CC BY
34
Alexander S. Nikolaev
Thus spake ZaraOustra: on the meaning and usage of (é)mwaro in Pap. Derv. xxiii, 4*
to Sé, oton Ka! "Omhpo? PoXXaxou légéi, ¿mh&ató fhCTLV, touto Sé mhxanr|aaa0al éaTin
Pl. Crat. 408a
In the col. xxiii, line 4 the text of the Derveni papyrus reads:
ouicoun 'emhsat0' ton Zana eTepo? Zeu?, all' auTo? auTWL 'aOéno? mega' (BERNABÉ)
'It is not the case that one Zeus contrived another Zeus but the same one / (contrived) for himself great strength'.2
The commentator on the oldest Orphic theogony explains here the meaning of the verb mhSomai that is apparently used in the text to describe a creation process: the present paper will focus on this
peculiar usage of mhSomai, the underlying doctrine and its origin.
* * *
The choice of the verb mhSomai (aor. emhsamhn) in this passage is peculiar. Normally the transitive verb means 'to plan and do cunningly; to contrive; to devise'. In homer, lyric poetry and tragedy the transitive verb is mostly used in a pejorative sense.3
* I am grateful to Prods Oktor Skj^rv0 and Sarah Burges Watson (both: Harvard University) for many helpful comments.
1 I retain the quotation marks as printed by Bernabé since they underscore that our text is a úpomn^ma.
2 Here and throughout the translation of the Derveni papyrus follows LaksMost 1997.
3
A few examples should suffice to illustrate this: H 478: pawUxio? Sé afín KaKa mhSéTo mhTLéTa ZéU"
'all the time the counselor Zeus was devising ill for them' w 96: moi ZéU" mhaaTo lugpon oléGpon
'for Zeus devised my baneful destruction' Hes. Th. 172: ppoTépo" gap aéikéa mhaaTo épga
'he (Uranus) devised unseemly deeds'
Further parallels from Orphic theogonies confirm that we are in fact dealing with a specifically "Orphic" technical meaning of the verb mhSomaL that is used to denote an act of creation.
The verb is found one more time in pap. Derv. (col. xxv, line 14)
'auTjap [e]pei 8[h pavjja Aio[? fphn mh]aaT[o ejpga'
'but when the mind of Zeus devised all things'
The line is at the bottom of the papyrus and the text is badly mutilated; the reconstruction of the following lines is subject to doubts.
Two more fragments containing mhsaTo have been identified as belonging to Derveni theogony by M. L. WEST and R. MERKELBACH. The first one is joined to the bottom of col. xxi (on the basis of a very uncertain reading of a few letters):
Eur. Phoen. 798: h Seiva tl" " Epi" Geo", a TaSe mhsaTo phmata ga" paaileuaiv 'truly Strife is a goddess to fear,
who devised these troubles for the kings of this land' The use of ¿^ijaazo applied to Pandora in the Works and Days is potentially interesting:
Hes. Erga 95: avGpwpoiai 8' emhsato Kr|8ea lugpa 'she devised baneful evils for human beings' Pandora has opened the jar and released the evils into the world; thus the verb here refers to her act and not to her plan or intention (thus 'wrought', rather than 'devised'). However, this verse is a mere repetition of Erga 49 where the subject of ¿^ijaazo is Zeus:
Touvek' ap' avGpwpoiaiv emhsato khdea lugpa, kpUye 8e pup.
'for this reason he devised baneful evils for human beings and he concealed fire' Pandora in the Hesiodic narrative is naturally a mere instrument of Zeus vengeance, a device of deception, functionally parallel to the ox in the story of Mekone sacrifice (at least in the framework of structuralist analysis in Vernant 1988), therefore the use of a verb mhSomai applied to Pandora should not make one think about any deliberate harm on her side, much less that she is endowed with any creational ability (West 1978: 169).
Orph. fr. 16.1 (Bernabé):
[mhaaTo 8'au] raían [Te kai] Oupanon eupun [upepOen]4 'he contrived the Earth and broad Sky above'
The second one belongs into col. xxii: Orph. fr. 16.2 (Bernabé):
mhsaTo 8'' QkeanoTo mega aOéno? eupu péonTó? 'he contrived the great strength of wide-flowing Ocean'
At the end of this meager collection of evidence5 it has to be mentioned that the same verb (and the same idea of creation) appears twice in the Rhapsodic theogony, as it is called on the basis of Neoplatonic reference. Orph. fr. 155.1 (Bernabé):
mhsaTo 8'aXXiqn gaTan apeipiTon 'and he contrived another boundless earth'
This verse most likely refers to Phanes, although Proclus is not specific here.6
Orph. fr. 221.1-3 Bernabé):
mhsaTo gap ppopolou? <Te> kai amfipolou? kai opadoú? mhsaTo 8' amPpoalhn kai epuOpou nékTapo? ap8|mon
mhsaTo 8' aglaa epga meliaaawn epi|3om|3wn
'for she (= Rhea-Demeter.) contrived attendants, butlers, waiters contrived ambrosia and red nectar draught, ontrived the gleaming works of buzzing bees'
This fragment cannot claim any tremendous age, but (as WEST 1983: 237 notes) it is likely to be a remodeling of a passage
containing (e)mhCTaTo in Protogonos or Derveni theogony.
* * *
Let us now examine the doctrine communicated through this verb. The Derveni theogony features a genealogical framework,
4 See R. Janko's critical note to the text (Janko 2002: 42).
5 There is a further possibly relevant attestation that is, however, presently hard to utilize: mhCT™P (Orph. fr. 492, 9 Bernabé = lamella Thuriis).
6 See West 1983: 210 Fn.111. West suggests that this verse in the original Protogonos theogony referred to Phanes and was applied secondarily to the demiurgy of Zeus by the author of the Derveni theogony.
structurally similar to what we find in Hesiod's Theogony, albeit of course with important modifications.7 However, it appears that in the Orphic view the world came into being twice: first this happens in the traditional way (we learn about Night and Aither, then about the deed of Cronus, whereby Sky is separated from Earth8), but then, after Zeus becomes "the only one" by virtue of swallowing an uncertain object,9 he begins to create the world afresh by rational planning.
The Derveni doctrine thus effectively combines two different cosmogonic models, which W. BURKERT in his lezioni Veneziane called biomorphic and technomorphic, resp.10 The biomorphic model accounts for the multiplication of entities via sexual generation (the default verb in Hesiod is Teie 'engendered'), 1 while the technomorphic model, featuring most prominently in the Genesis, presupposes a divine craftsman. The combination of biomorphic and technomorphic models is known from other theogonic/cosmogonic texts from the antiquity. For instance, in the Babylonian creation epic Enuma Elis we first learn about a sequence of generations in an already existing world (with a palace being built above the watery deep in the third generation); however, after Marduk has slain Tiamat, 'the Sea', he builds the world in all details, "creating marvels" (col. IV-V). And yet, there is a significant difference between this Near Eastern cosmogony and the Orphic idea of creation: Marduk physically fashions the world out of Tiamat's body,
7 On the theogony and cosmology of the Derveni poem see Betegh 2004 and Kouremenos-Tsantsanoglou-ParAssoglou 2006: 21-44. Thus for instance the Derveni theogony features four (not three) generations of gods, which reminds of well-known Near Eastern parallels, such as Hurro-Hittite "Kingdom in Heaven" with the genealogy Alalu - Anu - Kumarbi -Teshub.
8 This may technically count as the second creation: the same conundrum is known from Hesiod's Theogony.
9 Most likely a phallus (col. xiii.4).
10 Burkert 1999a: 49 (= 2004: 62-63); Burkert 1999b: 96.
11 A subtype of the biomorphic model is the creation of the Sky, mountains, sea, etc. by Gaia by parthenogenesis, as described in Hesiod:
Th. 126-132: aTep fiAoThTO" efimepou
'without delightful love' Th. 211-216: ou tlvl KOimnQelaa 0ewv
'although she had slept with none of the gods'.
cutting it in parts (the upper part becomes sky and the lower earth, the breasts become mountains, etc.). This activity reminds of the metaphors of craftsmanship attested in the description of creation in various poetic and mythological traditions, but it does not match the mental activity of Zeus in the Orphic tradition; Zeus does not build or establish the world, neither does he regurgitate what he had swallowed: he contrives the world by a mental effort. This brings us back to the choice of the verb emhsaTo.
In fact little research has been made to clarify the meaning of the verb in this attestation, other than conceding that the verb is "interesting" (BURKERT 1999b: 96) and "verdient Beachtung" (SCHWABL 1978: Sp. 1330). Commentators agree that emhaaTo refers to an act of rational planning or contriving. G. BETEGH points out that the intellectual capacities of Zeus have been stressed by mhTieTa earlier in the text (col. xv, 6)12; however, mhTieTa Zeú? is a fixed formula in Homeric epics (16x in the Iliad, 3x in the Odyssey, always at the verse end) and it is not methodologically sound to attach any particular importance to an appearance of a traditional epic epithet in Derveni theogony. Neither do further alleged parallels from Homer shed any light on the issue at hand: A. BERNABÉ (ap. crit. ad loc.) mentions Zhn' upaTon mhCTTwp(a) (Q 22, P 339), but this epithet with the meaning 'counsellor' applies in Homeric epics to Priam, Patroclus, Neleus and Diomedes and thus allows no specific insight into Zeus' qualities. C. CALAME suggests that the act of devouring a phallus explains the genial capacity appropriated to Zeus 'who is thus able to engender all the elements that came about during the reign of his two predecessors'13, but this interpretation rests on very shaky basis and as such is a mere speculation: if anything, phallus is a symbol of sexual generation and it is unclear why should Zeus adopt a different model of creation altogether. The problem remains: there is nothing in Greek texts before the 6th century that may explain Zeus' mental creational ability.
BURKERT (2004: 95) suggests that we may deal here with Egyptian influence and cites the Egyptian eulogy for Ptah who produces other gods "by heart and lips". However, the Memphite theology recorded about 715 BCE on the granite slab (known as
12 Betegh 2004: 181, Fn. 198.
13 Calame 1997: 72.
Shabaka Stone) does not assert anything about creation by the force of thought: its point is creation by word (which potentially brings it together with the Old Testament doctrine). Moreover, the Memphite theology with its opposition to the Heliopolitan theological doctrine (according to which creation is achieved by "semen and fingers") stands quite isolated and it is not quite clear why exactly this teaching should have been picked up by the Greeks. Historic circumstances do not seem to favor the idea of a cultural contact either: during the first half of the seventh century the Kushite rulers of the XXV dynasty (to which king Shabaka, the patron of the Memphite theology, belonged) were engaged in continuing battles with the Assyrians: in 671 Memphis was ransacked and already in 658 BCE a new dynasty was established by Psametik I. (Still, as we will see, the hypothesis of an external influence has much to be said in its favor).
Lastly, the motif of rational creation is unlikely to be inherited either. Creation was certainly a part of Indo-European cosmology, but we do not find a tradition among those that are thought to present inherited lore and can be used for reconstruction in mythology that would show a parallel to creation as a mental act (Vedic, Roman, Germanic, Anatolian). In Indo-European terms, the verb for divine creation is *dhehi- 'to establish, to put', found in the name of Vedic creator deity Dhatr and attested in several traditions.14 There is no evidence for Indo-European *men- 'to think' (or any other root of similar meaning) as a creation verb.
More importantly, the technomorphic model in general is alien to the archaic Greek thought: we do not find it in Homer or in Hesiod.
This argument may be contradicted by a reference the following passage from Hesiod: Hes. Op. 173d:
Zeu? 8'аит' a]XXo yevo? Ofic[ev imepopwiv anOpupw 'and Zeus created another race of men'
However, I remain skeptical regarding WEST's suggestion that we may find in this Hesiodic verse an echo of the inherited
14 Hittite: nebis degan dair (KBo 16.27; see Catsanicos 1986: 134-137) 'they established heaven and earth'; Old Persian: hya imam bumim ada, hya avam asmanam ada
'(Ahuramazda), who created this earth, who created this
sky'.
technomorphic creation motif:15 the line (preserved in two papyri) may be a later interpolation, designed to provide the fifth race with an introduction similar to the first four.16
According to WEST, the usage of Indo-European *dheh1-illustrated above is potentially still echoed in Alcman17: Alcm. fr. 20 (DAVIES)
wpa? 8'eO^Ke Tpe!?, Oepo? kal xe^ma kwpwpan TpiTan 'established three seasons: summer and winter and fall as the third one'
Still, we don't know who the subject of the sentence is and on the whole the passage is very unclear. It is doubtful that this fragment features a creator deity.
However, it is precisely Alcman (famously called "a mixed theologian" by Aristoteles) who has been credited with the first idea of a demiurge in Greek literature.18 The papyrus commentary on Alcman's cosmological poem, that has attracted a good deal of scholarly attention ever since its publication in 195719, features a deity OeTi?, referred to by the commentator as TexniTh? 'artisan' whose work is likened to bronze working. Alcm. fr. 5.15-19 (PAGE/DAVIES) = fr. 81.15-19 (CALAME):
rh? QeTido? geno-meniq? apxh kal re[1]o[? TauTja panTwn e-geneTo kal Ta men panTa [omo]lan exei T^n fuain Thi tou xalkoU U1hL» h 8e QeTi" T[hi] rou TexniTou. 'when Thetis had come into being these became beginning and end of all things, and the totality of things has a similar nature to that of the bronze material, Thetis to that of a craftsman'.
15 West 1978: 196; 2007: 354.
16 Most 2006 ad loc.
17 West 1978: 196.
18 West 1963; 1967.
19 E.g. Fränkel 1975: 163, 252-5; Detienne and Vernant 1974: 129-66; Penwill 1974. See Rangos 2003 where earlier literature on the subject is listed.
It is unclear whether this OeTi? should be straightforwardly identified with the oldest daughter of Nereus and mother of Achilles (in which case it may be argued that by virtue of being the oldest Nereid she was associated with primordial waters) or her name is an etymological word-play, referring to the "cosmogonic" use of the root 0iq-/0e-. If the latter position is taken, one may indeed argue that Alcman's OeTi? is a true creator god, matching functionally and even etymologically Vedic Dhatr (although a female demiurge would be admittedly singular).
However, we are not told directly that OeTi? was the demiurge and it does not seem that the original poem had said that. The only thing that the commentator says is that Alcman introduced a craftsman, Tina Ton raTaaiceraZonTa: neither the masculine gender, nor the indefinite pronoun favor the identification of this artisan with Thetis.20 The contents of the poem that can be gleaned from the lemmata do not allow any definite conclusions and other accounts of this poem remain plausible. (In fact, it has been contested that Alcman's poem actually implies a cosmological model of skilful construction21).
Thus, the Indo-European creation motif (formally represented by the root *dhehr) is not continued in Greek mythology (aside of a feeble echo in Alcm. fr. 20).
It is only in the Pherecydes, another precursor of Greek philosophic thought who floruit around mid. 6t cent. BCE, that we find a description of earth as a work of craftsmanship:
fr. B 2 (DIELS-KRANZ6) = fr. 68 (SCHIBLI) KapeiSh TpiTh hmeph yiyneTai tul yamwi, TOTe Za" poiel fapo" mega Te ial lalon, ial en auTwi poik[l11ei Thn] ial ' Qyh[non ial Ta ' Q]yiqno0 [SwmaTa
'and when it is the third day of the wedding, then Zeus fashions a robe both big and beautiful, and on it he embroiders Earth and Ogenos (scil. Okeanos - A. N.) and the abodes of Ogenos...'
The idea that the making of the robe refers to Zeus' (viz. Zas') demiurgic activity is supported by Proclus:
20 This point was made by Penwill 1974: 17.
21 E.g. Most 1987 (who claims that there is no cosmogony at all in the fragment) or Rangos 2003 (who claims that the poem contained a myth about metamorphoses of the Old Man of the Sea).
fr. B 3 (DIELS-KRANZ6) = fr. 72 (SCHIBLI)
kal o Fepekudh? elegen el? " EpwTa |ieTa|3e|3XhaOal Ton Ala meilonTa 8iq|iioupyeiv.
'Pherecydes said that Zeus, when about to create, changed into Eros'
Zas in Pherecydes is thus the first image in Greek literature of god as a cosmic artisan.22 The idea of a creator deity makes a flashing appearance in other early philosophical works: one may recall Anaxagoras' Nou?23 or Empedocles' Aphrodite24. However, before Plato's Timaeus we do not find an idea of a demiurge in its fully developed form.
Let's take stock. We have seen that the verb emhsaTo used to describe a creation act can not be meaningfully interpreted from the perspective of Derveni text alone, even taking into account Zeus' intellectual capacities. We have seen that the hypothesis of Egyptian influence is doubtful. Lastly, we have seen that there is no evidence for an inherited Indo-European motif of a rational creation presented as a mental act; moreover, the very idea of a demiurge does not appear in Greek literature before the 6th century. Thus we are faced with two peculiar elements of Orphic doctrine:
a) the idea of technomorphic creation which is alien to Greek pre-philosophical cosmogonies, but is shared by Orphism with a number of "Presocratic" cosmogonies, where, however, this idea appears in a very vague and indirect form;
b) the specifically Orphic idea of creation by the power of
thought.25
But before we turn to the origin of these ideas, one possible parallel should be examined.
22 Incidentally, the verb poiKiXXei (the restoration of which is made certain by the quotation by Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 6.2.9.4) is interesting: the verb has referred to the poetic craftsmanship both in Greek and Indo-European poetics.
23 B 13 Diels-Kranz6.
24 B 73, 75, 95 Diels-Kranz6.
25 "[fjallen bereits beim Orphiker 'Sinnen' und 'Ausführen' zusammen" (Schwabl 1978: Sp. 1330).
* * *
The instances from "Orphic" theogonies cited above do not remain entirely without analogy in early Greek thought. Importantly, this usage is echoed in a Parmenides fragment B 13 (DIELS-KRANZ6), transmitted via Plato, Symp. 178b; Arist. Metaph. 984 b 23; Plut. Amat. 756; Simpl. Phys. 39:
ppwTioTon men " EpwTa 0ewn mhT'LaaT0 PanTwn 'first of all gods it' contrived Eros'
Parmenides posits his own genealogy of the gods beginning not, as for Hesiod, with conflicts and terrible offsprings, but with Eros. Clearly the poem presents its own mythology, independent of earlier cosmogonical and theogonical tradition.
None of the sources provide the context within Parmenides' Doxa where this line appears and the subject of the verb is uncertain, too.26 Simplicius (Comm. Arist. Phys. 39.16-18) quotes fr. 13 just after fr. 12.3 (en 8e meow TouTwn 8ai|iwn h panTa kubepna), therefore identifying the subject as the daimon. This helps identifying an important albeit unclear element of Parmenides' doctrine: both Plato and Aristotle in their respective discussions of this passage stick to Hesiod's doctrine and agree that there never was a specific source for Eros (the only information Hesiod provides is chronological: epeiTa); however, if daimon in the preceding fragment is indeed the subject of mhTioaTo, it follows that Eros has in fact been created by another deity.27
Now, the problem is the same as with Orphic emhsaTo above. The verb mhtloaTo indicates intention and thought; in the same time it expressly identifies the goddess (daimon) as creator, not a parent. Once again, we find an act of creation that is presented as a mental act.28 L. TARAN's words: "her (daimon - A.N.) creation of Eros in B
26 K. F. Hermann asserted that the subject is reveai" (he was followed by Wilamowitz 1931: Bd. II, 212, Fn. 2 and Coxon 1986: 213), but this solution has been rejected by some commentators (see Taran 1965: 250, Fn. 56).
27 White 2005: 82-83. White's own solution (ibid. 83) is hardly satisfactory: he suggests that we are dealing with a metaphorical personification of nature (citing Heracl. fr. 123 in support of his idea).
28 This mental act can be understood as an "ordering process", which nevertheless does not stop it by being an act of creation (pace Taran 1965: 249).
13 is a mental act of planning and contriving. [...] This verb is always used in reference to a mental act of planning or contriving, and not to real "creationism"" exactly state the problem, but do not eliminate the conundrum.29
Thus mhTiaaTo in the Parmenides' fragment B 13 calls for an explanation and nothing stands in the way of connecting his usage of this verb with "Orphic" texts.30 It is important to mention in this connection that the verb is attested in the same meaning in a bizarre text known as Orpheus' Argonautica; the verb is found in the beginning of the poem which is a catalogue of Orphic themes and so it is likely that this usage of the verb (or the entire fragment, ll. 12-23 VIAN) should be traced back to one of the Orphic theogonies: Orph. fr. 99,22 (Bernabé):
a t' en KupéXoi? opeain mhTLaaT0 koúpiqn Fepaefornqn pepi paTpo? amaimakeTou Kponiwno?
Despite Parmenides' practice of using traditional epic material, motifs and meters, there is no evidence that would suggest that in this case, too, the poet was relying on his audience' familiarity with a Homeric or a lyric context in order to make his message clear. However, it has been suggested that Parmenides may have included Orphic elements with the same purpose, namely, in order to "contribute to a sense of comfortable orientation in a tradition".31 In earlier work some evidence for Orphic elements in Parmenides has already been accumulated.32 The most important of these indications of proximity between Parmenides and Orphic theogonies is the idea
29 Tarän 1971: 407. His skepticism in regard to the usage of the verb in pap. Derv. is unfounded: the examples presented above make fairly certain that in Derveni (and possibly Protogonos) theogonies the verb was used to describe an act of creation.
30 It is instructive to compare the development of W. Burkert's thought regarding this fragment of Doxa: in 1968 he wrote "mhTiaaTo bei Parmenides hat man in der Regel als philosophische Neuerung interpretiert; und den ganzen Kontrast von griechischem und biblischem Denken fand man darin dass dort von Kosmologie, im Alten Testament aber von Schöpfung die Rede sei" (Burkert 1968). However, a year later he writes: "mhTLaaTo galt als spezifisch parmenideische Vergeisterung, doch Pap. Derveni col. 19, 4 (old numeration of fragments - A. N.) bezeugt (e)mhaaTo für den Schöpfungsakt des Zeus" (Burkert 1969: 3 Fn. 7).
31 Mourelatos 1970: 42.
32 See West 1983: 109-110; less useful is Böhme 1986.
that the whole universe is united in the body of Zeus (who became "the only one", |ioi>vo? eyevTo Pap. Derv. col. xvi, 6) that is mirror-imaged by Parmenides' "unique" Being: oulon mounoyené? Te (Parm. fr. B 1.4). Phraseological parallels such as AÍKiq poXúpoivo? (Parm. fr. B 1.14 = Orph. fr. 233 BERNABÉ) are noteworthy. It is significant that only in pap. Derv. and in Parmenides the moon is described as spherical (pap. Derv. col. xxiv; Parm. fr. B 8.43 eukUklou afaíph? évaXíyiciov oykwi, | |ieaaóOev iaopale? pavTiqi). Lastly, the very fact that in Parm. fr. B 13 Eros is said to be the first-born goddess has been seen as an Orphic element, too.33 It is on the strength of this evidence that W. BURKERT (1999a) suggests that Parmenides knew a version of some Orphic theogony. We must not assume that Parmenides remained isolated from the contemporary religious and philosophical idea in his birth place of Elea, in Magna Graeca: Parmenides is reported to have been a pupil of a Pythagorean by the name Ameinias (Diog. Laert. IX.21-23) and therefore Orphic teachings could have been communicated to him via Pythagoreanism.34
Summing up: it is possible that Orphic cosmogonical myth with its idea of a second creation provided an input for Parmenides' usage of mhTiCTaTo 'contrived' (scil. 'created'). In the following section an attempt will be made to find a possible source for the idea that world
or its elements could have been created by a mental act.35
* * *
Less than a century ago Presocratic thought was still largely interpreted as self-contained. In doing so the classicists have largely been influenced by E. ZELLER's views.36 However, in the 20th century new material from Near Eastern literatures became available and this changed the picture radically: the context in which early Greek philosophy evolved could now be examined from a fresh perspective.
33 Kern 1890.
34 On the tradition about Parmenides uita (esp. the Iamblichus' catalogue) see Жмудь 1991: 58 and Вольф 2003.
35 I refrain from a discussion of Xenophanes B 25 Diels-Kranz6 (all' apaveuGe povoio voou fpevi pavTa Kpa.8a.ivei) that is open to different readings.
36 Zeller 1856.
Iran, too, was considered as one of the external sources for the development of Greek thought.37 The name of Zoroaster-Zaratas figures in connection with several early Greek philosophers38 and the historical context in which Iranian influence could have been exerted over Greek thought has been available since mid-sixth century: by 547 BCE (fall of Sardis) Darius' empire encompassed the cradle of Greek philosophy - the coast of Asia Minor (Miletus, Colophon, Ephesus, Clazomenae and even Pythagoras' Samos).39 It can be envisaged that Persian priests were active in Ionia at that time, practicing their religion and discussing their beliefs.
The study of intellectual relations between Iran and Greece had its ups and downs and several scholars have accepted a reverse influence from West to East.40 However, as both understanding of Zoroastrianism and understanding of Presocratic philosophy progressed, the hypothesis of an early influence of Iran on Greece had its revival. W. BURKERT in his seminal paper from 1963 argued that there was a considerable Oriental influence on early Greek cosmogony and M. L. WEST continued the trend in his 1971 monograph. These views were not shared by every classicist in the field then41, but have been gaining growing acceptance ever since.42 For the purposes of the present paper it is important that WEST and BURKERT argue for Iranian influence that was especially active in the
37 An example of early work in this direction is Götze 1923.
38 Aristoxenos reports (via the christian writer Hippolytus: Hipp. Ref. I, 2.12-14 = Diels-Kranz6 14 A 11) that Pythagoras traveled to Zaratas the Chaldaean, who explained to him two principles of life. This evidence is remarkable for putting Zarathushtra's and Pythagoras' names together. However, the report itself is unreliable and it is possible that Aristoxenos merely pointed out the similarity between Zoroastrian doctrine and that of Pythagoras (see Spoerri 1955; Guthrie 1962-1965: I, 254). On Zoroaster in Greek tradition see Желтова 1995.
39 Buchanan Gray 1964: 9-10. It has been suggested by I. Gershevitch that Magi were Median Zoroastrian priests fleeing from Western Iran after Cyrus overcame the Medes: this raises the starting date of the influence by a decade or two.
40 E.g. Bailey 1943.
41 Cf. a harsh review by G. Kirk (1974).
42 Iranian influence on Greece was accepted by some Iranists, too, see Boyce 1982: II, 150-163.
period 550-480 BCE and affected Pherecydes, Anaximander, Anaximenes and Heraclitus.43
The possibility of Iranian influence on the Orphic thought has been raised, too, mostly in connection with Pythagoreanism. It has been noted that Orphic (and Parmenides') cosmogonies present the dualistic distinction 'light' vs. 'dark', absent from other contemporaneous cosmogonic theories (Aither vs. Night are the two primordial deities in the Orphic scheme). This dualistic conception with its two principles (apxa?) reminds immediately of Zoroastrian teachings. Iranian influence has figured in the discussion of the "Orphic" gold plates (for instance, the plate from Pharsalus that reads "my name is Asterios" (I A 3, 12 PUGLIESE CARATELLI)).
The date of Orphic theogonies has been a subject of debate that only intensified with the advent of Derveni papyrus, but currently late 6th century is a widely accepted date.44 Thus Orphic doctrines (and indirectly Parmenides' Doxa that perhaps dates from 490 BCE) could in theory have been subject to Iranian influence.
In the case of our inquiry into етл^то/тпт^ат0 we have an additional reason to pursue the Iranian trail: in col. vi of the Derveni papyrus, right before the commentary proper begins, there is an overt reference to |iayoi (magi, of course, should by default be seen as agents responsible for the transmission of the Iranian lore45):
ep[ui8h 8]e |iayuv 8ип[а]таь 8ai|iova? e|[po8Wv yi[vo|ienou]? теОьсттапаь- 8ai|ione? e|Po[8Wv опте? eiai y[uxai т^ы^'и т^п Oua[ia]n тоитои епеке[|] p[oioua]i[n oi ma[yo]i, wspepei poinhn apo8i8onтe?. тоЦ?] 8e iepo![?] emapen8ouain u8[wp] kai gala, eX W|pep kai тa? xoa? poiouCTi. anapiOma [ka]i poluomfala тa popana
43 See a useful summary in Burkert 2004: 99-126.
44 Burkert 1998: 390.
45 Much ink has been spilled over the magi. We are interested here in the "genuine" magoi 'cult practitioners' (or 'hereditary technologists of the sacred', Bremmer 1999:4) and not in magoi in its derogatory meaning 'charlatan' uel sim., as we find it in Soph. OT 387-389 (about Teiresias) or in the Hippocratic treatise "On the Sacred Disease", where magi are compared to begging priests and humbugs (De morbo sacro 2). The earliest testimony concerning Greek encounters with the "authentic" magi is provided by Xanthus of Lydia (see Kingsley 1995). See Bremmer 1999 and de Jong 1997: 387-394.
Ououaln, oti ial al yuxa[l an]api0moi elai. muoTai Eumeniai ppoOuoual i[aTa Ta] auTa magol?. '... and the incantation of the magi is able to change46 the daimones when they get in the way. Hindering daimones are vengeful souls (hostile to souls') This is why the magi perform the sacrifice, just as if they were paying a penalty. And on the offerings they pour water and milk, from which they also make the libations. And they sacrifice innumerable and many knobbed cakes, because the souls too are innumerable. Initiates make preliminary sacrifices to the Eumenides in the same way as the magoi do'.
M. L. West (1997) argues that this can be a red herring, since the word mago? can be applied to a specialist practitioner associated with Babylonia and Assyria (under Persian rule at the time) rather than with Iranian world. Other specialists think that the reference is to Persian magi47. In fact, for anyone familiar with Zoroastrian ritual it is hard to see how these magi can not be Zoroastrians in view of the fact that all essential ingredients of the daily performed Haoma-sacrifice have been mentioned: water and milk (the zao^ra-libation) make one think of parahom (Avestan parahaoma-), viz. the offering of pounded Haoma (twigs of ephedra?) and pomegranate twigs mingled with water and milk48, while the cakes (the miiazda-offering) are almost certainly the familiar dron (Avestan draonah-'portion', Y. 33.8; 11.4): unleavened wheaten bread made into thin round cakes, usually consecrated with butter.49 Eumenides are easily (if only all too easily?) identifiable with Avestan frauuasis (Pahlavi fraward). Frauuasis are the pre-souls of the Orderly ones, spirits that inhabit the upper air and protect those who worship them. The original concept of frauuasi is unclear and need not concern us here (according to one wide-spread school of thought they are by origin objects of a hero-cult), but their association with the souls of the
46 'drive away' - Tsantsanoglou-Parassoglou 2006.
47 Tsantsanoglou 1997: 110-115; Burkert 1999a: 106.
48 Milk or fat libation is the default libation in Zoroastrianism, but water is added to the parahom, at least, in the modern yasna-ceremony.
49 For details see e.g. Boyce & Kotwal 1971. See Russell 2001 who already made the identification of the knob cakes in Derveni papyrus with the Zoroastrian dron.
dead is predominant both in the Avestan liturgical texts and in living Zoroastrianism. The cult of frauuasi is blended with the cult of uruuan (souls) already in Avesta:
Y. 16.7:
xvanuuatis asahe vsrszo yazamaide yahu iristinqm uruuqno saiiente ya asaonqm frauuasaiio
'we sacrifice to the sunny invigorants (abodes?) of Order, in which the souls of the departed are in happiness which are the frauuasis of the sustainers of Order'.
The sacrifice to the souls could refer to one of the Gahanbar feasts, in particular to Fravardigan, a ten-day festival, held at the end of the Zoroastrian year. Importantly, in the Fravardin Yast frauuasis are described as a vast host, and once again avapiO|ioi in the Derveni text is not an unfitting equivalent: Yt. 13.65:
aatfrasUsenti uyra asaunqm frauuasaiio paoiris pouru.
sata paoiris pouru.hazaijra paoiris pouru.baeuuano
'then the strong life-giving pre-souls of the Orderly move forth,
numerous - many hundreds, numerous-many thousands,
numerous - many ten thousands'
Lastly, the mysterious words Wapepei poin^n apoSiSovTe? 'as if they were paying a requital' can in fact be interpreted from a Zoroastrian perspective, too - although this time the interpretation does not lie on the surface. The word magus itself continues Avestan magu- meaning 'priest, engaged in a ritually enacted maga-ceremony'. Maga- is one of the most hotly disputed items of Avestan vocabulary; if it is in fact related to Old Indic magha- (as seems plausible), the word may mean 'gift of exchange'. Now, in Avestan ritual the notion of mutual gift-giving (and mutual obligation) plays a very important role: "the gift exchange is a part of a universal "deal" (uruuata-) obtaining between Ahura Mazda and his followers and constitutes an unending series of quid pro quo or do et das in mutual indebtedness between god and his creatures, starting and ending with Ahura Mazda's cosmogonical and eschatological sacrifices". (SKLERV0 2008: 497).50 Still, this is a XXI century scholarly interpretation of the Zoroastrian religion: whether or not the same
50 On maga- see also Hintze 2004 and the literature listed there.
understanding of maga- was present among those who professed Mazdeism in Achaemenid Iran and could be communicated by them to Greeks cannot be ascertained.
In sum, the description found in pap. Derv. turns out to be too precise to be misleading; on the whole the passage has a distinct Zoroastrian flavor. Therefore it behooves us to investigate whether further Zoroastrian elements in Derveni text can be gleaned - and it seems that e|l1Г|aaтo/|l1Г|Tiaaтo can receive a plausible explanation if
considered from a Zoroastrian perspective.
* * *
The main hypothesis put forth in this paper is the following: the idea of a creation as a mental act such as we find in Orphic theogonies and in Parmenides is due to specifically Persian influence, transmitted by the magi in the 6th cent. In order to support this claim, an inquiry into Zoroastrian cosmogony and religion in general is due. Of course, limitations of space prevent an in-depth treatment of these issues; nevertheless, a few interesting points can be made.
But before we proceed further, the following methodological caveat is due. The material for the following investigation will have to be drawn from avestan canon of liturgical and mythological texts.51 This will be done under the assumption that the main religious doctrines current in the 6th century Persian empire can be seen as tantamount to the Zoroastrianism as we know it from the Avestan canon, composed in the second millennium BCE. this is a plausible theory and yet one that is exceedingly hard to prove. We have almost no information about Achaemenid religion to be drawn from epichoric sources; the meager evidence that is available is limited to the following sources: the cuneiform inscriptions of the Achaemenid kings in Old Persian; the Persepolis tablets, being economical records in Elamite and Aramaic; Elephantine letters in
51 Gâthic and Younger Avestan translations are that of P. O. Skj.erv0; some of them have been published or are forthcoming and some go back to my notes from his classes (2005-2006). I am extremely grateful to Prof. Skj^rv0 for discussing his translations with me and for allowing to use them in this publication.
Abbreviations: Y. = Yasna (texts recited during the yasna ritual), V. = Videvdad (purification rituals), Yt. = Yast (hymns to individual deities); Pahlavi texts: Bdh. = Bundahisn.
Aramaic, containing personal names many of which seem to reflect Avestan theology; and last - but not least - references to Iranian religions in Greek and Latin sources.52 we do not have a single text of primarily religious content (other than the Cyrus' cylinder that once again does not tell us anything about Cyrus' own religion). the Avestan canon, on the contrary, presents us with wealth of religious information, which is, however, void of any historical or geographic contextualization: none of the place names mentioned in the Avesta has any ties with Western Iran. Therefore the Achaemenid religion and Avestan Zoroastrianism cannot be mapped onto each other easily. The persian royal inscriptions and the Elamite texts53 mention such deities as ahuramazda, naryasanga, ispandaramaiti, fraverti, etc.; they also mention such important elements of Avestan pantheon as Lie (durujiya-) and order (artavan-); they stress the importance of discarding the old gods (daivas), etc.54 Thus we can be fairly certain that some form of Mazdaism was the official religion of the empire; and yet it is next to impossible to ascertain that the Zoroastrian thought of the 2nd millennium was present in the Achaemenid Iran unchanged and in full detail.
one more methodological digression is in order. In the following inquiry the emphasis will mostly be laid on the Avestan texts, in particular, the Gathas, dated to the middle of the 2nd millennium bce and traditionally thought to have been composed by Zarathushtra himself. These texts are a part of the ritual and as such are frequently recited by the practitioners of Zoroastrianism: this allows positing a workable scenario of reception of cosmogonical ideas from Persian Kulturträger. Some studies of Iranian influence on Greek thought make extensive use of Pahlavi sources, such as the Denkard and the Bündahisn, the encyclopedias of Zoroastrianism, probably compiled in the 9th century CE. While these sources may preserve genuine Zoroastrian thought, lost in the canon of liturgical texts that is available to us, their evidence should nevertheless be treated with caution: the later date of these Iranian sources makes it possible that the influence was actually exerted in the other direction, from Greeks to Iranians. A rather well-known case concerns the myth of races in
52 On the latter see the admirable study by de Jong 1997.
53 The Elamite material has been carefully collected and studied by Koch (1977).
54 On this highly complex issue see Schwartz 1980; Kellens 1991; Sklerv0 2005.
Hesiod (Erga 109-201). Eastern parallels to the myth include the prophetic dream of Nebuchadnezzar in the book of Daniel (written about 166 BCE) and a cyclic scheme of four ages, 3000 years each, in Zoroastrian eschatology (attested in Pahlavi sources). Now, Mary BOYCE (1984) has shown that the elaborate scheme whereby four ages are distinguished according to metals (gold, silver, steel, and "intermixed" iron) did not develop until the 5th century BCE - and thus should in all likelihood be viewed as a result of Greek influence, not other way round (see also KOENEN 1994: 11-13). Similar objections can be raised against Clarisse HERRENSCHMIDT's (1996) attempt to posit Iranian influence on Democritus; she has found truly interesting correspondence between Democritus' embryological theory that mentions female seed (fr. A 142; 143 DIELS-KRANZ6) and the Iranian teachings according to which the female seed is cold and moist, while the male seed is hot and dry (Indian Bundahisn 16.1-6; Denkard 3.105). Further, both Democritus and Leucippus describe the atoms in terms of the same system of oppositions (cold/hot, dry/moist, light/dark).55 Still, ingenious as this theory may be, it is faced with grave problems, posited by the chronology of texts: 5th cent. BCE for Democritus vs. 9th cent. CE for the Bundahisn.
With these methodological caveats in mind we can now turn to the Zoroastrian cosmogony. In the beginning there were two twin spirits, Ahuro Mazda (Ohrmazd) and Ayrd MainiiU (Ahrimen) (Y. 30.3), the former living in the eternal light and the latter in the eternal darkness. The principal function of Ahura Mazda is the creation and ordering of the cosmos and the upholding of the cosmic Order (Asam).56 Ahura Mazda57 creates the spiritual existence (lit. 'of thought' ayhu- manayho) and the material existence (lit. 'of bones', Avestan ayhu- astuuant-) (e.g. Y. 19.1-2). The sequential creation of two existences is significant. It is the creation of the world of thought that will be of interest here - since the world of thought will have to be created by a power of thought.
55 See also Lincoln 2001: 311-314.
56 See e.g. Kellens 1989; Sklerv0 2002: 399.
57 Sometimes other deities, too: Spenta Mainiiu (Yt. 13.28); Apam Napat (Yt. 19.52).
In order to describe Ahura Mazda's58 creationist activity Avestan employs the reflex of Indo-European *dhehi- (see above)59; however, it seems that some basic elements of the world have been created in a different way, among them the order itself (that had to be brought into existence before the material universe since the latter is ordered according to the principles of asam).
Let us examine the actual evidence at hand. below I list some passages from the Gathas that support the idea of creation as a mental act.
Y. 39.4 (Yasna Haptayhaiti).
yaOa tu i ahura.mazda mSnghaca vaocasca dasca varasca ya vohu aOa toi dadamahi
'In the same way that you, O Ahura Mazda, have thought them and spoken them, established, and produced (those: things/thoughts?) which (are) good, in that way we are giving (them) to you' Ahura Mazda is said to be the father of Order (Asam) and he is also said to have fashioned many of its elements as an artisan (Y. 44, 3-5); in this connection it is instructive to examine the following passages:
58 Already in the Younger Avesta we find an idea of a dual creation, both by Ahura Mazda and Agra Mainiiu:
Yt. 15.43 (hymn to Vaiiu):
yat va dama apaiiemi yasca daOat spento mainiius yasca daOat ayro mainiius. 'because I can obtain [creatures of] both creations, both the one that the Life-giving Spirit established and the one the Evil Spirit established' Pahlavi sources (e.g. Pahlavi Rivayat 46) present this idea in a fully developed form. However, in the oldest parts of Avesta only Ahura Mazda is referred to as the creating deity.
59 E.g. Y. 37.1: ya gqmca asamca dat
apasca dat uruuarasca varfhis raocasca dat bumimca '(Ahura Mazda) who put in their places both the cow and Order put in their places both the good waters and the plants put in their places both the lights and the earth'.
Y. 54.1 (the last sentence of the often recited Airiiaman Isiia
60
prayer ):
asahiia yasa asim yqm isiiqm ahuro masata mazda
'I am asking for the reward of Order, the one to be sped hither61, that
Mazda thought'62
Y. 31.19:
gusta yS manta asam ahum.bis viduua
'he who first thought order has (now) listened (to my announcements?),
namely, you, the knowing one, the healer of this existence, o Ahura'
Examples above show how creation of abstract elements of the universe is represented in the gathas as a mental act. now we can turn to a very interesting passage related to cosmogony proper. p. o. SK№RV0 suggested that the following verses refer to the "first dawn":
Y. 31.7:
yasta manta pauruiio raocSbis roiOben XaOra
huuo XraOba dqmis asam ya daraiiat vahistam mano
'He who was the first to think those (thoughts):
"the free spaces are blending with the lights": he is the web-holder
by the guiding thought by which (his) best thought upholds Order.'
The syntax of this sentence is elaborate on the verge of being opaque (even by Old Avestan standards), but the sense is clear: Ahura Mazda created the lights of free spaces by thinking about them.
The doctrine of creation by mental force is found in later Pahlavi texts, too:
Bdh. 1.35:
'and his first creation was self-established well-being, that in the world of thought by which he made his body better when he thought the creation, for his being lord is from establishing the creation'.
60 This prayer is a part of other texts: V. 11.7; V. 20.11, Y. 27.5.
61 The meaning of isiia- remains problematic.
62 Notice that the syntax here allows an alternative translation, with isiiqm understood predicatively and not in apposition: yqm isiiqm ahuro masata mazda 'which Ahura Mazda thought (worthy of) being sped hither'.
Gathic texts are notoriously difficult to interpret. The number of passages could potentially be increased; however, difficulties of interpretation persist in every case. The following passage illustrates the difficulties:
Y. 33.6:
yd zaota asa arazus huuo mainiidus a vahistat kaiia ahmat auua manaijha ya varaziiaidiiai manta vastriia 'the libator who (is) straight by the Order (of his ritual), he (produces) out of this best inspiration, by (his) thought, those actions which he (Ahura Mazda) (first) thought (as those) to be produced by the forager'
Whether manta in this passage denotes the act of creation (viz. describes the way Ahura Mazda established the actions that should be performed by a forager) is open to debate.
The selection of passages above should suffice to illustrate the point: a deity capable of creating objects by a mental force is an important part of Avestan cosmology. Limited data does not allow specifying in what form exactly Zoroastrian teachings as they are represented in the Old Avestan canon (in particular the technomorphic creation model in which creation is seen as a mental act) could have been communicated to Ionian Greeks by the magi, but it is reasonably safe to assume that the basic features of the cosmogony would remain intact. These features are remarkably close to what we find in the Orphic theogonies and thus an instance of Zoroastrian influence on Greek thought has probably been identified.
Throughout this paper we have stayed focused on a specific verb - (e)|air|CTaTo - recoiling from comparison of abstract elements of Greek and Iranian religious and philosophical doctrines (such as dualistic oppositions, for instance). It is this text-centered comparative approach that gives the theory put forth in this paper its special appeal.
* * *
Although this paper was conceived as a contribution to the study of sources and origin of the orphic thought, i would like to end with an open question related to Pindar. A puzzling instance of the gnomic aorist emhsaTo that merits longer discussion than can be afforded in this paper is found in Olympian 1, where Pindar is dwelling on the power of a spoken word:
Pi. Ol. 1.30-32:
Xapu; 8', anep anavxa xeu%£i Ta meiXi%a 0vaxol^, ¿m^epoica xi^av Kai anioxov e^aaTO mcxov ¿^evai xo noXXaKi;
'but Kharis which creates all sweet things for mortals
(or: 'who makes all things sweet?'), conferring honor,
brought it about that even the untrustworthy oftentimes is
trustworthy'63.
Xapi? is personified here, and, quite importantly, TeuxeL in line 30 characterizes it as a craftsman. One may compare the following Pindaric passages where this verb is applied to a god-artisan:
fr. 141 (SNELL-MAEHLER):
Oeo? o pavTa Teuxwn PpoToi?
'the god who fashions everything for the mortals'
Pae. 6.132-134 (SNELL-MAEHLER):
0 panTa tol Ta Te kai Ta Teuxwn
aon eyyraXLXen oX|3on eupuo[pa] Kponou pal?
'the wide-seeing son of Cronus who fashions everything, both this
and that, bestowed your wealth on you'.
I leave it to others to decide whether the passage from Olympian
1 quoted above shows nothing more than the pejorative meaning of mh8omaL, which the poet uses to accuse XapL? of being the source of falsity of the poets, or we should in fact see in this Pindaric usage a glimpse of the same "Orphic" idea of a creator deity, bringing things into being by the power of thought, that was studied above. And if one is sympathetic with the latter view, a number of other, well-known, parallels between Pindar and Orphic texts come to mind. One need not go too far: Olympian 2 (probably composed around the same year as Olympian 1, viz. 476 BCE) shows elements of both Orphic cosmology and Orphic eschatology64:
Ol. 2.19: Xpono? o panTwn paTiqp
Pindar's Xpono? makes one think of the Unaging Time in the Rhapsodies' narrative and in Pherecydes (B 1, A 8-9 DIELS -KRANZ6
63 This is the only attested example of mhS°maL construed with accusatiuus cum infinitiuo.
64 See Lloyd-Jones 1985; West 1983: 110; recently Currie 2005: 32
= fr. 14, 60, 65, 66 SCHIBLI), where Xpono? in fact is the first deity in the genealogy of gods.65 Ol. 2.30-32:
hTOL PpoTfin ye iceicpiTai pelpa? ou Ti OanaTOu
'truly, for mortals an end in death has in no way been fixed'
The idea that death is not final famously recurs in Orphic gold leaves and a graffito from Olbia:
II B3.1; II B4.1 (PUGLIESE CARATELLI)
nun eOane? cal nun egenou
'now you died and now you were born'
DUBOIS Nr. 94 = РУСЯЕВА 1978: 89:
pio? OanaTo? pio? 'life-death-life'
Cf. also Emped. fr. B8 (DIELS-KRANZ6):
ouSe Ti? oulomenou OanaToio TeleuTh 'there is no end in destructive death'
Other pieces of Pindaric poetry, too, have an Orphic flavor to them. One of them is fr. 133 (SNELL-MAEHLER), which may or may not belong together with Olympian 2. These lines have given rise to hot debates in relation to the Zagreus myth:
olcti Se Fepaefona poinan palaiou penOeo? SeXeTai.
'from which (the souls) persephone receives the requital of the ancient grief'
On the whole, an "Orphic" reading of emhsaTo in Pi. Ol. 2.31 along the lines suggested in the present paper remains an attractive possibility; but further progress on this issue should be reserved for the future.
65 I refrain from any discussion of Zurvanism and possible Iranian influence in this case.
REFERENCES
Sources:
Hesiod. Theogonia. Works and Days / Edited and translated by G. W. Most.
- Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 2006. Poetarum Melicorum Graecorum Fragmenta / Edidit M. Davies. Vol. I.
Oxonii: e typographeo Clarendoniano, 1991. Alcman: Introduction, texte critique, témoignages, traduction et commentaire / Edidit Claudius Calame. - Romae: in aedibus Athenaei, 1983.
Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker / Griechisch und Deutsch von H. Diels. Herausgegeben von W. Kranz. 6. Aufl. Hildesheim: Weidmann, 1951-1952. 3 Bde. (= Diels-Kranz6). Schibli, H. S. Pherekydes of Syros. - Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990. Poetae Epici Graeci. Testimonia et Fragmenta / Edidit A. Bernabé. Pars II.
Fasc. 1-3. Berolini; Novi Eboraci: Walter de Gruyter, 2004-2007. The Derveni Papyrus / Edited with introduction and commentary by Th. Kouremenos, G. M. Parassoglou and K. Tsantsanoglou. - Firenze: Leo S. Olschki Editore, 2006. Pugliese Caratelli G. Le lamine d'oro orfiche. Istruzioni per il viaggio
oltremondano degli iniziati greci. - 2 ed. - Milan: Adelphi, 2001. Dubois, L. Inscriptions grecques dialectales d'Olbia du Pont. - Genève:
Librarie Droz, 1996. Les argonautiques orphiques / Texte établi et traduit par F. Vian. - Paris:
Belles Lettres, 1987. Avesta: the Sacred Book of the Parsis / Edited by K. F. Geldner. Stuttgart:
W. Kohlhammer, 1886-1896. 3 Bde. The Gäthäs of Zarathustra and the Other Old Avestan Texts / Edited and translated by H. Humbach. Heidelberg: C. Winter, 1991. 2 Vols.
Secondary literature:
Вольф 2003 - Вольф М. Н. Онтологические аспекты иранских влияний на раннюю греческую философию. Дис. ... канд. философ. наук / Институт философии и права РАН. Новосибирск. Желтова 1995 - Желтова Е. В. Античная традиция о персидских магах Зороастре, Остане и Гистаспе: (Жанровая принадлежность сохранившихся свидетельств): Автореф. дис. ... канд. филол. наук / Санкт-Петербургский гос. ун-т. - СПб. Жмудь 1991 - Жмудь Л. Я. Все есть число? К интерпретации «основной доктрины» пифагореизма // Mathesis. Из истории античной науки и философии / Отв. ред. И. Д. Рожанский. М.: Наука. С. 55-74.
Русяева 1978 - Русяева А. С. Орфизм и культ Диониса в Ольвии //
Вестник древней истории. № 1. С. 87-104. Bailey 1943 - Bailey H. W. Zoroastrian Problems in the Ninth-Century Books. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Betegh 2004 - Betegh G. The Derveni Papyrus. Cosmology, Theology and Interpretation. - Cambridge University Press.
Böhme 1986 - Böhme R. Die Verkannte Muse: Dichtersprache und geistige Tradition des Parmenides. Bern: Francke.
Boyce 1982 - Boyce M. The History of Zoroastrianism. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Boyce 1984 - Boyce M. On the Antiquity of Zoroastrian Apocalyptic // Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies. Vol. 47. -Nr. 1. P. 57-75.
Boyce, Kotwal 1971 - Boyce M., Kotwal, F. Zoroastrian "bäj" and "drön" // Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies. - 1971. -Vol. 34. - Nr. 1. - P. 56-73.
Bremmer 1999 - Bremmer J. The Birth of the Term 'Magic' // Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik. Bd. 126. S. 1-12 (Reprinted in: The Metamorphosis of Magic from Late Antiquity to the Early Modern Period / ed. By J. N. Bremmer and J. R. Veenstra. -Leuven: Peeters. P. 1-12).
Buchanan Gray 1964 - Buchanan Gray G. The Foundation and Extension of the Persian Empire // The Cambridge Ancient History. Vol. 4 / Ed. by J. B. Bury, S. A. Cook, and F. E. Adcock. Cambridge University Press. P. 1-25.
Burkert 1963 - Burkert W. Iranisches bei Anaximandros // Rheinisches Museum. Bd. 106. S. 97-134.
Burkert 1968 - Burkert W. Orpheus und die Vorsokratiker. Bemerkungen zum Derveni-Papyrus und zur pythagoreischen Zahlenlehre // Antike und Abendland. Bd. 14. S. 93-114.
Burkert 1969 - Burkert W. Das Proömium des Parmenides und die Katabasis des Pythagoras // Phronesis. Vol. 14. P. 3-27.
Burkert 1998 - Burkert W. Die neuen orphischen Texte: Fragmente, Varianten, Sitz im Leben // Fragmentsammlungen philosophischer Texte der Antike = Le raccolte dei frammenti di filosofi antichi : atti del seminario internazionale, Ascona, Centro Stefano Franscini 22-27 settembre 1996 / Hrsg. von W. Burkert. Göttingen: Vanderhoeck und Ruprecht. S. 387-400.
Burkert 1999a - Burkert W. Da Omero ai Magi. La tradizione orientale nella cultura greca. Venezia: Marsilio.
Burkert 1999b - Burkert W. The Logic of Cosmogony // From Myth to Reason? Studies in the development of Greek thought / Ed. by R. Buxton. Oxford University Press. P. 87-106.
Burkert 2004 - Burkert W. Babylon. Memphis. Persepolis: Eastern Contexts of Greek Culture. Cambridge MA: Harvard Univ. Press.
Calame 1997 - Calame C. Figures of Sexuality and Initiatory Transition in the Derveni Theogony and its Commentary // Studies on the Derveni Papyrus / Ed. by A. Laks and G. W. Most. Oxford University Press. P. 65-80.
Catsanicos 1986 - Catsanicos J. A propos des adjectifs hitt. su-hmili et ved. sü-mäya- // Bulletin de Societe de Linguistique. T. 81. P. 121-180.
Coxon 1986 - Coxon A. H. The Fragments of Parmenides: a Critical Text with Introduction, Translation, the Ancient Testimonia and a Commentary. Assen: Van Gorcum.
Currie 2GG5 - Currie B. Pindar and the Cult of Heroes. Oxford Univ. Press.
Detienne, Vernant 1974 - Detienne M. and Vernant, J.-P. Les ruses de l'intelligence. La Métis des Grecs. Paris: Flammarion.
Fränkel 1975 - Fränkel H. Early Greek Poetry and Philosophy. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Götze 1923 - Götze A. Persiche Weisheit in griechischem Gewande: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Mikrokosmos-Idee // Zeitschrift für Indologie und Iranistik. Bd. 2. S. 6G-98; 167-174.
Guthrie 1962-1965 - Guthrie W. K. Ch. A History of Greek Philosophy. -Cambridge University Press. 2 vols.
Herrenschmidt 1996 - Herrenschmidt C. Entre Perses et Grecs. I. Democrite et le mazdeisme: Religion, philosophie, science // Transeuphratene. Vol. 11. P. 115-143.
Hintze 2004 - Hintze A. Do ut des: Patterns of Exchange in Zoroastrianism. A Memorial Lecture for Ilya Gershevitch Delivered at the Royal Asiatic Society on 13 June 2GG2 // Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. Series 3. Vol. 14. Nr. 1. P. 27-45.
Janko 2GG2 - Janko R. The Derveni Papyrus: an Interim Text // Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik. Bd. 141. S. 1-62.
de Jong 1997 - Jong A. de. Traditions of the Magi: Zoroastrianism in Greek and Latin Literature. Leiden; New York: Brill.
Kellens 1991 - Kellens J. Questions préalables // Iranica Antiqua Suppl. Vol. 5: La religion iranienne à l'époque achéménide. Actes du Colloque de Liège 11 décembre 1987 / Ed. par J. Kellens. 81-86.
Kern 189G - Kern O. Zu Parmenides // Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie. Bd. 3. H. 2. S. 244-253.
Kingsley 1995 - Kingsley P. Meetings with Magi: Iranian Themes among the Greeks, from Xanthus of Lydia to Plato's Academy // Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. Vol. 5 (Third Series). P. 173-2G9.
Kirk 1974 - Kirk G. S. Rec. ad op.: West 1971 // The Classical Review. Vol. 24. Nr. 1 (N.S.). P. 82-86.
Koch 1977 - Koch H. Die religiösen Verhältnisse der Dareioszeit. Untersuchungen an Hand der elamischen Persepolistäfelchen. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz (Göttinger Orientforschungen; III. Reihe: Iranica; Bd. 4).
Koenen 1994 - Koenen L. Greece, the Near East, and Egypt: Cyclic Destruction in Hesiod and the Catalogue of Women // Transactions of the American Philological Association. Vol. 124. P. 1-34.
Laks, Most 1997 - Laks A., Most G.W. A Provisional Translation of the Derveni Papyrus // Studies on the Derveni Papyrus / Ed. by A. Laks and G. W. Most. Oxford University Press. P. 9-24.
Lincoln 2GG1 - Lincoln B. The Center of the World and the Origins of Life // History of Religions. Vol. 4G. Nr. 4. P. 311-326.
Lloyd-Jones 1985 - Lloyd-Jones H. Pindar and the After-Life // Pindare: huit exposés suivis de discussions / Ed. par D. E. Gerber. Genève, 1985. P. 1-32. (Entretiens sur l'antiquité classique. T. 31).
Most 1987 - Most G.W. Alcman's 'Cosmogonie' Fragment (Fr. 5 Page, 81 Calame) // Classical Quarterly. Vol. 37. P. 1-19.
Mourelatos 1970 - Mourelatos A. P. D. The Route of Parmenides: A Study of Word, Image and Argument in the Fragments. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Penwill 1974 - Penwill J. L. Alcman's Cosmology // Apeiron. Vol. 8. Nr. 2. P. 3-39.
Rangos 2003 - Rangos S. Alcman's Cosmogony Revisited // Classica et Mediaevalia. Vol. 54. P. 81-112.
Russell 2001 - Russell J. The Magi in the Derveni Papyrus // Nâme-ye Irân-e Bâstân. Vol. 1. Fasc. 1. P. 49-59.
Schwabl 1978 - Schwabl H. Zeus // Paulys Realencyclopädie / Hrsg. von K. Ziegler. Suppl. Bd. 15: Acilius biz Zoilos. München: A. Druckenmüller. Sp. 993-1481.
Schwartz 1983 - Schwartz M. The Religion of Achaemenian Iran // Cambridge History of Iran. Vol. II / Ed. by I. Gershevitch. Cambridge University Press. P. 664-97.
Skjœrv0 2002 - Skjœrv0 P. O. Ahura Mazda and Ärmaiti, Heaven and Earth, in the Old Avesta // Journal of the American Oriental Society. Vol. 122. - Nr. 2: Apr. - Jun. (Indic and Iranian Studies in Honor of Stanley Insler on His Sixty-Fifth Birthday). - P. 399-410
Skjœrv0 2005 - Skjœrv0 P. O. The Achaemenids and the Avesta // Birth of the Persian Empire / Ed. by V. S. Curtis and S. Stewart. London; New York. P. 52-84.
Skjœrv0 2008 - Skjœrv0 P. O. TAHADI: Gifts, Debts, and Counter-gifts in the Ancient Zoroastrian Ritual // Classical Arabic Humanities in Their Own Terms: Festschrift for Wolfhart Heinrichs on His 65th Birthday Presented by His Students and Colleagues / Ed. by B. Gruendler. Leiden: Brill. P. 493-520.
Spoerri 1955 - Spoerri W. A propos d'un texte d'Hippolyte // Revue des Etudes Anciennes. T. 57. P. 267-290.
Taran 1965 - Taran L. Parmenides. A text with translation, commentary and critical essays. Princeton University Press.
Taran 1971 - Taran L. The creation myth in Plato's Timaeus // Essays in Ancient Greek Philosophy / Ed. by J. P. Anton and G. L. Kustas. -Vol. 1. Albany: State University of New York Press. P. 372-407.
Tsantsanoglou 1997 - Tsantsanoglou K. The First Columns of the Derveni Papyrus and their Religious Significance // Studies on the Derveni Papyrus / Ed. by A. Laks and G. W. Most. Oxford University Press. P. 93-128.
Vernant 1988 - Vernant J.-P. The Myth of Prometheus in Hesiod // Myth and Society in Ancient Greece / Trans. by J. Lloyd. New York:
Zone Books. P. 183-201. (Translation of: Mythe et société en Grèce ancienne. Paris: Maspero, 1974). West 1963 - West M. L. Three Presocratic Cosmogonies // Classical
Quarterly. Vol. 13. P. 154-176. West 1967 - West M. L. Alcman and Pythagoras // Classical Quarterly. Vol. 17. P. 1-15.
West 1971 - West M. L. Early Greek Philosophy and the Orient. Oxford Clarendon Press.
West 1978 - Hesiod. Works and Days / Edited with prolegomena and
commentary by M. L. West. Oxford Clarendon Press. West 1983 - West M. L. The Orphic poems. Oxford Clarendon Press. West 1997 - West M. L. Hocus-Pocus in East and West. Theogony, Ritual, and the Tradition of Esoteric Commentary // Studies on the Derveni Papyrus / Ed. by A. Laks and G. W. Most. Oxford University Press. P. 81-92. West 2007 - West M. L. Indo-European poetry and myth. Oxf. Univ. Press. White 2005 - White H. What is what-is? A Study of Parmenides' Poem.
New York: Peter Lang. Wilamowitz-Möllendorff 1931 - Wilamowitz-Möllendorff U. von. Der
Glaube der Hellenen. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung. 2 Bde. Zeller 1856 - Zeller E. Die Philosophie der Griechen in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung. 1. Aufl. Tübingen: L. F. Fues.
Резюме
Глагол emhsaTo 'измыслил' в дервенском папирусе употребляется применительно к сотворению мира и других богов: акт творения осуществляется силой мысли. Эту же идею мы находим и в других орфических теогониях. Паралеллью к этому употреблению служит mr|TÎ-saTo у Парменида в том же значении. Это космогоническое учение идет вразрез с дофилософской космогонией, представленной у Гесиода и в других ранних источниках, согласно которой творение происходит путем совокупления и порождения божеств и физических элементов мира другими богами. Идея бога-творца не представлена в древнегреческих источниках ранее VI-го в. до н.э. В статье предлагается трактовать данное орфическое учение как результат контакта с зороастрийскими жрецами в эпоху господства Ахеменидов на побережье Малой Азии: анализируемые в статье примеры из Авесты иллюстрируют зороастрийскую доктрину, согласно которой сотворение мира было осуществлено посредством силы мысли Ахуры Мазды. Попутно в статье разбираются зороастрийские элементы в описании ритуала магов в дервенском папирусе. В заключении к статье следы того же орфического учения предлагается видеть во второй олимпийской оде Пиндара.
