Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Fw: BMCR 2004.12.29, Albertus Bernabe/, Orphicorum et Orphicis

Expand Messages
  • vaeringjar
    ... me ... translation, ... the ... D.C. A wonderful New Year s present, thank you for taking the trouble to post all these references! ... several ...
    Message 1 of 6 , Jan 1, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com, Michael Chase <goya@u...> wrote:
      >
      > Le 31 déc. 04, à 06:56, vaeringjar a écrit :
      >
      > >
      > > > >
      > >
      > > Thanks for the very welcome information - I managed to photocopy
      > > Kern's edition some time back, but it seems rather daunting to
      me
      > > whenever I have tried to delve into it.
      >
      > M.C. It is kind of tough. Just Greek and Latin texts, no
      translation,
      > even the notes are in Latin. The major problem was that almost all
      the
      > texts are by now seriously out of date.
      >


      D.C. A wonderful New Year's present, thank you for taking the
      trouble to post all these references!


      >
      > M.C. : Yup. My friend and colleague Luc Brisson has published
      several
      > papers on the topic… they're collected in his
      >
      >
      > Orphée et l'orphisme dans l'antiquité gréco-romaine.
      Aldershot ;
      > Brookfield (Vt.) : Variorum, 1995. VIII-301 p. ill. index.
      (Collected
      > studies series ; 476). || => 67-02914 | AncPhil 1996 16 (2) : 463-
      467
      > G. Betegh | BAGB 1997 (1) : 55-56 É. Des Places | Elenchos 1997 18
      > (2) : 408-413 C. D'Ancona | Emerita 1997 65 (1) : 153-155 A.
      Bernabé |
      > Numen 1998 45 (3) : 321-324 G. Scalera McClintock | PP 1996 51 :
      > 156-160 G. Scalera.
      >

      D.C. Well, by luck I happen to have the CNRS volume <Proclus Lecteur
      et Interprete des Anciens> and took a look in there to see if
      perhaps there was anything on Orphism, and sure enough Brisson has a
      lengthy essay there, "Proclus et l'Orphisme," which looks like a
      great place to start. I suppose this piece must also be in the
      Aldershot collection.

      > > Why did those who gave weight to the Chaldaean Oracles
      > > and Orphic verses, etc., do so? Why particularly the Orphika?
      >
      > M.C. Well, why not? Here were theological verses that went way
      back in
      > time and that were exotic enough (since O. was a Thracian) to be
      > considered representative of " Barbaric wisdom ", which was so
      popular
      > among the Neoplats. There was also perhaps a reaction here to
      early
      > Christianity, which claimed the Greek philosophers had stolen
      their
      > wisdom from Moses. The Neoplats fought back by claiming there was
      > perfect harmony between the ancient theological writings of Homer,
      > Hesiod, Orpheus, and the Chaldaean Oracles, not to mention various
      > Pythagorean works like the Goiden Verses

      D.C. A point of interest to me - do we know how much of this search
      for harmony and an ancient provenience for their philosophy was
      prompted by a desire to pull things together and synthesize the wide
      range of pagan belief with philosophy, and how much rather as a
      defense against Christianity? (Or both?) Plotinus would not have
      been so concerned with this sort of thing, would he? I am truly
      asking, not implying he wouldn't. If he weren't, would that be
      because Christianity was much more of a threat after Plotinus? And
      that he seems not to have been so religious (I refer to his comment
      about the gods coming to him.)

      >
      >
      >
      > > I can
      > > see the parallels between the basic ontology of Neoplatonism
      and the
      > > apparently similar structures in the Chaldaean oracles, but the
      > > special attraction of Orphism, especially in Proclus, is not
      > > something I have ever really fathomed. From what I know there
      seems
      > > te be no clear parallels.
      >
      > M.C. Um, well, all I can say is, Proclus and Damascius, Syrianus,
      > Hierocles and others would disagree with you. See for instance, H.
      > Lewy, Chaldaean Oracles and theurgy, new ed. Paris 1978, p. 483ff.
      for
      > a comparative table of Proclus' three theological systems :
      Platonic,
      > Orphic, and Chaldaean.
      >

      D.C. I didn't phrase that very well at all - I wasn't trying to
      imply I thought the links shouldn't have been made, rather that I am
      ignorant of exactly how they made correspondences to Orphism. But
      before you brought all these fascinating references in Lewy, etc. to
      my attention I was totally unaware of the precise details, the
      direct linking of the levels of reality to various gods, as the
      table in Lewy with many helpful references shows. I assume the
      passage in Damascius I.284 (Kern 60) is the source for the actual
      linking, and I need to delve into that.

      I only have the original 1956 edition of Lewy - I wonder if there is
      any more discussion of this in the later 1978 edition. In fact I
      have always wondered what else in total is in that edition. (It was
      hard enough getting a copy of the book in ANY form.)

      >
      > > Is it more a general connection with the
      > > Pythagorean milieu?
      >
      > M.C. Yes, I would think so. Compare Proclus, In Tim., III, 168, 8
      ff. =
      > OF fr. 507 II B Kern : " Timaeus, because he was a Pythagorean,
      follows
      > the principles of the Pythagoreans. These are the teachings
      received
      > from the Orphics, since everything that Orpheus had communicated
      in
      > secret, in the form of secret doctrines, Pythagoras learned after
      he
      > was initiated in Thracian Libethra, when the hierophant
      Aglaophamus
      > communicated to him the science concerning the gods that Orpheus
      had
      > learned from his mother Calliope

      D.C. I only have Festugiere's translation of the In Tim., and I was
      searching around in there and in Kern, and I found this passage,
      although I think it's fr. 107 rather than 507 (?). The scholion In
      Tim. 28c, quoted as a part of this fragment also, is important too
      for establishing the list of gods. Lewy refers as well to a "summary
      given in the scholia" in Diehl - I don't think Festugiere included
      the scholia in his translation - ? Or at least I can't seem to find
      them. So I trust the scholion included in Kern is the
      relevant "summary" that Lewy cites as significant.

      Again, thanks very much, Michael - this is all really intriguing.
      After taking a quick first look at the Proclus In Tim passage you
      refer to, I have to say the first thing that came to mind was the
      Second Letter of Plato and the three kings there, since Proclus in
      througout the passage calls the Orphic group of 6 gods kings - but
      just a coincidence, I suppose - ?


      Dennis Clark
      Issaquah
    • Cosmin I. Andron
      I would add to Mike s list also: Richard Janko, The Derveni Papyrus (Diagoras of Melos, APOPYRGIZONTES LOGOI?): A New Translation, Classical Philology 96
      Message 2 of 6 , Jan 4, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        I would add to Mike's list also:
        Richard Janko, The Derveni Papyrus (Diagoras of Melos,
        APOPYRGIZONTES LOGOI?): A New Translation, Classical Philology 96
        (2001), pp. 1-32

        Wish you all a Happy New Year!
        With every best wish, yours
        Cosmin

        ----------------------------
        Department of English
        School of Foreign Languages
        XianNing College
        [ Xian Ning Xue Yuan ]
        No.2 Yongan Dadao
        XianNing City, Zip Code: 437005
        Hubei Province
        China

        Phone: 0086 (0)715 8342293
        Email: cosmin.andron@...
        Website: www.cosmin-andron.com



        --- In neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com, Michael Chase <goya@u...> wrote:
        >
        > Le 31 déc. 04, à 06:56, vaeringjar a écrit :
        >
        > >
        > > > >
        > >
        > > Thanks for the very welcome information - I managed to photocopy
        > > Kern's edition some time back, but it seems rather daunting to
        me
        > > whenever I have tried to delve into it.
        >
        > M.C. It is kind of tough. Just Greek and Latin texts, no
        translation,
        > even the notes are in Latin. The major problem was that almost all
        the
        > texts are by now seriously out of date.
        >
        >
        > > I am happy to see the
        > > Derveni papyrus included in the first volume; it would be nice
        if
        > > Oxford Univ. Press reissued Zuntz' <Persephone> - it seems very
        rare
        > > now, outside of course a decent university library.
        >
        > M.C. Zuntz is always a good read (although he's a bit too
        positivistic
        > for my taste), but there's been a whole bunch of interesting
        > publications recently on the Derveni papyrus, including a brand
        new
        > (French) translation by a (very) young woman named Fabienne
        Jourdan who
        > did the work as part of her M.A. thesis (it was only one of three
        > volumes ; one is intimidated to think about what she'll prduce for
        her
        > PhD!). Anyhow, see
        >
        >
        > Le papyrus de Derveni / texte présenté, trad. et annoté par
        Fabienne
        > Jourdan. Paris : Les Belles Lettres, 2003. XXXII-166 p. en partie
        > doubles. (Vérité des mythes ; 23. Sources). • Avec le texte grec
        en
        > regard.
        >
        > Then there is Gabor Betegh's very recent (2004) The Derveni
        Papyrus:
        > Cosmology, Theology and Interpretation, about which the publisher
        > says :
        >
        > "This is the first comprehensive study of the Derveni Papyrus. The
        > papyrus, found in 1962 near Thessalonica, is not only one of the
        oldest
        > surviving Greek papyri but is also considered by scholars to be a
        > document of primary importance for a better understanding of the
        > religious and philosophical developments of the fifth and fourth
        > centuries BC. Gabor Betegh aims to reconstruct and systematically
        to
        > analyse the different strata of the text and their interrelation
        by
        > exploring the archaeological context; the interpretation of
        rituals in
        > the first columns of the text; the Orphic poem commented on by the
        > author of the papyrus; and the cosmological and theological
        doctrines
        > which emerge from the Derveni author's exegesis of the poem.
        Betegh
        > discusses the place of the text in the context of late Presocratic
        > philosophy and offers an important preliminary edition of the text
        of
        > the papyrus with critical apparatus and English translation. "
        >
        > From a bit further back, there is : •
        > Studies on the Derveni papyrus / ed. by André Laks and Glenn W.
        Most.
        > Oxford : Clarendon Pr. ; Oxford ; New York : Oxford University
        Press,
        > 1996. VIII-203 p. index. • Papers presented by various scholars at
        a
        > colloquium at Princeton University, April 17-18, 1993. AAHG 1999
        52
        > (3-4) : 174-176 O. Wenskus | AncPhil 2001 21 (2) : 477-480 A. M.
        F. W.
        > Verhoogt | CR 1998 N. S. 48 (2) : 451-452 J. A. Palmer | Eos 1998
        85
        > (2) : 307-312 M. Winiarczyk | LEC 1999 67 (2-3) : 174 J. A. Straus
        | MH
        > 1997 54 (4) : 236-237 F. Graf | OSAPh 1999 17 : 303-324 E. Hussey
        |
        > Phronesis 1998 43 (3) : 286-287 M. R. Wright | REG 1999 112 (1) :
        280
        > A. Blanchard.
        > >
        > > Has anyone ever done a study focusing on Orphism and the
        Neoplatonic
        > > philosophers?
        >
        > M.C. : Yup. My friend and colleague Luc Brisson has published
        several
        > papers on the topic… they're collected in his
        >
        >
        > Orphée et l'orphisme dans l'antiquité gréco-romaine.
        Aldershot ;
        > Brookfield (Vt.) : Variorum, 1995. VIII-301 p. ill. index.
        (Collected
        > studies series ; 476). || => 67-02914 | AncPhil 1996 16 (2) : 463-
        467
        > G. Betegh | BAGB 1997 (1) : 55-56 É. Des Places | Elenchos 1997 18
        > (2) : 408-413 C. D'Ancona | Emerita 1997 65 (1) : 153-155 A.
        Bernabé |
        > Numen 1998 45 (3) : 321-324 G. Scalera McClintock | PP 1996 51 :
        > 156-160 G. Scalera.
        >
        > I think it's safe to say Luc's approach is also rather
        positivistic :
        > that is, if there ain't no contemporary evidence for a phenomenon,
        it
        > don't exist. He's therefore led to reject as late ideological
        > fabrications a lot of elements that other scholars (like Bernabe)
        > consider to be parts of ancient Orphism.
        >
        >
        > > Why did those who gave weight to the Chaldaean Oracles
        > > and Orphic verses, etc., do so? Why particularly the Orphika?
        >
        > M.C. Well, why not? Here were theological verses that went way
        back in
        > time and that were exotic enough (since O. was a Thracian) to be
        > considered representative of " Barbaric wisdom ", which was so
        popular
        > among the Neoplats. There was also perhaps a reaction here to
        early
        > Christianity, which claimed the Greek philosophers had stolen
        their
        > wisdom from Moses. The Neoplats fought back by claiming there was
        > perfect harmony between the ancient theological writings of Homer,
        > Hesiod, Orpheus, and the Chaldaean Oracles, not to mention various
        > Pythagorean works like the Goiden Verses
        >
        >
        >
        > > I can
        > > see the parallels between the basic ontology of Neoplatonism
        and the
        > > apparently similar structures in the Chaldaean oracles, but the
        > > special attraction of Orphism, especially in Proclus, is not
        > > something I have ever really fathomed. From what I know there
        seems
        > > te be no clear parallels.
        >
        > M.C. Um, well, all I can say is, Proclus and Damascius, Syrianus,
        > Hierocles and others would disagree with you. See for instance, H.
        > Lewy, Chaldaean Oracles and theurgy, new ed. Paris 1978, p. 483ff.
        for
        > a comparative table of Proclus' three theological systems :
        Platonic,
        > Orphic, and Chaldaean.
        >
        >
        > > Is it more a general connection with the
        > > Pythagorean milieu?
        >
        > M.C. Yes, I would think so. Compare Proclus, In Tim., III, 168, 8
        ff. =
        > OF fr. 507 II B Kern : " Timaeus, because he was a Pythagorean,
        follows
        > the principles of the Pythagoreans. These are the teachings
        received
        > from the Orphics, since everything that Orpheus had communicated
        in
        > secret, in the form of secret doctrines, Pythagoras learned after
        he
        > was initiated in Thracian Libethra, when the hierophant
        Aglaophamus
        > communicated to him the science concerning the gods that Orpheus
        had
        > learned from his mother Calliope
      • vaeringjar
        ... rare ... positivistic ... who ... her ... Fabienne ... en ... oldest ... to ... in ... doctrines ... of ... DC I just wanted to point out to the group that
        Message 3 of 6 , Feb 1 5:56 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com, Michael Chase <goya@u...> wrote:
          >
          >
          > > I am happy to see the
          > > Derveni papyrus included in the first volume; it would be nice if
          > > Oxford Univ. Press reissued Zuntz' <Persephone> - it seems very
          rare
          > > now, outside of course a decent university library.
          >
          > M.C. Zuntz is always a good read (although he's a bit too
          positivistic
          > for my taste), but there's been a whole bunch of interesting
          > publications recently on the Derveni papyrus, including a brand new
          > (French) translation by a (very) young woman named Fabienne Jourdan
          who
          > did the work as part of her M.A. thesis (it was only one of three
          > volumes ; one is intimidated to think about what she'll prduce for
          her
          > PhD!). Anyhow, see
          >
          >
          > Le papyrus de Derveni / texte présenté, trad. et annoté par
          Fabienne
          > Jourdan. Paris : Les Belles Lettres, 2003. XXXII-166 p. en partie
          > doubles. (Vérité des mythes ; 23. Sources). • Avec le texte grec
          en
          > regard.
          >
          > Then there is Gabor Betegh's very recent (2004) The Derveni
          Papyrus:
          > Cosmology, Theology and Interpretation, about which the publisher
          > says :
          >
          > "This is the first comprehensive study of the Derveni Papyrus. The
          > papyrus, found in 1962 near Thessalonica, is not only one of the
          oldest
          > surviving Greek papyri but is also considered by scholars to be a
          > document of primary importance for a better understanding of the
          > religious and philosophical developments of the fifth and fourth
          > centuries BC. Gabor Betegh aims to reconstruct and systematically
          to
          > analyse the different strata of the text and their interrelation by
          > exploring the archaeological context; the interpretation of rituals
          in
          > the first columns of the text; the Orphic poem commented on by the
          > author of the papyrus; and the cosmological and theological
          doctrines
          > which emerge from the Derveni author's exegesis of the poem. Betegh
          > discusses the place of the text in the context of late Presocratic
          > philosophy and offers an important preliminary edition of the text
          of
          > the papyrus with critical apparatus and English translation. "
          >


          DC I just wanted to point out to the group that there is a very
          recent review of Betegh's book in Classical Review, by Richard Janko.
          He cites some problems in Betegh's text of the papyrus, and of course
          many other useful - and essential, I presume - observations. Here is
          the link:

          http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2005/2005-01-27.html

          I was myself able to get Betegh and Jourdan's texts recently - by the
          way, I read in her introduction that she bases her edition on Janko's
          text from his 2002 article in ZPE, with a few changes. This was
          fortunate, if for no other reason that ZPE 2002 is not online yet.

          If anyone wants to wade into a troubled stream, from what little I
          have read already, I gather no one could do better than plunge into
          the murky waters surrounding the Derveni papyrus.

          Dennis Clark
          Issaquah
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.