 102, ] 05, 133 61 96,106 83, 106, 133 n. 13 6, 10 n. 3, 76, 106 99,106 96. 106 11,27,32,34,35.44, 53,60,76,82,94,96·7, 101, 106-10, 129, 129 n. 1, 133 n. 13, 129-48 passim, 173 96,106-7 96--7, 107 97,107-9 1H-5 41 n. 4, 97, 107 11 n. 4, 44 n. 9, 97, 109, 129 n. 1, 135 44 n. 9, 6011. 15 71, 130 60 n. 14, 75, 131 141

V-VII V-VI

v.4 v. 6 v.1O v.13 VI

VI. VI. VI. VI. VI. VI. VI. VI. VI. VI. VI. VI. VI. VI. VI. VI. VI. VI. VII

1 2 3 4-5 4 5-I.J 5-6 5 6-10 6-7 6 8-9 8 9-10 9 10-] J 10 11

97 ] 1, 28 n. 10, 53, 77, 78, 94-5,97-8. 101, 110, 122, 132 26,28 35 76 n. 19 51, 83, 132 63 n. 23 63 n. 23 11-12, 51, 65, 82, 95, 98,99, 103, 110-17, 121, 133, 133 n. 13 76,110 111 111-13 86 113 82 75 76 53 102-3 75, 76 117 76. 154 76 76 102 99 103 12,79,81,95,98,117, 133-4

188 VI!. VI!. VII. VII. VII. VII. VII. VII. VII. VII. VII. VII. VII. VII. VII.

2 3 4 5 6 7-8 7 8ft'. 8 9 10 11 12-13 14 15

Index of Passages in the Derveni Papyrus 118-19, 126 119 12 n. 8, 65, 120-1 42,65,121 121 120, 135 41, 122 120, 124, 126 123 79 n. 24,123 121, 124, 128 128 128 128 128

XII. XII. XII. XII. XII. XII. XII. XII. XII. XII. XII.

IX IX. IX. IX. IX. IX.

1-12 2-3 2 5 10

X-XI X

x.7 x. 9-10 x. 11ff.

66-7 12,26 67 n. 3 67 n. 3, 74 n. 14 68 n. 5 41 n. 2, 120 n. 52, 146 ]2 n. 10 12 n. 11 67 n. 3 67 n. 3 13, 67 n. 3, 74 172 n. 20 76, 77, ] 21 51, 65, 146 13 n. 13, 52, 77 65,134 35, 67 n. 3 13,27, 77 13 n. 17 78 13 n. 19

XIII. XIII. XIII. XIII. XIII. XIII. XIII.

XIV. XIV. XIV. XIV. XIV. XIV. XIV. XIV. XIV. XIV. XIV. XIV. XIV.

3 6-7 8-9

XI. Xl.

12f.

10

XII-XIII XII XII. 1 XII. 2 XII. 3 XII. 4-5

14,27 62 n. 22, 131 n. 7 41 n. 3 41 n. 3, 44, 130 n. 4 152 n. 9 14 n. 24 27 14,5],149-65passim 81, 128, 152 152-3, 152 n. 10 121, ] 53-4 146

1 3 4 5-6 6 9 1Off. 10

1 2-3 2 3 4-7 4 5-12 5 6 7-8 7 8-14 8-13 llff.

15,27,34,60,68,68 n. 5, 159, 164 68 n. 5, 157, ]68 n. 3 69 72 62 n. 22 62 167 n. 2 69 n. 6 45 n. 9, 81 65,69 73 167 n. 2 73 69 15 n. 34

xv xv. 1-2 XV. 1 xv. 2 3 4 xv. 5 xv. 6 xv. 8 xv. 9 XV. 11 XV. XV.

25, 154 154-5 51, 65, 154 155 155 155, 157 156 159 157,158 157,158 157 173 14-15,27,35,36,67, 78 6';' n. 3 121, 168 68 n. 5, 69 n. 6,173 120 45,134 62 n. 22 15 n. 30 170

XIV

XIV. XI Xl. XI. XL

lO

ll-·13 11 12 13

XIII-XV XIII XIII.

VIII-XII VIII VIII. 2 VIII. 4-5 VIII. 5 VIII. 6 VIII. 7 VIII. 9ff. VIII. 9 VIII. 11

4 5-6 5 6-7 7 9

16,27,70 73 ]6 n. 35, 16 n. 36, 62, 167 n. 2 72 62 n. 22 172 n. 23 81, 128 45 n. 9, 68, 70, 73 62, 74 n. 14, 168-9 172 45 n. 9

Index of Passages in the lJerveni Papyrus XV.

13

XVI XVI. XVI. XVI. XVI. XVI. XVI. XVI. XVI. XVI. XVI. XVI.

1 2 3-6 3 6 7-8 7 8 9 I1ff. 12

XVII-XVIII XVII XVII. XVII. XVII.

Iff. 2 5 7ff. 8 9 11 12 13ff. 13 16

XVII. XVII. XVII. XVII. XVII. XVII. XVII. XVII. XVIII XVIII. XVIII. XVIII. XVIII. XVlll. XVIII. XVIII. XVIII. XVIII. XVIII. XVIII. XVIII. XVIII. XVIII. XVIII. XVIII.

1-12 1-)() 1 2ff. 2 3--4 3 5·-6 5 6-7 6 9ff. 10 12ff. 12 14

XIX XIX. XIX. XIX. XIX. XIX.

Iff. 1 2-7 2 3-4

73 16-17,27 62 n. 22 51. 138. 138 H. 29. l69 69.72 16 H. 39, 69 n. 6 73 n. 11.] 73. 174n. 30 51. 72. 138 n. 29 44 n. 8 138 73 H. 1]. 168 ] 7 11. 40 128 136 17.27.33 88 51. 72 42 42 5].72 72 120 n. 52 52 n. 21. 69 H. 6, 70. 72 17 n. 45 65 146

XIX. XIX. XIX. XIX. XIX. XIX.

xx xx. ]-10 xx. 1-3 XX. 1 xx. 2-3 XX. 5 XX. 6 xx. 7-8 xx. 8 xx. 9 XX. 10 xx. 11ff. xx. 11-12 XX. 11 xx. 14-15 XXI XXI. XXI.

17-18.27.33,60 157 74 1711.46 121 121 132 42 60 ll. 16 65, 121 172

XXI. XXI. XXI. XXI.

121

XXII

88, 172 62 n. 20 18 11. 48 70 117,121 18.27.33.35 88,136 18 n. 50 74 170 n. 12 131.173 n. 26

3 8 10 I1fl". 12 13

XXI. XXI. XXI. XXI. XXI. XXI.

XXII. XXII. XXII. XXII. XXII. XXII. XXII. XXII. XXII. XXII. XXII.

1-2 1 2 3 5 6-9 7fl 9tT. 9 10-11 12ff. 12

1-2 2 4 6-7 7- j 1 9 10 1Hf. ll·-12 II

12--13

189 60 H. 16 157 69 H. 6. 70 18 H. 52. 117 5211.21 52 n. 21

4.5.18-19.26.27.28. 42-3.43-7.51-2.52 n.21. 78,83. 102, 117 28.45 46.76,76 n. 19 52 H. 21 65. l20 78 52 n. 21 133 46.65 47 44.13011.4 44 45.45 n. 10 52 H. 21 42 n. 6 19.33.71 n. 7 4411. 8 19 n. 53. 70, 168. 169. 169 n. 7 167 n. 2.169,170 n. 13 19 n. 54. 169 73. 169 70 132 88 51 70 19 H. 56 70 20.27.33.45.48. 50H.19 61 52 173 76 71 62 49 n. 14 41 174 n. 32 127 71

Index of Passages in the Derveni Papyrus

190 13ff.

20 n. 57

XXIII-XXV

71 20,27,35 51-2 121, 146 120 157 76 51,65, 77 77 73 51, 65, 121 77 44 n. 9 136 81, 128 20 n. 59

XXII.

XXlII XXIII. XXIII. XXIII. XXIII. XXIII. XXIII. XXIII. XXIII. XXIII. XXIII. XXIII. XXIII. XXIII. XXIII.

1-3 1-2 1 2-4 2-3 2 3 4 5 6 7 9-10 10 12ff.

XXIV.

xxv xxv. xxv. xxv. xxv. xxv. xxv. xxv.

1 2 8 9 10-12 ]1 12-13 XXV. 12 xxv. 13-14 XXVI XXVI. XXVI. XXVI.

XXIV XXIV. XXIV.

3-5 8

21, 27 157 21 n. 61

9

XXVI. XXVI. XXVI.

1 2 5 8 10 13fT.

21 n. 61 21. 27. 35. 60. 73 n. 10, 110, 167-74 passim 168 167 n. 2 108 n. 24, 168, 170 168 74 60 n. 15, 174 n. 29 120 74 n. 14, 168 21 n. 65 22.27 n. 5. 35.41, 49 n. 15, 74. 130 73 n. 11 41 n. 4, 71, 120 n. 52, 127, 168 41 n. 4, 127, 168 51. 65, 76. 120 n. 49. 121 71 22 n. 70

Index of Passages in Other Ancient Authors compiled by Dr John A. Palmer

References are typically listed by author or by author and work(s). In some cases reference is by title alone (e.g. Anthologia Palatina. Dissoi Logoi) or by category of texts (e.g. Hesiodic Poems, Inscriptions, Orphica). There follow specific passages in standard citation form. In most cases where an abbreviation has been used in citing a work in the text. the fuU tit:le of the work has been given with the abbreviation following in parentheses. References to a work as a whole come first in the list of citations. The following abbreviations are used in this index: DK

FGrHist OF

TrGF

H. Diels, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker 6 , ed. W. Kranz (Berlin. 1951-2) F. Jacoby. Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker (Berlin and Leiden, 1923-58) O. Kern, Orphicorum Fragmenta (Berlin, 1922) B. Snel!, R. Kannicht, and S. Radt, Tragicorum graecorum fragmenta (Göttingen, 1971- ). Persae (:c, Pers.)

Aeschines Te/auges schal. 1. 188

Aeschylus fr. 6 Radt

57 n. 6 103 132

Agamemnon (= Ag.)

170ff. 645 992

35 n. 28 105 J05

Bassaridae (= Bass.)

fr. 83 Mette

35 n. 26 106 n. 20

Eumenides (= EU/n.)

331/344 344 900 1032--47

112 111 n. 27 111 n. 27 100 n. 5

Prometheus Vinctus (= Pr.)

447 688

155 121

Septem contra Thebas (= Th.)

80 533 867

136 n. 18 116 105

Supplices (= Suppl.)

Choephori (= Cho.)

357-8

158 217 6091T. 620

lOS lOS

112 105

890-1 899-900 Aetius 1. 3. 12 1. 3. 20

49 n. 14 49 n. 14 139 n. 32 139 n. 32

192

Index 01 Passages in Other Ancient Authors

1. 21. 1 1. 25. 2 3. 1. 5

156 172,172 n. 22 170 n. 11

[Alcidamas] Vlysses (= UI.) 25

80 n. 25

Alexander Polyhistor FGrHist 273 F 93

105 n. 19, 112, 112 n. 32

Anaxagoras Al DK

A41 DK A 66DK A 80DK BI DK B 3 DK B4DK

137 n. 24 33, 169, 169 n. 10, 170 n. 12, 173 n. 27 108 170,170 n. 11 33, l37, 169, 169 n. 8, 170 17l 33 170 170

B4aDK B 6DK B 11-12 DK B 12-l3 DK B 12 DK B 18 DK

33

33 33,36, l37, l37 n. 21. 172 169

Androtion FGrHist 324 F 54

80 n. 25

Anthologia Palatina 9.83.3 9.371. 1 9. 524. 14 11. 29. 3--4 11.30.4

97,97 n. 2 68 n. 5 115 n. 43 145 n. 47 145 n. 47

Antiphanes 89

104 n. 12

Apollonius of Rhodes 3.725 3. 862

157 115 n. 43

Aretaeus 1TEpt o.lTtWV Kat. fJ'lP-E{WV Xpov{wv 1Ta(Jwv (=

42. 20-8 Hude 43.5 Hude

SD)

123--4 123

Aristides Orationes (= Or.) 3. 50 41. 5 Aristophanes Aves (=Av.) 690-702 693-703 1590 Ranae (= Ran.) 342 354ff, 355 371 802 1198-9 Aristotle fr. 15 Rose fr. 18 Rose fr. 208 Rose Topica (= Top.) 152"34-5 Physica (= Phys.)

B4

125 117n.45

68 n. 5 151 n. 5 104 n. 12 115 n. 43 126 127-8 115 n. 43 120 n. 52 120 n. 52 46 n. 11 17l, 171 n. 19 171, 17l n. 18 153

108 137 187b 6 218"31-b8 156 De Generatione et Corruptione (= GC) l37 n. 22 321'35 Meteorologica (= Mete.) 170n.ll 345"25 120 n. 51 366"1 De anima (= De an.) 170n, 13 404" Iff. 33 n. 24 404"2ff. 111 n. 31 41Ob 19 130 n. 6 428 b2 De somno et vigilia (= De somn.) 458 b28 130 n. 6 460b 16 130 n. 6 Historia Animalium (= HA) 68 n. 4 493 b3-5 68 n. 4 500b6-12 70 n. 7 510"1 De Generatione Animalium (= GA) 7l6b28-30 67 n. 4 718 a 19 68 n. 4 a 757 5-8 68 n. 4 b 770 35 68 n. 4 Rhetorica (= Rhet.) 1404b 11 121

Index of Passages in Other Ancient Authors Poetiea (= Poet.) 1458 a 22 1458b 31-4

l21 131 n. 7

193

]24 Ruelle 124b Ruelle

151 n. 5 160

171.17111.18 108 108 170 n. 11 173. 173 n. 28 140 n. 34 140 n. 34

Artemidorus Onirocritica (= Onirocr.) 5. 9

104 n. 17

Bemocritus A 37DK A 66DK A 67-70 DK A 91 DK B 5DK B 15a-b DK B 155 DK

Automedon 2 G-P

145 n. 47

Demosthenes 60. 34

106 n. 20

Didymus De trinitate (=, De trin.) 2.12

135n.17

Diodorus Siculus 1. 2l. 1 4. 5. 2 5.75.4

57-8 117 n. 45 58

[Aristotle] De Mundo 401"28

27

Basil Homiliae (= Hom.). 13.5

101

Callimachus fr. 681

103

Catullus 50. 14-15 Cicero De Natura Deorum (= ND) 2. 25. 64-5 Clement of Alexandria Protrepticus (= Protr.) 2.22.4 7.74.4 Stromateis (= Strom.) 1. 21. 131. 5 6.2.17.1 6.2.27.1

145 n. 47

Diogenes of Apollonia B 3 DK

87 n. 3. ll5. 11511.42 126 40 n. 2 147 14711. 53

Cornutus Theologiae graeeae compendium (= Theol. gr.) 30 11711.45 ]61 39 Crates of Athens FGrHist 262 F 2 Damascius De principiis (= De prine.) 38 Ruelle 123 Ruelle

35

]61

7611. 19

135 n. 17 158

Diogenes La"rtius l. 5 80 n. 25 l. 35 172 n. 21 1. 119 160 13 7 n. 24. 138 n. 25 2.11 2. 22 56 8. 32 33 n. 24 8. 34 104 n. 17 9. 5 143 n. 41 9. 10 144 n. 43 9.16 139 n. 30 [Dionysius the Areopagite] De dininis nominibus (=Div.nom.) 4. 12 Dionysius 01' Halicarnassus De eompositione verborum (= Comp.) 25. 5 De oratoribus veteribus (= De orat. ant.)

2. ].4

135 n. 17

125 163

194

Index of Passages in Other Ancient Authors

Dissoi Logoi 8.13

l31 n. 7

Empedocles B 3.3-5 DK B 6DK B42DK B 115 DK B115.5DK

125 l39 n. 32 140 n. 34 112 IOO n. 7

Epicurus On Nature

39 n. 1

Etymologicum Magnum S. TE'\Er~

Euripides er. 472. 11 N2 Alcestis (= Ale.) 424 746 965 1003 schol. in Ale. 968 Bacchae (= Bacch.) 40 275-6 453 ff. 473-4 476 480 486 490 862 Hecuba (= Hec.) 320 Helena (= Hel.) 177 Hippolytus (= Hipp.) 385ff. 443 Ion 718 1049 Iphigenia Taurica (= IT) 162 Orestes (= 0/'.) 1686-7 Phoenissae (= Phoen.) 685-6

53 n. 24

115 n. 43 105 106 n. 20 172 n. 21 100 n. 5 80 n. 25 46 49 n. 14 116 102 46 102 115 n. 43 102 115 n. 43 155 lOS

145 136 n. 18 115 n. 43 115 n. 43 103 106 n. 20 49 n. 14

Eusebius Praeparatio Evangelica (= PE) 3. 1. 4 161 n. 25 Georgius Cedrenus Hist. Comp. 1. 144. 16

138, 138 n. 27

Georgius Syncellus Chron. 1. 128.21

l38. l38 n. 27

Gorgias Palamedes 13 (B 11a DK)

174 n. 29

Harpocration s. Tp,ro7TIiropE<;

111 n. 30

Hellanicus FGrHist 4 F 60

110 n. 26

Heraclitus A 5 DK B1DK B2DK B 3 DK B 5 DK B 6DK B 14 DK B Ha DK B 15 DK B 16 DK B 17 DK B 21 DK B24DK B 25 DK B 26 DK B 27 DK B 30 DK B 32 DK B 34 DK B 36 DK B40DK B43DK B48DK B 50DK B 54DK B 55 DK B 57DK B 62 DK B 63 DK

108 32, l32 n. 11 l34 27. 60 n. 14. 108. 130, 131. l39 n. 33. 144 53, 60 n. 16. 139 n. 33 144. 148 n. 55 32.115. 115 n. 43 82-3 32. 53. 145 62 n. 22 46. l33 l32 n. 11 IOO n. 7 IOO n. 7 l32 n. 11 32 172 n. 24 135 l32 147 n. 54 133 141-2 145 140 146 133 143 145. 145 n. 46 100

Index 01 Passages in Other Ancient Authors B 67 DK B 68 DK B 69 DK B 75 DK B 80DK B 88 DK B 89 DK B 91 DK B 94DK B 107 DK B 114 DK

B 119 DK B 120 DK

145 32 32 132 n. 11 144 145 134

61 n, 17 27.60 n. 14. 109. ] 31. 143. 144 140 60 n. 16. 131. 134 n. 16. 173 105.133 143. 144

IHeraclitus] Epistulae (= Epist.) 9

l09 130 n. 6 133 n. 14

9. 3 9. 6 Heraclitus

Homeric Allegories 6. 6

155 155 155 155 155 155

7. 3-4 7. 7. 7. 7.

5-7 8-9

10-11 12-]3

Hermias

Irrisio gentilium philosophorum 12 Herodas 1. 85 Herodotus 1. 108. 1 1. 132 1. 18] 2. 19 2. 48. 2 2.48.3 2. 51. 1 2. 53

2.61 2. 86. 2 2. 93. ] 2. 123. 1 2. 132.2 2. 170. 1

160 49 n. 15

68 n. 4 111.11] 11. 28

123 123 68 n. 4 58 11. 10 68 n. 4 123 57 57 70 n. 7 57 57 57

195

2. 171 2.171. J 2. ] 73 3. 65 3,104 3. 109, 1 7,4,4 7, 191

123 n. 56 57 123 154 123 70 n. 7 111 n. 27 111n.29

Herennius Philo JlGrHist 790 F I. 26

13511.17

Hesiodic Poems fr. 35. 27ff. fr. 296. 3

153.15311.11 131 n. 7

Certamen 92ff. Rzach Opera et lJies (= Op.) 25-6 121ff. 252-5 253 scholia in Res, Op. 63b Pertllsi Theogonia (= 7'h,) 42 45 62 101 118 391 497 689 702 794 947-55 953 991

50 52 100 100 106 138 n. 27 85 157 155 157 154 157 155 68 n. 5 154 155 157 153. 15311. 11 157 10011,5

Hesychius

s. ,14Y~fhEfhVWV

13811.26

s. apTaoEs

110 n. 26

S, VVKTE.\Efv

115 n. 43

Hip~o~~ates

f

I

/

1TEp' aEpwv voaTwv T01TWV

(= Acr.)

940-1 Lex

6811,4 89

5 1TEpi vOllawv

2. 2, 51. 1

(= Morb.)

70 n, 7

196

Index of Passages in Other Ancient Authors 24.694

7TEp' {Ep-fiS vovaov (== Morb. Sacr.)

1.10 18

90 47

Odyssey (== Od.)

1.5 4. 8

4.378 4.479 5. 169 5.303 6. 69 6. 150 6.243 7. 209 8. 74 8. 335

7TEp' apxa{TJS LTJTPLK-fiS (== VM)

157 56,56 n. 4

15. 1 De Victu Hippolytus ReJutatio Omnium Haeresium (== Ref.)

9. 5

133 n. 12

Homeric Poems Cypria

12. 7 Iliad (== 11.) 1. 402

2. 48 3. 364 5. 398 5. 750 5. 844-5 5. 867 7.178 7.201 8. 199 8.410 10. 7 10.437 12.278 13.754 14. 227 15.36 15. 79 15. 192-3 15.192 15. 193 18. 142 18.616 19.257 19.418 20.299 20. 385 21. 267 21. 272 21. 522 23. 71 ff. 24.468 24. 527-8

131 n. 7 137 155 155 155 155 154 146 n. 50 154, 155 155 155 155 155 158 157 158 156 156 155 155 154 155 155 155 156 155 141,142 155 156 154 n. 14, 155 155 155 112 155 22 n. 68, 27 n. 5, 41 n. 4, 130 n. 3

142 n. 39

19.418

7TEP! yvvaLKdTJS cpvaws (== Nat. MuLl

168 n. 4 68 n. 4

155

scholia in 11.

9. 6-11 10. 307 11.27-8 11. 133 11.373 11.602-3 12.55 12. 73 12. 344 12.432 13.55 16. 183 16.200 16.211 19.40 19. 108 19. 338 20. 73 22. 39 23.280 24. 351

154 n. 14, 155 154,155 155 155 154n.14 154 n. 14, ] 55 154 n. 14, 155 154 n. 14, 155 155 22 n. 67, 27 n. 5, 41 n. 4, 130 n. 3 50 155 103 154,155 155 153, 153 n. 11 ] 54 n. 14 155 155 155 155 154 n. 14, 155 154 n. 14, 155 154 n. 14, 155 154n.14,155 155 156 155 154 n. 14, 155 154, 155 155

Homeric Hymns H.Ven.

5.280

131 n. 7

H.Bacch.

7.3--4

116

H.Heracl.

15.7

152

Iamblichus De Vita Pythagorica (= VP)

3.14 28.154

119 n. 48 3]

[Iamblichus] Theologoumena arithmeticase (=Theol. ar.)

p.81.19

172 n. 22

Index of Passages in Other Ancient Authors Inscriptions Mycenaean KN F 51.2 Greek IG !VIII2 1177 IG IP 1367

LSAM 49 B 29, 39, 60 A 25

49 n. 14 172n.25 87 n. 3 104 n. 13

LSCG 2 D 8, 18 D 43, 20 B 32.53, 52.19

111 n. 30

LSCG 136. 26, 163. 18

104 n. 13

LSS 55, 57.12, 58

104 n. 13

LSS 115 A 23, 116 A 2 111 n. 30 Asklepieion of Pergamon, 87 n. 3, 1]4, no. 161 Wörrle 114 n. 41 Isocrates Grationes 6.24 11.39

154 58

[Iustinus] ad Gentiles 36

126

Kleoboulos of Lindos A 3 DK

101

Leucippus Al DK A28DK A 31 DK B2 DK

167 n. 2 170 n. 13 167 n. 2 108

Longinus 13.1

13611.19

Lucian de Astrologia (= Astr.) 10 de Syria Dea (= Syr. TJ.) 26 Necyomantia 7. 9 Lysias 19. 15

123 122-3 111n.28 154

Macrobius Saturnalia (= Sat.) 1. 18. 9 Maximus Tyrius Dissertationes (= Diss.) 98. 1 Melanthius IIGrHist 326 F 4 Menander fr. 550 Kock

197

1.17 n. 45

106. 106 n. 21 76 n. 19 133

Metrodorus 01' Lampsacus 61. 2 DK 138 n. 25 61. 3-4 DK 138 n. 25, 138 n. 26 61. 6 DK 138 n. 27, 138 n. 28 Orion Etymologicum Magnum (= Etyma/.) 163.23 138 n. 28 Orphica Olbia bone plates 50 n. 17, 145 Hipponion lamella 116 Pelinna lamella 103, 114 n. 36, 117 Pherai lamella 114, 114 n. 38, 116 Thurii lamellae A2. 4 Zunlz 114 n. 37 A3. 4 Zunlz 114 n. 37 A4 + C Zuntz 31,32n.20 A4 Zuntz 31 C Zunlz 28 n. 9, 31 Hymni Otphici (= H.Orph.) 32,35 n. 28 8 69 n. 6 14 69 n. 6 34 69 n. 6 70.1-3 134 Orphicorum Fragmenta (= OF) 1 68n.5,151n.5 7 120 n. 50 79 n. 24, 124-5 13 2]-21a 27 21a.2 52 n. 21 27 11l n. 31 28 151 n. 5 3] 114 n. 37 37 151 n. 6 54 158,158 n. 19 58 68 n. 5 59 79 n. 24 27,151 n. 6,158,158 n. 19 60 62 35 n. 26

198 64 65 66 68 70 73 84-7 85 91 96 97 103-5 103 105-6 107 115 129 144 145 155 158 164-7 164-5 165-7 167-8 167 168 168.2 169 177 197 209 221 226 232.3. 5 242 245.1 246.1 247.1-4 247.1 249 250 301-2 318 337.5 339 344 347 360 Ovid Amores (= Am.) 3.7.65-6

Index of Passages in Other Ancient Authors 151 151 151 151 151

n. 6 n. 6 n. 6 n. 6 n. 6 27 27 27 27 27.35 n. 26 27 27 67 n. 3 27 27 27 27.68 n. 5 27 33 27.67n.3 142. 142 n. 40 . 27. 67 n. 3 27 27 27 68 n. 73 n. 12 52 n. 21 73 n. 12 74 n. 13 134. 144 n. 42 120 n. 50 120 n. 50 147. 147 n. 53 114 n. 36 27. 74 n. 13 79 n. 24. 125 125 128 79 n. 24. 125 127 148 n. 55 27 i11 n. 30 134 79 n. 24 27 138 n. 28 144 n. 42

145 n. 47

Metamorphoses 10. init.

134

Papyri Edict of Ptolemy IV Philopator PGur6b 1 Parmenides A 37DK B1.14 DK B 8.4 DK B 10.6-7 DK B 11 DK

47 ]14.114 n. 37

110 142 174 172 156

Pausanias 2.34.2 5. 27. 5

104 n. 18 I11n.28

Phanodemos FGrHist 325 F6

111 n. 30

Pherecrates 50. 5-6

104 n. 12

Pherecydes F 2 Schibli F 14 Schibli F 60 Schibli F 65 Schibli F 66 Schibli F 68 Schibli F 73 Schibli F 78 Schibli F 79 Schibli F 80 Schibli F 81 Schibli F 82 Schibli F 83 Schibli

160 160 159. 160 160 160 160 160 160 160 160 160 160 160

Philochorus FGrHist 328 F 173 FGrHist 328 F 185

76 n. 19 49 n. 16

Philodemus 27G-P De pietate (= Piet.) pp. 63 + 23 Gomperz 248 I. p. 109 Schober 524-360bbink De poematis. Tract. III coIs.2.25-3.14

145 n. 47 49 n. 16 174 n. 32 138 n. 26 138 n. 26

199

Index of Passages in Other Ancient Authors Philolaos

A 16DK

156

Philoponus in de Anima

186. 24

111 n. 31

Phrynichus

TrGF 3 F 4a Pindar fr.33 fr. 133 fr. 133. 1 fr. 159 Olympian Odes (= 0.) 2. 7 2.17-19 2. 76 10. 50-5

110 n. 26

163

SO 114 n. 37 163 163 162 106 n. 20 162

Plato

Cratylus (= Crat.) 387a-d 387a 396b 396b5-7 396d5 398b 399al 39ge4ff. 400al 400e4-9 40ld 402a9 402b 403a 404b8 407d8 409a7-h6 409dl 413a2 413b4 413e 413d3 416c-d 428e7 43ge 439c3 Epistulae (= Epist.) VII 332e-5a

33.34.36.55. 56.57.63. ]65 154 154 34 62 55 n. 2 100.100 n. 5 55 n. 2. 61 60 55 n. 2. 59-60 59 61 61 61 14611. 50 62 55 n. 2. 61 62 55 n. 2. 61 62 62 62. 6211. 22 62 62 55 11. 2 136 61 29 n. 14

Euthyphro 2cl-4 3c2 4c4 4d6 6a3 6b-c 6b5 6e6 llippias Minor Ion 531a Laws (=I,eg.) 701e2 715e Meno 81a 81aIO 81b--c Phaedo (= Phd.) 62b 62b3 69c ] 18a Phaedrus 244d Philebus 66c8 Protagoras 357d Republic 363e 363c\-d2 364b5-365a3 364e 364d 364e 365d 366a4-b2 468d-468b 498a 525e 616e 617d Symposium (= Symp.) 201d 218b Theaetetus 181a Timaeus (= Tim.) 31a-b 31b3 41b-c

55 23 57 57 57 57 57 58 58 41 165 n. 31 51 n. 20 63

H.

59 n. 12 27 86 29 n. 14.37.83 55 59 n. 12 39.40 120 n. 50. 121 59 29 n. 14 104 n. 17 48 60 n. 13 30.41 101 39 n. 1 103 n. 11 56 n. 3 47.56 n. 3. llO 80 n. 25 114 114 n. 36 114 n. 36 56 n. 3 100 142 120 n. 51 172 n. 22 105 29 n. 14 79 n. 24. 124--5 56 136 174 n. 30 174 n. 30 174 n. 31

200

Index of Passages in Other Ancient Authors

42d

128 n. 62

Plutarch Aetas Romuli (= Aet. Rom.) 291a 115 n. 43 De Iside et Osiride (= Oe Iside) 363d 161 370c ]43 382d--e 53 n. 24 De dejixtu oraculorum (= De deI oracul.) 415-16 148 n. 55 417 123 n. 56 De exilio (= Oe exil.) 131. 140-1 604a 607 123 n. 56 Quaestiones conviviales (= Quaest. conviv.) 636 123 n. 56 636d 125 670d 104 n. 17 718c 53 n. 24 Platonicae quaestiones ]63 1007b De Stoicorum repugnantis 1035b 53 n. 24 Porphyry De abstinentia (= De abst.) 4. 16 104. 104 n. 14 Probus In Vergilii Bucolica 6. 31

160

Produs in Platonis Cratylum (= in Plat. Crat.) 406b 144 n. in Platonis Rempublicam (= in Flat. Remp.) 1. 125.20 120 n. 2.85.1 120 n. 142 n. 2. 145. 3

42

50 50 40

nU9ayopLKQ 'Y 1Tol.wtlllaTa

58 B 1a DK Quintus of Smyrna 3.554 6.229

609. 5-] I 170 n. 14 in Aristotelis Physica commentaria (=

Phys.) 27.2ff. 34. 29-35. 9 35. 12-13 156. 2-4 157. 9-16

169 n. 10. 173 n. 27 170 n . .14 ] 70 n. 14 170 n. 14 170 n. 14

Solon 2.3 Sophodes fr. 619 Radt fr. 752 Radt Electra (= EI.) 220 Oedipus Coloneus (= OC) 100 481 Oedipus Tyrannos (= OT)

132 116 35 n. 26

121 103 103 50 n. 19

Stesimbrotus of Thasos fIEpt TEAETWV

Strabo 10. 3. 19 10. 3. 23 15.3. 14

27.28 106 n. 20 46 Illn.28

Suidas s. (JPYJa/(E1JEL

78 n. 21

Synesius Oe providentia 2.121. 20ff. 2. 122. 19ff.

123 n. 56 123 n. 56

Thales AI DK

172.172 n. 21

Theocritus 15. 89

49 n. 14

Theodoretus 4.22

130 n. 6

Theognis 364 1348

131 n. 7 IOO n. 5

105 n. 19 157 157

Simplicius in Aristotelis de Caelo commentaria (= Cael.) 34 119.2-3 171n.18 294. 33

Theophrastus De Sensibus 67

137

Index of Passages in Other Ancient Authors Xenocrates fr. 20 Heinze

59 n. 11

Xenophanes B 27DK

139 n, 32

Xenophon Cyropaedill (= Cyr,) 3.3.22 8, 3, 24 Memombilill (= Mem.) 1.4 4. 1 Sympositlm (= Symp,) 8,9

Near Eastcrn Texts Enümll eIis

201 85.86.88

bpic ofErra

Genesis 1. 1 Ki$ir-Assur

111n,27 111 11, 27 35 35 35

11.

28

85 172

25 88-9

11,

I.Ulllul bel ni!meqi

85

l,ugllI-e

85

SlIggil-kinulII-ubbib Theodicy

85, 87

Index of Names and Subjects

Abaris 47 afterlife 53, 99-101, 110 allegoresis 4-6,26, 30, 56, 65 n. 2, 102, 111~ 31, 118, 13~ ISO, 161, 164-5 see also commentary Anaxagoras 4,33-4,35-6, 51, 60, 62, 73 n. 11. 75, 129 n. 2, 136-7, 167,169-71, 172-3 Atomism 33-4,169,170 commentary 26,28-31. 40, 54,81, 85 community, interpretative 6, 28 corpuscules 169 cosmic order 50-I, 108-9, 113, 142,

172 cosmogony/cosmology 5, 33,40,43,

50,53-4,99,102,123 Crates of Mallos 30 n. ] 5 Cratylus 33, 56, 75 cremation 5-6, 31, 80

daimones 82,96, 100, 105-6, 109, 112,133 Democritus 56, 171, 173-4 Derveni Papyrus: author 27,30,34,36-7,55-63, 75, 117 circumstances of discovery 5,25,80 date of 56 n. 56, 138, 174 n. 32 didactic function 77-80, 98 exegetical techniques 27,35-6,41, 54, 65-75, 76, 81, 152 intended audience 79,99 language 36 Near Eastern links 28,47, 50, 84-9, 103, 110-16 paragraphoi 26, 28, 44-5 place of composition 138 quotation of 49-50, 174 quotations in 26,41,44-5, 127

style 45, 76 text of 138 Diogenes ofApollonia 34,35,37,51. 62, 75, 129 n. 2, 167 Dionysus 53,57-60, 116, 145 see also mysteries Bcphantus 33 Empedocles 37,47, 112, 125 Enüma elis 85-6, 88 Bpigenes 36,40 n. 2,41. 75 Epimenides 47 Erinyes, see Eumenides eschatology 4,40, 53, 83, 98, 103,

112 etymology 33-6, 56, 59-60, 61-3, 70, 71,87-8, 144, 146 see also names BumenideslErinyes 51, 53, 75, 82-3, 96,99-101,102-5,109,114-15, 133-4,141-4 Euripides 56 Euthyphro 36, 55-63, 75, 129 n. 2 fire (heat) 6, 34 see also cremation, sun Heraclitus 5, 6, 34, 35, 36,41. 44, 51, 53,60-1, 75, 76,82,87,89, 96-7, 100, 106-7, 108-9, 115-16,129-48,173 Hermes Trismcgistus 6 Hesiod 26, 68, 100 hieros logos 26,30,47,58 n. 10 Homer 4 initiation 4-6,27-8,40,43,46-7, 52, 54, 66, 72, 74, 78-80, 99, 102, 126-7 see also mysteries Ion ofChios 165 n. 31

Index

oI Names and Subjects

knowledge/ignorance 51-2. 77 Leucippus 129 n. 2

magoi 31.51.76.82.89-90.98. Il0. 115-16 manils 55.63.98-9.117 Metrodorus 13 7--8 Milky Way 169-71 moon ] 69. ] 73 music 104-5 mysteries (Eleusinian. Dionysian) 32. 46.51.76.89.115-17 see also secrecy myth and ritual 28-30. 36-7.49-50. 58. 74 n. 15. 84. 86. 89 see also ritual names 33.61-3.86-7.154 see also etymology necessity 172 Nous 35. 62. 73. 74 n. 13. 109. 173 Olympus 154 Onomacritus 1 53 opposites 144-7 Orpheus 79-80 Orphic (Bacchic) gold leaves/tablets 31-2.34.53.79. 103. 114. 116-17.145 Orphic theogonies 26. 31. 32. 33. 'jO. 65. 69. 84. 111. 125. 149. 158. 162. 164. 173 Orphic Rhapsodies 149-51. 158-9. 162 Orphism 28-30.31.34. 146-8 Osiris 57 Parmenides 172 perspective 139-40 Pherecydes 159--61.164

203

Philochorus 6.49 n. 14. 174 n. 32 Philodemus 6.49 n. 16. 174 n. 32 Pindar I 61-4 Plato 4. 35. 39-40. 56. 61. 63. 100. 174 pollution 56-7 Prodicus 129 n. 2 Pythagoras ] 56. 172 Pythagoreanism 31. 33. 112 rhapsodes 4] n. 2. 165 ritual 29.40. 46. 75-6. 83. 102-S. 110 Rohde. E. 99 sacrificia I offerings: birds 103-4 cakes 86-7.114-15 libations 75 secrecy 57-8. 59. 62. 79 n. 24.89. 120 sexuality 66 ..-74 Scythinus 139 Simonidcs 41 Socrates 35. 56 Sophists 4. 3.3.35-6 Stesimbrotus 34. 75 Stoicism 53. 143. 165 sun 6. 62. 67. 73. 74. 89. ]08-9. 130-1. 133. 139-44. 169. 173 Thaletas 47 Theagenes 4time 156. 159-65 worlds. plurality of 171 writing 5. 29. 40 n. 2. 49. 66. 79-80 Xenophanes 1 72

Index of Greek Words

alooLos 67-9, 146 ulows 145 alvLyp,uTWOYj<; 42,81,121 UlV{TTOp,at 65 n. a'\~<;

168 n. 4

KaTuavv{aTafLu, 169 KOLV6<; 134-5 KOLVWVEW 125 n. 59 Kp6voslXp6vos 160f. KpOVW 167 n. 2

a'\'\Yjyop{a 65 n. 2 ap,upT{u 10 1 apTaoEs 110 n. 26 apTuLoL 110 n. 26

Myw 118

O'1)YELTU' 16, 74, 168-9

p,uKp6,- 155-6 p,EV 67 n. 67 P,€V oOv 122

EKBpwaKW 68 n. 68 E6 sl€vs 22, 41 E7I'OS 120 Ep{~W

122

ElJKptVYjTO<; 123-4 E!JpVS 155-6

'\Yjvat~w

146 n. 49

vup6ELs 156-7 VLV/ p,LV 131 nn. 7-8

on ]3

B6pvYj 19 B6pvvp,u, 70 n. 7 iEPO,\6yos 135 n. 17 iEpOVPYEW 119

<pans 132-3