Littera Antiqua KUL 2013 6.pdf

(16511 KB) Pobierz
Littera Antiqua
nr 6 (2013)
fot. A. Krauze-Kolodziej Posag Satyra z Kolekcji Della Valle w niszy Cortile
ISSN 2082-9264
1
S
PIS TREŚCI
A
RTYKUŁY
Krzysztof Homa – Instytut Nauk Humanistycznych w Atenach
Historyczny kontekst Platońskiego
Meneksenosa....................................................................13
Aleksandra Klęczar – Uniwersytet Jagielloński
Tua, Mater, initia.
Grecko-rzymskie misteria Attisa między religią a literaturą......................28
Lesław Łesyk - Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski Jana Pawła II
Literatura klasyczna w recepcji Klemensa z Aleksandrii.........................................................37
Natalia Obukowicz – Uniwersytet Warszawski
Orpheus in Polemical Literature during French Wars of Religion...........................................66
Ewa Osek – Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski Jana Pawła II
Hermes’ Tablet (Nonnus D 41.343–44): An Allusion to the ‘Orphic’ Gold Leaves................73
Elias Tempelis – The Hellenic Naval Academy (Athens)
Neoplatonic approaches to Plato’s
Menexenus
and
Minos.....................................................104
S
PRAWOZDANIA
Tomasz Smalcerz – Akademia
Ignatianum
w Krakowie
Report on
Colloquia Orphica V,
Nieborów 2013...................................................................111
Lesław Łesyk - Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski Jana Pawła II
Sprawozdanie z VIII
eme
Colloque International de Paléographie Grecque, Hamburg............117
R
ECENZJA
Mariola Sobolewska – Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski Jana Pawła II
Katarzyna Kołakowska,
Mit u Empedoklesa,
Kraków: Scriptum, 2012, ss. 168....................127
Littera Antiqua
2
Bartłomiej Bednarek – Uniwersytet Jagielloński
Non-Orphic interpretation of Euripides'
Bacchae.......................................................................4
Littera Antiqua
Instytut Filologii Klasycznej
Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski Jana Pawła II
Al. Racławickie 14
20-950 Lublin
tel. 81/445-43-59
Redaktor naczelny
Dr Katarzyna Kołakowska
tel. 604-586-792
e-mail: k.kolakowska@litant.eu
Sekretarz Redakcji
Lesław Łesyk
tel. 533-052-875
e-mail: l.lesyk@litant.eu
Zastępca redaktora naczelnego
Dr Iwona Wieżel
tel. 697-282-221
e-mail: i.wiezel@litant.eu
Redaktor językowy
Dr Lech Giemza
e-mail: l.giemza@litant.eu
Sylwia Wilczewska
e-mail: s.wilczewska@litant.eu
Redaktor tematyczny
Dr Ewa Osek
e-mail: e.osek@litant.eu
Littera Antiqua
3
„Littera Antiqua” 6 (2013)
B
ARTŁOMIEJ
B
EDNAREK
(Jagiellonian University in Krakow)
N
ON
-O
RPHIC INTERPRETATION OF
E
URIPIDES
'
B
ACCHAE
In the following essay I would like to argue against some of the readings of Euripides'
Bacchae
which in my opinion go too far in underlying the Orphic influence on that tragedy.
However, since I do not intend to go as far as to deny the existence or importance of Orphism in the
classical period, I would like to take as a starting point a brief discussion of a well-known passage
which seems to indicate a borderline between what is known about that doctrine and what can easily
be criticized as a misinterpretation.
In the second book of
Histories,
Herodotus says that Egyptians bury their deceased in linen
clothes, just as Orphics, Bacchics and Pythagoreans do. It would not be right – the historian
explains – to bury the participants of those rites in woolen garments. In the following sentence,
although his lapidary style permits us to wonder about it, Herodotus probably turns his attention
again towards the Egyptians. They (the supposed Egyptians) tell a
sacred story
(ἱερ�½�ς λ�½�γος) to
justify their ritual behaviour.
Had the ancient writer known that his work would be read by modern Orphic religion
students, he would have certainly dwelt a little longer on what the object of our interest is.
However, as his primary public was more interested in the exotic culture of Egypt than in what was
a part of everyday life of Greek poleis, he devoted only one sentence of marginal importance to a
subject which we consider worth whole volumes. This decision of Herodotus forces us to read not
only between the lines but between single words – though these few blank spots are filled with
content of great impact.
Firstly, we may infer that in Herodotus' times there already existed categories of Orphics,
Bacchics, and Pythagoreans, and that they were recognized by average citizens of city-states.
Although it is impossible to say how much ordinary people actually knew about these currents, it
seems beyond any question that some stereotypes existed. Otherwise, Herodotus would have
explained what he meant while mentioning the three movements.
Secondly, members of those groups were distinguished by a burial habit common to all of
them, which probably reflected (or was reflected by) some sort of belief concerning the afterlife.
Even though Herodotus does not mention it, apart from pedantry, there is no reason to doubt it
1
.
1
As C. Geertz put it (1973: 127):
though in theory we might think that a people could construct a wholly autonomous
value system independent of any metaphysical referent, an ethics without ontology, we do not in fact seem to have found
4
Littera Antiqua
„Littera Antiqua” 6 (2013)
Thirdly (let me be pedantic), the word order may suggest that there was a smaller conceptual
gap between Orphics and Bacchics than between these two groups and the Pythagoreans, as the
latter are mentioned after an insertion of
ἐοῦσι
δ�½� αἰγυπτ�½�οισι
2
.
Following this path one may infer from the laconic sentence a degree of positive information
about the groups mentioned by the historian. However, and this is the point on which I intend to
focus, the text clearly presupposes a particular distinction. While describing exotic nations
Herodotus quite consequently applies the opposition
they/us.
In passages where the antithesis is
explicit, its second part sheds some light on Greek habits. This is how we know that, for instance,
unlike Egyptians, Greeks considered eating at home and defecating outside as something normal.
Though poststructuralism has been most consequent in deconstructing the concept of
the
normal,
we may take for granted that, in the comment on garments in which the deceased were
buried, what remains an implicit (because it is too obvious) point of reference is that which seems
to be out of discussion, as a part of the
normal
Greek culture. Upon this background Herodotus
depicts Egyptians and
eccentrics
distinguished from the rest of their societies by their particular
beliefs and behaviour, distinctive for members of Orphic, Bacchic, and Pythagorean groups. Thus,
we reach the first and simplest of possible conclusions – though, in spite of its banality, (or perhaps
because of it) one may underestimate its impact. Let us underline our thesis then: while talking
about Greek culture, one has to be aware of the distinction between its mainstream and the
phenomena somehow marginal to it. The passage from Herodotus suggests that the latter category
embraces Orphism, Bacchism, and Pythagoreism. It also depicts the followers of these movements
as
cultural others
3
.
In this context the distinction between the centre and the peripheries, borrowed from
structural linguistics, could become a priceless methodological device in the study of semiotic
systems other than language, such as religion. Upon this background an objection formulated by
Dodd
4
seems to be justified. He says:
the philological training of most classical scholars leads them
to value more highly the improbable, the
lectio difficilior. No matter how accurately he determined
the etiology of our disease, the diagnosis seems to be correct. Indeed, very often we apply the
such a people.
What follows is that from the existence of ritually prescribed behaviour we may infer also an existence
of some belief symbolically related to it. This obviously does not prove any further similarities or mutual influences
between the Egyptian religion, Pythagorean, Orphic and Bacchic doctrines.
2
This interpretation, however, is all but problematic seeing that the manuscript tradition presents two different readings
of the sentence
(῾Ομολογ�½�ουσι
δ�½� ταῦτα τοῖ σι
᾿Ορφικοῖ
σι καλεομ�½��½οισι κα�½� Βακχικοῖ σι,
ἐοῦσι
δ�½� αἰγυπτ�½�οισι, κα�½�
Πυθαγορε�½�οισι or
῾Ομολογ�½�ουσι
δ�½� ταῦτα τοῖ σι
᾿Ορφικοῖ
σι καλεομ�½��½οισι κα�½� Πυθαγορε�½�οισι). It is possible that
Herodotus wanted to say that Egyptian burial habits were similar to Orphic ones, whose origin was actually
Pythagorean, or that these customs were similar to Orphic and Bacchic ones, but in fact they were Egyptian and
Pythagorean. For discussion of the passage: Burkert 1972: 127-128.
3
The French structuralists go as far as to describe Orphism, Pythagoreism and Dionysism as resistance movements e.g.:
Detienne 1982: 11-14, Vernant 1982: 55-56.
4
Dodds 2003: 78.
5
Littera Antiqua

Plik z chomika:

Inne pliki z tego folderu:

Inne foldery tego chomika:

Zgłoś jeśli naruszono regulamin