DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.14697#0195
Orphic Theogonies and Cosmogonic Eros 1033
the poem, was worshipped at Athens in 403 B.C. {supra p. 115), if not earlier
(A. Rapp in Roscher Lex. Myth. i. 780, G. Knaack in Pauly—Wissowa Real-
Enc. iii. 269 f. : Gruppe in Roscher Lex. Myth. iii. 1142 suggests that her cult was
introduced ' wahrscheinlich durch Peisistratos' thrakische Unternehmungen').
M. Mayer Die Giganten und Titanen Berlin 1887 p. 239 f. (cp. ib. p. 3 n. 2) notes
that Kratinos the younger, a contemporary of Platon the philosopher, in his
Gigantes frag. 1 {Frag. com. Gr. iii. 374 Meineke) ap. Athen. 661 e—f ivdv^ela-Be
(so A. Meineke for evdvpu hi codd. K. W. Dindorf cj. evdvfiov (?) 8e) rf/s yrjs &>s
y\vK.v I o£ei, Kanvos r £$epx€T' ^icohecrrepos (T. Bergk cj. evcoSecrraTos); | oiKei ris
cos eoinev iv ra> ^acr/xtm | \if3ava>TOTra>\rjs rj fidyeipos SixeAiKOf makes fun of the
scene in which Zeus was attracted to the Titans' feast by the smell of roast flesh
(Orph. frag. 34 Kern ap. Arnob. adv. nat. 5. 19, Orph. frag. 35 Kern ap. Clem.
Al. protr. 2. 18. 2 p. 14, 20 ff. Stahlin cited supra p. 218) and works in a not very
appropriate allusion to the rao^a (Orph. frag. 66 a Kern ap. Prokl. in Plat.
remp. ii. 138, 8 ff. Kroll, Syrian, in Aristot. met. 2. 4. 1000 b 14 p. 43, 30 f. KrolL
Simplic. in Aristot. phys. 4. 1. 208 b 29 p. 528, 14 f. Diels, Orph. frag. 66 b Kern
ap. Prokl. in Plat. Tim. i. 385, 29 ff. Diehl). Further evidence as to date is at
best doubtful. Platon himself has no direct allusion to the Rhapsodies1; but
it must not be inferred that therefore they are post-Platonic, for they in turn
are apparently uninfluenced either by Platon or by later philosophers. Their
principal trait, the conception of a world born and re-born, first created by
Phanes and then re-created by Zeus, points rather—as Gruppe saw (Cult. Myth,
orient. Rel. i. 6438"., Gr. Myth. Rel. p. 428 ff., and in Roscher Lex. Myth. iii.
H43ff.)—to ideas that were current in Greece (Anaximandros, Herakleitos,
Empedokles) between, say, 550 and 450 B.C. On the whole, then, it may be con-
cluded that the Rhapsodic Theogony was composed at Athens (?) c. 500 B.C. (?),
and consisted in a rehandling of older Orphic materials by a Pythagorising (?)
poet. Hence its vogue among neo-Pythagorean writers of the Graeco-Roman age.
(4) Conspectus of the Orphic Theogonies.
For clearness' sake I add a conspectus showing the three chief forms of
Orphic theogony. The letters at the side indicate the creation (A) and re-crea-
tion (B) of the world: the numerals give the sequence of mythical generations
(1-6).
(5) The Cosmic Egg.
The most striking feature of these theogonies is the cosmic egg—a con-
ception discussed by R. G. Latham Descriptive Ethnology London 1859 i.
439—441, J. Grimm Teutonic Mythology trans. J. S. Stallybrass London 1883
ii. 559 n. 4, Costantin in the Rev. Arch. 1899 355 ff- &g- 6 f., L. Frobenius
Das Zeitalter des Sonnengottes Berlin 1904 i. 269—271 (' Die Ureimythe'),
M. P. Nilsson 'Das Ei im Totenkult der Alten' in the Archiv f. Rel. 1908 xi. 543
and 544f., and especially F. Lukas 'Das Ei als kosmogonische Vorstellung' in
the Zeitschrift des Vereins fur Volkskunde 1894 iv. 227—243 (this author
attempts, not altogether successfully, to distinguish three aspects of the egg in
ancient and modern cosmogonies : (1) the world in general is egg-shaped and
1 Mr F. M. Cornford, however, points out to me that Plat. legg. 715 e—716 a is
apparently paraphrasing not only, as the schol. ad loc. saw, Orph. frag. 21 Kern Zei)s
apxy, Zeus /ieVcra, Aids 8' e/c wdvra Tervtcrai, but also Orph. frag. 158 Kern hk Alkt]
woKijiroivos efpeLwero iraviv dpwybs—both lines being probably extant in the Rhapsodic
Theogony (cp. E. Abel Orphica Lipsiae—Pragae 1885 p. 157 n. 1).
the poem, was worshipped at Athens in 403 B.C. {supra p. 115), if not earlier
(A. Rapp in Roscher Lex. Myth. i. 780, G. Knaack in Pauly—Wissowa Real-
Enc. iii. 269 f. : Gruppe in Roscher Lex. Myth. iii. 1142 suggests that her cult was
introduced ' wahrscheinlich durch Peisistratos' thrakische Unternehmungen').
M. Mayer Die Giganten und Titanen Berlin 1887 p. 239 f. (cp. ib. p. 3 n. 2) notes
that Kratinos the younger, a contemporary of Platon the philosopher, in his
Gigantes frag. 1 {Frag. com. Gr. iii. 374 Meineke) ap. Athen. 661 e—f ivdv^ela-Be
(so A. Meineke for evdvpu hi codd. K. W. Dindorf cj. evdvfiov (?) 8e) rf/s yrjs &>s
y\vK.v I o£ei, Kanvos r £$epx€T' ^icohecrrepos (T. Bergk cj. evcoSecrraTos); | oiKei ris
cos eoinev iv ra> ^acr/xtm | \if3ava>TOTra>\rjs rj fidyeipos SixeAiKOf makes fun of the
scene in which Zeus was attracted to the Titans' feast by the smell of roast flesh
(Orph. frag. 34 Kern ap. Arnob. adv. nat. 5. 19, Orph. frag. 35 Kern ap. Clem.
Al. protr. 2. 18. 2 p. 14, 20 ff. Stahlin cited supra p. 218) and works in a not very
appropriate allusion to the rao^a (Orph. frag. 66 a Kern ap. Prokl. in Plat.
remp. ii. 138, 8 ff. Kroll, Syrian, in Aristot. met. 2. 4. 1000 b 14 p. 43, 30 f. KrolL
Simplic. in Aristot. phys. 4. 1. 208 b 29 p. 528, 14 f. Diels, Orph. frag. 66 b Kern
ap. Prokl. in Plat. Tim. i. 385, 29 ff. Diehl). Further evidence as to date is at
best doubtful. Platon himself has no direct allusion to the Rhapsodies1; but
it must not be inferred that therefore they are post-Platonic, for they in turn
are apparently uninfluenced either by Platon or by later philosophers. Their
principal trait, the conception of a world born and re-born, first created by
Phanes and then re-created by Zeus, points rather—as Gruppe saw (Cult. Myth,
orient. Rel. i. 6438"., Gr. Myth. Rel. p. 428 ff., and in Roscher Lex. Myth. iii.
H43ff.)—to ideas that were current in Greece (Anaximandros, Herakleitos,
Empedokles) between, say, 550 and 450 B.C. On the whole, then, it may be con-
cluded that the Rhapsodic Theogony was composed at Athens (?) c. 500 B.C. (?),
and consisted in a rehandling of older Orphic materials by a Pythagorising (?)
poet. Hence its vogue among neo-Pythagorean writers of the Graeco-Roman age.
(4) Conspectus of the Orphic Theogonies.
For clearness' sake I add a conspectus showing the three chief forms of
Orphic theogony. The letters at the side indicate the creation (A) and re-crea-
tion (B) of the world: the numerals give the sequence of mythical generations
(1-6).
(5) The Cosmic Egg.
The most striking feature of these theogonies is the cosmic egg—a con-
ception discussed by R. G. Latham Descriptive Ethnology London 1859 i.
439—441, J. Grimm Teutonic Mythology trans. J. S. Stallybrass London 1883
ii. 559 n. 4, Costantin in the Rev. Arch. 1899 355 ff- &g- 6 f., L. Frobenius
Das Zeitalter des Sonnengottes Berlin 1904 i. 269—271 (' Die Ureimythe'),
M. P. Nilsson 'Das Ei im Totenkult der Alten' in the Archiv f. Rel. 1908 xi. 543
and 544f., and especially F. Lukas 'Das Ei als kosmogonische Vorstellung' in
the Zeitschrift des Vereins fur Volkskunde 1894 iv. 227—243 (this author
attempts, not altogether successfully, to distinguish three aspects of the egg in
ancient and modern cosmogonies : (1) the world in general is egg-shaped and
1 Mr F. M. Cornford, however, points out to me that Plat. legg. 715 e—716 a is
apparently paraphrasing not only, as the schol. ad loc. saw, Orph. frag. 21 Kern Zei)s
apxy, Zeus /ieVcra, Aids 8' e/c wdvra Tervtcrai, but also Orph. frag. 158 Kern hk Alkt]
woKijiroivos efpeLwero iraviv dpwybs—both lines being probably extant in the Rhapsodic
Theogony (cp. E. Abel Orphica Lipsiae—Pragae 1885 p. 157 n. 1).