LARRY J. ALDERINK THE AMERICAN PHILOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION AMERICAN CLASSICAL STUDIE: CREATION AND SALVATION IN ANCIENT ORPHISM Deborah Samuel, Editor NUMBER 8 CREATION AND SALVATION IN SCHOLARS PRESS ANCIENT ORPHISM Larry J. AlderinkDistributed by Scholars Press 101 Salem Street P.O, Box 2268 Chico, California 95927 CREATION AND SALVATION IN ANCIENT ORPHISM LARRY J. ALDERINK ny Mother and Father, and tynda, Maria, and Anna Copyright © 1981 The American Philological Association Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Alderink, Lary J Ceation and salvation in ancient orphism. (American classical studies ; no, 8) Bibliography: p. 1. Dionysia. 2. Creation-History of doctrines. 3, Salvation" History of doctrines, 1. Tie I. Series BLAOBZAMS 297.2 81-8772 ISBN 0.89130-502-5 (pbk) AACR? Printed in the United States of America 123456 Edwards Brothers, Inc Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106written by authors in the hove of receiving a critical reading by gcnolars in a particular field of inquiry. But books are all written with other acholars. om one must be grateful, fom the axcitenent ‘and challenge of scholarly activity depends upd Walter Burkert read two of the manusoript a jenerously gave searching analysis of everything--assumptions, evidence, argument, and conclusions. He also gave encouregenalll by showing that interpretation imposes stringent demands. S. Gi x 8 provided access to the National Museum in Thessalondie and Mort th pointed to flaws and strengths in the various jections of the argunent T presented to the Greco-Roman Religion group of the society of Biblical Literature ‘mo all these I an grateful, as T am to my teachera, Jacob Nyenhuis, Robert Otten, and Nicholas Wolterstorff, at calvin at the University of Chicago, Under their tutelage many student T am also appreciative to colleagues at Concordia college, anes Haney and Lester Meyer critiqued the manuscript for style ond Walter Prauenite helped me with éifficult German passases. Concordia College provided trave 1t8 which made possinle research in Greece and attendance at varius scholarly conferent 0 Tngelhardt typed a first and Lynette Kehler the final version script, and Melanie Fleming proofread the finisned Concordia tarry J. algerinie Tine, iethode und tealren cvOLOGHeNS MonIPS 1y mile oRPEC srsTERIES adgnent and Destiny of the Soul TRANSEAPION OP THE DERVENE PAPYRUS .eat ai aha whl his mane. oh that radical ious 4ifferences concern thods of analyzing the 4 of particular referents. /1/ one is reminded red entestalich viel von orphikern. . . .* and i ble to drav, with relative certainty and sone on of Orphic materials. he firet is that 1 willof the Dervent papyrui aiscovery, in 1962 This text, dating to the fourth century B.C.E. and consisting off sone 215 lines, is a commentary on a cosmogonic-theogonic poem Orpheus and which dates to approxia which the author ascribes to 0 B.c.. Tn chapter three I will examine this comments fon accounts whose Orphic identéey and compare it with other creat fs well attested in ancient Greek sources. study is that 1 will offer a new establishing the idea of nterpretation of orphic writings t-monten existence which 4a found in the Orphic materials. seek to identify the Orphic idea of post-narten existence and tg explain how it was reached by hypoth nd anthropological conceptions accounts for tha of cosmological fon, and to be explained Bgl logical representations are founded ‘the more fundanental cosmological representations. Instead of post-mortem world OF trying to discover the characteristics of a searching for information about a journey to Hades or evidence €@ pose tht substantiate an Orphic doctrine of transmigration, I will question of the relation between hunan mortality and human immor tality. My point is that we will be able to ascertain the Orphil idea of poet-norten existence by inquiring into the relations between ante-montem and post~ conceptions rather than by mbols of other-vorldly punishnents, searching for ideas and reincarnation, and final apotheosis foci. The firat ia the orphic cosmo= Anguizy has three gonies, Here general cosnological thenes converge on the specif jent given the cosmos stemmed from Ssaue of commogony: the tre: carlosity about its origins. It is vell known that cosmogonie concerns do not predominate or set the fundamental problenatics for the complex and diverse phenonenon we designate Greek religi Yet in Orphian the cosmogonic thene clearly comes to the fore: this study de the significance attribuel beings, thal the world The second focus of to human beings. Anthropology--the origins of huna ature or constitution, their role or situation in Orphiam human beings were given a definition at variance with other anthropological statements in Greek thought. It is no wonder that the distinction between body and soul was of i to philosophers, and fortunate for us that their orphic writings provide information. expliell Teneo entdon eqooent Tet Ae ts poblechieeiy actiet— apr wack two, for the relation is methodological rather ee sai My claim is that there is a logical relation be- a ic eomogonies and aithropdiogy: the’ understandtin ee ton of the understanding of the cosmos, - i ‘OC of this study is the convergence of cosmologi- Bee life ate ath, that is, earching the evidence for the Bib ées, ae tasers enet orpade weitingeistseata haus of sStacté = t is doubtful whether they can be identified, let alone pPiained, from other themes in Orphic writings - tistanoe ono be ident tiled and explained by tha thee!here, at the point of data and definition, that any study of Orphism is most fragile and liable to charges of subjectivity intellectual ganesmanship. Efforts to compose a coherent pict of Orphic belief and practice are rather 1ike trying to put tom gether a jigsaw puzzle when one knows ntary iat many pieces are lose, some are damaged and frasné and others do not fit--and oF begins without a picture of the whole to guide the reconstruct In fact, it may very well be the case that no single portrait be drawn, simply because the pieces do not fit or because vari combinations are possible. But if we do not know what Orphism presunably the ancients did; it was they who spoke of Orpheus @ referred to Orphie poetry. It is wise at the outset to be clem about the data to be examined and the definition of Orphisn to weidizer ‘The evidence to be investigated falls into two categories) both of which consist of literary texts. To the first belong sn accounts: the Derveni commentary on Orpheus’ poem, a fragment from furipides' Nelanippe th: a few Lines from Aristophanes’ Binds, a statement attributed to Eudenos, a pa from Apollonios Rhodios' Argonautioa, the theogony in Mieronymad) and Hellanikos (identical to that in Athenagoras), fragments fi the Rhapsodic Theogony, and a passage from Ps. Alexander of Aphrodisias. To the second belong statements by Plato, Aristotll crates, and Pindar, all of them either directly or inferen= tially identifiable as orphic. The advantage of examining these! texte is obvious: the evidence is "hard* and it is not necessagy to postulate from the texts the existence of rites or doctrinesy the texts themselves are the data, and the information we seok i contained within the. The principle for the selection of thes particular texts from the mass of poetry going by the nane of Orpheus is that each category is characterized by the respectivil the texte fit naturally Mf themes of cosmogony and anthropology these types. The reason for comparing the two types is, as my hypothesis indicates, that one functions as the basis for the Within the select body of Literature which is circunscribed) by tho presence of the themes of cosnogony and anthropology, are characteristics which T propose as a definition of orphism These features are tendency tovards monism, a trend which i the world as a created reality, an inclination to focus on the nature of hunan beings, and especially a disposition to soteri logical thoughts norton existence, This is not to ela that Orphiem can be characterized as a symbolic universe or @ tion of reality or a world-view. thinking of Orphism as - Will not work because tha: auggeats too well * | tco articulated an *Orphic mind." What is proposed Bee i of opinion for clearly something was appropriated by Be ror neers in Italy, quoted by philosophers in Greece, and Me ey by Jews in the ancient world. ‘Climate of opinton* a ctjoco, naclafeccertatee of ibis capunie 20 igi eins scrensed An different ways for @ifferent purposes) hence we Brosia expect to find more than one cosmosony, even if they differ ignicicantly #rom each other. ther terms would be "motifs" or “intentions” which Hee to exoression in writings. Tt may be possible to detect such Ipotice in orphic Literature, and also in the writings of Heraclitus, , Diogenes of Apollonia, and others, for the motifs appear ‘0 be available to diverse writers and thinkers. with Eeforence to the Orphic cosmogonic and anthropological materials, G@iploravory, as in science; nor yet imperazival and confessional, Bs in ret ‘Te mood doesn't fit into the categories of mt | OF logoe, although these, too, are found in tne Grpnic naterials. the orphic mood 18 rather at the boundaries of 211 for all these elenents are found in the creation avec statements about hunan beings to be examined in thi 1d Like briefly to indicate the three methodologies Aine ding to which this study will proceed. Firat, my con- eer 1 that ia, to sort units into snaller units and E> ccak wnoles into thenes or motifs or structures. Thus, no 4 De integration of all the Orphic materials will be ven- firca. second, although 1 engage in a historical inquiry, 1 do Bee seek to trace natorical develoments and interactions. /3/ 4 rm is to engage in comparative study; creation accounts 4 mpared with each other and statements about human : to be garnered from various Grosk weiters. Finally, 4 tony a8 woll as descriptive goals; it is important {27 Met orphan may have been, and certainly exuaily important why the various elenents fit the way they 4o, . storien of religions works with types, models, and con Eirvces which vary in scope and adequacy. Here my purpote {9 tosome do not & Lienges taf despite the fact that pi akon up, it i suniyaing:ooctainted’LineitVtectiglvexce ilchiiees r. us, at the outset we should examine studies order to be clear about procedures which have been f° r lusiona which have been dravn, In the process one the reasons for the striking lack of con- eo: 5, I will @iscues in detai? the problens which —_ fore in the methods and analyses of I. M. Linforth and es. Next, 1 will briefly mention studies which gi ac: {lemma posed by Linforth and Guthrie, and finally, 1 want 1¢ definitional and contextual issues which will a investigation. guid: spec: In fact, among the fundamental iseyes involved is the gues ne vary existence of such a phenomenon as Orphiam, z. . * recent work on Greek thought and religion is perhaps Endicacive of many contemporary views must confess that 1 know very little about early and the nore I read about it the more my mledje diminishes: ‘Twenty years ago, T could have ite a lot about ir (we all could at that tine i ay Gre is included) from making statenents end clains bout orphiam. the most skeptical of recent works by Linforth ts. and Moulinier do not deny the copious references to Orphien, Z attempt to dissol relisbility as Metorical © helpful article, Karl Priinn has surveyed the results 0 Ses. Jif) sean aes alah pa q ' lem in Lobeck's me. With Exwin Rohde the Prot , 4 on the detection of an Orphic "doctrinal aystenwhich stenmed from Dionysiae influences and included a “doctel of transmigration." /3/ Otto Kern (1922, 1920) began a third stage with his famous and comprehensive collection of reforenc to Orphism in ancient materials and nis further assertion that Orphism was a religious sect with dogmas oriented towards sal yught. Counterbalancing wha tion and influenced by oriental th Primm calls the overestination of Orphism as a sociological en was the work of Gruppe (1887), Wilanowitz, and Pestugidre (1935 1936, 1947), and also tagrange and Guthrie (1937, 1955, 1965, 1966), which denonstrated the fragility of the foundations fo the attribution of "sect status" and institutional forms and doctrinal formulations to Orphism. Primn's third phase also fi cludes the work of Linforth (1942) and Dodds; he accepts thet criticisms of evidence for orphism, but charges then with fall to take more seriously the fact that pieces of evidence axe in clusive when taken individually, but impressive when taken to= gether. To the fourth phase belong studies (e.g., Schuhl and Jeanmarie) which utilize ethnology and prehistory ‘The spectrum Priism employs to describe the range of claing! about the existence of an Orphic religion and community moves the extrenes of a “maximalist" position with its strong af¢izmal position to a "minimalist" position with ite equally strong dem on this spectrum, Lagrange (2937118-23) and Guthrie (2997, 19889 1966) are representatives of a "moderate position since they hesitantly conclude thet there were, most likely, scattered geal of Orphice and there were, more clearly and certainly, “orphie 2. Orphisn: Methods and Anslyses Prom this cursory and necessarily selective treatment of Priimm's article, it ie clear that certain motifs and thenes hav recurred ae problematic. Prlinm also provides ample evidence £8 saying that there {a 1ittle consensus concerning the nature of: existence of Orphism. Consequently, it is both unwarranted andl foolish to proceed with an investigation of the poe?-nonter #0 of all sort in orphisn without fire ng out sone of the issue that have occupied the efforts and attention of many scholars. € the desues are resolved or beyond resolution, and ot} have a direct bearing on our thene of past-nonten existence im Firat, the insue of vhether Oxphism was a religion with with doctrinal and ritual expreseions appears to have reached all see, an examination of the problem may neral consensus hae developed concerning the cance of Orpheus; no one argues any longer that pig" tor the) filstocical’ founder: ot-what ds called Semen put there is Orphic literature, a mass of poetry ee nthropological--and can be examined as a group _.. of “Orphic texts." - oe a historical and geographical sources for what ar ise svc wien more than a moderate degree of clarity and pre- he reliability of references in classical literature al nd of existence, if any, one can attribute to Orphism peeire x ‘mulation, an examination of the long and complex depo, L and an exploring cul-de-sac may get one on courseis fourth issue will draw our attention to the sharp and 9 [At the outset, one could be tempted to engage in the tasig reconstruction, for such a wealth of material is the nost 1ikg © and Kern, Yet at thi impetus for the pioneering work of Ro Orphic religion," Let alone a supposed “orphic Church." A ff xanples are helpful, The account of Orpheus’ descent to Hada reclaim his wife i well attested at an early date in relief also by Euripides and Plato. suripides (ite Kern, 4 59) indicates success in Orpheus’ venture to roturn with Ruryaice from Hades to the earth, and so does Tsocrates (SustAg 1.7; Kern, 1922:¢e0¢. 60). On the contrary, Plato (Sympoetum 1734; Kern, 1922:te2¢. 60) indicates failure in Orpheus’ atte explaining that musicians usually lack courage ané Orpheus, i Aleestis, refused to aie for his love but wanted to enter Hada naterials: was there a unified tradition about Oroheus’ Journ to Hades? id such a tradition play 2 significant role in Oph Lf such a tradition was important, then why is there such @ ful ental discrepancy concerning its conclusion? fone can also consider a facet of the relationship betweeal Dionysos and Orphiam. In one account, that of Aeschylus aeearide: Kern, 1922 12), Orpheus 1s dismenbered by th maenads at Dionysos' instigation because Orpheus worshipped, Apollo. In Isocrates' version (8uairie 11.38; Kern, 1922:fe. Orpheus is also torn apart, but this account provides a 4iff6H reason, blasphemy or telling unbelievable stories about gods. tn still another account, that of Proclus, Orpheus exp enced the sane death as Dionysos, and Lactantius otis » 1. 22, 15-17; Kern, 1922:7%. 119) and Apol logon c hee 1. 15; Kern, 1922:fr. 99, and also fr. 113-135) explain that Orpheus was killed in the rites he founded and §# are many references in classical Literature to Orphic poetry, Orphic rites. The problem ie that the referents of such terms lover such a wide range of phenomena that it is difficult to 1. M. Linforth's The Ante of Onpheus in devoted to the critical examination of orphic rites and literature and of oli about Orphism as a religion. He does not proceed with the IC MATERIALS 1 historical question, Linforth (194L:xiii) is willing ve as "Orphic” only that which Je unambiguously sealed me of Orpheus. He examines certain kinds of eviden Gs, rites, and postry, dates prior to 300 3.C.2., and thor of the poems which belong to the mysteries. the tant conclusion has to do with the character et tea called "orphics." After a! pecurrences of the word ‘orphikoi* in 3 bius, Tamblichus, and Plato, Linforth araws the to which I have already referred te do not refer to a religous institution ceremonial, but rather as a category term ‘clonts Interested in a vast mitcellany of fe Orphie poems (1941:288-89) arrow he basis for historical investi. wedge the existence of an essential and characteristic body clude no less than all the activities ed themselves with the religion of (asatr302-03, 305-06) of Orphism in ancient Greece and the Orphic materials. He euggests thata2 CREATION AND SALVATION IN ANCIENT ORPHISM a point of identity which legitinates the designation "orphigy for if Orphism is a reworking or infusion of a new spirit inkl Greek religion, how does one distinguish what is worked from is reworked? Guthrie speaks of the difficulty of finding cong bephie phenome Orphisn by reference to the transmigration, immortality of # 1a and foregoes the attempt in favor of definingy soul, and the requirenent of ritual purity (1966:9, 109-110, 194-95). Guthrie has not established or justified a criteria for identifying ae orphic or for distinguishing the from non-Orphic materials--other than his "reworking hypothast element in Guthrie's method arises from his asserti a further that, although there were Orphic cults and practices, Orphism firat and forenost a literature, a sacred uriting which contal the orphic the problem, of course, is the paucity, explicit and direct information about this Literature often mnty mentioned by Alexis in the fourth century, BY tioned, but buripides, Aristophanes, Plato, Eudonos, Herodotus, and late the neo-Platenists. Fron the information concerning Orphismy Guehrie (1966:7; 1955:317-18) extracts an outline in which cosmological and post-norten conceptions play a large role! | ereation account which explains the two-fold nature of many B fand soul; an eschatology which includes punishments in HadeM the reward of union with God after the soul has chosen, in Te ds clear that Cuthrie and Linforth follow dianetricall opposed methods and reach contradictory conclusions about he nature and existence of Orphian. What 1s not at all clear, however, is the way one should adjudicate the differences. Wi a definition of orphic as “sealed by Orpheus name," Linfortll a eigorous check on the Orphic materials that Guthrie lacks. Incongruities prohibit constructing a unified picture of anvil Guthrie, on the other hand, employs 8 Linforth's atomistic am 1 orphism method designed to draw a composite leads to the conclusion that there were no Orphic doctriner orphisn has been dissolved; Guthrie's holistic synthesis lead the conclusion that there were Orphic doctrines which were £@ mulated and which can be described. ‘The vast differences belt these two scholars are ali the more striking since neither Mi written a direct refutation of the other. to Guthrie's work in footnotes, but only to express disagre or agreement on a specific point Lintorth does refet Linforth's rejection of Gul is a dismissal but not a refutation, Nor hae Guthrie refuted ORPHIC MATERIAL: a3 Js or conelusion: Guthr: argues his conclusions as validation of his such sharp divergence between two such learned P jenority MAY suggest that the impasse i¢ final and that g the wisest course, An antinony in methods, however, t to resolution by reconsideration of the data for thods seek to account. Methodological deterninien can balanced by the knowledge that data are the recipient of Jological operations; in fact, it is this very possibility ged the impetus for the works of both Guthrie and ne must realize at the outset that the highly disparate 5 Oephic materials constitute the problems the test of is is the sense it makes of the data whose congruity 4s eoxt of Orphisn, As we shall ate in succeeding chap- xamination of the cosmological post-mortem thenes in ‘ure does not depend on the exittence of an orphic, ‘The options that Guthrie and Linforth provide are not possibilities: there vere Orphic groups who taught given 1s and followed given practices, or, there were no such 8 < have indicated, considering the possibility that od oF a spirit enables the question of Orphisn to Tf an examination of Orphisn is to have value, and jergences between Guthrie and Linforth are not to lead to their conclusions or to eilencs about Orphisn, and if te about Orphisn is not to recede into insignificance with n, then it is necessary to move beyond Guthrie and phism: Beyond Guthrie and cinforth are serious works which go furthe: than the Guthrie- th responsible to the data and aware of methodologic: / Por example, Martin P. Nilsson ie hesitant to call ect, since it Aié not give rise to a stable community cult places, but he adda 19634213-35, Tn specttying the characteristics which dia have been "something like a sect" (19351185; guish ‘isnenbernent of Dionysos as the cardinal Orphic myth, nosis as the central tenet. He also contends that these forns of expression wae some social forCharacteristics with the common stock of these witsson 48 also concerned to emphasize both th Sorenenter tn facts it tea pare of then (19951228) + the faea impajing a new valuatl this life es compare Te that they. forma: ino new iden sharply shrink. from. th gations of its logical con fon two methodological considerations. First, he Fesidval iseue. Second, Nilsson was concerned t or later date, but were in a state of flux and formatio on at least two grounds, Firet, he is keenly avare tions and implications of the work of both Guthrie and Linford to ren the conclusions of Rhode or Kern tify and then to explain. The new culture patt contends, the ides o survival, nor wa at the body 1s the tomb of th ORPHIC MATERIALS 15, gt won Pere Fipution by crediting man with an occult st ine origin, and. thos setting sou! ‘snd’ bod Bee Slgeceat ion of hone Gnotonc tation Pr thesis between "psychic" and “be 7 mo , blem was to account for t ree of th e o., bien co ree of this new .. ‘ of alien blood sn the veins of the ree i os most attenpts sought eastward direc- Didarr birds and beasts with his song, ani he is simultaneous Biase, vorkere, 1972b:162-68) MMlebee in tho classical period but can be inferred from the Be equating the body with the prison house of the soul. He Bie iocies,- and he accounts for the Orphic idea of the origin Bevis vy the myth of the Titanic disnenberment of Dionysos by idles of Guthrie and Linforth; unfortunately, he ay 8X beginning point and id not develop it into a BEA tess chat enere existed anything Like an orphie church," yet, Breit Intlutnee in many quartere during the greatest sm was on attitude, not a cult, still less Re manner there has never been a church called 3 erian churches; yet ‘Puritan,’ ‘Puritanism! Neer, - int in t ination of problems involved in the16 CREATION AND SALVATION IN ANCIENT ORPHISM trajectories which led to studies by W. K. C. Guthrie and T, Linforth and the dilemma these two scholars pose. Efforts of] 2. R, Dodds, Martin P. Nilsson, and H. J. Rose have moved be} the horns of that dilenna from attributing the features of dogna, sect, and priesthood speculation or silence--by moving Ofphiem. All three of these scholars have viewed orphism ag part of a broader pattern within the general context of Greek More can be said, hovever, abo pattern, thinking of orphien as a * the orphic element of cortain literary texts, as I suggested in the Introduction, Bf a starting point. But before a anthropological statements, two tasks renain, Tt is nece justify the selection of cosmogonic and anthropological mater fron the large body of Orphic Literature, and it is also nea to reconsider the relation between Orphic mysteries and other, mysteries. To accomplish these two tasks, in this section ¥ first consider general definitional problems, given the range uses for the word "Orphic.” Here the point will be to think primarily in terms of the adjective "orphict and derivatively, "second, x will call attention to a cont the noun "orphisn. tion hy Walter murkert to the general study of mysteries, a contribution which breaks new ground and whose importance £0E, investigation lies in its construal of the Orphic evidence kind of historical phenomenon it vai Concerning the first of these two points, a recent study M. b. West is orth quoting at length: ‘There is no such thing as Orphien. there is orpheus, the legendary singer, about whom various stories are told; and there {e Orphic Literature, that is, 4 mass of poems, mainly now lost, composed in different Places at different periods for different purposes, Bnd for the most part having nothing in comon except that Orpheus was claimed as their author. Until not very long ago, it wae taken for granted that these poets collectively represented the teaching of a body Berpeople called the Orphice, anda great religious hovenent called Orphism was constructed and exten- Sively written about. The truth is that no prophet or sect had a monopoly of Orpheus" nane.. ‘The ‘Orphic poems fit intone oversil scheme. if there is anything that deserves the nane of Orphiam, it 4@ simply this practice of according a place of honour, in religious Beliefs or activities, to poems ascribed to Orpheus (ia7er22t) an early reference which provides a beginning for our sideration of "Orphic things" is Herodotus’ use of the word 81; see also Burkert, 19725:126-28), but the jeitic Weicholarly debate. Prom this fifth century mention of Be rr vateronce tolOcpiien\(6t,“Opeviet] (uy sfeitotaras = was orphic: whether Orpheus himself or someone with a he legends about Orpheus--his singing, his journey in uurydice, his death at the hands of Thracians, etc.-- 5) te appearance of the figure of Orpheus on vase paintings Southern Italy could be construed as Orphic: ‘although Wore sense, since Orpheus does not occupy the “center of the IAGe" bot is rather one among many traditional Greek figures there ie in the Apulian vases at least an interest in Orpheus ©) Orpheus’ name was associated with mystery rituals--at IMBSSs and Aegina, but also at Samothrace, Lemos, and Sparta Ben 7) ‘The “orphic nymas," sone 87 poems aldressed to one or hor crock deity or idea, are Orphic 2) © Orphic Angonautiea of the third or fourth Century C.F cath spare: tn: Enon seat tei, Hered to the second century C.R., a keen Jewish interest * Orphic perhaps one could at most speak of a "Jewishorphie" but in any case there was something which interested 10) Plato and Aristotie refer Aristotle doubted whether there ever was such a person) and re o orpheus by name (although to Orphic statenents about body and soul 11) ‘The various cosmogonies deserve the appellation Orphig 12) Certain key myths and deities figure large in orphic Literature, for example, the myth of Dionysos and the Titans. Perhaps one can say that there was eonething like an "orshie theology." ‘The problon which immediately strikes one is that much of the material is scanty, fragmented, and lacking unity. One wor what possible integrity can be attributed to the term *orphict erials, When St applies to auch a wide array--or disarray!--of mi strategy, followed (as ve have seen) by W. K. C. fone possi Guthrie, would be to sift through all the pieces and strands of evidence and then to compose an admittedly impressionistic por ut a few identifiable features. This strategy runs the Fi with bf mistakenly identifying features or themes, or worse, having criterion to serve as justification for identifying one item as ratesy, followed by, orphic and another as non-Orphic. Another T.M. Linforth, would be to accept the term "Orphict™ as covering! pretty much anything and everyening, and thus to deprive the te of any specific referential value. In the case of either strat the definitions proposed are seriously problematic definition applies to orphisa, but what is said to be character Guthrie's stic of Orphisn is true but not of all of Orphism. Linforth’s definition applies to vastly more than what was orphic, and tH no wonder that "Orphic™ becones a category designating members with virtually nothing in common; if the term describes orphismy € describes more than Orphion. ‘The point which emerges from this brief consideration of be go blinded by diversity and complexity of the multiple references of the teEl orphict in the ancient world that ve lose sight of the speci fil st some of the itens to which it referee efinitional strategies is and objectivity of at 1 Nor should we be 0 impressed by the particularity of sone of # tens that we are prohibited from realizing that our analyses # subjective constructs and that more than one construct is legit mate. Although there certainly is more than one useful defini of Orphian, and although more than one legitimate construct of holarly examination, it 43 Oephism may be established throush ot follow that any definition will do or that any construct Of ORPHIC MATERIALS 19 yuan i as vatUable af any Other, the class of objects desig- Been voxphic™ i not a oloeed class as, for example, 1s the class Pees carity called “LAG* and consisting of the fotloving abi- ey selected members, the Acropolis, a blue and white shire, peice sanda18y an arybatton, and a statue. 7 aad to oF to Bact tron the class *biit™ is to change the class. But the :: jon "Orphic* 1s an open class and not arbitrary because ois, vased on sinilarisies and aifterences among the ‘tens in Biyice sn it as voll aa on similarities and differences with other 4 as the Eleusinian mysteries, Dlonysiac mysteries, Me saontity does not exclude overlap. Efforts to work out the . pieces of evidence don't £it together--neatly or even Piha ciiy--inen.« unieied, isctagrated. mot catliscanse oo much BE eon and can be designated Orphic. the dilema 1 mentioned because we would be ingieting on a correct definition aracteristic of Orphien is true of nome than x Lf the definition deseribes Orphiam, it does not de~ © orphisn, forsake a ‘definitional essontialien" which insite ition of orphism will serve all purposes or that uct 48 the construct for assessing all others, then we Bay ask: in the investigation ahead of us, which of the definitions Barociated with the term "orphic" shall we employ? ‘The answer to Hhat question must be reached by considering the points to be made HB tho investigation. To nake one xort of point, it is best to us he decinition; to make another sort of poirt, another definition ED vices tstion £ we were to use the term “orphic" in an inclusive sense-- Bao: hat 1, of all 12 posaible refezents--then Little unity BF ine is manifest in the evidence. ¢n the other hand, ££ Wore to retain a maximalist meaning of the term—doctrine, sect Pes “then there is no evidence, tak 2 ne, soso aa sh adie, aba pg BLS, : 9 e word. In either case, the term lacks i ative force to stimulate investigation and to produce ingit® Sefinition of orpntsm x propose--a mood or a spirit which erase ihe Selected Literary tonterowill, T believe, serve the Ga meets and the connections between then. But this definition i, TiS inquiry may fall prey to the charge that both the date Gri, n® aefinition are arbitrarily chosen since T will examine all portion of the total data and have composed a20 CREATION AND SALVATION TN ANCIENT ORPHISM definition suited to those data. In order to face the challe let us consider a general problem involved in the making of d@ tions; the avenue I suggest has been inspired by tudwig Mittgenstein's idea of "family resenblances” in his Phi toeophd and gf nvestigatione. Suppose we have a set of objects, Oy ¢: fone nane to the sot by reference to the presence or absence of Features, F1_g. An example, perhaps slightly artificial, woul be found ina family photograph. Pive people are in view: hal eyes, nose, chin and ears show then all to be nenbers of the family. Although one menber of the family may lack one of the features (four have a Ronan nose, the fifth has a nose Like Socrates), the fanily nane still applies. Although the featur may range in character or intensity (fron Light to dark brown hair), the family name still applies. No one foature is neces sary to justify the family nane. A diagram will illustrate PAFDPaP a Four of these objects--0,, O,, 0+ and Oy it is not by virtue of their having F, in common that the objeat O,.g aFeqiven the sare name, because the nane of the objects. a which lacks P+ applies to of features: there are gradations which exhibit continuity a What is true of nanes ss alse than discontinuity; there are intersections, overlappings, andl criss-crossings. the definition of the set of objects has PERG by resemblance and affinity rather than through an essence whi all objects mist possess in order to justify the name. The val of adopting this definitional approach to Orphism is that eM not take any one or all of the 12 possible referents of the sorphisn” as the strict condition for the application of the Me may rather see the application as forming a class whose mal nay, though they need not be, grouped around a single case. luse of a concept or definition of Orphism is to be determined, fa consideration of the evidence and the hypotheses which guide have already indicated, the focus of this investigat As the congruence of cosmological and anthropological concept his congruence for the idea of in orphism, and the results of t-morten existence. Exactly how and where in Orphisn thia of ideas is to be found is by no means obvi particular comple: But a place where one can begin looking 1s in the literature we and the ancient call orphic, Although that literature is et ea a and although, a8 West reminds us, the poems "fit no BF vcore," there is thematic unity in the commological and ee cescenece pia titd wena os waco Be en ination of atl literature ascribed to Orpheus and they <1, considering some of that literature, this stody will Se ce satr calvalcriemtaleney sau ait eadciasiial _ ological themes designated orphic Bs, sau sucad tuts tecy tgptiecnea clair micas seecaee ta panera Boone Noite 9 car ere saga tical ta Seercree amoatatas eer Spency STE tien cece ec gees tha eesti 1197535). - I rsync cea entaneg real Mane pre aces oreo lvoe cot rpristiene eeaneiene ence tise hE roae Lies eee See SE, _* also suggests that a Venn diagramm--that iconic representa- Bi incontss spatial inclanion extteesh ‘ g te tap aivtdFor thinking about ancient Greek mysteries, Burkert suggests @ schema to indicate the veb of interrelation one benefit of this approach to Orphism and other sintlae e ancient Greek world is innediately cle Line cases present no problen if one adopts the principle of than the peined overlapping and criss-crossing trends” rather of "unique identity" when examining the evidence for fons surrounding Orphie studies arise ft the inked ve torm and and useless, and has 1em te an exclusi assumption that *oxphicw riesthood. sumption has turned out to be that Orphism was one nore than one deadlock, the assumption stream of mysteries offers a new starting poll is methodolegie! tegrated orphisr information will aot yiel@ The search for a unigue and i indefensible because the historica’ information may yield a portrait if we proceed by searching & of the things anong other things which Orphism may have beens thing which only Orphism was. rather than the and mie the ‘etude: whole eat pay! ‘ions may © bo troubled if one member of the family lacks features ther fanily meabers; indeed, ve should expect to stem" than any other, As Burkert points out, Dionyse ty and 2 "bacchio" experienced a transforming ecstasy 5 was a historical figure and founder of a community; and wes @ place where mysteries were celebrated. On the other nism wae at post an amorphous community about which we hing, Orpheus was never considered to be a deity writings come from many different places and authors yateries share points of intersection, but orphism ost fluid of all and certainly cannot be understeed on uudaism or Christianity, with the variety they in- within themselves in the ancient world. /8/ granted that concentrating on one refraction of £ the mystery religions, and only selections fron ne--has dangers and runs risks, for the picture which emerges accurate, have missing parts, or worse, include distor- Yet the task is worthwhile despite the Limitations. We truct « picture to be corrected or filled in by further tion or the discovery of new evidence. Our knowledge o! an be enhanced by considering one segment of the whole we Seek to prove that a particular item was orphic but pful here. Nor will I seek to show that one pi ism suffices for all which could be named orphic. two chapters which follow I will assume that ancier vies were @ composite of overlapping and eriea-crossing hat focusing on one element of the composite is grated "orp world. I will also assune that borderline cases ar enatic because we are not searching for @ “unique rather the features of a current of thought or a mood din those documents and characterized by a an ‘osition towards soteriolosical ideas of statenents in which a e ig embedded11. COSMOLOGICAL ORIGINS IN THE ORPHIC HvTHS extract from th fem the coanos or “structured world” ] Bempiex and intricate web of cosmic factors and relations. It . a discussion of th more specifically anthropological erences to Orphic cosmogonies have been considerable scholarly debate. A new dimension, + has beon Injected into analyses of Orphic literature in ond Orphic cosnogonies in particular with the discovery26 CREATION AND SALVATION IN ANCIENT ORPHISM fon @ cosmogonie poem the author ascribes to Orpheus. Tt vag one of four graves along with a buried varrior's equipment spear and a Javelin; a nearby tomb contained « krater portra Dionysos, surrounded by naked satyre and macnads, wooing Arik the papyrus itself was remarkably well preserved since the x9 was partially carbonized by the funeral fire, and consequent] 19631:221-23; 1964a:3-5)y internal grounds, the papyrus is the weiting can be read (Xapsoneno: generally dated to the fourth century 9.C.. /1/ Because thi text gives clear evidence for Orphic activity on the Greek mal land, its value for the study of Orphism is inestimable. /2/ text quotes Orpheus and is a conmentary on an Orphic poem of A ury date is an in cosnogonic-theogonic intent. A fourth © tion of what many scholars have thought about other orphic J writings, vfs., that a late compilation date should not obsa ne strong possibility of an earlier composition date. =n anil case, the Derveni commentary goes beyond the indirect seating of Herodotus and Plato, and is direct evidence of Orphic activi in the fourth century. is important that we remember, however, that the PaBW contains a conmentary on a poem the author ascribes to Orpheus land thus not necessarily Orphic throughout. The Orphic chara of the commentary derives fron the fact that the author quoteal sinilar to oth verses of Orpheus, from the pri Orphic commentaries, and from the fact that the author exhib a concern to specify how Orpheus differed from other writers i In discussing this commentary © shall be concerned with questions: what does this commentary contribute to our knowl of the Orphic cosmogonies? and how is this cosmogony related) fone may begin with the observation that the word "com 1s an accurate but inadequate description of the text. 1 18] true that the commentary presents a view of "the coming inte of the world” and portrays a theogony or a "coming into beki@) the gods." Yet since the commentary has as it: Zeus the creator, the relations betwoon Zeus and other deitd and the relations between Zeus and the world, we may perhaps call it a theological cosmology ‘the contents of the papyrus are a commentary on the myth poetry of Orpheus. Since the author quotes fragnents of @ lather than an entire myth, it is not possible to conduct al analysis whose goal is to uncover the structure of relation® » various cosmic components specified by ¢! fone of the antary does include portions of writings ascribed to nyth ane to fee “evagnents which must have belonged, in the poem itself, irs’ ravive of divine acts” or a “story about aivine-hunan Binet Te ia possible, consequently, to refer to aythic ee uctures and thus to discover the "lineaments of « sithough there is a significant distance between the the poem he is commenting upon, it is legitimat hh the poem and the commentary as "Orphic." ‘The soa h 7 : to Orpheus, and the commentator exhibits attention Broa hidden" meaning of Orpheus! words which he under- Hise to be different from ordinary meanings. JAnony the features of the commentary which attract immediate a he allegorical method the author employs for his feerprctation of Orpheus' poem. Particular examples are found in fig, 14.7-8 and 19.1, where the author shows that orpheus fHeached new and unusual meanings to words and ideas. ‘there are ot to Homer at 22.4 and 22.6-7, where linguistic an: used. This allegorical method of interpretation Amportant because a distinction is drawn between “what men say" Fynot Orphoue eaid” (14.4-5 and 7-8), and especially since the BB scnal language of mystery religions ia used to distinguish se crstand correctly from those who only speak correctly j46-% and 19,5-6). The author of the commentary appears to tir interpretative method by two statements of Orpheus, 8 ak, and to teach mean the same" (6.8) and "He ni meaning in sayings" (1.6). Here again we see a es: co orpneus' method of teaching as well as vhat he taught 4 es ortunity to decipher and interpret the content of f an allegorical method suggests another trait of b cuthor which strengthens his rel:ability as an orphic oo attention paid to Linguistic precision an P ne author agsunes that Orpheus clothed his knowledge Bre garb of ordinary language, and in order to prevent mis standing, he distinguishes correct from incorrect meanings e and Svoun to specify Orpheus’ point: waAety and edvat ae 1t1Y used. a€vewv te often used, once to make clear - not mean. wéuoc, frog, and odtie are used to E of conveying meaning, and yi00a to explain £ Word. afAov, ABniov, ard eGSniov are used2 (CREATION AND SALVATION IN ANCIENT ORPHISM to distinguish alternate meanings. Enuaivery is also used specification; gatvety is used in different senses. Aoxety employed to mark what “seems to be the case” from what "is case." Finally, the pervasive concern to explain why thingy naned or designated the way they are indicates a thoushtfull reflection on Linguistic usage in addition to an interest dj poem available to the author: ‘The method and technical procedures of the Derveni ot are important not only for reasons of style and identificat but alo for the aid they provide in our analysis of the We may notice, in the first place, the primary role aseril tous. His chief and dominant characteristic is existence, eitence? before, during and after all things, Zeus is (i es prior to the "existing things" (rh eévra, 15.1) 2 point ai more significant because the author quotes in 22.6-7 the Toy aceioue in Homer for the relation between Zeus and fate, i 24,$27-28. In Homer this relation is at most ambiguous and least uncertain whether Zeus or fate is logically or cosmi prior is unresolved. ‘The commentator of the Derveni papyEusl out that Orpheus, on the contrary, asserted that Zeus is the) (doxdc) Of all. Moira is the thought of Zeus by which hey world-ruler, determines the course of events in the world {if Consequently, Moira is an attribute of Zeus and not external him. Finally, the existence of teus is without beginning OF In explicit contrast to the notion that he was born or came) being, he is said to have been "always and forever" (14.104 In addition to presenting Zeus as “original existences second theme in the Derveni commentary is the attribution 6 sexual dimension to both Zeus and the cosmos. col. 17 sta mall elenents moved and mated in the air until recognizable eworged. Zeus is not specified as the originating deity of world, although his nane as well as those of aphrodite, Pail and Harmonia designate the sane god. The act of sexual int rather than the deity engaging in the act is in focus in Oi monogenetic origin of the world, In segnents of the papylil have been published, there ig no mention of the gods who Pl pate in intercourse, although the explanation for the nami Ge is that all things come from her (18.8). Yet there is ie. One concludes suggestion of a union between Ge and union of existing things with each other (17.9) and the daa (27.9) inaieatt of hunan sexual intercourse as "Aphroditing pscal use of sexual language to portrey the origin and . of the cosmos. Bo é mevyoxuslsty, and particularly making love, afforded the mea f cosmic processes, specific deities mentioned in a ue a move from myth-as Bet) inatcate & ove from myth-as-event te myth-as-explanation. at Zeus, Peitho, and Harmonia are all nanes ree ee sane God." Peitho and Harmonia are not important figures ine Greek 9088, But appear to be abstractions or ideas whose Ma iscs in their ability to describe forces or events. /5/ And Mpeenine of Peitho as “yielding* or "persuasion* (17.11) and . fitting together” (17.12) suggest that although they a te in daseribing the act of making love, their de- 4 city extends beyond sexuality. They are used ae jots to describe the motion and coherence of the cosmos: fungus there 18 no support for the claim that the cosnos was jpyed <= = sexual being, the analogy between sexual and cosmic felon was understood by reference to Aphrodite. Finally, orpheus* fe of oira and Okeanos ag "attributes" of zeus indicates that fs, a+ well as the sexual terminology, describe zeus ané the iStions between Zeus and the world. The motif of col. 17 is an feenp: co doscribe the progeny of the world, almost as though is father of the cosmos. /6/ n ludes, then, that sexual terminclogy was employed to feribe tho origin of the cosmos. the "parentage" of the world IE described as analogous to the creativity and reproduction of Galicy. Neither zeus nor Ge--nor Nyx in the unpublished text: Ba pa. sexuality was viewed as a power or a force of : fon te inderived status of Zeus and the theme of a2 Derveni commentator emphasizes a third theme, which Bay call “polyonyny." We have already observed the une of & se anes~-Aphrodite, Peltho, Harmonia--to specify the one ity : 4 2 “great power unto hinself." Col. 12 indicates Brot soe ergs ne watt on eteion vere stented to te lathe ered At the point where the text emphasizes y of the deity to the world, it also underscores an * monotheistic strain: "but he was alone.* philosophically, ne in the many while yet remaining the one. The pre-Platonic leod, pre-Socratic thought of the author uses the names or a deity as substantives or hypostases with the same © doxde which wae the origin of the cosmos (19.4 )rs to a creation ayeh the Derveni comentary, thus, re! 4a *monistic® account of the origin of the world, {e the sexual language of the mythical perspective were ¢0 i Literally, two parents would be rei al use of red. On thel chs a interpreted the motaphori exual language obviates sity, and opens the way to view Zeus and his relation to Eh ina broader perspective. the coherence of all deities ing grounded in a hypostasis given the name Teus. Zeus is the the supreme and creative power who brought the cosmos into @ tence aa well as the principle governing its operations, A fourth theme in the Derveni of the cosnos. The world ia very different from and yet oni oth facets of this paradoxical relationship peH If the existence of Zeus can be called origi the commentary. (03.2 and 15.10), the existence produced by feus is clearly hat the existence produced! tn the € and secondary. One can even say a in quality fous is different from him in kind and in quality mlace, the world (td é6vte, 15.1 and 6) undergoes change andi laiteration in contrast to Zeus who is beginning and end. Contrast is not the distinction between “eternal” and "tema . 0 be a then ceasing" and pat rather between "coming into being and etaving in being." the commentator gives an interesting {mf twice he refers to the passage {existing things and as the rule for thal news 4 alternation of things, He states that through thought lourse of events in the world, what is and what 4 oresent world (td vOv éévra of 12.2, 13.2) to be (15.6). The 17.9) was brought from an underlying ground or substratum #id rh Svea Onfloxe dec, rh 6E i ee q MSY v eevee ex tov’ dnapxéveov yév[e]rans (22.7-8) Zt was through the thought and power of Zeus that the il res its existence and ahape. Through Zeus these chang ‘ccur; through him a thing comes into being, exists for 4 Pl of tine, and then ceases to be (15 f the world, cols. 12 and 17 bring into purview node of existence of the cosmos. AS 1 remarked, the authoe the continuation of specific things as proceeding through @ and thud) ‘ ch other to assume their customary and recognizable £04 peor oe itself. Purther, his view does not include the intro- Beto" Cailed Harmonia because he fits together a particular BFelation between object and name for the object. things” also reveal their deriva n which hunans hoth know and communicate about them. hanes to the multiplicity of existing things in with che roles which govern those things. The struc- f the world is derived from Zeus (15.1-3). Consequentiy, for the world is, in effect, Zeus. /7/ tous" creative 1 ging the world into existence hts already been Sted, but here, in considering the humen knowledge of the 3 the governance of the cosmos, and nanes are assigned 1 relations between objects through knowledge of their nd by reference to their governance. To the world, change Fessive differentiation are attributed; the principle the transformations is strictly parallel to the joth Zeus and the world are, consequently, ve to names and capable of being known. Because there is32 CREATION AND SALVATION IN ANCIENT ORPHISM structure; because there is a difference between the prineipl g te the principle, the ‘the occurrences which operate accord! at least in thought (Moira) and power (Okeanos) a logical 1€ as the principle and Zeus the cot or" ints ontic difference between 2 If this explanation accurately catches the au! pretation of Orpheus! poem, it is quite possible to say that was never born and also, paradoxically, to say that he vas fand will die; Zeus, though eternal, comes into being and mo on. For the conmentator, and apparently for Orpheus, too, B land becoming were not severed or distinct; both cohered in & Simitarly, thought and being were not separated, for thought (wnat will bes what te 6pf (Woiza) and what thought was abou! were connected through their common referent, Zeus. His Governance or rule is the connecting link between himself ag Geity and the world hich was named Zeus in a way that ned eliminates nor obscures the difference between him and the 66} tthe significance of zeus as the principle of world govei in the Derveni conmentary is, thus, both paradoxical and obs bat two fragnents of Heraclitus dealing with a similar problem iMlunine the relationship: ‘the coming of all things into existence is in accordance Mien this logos, . + of existing things. ‘the one--which only is wise--is both willing ané unwilldl ee Given the name Zeus (Diels and Kranz: Bl and 832)q Both statements (the one attributed to Orpheus and the ments of Heraclitus) assert that the same principle is in tha in the sense that it is the law of change, and also that it @ be called "Zeus." ‘The difference between the two, however, H that in the Derveni commentary the Zeus is outeide as voll @& the world; it accounts for the origin as well as the perpetual of the cosnos. ‘The particular relationship of concepts in 4 papyrus follows logically, therefore; a given thing is named! reference to its governance. Since Zeus not only created Ehe world but exercises governance over it (15.5-6 and 15.10) #hg World derives its nane from Zeus. The name and the order OF fone cannot conclude that the Zeus) would we world cone fro Zeus, the world and the deity Zeus are identical, for thi or destroy the character of Zeus as the doyéc of the world wr than identt ey governor. A relationship of sinitartty rat Zeus and the cosmos ie found; Zeus is both like the world aii fs on the basis of the similarity that 4 scendent to it. Tt in the world can be named. /10/ SMOLOGICAL ORIGINS: 33 oa ‘ vv of serious alteration in the words "Okeanos* and "Moira. fern that Orpheus changed the meaning of a certain word (1 e 2 (19), ough the Word is not given, the context enables us to Oe evry the changed meaning with the equation of Ok 4 n of Okeanos with * nportant, however, is the assertion that Okeanos is ce x, a9 Soughe By "hove who do not rLently understand. 4 leanot means "broad~flowing" as nen of great power are Gite "eo flo" powerfully." For Orpheus, therefore, the character: ist eanos is power (19.3 and 5) rathe: than identity as a gee ox «river. /11/ The assertion that okeanos is power was the i, ie the conmentator's further explanation that the Ipgastion of Okeanos with Zeus does not require a second to1 5. ather the monistic there again emerges with the [ipsistcnce that "Okeanos as power* is predicated of zeus, he is into himself the great power” (19.4-5). Given the emphasis on Ree rnance and its role in enabling the worlé to be named land known, the significance of teus' power is clear in the context of the papyrus: feus* power is that vhich distinguishes Phim fron what he governs as a king is distinguished from those ne ules oven though he is a citizen of his own realm. 4 Okeanos is the power of Zeus, Moira is the thought BE reus. oth these features of Zeus enable him to exercise his Filership or governance. the statenants of orpheus describing and Moira as features of Zeus are clearly metaphorical, Bad the conmentator "de-allegorizes" then to explain that they Bites ‘or pover and thought. In contrast, a direct description RE Povs Ss given twice; first orphous compared Zeus to a king ly, more literally, feus is the ruler of everything: BB" izpiications are involved in the change of meaning give Te 1% m4 Okeanos. First, as we have seer, the nature of Zeus Be oe ea eta aes setetan actecta ge," S82 ofeated. second, since the *naning® of the world mec, '°7 {£8 the governing pover of the worlé, and since the nove z \© world is derived from and controlled by zeus, the world eS ¥ Similar to zeus but its "reality is derived. zeus is lature of Moira in the view of Orpheus enables us to feature of the world and evieting things which Zon the paradoxical relation between Zeus and the hough Zeus creates and controls that which changes andFry RENTION AND SALVATT develops, bis nane applies, nevertheless, to the changing and! developing world. the changing and tenporal character of al1 existing things is prominent in the commentary although it sta tn opposition to Zeus. It is suggested that most people, hot ct they, fare of the opinion that Moira spins events, but in Understand neither Moira nor spinning (14.1). Rather, thoughey fand in particular the thought of Zeus, prior to all existing things, spins events. /12/ Three statements make this cleats thought of Zeus has determined what is and first reads, "th was and vhat is yet to cone" (15.6). /13/ A second provides cease existing® (15.7). And col. 12 states that “whatever elf now cones into being from previously existing things." Logie the determiner is distinguished from the determined; epistenoll however, the relation is different, for to know the ond to know the other, given a one-to-one relation between word @ An interesting feature of the relation between Zeus’ thot and change in the world concerns the way Zeus shapes events. 1 would suggest that in the original poem the beginning is repre fented by Zeus, both chronologically (15.6 and 7) and achronsil ean ), and thus the contrast between Zeus and the world {a intensified. Second, the imagery in the commentary (15-7) ‘employs the language of generation and death; something is BORG lives, and dies, and thus, properly speaking, is no more. specific entity loses its identity as it emerges or a new configuration of entities. Here again is an explicit hought of Zeus conteast between events in the world and the ‘always and forever (14.11) and has the changing world as 488 object. Tf a distinction not native to the papyrus is used, the Ral of the movement from past to future becomes more clear. From @ substratum’ various elements feives a designation. The entity, nizable "entity" which 1 ever, is very different from Zeus. Zeus, Like his thought 48] aivays and forever, whereas the entities under the control of orns" they assume, and the enjoy only brief duration in the * pass on (nadety is used in 15.7) into other and dit ‘the distinction between substratum and entity also onabie™ us to further specify the relations between teus ané the world the world was created according to Orpheus, through sexual 96H with the consequence that al the world thus energed from Ze octet Be < ower Tanner in which the papyrus portrays time is that both beginning fn ond, birth and death, takine and leavin; form, are viewed as Entegral to the world. Neither beginning nor end, neither 1 or death are understood as unnatural or disturbances in an Stherwise harmonious system; they are presext from the beginning: helnion and dissolution of elements is described as Harmonia in 17.7, Ihe Derveni papyrus and especially the statenente the com Rentator explicitly attributes to Orpheus have been analyzed to Betect its main features, its portrayal of cosmic elements and Gontours, and the rela it indicates be:ween Zeus and the World. The goal of the analysis has been to extract the rudiments Bf a coszogonic-cosnological schema which begins with what Orpheus rhe cosmological framework arly nonistic, for it pre- Benes tous as a deity vhose existence spans tine and whose pover m to create a world wnose events ‘ollow his rule and Gruen the same way that a parent is in a child, since both teus © milarity between Zeus and the world, since Zou36 (CREATION AND SALVATION IN ANCIENT ORPHISM fe the doxée of the world, both in the sense of origin and 4m sense of governing what he has created. The commentary even specifics particular features of Zeus’ rule: thought (Nosra) cetch determines the course of events, air (Okeanos) which Gola itutes the power of Zeus by which he effects change, and Sexuality (aphrodite) which explains the manner in which the criginated and is perpetuated. Thus, we see a two-fold aisanil within the view of the papyrus. Firat, a relationship of oom Cinuity between Zeus and the world which explains birth end dal land language. In addition, Zeus* governance by thought and signifies the exteriority of Zeus to the world and constituted) 2, Coherence in Creation Accounts { rhe second question posed at the beginning of this chaptl now becomes relevant: what relationships are there between Ei {nformation which can be extracted from the Derveni comentaiy and information other Orphic cosmogonic accounts provide? /15/ ‘These relationships are delineated in seven Orphic account ney are extrenely conplex and are nost clear vhen presented 3M diagram form, Each of the following diagrans illunines the 4 1. Buripides, fragment from Melantppe. /16/ (uopeh uta) the race of mortals SMOLOGICAL ORIGINS 37 E99 tine (three seasons) arth Hea ven Sea 3. Budenos. /18/It is clear that the Orphic cosmogonies, Like all com deal with the origin of phenomena of the world or how thinga to be and BM are the most elemental. /23/ They suggest HEA a eaven and earth, heaven and earth are the product of a primal fissure also work with the distinction between h fF and AB add the element of the sea to result in the eriad worldly divisions: sky, earth, and water. /24/ With the tion and distinction, light and life can make an entrance, comparison of these cosmagonies will focus on the governanes ruling of the world, the positing of an origin, the monstrougy character of certain figures and events, and the nature of # The differences among the accounts become nost apparenty one considers the manner in which the cleavage between sky a earth occurred. fud provides only the barest informations separation took place pictures an Egg, whose power got the friction which divided the two halves into heaven and eam (we nay note, additionally, that the power is that of chrono] and AB accounts for the division by Eros, and adds, significl conmingle and be fruitful. Similarly, “deadly strife" in Alf accounts for the division. In Rf, on the other hand, OWE and Gaia are the products of sexual reproduction of an unusil sort, Phanes (father and husband) and Nyx (daughter and wifey give birth to sky and earth. /25/ me motif of creation either by Bros or by a dividing= unifying strife is clearly "sexual" in nature. This can be @ cerned in either or both of to senses. /26/ First, the oH force is itself sexual, since it separates and unites, and 18 productive. Second, the isaue or result of the forces is si h cases sexual 1am - tion and continuation of @ guage is used to describe the crea world, /27/ As we observed earlier, the Derveni commentator al explanation in deseribing the enploys a specifically sex coning-into-being of existing things and their perpetuationy although the separation 1s not into male and female entities {nto parts of a unified world whose sexual character derived ‘thos, Af enploys sexual language but of a sort very diff s (the description in the Derveni papys from the other accou {a unique): Ouranos and Gaia are separated but are the prodilel or issue of a father/husband and daughter/wife union. /28/ inilar co AY in that a sexual explanatioil Te ne a cearane ovesred Nena THEE ey send earlaontteoe om al. One upsaks of incest between father and daughter and . ‘a aks of a sexual act which requires two partners but a at OD sitqastr, oy cue pene i. a Aa) Gea el tere tao) accent < (the Derveni papyrus), the Language explicitly exci y @ partner but any product of Zeus' power before Where rule and creative power required for the act of creation Bhe actions of divine personages, since the issue of governance |ns rule require something to be ruled. Finally, the account i) weich includes both the force or power of sexuality and rule er: both the separation of Ouranos and Gaia into male and fen: heir symbol of union in the hernaphroditic Phanes, as wo hreat by the Titans to the rule of Zeus a variety of accounts, therefore, dealing with a 4 roblons: sexually creative force qua force, sexuality : poth union and separation, and of personalities Fe sexuality create the world. One may be tempted to Fe another of the Orphic accounts as contaminated or a ause of such diversities, but this analysia has ato the cluster of differences focuses on a single BFob len viewed from a var oe ; - from a variety of perepectives: hoy do existing . © be the way they are and continue as they de? : concluding that differences require rejection of one Of the accounts, it may be concluded that a careful2 CREATION AND SALVATION IN ANCIENT ORPHISH COSMOLOGICAL ORIGINS: alysis of the accounts reveals in all of then an Orphic #3 : silvia otket uabeged: cheer gen et arise the world is an importent factor in the Orphic cosmosonieal a 7. But what 4s common to all the accounts is ¢ the consequence that creation occurs after the covernaail a ehowgheeul ekerian/of o Siler OF Wing. | the predominates. ff explains ere 0 at rer may be reversed from one instance to another ind ruler (Zeus) by ous" swallowing of Phanes. The consequé ‘inde he dual features of existing things and their te that the ruler and the creator becone one and the sane ce threo: turther- fenteres a ate ther features which are equally complex: the In the Derveni papyrus a different view is found. Pride oe: igin, the monstrous or out om he existence of the world there is the hypostasis naned Zeus Oe ccm maa ee see gt 2evs' governance is equal in importance to his crease che scistence. In Bud, yx 48 the “first principle"; she tet secondary in the sense that it becomes active upon the com BUR. ccinores anteater eee a ‘the text of 44 {9 concerned exclusively with the is8u@)08 Gemrestary, tye is the prinordial mother who is the source of snore helpful, Phanes, the hermaphroditic deity who ental a. ois eee Poe fhe earth the children of Ouranos and Gaia. /29/ The reaqaalg ,aratsa ania eee a ae ratio the imprisonment is crucial: fear of loss of kinedon. ha ow Se eee eee tion of governance is at stake and, vhen raised for the fiegb the , a Likewise Soninse the potential challenge. 4% includes the notion of eas aereerate ie) eee eceie=Ansiaaee wien the oracle of RyX and his seeking counsel fron his fatheng 4 closely related to: tine; but 18 ap Kronos. Here Zeus rules by power (Okeanon) and thowsht (WOLEA Absts closely} ealeted Cabieep et 8 sms natitunt of the world in ite customary or recognlaaPhdl “ ssociation of the Fag with th Guranos; unlike them, he retains his kingsh ee ee URL nma CREATION AND SALVATION IN ANCIENT ORPHISM tnese makes a specific contribution to the shape the world fg the prelude to Light, to the succession of rulers, to worldly divisions, to the figure who fashions the cosmic egg or the tinexplained generation of the egg. Once again, ont how such diverse conceptions of origin and of consequences Wy follow can belong to a single "perspective" such as Orphismal wonders it can be denonstrated, however, that each of these starting) Geals with a aifferent problem, while sharing a cluster of & tho thesis that the myths constitute variants of a “perspects or “spirit™ becomes not only plausible but valid. the notice, in the first place, that Nyx prohibits obser ification of entities in all the accounts where Nia paradoxically, that Nyx is a source of knowledge} and ide: wisdom to all the rulers who follow. /32/ In fact, prior €6) paration into day and night, sky and earth, the world is Okeanos, Likewise, is without form hand, in AP Che tunknewn and nonexistent content and indistinct in fon the other Ycands at the beginning but lacks any connotation of formes rather he is described as having counsels which never perish (Kern, 1922:7r- 67) and az dividing sections of the world a apportioning their rule to various gods (Kern, 1922:fn. 67 Finally, he is thought of as one who creates in darkness. Aither and Chaos! this account an important clue is fou subsequent to the labors of Chronos, Nyx appears later still r struggles for the rulershl or destroy the succession of rulers and tl are all within the world which does not eliminate There is neither a direct statement nor a susgesti and ee) that Chronos is ever absent from subsequent events: a origin" of all that Zeus swallows Phanes, the "first born an that Zeus does not thereby eliminate Phanes oF vs Phanes continues to exist; the Zeus who S¥a ‘and end of all." enasculate him Phanes becomes the "beginning, middle ‘The place Chronos occupies at the beginning in er Finda parallel with the location of chaos in the nature of in this account ean be determined from the virtually adjectl 1s of Nyx and Erebos and Tartaros and the explicit #H present, A second dete raence of Heal agait tion of the nature of Chaos follows from the ener fact of their nonexistenss) earth, and sen, from Chaos and th nen there was only Chaos. Chaos is the creative source SFM) which the world derives. In all the accounts, the distineta between beginning and world does not deny the relationship 3m sty between the beginning and the world; in fact the Bee ia the came. Free conclusion that the "beginning point™ continues to remain ature of the world is strengthened by two further consider 5 Pirst, the beginning point is pictured more ae a dimensic .. pict a8 a dimension ee, characteristic than af a person. In ft, Chronos is an excep hon, yet here he establishes the conditions for heaven and earth sf aso the elements of Light and Life whick move between them) provoe renains. Second, since the existence of the world is Gist inouishable but inseparable from its governance, and since : reonages exercise dominion over thet world, the very eos for continuing rule or governance stands in counterpoise to liye wore of which Chaos is a feature. /33/ The manner in which the Orphic cosnogonies portray and relate 7 in and governance of the world, and the creation and Ipstere of the world has been desonstrated. In both cases, the ai: p 1g one of distinction and tenaicn, and also continuity land control. Tt is also evident that chaos--Nyx-chronos--Okeanos-— rev fy at the beginning emptiness, darkness, or formlessness as’ tive source for the world. © the world is in existence, it bears an unusual, IRonstr0us, or even grotesque character. Herakles or BE, che figure born from Okeanos, is a clear example of this ons He has the body of a dragon. te is multi-headed, hte head a bull's, another a Lion's, and in between the head of 8 600 1 19224fr, 69 and 70). /34/ With this fioure, adas emeskios, vas Ananke and Adrasteia who are sonehow the sane, Beth are boayless and pervade the entire cosms. The sane figure BE chronos, in 7, creates Aither and Chaos, but lacks the Eitssscone tentures; he 1s merely ageless, poverful, extraordinarily = less extension (Kern, 1922:/s, 69-70). The figure ereanets An both Wi and AP» Ae strikingly sister. In both fee 7.72 St Per oF the commis tag, /28/ but nore important ts Be Snreriion given hin. as chronoe, he bee the boty of a - 18 face is unusual; st has four eyes (Keen, 1922: 4 His body has angelic wings of gold, similar to the he 7 OR in 48 (ern, 19221fn. 78). Mis voice sounds 2ike gy, Cneination of the sounds made by a bull and a Lion (Kern a Ih both accounts he { very different from the ky and feminine earth he creates, since he combines ig, ters within his hermaphroditic self. His being accen- is sexualitypS ate eres psc wig ea OTS ad a eer and became her husband as well. In the Derveng Se sce an the sequence ds allso unusual at least ana grotesque we noticed the mixing and mating of elenents to create the Be cc. reus, although he had the weapons of thunder and Light- ee eae rg aims tn uta pair attention to the violence perpetrated by one divine generatil a \e accounts I have examined agree, more or less, that emma, = Rigeepeepg spony pemeree orn ants ee regatta oe eR te avn al at oe mopapem iceemperenee | Eeepememmne nc en eqroqity gure Sau ace nena SONORA: eager irp ope rey calagrie SD ee oe eee er a ee cn ace f tire mate tnar ot acry ens MMMM, enselnat stanf e eey amet re ee eee ae Peerecepeamrreyre: = ier SE ee Co ee ccc eer te en cokers ae Speen es eam gelesen eee er Ere «seamen pening er ayers See a nT re a es en ae EE Ce eee eed ee er es Seer ene ee ee te ES cee a ee oe oe ee re a ec a ee i Sean ee eee pare ee eos a a ne eee ma so aa ects area reer ent aectticaal eons oe Sloe Steropes (Lightning), and Arges (shining)--have only one ey etturcs have focused on two problens, one a aatter of identif {ee Resic: a 147-89 and Kern, 1922:f». 179) eon a he second one of explanation. ‘The first problem The unusual traits of Phanes given in ave already Bf Beene’ the tot sources for the imagery. Generally, the discussed, but this account includes additional strange feat oad S that “Oriental” traces are unmistakably present. The there ia the story of his incestuous relations with Nyx and BP ratory focus of dating rests on the idenzification of Plato ue 660), story of the Titans, gods of evil i eece of the sixth and fifth centuries B.c.R, (Guthri power, insolence, and pride (Kern, 1922 119 and 120). ae it, 1976:222-26) 1 this Guthsie adds that the. fre cast into darkness by their father (Kern, 1922:/r. 12004 ™ centuries also marked the "birth of rationalien" in oaneed equally strange act. His violence enablel gy gives the tur tae Ce rts eile ih ha neste SMM pr rr panne i se ae ee aE Sao ne eae res ares : a1 ouranos was thea CREATION AND SALVATION IN ANCTENT ORPHISH of Greek culture the comparative seclusion of Orphic 4a fron the main flow of Greek thought" (1966:90) « portant as these problema are, there are additional i Attention has been eal natters which remain to be resolved. the fact that the differences among the cosmogonic accounts striking; some include the “unusual” and some exclude it. lures should not obscure oF sources and dating for 8 the search for their explanation. /40/ The fact is that the) monstrosities" are patterned and quite coherent. They £oeuil es, arms, «ing8)+ ofl without exception, on the body (heads, © exual dimension (incest, hernaphroditic form, and enasculat fanily-relations (struggle for suprenacy, swallowing @@ in ala previous generations, imprisonment of children), and, ey algo occur in a eon fon attempts to combine oppositions. of cosmogenic accounte whose motifs include a continuity Bee the act of creation and the further governance of the worlds continuity between the origin-paint and the subsequent nature Finally, all the monstrosity and all the @ispropal jel, Lees, they describe deities and a the world occur on @ mythical that occurred prior to the appearance of man in the world, In keeping with the description of the "unusual" featured {tion consists the motifs underlying them, T offer an interpret of three facets. First, the ambiguity ve find within the aeet is to be explained as a focusing on diversity. The anbiguitd accounts are attempts to portray the anbis find in the orphi in existence itself: up/down, male/female, gods/men, 11 fe/daaeay Second, the enphasis on flesh or bode and beginning/present features of the divine figures is not capricious or a matter sfable,* but insofar as it functions to accentuate and intensil eatures, attention is drayn to the creative and gov@l rack #6) abilities, the very themes we find in accounts which unusual": strength (multi-armed), knowledge (multi-eyed and jeaded), and extension or presence (nulti-eyed and bodiiess) (rurner+93-112). ‘Third, the emphasis on sexual exaggeration be explained by ignorance of sexual differentiation and repro lon 4s clearly stated in ‘ ic god goes beyond the sem accounts. Rather, the hermaphrodi differentiation to exemplify, in a being such as Phanes, the bination of opposite features. In this way we find a mediata of opposites for the purpose of asserting the relation of oom between the one beginning and the plurality of the world. i COSMOLOGICAL ORIGINS 0 Lyonyay of Zeus and the incest of Phanes-Nyx seek to account Po Generation of plurality from a nonistie origin Ber vrne wotifs Aiscussed in this chapter converge on the thene of which is deeply embedded in the Orphie commogonies and can be tre 4 Grejcved and articolated in summary form. In the first place, time pine sho events of the world, Coming into being and passing out of eins (or ceasing to be) and bringing things to fulfilinent are all pe work of Zeus. The tine of zeus (always and forever) and Ieyrovos (ageless) stand in contrast to the tine of the world pesioning and ceasing). The contrast between the two shows the fin: tations of tomporal duration inherent in existing things pecond, tine also Bears s "fixed" or hard" stamp, the monstrosity pf cine is that it is spun and thus inflexible; it is atropate (whet is done cannot be undone) and inexorable. Although tine Bpursues transgressions," it lacks a soral dimension; tine is Reiter good nor evil, but simply a datum, and ite ‘outrageous Dpkture bas to do with its inexorable dimension. third, tine is not lomy fixed and hard; paradoxically, it is algo flexible and variable. fn being and character, Chronos 4a that by which things cone into Bains and is of great extension or duration (ageless). zt is, Bhere‘ore, the context for good and evil, for birth and wisdom as Beli as cruelty ané mutilation, truth and deception. Fourth, time iso beare a stamp of regularity: the force of Bros causes the Fegular alternation of the seasons and thus the productivity of the rth. Finally, time as a force also unifies and divides, separates BP beings together the spatial dimensions of earth, heaven, and He: a9 woll and the seasonal alternation. Time is almost the con~ Baincr or structure in which the contents move, or the law of Stance which regulates coming into being, the "recognizable forn" uring existence, and the inevitable disintesration to which all ths re subject. The sane force which brings together 0 rende Tis analysis of time in the Orghic cosnogonies does not per- {88 conclusion that tine 1s defined as bid or evil and there e scaped or at least feared. Nor is there justification I ans its ess cscles i vodteahibrnaitber wit ne ge nS: /41/ A aisfereut interpretation of the orphic cosmo- ° is more accurate. In these accounts we find that fac, 7,20 {nescapabie characteristic of “existing things," in cs, nat tenborality 48 the form or structure--the iopos--of the ler... TPOFAL significance derives from the fact that it is ‘by, and distinct from, Zeus or Chronos (always and ever)therefore, the character of temporality also becones more clea and wore specific. Temporality, in the Orphic accounts, 18 a matter of sequence and alternation. Since tine is described & terns of birth and ceasing to be, of coming to form and dissol uous presence of the oxi tion, it is the opposite of the cor point, which persists as the correlate of tine. Time is a mat} of sequence and duration, is divided into seamer {neludes death as well as birth. Death is the correlate of Ui We see, then, that tine, in the Orphic cosmological fra has three valences. First, it ie sequential rather than cirdy 1s end as well as beginning, deal fa moment. Second, time incl fs well as life. Finally, death is not a matter of an invasiaa interruption into an otherwise good world; death is not the ed quence of a fall or the result of a mistake or the sign of a # in the world of man, Death inheres in the world and is a trail of existing things. ‘Ai) cosmogonies, by definition, have as their crucial fo the giving of an account of the genesis of the world. The spa shape the orphic cosnogonies give the world have been éelineall In this chapter. the distinction between gods and world involl the categorical difference between beings whose power, exister and nature distinguish them from beings who are subject to Bilt [Integration and dissolution, and death. the differences, hows wat connect the gods to the! provide the grounds for the bonds th world: through rule or kingship (governance), naming (knowled of the world), and sexuality (creativity). Yet the "chaos" of the world is neither a distortion nor a beginning or origin Qisorder but the Adgrund which persists with and in the existe of the vorld as the source of creativity, life, and motion. Goxically, the similarities between gods and men enables men continue to live and participate in naning and in sexuality, thus in orestivity. And again, paradoxically, the similaritiet between the monistic origin of the world and the world in its multiplicity enable the world te be named, in the words of th perveni papyrus, "Zeus." The world is a unity. There is, a no suggestion of a fall or a fault or a defect in the world tht Constituted, birth and death, tine as a sequence, and noralitl fare integral to the constitution of the world. that the Orphic cosmogonil y an identifiable Tt may be concluded, therefore, which has an integrity or consistency. tt in ‘ORIGINS: 51 feria's character in presenting a context for human exiatenc Te, vworla-view* given is neither speculative, philosophic, nor Geientitic. /42 sofar as man is ike the world and, indeed, enbedded in ene tions of the world condition his being. As Walter porkert points out + the function of the e2enogonie m : concentrates still mote on the indi- iduals™ Te extends tothe, renovation 2¢ lite, the world (19681104). i Eine and death as boing inextricably woven into the world so as to give the contours and conditions of hunan life. the destiny With this in mind that we will turn in the next chapter to the When 4 critical edition of the perveni commentary finally is Published, it will be possible to learn nore about the original ane of Orpheus appears, but it is evide tthe main subject ¢ ae eT ees the entixe commentary. Only approximately Sriginal poem which are not known from other Orph: t: | f. $. G. Kapsomenos wrote me in aie vtLication of the materials found in the excavations of the tomb oF some unknown reason, this plan did not fae atively held until a text is available