Chapter X: The Orphics (2)

[33\10: Callim. and Euphor. knew of the dismemberment of Dionysos by the Titans: Tz. ad _Lyc._ 208 (from the completer version in _EM._). In any case it is not from the Rhaps. that this legend is also known to D.S. 5, 75, 4; Cornut. 30, p. 62, 10 Lang; Plu., _Es. Carn._ 1, 7, p. 996 C; _Is. et Os._ 35, p. 364 F; Clem. Al. (see Orph. _frr._ 196, 200).--A roughly caricatured drawing on a hydria belonging to the early fourth century found at Rhodos and made probably in Attica appears in _JHS._ xi (1890), p. 243; where it is said to represent the dismemberment of Zagreus as conceived by Orphics. The picture, however, does not agree at all with the meaning thus attributed to it; the interpretation cannot be the right one.]

[34\10: A true ~hiero\s lo/gos~, i.e. an account of the origin of ritual acts founded upon myth or legend. (The Orphics had such accounts, e.g. of the prohibition against being buried in woollen clothing: Hdt. ii, 81 fin.)]

[35\10: That the tearing in pieces of the bull in the primitive Thracian manner occurred also in the Orphic ~o/rgia~ may perhaps be deduced from the fact that in the legend Orpheus himself is torn in pieces by the Mainads. The priest stands in the place of the god: what the god suffers in the ritual ~drô/mena~ that the priest suffers too. This is frequently met with. ~Orpheu\s ha/te tô=n Dionu/sou teletô=n hêgemô\n geno/menos ta\ ho/moia pathei=n le/getai tô=| sphete/rô| theô=|~, Procl. _in_ {354} _Rp._ i, 175 Kr. The ancients were fully aware that the bull torn in pieces in the Bacchic orgies represented the god himself (and this not only in Orphic ritual but from the beginning in the Thracian worship): the idea is often expressed (see e.g. Firm. Mat., _Error. P.R._ vi, 5), but nowhere more clearly than in the Orphic ~hiero\s lo/gos~.]

[36\10: The introduction of the Titans from Hellenic mythology into the Thracian myth is clearly described as the work of Onomakritos by Paus. 8, 37, 5.]

[37\10: ~Titê=nes kekomê=tai, hupe/rbion êtor e/chontes~, _fr._ 102. ~amei/lichon êtor e/chontes kai\ phu/sin eknomi/ên~, _fr._ 97. As early as Hesiod the Titans are hated by their father as ~deino/tatoi pai/dôn~ (_Theog._ 155). ~Titanikê\ phu/sis~ is the evil character that cannot keep an oath: Pl., _Lg._ 701 C; Cic., _Lg._ iii, 5; _impios Titanas_, Hor., _O._ 3, 4, 42.]

[38\10: This explanation of the ~diamelismo/s~ of Zagreus is often put forward (though subtilized into a Neoplatonic sense) by those who use the Orphic Rhapsodiai: see Lob. 710 ff. But even Plutarch has something of the sort (_E ap. D._ 9, p. 389 A), and it cannot be doubted that this (apart from its Platonist wrappings) was the meaning of the legend in the mind of its first inventor. Nor can the conception that the separate existence (multiplicity) of things first came into the world by an act of _impiety_, have been strange to the _theologoi_ of the sixth century: we must admit this at once on remembering the doctrine of Anaximander that the multiplicity of things which has arisen out of the original one ~a/peiron~ is in itself an ~_adiki/a_~ for which it must pay "recompense and punishment" (_fr._ 2 Mull., 9 Diels). Such personification of the processes of nature and the reading of an ethical sense into them, combined as it was with a quietist tendency, was much more likely to have arisen in the fanciful minds of semi-philosophical mystics than to have been given to them by the philosophers.]

[39\10: See the accounts given in Lob. 565 f.: they come from the Rhapsodiai. The fact that the origin of men and the doctrine of Metempsychosis as well were dealt with in the Rhaps. follows from Procl. _in _Rp.__ ii, 338 Kroll. It must, however, have been from _older_ Orphic poetry--at any rate, not from the Rhaps.--that the story was derived by D. Chr. 30, 10 f. Plutarch, too, does at least refer to it: ~to\ _en hêmi=n_ a/logon kai\ a/takton kai\ bi/aion hoi palaioi\ Tita=nas ôno/masan~, _Es. Carn._ 1, 7, p. 996 C; and possibly Opp., _H._ v, 9-10; Ael. _fr._ 89, p. 230, 19 f. Herch. (Lob. 567 g). Even the words of Xenokrates (_fr._ 20, p. 166 Heinze) seem to allude to this Orphic myth. Thus the Rhapsodiai in this case also were following older Orphic teaching and poetry. Orph. _H._ 37 derives from a later age. What Nic. _Th._ 8 ff. reproduces (mistakenly?) as Hesiodic tradition was perhaps really an echo of Orphic poetry. Was the derivation of Man from the Titans suggested by still earlier fancies such as e.g. meet us in passages like _h. Hom. Ap._ 335 (137) f.: ~Titê=ne/s te theoi\ tô=n e\x _a/ndres_ te theoi/ te~--? This is not Homeric (for all the Homeric ~patê\r andrô=n te theô=n te~), though possibly it had a different sense from what it had for "Orpheus".]

[40\10: Dionysos is the _last_ of the divine rulers of the world: _frr._ 114, 190. Hence ~despo/tês hêmô=n~, Procl. _in _Crat.__, pp. 59, 114 Boiss. (though Procl. also speaks of e.g. Hermes as ~ho despo/tês humô=n~ _in Cr._, p. 73 B.). Dionysos is the _sixth_ ruler; Zeus who came before him being the fifth: _frr._ 113 (85, 121, 122). The order given is: 1 Phanes, 2 Nyx, 3 Ouranos, 4 Kronos, 5 Zeus, 6 Dionysos. This is definitely stated by Syrian.: _fr._ 85 (Proclus follows his master: _frr._ 85, 121), and confirmed by the fragments of the Rhapsodiai: _frr._ 86, 87, 96, 113. It seems, however, as if Plato actually found this order (as Syrian. thought) {355} in the Orphic Theogony which he read. It is true that as their silence shows the Neoplatonists did not find the verse cited by Plato in the Rhapsodiai as they knew them. (Plato's line is ~he/ktê| d' en geneê=| katapau/sate ko/smon aoidê=s~: Plu., _E ap. D._ 15, p. 391 D, has the meaningless ~thumo/n~ instead of ~ko/smon~--did he read ~thesmo/n~?) They were right, however, in deducing from the line that the ancient Orphic Theogony referred to by Plato also knew of six generations of the gods (following the Pythagorean ~te/leios arithmo/s~?) and ended with the sixth generation. The verse was intended doubtless by Plato himself in rather a different sense and he only quotes it humorously (Gruppe differs; _Rhaps. Theog._ 693 f.). This passage therefore provides important evidence of the harmony that existed between the Rhapsodiai and the oldest Orphic Theogony in the general outlines of their construction. It is, of course, quite a different question whether the six rulers in the poem referred to by Plato were the same as those given by the Rhaps.; nor can we tell whether Dionysos there occupied the last place, though the predominance held by Dionysos in Orphic belief makes it very probable that he did.]

[41\10: The authorities who speak of the origin of mankind from the ashes (or the blood) of the Titans (Lob. 565 ff.) express themselves in such a way that we are forced to suppose that they regarded this as essentially the first appearance of men. This, however, cannot be reconciled with what Proclus, as usual following the Rhapsodiai, says of the golden and silver ages of mankind under Phanes and Kronos, which then, and not till then, are followed by the third and last race, ~to\ titaniko\n ge/nos~: see _fr._ 244 and esp. _in _Rp.__ ii, 74 Kr. ~thnêtoi/~ in the reign of Phanes even occurs in the line quoted by Syrian. (_in Ar. Meta._ 935a 22 Us.) _fr._ 85. It is impossible to say whether this improvement upon the Hesiodic legend of the Ages of Mankind actually occurred in an ancient Orphic Theogony (the one used perhaps by Lactant.; O., _fr._ 243, 8; cf. 248), and was thence taken for the Rhapsodiai without being reconciled with the legend of the origin of men from the ashes of the Titans; or whether the two scarcely reconcilable accounts of the origin of men were somehow or other made to agree. (_Fr._ 246 [Plu.] prob. comes from a picture of the long life enjoyed by the earliest generations of men: see Lob. 513. This picture does not necessarily presuppose a series of several ~geneai/~ _before_ the Titanic race.)]

[42\10: ~me/ros autou= (tou= Dionu/sou) esme/n~, Olymp. (from Orphic doctrine) _in Pl. _Phd.__, p. 3 Finckh. ~ho en hêmi=n nou=s Dionusiako/s estin kai\ a/galma o/ntôs tou= Dionu/sou~, Procl. _in _Crat.__, p. 82 Boiss. The Hellenes are accustomed to make use of the dismemberment, re-integration and resuscitation of Dionysos ~eis to\n peri\ tê=s psuchê=s lo/gon ana/gein kai\ tropologei=n~, Orig., _Cels._ 4, 17, p. 21 Lo.]

[43\10: ~hoi amphi\ Orphe/a~ think that the soul has the body as a ~peri/bolon, desmôtêri/ou eiko/na~, Pl., _Crat._ 400 C. Certainly Orphic, too (as the Schol. also say), is ~ho en aporrê/tois lego/menos lo/gos hôs e/n tini phroura=| esmen hoi a/nthrôpoi ktl.~, Pl. _Phd._ 62 B; see Lob. 795 f.]

[44\10: _fr._ 221 (_Phd._ 62 B with Sch.). The similar saying of Philolaos is, as Plato's manner of recording it shows (_Phd._ 61 E-62 B) evidently derived from a saying of the Orphic ~apo/rrêta~ (and Philolaos himself appealed to the ~palaioi\ theolo/goi te kai\ ma/nties~ in confirmation of the closely connected doctrine of the enclosure of the ~psuchê/~ in the ~sê=ma~ of the ~sô=ma~: _fr._ 23 Mull. 14 Di.). The doctrine continued to be taught by Pythagoreans: see Euxitheos Pyth. ap. Klearch. in Ath. iv, 157 CD; Cic., _Sen._ 73. It had moreover some root in popular belief and in legal usage: see above, chap. v, n. 33.] {356}

[45\10: According to the ~Orphika\ e/pê kalou/mena~, ap. Arist. _de An._ 1, 5, p. 410b, 28 ff.: ~tê\n psuchê\n ek tou= ho/lou eisie/nai anapneo/ntôn pherome/nên hupo\ tô=n ane/môn~. (The ancient commentators add nothing fresh.) ~ek tou= **ho/lou~ means simply "out of space". The ~a/nemoi~ were regarded as daimonic powers subordinate and related to the ~Tritopa/tores~: see above, chap. v, n. 124. We cannot say how this conception was made to square with the other articles of Orphic belief (purgation of souls in Hades, etc.). It is plainly nothing but an attempt at such reconciliation that (following the Rhapsodiai, _fr._ 224) makes the souls that pass in death out of the bodies of men, go into Hades, while those that have inhabited the bodies of animals fly about in the wind ~eiso/ken auta\s a/llo apharpa/zê| mi/gdên ane/moio pnoê=|sin~. Aristotle knows nothing of any such restriction. Plato (_Phd._ 81 D; rather differently 108 AB) apparently making free use of Orphic ideas regards _all_ the ~mê\ katharô=s apoluthei=sai psuchai/~ as liable to the same fate as that allotted by the Rhapsodiai to the beasts. (Of course it is possible to suppose that the ~psuchai/~ on being released from Hades for a new ~ensôma/tôsis~ first of all fly about in the wind round the dwelling places of the living and are then breathed into a new body. This would not prevent there being a predestined conjunction of a particular soul with the particular ~sô=ma~ corresponding to its state of purification.)--The establishment in later Orphic poetry of the theory that the ~psuchai/~ dwelt in the air may have been assisted by the philosophic theory of the soaring-up of the ~pneu/mata~ into their element the aether (of which more below). This theory, though not first put forward by the Stoics, was specially favoured by them: it almost attained the status of a popularly accepted belief. When the realm of the souls had thus been at least in part transferred to the air, late Orphic poetry began to regard one of the four rivers of the soul-world, ~Ache/rôn~, as the ~aê/r~: _frr._ 155, 156 (Rhaps.). There is no reason to see in all this the traces of a supposed ancient conception in which Okeanos is really a river in the sky (in spite of Bergk's fanciful speculations in _Opusc._ ii, 691-6). The elevation of the soul-kingdom to the sky is in Greek thought invariably the result of comparatively late speculation. We might even ask whether there is not Egyptian influence at work in the transference of Okeanos (= the Milky Way?) to the sky. Such influence would be late of course; but in Egypt the idea of the Nile in the sky was quite familiar.]

[46\10: ~ku/klos tê=s gene/seôs~, _fr._ 226; ~ho tê=s moi/ras trocho/s~, _rota fati et generationis_: see Lob. 797 ff.]

[47\10: ~hoi d' autoi\ pate/res te kai\ huie/es en mega/roisin (polla/kis) êd' a/lochoi semnai\ kednai/ te thu/gatres . . . gi/gnont' allê/lôn metameibome/nê|si gene/thlais~, _frr._ 225, 222 (Rhaps.). Here, as Lob. 797 rightly remarks, there is an allusion to the dogma of the recurrence of exactly the same state of things in the world. The doctrine of complete ~paliggenesi/a~ or ~**apokata/stasis hapantôn~ (see Gataker ad. M. Ant.^1, p. 385) was closely and indeed indissolubly bound up with the doctrine of the migration of souls. (Illogicality belongs rather to the conception of the break in the circle caused by the secession of individual souls.) It was therefore found among the Pythagoreans to whom it is ascribed by Eudemos _fr._ 51 sp. (see Porph., _VP._ 19, p. 26, 23 ff. N.; used later still in a Pythagorean sense by Synes., _Aeg._ 2, 7, p. 62 f. Krab.). It was borrowed from the Pythagoreans by the Stoa (by Chrysippos esp.), which after its usual fashion pushed the rather bizarre fancy to pedantic extremes. (After the Stoic model is Plot. 5, 7, and perhaps also the _genethliaci_ spoken of by Varro ap. Aug., _CD._ 22, 28.) It is at least {357} probable in the extreme that these ideas were first held by the Orphics and not borrowed by them from the Stoics: there are even traces in Orphic tradition of the great World-year (which is always closely connected with the ~apokata/stasis tô=n hapa/ntôn~): Lob. 792 ff.]

[48\10: ~ku/klon te lê=xai kai\ anapneu=sai kako/têtos~ were the words Proclus probably had before him: (_fr._ 226) _in _Tim.__ 330 B. The forms ~a\n lê/xai kai\ anapneu/sai~--thus rightly accented here by Schneider--come from Procl. himself, who accommodates the words of the original to the construction of his own sentence. We must therefore _not_ write ~au= lê=xai~ with Gale and Lob. 800. In this case the subject of the sentence is the praying soul; on the other hand, in the form preserved by Simp., ~ku/klon t' allu=sai kai\ anapsu=xai kako/têtos~, the subject is the gods to whom the soul prays; ~psuchê/~ being object. In either form the freeing of the soul from the circle is regarded as a grace from the gods.]

[49\10: _fr._ 76. The lines of the _Carm. Aur._ 55 ff. (Nauck, p. 207) are probably modelled on the Orphic ~ou/t' agathou= pareo/ntos ktl.~ The point is: few are they who trouble about the salvation that Orpheus (or Pythagoras) brings them; the ~ho/sioi~ are always a small minority.]

[50\10: _frr._ 208, 226. ~Dio/nusos luseu/s, lu/sios, theoi\ lu/sioi~; see Lob. 809 f. and cf. _fr._ 311 (Ficinus).]

[51\10: ~Orphe/a t' a/nakt' e/chôn ba/kcheue . . . ~ E. _Hp._ 953 (N.B. ~a/nax~ not ~despo/tês~, l. 88).]

[52\10: ~Orphiko\s bi/os~, Pl., _Lg._ 782 C; Lobeck, 244 ff.]

[53\10: The Pythagorean ~e/pou theô=|, akolouthei=n tô=| theô=|~ (Iamb., _VP._ 137, from Aristoxenos) might also have been given to the Orphics as their motto.]

[54\10: ~a/psuchos bora/~ of the Orphics: E., _Hp._ 952, Pl., _Lg._ 782 CD; Lob., p. 246. This, too, is the meaning of Ar., _Ra._ 1032, ~Orpheu\s me\n ga\r teleta/s th' hêmi=n kate/deixe pho/nôn t' ape/chesthai~, i.e. using slain animals for food. Hor., _AP._ 391 f.: silvestris homines . . . caedibus et victu foedo deterruit Orpheus means to speak not of the ritual vegetarianism of "Orpheus", but of the previous cannibalism of men which Orpheus had put an end to. As this is nowhere else mentioned of Orpheus we might perhaps regard it as mistaken allusion on the part of Horace to the passage of Aristoph. quoted above. It is not, however, impossible that Horace did in fact have in mind some Orphic verse which really reported something like what he himself says of Orpheus. The Orphic fragment [247] ap. S.E., _M._ ii, 31; ix, 15 (Lob., p. 246), may have arisen in the same way; see Maass, _Orpheus_, 77. (The well-known lines of Kritias [S.E., _M._ ix, 54 _fr._ 25 Di.] and Moschion, p. 813 Nauck, can hardly have anything to do with Orphism and should rather be connected with the theories of the Sophists and Demokritos--followed later by the Epicureans--about the gradual evolution of human civilization from miserable and savage origins; and _not_ from a "golden age" of which the Orphics too spoke.)]

[55\10: Prohibition to bury corpses in woollen garments: Hdt. ii, 81 (in each case in order that nothing ~thnêsei/dion~ might cling to the departed). Prohibition against eating eggs: Lob. 251 (eggs are part of the offering to the dead and the food of the ~chtho/nioi~, and so forbidden: so rightly explained by Lob. 477). It was forbidden in Orphic poetry, as well as Pythagorean, to eat beans: Lob. 251; Nauck on Iamb., _VP._, p. 231 f.: the reason here, too, being that beans as part of the offerings to the dead, _putantur ad mortuos pertinere_ (Fest.); see Lob. 254 and Crusius, _Rh. Mus._ 39, 165. The same or similar reasons are everywhere at work to cause the eating of certain foods to be forbidden {358} both by the Pythagorean ordinances and in the mystical cult of the ~chtho/nioi~: it is because they are used as offerings to the beings of the lower world, ~pro\s ta\ peri/deipna kai\ ta\s proklê/seis tô=n nekrô=n~, or even because they have names which, like ~ere/binthos~ or ~la/thuros~, recall ~e/rebos~ and ~lê/thê~: Plu., _QR._ 95, p. 286 E. The purified state requires above all complete separation from anything connected with the realm of the dead and the divinities of the dead.]

[56\10: Cf. _fr._ 208.]

[57\10: The soul is confined within the body (according to those ~amphi\ Orphe/a), hôs di/kên didou/sês tê=s psuchê=s hô=n dê\ he/neka di/dôsin~, Pl., _Crat._ 400 C. The exact nature of this "guilt" of the soul is not explained in our remains of Orphic literature. The point, however, is chiefly that the life within the body is according to their doctrine not in accordance with but contrary to the proper nature of the soul.]

[58\10: ~sumpo/sion tô=n hosi/ôn~, Pl., _Rp._ 363 C. ~hosi/ous mu/stas~, Orph., _H._ 84, 3; see above, chap. vi, n. 18.]

[59\10: ~psucha\s _athana/tas_ kata/gei Kullê/nios Hermê=s gai/ês es keuthmô=na pelô/rion~ _fr._ 224 (it would be vain to look for an example of ~atha/natos~ used as adjective to ~psuchê/~ in Homer). Hermes ~chtho/nios~ leads the souls down into Hades and also upwards again (to fresh ~ensômatô/seis~): Orph., _H._ 57, 6 ff. (For the Pythagorean Hermes see D.L. viii, 31.)]

[60\10: Especially in the ~kata/basis eis Ha/idou~ (Lob. 373; cf. above, chap. vii, n. 3). The descent lay through the chasm at Tainaron: see above, chap. v, n. 23, and cf. Orph., _Arg._ 41.--Other Orphic poems may also have dealt with such matters: ~_polla\_ memutholo/gêtai peri\ tô=n en Ha/idou pragma/tôn tô=| tê=s Kallio/pês~, Jul., _Or._ vii, p. 281, 3 Hertl. [216 D].]

[61\10: ~lu/seis kai\ katharmoi/~ of the living and even the dead carried out by Orphic priests: Pl., _Rp_. 364 E. Reward of the initiated in Hades: cf. the anecdote of Leotychidas II in Plu., _Apophth. Lac._, p. 224 E; and of Antisthenes in D.L. vi, 4. Those who feared the bite of Kerberos or the water-carrying to the leaky cask (see App. iii) sought protection against such things in ~teletai\ kai\ katharmoi/~: Plu. _N.P.Q. Suav. Epic._ 27, p. 1105 B. Hope of immortality for the soul rests on the _Dionysiac_ mysteries acc. to Plu., _Cons. ad Ux._ 10, p. 611 D.]

[62\10: It is significant that the belief in a judgment and punishment of ~psuchai/~ is based in [Pl.] _Ep._ vii, 335 A not on popular acceptance or the statements of poets but on ~palaioi/ te kai\ _hieroi\ lo/goi_~; cf. above, chap. vii, n. 13.]

[63\10: _fr._ 154 (punishment in Hades of those guilty of crimes against their own parents? _fr._ 281).]

[64\10: See above, chap. vii, n. 15.]

[65\10: ~deina\ perime/nei~: Pl., _Rp._ 365 A; cf. _fr._ 314 (Ficinus).]

[66\10: _fr._ 208 (Rhaps.) ~o/rgia/ t' ektele/sousi (a/nthrôpoi), _lu/sin progo/nôn athemi/stôn maio/menoi;_ su\~ (sc. Dionysos) ~de\ toi=sin~ (dat. commodi), ~e/chôn kra/tos, hou=s k' ethe/lêstha lu/seis e/k te po/nôn chalepô=n kai\ apei/ronos oi/strou~ (of continual rebirth). That this belief in the efficacy of prayers for the "poor souls of the departed" belonged to the earlier stratum of Orphism follows from Pl., _Rp._ 364 BC, E, 365 A, where he speaks of ~lu/seis te kai\ katharmoi/~ of the Orphics which promised to deliver living _and dead_ from the ~adikê/mata autou= ê\ _progo/nôn_~. (It has been wrongly attempted to fasten the same belief on Plato himself, in the Phaedo.)--For Gnostic and early Christian ideas of the same kind see Anrich, _D. Ant. Mysterienwesen_, 87, 4; 120 n. But even in the Rigveda (7, 35, 4) we may find the thought that the "pious works of the pious" can help others to salvation (Oldenberg, _Rel. d._ {359} _Veda_, 289). Religious pietism seems to produce the same effects everywhere.]

[67\10: ~polloi\ me\n narthêkopho/roi ktl.~ was an _Orphic_ verse. Lob. 809, 813.]

[68\10: _fr._ 154.]

[69\10: ~ho kekatharme/nos te kai\ tetelesme/nos ekei=se (eis Ha/idou) aphiko/menos meta\ theô=n oikê/sei~, _fr._ 228 (Pl.).]

[70\10: ~sumpo/sion tô=n hosi/ôn~ in Hades, ~me/thê aiô/nios~ their reward: Pl., _Rp._ 336 CD (cf. Dieterich, _Nekyia_, 80 n.). Plato there mentions Mousaios and his son (Eumolpos) as authorities for these promises and contrasts with them, by a ~hoi de/~, others who made different promises; perhaps referring to other Orphic poems (cf. _fr._ 227). But Mousaios, himself always closely connected in Plato with Orpheus (_Rp._ 364 E, _Prot._ 316 D, _Ap._ 41 A, _Ion_, 536 B), here simply means "Orphic poetry". A literature of essentially Orphic character went under his name. So Plu., _Comp. Cim. et Luc._ 1 seems right in substituting simply ~to\n Orphe/a~ for the ~Mousai=os~ named in Pl.]

[71\10: Pl., _Lg._ 870 DE; then in more detail for a special case but derived from same source: ~no/mô| . . . tô=| nu=n dê/~ (i.e. in 870 DE) ~lechthe/nti~ 872 DE, 873 A.--The idea of such a religio-juridical _talio_ was popular also in Greece: see below (chap. xi, n. 44). Frequently for instance in curses of vengeance the wish is that the doer may suffer exactly the same thing as that which he has done to his victim. Exx. from Soph. (best is _Tr._ 1039 f.) given by G. Wolff in S., _Aias_, 839; cf. A., _Cho._ 309 ff., _Ag._ 1430.--As a Neoplatonic idea: Plot. 3, 2, 13; Porph. and Iamb. ap. Aen. Gaz., _Theophr._, p. 18 B.]

[72\10: We may, however, suppose that the ideas of the Orphics corresponded with the statements of Empedokles, Plato, etc., about the series of births.]

[73\10: ~sô=ma--sê=ma~ is Orphic: Pl., _Crat._ 400 C.]

[74\10: Complete escape from the world of birth and death is distinctly anticipated for the pious Orphic in _fr._ 226, ~ku/klon te lê=xai ktl.~ The other and positive side completing this negative promise is not clearly supplied for us by any fragment. (We never even hear distinctly of the return of the individual soul to the one Soul of the World; though certain Orphic myths--probably of late origin--seem to suggest such a doctrine of Emanation and final Remanation.)]

[75\10: _frr._ 1, 81. The moon was regarded as inhabited, like the world, by Pythagoreans too (esp. Philolaos) and also by Anaxagoras.]

[76\10: This at least was the belief of Pythagoreans and later of Platonics: see _Griech. Roman_, 269; Wyttenb. on Eun. _VS._ 117. But the idea occurs as early as in the _Ti._ of Plato, esp. in 42 B. It may have been long familiar to Greek popular belief (as to other peoples; cf. Tylor, ii, 70), and reached Orphics from that source. (Similar though not quite the same is the popular belief ~hôs aste/res gigno/meth' ho/tan tis apotha/nê|~, Ar., _Pa._ 833 f., which the Greeks shared with all the nations of the earth: cf. "Pythagoras" ap. _Comm. Bern. in Lucan_, 9, 9.)--No opinion can be built upon the statement of Ficinus (_fr._ 321).]

[77\10: Orphic poetry must have varied in its account of what happened to the dismembered limbs of Zagreus-Dionysos. That the Titans tore the god limb from limb seems to have been common to all versions of the Theogonic poem (see nn. 28, 41; p. 341). But whereas according to one account the Titans then devoured the god (except the heart) and from the mixed Titanic and Dionysiac elements of their bodies after they had been destroyed by lightning the race of men had its origin (p. 341); according to others the mangled limbs {360} of the god were brought by Zeus to Apollo who buried them taking them "on to Parnasos", i.e. at Delphi: see Orph. _fr._ 200 (Clem. Al.) and so, too, Callim. _fr._ 374. The Rhapsodiai gave the first version in detail, but also preserved an account resembling the second (see _frr._ 203, 204: the ~heni/zein ta\ meristhe/nta tou= Dionu/sou me/lê~ there refers probably to the reunion of the collected limbs for the purpose of burial and not for the restoration of the dead god to life. This is also possibly the meaning of the ~Dionu/sou melô=n kollê/seis~ in Jul., _Chr._, p. 167, 7 Neum. But Or., _Cels._ 4, 17, p. 21 Lom., speaks of the _reanimation_ of Dionysos ~suntitheme/nou~ after the dismemberment). This second account, where it occurs alone, of course excludes the _Anthropogony_ from the Titans' ashes. The second version unmistakably connects itself with the Delphic legend of the grave of Dionysos at the foot of Apollo's tripod (see above, pp. 97 f.) as K. O. Müller observed, _Introd. Scient. Myth._ 242. It does, in fact, accord in this instance, but apart from this it has no connexion whatever with the real Delphic legend about the disappearance of Dionysos into the underworld and his periodic return to this world. (See above, chap. viii, n. 28. The Orphic and Delphic legends are elaborately compared and worked in together as though they were separate fragments of a single whole in Lübbert's book, _de Pindaro theologiae Orph. censore_: Ind. Sch. Bonn. Lib. 1888, p. xiii f.--with shocking results and no intrinsic justification.) Whether this second version was the one put forward by Onomakritos is uncertain. In any case, both accounts are much older than the Rhapsodiai, in which, it appears, they were included side by side and superficially harmonized (--only the limbs of the god _not_ devoured by the Titans being buried acc. to this version). Besides these two versions there may have been another Anthropogony differing from that given in the first account: the existence of something of the kind is perhaps to be deduced from what the Rhapsodiai themselves have to tell about the golden and silver generations of mankind (see above, n. 41).]

[78\10: Of the Thracian Mysoi ~le/gei ho _Poseidô/nios_ kai\ empsu/chôn ape/chesthai~ (which Pythagoras is said to have learnt from Zalmoxis, Str. 298) ~kat' euse/beian, dia\ de\ tou=to kai\ thremma/tôn; me/liti de\ chrê=sthai kai\ ga/lakti kai\ turô=|, zô=ntas kath' hêsuchi/an; dia\ de\ tou=to kalei=sthai theosebei=s te kai\ kapnoba/tas~ (perh. ~kapnobo/tas~ acc. to an ancient conjecture). ~ei=nai de/ tinas tô=n Thra|kô=n hoi\ chôri\s gunaiko\s zô=sin, hou\s kti/stas kalei=sthai, anierô=sthai/ te dia\ timê\v kai\ met' adei/as zê=n~, Str. 296. The _religious_ character of this asceticism is seen in the words ~kat' euse/beian~ and the name ~theosebei=s~; also in the word ~anierô=sthai~, which are all used of the ~kti/stai~ as of a monastic order. Jos., _AJ._ 18, 1, 5, says of the Essenes ~zô=si d' oude\n parêllagme/nôs all' ho/ti ma/lista emphe/rontes Dakô=n~ (i.e. ~Thra|kô=n, Getô=n~: _Getae, Daci Romanis dicti_, Plin., _NH._ iv, 80) ~toi=s polistai=s kaloume/nois~. In any case the same Thracian ascetics are meant whom Poseidonios (literally translating a Thracian word) calls the ~kti/stai~. Thus, they are said like the Essence to live without women, eat no meat, and in the practice of various other asceticisms live together and have all things in common.--It cannot be certainly decided how old this Thracian asceticism was, its exact connexion with Dionysiac religion, and whether it could or did give any impulse in the direction of asceticism to the Orphics. (Following Hom., ~N~ 4 ff., many told similar stories of the nomadic Skythoi: see Ephor., _frr._ 76, 78; or of the fabulous Argimpaioi, Hdt. iv, 23; Znb., _Pr._ 5, 25, p. 129, 1, etc. _Griech. Roman_, 203.--~apochê\ empsu/chôn~ occurred also among the Atlantes and certain Indian races: Hdt. iv, 184; iii, 100.)] {361}

[79\10: ii, 123. His words make it plain that the _Greek_ teachers of transmigration of souls whom he has in mind (Pherekydes, Pythagoras, Orphics, Empedokles) had no idea of the Egyptian origin of that doctrine (_Rh. Mus._ 26, 556, 1).]

[80\10: The Egyptian monuments show no knowledge of a general transmigration of souls, due to a law of nature or the decree of the gods. We can see very well, however, what it was in Egyptian traditions that might seem like a doctrine of transmigration to Herodotos (cf. Wiedemann, **_Erläut. zu Herodots 2. B._ p. 457 f.).]

[81\10: It is sufficient to refer to Tylor's collections: ii, 3 ff.--In antiquity the Greeks met with a doctrine of Transmigration, apart from Thrace, among the Keltic races (Caes., _BG._ 6, 14, 5; D.S. 5, 28, 6; cf. Timagenes ap. Amm. Marc. 15, 9, 8). This was the sole reason why Pythagoras was made the pupil of the Gallic Druids: Alex. Polyh. ap. Clem. Al., _Str._ i, p. 355/6 P., etc.]

[82\10: That it was not unnatural for the Greeks also to have the conception of the migration of the soul from its first body to some other suitable second or third body (entry of ~tê=s tuchou/sês psuchê=s eis to\ tucho\n sô=ma~ acc. to Arist.) may be seen from the fact that in Greek popular tales of the transformation of men into beasts the idea regularly prevails that while the body changes in such cases the "soul" remains the same as before. Thus, explicitly in Hom. ~k~ 240 (cf. Sch. there and 329); cf. also Ov., _M._ ii, 485; Nonn., _D._ v, 322 f.; Aesop., _F._ 294 (Halm): [Luc.] _Asin._ 13, 15 init.; Apul., _M._ iii, 26 init; Aug., _CD._ 18, 18, p. 278, 11 ff. Domb., etc. (In all transformation stories this is regularly implied and gives the point to the story.) This is true from the earliest times onward, down to Voltaire's muleteer who was turned into a mule et du vilain l'âme terrestre et crasse à peine vit qu'elle eut changé de place.)--The beasts also have a ~psuchê/~: e.g. ~x~ 426.]

[83\10: Brahmins, Buddhists, Manichaean, etc.]

[84\10: A fixed term for "transmigration of souls" does not seem to have been offered by Orphic teaching. It was later called ~paliggenesi/a~ (a term which did not exactly fit the real meaning of the idea: this seems to have been its oldest name (cf. ~hai psuchai\ _pa/lin gi/gnontai_ hek tô=n tethneô/tôn~, Pl., _Phd._ 70 C), and remained its most ceremonious one. "_Pythagoras_" _non_ ~metempsu/chôsin~ _sed_ ~paliggenesi/an~ _esse dicit_: Serv., _A._ iii, 68. ~metensôma/tôsis~, is not uncommon (frequent in Hippol., _RH._, p. 12, 53 D.-S.; 266, etc.). The word most commonly used among ourselves, ~metempsu/chôsis~, is among the Greeks precisely the least usual; it occurs e.g. in D.S. 10, 6, 1; Gal. iv, 763 K.; Tertul. _de An._ 31; Serv., _A._ vi, 532; 603; Suid. s.v. ~Phereku/dês~. ~metempsuchou=sthai~ occurs in Sch., A.R. i, 645.]

{{362}}