Santamaria, M. A. "Critical Notes to the Orphic Poem of the Derveni Papyrus", ZPE 182, 55-76

8/19/2019 Santamaria, M. A. "Critical Notes to the Orphic Poem of the Derveni Papyrus", ZPE 182, 55-76

1/24

MARCO ANTONIO SANTAMARÍA

CRITICAL NOTES TO THE ORPHIC POEM OF THE DERVENI PAPYRUS

aus: Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 182 (2012) 55–76

© Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn


2/24


3/24

55

CRITICAL NOTES TO THE ORPHIC POE M OF THE DERVENI PAPYRUS*

1. Aim of the article

One of the features of the Derveni Papyrus that make it such a valuable document is that it transmits part ofthe most ancient Orphic poem we know. After the brilliant and imaginative exempli gratia reconstructionof M. L. West, the first critical reconstruction of the poem was published by A. Bernabé at the beginningof his monumental edition of the Orphicorum et Orphicis similium testimonia et fragmenta (2004–2007a).Thanks to the generosity of K. Tsantsanoglou, Bernabé was able to know the readings of the papyrus inthe passages where the Orphic poem was cited or paraphrased before the publication of the editio princepsof the papyrus in 2006 by Th. Kouremenos, G. M. Parássoglou and K. Tsantsanoglou (KPT). This paperfocuses on the first verses of the Orphic poem of Derveni (OPD) and has the aim of discussing or sup-

porting some of the textual proposals made by scholars regarding the text and order of these verses and ofoffering and justifying new conjectures1.

2. The Orphic σφραγίς (OF 3)2

In the programmatic column VII, the commentator (whom I shall call the DC) reflects on the nature ofOrpheus’ poem, which intended to express important things through riddles ([ἐν αἰν]ίγμα[ι] ν δὲ [μεγ]άλ,6–7). This implies that for most people these verses are mysterious, whereas the DC considers himself ableto understand their deep meaning and to explain it.

In lines 9–10 the editio princeps has the text: “θ]ας” γὰρ “ἐπιθέ[σθαι” κελ]εύσας, with Burkert’ssupplements3, who saw for the first time that these words echo the exhortation θύρας ἐπίθεσθε, βέβηλοι,the end of the characteristic σφραγίς with which many Orphic poems began. Janko (2008, 39) has been

able to place two strips of papyrus (I 7 and I 55) in this point and reads: “ἐπίθεσ[θ]” ὁ [κε]εύσας, a quo-tation in direct speech.

It is most probable that it was also the first verse of the OPD. For the first part of this σφραγίς orπρόρρησις there were two variants: Ἀείσω ξυνετοῖσιν (OF 1a) and Φθέγξομαι οἷς θέμις ἐστί (OF 1b)4.Which one was in the OPD? West (1983, 83, 114) prefers the first and points out: “What remains of theexegesis perhaps suits it better than the other version.” Burkert (1999, 80) has the same opinion “Io canteròper quelli che sanno”5. Calame (2011, 8) seems to assume that OF 1a stood at the beginning of the OPD,because he speaks of “l’adresse aux seuls auditeurs capables de comprendre” and quotes the passages inwhich the DC refers to the ignoramuses6. Other scholars prefer OF 1b, such as Riedweg (1993, 47: “viel-leicht”) and Tsantsanoglou (1997, 125–126), who thinks that in col. VII the DC is alluding to OF 1b, but itwould be the first verse of another Orphic poem, a secret one, not of the one commented in the DP. Bernabé

* This article has been written within the framework of two research projects supported by the Spanish “Ministerio deEconomía y Competitividad”: FFI2010-17047 and FF12010-18589. I am very grateful to Alberto Bernabé, Luc Brisson, MiguelHerrero, Ana Isabel Jiménez San Cristóbal, Raquel Martín and Jürgen Hammerstaedt for having read the article and offeringvaluable observations.

1 On the OPD see the important articles by Bernabé 2002 and 2007b, Burkert 2005 and Sider 2011 and the chapters 3(reconstruction) and 4 (interpretation) of Betegh 2004.

2 OF refers to the Orphic fragments in the standard edition of A. Bernabé 2004–2005–2007a.3 In Anonymous 1982, 3; cf. West 1983, 82.4 On this formula, see Bernabé 1996, Bremmer 2011, Calame 2011 and Graf 2011.5 Cf. Burkert 2005, 50: “la forma metrica irregolare e arcaica di Ἀείσω, usata da Teognide e Saffo, potrebbe essere indizio

di originalità”.

6 Cf. p. 9: “C’est Orpheé lui-même qui … ne parle que pour ceux qui savent. Ces destinataires pourront être identifiés …avec des initiés. Dans cette mesure, la formule performative initiale qui correspond désormais au OF 1 pourrait constituerl’incipit de la version de la cosmo-théogonie orphique commentée dans le Papyrus de Derveni.”


4/24

56 M. A. Santamaría

(2002, 101; 2003, 35; 2007b, 100) also prefers OF 1b and includes it in OF 3, the first verse of his recon-struction of the OPD (2004, 14). He is followed by Graf (2011, 14). Sider (2011, 18) choosesOF 1b, but saysthat both variants are possible7.

In my opinion, it is more likely that the OPD began with OF 1a, since the DC does not cease to con-trast the superior knowledge of οἱ γινώσκοντες with the ignorance of οἱ οὐ γινώσκοντες or the πολλοί8.The reference to οἱ γινώσκοντες seems to be echoing ξυνετοῖσι, they who know because they have beentaught in the initiation and are intended by the author of the poem as his ideal addressees, as opposed tothe βέβηλοι. In col. XXV 13, the words [οὐ β]ου[λό]μεν[ς] (sc. Ὀρφεύς) πάντας γιν[ώ]σκ[ι] seem aparaphrase of the expression ἀείσω ξυνετοῖσιν, which conveys Orpheus’ intention to sing only to the initi-ates, not to all people. Therefore, the DC has apparently found in the poem itself a basis for his dichotomybetween the wise and the ignorant9.

Bernabé (2002, 101 n. 51) prefers OF 1b and thinks that the DC relates νομο]εῖν (col. VII 10) toθέμις, arguing (2004, 14) that this word and [..ὕ]μνο [ὑγ] ῆ καὶ θεμ[ι]ὰ λέγο[ ντα (col. VII 2) “melius cumοἷς θέμις ἐστί congruunt”. Graf (2011, 14–15) claims also that the phrase θεμ[ι]ὰ λέγο[ ντα makes it virtu-

ally certain that the OPD opened with OF 1b. Let us examine these expressions. The participle λέγοντα probably has ὕμνον as its subject and ὑγιῆ and θεμιτά as its objects. According to the DC, the contents ofthe poem are righteous10, and this quality derives no doubt from Orpheus’ authority, who was the son of aMuse. Therefore θεμιτά must not necessarily have any relation to a possible θέμις in the first verse, whichrefers to the right that some people – the initiates – have to hear the poem. Regarding νομο]εῖν, we haveto bear in mind that it is very dif ficult to read and we cannot be sure that it is correct. If it is, it should beunderstood more as an explanation of the verb ἀείσω (or even φθέγξομαι) than as an allusion to θέμις. Thecapacity of νομοθετεῖν belongs to Orpheus and has no relation to a possible θέμις in verse 1, which wouldallude to a quality of the addresses. Moreover, in OF 6.4 the poet uses the same expression as in OF 1b(dative + θέμις + verb εἰμι): … ἔχρησεν ἅπαντα τά οἱ θέ[μις ἦν . . . . . . ]αι. Θέμις refers to Zeus’ actions,which will lead him to seize supreme power. These are legitimate, approved by destiny. Maybe the appear-

ance of this expression in OF 6.4 makes it unlikely that the poet used it just a few verses above in referenceto the initiates, who are authorized to hear the poem, clearly another much less important level of θέμις.

In line 4 Tsantsanoglou (1997, 121) conjectured ἔστι δὲ [ένη τις ἡ] πόησις [κ]ὶ ἀνθρώ[ποις]αἰν [γμ]ατώδης. West and Struck, independently, thought of [αντικὴ ἡ] πόησις11. If OF 1a was the firstverse of the OPD, as seems likely, another reading can be proposed: ἔστι δὲ [υνετοῖς] πόησι: “it is acomposition for those who understand”. Cf. Eur. IT 1091–1092: ἔλεγον οἶτον ἀείδεις / εὐξύνετον ξυνετοῖς βοάν. For the absence of article: ταῦτα μὲν ἱκανὰ συνετοῖς ἀνδράσι (Gal. De compos. medicam. 13.958.7Kühn; cf. An in arter. nat. 4.720.5 Kühn); συνετοῖς δὲ εὐθυέλεγκτος καὶ ληρώδης ὁ τούτου λόγος καὶ ἡ γνώμη (Epiph. Pan. 1.258.2); καίτοι σφόδρα προσῆκεν αὐτὰ εἶναι σαφῆ διὰ τὸ μὴ σοφοῖς μηδὲ συνετοῖς,ἀλλὰ νηπίοις γεγράφθαι (Porph. Contra Christ. fr. 54.7). The DC seems to contrast the ξυνετοί with

7

Bremmer 2011, 23 considers that there is no “decisive argument to establish the priority between the two versions”.8 Contraposition: col. IX 2–3: οἱ δὲ οὐ γινώσκον[τες] τὰ λεγό[μεν] …; 5: γινώσκ[ω] ; col. XXIII 1–3: το[ ῖς] ὲν πολοῖς ἄδηλόν ἐστιν, τοῖς δὲ ὀρθῶς γινώσκουσιν εὔδηλον ὅτι …; 5: οἱ δ᾽ οὐ γινώσκοντες. The ignorant: col. V 6: οὐ γινώ[κοντες;col. XII 5: οὐ γ] νώσκονς ὅτι …; col. XVIII 5–6: οὐκ εἰδότες … ὅ τί ἐστιν; 14: οἱ δ᾽ ἄθρω[ποι, οὐ γινώσκοντ]ες τὰ λεγόμεν; col. XX 2: σφας θαυμάζω μὴ γ νώσκειν and col. XXVI 8: οἱ δὲ τὸ ῥῆμα οὐ γινώσκοντες. About this opposition,see Brisson 2010.

9 The antiquity of the colon Ἀείσω ξυνετοῖσι is guaranteed for its echo in Pindar, O. 2.83–85: βέλη … φωνάεντα συνετοῖσιν, in reference to his verses; in Bacchylides, 3.85: φρονέοντι συνετὰ γαρύω, and probably in Heraclitus, fr. 34 DK:ἀξύνετοι ἀκούσαντες κωφοῖσιν ἐοίκασι. The reference of Plato Symp. 218b seems also to presuppose this variant ( paceTsantsanoglou 1997, 125–126). In the words πάντες ἀκούσεσθε· συγγνώσεσθε γὰρ τοῖς τε τότε πραχθεῖσι καὶ τοῖς νῦν λεγομένοις, the verb συγγιγνώσκω seems to be echoing ξυνετοῖσι. Moreover, when Alcibiades orders the servants, the pro-fane and the coarse (ἄγροικος) to put doors to their ears, he seems to want to make clearer the opposition ξυνετοί / βέβηλοι,because ἄγροικος is a more natural opposite to ξυνετοί than βέβηλοι.

10

For Tsantsanoglou 1997, 118, 125 it means that it is allowable for them to be heard or read by non-initiated people,because they are not ἀπόρρητα.11 Struck 2004, 31: [μαντικὴ ἡ]; see 33 n. 36 about West’s proposal. The integration is accepted by Janko 2008, 39–40.


5/24

Critical Notes to the Orphic Poem of the Derveni Papyrus 57

the generality of men (ἄνθρωποι), for whom the poem is enigmatic, not understandable, because they donot possess its keys12. These contraries reflect the ones that were probably in the first verse of the poem:ξυνετοῖσι and βέβηλοι.

After referring to the Orphicσφραγίς that stood at the beginning of the poem, the DC refers to the fol-lowing verse, with the words: ἐν δ]ὲ τῶι ἐομ[έ] ωι πα[ (line 14). The next line contained presumably thesecond verse of the poem, whereof only some letters remain: ]... γ.[.]α[ . No word is easily recognizable.

3. Zeus, father of gods (OF 4)

In col. VIII 2, the DC quotes a verse of programmatic nature that speaks of the birth of the gods fromZeus13:

ο] ἳ ∆ιὸς ἐξενοντο [ὑπερμεν]έος βασιλος (OF 4)

The edition of the DP in ZPE 1982 includes the conjecture [ὑπερμεν]έος, which has been adopted by nearlyall the scholars. This reading has the problem that it implies a hiatus between -οντο and ὑπερ-; for this

reason, Janko (2002, 16) proposed [περισθεν]έος14

, “but is rather rare and applied only to mortals … orobjects”15, as Sider (2011, 19) points out; [περικρατ]έος (Simm. fr. 1.11 Powell: γαμφηλῇσι περικρατέεσιν;Opp. Hal. 541: ἐς βυθὸν … περικρατές; Act. Apost. 27.16: ἰσχύσαμεν μόλις περικρατεῖς γενέσθαι τῆς σκάφης) would also be possible, but has the same problem. Another argument against [περισθεν]έος and[περικρατ]έος is that they are not used in archaic epic16. Janko also mentions [ἐρισθεν]έος and quotesOrph. A. 323: ἐρισθενέων βασιλήων; the epithet is applied to Zeus in Il. 13.54, 19.355, 21.184, Od. 8.289,Hes. Th. 4, Op. 416 or fr. 25.33 M.–W., but it is said to be too short by Kouremenos (KPT, 175), and prob-lematic because of the hiatus. Sider (2011, 19) prefers [μεγασθεν]έος, usually applied to gods: Zeus (Pi. fr.57*.1 M.; B. 3.67–68, Q. S. 2.140), Athena (Alc. fr. 87c.1 PMG), Apollo (A. Eu. 61) or Poseidon (Pi. O. 1.25;Ar. Nu. 566). In archaic epic it only appears in Hes. fr. 136.1 M.–W.: ]μεθ[ενε-. This epithet may beechoed in ring-composition in OF 16.2, where Zeus is said to have contrived “the big strength of Oceanus”

(μήσατο δ̓ Ὠκεανοῖο μέγα σθένος)17

. Sider also mentions [περιφραδ]έος, which is preferable for me. It isused in h.Merc. 464 as an epithet of Apollo (same sedes metrica). In Homer we find this formula six times:ὤπτησάν τε περιφραδέως (f. ex. Il. 1.466; same sedes metrica as [περιφραδ]έος: Hes. fr. 316.1 M.–W.;Antim. fr. 21.3 Matthews; A. R. 1.394; Q. S. 11.64; Orph. A. 322). Quintus of Smyrna (5.143) calls Odysseusπεριφραδής, also in genitive and in the same metrical position as in OF 4: περιφραδέος τ’ Ὀδυσῆος18.Taking into account the vision of the OPD about Zeus, περιφραδής is more suitable than μεγασθενής todescribe him. In fact, the poet leaves aside the physical abilities of the god and his strength19 and insistson his intellectual qualities (μητίετα, OF 10.3), indispensable for his mental recreation of the universe (OF16.1–2: [μήσατο … / μήσατο; 18.1: πάν]α ∆ιὸ[ς φρὴν μή]σα[ο ἔ]). So, an emphasis on Zeus’ intel-ligence at the beginning of the poem is more consistent with the rest of its content, given that the strengthof the god is hardly mentioned (only in OF 5.2).

12 See Ὀρφεύς … οἱ δ’ ἄλλοι ἄνθρωποι … (XVIII 2–3); oἱ δ’ ἄθρω[ποι, οὐ γινώσκοντ]ες τὰ λεγόμεν (XVIII 14).13 These gods were no doubt mentioned in the previous verse, which is lost. West’s proposals in 1983, 114 for vv. 2–4 arevery attractive: [Ζηνὸς παμμεδέοντος ἄνακτος θέσκελα ἔργα,] / [ὅσσα μελαίνης Νυκτὸς ὑπ’ ἐννεσίησι τέλεσσεν,] / [ἠδὲ καὶ ὁπλοτέρων μακάρων γένος αἰὲν ἐόντων], although the reference to Night in this proem seems unlikely.

14 Brisson 2003, 21 n. 21 and Jourdan 2003, 8 and n. 1 accept it.15 Pi. N . 3.16–17: ἐν περισθενεῖ … παγκρατίου στόλῳ; fr. 131b.1 M.: θανάτῳ περισθενεῖ; A. R. 1.543: περισθενέων …

ἀνδρῶν. I have not found more examples.16 Only the participle περισθενέων in Od . 22.368 (hapax).17 I owe this observation to Miguel Herrero.18 Sophocles, in the well-known choral song of the Antigone, applies the adjective to man to celebrate the achievements

of his mind: περιφραδὴς ἀνήρ· κρατεῖ / δὲ μηχαναῖς … (348–349). Is Sophocles describing men with a typical divine epithet?19 In OF 5, he receives the strength from his father, probably implying a peaceful transmission of power ([τρὸς ἑο]ῦ

πάρα … / [ἀ]λκήν τ ̓ἐ χείρεσσι {ε}[λ]άβ[εν), in contrast to Hesiod’s Theogony: (Zeus) κάρτει νικήσας πατέρα Κρόνον (73);ὅ μιν τάχ’ ἔμελλε βίῃ καὶ χερσὶ δαμάσσας / τιμῆς ἐξελάαν (490–491); (Cronus) νικηθεὶς τέχνῃσι βίηφί τε παιδὸς ἑοῖο (496); (853–858); (θεοὶ) Τιτήνεσσι δὲ τιμάων κρίναντο βίηφι (882).


6/24


4. The oracle of the Night (OF 6)

After citing OF 4 in col. VIII 2, the DC quotes two more verses, which he introduces this way:

ὅπως δ̓

ἄρχεται

ἐν

τῶ

[ιδε

δη

]λοῖ· “Ζεὺς μὲν ἐπεὶ δ [τρὸς ἑο]ῦ πάρα θέ[σ]φατον ἀρχὴν

[ἀ]λκήν τ̓ ἐν χείρεσσι ἔ[λ]β[εν κ][ὶ] δαίμο[α] κυδρόν”. (OF 5)

It has been generally assumed that these verses followed OF 4, given that the DC cites the verses of theOrphic poem in order. The basis for that assumption is that he usually introduces new verses with theexpression τὸ ἐχόμενον (ἔπος), “the following (verse)”20, and if we read them in the order they are citedthey make good sense21. However, it cannot be taken for granted that the DC follows this principle scru-pulously. Indeed, there is clear proof that he does not: in col. XIII 1–4 he cites OF 7 and then OF 8, versesthat cannot be together, but separated by one or more verses. It is significant that the DC introduces OF 8,which does not follow OF 7, with the words “ἀλλὰ δηοῖ ὧδε λέγων” (col. XIII 3)22. Similarly, before cit-ing OF 5 he says “ἐν τῶ[ιδε δη]λοῖ” (col. VIII 3), not ἐν τῶι ἐχομένωι, which indicates that it did not follow

OF 4, but came further on in the poem. The DC cites OF 5 not because it was next to OF 4, but to illustratehow Zeus begins (ἄρχεται) to be king (“∆ιὸς … βασιλος”. ὅπως δ̓ ἄρχεται ἐν τῶ[ιδε δη]λοῖ). In fact,OF 5 narrates the moment in which Zeus takes power from his father. In the next section I will argue thatOF 5.1 is a corrupted version of OF 7. The quotation of this last fragment in col. XIII 1 indicates that OF 5should be placed between OF 6 (commented in cols. X–XII) and OF 8 (cited in col. XIII 4).

Let us examine now the references to an oracle of Night in cols. X and XI. In the lost part of col. IXthe DC no doubt cited a verse that we can partially reconstruct thanks to his explanations of isolated wordsin cols. X and XI. The DC says explicitly that the following verse (τὰ δ ̓[ἐπὶ τούτ]ι λγει, col. XI 9) was:

“[. . .] ἔχρησεν ἅπαντα τά οἱ θέ[μις . . . . . . . .]αι”,

and the following (τὸ δ ̓ἐχόμ[ νον ἔ]ος ὧδ᾽ ἔχει, col. XII 1):

“ὡς ἂ [χοι κά]τα καλὸν ἕος νιφόεντος Ὀλύμπου”.In cols. X and XI we have the words ‘πανομφεύουσαν’, ‘τροφόν’, ‘ἐξ [δύτοι]ο’ and ‘χρῆαι’, which referto the prophesies that Night pronounces to Zeus. West (1983, 114) reconstructed the verses in this way:

[ἐφράσατ’ (sc. Ζεύς) εὖ μάλα πάντα, τά οἱ θεὰ] ἐξ ἀδύτοιο [εἶπε] πανομφεύουσα ⌊θεῶν⌋ τροφὸς ⌊ἀμβροσίη⌋ Νύξ23

Bernabé (2002, 103 and 2004, 16–17) proposes this reconstruction (OF 6):

[Ζεὺς μὲν … [ἧστο] πανομφεύουσα [θεῶν] τροφὸς ἀμβροσίη Νύξ·24 … χρῆσαι … ἐξ [δύτοι]ο [ἣ δ̓ ] ἔχρησεν ἅπαντα τά οἱ θέ[μις ἦν ἀνύσασ]αι25

I think that the words analysed by the DC in cols. X and XI may belong to the same verse. In the commen-tary there are no traces ofἀμβροσίη, so we can place ἐξ [δύτοι]ο at the end of the verse, and Νύξ at thebeginning of the following line:

20 Col. XII 1: τὸ δ᾽ ἐχόμ[ νον ἔ]ος ὧδ᾽ ἔχει; XIV 5: τὸ δ᾽ πὶ τούτωι; XV 5: ἐχόμενον δὲ ἔπο; XVI 12–13: [ἔτι δὲ ἐν τῶι ἐχ]μένωι ἔπει τούτ]ο; XXIII 10: τὸ δ᾽ ἐχόμενον.

21 See Betegh 2004, 105–108 for the question of the order of the verses. I agree with his argumentation and conclusions:the DC normally quotes the verses in order, but he can occasionally skip a verse or two (and even more). “His basic intentionwas to give a comprehensive, methodical explication of the poem.”

22 Cf. Betegh 2004, 107: “we should not take for granted that the author continues the exegesis with the explication of theimmediately following verse of the poem where he does not say so”.

23 Cf. OF 112: θεῶν τροφὸς ἀμβροσίη Νύξ.24 This verse is reconstructed in this way in ZPE 1982, 4 n.25 [Ζεὺς μὲν …, … χρῆσαι … ἐξ [δύτοι]ο and ἦν ἀνύσασ]αι are proposals of Tsantsanoglou to Bernabé per litt.


7/24


[Ζηνὶ] πανομφεύουσα ⌊θεῶν⌋ τροφὸς ἐξ [δύτοι]ο [Nὺξ] ἔχρησεν ἅπαντα …

“To Zeus Night, the nurse of the gods, she who pronounces all the oracles,

[ from her sanctuary prophesied everything …”

The phrase ἐξ ἀδύτοιο (or ἐξ ἀδύτου) is already attested in the Iliad (5.512, end of verse) and usuallyrefers to a prophesy: ἐξ ἀδύτου (Theog. 808, end of verse);Ἀλλ’ ἴτον ἐξ ἀδύτοιο (Delphic oracle, ap. Hdt.7.140.16);Φράζευ, Ἐρεχθεΐδη, λογίων ὁδόν, ἥν σοι Ἀπόλλων / ἴαχεν ἐξ ἀδύτοιο (Ar. Eq. 1015–1016); ἐξ ἀδύτου (Tyrt. ap. D. S. 7.12.6.4; Ariston. Pae. in Apoll. 13 Powell, end of verse in both cases); Orph. A. 956ἐξ ἀδύτοιο (end of verse; in the previous line: πάμπαν ἐπισταμένη Μήδεια, cf. πανομφεύουσα).

The form Ζηνί appears in archaic epic poetry several times at the beginning of the verse ( Il. 2.49,22.302, Od . 9.552, 13.25, Hes. Th. 938). Interestingly enough, in epic poetryΖηνί is sometimes followed bya feminine participle, as in my reconstruction of OF 6.2: Ζηνὶ φόως ἐρέουσα ( Il. 2.49); Ζηνί τε κυσαμένη

(Asius, fr. 1.3 Bernabé);Ζηνὶ χαριζομένη (Nonn. D. 5.108);Ζηνὶ

φυλασσομένη (203);Ζηνὶ

θυηπολέουσαν

(7.136); Ζηνὶ συναπτομένην (13.553 = 16.240).For the lacuna at the beginning of OF 6.4, Sider proposes [Νὺξ], which I accept, instead of [ἡ δέ]

( ZPE ), [ἣ δέ] (Bernabé) or [ἥ οἱ] (West).The DC seems to paraphrase the sequence ἐξ [δύτοι]ο / [Nὺξ] ἔχρησεν when he says: ‘ἐξ [δύτοι]ο’

δ ̓αὐτὴν [ἔφησε26] ‘χρῆαι’, with the same order: ἐξ ἀδύτοιο + Νύξ / αὐτήν + ἔχρησε / χρῆσαι. There is aparallel in col. XIV 5–8, where he paraphrases the sequence ὃς (sc. Κρόνος) έγ᾿ ἔρεξεν /Οὐρανόν saying:… Kόνον ὀνομάσας μέγα ῥέξαι φησὶ τὸν Οὐρανόν. The infinitive χρῆσαι is clearly reporting ἔχρησεν,so there is no need to suppose this form in the previous verse to … ἔχρησεν ἅπαντα …27.

Some parallels can be adduced with the same syntactic structure that I propose for OF 6: ὧιτινί κεν Πυθῶνι θεοῦ χρήσασ’ ἱέρεια / ὀμφὴν σημήνηι πίονος ἐξ ἀδύτου (Theog. 707–708); ἡ δὲ Πυθίη ἔχρησέ

σφι τάδε (Hdt. 3.57.2); Παρίοισι

μὲν

δὴ

ταῦτα

ἡ

Πυθίη

ἔχρησε (6.136.2); ἑκατέρωι

γὰρ

ὁ θεὸς

ἔχρησεν

,

Ἀλκμαίωνι μὲν πυνθανομένωι πῶς ἂν τῆς μανίας ἀπαλλαγείη …Μενελάωι δὲ πῶς ἂν τὸν Ἀλέξανδρον τιμωρήσαιτο (Ephor. FGH n. 70 F 96.30–34).

To complete the lacuna after τά οἱ θέ[μις (OF 6.4) several possibilities were considered: ἦεν ἀνύσσ]αι West (1983, 114, followed by Jourdan 2003, 11), ἦεν ἀκοῦσ]αι (Janko 2001, 23; 2002, 21), ἦν ἀνύσασ]αι or ἐξανύσασ]αι or ἦν ἀνύεσ]αι or ἐξανύεσ]αι (Tsantsanoglou ap. Bernabé 2004, 17); ἦν ἀνύσασ]αι is the form preferred by Bernabé (2002, 103; 2004, 17), Betegh (2004, 24) and KPT (81).

Sider (2011, 12, 25) proposes ἐκτελέεσ]αι (fort. ἦν τελέεσ]αι). This last form is more likely to me,because in archaic epic θέμις is normally followed by ἐστί( ν) or ἦεν28. Only twice we find θέμις with-out ἐστί( ν), but in these cases no infinitive is used29. The form (ἐκ)τελέεσθαι is very common in Homer,“whereas – as Sider points out – neither ἀνύσασθαι nor ἀνύεσθαι occurs in early epic, and indeed the

middle occurs only once, atOd

. 16.373”. In this passage (οὐ γὰρ

ὀΐω

/τούτου

γε

ζώοντος

ἀνύσσεσθαι

τάδε ἔργα), the passive sense is very likely, as LSJ s. v. suggests. Sider also adduces a good parallel, refer-ring to Heracles: ἐκτελέσαι μέγα ἔργον, ὅ οἱ ∆ιόθεν θέμις ἦεν (Hes. fr. 195 = Sc. 21). The form τελέεσθαι is very common in epic in some contexts about the future:

26 [λέγει] ZPE , Janko, Jourdan, Betegh, KPT and Bernabé; ἔφησε is my integration, because the DC normally uses φημί when he repeats a verse or expression in reported speech: μέγα ῥέξαι φησὶ τὸν Οὐρανόν (col. XIV 8); [αἰδοῖ]ον τὸν ἥλιον ἔφ[η]εν εἶναι (col. XVI 1); καὶ ὕσττον ἔφησεν ἔσεσθαι τοῦτον (col. XVII 6); [βασιλέ]α ἔφη εἶναι (col. XIX 11).

27 The DC usually transforms personal verbs into infinitives: “[ἀ]λκήν … {ἐ}[λ]β[εν” (col. VIII 5) – τὴν ἀλκὴν λαμβ[ νειν (10); “ὃς έγ᾿ ἔρεξεν” (col. XIV 5) – μέγα ῥέξαι φησὶ (8); “ἣ πολλοῖς φαίνει …” (col. XXIV 3) – λέγει φαίνειν αήν (6).

28 Il. 2.73, 9.33, 276, 11.779, 14.386, 19.177, 23.44, 581, 652, Od . 3.45, 187, 9.268, 10.73, 11.451, 14.56, 130, 16.91, Hes. Th.396, Sc. 447; with πέλει: Il. 9.134; imperfect: ἤην, Il. 11.808: ἦεν, 16.796, Hes. Sc. 22.

29 ἡ γὰρ θέμις, ὅς τις ὑπάρξῃ (Od. 24.286); ᾗ θέμις ἀνθρώποις κατὰ ἤθεα (Hes. Op. 137).


8/24


– a desire about the future is uttered (τὸ δὲ καὶ τελέεσθαι ὀΐω, Il. 1.204: Achilles wishes Agamemnonto die);

– a prediction is made (αὐτὰρ νῦν τοι ἐγὼ μαντεύσομαι, ὡς ἐνὶ θυμῷ / ἀθάνατοι βάλλουσι καὶ ὡς

τελέεσθαι ὀΐω, Od . 1.200–201: Athena, in the form of a man, predicts to Telemachus that his father is notgoing to be away for long; ὦ γέρον, οὔ πω τοῦτο ἔπος τελέεσθαι ὀΐω, Od . 3.226: Telemachus does notexpect Nestor’s words to be accomplished);

– an omen is interpreted (ὥρμηναν δ’ ἀνὰ θυμὸν ἅ περ τελέεσθαι ἔμελλον, Od . 2.156: the inhabitantsof Ithaca are surprised when they see two eagles fighting; Od . 15.172–173 ≈ 1.200–201: Helen interprets anomen involving an eagle and a goose as a sign that Odysseus is going to return to his fatherland).

Therefore, the verb τελέεσθαι fits well in this verse that describes Night’s prophesy. It is a passive formand alludes to the things that may be accomplished by Zeus, the implicit agent, according to destiny.

In epic the fulfilment of important things is often attributed to Zeus, for which the verb τελέω isused: ∆ιὸς δ’ ἐτελείετο βουλή ( Il. 1.5, Od . 11.297, Cypr. fr. 1.7 Bernabé); οὔ θην Ἕκτορι πάντα νοήματα μητίετα Ζεὺς / ἐκτελέει ( Il. 10.104–105);∆ιὸς δ’ ἐτέλειον ἐφετμάς ( Il. 15.593); τὰ μὲν δή τοι τετέλεσται /

ἐκ ∆ιός ( Il. 18.75); κῆρα δ’ ἐγὼ τότε δέξομαι ὁππότε κεν δὴ / Ζεὺς ἐθέλῃ τελέσαι ( Il. 18.115–116 =22.365–366); εἴθε οἱ αὐτῷ / Ζεὺς ἀγαθὸν τελέσειεν (Od . 2.33–34); Τηλέμαχ’, ἦ τοι νόστον, … / ὥς τοι Ζεὺς τελέσειεν (Od . 15.111–112);αἴ κέ ποθι Ζεὺς ἄντιτα ἔργα τελέσσῃ (Od . 17.51);μεγάλου δὲ ∆ιὸς νόος ἐξετελεῖτο (Hes. Th. 1002); Εὖτ’ ἂν δ’ ἑξήκοντα … / χειμέρι’ ἐκτελέσῃ Ζεὺς ἤματα (Hes. Op. 564–565); μηδ’ ἀτέλεστον ἐμὸν ἔπος ἐκ ∆ιὸς ἔστω (h.Cer. 323); ἀλλ’ ὅτε δὴ μεγάλοιο ∆ιὸς νόος ἐξετελεῖτο (h.

Merc. 10).In Hesiod’s Theogony, in a very similar context to the one we are dealing with, Cronus expresses with

great decision that he wants to accomplish the work that Rhea has proposed to her children: to defeat Ura-nus: “μῆτερ, ἐγώ κεν τοῦτό γ’ ὑποσχόμενος τελέσαιμι / ἔργον …” (Th. 170–171). It is also probable that thephrase ἅπαντα τά οἱ θέ[μις ἦν τελέεσ]αι is further echoed in the DP, in col. XIX 11–13 when Orpheusis said to have called the air (i. e., Zeus) king because πάντα τελεῖ [ἅπερ θνη]ν οὐδενὶ [ἄλλωι ἔξεσ]ιν

τ[λ]έσαι.In col. XII 1–2 the DC introduces a new verse saying τὸ δ ̓ἐχόμ[ νον ἔ]ος ὧδ ̓ἔχει·

“ὡς ἂ [χοι κά]τα καλὸν ἕος νιφόεντος Ὀλύμπου” (OF 6.5).

If he did not quote other verse(s) at the end of col. XI, we have to suppose that it followedOF 6.4, and in factit fits perfectly after it: the things that, according to Night’s oracle, are going to be accomplished in favourof Zeus, have as their objective his occupation of Olympus, that is, his ascent to supreme power in the world.The reconstruction with optative + ἄν seems very likely and would indicate that this action is a possibilityand has not yet happened, so Zeus’ visit to Night’s shrine must take place before Zeus’ seizure of power30. Itlends weight to my hypothesis that OF 5 goes after OF 6. Moreover, if OF 5.1 was before OF 6, the epithetθέσφατον would be dif ficult to understand for the audience, who knew nothing about Night’s prophecies.

It seems that Night revealed to Zeus the keys to take the strength from his father and to consolidate hiskingdom forever. In the Rhapsodies (OF 237) he asks Night two questions, how to obtain power over thegods and how to act so that everything becomes a single thing and then everything again:

μαῖα, θεῶν ὑπάτη, Νὺξ ἄμβροτε, πῶς, τάδε φράζε, πῶς χρή μ’ ἀθανάτων ἀρχὴν κρατερόφρονα θέσθαι; πῶς δέ μοι ἕν τε τὰ πάντα ἔσται καὶ χωρὶς ἕκαστα.

30 That is West’s interpretation 1983, 86: “She revealed to Zeus everything that he needed to do (?) in order to rule (?) onthe fair seat of snowy Olympus … In obedience to her advice Zeus swallowed Protogonos”; West (2008, 284), in his reconstruc-tion of the Protogonos Theogony: “Como Gea en Hesíodo, (Noche) le contó (a Zeus) cómo derrocar a Crono.” Brisson 2010,23–24 thinks the same. For Bernabé 2002, 103, Zeus consults Night once he has seized power: “Après s’être emparé du pouvoir,

Zeus se rend dans la grotte de la Nuit, laquelle lui indique, de manière prophétique, comment il devra exercer son pouvoir” (cf.2003, 36–37); “The verb [ἔχοι] only makes sense if it means “how he would hold for ever”, how he must act in order to keepit” (2007, 104–105).


9/24


The answers to both questions probably referred to Cronus’ defeat (cf. OF 219–220) and to the swallowingof Protogonos (OF 240–241). Similarly, in the OPD, Zeus’ consultation to Night seems to have as a con-sequence two facts: he receives the strength from Cronus (OF 5) and he swallows the αἰδοῖον /-ος (OF 8).

5. Zeus takes the strength from his father (OF 5) and swallows the αἰδοῖον /-ος (OF 8)

Let us consider the relation of OF 5, 7 and 8:

– OF 5 (col. VIII 4–5): “Ζεὺς μὲν ἐπεὶ δ [τρὸς ἑο]ῦ πάρα θέ[σ]φατον ἀρχὴν [ἀ]λκήν τ̓ ἐν χείρεσσι ἔ[λ]β[εν31 κ][ὶ] δαίμο[α] κυδρόν”

– OF 7 (col. XIII 1): “Ζεὺς μὲν ἐπεὶ δ ατρὸς ἑοῦ πάρ [θ]σφατ᾿ ἀκούσα[ς]”

– OF 8 (col. XIII 4): “αἰδοῖον καέπινεν, ὃς αἰθέρα ἔκθοε πρῶτος”.

For most scholars32, these fragments appeared in the poem in the same order as the DC cites them andthere were other verses between them. But some critics have proposed that OF 8 followed OF 5. Let us seetheir considerations:

– West (1983, 85–86) af firmed that in OF 8 αἰδοῖον was an epithet of Protogonos, meaning “reverend”.This adjective cannot stand in isolation, so this verse must have originally followed OF 5.2. However, theDC read a faulty poem, in which these verses were in the order he cites them:

Ζεὺς μέν, ἐπεὶ δὴ πατρὸς ἑοῦ πάρα θέσφατον ἀρχὴν ἀλκήν τ̓ ἐν χείρεσσ(ι) ἔλαβεν καὶ δαίμονα κυδρόν (vv. 6–7 in his reconstruction)

and further:

Ζεὺς μέν, ἐπεὶ δὴ πατρὸς ἑοῦ πάρα [θέ]σφατ᾿ ἀκούσας αἰδοῖον κα[τ]έπινεν, ὃς αἰθέρα ἔκθορε πρῶτος (vv. 12 and 14).

That led the DC to interpret αἰδοῖον as “sexual organ”. West conjectures that these verses in the originalpoem were like this:

Ζεὺς μέν, ἐπεὶ δὴ πατρὸς ἑοῦ πάρα θέσφατον ἀρχὴν [σκῆπτρόν] τ̓ ἐν χείρεσσι λαβ[εῖν ἐρικυδὲς ἔμελλεν] (vv. 6–7)

and further:

Ζεὺς μὲν ἔπει[τ’ ἄφραστα θεᾶς] πάρα θέσφατ᾿ ἀκούσας,⟨ἀλκήν τ̓ ἐν χείρεσσ’ ἔλαβεν, καὶ δαίμονα κυδρόν⟩

αἰδοῖον κατέπινεν ὃς αἰθέρα ἔκθορε πρῶτος (vv. 12–14).

Due to the similarity of verses 6 and 12, 13 was copied instead of 7 (saut du même au même) and was omit-ted between 12 and 14. On the other hand, there was a further confusion: 12 was accidentally assimilatedto 6 and the words ἔπει[τ’ ἄφραστα θεᾶς] were substituted by ἐπεὶ δὴ πατρὸς ἑοῦ, from 6. That resultedin Zeus hearing a prophesy from his father.

These two mistakes in the process of copying seem unlikely, especially the second one, not to say thatWest’s conjecture for v. 12 has no basis in the DP33.

– Rusten (1984, 334), independently, thought that in the poem, OF 5 was followed by OF 8. For thiscombination he offers several parallels from the Orphic Rhapsodies, according to which Zeus swallowed(κατέπινεν) Protogonos (OF 240–241), a god that is the first to be born (πρῶτος ἐκθρῴσκει) and is called

31 In ἐν χείρεσσι ἔ[λ]β[εν -ι or ἔ- have to be suppressed for metrical reasons. Some scholars prefer ἐν χείρεσσ’ ἔλαβεν (West 1983, 84, 114; Janko 2002, 16; Jourdan 2003, 8; Brisson 2003, 21 n. 17) and others ἐν χείρεσσι λάβεν (Rusten 1984, 334;1985, 126; Bernabé 2002, 102; 2004, 15; 2007b, 103). The latter is more likely, as Sider (2011, 22) argues, because λαβ- is morecommon in Homer in the aorist of indicative (39x) than ἐλαβ- (6x); in Il. 8.116 we read ἐν χείρεσσι λάβ’, where no manuscriptoffers ἐν χείρεσσ’ ἔλαβ’.

32

F. ex. Bernabé 2002, 102–105; 2003, 36–37; 2004, 15–18; 2007b, 103–107; Betegh 2004, 109–112; Sider 2011, 21–23.33 For Rusten 1985, 125, West’s is a “drastic solution”. Bernabé (2002, 102) states that “il force substantiellement le text”.Kouremenos KTP, 22 says: “It is preferable not to postulate such a baroque confusion.”


10/24


δαίμονα σεμνόν (OF 140.1), a similar expression to δαίμονα κυδρόν. Rusten thought later (1985, 125–126)that the original sequence was: OF 7 + 5.2 + 8:

Ζεὺς μέν, ἐπεὶ δὴ πατρὸς ἑοῦ πάρα θέσφατ᾿ ἀκούσας

ἀλκήν τ̓ ἐν χείρεσσι λάβεν, καὶ δαίμονα κυδρόν αἰδοῖον κατέπινεν, ὃς αἰθέρα ἔκθορε πρῶτος …

Rusten claims that the DC himself altered OF 7 in 5.1 (or preferred the variant of OF 5.1). He changed theend θέσφατ’ ἀκούσας and introduced θέσφατον ἀρχήν because he wanted to demonstrate “how he (Zeus)begins” (ὅπως ἄρχεται, col. VIII 3) and because the scene of Zeus’ hearing oracles from his father did notsuit his interpretation (cols. VIII 9 and XIII 2). But we can make an objection to his view: if the DC alteredOF 7 in OF 5.1 in col. VIII 4 it is not clear why he cited it correctly later, in col. XIII 1.

– Calame (1997, 67 n. 3) also proposed to substitute OF 5.1 for 7. For him, the oracles refer to the wordof Night, not of Cronus. He does not explain how OF 7 was corrupted into 5.1.

– Kouremenos (KPT, 22–23) follows this line of interpretation and thinks thatOF 5.1 is a misquotationof 7. For the DC (col. VIII 7–10), OF 5.1 “states not that Zeus hears his father but that he takes the power(and the glorious demon) from his father”. “The DC quotes OF 5.1 but proceeds to interpret it as if he had7 in mind, which suggests that [5.1] is nothing but a erroneous version of 7”. For Kouremenos, “the verbἄρχεται in col. VIII 3 might have given rise to the misquotation [of θέσφατον ἀρχήν instead of θέσφατ’ἀκούσας] during copying; if so, τε in [5.2] was added to connect the erroneous ἀρχήν with ἀλκήν andshould be removed”. He also adds that “after quoting 7 in col. XIII the Derveni author proceeds to notethat he has already made clear in what sense Ζεὺς ἤκουσεν, which means that 7 has already been com-mented upon and thus that has been quoted above too”. The καί would be apodotic after ἐπεὶ δή, as in Od .14.111–112: αὐτὰρ ἐπεὶ δείπνησε καὶ ἤραρε θυμὸν ἐδωδῇ, / καί οἱ πλησάμενος δῶκε σκύφος34.

I find Kouremenos’ explanation totally convincing. It seems that when the scribe was copying col. VIII3–5 he read the sentence and under the influence of ἄρχεται in line 3 and ἀλκήν in line 5 he changed inhis memory θέσφατ’ ἀκούσας for θέσφατον ἀρχήν and wrote that, introducing a word very similar toἀλκή both phonetically and semantically, and very suitable in the context. He then introduced τ’ in the nextverse to connect ἀλκή with the previous word, so it should be removed, as Kouremenos thinks. The resultwould be:

Ζεὺς μὲν, ἐπεὶ δ ατὸς ἑοῦ πάρ [θ]σφατ᾿ ἀκούσα[ς] (OF 7)[ἀ]λκὴν {τ̓ } ἐ χείρεσσι {ε}[λ]β[εν, κ][ὶ] δαίμο[α] κυδρὸν (OF 5.2)

αἰδοῖον καέπινεν, ὃς αἰθέρα ἔκθοε πρῶτος. (OF 8)

Zeus, when from his father, having heard the oracles, the strength in his hands he took, the illustrious god, the reverend one, he swallowed, who was the first to leap from the ether.

In the first verse, μέν without δέ is emphatic35 and has the function of stressing the importance of Zeusin the actions that are narrated, as in the following passages: Ζεὺς μέν που τό γε οἶδε καὶ ἀθάνατοι θεοὶ ἄλλοι ( Il. 3.308); Ζεὺς μέν ῥα Τρώεσσι καὶ Ἕκτορι βούλετο νίκην / κυδαίνων Ἀχιλῆα πόδας ταχύν ( Il. 13.347–348; cf. 17.331); Ζεὺς μὲν τῆσδε πόληος ὑπειρέχοι αἰθέρι ναίων / αἰεὶ δεξιτερὴν χεῖρ’ ἐπ’ἀπημοσύνηι (Theog. 757–758); Ζεὺς μὲν ἀφίκτωρ ἐπίδοι προφρόνως / στόλον ἡμέτερον νάιον ἀρθέντ’ (A. Supp. 1–2).

34 Kouremenos refers to Denniston 21954, 308–309, who quotes, among other references: εὖθ’ οἳ ἀνακλινθέντες ἀνερρίπτουν ἅλα πηδῷ, / καὶ τῷ νήδυμος ὕπνος ἐπὶ βλεφάροισιν ἔπιπτε (Od . 13.78–79); ἀλλ’ ὅτε δὴ καὶ λυγρὰ θεοὶ μάκαρες τελέωσι, / καὶ τὰ φέρει ἀεκαζόμενος τετληότι θυμῷ (Od . 18.134–135). See: ἔνθ’ ἐπεὶ εὖ βοτάνης ἐπεφόρβει βοῦς ἐριμύκους /καὶ τὰς μὲν συνέλασσεν ἐς αὔλιον ἀθρόας οὔσας (h.Merc. 105–106). Cf. also LSJ s. v. καί B 3: “freq. in apodosi,after temporal conjs., Il. 1.494 [Ἀλλ’ ὅτε δή ῥ’ ἐκ τοῖο δυωδεκάτη γένετ’ ἠώς / καὶ τότε δὴ …], cf. 8.69 [ἦμος δ’ Ἠέλιος μέσον

οὐρανὸν ἀμφιβεβήκει, / καὶ τότε δὴ …], Od. 14.112 [αὐτὰρ ἐπεὶ δείπνησε καὶ ἤραρε θυμὸν ἐδωδῇ, / καί οἱ πλησάμενος δῶκε σκύφος]”. Tsantsanoglou had made the same proposal ap. Bernabé 2004, 16.35 See Denniston 21954, 359.


11/24


Five more arguments can be added to support this reconstruction:a) The presence of ἀρχή meaning ‘power’ is unparalleled in archaic epic, where ἀρχή always means

‘principle’. The sense of ‘power’ is not attested before Herodotus (f. ex. 1.6) and in poetry it appears for the

first time in tragedy, with a marked spatial connotation (S. OT 373).b) When the DC paraphrases OF 5 in cols. VIII 7–8, 10 and IX, 3–4, he mentions the ἀλκή and the

δαίμων that Zeus took from his father, but never the ἀρχή, which makes the presence of ἀρχή in OF 5.1very doubtful36.

c) It seems that in OF 7 ατὸς ἑοῦ πάρα is a complement of ἀκούσας, but in archaic epic ἀκούω usually has a genitive without preposition as complement indicating the person that is heard. Only ἐκ andπρός + gen. are rarely used37. So, it must be complement of another verb in the following verse. If we acceptthat 5.2 followed 7, ατὸς ἑοῦ πάρα would be complement of λάβε, which makes perfect sense: “Zeus,when from his father, having heard the prophecies, took the strength in his hands …”. This leaves no placefor an oracle from Cronus, as Calame pointed out (1997, 67 n. 3).

d) The two adjectives of δαίμονα after the combination of OF 5.2 and 8 appear together in several

passages of archaic poetry as epithets of gods and heroes: κυδρή τ’ αἰδοίη τε (Dike, Hes. Op. 257)38;κυδίστην … αἰδοίην ἄλοχον (Hera, h.Ven. 42–44); κυδρὴν θεόν … παρθένον αἰδοίην (Athena, h.Hom.28.1–3);αἰδοιέστατοι (Dioscuroi, Alcm. fr. 2 ii and iv, 4PMG) and κυδρός (Polydeuces, i and iv, 7). Theseparallels show that the union of αἰδοῖον with δαίμονα κυδρόν is very likely.

e) When in archaic epic αἰδοῖος is the epithet of a god it is very frequently at the beginning ofthe verse in enjambment, as in the sequence OF 5.2 + 8: Θέτι … / αἰδοίη ( Il. 18.385–386 = 424–425); Ἑρμεία χρυσόρραπι … / αἰδοῖος (Od . 5.87–88); ἐυστέφανος ∆ημήτηρ / αἰδοίη (Hes. Op. 300–301); […μεγαλήτορος Ἰοβάταο] / αἰδοίου βασ[ιλῆος (Hes. fr. 43a.89–90 M.–W.); … Μαῖα / νύμφη ἐϋπλόκαμος … / αἰδοίη (h.Merc. 3–5); cf. Opp. Hal. 2.654–655: ∆ίκης … / αἰδοίης; Q. S. 5.542–543: ἄνασσαν /αἰδοίην.

Burkert (1987, 38 n. 57)39 states that West’s and Rusten’s combination of OF 5.2 and 8 involves imput-

ing to the commentator a gross misunderstanding of the Greek text he had before his eyes in a completecopy; he twice makes δαίμονα [κυδρ]όν the object of ἔλαβεν, not of κατέπινε40: [ἔσ]ιν δ ̓ὧδ̓ ἔχοντ·‘Ζεὺς μὲν ἐπεὶ τ[ ν ἀλ]ὴν [πα]ρὰ πατρὸς ἑοῦ ἔλαβεν καὶ δαίμον [κυδρ]ν’ (col. VIII 7–8) and: οἱ δὲ οὐ γινώσκον[τες] τὰ λεγό[μεν] δοκοῦσι τὸ Ζᾶνα παρὰ τοῦ αὑτο[ῦ] πατρὸς [τὴν] ἀλκήν τε κα[ὶ] τὸν δαίμονα λαμβά[ νειν] (IX 2–4). But one has to bear in mind that the DC comments and interprets normallyonly the verse or verses he has quoted, with no references to further elements from contiguous verses whichmight complete the sentence. He enunciates this method explicitly in col. XIII 5–6:

ὅτι μὲν πᾶαν τὴν πόησιν περὶ τῶν πραγμάτων αἰνίζεται [α]τ᾽41 ἔπος ἕκαστον ἀνάγκη λέγειν.

As he (sc. Orpheus) gives his whole composition an allegorical sense about facts, it is indispen-sable to speak about each verse in turn42.

36 Ιn col. VIII 12 τὴν ἀλκήν (Tsantsanoglou, Betegh, KPT) is possible instead of τὴν ἀρχήν (Bernabé), and the same incol. IX 1: ἀλ]ὴν (Betegh, Bernabé) is likelier than ἀρ]ὴν (Tsantsanoglou, Jourdan, Janko, KPT). According to KPT, 78 thetraces after the lacuna are “compatible with the right-hand foot of κ, χ or the tip of the bottom stroke in c, ζ, ξ”.

37 ἐκ δ’ἄρα δεσποίνης …ἀκοῦσαι /οὔτ’ ἔπος οὔτε τι ἔργον, Od. 15.374–375;αἴσχε’ ἀκούω /πρὸς Τρώων, Il. 6.524–525.38 Cited by West 1983, 85 n. 32.39 See also Burkert 1999, 81; 2005, 53–54.40 Burkert is followed by Betegh 2004, 116–117 and Scermino 2011, 65–66.41 The scribe has written καθ’, an error of anticipation due no doubt to the influence of the rough spirit of ἕκαστον after

ἔπος. Some editors have unduly kept this orthographical fault (Betegh 2004, 28; KPT 87; Burkert, ap. Janko 2002, 26 suggests:ἕπος; κατ’: Janko 2002, 26; Jourdan 2003, 13; Bernabé 2007c, 79).

42 Many scholars have interpreted ἔπος in this passage as ‘word’ (Laks–Most 1997, 15; Bernabé 2002, 105; Brisson 2003,

23; Betegh 2004, 29; Torjussen 2005, 14; KPT, 133; ‘verse’: Casadesús 1996, 82 n. 38; Janko 2001, 24; 2002, 27; Jourdan 2003,13; Tortorelli 2006, 205; Bernabé 2007c, 79; ‘line’: Rusten 1985, 133). In the DP, ἔπος always means ‘verse’ (cols. VIII 1, 6;XII 1; XV 5; XVII 11; XXII 14; XXIII 1; XXIV 4; XXVI 2). For ‘word’ the DC uses the term ῥῆμα (VII 8; XXIII 8; XXVI 8),


12/24


He always quotes complete verses, even though that involves cutting out a sentence and ignoring its fullmeaning. For example, in col. XVI he quotes OF 12, which begins with the isolated genitive Πρωτογόνου βασιλέως αἰδοίου. When he paraphrases OF 5 in VIII 7–8 his only intention is to offer a grammatical

analysis: in his (right) opinion, παρά is in anastrophe and must be understood as complement of λάβεν,not of ἀκούσας. It seems that he adds “καὶ δαίμονα κυδρόν” only to report completely the verse he iscommenting43. In fact, in col. VIII 10 he paraphrases OF 5 with no allusion to the δαίμων (τὴν ἀλκὴν λαμβ[ νειν παρ᾿ αὐτο]), which shows that for him it is not important. After all, he considers the literalcontent of a verse or of a sentence meaningless, since it belongs to the superficial level, the only one theignorant understand (IX 2–4: οἱ δὲ οὐ γινώσκον[τες] τὰ λεγό[μεν] δοκοῦσι τὸ Ζᾶνα παρὰ τοῦ αὑτο[ῦ]πατρὸς [τὴν] ἀλκήν τε κα[ὶ] τὸν δαίμονα λαμβά[ νειν). The key for understanding the deep meaning thatOrpheus has hidden is not in full sentences or even verses, but in isolated words, and for this reason hefocuses on them (λέγειν: col. X 1–10; τροφόν: X 11–13; ἄδυτον: XI 2–4; χρῆσαι: XI 5–9; Ὄλυμπος: XII3–10; νιφόεντα: XII 10–13; αἰδοῖον: XIII 7–13, etc.) or on expressions (“ἐν χεί[εσσιν ἔλαβ]ν” ἠινίζετο:IX 10; μέγ’ ἔρεξεν: XIV 7–9). This is why he did not consider it necessary to quote the verse that followed

OF 5.2 to complete the sentence44.On the other hand, the expressionδαίμονα ἐν χείρεσσι λαβεῖν is strange. Burkert (2005, 54) gives this

parallel: πόθεν ἔλαβες ναυπρύτανιν δαίμονα; (Pi. Pae. 6.130) “Da dove hai preso il dáimon del regno sullenavi?”, addressed to Aegina. In OF 5.2 δαίμονα λαβεῖν would mean “take the reign” or “the tutelar numenof the reign”. But in the verse of Pindar δαίμων means only “destiny, lot or position granted by fate”. Theallusion to rule is in ναυπρύτανιν, ‘ruling ships’, not in δαίμων. And how could destiny be taken in one’shands?45 Besides, in archaic epic κυδρός is an epithet of gods (usually goddesses), and does not accompanyabstract concepts as ‘destiny’ or ‘lot’. Bernabé46 thinks that δαίμονα κυδρόν refers to Cronus and that inOF 5.2 there is a hendiadys: “Zeus took in his arms … the predicted rule and strength of the illustriousdaimon” (2007b, 104; cf. 2007a, 16). But he offers no parallel of this figure in archaic epic. Moreover, itwould be strange that in a sentence there should be a reference to the same person in two different expres-

sions: “Zeus took from his father the predicted rule and the strength of his father”. It would be a clumsyexpression, so the δαίμων in OF 5.2 must be different from the father mentioned in the previous verse. Andthe god Protogonos is the ideal candidate, as West and Rusten were the first to point out independently47.

6. An oracle from Cronus? (OF 7)

A consequence of assuming that OF 7 was followed by 5.2 is that in the first verse there is no allusion toan oracle from Cronus, an episode many scholars have considered part of the poem48. But there are severalreasons to think that this episode had no place in the OPD49:

a) παρά + genitive with ἀκούω is unparalleled in archaic epic.b) An oracle by Cronus would reduplicate Night’s prophecy unnecessarily.c) It seems incompatible with Night’s epithet πανομφεύσουσα, “she who pronounces all the oracles”,

in OF 6.2.

λόγος (Χ 4) or ὄνομα (VII 3; XIX 9; ‘proper name’: XVII 7; XXI 7; XXII 10; XXIII 12). In col. XIII 8: τούτωι ἐχρήσατο, withreference to αἰδοῖον, should be taken as generic neuter, not as τούτωι (sc. ἔπει).

43 Cf. Sider 2011, 23: “he may be simply finishing the line but not the syntax”.44 Cf. Rusten 1985, 133 n. 26: “In this case καθ’ ἔπος ἕκαστον λέγειν might designate the separation of such coherent

words as δαίμονα κυδρόν [col. VIII 5] and αἰδοῖον κατέπινεν [col. XIII 4].”45 Cf. Sider 2011, 23: “As quoted, this phrase [δαίμονα κυδρόν] would seem to be the direct object of ἔλαβεν, which

presents an odd picture, or perhaps a striking syllepsis, especially with the phrase “in his hands”.”46 Bernabé 2002, 102; 2003, 36; 2007b, 104; 2008, 298.47 West 1983, 85; Rusten 1984.48

Bernabé 2002, 103–104; 2003, 37; 2007a, 16; 2007b, 106–107; Jourdan 2003, 58–59; Burkert 2005, 52 and Sider 2011,13.49 Cf. Calame 1997, 67 n. 3.


13/24


d) The DC interprets [θ]σφατ᾿ in OF 7 as an allusion to Night’s prophecy, when, just after citing thefragment in col. XIII 1, he says “οὔτε γὰρ τόε ἤκουσεν, ἀλλὰ δεδήλωαι ὅπως ἤκουσεν, οὔτε ἡ Νὺξ κελεύει”. He expresses in negative the literal meaning of the verse, which for him is not true.

e) Some testimonies about an episode of the Rhapsodies in which Cronus seems to give advice to Zeusin his demiurgy have sometimes been adduced as a parallel50, but their content is not clear and the authorswho quote it do not mention any prophecy or oracle from Cronus.

7. The birth of the reverend one (OF 8)

The most dif ficult and controversial verse of the OPD is undoubtedly OF 8:

αἰδοῖον καέπινεν, ὃς αἰθέρα ἔκθοε πρῶτος.

The meaning of αἰδοῖον has been much debated: for some scholars it refers to Uranus’ phallus, and forother scholars it is the “reverend one”, the god Protogonos51. I think the latter interpretation is the correctone, but here I will only focus on the second part of the verse52. In it we find two rare phenomena: the hiatus

between αἰθέρα and ἔκθορε53

and the accusative αἰθέρα as complement of ἔκθορε.a) The hiatus is usually avoided in archaic epic, except in cases of correptio epica. Here the poet couldeasily avoid it by changing the order of αἰθέρα and ἔκθορε, and choosing the form ἐξέθορε: *ὃς ἐξέθορ’αἰθέρα πρῶτος. For this form, cf. Il. 21.539: ἄντιος ἐξέθορε, Hes. Th. 281: ἐξέθορε Χρυσάωρ.

b) The accusative αἰθέρα with ἐκθρῴσκω is very odd, because the verb governs the genitive. It hasbeen interpreted in three ways54:

1) direct object of the verb: he swallowed the genitals of the god “whofirst had ejaculated the brillianceof the sky” (Burkert 1987, 22)55; “he ingested the penis that first procreated the ether” (Janko 2001, 24 =Bernabé 2007b, 107)56.

2) direction: “the reverend one he swallowed, who first sprang forth into the aither” (West 1983, 85);“who was the first to leap forth into aither” (Rusten 1985, 125 n. 9 = Laks–Most 1997, 15 = Brisson 2003,

20)57

; taking αἰδοῖον as phallus: “swallowed down the phallus [of him] whofi

rst leapt up to the upper air”(Kirk, in Kirk–Raven–Schofield 21983, 32)58.

50 OF 239. See Bernabé 2002, 104; 2007b, 107 n. 27.51 Uranus’ phallus: Burkert 1980, 32; 1987, 22, 38 n. 57; 1999, 81–83; 2005, 53–56; Kirk, in Kirk–Raven–Schofield 21983,

32–33; Bernabé 1989, 168–170; 2002, 105–112; 2003, 37–42; 2004, 18–24; 2007a, 217–218; 2007b, 107–112; 2007c, 80–85;2008, 299–301; Janko 2001, 24 and n. 123; 2002, 27, 33; Betegh 2004, 111–123; Torjussen 2005, 12–15; Tortorelli 2006, 205,239; Ferella 2008, 195. Protogonos: West 1983, 84–90; Rusten 1984; 1985, 125, esp. n. 9; Parker 1995, 490–491; Casadesús1996, 80–86; Laks–Most 1997, 15–16; Calame 1997, 67; Brisson 2003; Jourdan 2003, 58–64; Sider 2006, 169; 2011, 27–28;Kouremenos, in KPT, 23–28.

52 It is my intention to examine this problem thoroughly in another article.53 It is also pointed out by Sider 2006, 170 n. 12, with the somehow subjective remark: “hiatus … which one might almost

want to praise as vividly expressing the breath taken before a leap”.54 See Scermino 2011, 67–74 for a detailed analysis of the three interpretations.55 See also Burkert 1999, 80–81: “Ingoiò il fallo (del re) che aveva per primo eiaculato la brillantezza del cielo”; 2005,

54–55: “Ingoiò il fallo che per primo aveva eiaculato l’etere”; Tortorelli 2006, 205: “ingoiò il fallo, di luiche per primo sprizzò fuori l’etere”.

56 See also Bernabé 1989, 168: “devoró los genitales (de Cielo), que había eyaculado el primero el éter”; 2002, 112: “ildévora le phallus (du Ciel), qui avait préalablement éjaculé l’éther”; 2003, 37: “se tragó el pene (de Cielo), que había eyaculadoprimero el éter”; 2007a, 20: “qui primus aethera eiaculatus est”. Janko 2002, 27: “he swallowed the penis that first had egestedthe ether”.

57 See also Casadesús 1996, 83: Zeus “absorbió al venerable (sc. Metis/Protógono), el primero que saltó al éter”; Jourdan

2003, 13: “le dieu que ses attributs rendaient vénérable, il l’avala, celui qui, dans l’éther, jaillit le premier”.58 See also Torjussen 2005, 14: “He [Zeus] swallowed the phallus of …, who was the first to spring out into the aither”;Ferella 2008, 196: “ingoiò il pene di colui che per primo balzò in direzione dell’etere”.


14/24


3) origin: “object of the place left, not of the place arrived at” (Edwards 1991, 207)59; “out of theaether” (Tsantsanoglou, ap. Laks–Most 1997, 15 n. 18); “the reverend one he swallowed, who first sprungout of the aither” (KPT, 133); “He gulped down the revered one, who was thefirst to spring from the aither”

(Sider 2011, 13); taking αἰδοῖον as phallus: “he swallowed the phallus [of him], who sprang from the aitherfirst” (Betegh 2004, 29, 111).

Let us see the problems and advantages of each interpretation:1) The first interpretation presents serious problems60, especially the meaning of ἐκθρῴσκω, ‘ejacu-

late’ or ‘procreate’, which is documented nowhere in the extant Greek literature. It always means ‘leap out’or ‘leap forth’ or even ‘to be born’. Burkert61 adduces Aeschylus fr. 15 Radt θρῴσκων κνώδαλα, “procreat-ing monsters”, explained by Hesychius as ἐκθορίζων καὶ σπερματίζων, γεννῶν (θ 814). In OF 260 ἔχθορε describes the ejaculation of Uranus which gives birth to Aphrodite. The following remarks can be made:in the fragment of Aeschylus θρῴσκων has the unusual meaning of ‘procreate, engender (= γεννῶν)’62, not‘ejaculate’, and its direct object – very rare – refers to the creature. The verbσπερματίζω means ‘insemi-nate, impregnate’ and its direct object would refer to the female that becomes pregnant (LXX Le. 12.2);

ἐκθορίζω is a hapax coined from θορός, ‘semen’, and we can guess that its meaning can be ‘inseminate’ or‘ejaculate’, as σπερματίζω. Therefore, pace Hesychius, σπερματίζω and ἐκθορίζω cannot be considered assynonyms of θρῴσκω: ‘impregnate’ (a female) is not the same as ‘procreate’ (a creature). Furthermore, evenaccepting that θρῴσκω could convey the idea of ejaculating, it is not the same verb as ἐκθρῴσκω63, whichalways means ‘leap out’ or even ‘to be born’. The translation ‘procreated the ether’ would imply that theether is engendered in a female, not ejaculated. OF 260 describes the ejaculation of Uranus’ penis, but theverb means ‘leap’ and has no direct object: ἀπὸ δ’ ἔκθορε πατρὶ μεγίστωι / αἰδοίων ἀφροῖο γονή: “to thesupreme father the generation of the foam leapt out”. Burkert also argues that col. XIV 1 [ἐ]θρηι τὸ{ ν}λαπρότατόν τε [καὶ θε]ό[τ]ατον rephrases the sequence αἰθέρα ἔκθορε and shows that the accusativeis normal. These two adjectives would be an interpretation of αἰθέρα and would function as the directobject of ἔκθορε64. That indicates that αἰθέρα is the object of ἔκθορε. However, since there is only one

example of ἐκθρῴσκω with accusative in Greek literature ( AP 9.371.1–2), it is much more likely that τὸ{ ν}λαπρότατόν τε [καὶ θε]ό[τ]ατον is the subject of ἐκθόρηι. Both adjectives describe ὅς in OF 8, whichrefers to the reverend (αἰδοῖον) Protogonos, the sun in the interpretation of the DC65. In fact, Empedocles(fr. 21.3 DK) applies the same adjectives to the sun: ἠέλιον μὲν λαμπρὸν66 ὅρα καὶ θερμὸν ἁπάντῃ, andDiogenes Laertius assigns the same idea to Heraclitus, using superlatives, like the DC: λαμπροτάτην δὲ εἶναι τὴν τοῦ ἡλίου φλόγα καὶ θερμοτάτην67. Therefore, in col. XIV 1 the DC is clearly alluding to thesun with two adjectives that were applied to it in presocratic tradition. He also says that τὸ λαμπρότατον τε καὶ θερμότατον (that is, the sun), “is separated from it” (χωρισθὲν ἀφ᾽ ἑωυτοῦ), where the reflexivealludes to the subject of the lost main clause, probably the νοῦς. The separation of the sun is clearly statedin col. XV 3–5: χω[ι]ζομένου γὰρ τοῦ ἡλίου καὶ ἀπολαμβανομένου ἐμ έσωι πήξας ἴσχει καὶ τἄνωθε

59

Scermino 2011, 74: “Si dovrà dunque concludere in favore della traduzione di Edwards, che ora risulta veramente com-prensibile ed accetabile sotto l’aspetto grammaticale.”60 See the brilliant refutations of Betegh 2004, 155–156 and Scermino 2011, 69–71.61 Burkert 1987, 38 n. 57; 1999, 82; 2005, 54–55.62 Other example in Aesch. Eum. 658–660: οὐκ ἔστι μήτηρ ἡ κεκλημένη τέκνου / τοκεύς … / τίκτει δ’ ὁ θρῴσκων:

“who engenders”.63 Scermino 2011, 70.64 Most scholars follow this interpretation: Jourdan 2003, 64; Betegh 2004, 155, 234; KPT: 197–198; Casadesús 2011, 378.65 Cf. Rusten 1985, 134, who translate: “the sun (theαἰδοῖον) was swallowed (separated from the rest of the creation [col.

XV 3–5]) lest the brightest and whitest parts become separated and ‘leap away’ from it”. For Ferella 2008, 196, the subject ofἐκθόρηι can be αἰδοῖον, and both adjectives can allude to the subject: “(così che il fallo) balzò separato da se medesimo …come la cosa più brillante e più calda”.

66

Λαμπρόν is the variant attested by Plutarch and Simplicius, as opposed to λευκόν by Aristotle, preferred by Diels.67 D. L. 9.10 = Heracl. A 1 DK. These texts of Empedocles and Diogenes Laertius are cited by Ferella 2008, 196, whopoints out: “I superlativi … sono qui attributi del sole.”


15/24


τοῦ ἡλίου καὶ τὰ κάτωθεν: “For when the sun is separated and confined in the middle, it (sc. νοῦς, mind)holds fast, having fixed them, both those above the sun and those below” (trans. KPT, 134). All this makesit very likely that the clause in col. XIV 1–2 alludes to the sun, not to the ether, which is never mentioned

by the DC in his commentary. Moreover, in col. XIV 1 ἐκθόρηι cannot mean ‘ejaculate’, because it doesnot describe a mythic event, but a physical process in which no personal gods are involved.

2) The problem of this interpretation is that ἐκθρῴσκω is never documented with an accusative indi-cating direction. Rusten (1985, 125 n. 9) adduced as parallel the Homeric formula: αἰθέρ’ ἵκανεν, but inarchaic epic the accusativeαἰθέρα accompanies only this verb68, whose semantic implies direction, in con-trast to ἐκθρῴσκω, which implies provenance. To indicate direction, he could use the verb εἰσθρῴσκω69.

3) This interpretation has as a basis a single example in which ἐκθρῴσκω has an accusative indicat-ing the place that is abandoned: ∆ίκτυον ἐκθρῴσκοντα πολύπλοκον ἄρτι λαγωὸν / σεῦε κύων θερμοῖς ἴχνεσιν ὠκυπόδην ( AP 9.371.1–2)70.

The rarity of this syntactic use (ἐκθρῴσκω + acc.) and the hiatus between αἰθέρα and ἔκθορε stronglysuggest that there is a textual corruption in the verse. Following a proposal of Lamberton71, I think that

αἰθέρα should be emended into αἰθέρος, which would avoid the hiatus72. In archaic epic αἰθήρ appearsin genitive in most of its uses and usually in the same sedes metrica as in OF 8: αἰθήρ, 4x; αἰθέρα, 8x;αἰθέρος, 16x, 13x in the same sedes metrica; αἰθέρι, 8x73. The verb ἐκθρῴσκω usually has a genitive indi-cating the place that is left: ἔκθορε δίφρου ( Il. 16.427); ἐκθόρον ἵ [π][ου (Stes. S 105a.8, line 8); ὀφθαλμῶν δ’ ἐξέθορον (Ion Chius fr. 26.6 West); ἐμᾶς χθονὸς ἔκθορε (S. OC 233); ἔκθορεν Οὐλύμποιο (Q. S. 1.676).The verb often describes a birth, even in prose, and designates the source with genitive: καὶ σκύλακες φίλιοι νηδύος ἐξέθορον ( AG 9.311.6); ὁ δὲ ∆ιόνυσος τῆς μὲν μητρὸς ἐκθρῴσκει ῥαγείσης τὴν γαστέρα (Philost. Im. 1.14.2); τῆς μητρῴας νηδύος ἐξέθορεν (Greg. Nys. Contra fatum 3.2, 44.5 McDonough); αὐτοῦ τοῦ ∆ιὸς ἐξέθορεν ἡ πρόμαχος Ἀθηνᾶ (Them. 166d 2 Hardοuin). All these parallels make it prob-able that ἔκθορε in OF 8 described the birth of Protogonos and that his origin was indicated withαἰθέρος.

We have another possible trace of αἰθέρος in the commentary of the DP. In fact, in col. XIV 2 ἀφ’

ἑωυτοῦ is probably echoing the original genitive; the subjunctive ἐκθόρηι shows that it is a subordinateclause and that the reflexive ἑωυτοῦ refers to the subject of the main clause. This clause probably stated thatthe Νοῦς-ἀήρ did something so that the sun (Protogonos in the poem), the brightest and hottest thing, leaptaway separate from itself or, in other words, so that it was created. It seems that for the DCαἰθήρ is anothername for the Νοῦς-ἀήρ and the origin of the sun, which was created as a segregation thereof.

Although it is not strictly necessary to change αἰθέρα to αἰθέρος, all the parallels that I have presentedmake it seem very likely that αἰθέρος was originally in the OPD and was read in this form by the DC, butwas corrupted into αἰθέρα by a copyist, perhaps as a result of an assimilation with (ἔκ)-θορε and a dis-similation with ὃς and πρῶτος.

8. The birth of Cronus (OF 9)

Once the DC has spoken of the birth of the sun in the beginning of col. XIV, which interprets the secondpart of OF 8: ὃς αἰθέρος ἔκθοε πρῶτος, he speaks of the birth of Cronus from the sun and the earth:

68 Il. 13.837, 14.288, 15.686, 18.207, 214, 19.379; Hes. Th. 697.69 As Scermino 2011, 67 points out.70 Cited by Edwards 1991, 207 n. 14. But cf. Sider 2011, 29: “Scaliger may have been right to conjecture δικτύου …

πολυπλόκου.”71 In Laks–Most 1997, 15 n. 28.72 Cf. Sider 2011, 29: “Why not the more usual genitive, as in Homer … and everywhere else?Αἰθέρος ἔκθορε would also

avoid hiatus.”73 αἰθήρ: Hom. 3x; Hes. 1x; αἰθέρα: Hom. 7x; Hes. 1x; αἰθέρος: Hom. 9x, same sedes metrica: 8x; Hes. 1x, same sede metrica: 1x; Hom. Hym. 6x; same sedes metrica: 4x; αἰθέρι: Hom. 6x; Hes. 2x.


16/24


… τοῦτον οὖν τὸν ‘Κρόνον’γενέσθαι φησὶν ἐκ οῦ ἡλίου τῆι Gῆι74, ὅτι αἰτίαν ἔσχε διὰ τὸν ἥλιον κρούεσθαι πρὸς ἄληλα.

This is an extremely problematic statement. The use of φησίν shows that he is paraphrasing a verse of theOPD about the birth of Cronus75. Apparently, he states that the poet made him a child of Sun and Earth,but he must be making some kind of interpretation, because in the poem, as usual in Greek mythologicaltradition, Cronus’ parents must have been Uranus and Ge (cf. in OF 10.2–3 the succession: Οὐρανὸς …,ἐκ τοῦ δὴ Κρόνος). Moreover, the DC speaks of the sun only in his allegorical explanations, as the deepmeaning which is hidden under the αἰδοῖον (that is, Protogonos or, according to some scholars, Uranus’phallus). It has been suggested that the Sun was already present in the poem76, as a result of the transforma-tion of Uranus’ severed penis. In Greek and Latin poetry the lyre of Orpheus or the lock of Berenice canbe transformed in constellations77, but the conversion of an organ such as the penis into the Sun seems toobizarre even for an Orphic poem, not to say that there it has no parallel in Greek mythology. Even if weimagine that this transformation was narrated in the poem, it only could happen after Uranus’ penis was

cut by Cronus, so it is not possible that the poem said that Cronus was born from the Sun. And how couldZeus devour the Sun and in consequence become pregnant? It also would be strange if Uranus’ penis wasnot transformed into the sun, but was presented from the beginning as having a double nature of organ andheavenly body. This allegorization of the phallus in the poem seems unlikely and could only be attributedto the DC, who does not accept the literal meaning of the poem without carrying out his own interpretation.Therefore, we cannot suppose that the Sun was mentioned in the poem and we have to accept that the DC,contrarily to his normal use, mingles the two levels of meaning of the poem: the literal one (the allusionsto Cronus’ birth in the poem) and the allegorical one (in which the sun takes part).

Some scholars that think that the DC understands αἰδοῖον as Uranus’ phallus and interprets it asthe sun have argued that the sentence “τοῦτον οὖν τὸν ‘Κρόνον’ γενέσθαι φησὶν ἐκ οῦ ἡλίου τῆι Gῆι”becomes clear if we substitute “Sun” by “Uranus’ phallus”, because it was the origin of Uranus’ paternity78.

However, it seems to me unlikely that the mention of Uranus in the poem as Cronus’ father could remindthe DC of Uranus’ phallus, and that he considered that this phallus in isolation (and not Uranus) fatheredCronus.

West (1983, 88) suggests that the DC misunderstood an ambiguous pronoun. In the poem, this pronounwould refer to Uranus, but he interpreted it as allusive to Protogonos (the sun, in his view). He offers thereconstruction (1983, 114, vv. 14–17):

74 ἐκ οῦ Ἡλίου τῆι Gῆι: ZPE , Bernabé 2002, 109; 2007a, 221; 2007b, 108; ἐκ οῦ ἡλίου τῆι ῆι: Rusten 1985, 134;Betegh 2004, 30, 122; ἐκ οῦ ἡλίου τῆι ‘Gῆι’: Janko 2002, 28 and Jourdan 2003, 14, in my opinion the right transcription.

75 Pace Betegh 2004, 123: “φησίν here is not to be taken as introducing a verbatim quotation, but as accompanying aninterpretative paraphrase”. But the DC always uses φημί to quote or paraphrase literal expressions of the poem, and theseare often followed by an explanation introduced by ὅτι or γάρ, as here: φη τὸν Ζᾶνα τ[ ν ἀλκὴν λαβεῖν (col. IX 13); ‘μέγα ῥέξαι’ φησὶ τὸν Οὐρανόν· ἀ[αι]ρναι γὰρ τὴv βασιλείαν αὐτόν (XIV 8–9); “ὕσττον” ἔφησεν ἔσεσθαι τοῦτον (XVII6); “[βασιλέ]α” ἔφη εἶναι ὅτι … (XIX 11). The DC speaks of “τοῦτον τὸν Κρόνον”, “this, so called, Cronus”, to distancehimself from the common meaning given to Cronus, the name of a god, whereas for him it is an allusion to a physical process.

76 Calame 2008, 858: “Zeus absorbe al «venerado», probablemente el miembro viril de Urano metamorfoseado en Sol quebrotó saltando hacia el Éter”; Scermino 2011, 32: “[l’]immagine … dell’aidoion sospeso fra cielo e terra [suggested by Bernabé2008, 299] sembra inventata apposta per evocare una simbologia solare, tanto da far sospettare che essa potesse trovare unsuo spazio nel poema di Orfeo”; 33: “Si potrebbe dunque pensare che il fallo di Ouranos funzionasse come simbolo solare …già nel pensiero mitico, e che la trasfigurazione del simbolo sessuale in chiave astronomica fosse parte integrante del poemaorfico”; Betegh 2011, 223: “It might … well be the case that Ouranus’ phallus got assimilated to the sun already in the poem.”

77 The lyre of Orpheus: Eratosth. Cat . 24, Manil. 1.324–330, Ps.-Luc. Astr. 10 and more testimonies in OF 1074–1075.

The lock of Berenice: Call. fr. 110 Pf., Cat. 66.78 Bernabé 2002, 102; 2004, 20; 2007a, 221; 2007b, 108; 2007c, 88; Brisson 2003, 25; Jourdan 2003, 66; Scermino 2011,86–87.


17/24


… ὃς αἰθέρα ἔκθορε πρῶτος. [κεῖνος μὲν Γαῖάν τε καὶ] Οὐρανὸν εὐρὺν [ἔτικτεν·]79 [τῶι δὲ πελώρη Γαῖα τέκε Κρόνον,] ὃς μέγ᾽ ἔρεξεν

Οὐρανὸν ΕὐφρονίδηνFor the second verse there is the parallel of:οὓς Γαῖα καὶ Οὐρανὸς εὐρὺς ἔτικτεν (Hes. Th. 45), and for thethird: ὁπλότατον τέκε παῖδα Τυφωέα Γαῖα πελώρη (821) and … τέκε Γαῖα πελώ[ρ- (fr. 150.11 M.–W.).

For Rusten (1985, 135), not only Protogonos, but also Uranus was interpreted by the DC as the sun(135): “Just as in physical terms ἥλιος produces κρούειν, so in the poem Ouranos (= the sun) is made toproduce Kronos (ὁ κρούων)”80.

Other possible reconstructions of the verse have been proposed: – Janko (2002, 26–27): [“[τῶι δ’ αὖτ᾽ ἐκ Γαίης] ⌊γένετο Κρόνος, ὃς μέγ’ ἔρεξεν⌋”.], “to him by Earth

Kronos was born, who did a great deed”. For this construction I have found two parallels: ὅς οἱ (sc. Μενελάωι) τηλύγετος γένετο κρατερὸς Μεγαπένθης / ἐκ δούλης (Od. 4.11–12); ἐξ ἧς οἱ (sc. ∆ιί) Μοῦσαι χρυσάμπυκες ἐξεγένοντο (Hes. Th. 916). The problem is that it is not likely that the DC paraphrased it

saying: Κρόνον γενέσθαι … ἐκ οῦ ἡλίου τῆι Gῆι, changing τῶι into ἐκ τοῦ … and ἐκ Γαίης into τῆι Gῆι. – Kouremenos (KPT, 200) considers “rather unlikely that the Derveni author would be so misled by

ambiguous pronouns as to lose sight of an elementary genealogical fact”. He quotes Tsantsanoglou’s sug-gestion to complete OF 10.1: [ἐκ τοῦ δὴ Γαίηι γένετο Κρόνος,] ὃς μέγ᾿ ἔρεξεν. He considers it likely thatἐκ τοῦ has a temporal sense, as in OF 10.3. So, OF 10.1 would speak of Cronus’ birth after the glorious andreverend demon leapt forth out of the ether. The problem with this reconstruction is that in archaic poetryγένετο never has a dative indicating the mother, but ἐκ + gen. referring to the father or the mother81 or adative alluding to the father82. Moreover, after the birth of Protogonos described in OF 8 we would expecta reference to the birth of Uranus and only then to the birth of Cronus.

I consider West’s explanation basically right, with the exception of the misunderstanding he ascribes tothe DC. Rather, he seems to have interpreted an initial τῶι as a reference to the sun (in the literal level Pro-

togonos) because he followed his hermeneutical principle: [α]τ᾽ ἔπος ἕκαστον ἀνάγκη λέγειν (col. XIII6). So, he analysed this verse in isolation and with extreme liberty to adapt it to his own physical concep-tions (that the κρούεσθαι was originated by the sun), ignoring the previous verse in which the antecedent ofτῶι (Uranus) was made clear. The DC does something very similar in OF 10.3, where he interprets ἐκ τοῦ,whose antecedent is Uranus, with a temporal sense: λέγει ⟨ὅ⟩τι ἐκ τοῦδε [ἀ]χή ἐστιν, ἐξ ὅσου βασιλεύει ἥδε ἀρχή (col. XV 7–8), “he says that the rule (of the Mind) takes places since this rule reigns”. In thissentence, ἐκ τοῦδε is clearly the antecedent of ἐξ ὅσου and is neuter, whereas in the verse it is masculine.

79 This verse is not contradictory to OF 10.2, in which Uranus is called Εὐφρονίδης, “son of Euphrone”, the Night. In theOPD, the first god to appear is Protogonos, as his very name indicates (like Chaos in Hes. Th. 116) and, as in the Rhapsodies,Night must be his daughter (OF 147) and both must be the parents of Ge and Uranus (OF 148–149). In archaic poetry, there aremore matronymics than patronymics derived from names of gods (the only usual patronymics are Οὐρανίδης and Κρονίδης or Κρονίων): Λητοίδης, of Apollo (Hes. Sc. 479, fr. 51.3; h.Merc. 158, passim; Theog. 1120); Εἰλαρίδης Τιτυός (Hes. fr. 78);Φιλλυρίδης, of Chiron (Hes. Th. 1002); Γαιηίς, of Phoebe (Antimach. fr. 116.1); Μεγαμηδείδης, οf Pallas (Πάλλας, -αντος,h.Merc. 100); cf. Περσεὺς ∆αναίδης (Hes. Sc. 229) or Ἀλκμήνης υἱός (Hes. Th. 526, 950, Sc. 467). Only in one case the matro-nymic is used because a person has no mother, of Tityus (Γαιήιον υἱόν, Od. 7.324; Γαίης ἐρικυδέος υἱόν, 11.576). Therefore,the use of Εὐφρονίδης is no proof that Uranus has no father.

80 Rusten is followed by Janko 2002, 28.81 Il. 15.641: τοῦ γένετ’ ἐκ πατρὸς πολὺ χείρονος υἱὸς ἀμείνων; 6.210: Ἱππόλοχος δέ μ’ ἔτικτε, καὶ ἐκ τοῦ φημι

γενέσθαι. Hes. Th. 45–46: οὓς Γαῖα καὶ Οὐρανὸς εὐρὺς ἔτικτεν, / οἵ τ’ ἐκ τῶν ἐγένοντο; 123: ἐκ Χάεος δ’ Ἔρεβός τε μέλαινά τε Νὺξ ἐγένοντο; 894: ἐκ γὰρ τῆς εἵμαρτο περίφρονα τέκνα γενέσθαι.

82 Cf. Il. 24.497: τοὺς δ’ ἄλλους μοι ἔτικτον ἐνὶ μεγάροισι γυναῖκες; Hes. Th. 933–934: Ἄρηι / ῥινοτόρῳ Κυθέρεια Φόβον καὶ ∆εῖμον ἔτικτε; Il. 5.896: ἐκ γὰρ ἐμεῦ γένος ἐσσί, ἐμοὶ δέ σε γείνατο μήτηρ; Hes. Th. 309: Ὄρθον μὲν πρῶτον κύνα γείνατο (sc. Ἔχιδνα) Γηρυονῆι.


18/24


9. The succession of Uranus, Cronus and Zeus in kinship (OF 10)

After referring to Cronus’ birth in col. XIV 2–3, the DC says (5–9):

διὰ

τοῦτο

λέγει·

“ὃς

έγ᾿

ἔρεξεν”

.τὸ

δ᾽

πὶ

τούτωι· “Οὐρανὸς Εὐφρονίδης, ὃς πρώτιστ βασίλευσεν”.

κρούοντα ὸν Νοῦν πρὸς ἄλληλ[α] Kόνον ὀνομάσας,μέγα ῥέξαι φησὶ τὸν Οὐρανόν· ἀ[αι]ναι γὰρ

τὴν βασιλείαν αὐτόν.

For this reason, he says: “who did a great deed”. And in the (verse) after this one:“Uranus, son of Night, he who first reigned”.After he named Cronus the Mind that thrusts things against one another,he says that he “did a great deed” to Uranus, for he was stripped of his kingship.

He mentions part of a verse, ὃς έγ᾿ ἔρεξεν, “who did a great deed”, and quotes the following verse, as theexpression τὸ δ ̓πὶ τούτωι shows. ‘τό’ indicates that it is the next verse, not just a verse which is further

on in the poem. His paraphraseμέγα ῥέξαι φησὶ τὸν Οὐρανόν is proof that he understood Οὐρανόν as theobject of ῥέξαι83, something impossible if in the text he read it were nominative. Therefore, some scholarshave emended – rightly in my opinion – Οὐρανὸς Εὐφρονίδης into Οὐρανὸν Εὐφρονίδην84. It is likely thatthe words μέγα ῥέξαι came immediately before. Besides, in col. XV 5 the DC cites “the following verse”(ἐχόμενον δὲ ἔπος), so the reconstruction of these verses (OF 10) would be:

… ὃς έγ᾿ ἔρεξεν Οὐρανὸν Εὐφρονίδην, ὃς πρώτιστ βασίλευσεν. ἐκ τοῦ δὴ Κρόνος ὖτις, ἔπειτα ὲ μητίετα Ζεύς.

… who did a great deed to Uranus, son of Euphrone, he who first reigned,

and from him in turn Cronus, and afterwards contriving Zeus.10. Zeus and Metis (OF 11.1)

Further on in column XV, in lines 13–15, the DC quotes at least two or three more verses (OF 11):

μῆτιν κα.[ c. 13 ]ν βασιληίδα τι[ήν] ἐσ.[ ].ι ἶν ἁπ[σας ε [

West (1983, 114) reconstructs the text of the first verse (OF 11.1) in this way:

Μῆτιν κα[ὶ μακάρων κατέχ]ν βασιληίδα τιμ[ήν].

Janko (2001, 25) proposes: Μῆτιγ κα [κατέπινεν ἑλ]μ, and is followed by Tortorelli (2006, 208). West

is followed by Casadesús (1996, 81) and Bernabé (2002, 114; 2003, 41; 2004, 22; 2007a, 225; 2007b, 110;2007c, 92), who changes Μῆτιν into μῆτιν: μῆτιν κα [μακάρων κατέχ]ν βασιληίδα τι[ήν]. He is fol-lowed by Janko (2002, 30: μῆτιγ κα.[..... ….. .εἶχ]μ or κάτεχ]μ), Betegh (2004, 32, 124) and Sider (2011,33). Meanwhile, Burkert (ap. Janko 2002, 30) propose

Santamaria, M. A. "Critical Notes to the Orphic Poem of the Derveni Papyrus", ZPE 182, 55-76

Documents

Transcript of Santamaria, M. A. "Critical Notes to the Orphic Poem of the Derveni Papyrus", ZPE 182, 55-76