P hanes and D ionysos in the D erveni T heogony
2005; Taylor & Francis; Volume: 80; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1080/00397670600684691
ISSN1502-7805
Autores Tópico(s)Ancient Near East History
ResumoAbstract Since its discovery in 1962 the Derveni papyrus has been the subject of intense scholarly debate and has in more than one way been crucial for our understanding of Orphism and presocratic philosophy. In most reconstructions of this fragmented text scholars have relied on other Orphic theogonies written at least 300 years after the Derveni papyrus was placed on the funeral pyre. In this article I consider the methodological problems connected to this approach and suggest that we should reconstruct the text on its own premises rather than using other texts to reconstruct it. By concentrating the analysis on the text itself I argue that in the Derveni papyrus it is Zeus, not Dionysos, which is the main deity and that the Orphic god par excellence Phanes is not even present. Notes 1. Cavallari (Citation1879); Comparetti (Citation1879, 1880). 2. Smith & Comparetti (Citation1882: 113). 3. Plate A4.6: See also A2.7; A3.7. All references to the gold plates follow Zuntz (Citation1971). See Edmonds (Citation1999) for a critical analysis of the myth of the Dismemberment of Dionysos and Comparetti's interpretation of it. 4. Smith & Comparetti (Citation1882: 116). See also Comparetti (1880: 158). 5. Rohde (1903: 131). 6. Rohde (1903: 131)., p. 111. 7. Harrison (Citation1991: 461). 8. Harrison (Citation1991: 461)., p. 468. See also her summarizing remarks on the following page, “Orpheus was a real man, a mighty singer, a prophet and a teacher. bringing with him a new religion, seeking to reform an old one. He was martyred and after his death his tomb became a mantic shrine.” 9. Edmonds (Citation1999). 10. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff (Citation1931: 202). 11. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff (Citation1931: 202). 12. Linforth (Citation1941: 289). 13. Zuntz (Citation1971). 14. West (Citation1976: 221); West (Citation1983: 3). 15. Rusyayeva (Citation1978: 88), plate 1 reproduced on p. 89. See also West (1982: 18) and (1983: 19), where the drawing is quite different. West reads instead of Bernabé (Citation2004: 388–92, 463–465) T. Bernabé follows Rusyayeva. Either way the discovery is unprecedented and extremely valuable. 16. For the papyrus, see Kapsomenos (Citation1964) (cols. 18, 19, 21, parts of 22, 23, 24, 26); Issue 47 of ZPE (1982) in which all columns were published anonymously (after p. 300); Laks and Most (Citation1997) (cols. 1–7, 12 and 25). The papyrus itself is believed to be a copy, dated to 330–320 B.C., of the original text from 400 B.C. The discoveries in Olbia and Derveni, not to mention the vast number of gold plates that have been excavated since 1969, stand in stark contrast to W. K. C. Guthrie's comment in the second edition of his Orpheus and Greek Religion from 1952, where he states that his views on Orphism from the first edition are mostly unchanged since “no striking new evidence has appeared on the subject or is likely to appear” (p. xxxix). 17. See a list of the gold plates in Cole (Citation2003: 202–205). 18. Bernabé (Citation2002) in response to Edmonds (Citation1999). 19. West (Citation1983: 69). West mockingly introduces the stemma by quoting H. Schwabl's warning: “Es ist wohl überhaupt verkehrt, ein Stemma aller orphischen Theogonien aufstellen zu wollen” (1983: 264). 20. According to the Neoplatonic philosopher Damascius, 5–6th century A.D., there were three Orphic theogonies; the theogony according to Eudemus (peripatetic philosopher and student of Aristotle) (the Eudemian Theogony), the theogony contained in the Sacred Discourse in 24 Rhapsodies (the Rhapsodic Theogony), and the theogony according to Hieronymus and Hellanicus (the Hieronyman Theogony). Furthermore, we now have fragments of the Derveni Theogony. West insists on including the Cyclic Theogony (which “stood at the beginning of the Epic Cycle” in Apollodoros’ Bibliotheca (1983: 69, 121). However, Apollodoros never attributes this theogony to Orpheus) or “the (or a) Protogonos Theogony” (1983: 96), neither of which is included here (not being important to the argument proposed). 21. West (Citation1982: 18). 22. Dam. In Plat. Phaed. I §§ 10–12 Westerink = 350 F Bernabé. 23. Some will argue that Dionysos was present in the Derveni papyrus but that the narrative stops short of his introduction in the theogony. I refute this view later in the article. 24. Similar to Betegh (Citation2004: 94) in his study of the Derveni papyrus. 25. Dam. De princ. 123–4 (I 316–19 Ruelle) = 90, 96 T Bernabé, 109, 121, 139 F Bernabé, 75–80 F Bernabé, 20 F Bernabé. 26. Not to be confused with Kronos the Titan. 27. See West (Citation1983: 70–75) for a reconstruction of the Rhapsodic Theogony with references. 28. West (Citation1983: 229) proposes that the Rhapsodic Theogony was written some time after the year 100 B.C. based on metre, prosody, style and content. Luc Brisson (Citation1991: 170) opts for a later date, around A.D. 100, since Chronos first makes his appearance in this period and probably was introduced into the Orphic theogony through the Roman Mithras cult. The exact date is not important for the argument. 29. West (1983: 264). The Cyclic Theogony is not discussed here; see note 20 above. 30. Dam. De princ. 123 bis (III 162, 15 Westerink) = 86 F Bernabé. Also, according to Dam. De princ. 123 bis (III 161, 19 Westerink) Chronos, according to the Hieronyman version, created not only Aither and Chaos, but also Erebos (78 F Bernabé). 31. Since the Hieronyman Theogony referred to by Damascius is more or less identical to the version known from the church father Athenagoras, it is probable, but not certain, that Athenagoras and Damascius consulted the same Orphic theogony (West Citation1983: 179–80). Kirk, Raven and Schofield (1999: 24–6) regard the Hieronyman and the version and Athenagoras as belonging to two different traditions. 32. West (1983: 181). 33. Although West (1983: 208, 234) includes Nyx in the Hieronyman Theogony. 34. Dam. De princ. 124 (III 162, 19 Westerink) = 20 F Bernabé. Although nothing more is certain, West (1983: 117–19, 234) has boldly reconstructed the theogony based on Pl. Tim. 40c, where Plato discusses a theogony which West assumes must have been by either Musaeus or Orpheus. Although Nyx is not present in the text, West identifies her as the demiurge from whom all other gods have sprung. See also Larry Alderink (Citation1981: 37), who assumes that Nyx, in this version, gave birth to Ouranos and Gaia. 35. In Metaph. N 1091b4 (=CAG 1.821.8) = 367 F Bernabé. Kern considered Alexander of Aphrodisias’ commentary a testimony to the Rhapsodic Theogony, OF 107 Kern. Bernabé places it among the uncertain fragments. 36. Olymp. In Phaed. 1.3 (OF 107 Kern). 37. See also Betegh (Citation2004: 151 f.), for his critique of West's stemma. 38. Brisson (Citation2003:19, n2). 39. In Philodemus, de pietate 47a (= Epimenides B 5 DK), we are told that Epimenides derived the creation of everything () from Aer and Night (Nyx). Later in the same work 9(137.5) he writes that in some versions, e.g. Musaeus, all things come from Night and Tartaros. Damascius, on quoting Eudemus (see note 32), disagrees with his claim that Homer had Okeanos and Tethys as the original gods from whom all was created and argues instead that it was Nyx who was Homer's primordial deity, based on Hom. Il. 14.261, where Zeus is hindered from throwing Hypnos out of the aither by Nyx; “for he was in awe of doing what would be displeasing to swift Night” (trans. Kirk, Raven and Schofield (Citation1999: 17)). 40. Phanes probably appears in the Hieronyman version as his alter ego Protogonos, since his description is similar to Phanes in the Rhapsodic Theogony (hermaphroditic, golden wings, the heads of a snake and an ox (143 F Bernabé)). According to Athenagoras, it was Phanes who was swallowed by Zeus. 41. Betegh (Citation2004: 28). The ZPE edition of 1982 is identical except for: In an unpublished translation, Lamberton suggests rather than Laks & Most (1997: 15, n28). See also 8 F Bernabé, who has and 42. I refer to the author of the Derveni Papyrus as the “commentator” throughout the article. 43. West (Citation1983: 85); Brisson (Citation2003: 22 ff.). For the equation of Phanes with Protogonos, see 125 F, 123 F and possibly 126 F Bernabé (Rhapsodic Theogony), Hymn 6 (143 F Bernabé). 44. Brisson (Citation2003: 23). 45. This also explains the prefix Ibid. 46. Ibid., p. 22. Laks & Most (Citation1997: 15). The translation has been checked by Kyriakos Tsantsanoglou, who is in charge of the publication of the papyrus. 47. Ibid., p. 16. 48. Dam. De princ. 123 bis (III 162, 5; 15 Westerink) = 80, 86 F Bernabé. 49. According to Tsantsanoglou, the translation of the text should be: “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…”, Laks & Most (Citation1997: 18, n49); Betegh (Citation2004: 39). Zeus is not called protogonos by Orpheus, but by people misunderstanding Orpheus’ words. Could the commentator be referring to the same people he is criticizing in col. 20? 50. Betegh (Citation2004: 113). Brisson (Citation2003: 28) considers this a possibility albeit a poor one. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. See Calame Citation1997:67 ff. 56. 57. This is the reason why Brisson (Citation2003: 19, n2), equates the Derveni Theogony with the Eudemian version. 58. See Kirk, Raven and Schofield (Citation1999: 31–32) for a similar translation. Cp. Janko (2002: 27). 59. See note 33. Consider also the Eudemian version which in any case does not bear witness to Phanes. 60. Betegh (Citation2004: 151). Very similar to West's definition. 61. Ibid., p. 340. Thus agreeing with Brisson (2003: 20). West (1983: 94) writes that “[t]here can be little doubt of a connection with the story told in the Rhapsodies”. 62. 206, 255, 276, 283 F Bernabé. It is not certain, but probable, that this version also appeared in the Hieronyman version; see note 31 above. 63. Cf. the theogony told by (?pseudo-) Alexander of Aphrodisias and the Eudemian Theogony. 64. 65. He is probably alluded to in cols. 11.10 and 12.2 as well. 66. See note 49 above. 67. 68. 69. 70. This makes the commentator's interpretation similar to the one Jean-Pierre Vernant has observed in Hesiod's myth of the races, where the degeneration of races is believed to be reversed some time in the future (Vernant 1983: 20 ff.). Betegh (Citation2004: 257–9) interprets this as proof that the commentator's cosmogony is cyclical. 71. 72. Col. 16.14-15 is very corrupt. Betegh, 2004:34, has: [CA. 20]. Tsantsanoglou's translation appears in Laks & Most (1997: 17, n40) 73. Brisson (Citation1997: 149). See also Edmonds (Citation2004: 58, n84), who points out that Dionysos is not always depicted as the child of Persephone and that “other endings to the Derveni genealogies are equally plausible”.
Referência(s)