Defining Orphism

The Beliefs, the ›teletae‹ and the Writings

Anthi Chrysanthou

• Publisher: De Gruyter
• Year: 2020
• ISBN:
  9783110678536
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Théologie et religion
• Subtopic: Histoire des religions

The complex matter of Orphism has so far been addressed by scholars through studies focusing on one of its components each time, primarily the Derveni Papyrus and the Gold Tablets while the text of the Orphic Rhapsodies has remained under-examined mostly due to its fragmentary nature and the lack of a reconstruction. This book brings all of the major components of Orphism together in one study, in this way highlighting both parallels and divergences between them, and a wide range of non-Orphic sources referring to Orphic practices, beliefs and texts. For the complete analysis of the Orphic Rhapsodies a reconstruction of the text was necessary, which is included in this book along with a commentary and translation. This work proposes a new definition of Orphism and it can constitute a whole-encompassing and concise guide for scholars and students interested in Orphism. The reconstruction of the Orphic Rhapsodies could also contribute on shifting the understanding of this work to new perspectives as it demonstrates that the Orphic Rhapsodies was a more complex text rather than a single continuous theogonic narrative as has been approached up to this date.

1Introduction

I would like to thank the University of Leeds for giving me the opportunity to undertake the research which led to the publication of this book. I would also like to express my sincere gratitude to Dr. Emma Stafford and Prof. Malcolm Heath for their support and constructive feedback. This book would not have been possible without the constant encouragement of my family: Anna, Chrysanthos, Tania, Antonia and Michalakis. Finally, I would like to thank my husband Dovydas for always being there for me.

When I began my research on Orphism I quickly realised that there was not a specific and widely accepted definition of this phenomenon and that the vast amount of sources referring to Orphism is not directly proportionate to how important its place in ancient Greek history is considered by scholarship. By the time I reached the end of my research I was more convinced than ever that there needs to be a major shift in the way that the disputed matter of Orphism is perceived by scholars. Despite the long and significant history of Orphic scholarship I believe that as time went by the study of Orphism has been somewhat inhibited by academic blind-spotting rooted deeply into doctrines of what is and is not acceptable or expected in ancient Greek religion. In this book, I aim to approach the material with a fresh look, without any presuppositions and limitations in order to reach a clear understanding of this phenomenon. This is not of course to say that previous theories on the matter will not be taken into consideration or to take away of the significance of previous scholarship but that the attitude of this book will be more exploratory rather than deterministic. More specifically, this book aims to bring together in one discussion all the basic constituents of Orphism and the majority of non-Orphic ancient sources which refer to Orphism in order to propose a redefinition of what exactly Orphism was and to evaluate its place in ancient Greek religion. The basic constituents I will be analysing are: the Derveni Papyrus, the Gold and Bone Tablets and the Orphic Rhapsodies, which are broadly considered by scholarship to be important sources relating to Orphism.1 Other ancient sources range from Platonic passages to archaeological remains and coins, ranging chronologically from the archaic period to Late Antiquity. I hope that this book can offer new insights into the matter and a new definition of the Orphic phenomenon while at the same time serve as a concise introductory guide for Orphic researchers.

The general tendency of scholarship on Orphism has been constantly changing. Perhaps one of the first scholarly opinions on Orphism can be considered the one of Proclus who in the 5th century A.D. claimed that the totality of Greek theology springs from the Orphic mythical doctrine.2 In the 1900s the belief that such a thing as Orphism existed in antiquity was the prevailing one. Diels would write in 1897 ‘people calling themselves Orphics did indeed exist in Archaic Greece, they were roughly contemporaries of Pherekydes, and they maintained cosmogonic doctrines quite comparable to his in several respects’.3 In 1903, Harrison, in her Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion analysed Orphism, asserting as its ‘cardinal doctrine’ the apotheosis element, the ὁσιότης, and also identifying the gold tablets as Orphic and discussing them as a source of Orphic eschatology.4 Kern’s edition of the Orphicorum Fragmenta in 1922 was undoubtedly the first and most important work that would allow scholarship on Orphism to go even further.5 In 1935 (revised in 1952) Guthrie published Orpheus and Greek Religion: A Study of the Orphic Movement, where he tends to acknowledge Orphism as a religion with certain beliefs ‘founded on a collection of sacred writings’, but not in the strict sense of a sect.6 When he refers to it as a religion he does not use the term in its modern meaning but points to the difficulties in defining the boundaries of Orphism. He claims, thus, that Orphism was a particular modification of religion with Orphic rites but that the Orphics did not ‘worship a different god’ and their means of worshipping were not ‘always obviously different’.7 Orphics, as Guthrie claimed, moulded the primitive mythology to ‘suit their own conceptions’.8

Linforth shifted scholarly opinion on Orphism in the opposite direction. In The Arts of Orpheus in 1941 he collected a large number of ancient sources related to Orphism, divided them to ante and post 300 B.C. and analysed them to conclude that there is no such thing as a systematic set of Orphic beliefs. Dodds, in his discussion of Orphism in The Greeks and the Irrational (1951), mentions that his view on Orphism was influenced by Linforth’s work, which led him to suggest that Orphism as a concept stands on fragile ground, patched up with material from ‘the fantastic theogonies’ of Proclus and Damascius’.9 In 1962, the discovery of the Derveni Papyrus containing an allegorical interpretation of an Orphic Theogony would stir the waters again due to its early date, since the papyrus is dated to the 4th century B.C. and the theogony itself even earlier.

The prevalent tendency amongst more recent scholars has been to identify Orphism through its literature, and define as Orphic the works associated with Orpheus and the religious ‘spirit’ that pervades these works. Gruppe maintained that there is a doctrine prevalent in the Orphic theogonies, which he summarised in a single phrase attributed to Musaeus: ‘Everything comes to be out of One and is resolved into One’.10 Focusing on the literary aspect of Orphism was also Alderink’s and West’s approach, as becomes apparent from the latter’s work The Orphic Poems dealing solely with the Orphic Theogonies. He suggested that ‘the only definite meaning that can be given to the term is the fashion for claiming Orpheus as an authority’.11 Alderink suggested the term ‘Orphic theology’ and considered Orphism to be ‘a mood or spirit which animates the selected literary texts’ and a ‘soteriological thrust which was expressed in literary form’.12 He also claimed that if there were Orphic mysteries then they had to be literary, emphasizing the importance of knowledge.13

Scholarship up to now has approached Orphism as something problematic, as a part of Greek religion that should not exist. This is due to its apparent strong differentiation from anything that we know about ancient Greek religion. Certain aspects attributed to Orphism such as vegetarianism or emphasis on texts, for example, do not conform to the various ‘norms’ of ancient Greek society. Edmonds is the most recent scholar representing one of the extreme sides of the debate and he has published an abundance of articles and books which offer new insights and alternative interpretations of Orphic material. His contribution, thus, has also been invaluable, especially in terms of stirring the debate. In his book Redefining Ancient Orphism (2013) he discusses the history of Orphism and its literary and religious aspects. He addresses the non-conformity of Orphism mentioned above, claiming that:

Orphism, however, must not be understood as the exception to the rule, the doctrinal current within Greek religion or the forerunner of the doctrinal tradition of Christianity that followed. Rather, Orphism, to use a modern ‘-ism’ term to designate a modern scholarly concept, can be understood as the category that includes those things that the ancient Greeks associated with the name of Orpheus, the Orphica –whether text or ritual.14

Edmonds, thus, whom Bernabé has characterised as a ‘crusader’ against Orphism, does not accept that Orphism as a religion with specific beliefs and mysteries ever existed.15 I believe that the fact, that –ism is a modern scholarly concept, most probably used for the sake of convenience, should not be taken as a reason to reject the possibility of a coherence in beliefs that is consistent with some fluidity through time and space. The –ism designating a modern scholarly concept is also applied for example to Pythagoreanism, which no scholar will deny included cosmological philosophy and religious beliefs and also influenced later school of thoughts despite its fluidity through time. The ‘label’ Orphism, then, might not be so much like the case of ‘Buddhism’ but more like the case of ‘Pythagoreanism’ with a similarly complex nature.

Edmonds also argues extensively against the existence of an Orphic belief in an original sin based on the Zagreus myth, since he claims that the anthropogony of the Titans is an interpolation by the Neoplatonist Olympiodorus.16 Edmonds, moreover, argues for a polythetic definition of the term Orphic: ‘if something – person, text, or ritual – boasted of extraordinary purity or sanctity, made a claim to special divine connection or extreme antiquity, or was marked by extra-ordinary strangeness, perversity, or alien nature, then that thing might be labelled Orphic, classified with other Orphic things, and perhaps even sealed with the name of Orpheus’.17 This approach seems useful prima facie, but in my opinion it turns out to be too broad, for according to this definition, Empedokles or the Sibylline Oracles for example, should – or ‘might’ – be classified as Orphic. Edmonds’ book also demonstrates another problem for the study of Orphism since there is not a systematic analysis of all the Orphic and non-Orphic evidence, and the absence of a systematic analysis makes a complete and coherent picture impossible. For example the text of the Orphic Rhapsodies is not discussed by Edmonds in Redefining Ancient Orphism (2013) but only its nature. A definition of the totality cannot be complete if all the components are not examined. Edmonds, of course, discusses all the components in separate works such as his most recent edition of the gold tablets. But it is essential that if a single study is to define Orphism, it should take adequately into consideration all the components.

The other extreme of the most recent scholarship is represented by Bernabé. His edition of the Orphic fragments in two volumes in 2004–2005 (Orphicorum et Orphicis similium testimonia et fragmenta. Poetae Epici Graeci. Pars II. Fasc. 1 and 2. Bibliotheca Teubneriana) is a significant addition to Orphic studies and should be used by every researcher working in this area. It includes new fragments that were not included in Kern’s edition, with a literature apparatus and it is the edition used in this book.18 It is indicative of the importance of this new edition of the Orphic fragments that a collection of short essays on selected fragments has been published in honour of Bernabé (Tracing Orpheus: Studies of Orphic Fragments in Honour of Alberto Bernabé, 2011). Bernabé has written numerous insightful works on every aspect of Orphism. He argues that Orphism had a core of specific Orphic doctrines: the duality of humans as body and soul, the belief in an ‘original sin’ for which the soul is being punished, the possibility of escaping this punishment through a cycle of reincarnations, and the purpose of the soul to be united with the divine. Bernabé has also edited, with Casadesús, the two volume Orfeo y la tradición órfica. Un reencuentro, which deals comprehensively with all aspects of Orphism and includes articles by a variety of scholars, including Bernabé and Casadesús themselves, Graf, Brisson, West and Burkert.19 These two volumes consist of no fewer than 1600 pages. Though this book is an essential resource for researchers on Orphism it once again demonstrates the need for a concise and coherent representation of the Orphic and non-Orphic material, since its length and the variety of perspectives represented mean that it cannot achieve a unified account of Orphism, which this book aims to provide.

The fact, then, that there is not a book available which discusses in a concise and all-encompassing way all the main components of Orphism has led me to the production of this work. I aim to define the nature of Orphism from the Archaic to Hellenestic times, through literary analysis and examination of the main components of Orphism (DP, GT, BT, OR) and of other literary ancient sources which can offer insight into the notion of Orphism. In addition, I will be looking at other types of evidence such as inscriptions and coins. I will initially examine non-Orphic material which refers or relates to Orphism and thus will help us identify ancient attitudes towards Orphism. I will next discuss the myth of Dionysos’ dismemberment by the Titans, since it is a central point of the scholarly debate. I will then discuss the gold tablets, Derveni Papyrus and the Orphic Rhapsodies and juxtapose them to the picture created by the earlier chapters. I will not deal with the Orphic Hymns and the Orphic Argonautika, which are relatively late sources and are not so relevant to the earlier form of Orphism but rather to its evolution in later times, which is not part of the present project. These particular works differ from the Neoplatonic commentaries which I will be examining, since even though in both cases we have works composed in late antiquity, the former ones are poetic Orphic works while the latter preserve and comment on passages from the Orphic Rhapsodies thus retaining material from earlier periods.

A systematic juxtaposition of the Derveni Papyrus, the gold and bone Tablets and the Orphic Rhapsodies in a single work will facilitate the analysis of possible parallels or divergences. Even though the gold and bone Tablets and the Derveni Papyrus have been studied separately and extensively by scholarship, this is not the case with the Orphic Rhapsodies. Until now the latter has been approached via the hundreds of fragments through which it survives and mostly through West’s reconstruction of its basic narrative. To facilitate a detailed analysis of the Orphic Rhapsodies, and its comparison with other Orphic and non-Orphic material, I have attempted a more elaborate reconstruction, with the incorporation and arrangement of all the quoted verses we have available. In this way there is the possibility that the text of the Orphic Rhapsodies may become visible as an entity in its own right, instead as a fragmented chaos. Through the analysis of ancient textual and archaeological evidence, in combination with the discussion of the main components of Orphism (the OR, DP, GT and BT), we will be able to discern possible Orphic religious beliefs and mysteries through time and space and decipher their nature and relationship to one another. We will also be able to examine whether Orphic ideas and texts/myths had any role in the formation of otherwise well-known rites and mysteries, such as the Eleusi...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• List of Tables
• Abbreviations
• 1 Introduction
• 2 Non-Orphic material referring to Orphic practices, beliefs and writings
• 3 The Myth of Dionysos’ Dismemberment
• 4 The Gold Tablets – Practical and Eschatological Aspects
• 5 Papyrological Evidence: The Derveni Papyrus and the Gurôb Papyrus
• 6 Hieroi Logoi in 24 Rhapsodies
• 7 Conclusion
• Appendix
• Bibliography
• Index of the Orphic Rhapsodies
• General Index
• Index of Primary Sources